The Speaker (The Hon. Shelley Elizabeth Hancock) took the chair at 10.00 a.m.

The Speaker read the Prayer and acknowledgement of country.

Message received from the Legislative Council returning the bill with amendments.

Consideration of Legislative Council's amendments set down as an order of the day for a later hour.

General Business Notices of Motions (General Notices) given.

[During the giving of notices of motions]

The SPEAKER: Order! Government members will come to order.

[Later during the giving of notices of motions]

Ms Sonia Hornery: Madam Speaker, just a quick question to you. Do you want notices of motion or community recognition notices read out?

The SPEAKER: Order! Is the member taking a point of order?

Ms Sonia Hornery: Just a question.

The SPEAKER: Order! It is inappropriate to ask the Speaker a question during the proceedings. If the member is concerned about the process, she should take a point of order. I know what the member is implying. I will consider the points she has raised with me and I will make an appropriate statement to the House. However, at the moment members have the choice as to where, when and how they present their motions, that is as a community recognition notice or as a motion of which they give notice, as they are doing this morning.

Ms Sonia Hornery: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst—Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Infrastructure NSW) [10.12 a.m.]: Members would or should be aware that very significant legislation, the Electricity Generator Assets (Authorised Transactions) Bill, passed through the Legislative Council yesterday with amendments. While to date the Government has been reluctant to and has not at all interrupted private members' debates on motions, the bill will be expedited in the interests of the community. The quicker we can get on with what needs to be done to maximise the benefit to taxpayers and to ensure that infrastructure delivery for the State is addressed the quicker the State will see a real change. Debate on the motion moved by the member for Bankstown was adjourned and is due to be resumed this morning. I propose to allow that debate to conclude, which should take us past the time of 10:30 a.m. when divisions may occur. I am anticipating there might be one or two of those afforded to us by the Opposition.
Mr Richard Amery: Possibly.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: Yes, possibly. Immediately following the completion of debate on the motion moved by the member for Bankstown the Government will move to suspend standing orders. I am reasonably confident the Government will win through on the motion to suspend standing orders. After that we will debate the Electricity Generator Assets (Authorised Transactions) Bill. The Treasurer will address the House and presumably the Leader of the Opposition will speak after that. All members hereby are given notice of what will happen this morning. I will note how much of the time for debate on private members' motions is taken up. One way or another we will ensure that any member who would otherwise have had a private member's motion dealt with this morning will have that motion dealt with in Government Business time this afternoon. If the time taken becomes a little excessive I may take a different view. I will review that as the morning proceeds.

The SPEAKER: Order! There being no General Business Notices of Motions (for Bills) and all General Business Orders of the Day (for Bills) having been postponed, the House will now consider General Business (Community Recognition Notices).

Question—That the following motions given by the members as indicated pursuant to notice be formally agreed to—proposed.

Mr CHRIS PATTERSON—That this House:

(1) Congratulates hammer thrower Hayden Wilton on winning gold, under 18 years, with a throw of 61.53 metres.

(2) Congratulates hammer thrower Tania Fassolis on winning silver, under 17 years, with a throw of 47.08 metres.

(3) Congratulates hammer thrower Taylor-Jane Villis on winning bronze, under 18 years, with a throw of 53.21 metres.

(4) Notes that the hammer throwers are coached by David Prior.

(5) Notes that Hayden, Tania and Taylor were competing at the Australian Junior Athletic Championships, held at Sydney Olympic Park.

(6) Wishes Hayden, Tania and Taylor all the very best for their competitive careers.

Mr CHRIS PATTERSON—That this House:

(1) Congratulates The Lil' Banditz Krew on winning Young Talent Time.

(2) Notes that Bailey Whitley, Noah Taiba and Brenton Rakebrandt, of Commotion School of Performing Arts, are part of the 17 member crew.

(3) Notes that the all boy group was created by Project Dance to give boys a chance to participate in dance.

(4) Notes that The Lil' Banditz Krew are co-managed by Ben Stokes from Commotion School of Performing Arts.

(5) Wishes The Lil' Banditz Krew the best for their future performing careers.

Mr CHRIS PATTERSON—That this House:

(1) Congratulates Macarthur Lions Club on the success of the annual Anzac run held on 29 April 2012.

(2) Notes that 600 people competed in either the 5 kilometre or 10 kilometre run, a record attendance for the event.

(3) Congratulates 90 year old Jock Wylie, who sounded the starting gun and then competed in the 5km event.

(4) Thanks Camden Council, Camden Men's Shed, Funnell's Electrical and the team of volunteers who helped to make this event a success.

(5) Notes that the proceeds from the Anzac run will be donated to Lifeline Macarthur.

(6) Wishes the Macarthur Lions club every success for the future of the Anzac run and hopes they continue to break attendance records.

Mr CHRIS PATTERSON—That this House:

(1) Congratulates Matthew Egan, Callum Hanley, Emily Newton, Jeffrey Hartono, Danielle Santos and Mitchell Biggart from Macarthur Anglican School who participated in the First Tech Challenge in St Louis, Missouri.

(2) Notes that the team from Macarthur Anglican finished in the top 50 per cent of 120 teams from across the United States of America.

(3) Wishes the team well in its future endeavours.

Mr CHRIS PATTERSON—That this House:

(1) Congratulates the Cobbitty Village Markets on 30 years of operation in the community.

(2) Notes the importance of village markets for local farmers and producers.

(3) Notes that Cobbitty Village Markets raise money for local charities and over the 30 years of operations has donated more than $700,000.

(4) Wishes the Cobbitty Village Markets every success for many more years to come.

Mr CHRIS PATTERSON—That this House:

(1) Congratulates Amy Hayter and Eleni Allen on their achievements at the Royal Agricultural Society Dairy Cattle Paraders State Competition.

(2) Notes that Amy won the All Dairy Breeds Paraders competition for under 15 years and that Eleni came second in the same category.

(3) Notes that both students attend Camden High School.

(4) Wishes Amy and Eleni all the best in their future endeavours.

Mr CHRIS PATTERSON—That this House:

(1) Congratulates Elderslie High School on its achievements at the Royal Agricultural Society Dairy Cattle Paraders State Competition.

(2) Notes that the school won numerous awards including best poster presentation, most successful school exhibitor, overall champion school for water fowl and second place for best decorated pumpkin.

(3) Wishes Elderslie High School all the best in future competitions.

Mr CHRIS PATTERSON—That this House:

(1) Congratulates the Macarthur Rural Fire Services team on winning the Young Farmers Challenge at the Royal Easter Show.

(2) Notes that Scott Vale, Brenton Nicholson, Tim Boardman and Robert Boardman volunteer for the Camden West brigade.

(3) Wishes the team well for next year's show.

Mr JAI ROWELL—That this House:

(1) Commends the efforts of Josh Bland who will be selling drink bottles to raise money for the Kids of Macarthur Foundation.

(2) Notes that Kids of Macarthur Foundation is a local children's health charity established to raise funds to purchase paediatric medical equipment to enhance the level of health care offered to local children being treated at Campbelltown Hospital.

Mr JAI ROWELL—That this House:

(1) Commends Peter Harford, an alpaca owner of the Oaks, who has initiated a day where people can learn about the history of alpacas in the local region as a part of national Alpaca week.

(2) Notes that people will also be learning about the history of animals in the region, with spinning and weaving demonstrations.

(3) Notes that events such as this create tourism and interest in the Wollondilly region.

Ms SONIA HORNERY—That this House:

(1) Acknowledges the passing of Margaret Goumas.

(2) Notes that Margaret served as a councillor on Newcastle City Council and, with her husband Theo, provided art house cinema in Newcastle.

(3) She will be sadly missed but she leaves a great legacy.

Ms SONIA HORNERY—That this House:

(1) Acknowledges the initiative and vision of Professor Caroline McMillen, the new Vice-Chancellor at the University of Newcastle, in her desire for a new vision for the institution.

(2) Notes the planned development of a Centre of Excellence to assist disadvantaged school leavers and mature age students to qualify for university.

Ms SONIA HORNERY—That this House:

(1) Congratulates Glendale High School sports co-ordinator, Shayne Mason and physical education teacher, Dylan Morgan who developed a gym program to make fitness a part of life for students.

(2) Notes they donated their own gym equipment for use by selected students with poor self esteem, behaviour problems, or who were at risk of leaving school.

(3) Notes the efforts of the school, teachers and students in raising self-esteem and fitness outcomes.

Ms SONIA HORNERY Ms Sonia Hornery—That this House:

(1) Congratulates the 19 Higher School Certificate students from the Hunter who have work currently on display at Newcastle Art Gallery as part of the annual ArtExpress exhibition.

(2) Notes the exhibition is one of the most popular exhibitions at the gallery, and displays the extraordinary quality and maturity of the works.

Ms SONIA HORNERY—That this House:

(1) Congratulates the Hunter Children's Research Foundation on raising $2,500 from its ladies only high tea event.

(2) Commends the founding member of the foundation, and the secretary and treasurer, Lorraine Gardner and her committee members Sheryl Nisner, Natasha Beyersdorf, Judy Hogan, Helen Ancuk and Debra Robinson.

(3) Notes the funds will assist the Hunter research projects in such areas as asthma, cancer, diabetes, cystic fibrosis and sleep disorders.

Ms SONIA HORNERY—That this House:

(1) Notes the University of Newcastle is Australia's first tertiary institution to offer doctors post graduate education to gain leadership and communication skills with the Master of Clinical Medicine (Leadership and Management) program.

(2) Commends the University of Newcastle and NSW Health who have collaborated to deliver the degree.

(3) Commends Professor Balakrishnan Nair for his involvement with the program that aims to teach doctors to develop essential skills.

Ms SONIA HORNERY—That this House:

(1) Notes Cook for a Cure is a community event where the public can help Hunter medical researchers find cures and new treatments for illnesses and conditions.

(2) Congratulates the Hunter Medical Research Institute for participating in Cook for a Cure.

(3) Commends Glenn Turner and Jodi Thompson for their efforts supporting medical research into more effective treatment for asthma.

(4) Commends the many hardworking medical researchers who work tirelessly to develop treatments and cures.

Ms SONIA HORNERY—That this House:

(1) Commends the Create and Innovate program, facilitated by Hunter TAFE, to promote innovative cultures within the workplace and encourage local people to think creatively.

(2) Notes the importance of encouraging people to develop sustainable products for the future, such as the electric supercar developed by Jeff Phillips and his team at Varley Australia.

Ms SONIA HORNERY—That this House:

(1) Congratulates Hunter TAFE student Jon Eggenhuizen, of Cardiff, for designing an electric motorbike, the Catavolt.

(2) Commends the motorbike that set the Australian land speed record of 177 kilometres per hour in 2010 and costs only $1.20 to charge the battery.

(3) Encourages developments in environmental sustainability.

Mr ANDREW GEE—That this House:

(1) Congratulates Nancy Dalziel, her committee and all those volunteers who have helped in the success of the Molong Yarn Market on its 40th anniversary.

(2) Pays tribute to the more than 400 committee members and more than 1,500 members who have ensured the success of this arts, crafts and homemade merchandise market that has attracted a daily average of 30 visitors from across the region and New South Wales.

(3) Wishes all the best to those volunteers who ensure the continuing success of the Molong Yarn Market.

Mr ANDREW GEE—That this House:

(1) Congratulates legendary local shearer Hilton Barrett on his brilliant win in the Wellington Show's shearing competition on 12 May 2012.

(2) Notes Hilton beat rivals from around the Central West and showed just how quick he was by shearing his sheep in just 27.61 seconds, 10.19 seconds ahead of his nearest rival.

(3) Notes Hilton has been a role model for many shearers who have followed in his back breaking, but notable Australian profession.

Mr ANDREW GEE—That this House:

(1) Congratulates Denis Anderson on his appointment as principal of the Wellington Public School.

(2) Notes after 40 years as a teacher Mr Anderson had retired, from Hazelbrook Public School in the Blue Mountains, before his passion for teaching and contributing to public education drew him back from retirement.

(3) Wishes Mr Anderson a rewarding return to the teaching profession and that he enjoys his time at Wellington Public School.

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI—That this House:

(1) Recognises the value of nurses in our community.

(2) Commends the many nursing staff in our community for their dedication to the profession.

(3) Notes International Nurses Day was celebrated on 12 May 2012.

Mr ANDREW GEE—That this House:

(1) Congratulates Somma Allcorn, a year 11 student at Molong Central School, on being awarded a 2012 Defence Technical Scholarship to access work experience in the Defence Force.

(2) Notes Somma was one of 2,300 applicants for a Defence Technical Scholarship from across Australia.

(3) Wishes Somma every success in her ambition to pursue a career in the Defence Force.

Mr ANDREW GEE—That this House:

(1) Congratulates the Wellington Show Society Committee on the success of its show held on Saturday 12 May 2012.

(2) Notes the show demonstrated that agricultural shows are alive and well with record entries in all sections and increased gate takings.

(3) Wishes the Show Committee continued success in future years.

Mr ANDREW GEE—That this House:

(1) Congratulates Valmai Burnard, of Mudgee, on her 40 years of volunteer service to the community.

(2) Recognises her support of The Smith Family through her many roles with Mudgee VIEW Club, including a National Councillor; her 49-year involvement with the Country Women's Association, including being a Group Office Bearer and currently Castlereagh Country Group Secretary.

(3) Thanks Valmai for her selfless contributions to society and wish her well in her future endeavours.

Mr STUART AYRES—That this House congratulates Lisa Pinch and Maggie Anderson for their contribution to the Australian Cancer Research Foundation through the Bald is Beautiful Campaign.

Mr STUART AYRES—That this House:

(1) Commends Cranebrook High School's entertainment department on its work with the Rock the Schools Foundation targeted at students with an interest in the entertainment industry.

(2) Notes the foundation introduces students to positive role models who are able to provide an insight into the workings of the entertainment industry while promoting the need for clean and healthy living.

Mr STUART AYRES—That this House recognises the contribution made by the board, coaches and parents of the Glenbrook Swimming Club toward the club's ongoing operations and wishes the club continued success.

Mrs LESLIE WILLIAMS—That this House:

(1) Congratulates Hugh Rackley on winning a bronze and silver medal at the NSW State Swimming Championships in the disability AWD category.

(2) Wishes 11 year old Hugh every success at the National Swimming Championships in July 2012.

(3) Acknowledges the hard work and dedication of his family and swimming coaches in assisting him to reach this level.

Mr CRAIG BAUMANN—That this House:

(1) Congratulates Allan Stewart, of Tea Gardens, on graduating with a Master of Clinical Science (Complementary Medicine) at Southern Cross University in Lismore.

(2) Acknowledges that, at age 97, Mr Stewart is the oldest person in the world to graduate from university.

(3) Notes that theMr Stewart's first university degree was Dentistry with Honours at Sydney University in 1936, followed by a Doctor of Dental Surgery from Chicago's Northwestern University, and a law degree from the University of New England in 2006 at the age of 91.

Ms GABRIELLE UPTON—That this House:

(1) Notes that 2012 is the 150th anniversary of NSW Police Force which honours the bravery and sacrifices of police officers past and present.

(2) Congratulates the Rose Bay Local Area Command, under the leadership of Superintendent Michael Fitzgerald, for its ongoing commitment to serving the community in the eastern suburbs of Sydney.

Ms GABRIELLE UPTON—That this House:

(1) Notes the important work that War Widows' Guild of Australia NSW Ltd has done since 1946 to promote and protect the interests of war widows in New South Wales.

(2) Congratulates the Rose Bay Guild Club office-bearers Mrs Marie Lee, Mrs Marie Curtis and Mrs Norma Martin on their ongoing commitment to serving the membership in the eastern suburbs of Sydney.

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI—That this House:

(1) Congratulates the organisers of the Riverina Field Days.

(2) Recognises organiser Fiona Beverley for her work ensuring its success.

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI—That this House:

(1) Commends the many organisations that gave a hand where it was needed during the recent floods in Griffith and district.

(2) Acknowledges the time and effort they all gave in assisting those in need.

Mr CHRIS HOLSTEIN—That this House:

(1) Congratulates Brisbane Water Secondary College agriculture students on their win at the Royal Easter Show.

(2) Notes its pig named "Sydney" took out three grand champions and the supreme champion pig prize after being raised and prepared by the students.

Mr GUY ZANGARI—That this House:

(1) Acknowledges the contribution Brother Nicholas Harsas has made to education in the Fairfield electorate.

(2) Congratulates Brother Nicholas Harsas for providing ongoing support to children and families in the Fairfield electorate.

(3) Wishes Brother Nicholas Harsas well in his leadership and future endeavours at Our Lady of the Rosary, Fairfield.

Mr GUY ZANGARI—That this House:

(1) Acknowledges the contribution made by Mrs Jan Dhu from Fairfield City Museum and Gallery who hosted a biggest morning tea.

(2) Congratulates the local community in raising funds of $5,160 for the Cancer Council.

Mr GUY ZANGARI—That this House:

(1) Acknowledges the contribution made by nurses at Fairfield Hospital.

(2) Congratulates nurses at Fairfield Hospital on the celebration of International Nurses Day.

Mr GUY ZANGARI—That this House:

(1) Acknowledges the recent construction of modern state of the art classrooms at Fairfield Heights Public School.

(2) Congratulates the principal Mr Steven Gerard on his leadership during the construction of the project.

(3) Acknowledges the dedication and commitment of the Fairfield Heights Public School teachers and ancillary staff.

(4) Notes the welcoming environment provided by the students of Fairfield Heights Public School.

Mr GUY ZANGARI—That this House:

(1) Acknowledges the success of the work skills programme at Fairfield High School.

(2) Congratulates the principal Mr Bob Mulas and his staff on the design and implementation of the work skills program.

(3) Acknowledges the contribution of the community volunteers who facilitate the program.

(4) Notes the dedication of the work skills students of Fairfield High School.

Mr GUY ZANGARI—That this House:

(1) Congratulates the Fairfield City Council on the Bring it On Festival 2012.

(2) Commends the Fairfield Youth Advisory Committee for its dedication and work in organising this event.

Mr NICK LALICH—That this House recognises the hard work and leadership shown by the youth committee Loud! Tribe, for organising events such as the recent forum raising awareness of youth suicide and self-harm within the Cabramatta and Fairfield communities.

Mr NICK LALICH—That this House recognises the continued fundraising efforts of the Bonnyrigg Sports Club for raising over $8,000 for the Children's Hospital at Westmead as part of the Bandaged Bear Appeal 2012.

Mr NICK LALICH—That this House recognises the continued good work of Cabramatta Community Centre and congratulates it on the opening of the Multicultural Community Care Service in Fairfield which will provide care for the elderly and people with disabilities from culturally diverse backgrounds.

Mr NICK LALICH—That this House:

(1) Congratulates Lansvale resident, and great great grandmother, Mrs Annie Cairns on reaching her 103rd birthday.

(2) Wishes her many more birthdays.

Mr NICK LALICH—That this House recognises Bonnyrigg Tyres and Mechanical for winning the automotive services category in the Fairfield Local Business Awards 2012.

Mr NICK LALICH—That this House recognises Odontologie Dental Care, Lansvale, for winning the professional medical services category in the Fairfield Local Business Awards 2012.

Mr NICK LALICH—That this House recognises Ms Rosa Ly of 3 Bears Childcare, Canley Vale, for winning the youth award in the Fairfield Local Business Awards 2012.

Mr NICK LALICH—That this House recognises the Canley Heights Hotel for winning the specialised business category in the Fairfield Local Business Awards 2012.

Mr GARRY EDWARDS—That this House:

(1) Congratulates Cassidy Magin, of Swansea High School, for her volunteering efforts and for receiving a Premier's Volunteering Scholarship.

(2) Congratulates Sarah Blight, of Swansea High School, for her volunteering work at the Swansea Youth Centre.

(3) Notes that to be recipients of the scholarship, each girl contributed to more than 80 hours to volunteering.

(4) Acknowledges Swansea High School teacher, Lauren Coburn, for mentoring the girls and coordinating an impressive mural at the school.

Mr GARRY EDWARDS—That this House:

(1) Notes Marks Point Bowling Club celebrated its 50th anniversary on 17 May 2012.

(2) Recognises the contributions the club provides to the Marks Point community.

(3) Congratulates Marks Point Bowling Club chairman Oliver Renfrew, men's president Peter O'Brien, secretary David Brown,50th anniversary master of ceremonies Bob Snape, women's president Yvonne Emerton and secretary Alana Snape.

(4) Notes that the 50th anniversary celebration was well attended by the public and representatives from State and district bowls associations, and from the Belmont Bowling Club and the Belmont Sporties Club.

Mr GARRY EDWARDS—That this House:

(1) Congratulates Senior Constable Anita Face of the Lake Macquarie Local Area Command for her 41 years of service as a police officer in our local community.

(2) Acknowledges Senior Constable Face's tremendous contributions overseeing the Hunter's traffic offenders program for the last 18 years.

(3) Notes that Senior Constable Face's retirement farewell ceremony, held at Belmont Police Station on 17 May 2012, was attended by her police colleagues, friends and family.

Mr GARRY EDWARDS—That this House:

(1) Congratulates Mark Ansons, a Salvation Army employee, for his contributions to Hope House.

(2) Notes that Hope House programs and services are funded by the Salvation Army's Red Shield Appeal and has been a success over the past five years.

(3) Notes that those who attend Hope House have gained confidence and learned valuable life skills through the mentoring and guidance of Mr Ansons.

Mr GLENN BROOKES—That this House:

(1) Acknowledges Mr Jebin Dhoj Shahi, director of HRD Events, for organising the inaugural multicultural seven-a-side knock out football tournament.

(2) Commends all volunteers for their contribution in making the multicultural seven-a-side knock out football tournament a great success.

(3) Congratulates all contestants who participated in this year's tournament, especially the winning team, Friends United FC.

(4) Encourages Mr Jebin Dhoj Shahi and HRD Events to present future multicultural-seven-a-side knock out football tournaments.

Ms TANIA MIHAILUK—That this House:

(1) Notes the passing of Mr Kevin McCormick, OAM, on 17 May 2012.

(2) Notes that Mr McCormick was a founding member and life member of Bankstown Sports Club.

(3) Notes Mr McCormick's tireless work on Bankstown Sports Board for 39 years as a director, vice president and president, including an unprecedented 21 years of service as President.

(4) Expresses its condolences to Mr McCormick's long term partner Margaret and the McCormick family.

(5) Notes that Mr McCormick will be missed by all in the greater Bankstown community.

Ms TANIA MIHAILUK—That this House:

(1) Notes that Banksia Road Primary School officially opened its upgraded school oval on Friday 18 May 2012.

(2) Commends Banksia Road Primary School on the playing field which has further enhanced the physical and learning environment of the school.

Ms MELANIE GIBBONS—That this House:

(1) Notes the 2012 Public Schools Calendar for Cultural Diversity.

(2) Notes that the artwork featured for May is by year 3 student Abby Shepherd of Tharawal Public School, Illawong.

(3) Congratulates Abby on her colourful artwork titled "Sharks Dinner", in keeping with the calendar's theme of "Many Voices, One Land".

Mr JAI ROWELL—That this House:

(1) Congratulates Thirlmere Public School for participating in the "Support for the Troops Campaign".

(2) Acknowledges the hard work, dedication and sacrifice of our service men and woman.

(3) Acknowledges the reply to the school from Lieutenant-Colonel Cox.

(4) Recognises the significance of this reply to the students of Thirlmere Public School.

Mr JAI ROWELL—That this House:

(1) Notes the passing of "Bully" the bulldog, the unofficial town patron of Appin.

(2) Recognises the significance Bully had on generating community spirit within the town.

(3) Acknowledges the joy companion animals can bring to a local community.

Mr JAI ROWELL—That this House:

(1) Recognises the contribution of local families, local government and community organisations to raising safe driving awareness by our youth at the Wollondilly Road Safety Forum.

(2) Commends the courage of Eve and Greg Langham to speak of the loss of their daughter in a road accident, and to encourage teenager drivers to be careful on our roads.

(3) Notes the importance of safe driver education for saving lives on our roads.

Mr MATT KEAN—That this House:

(1) Congratulates Father Frank Vaughan on his 41 years of distinguished service to the community.

(2) Recognises the contribution that Father Vaughan has made to the Normanhurst Our Queen of Peace Catholic Parish and the diocese of Broken Bay and that even in his retirement he continues to be a wonderful inspiration to parishioners.

(3) Recognises that at the age of 93, Father Vaughan, was believed to be the oldest priest in active parish ministry in Australia.

(4) Wishes Father Vaughan the very best in his retirement.

Mr MATT KEAN—That this House congratulates Hornsby Berowra Men's Shed for donating their time to build a new stage and vegetable patch for the Goodstart Early Learning Childcare Centre at Berowra.

Mr MATT KEAN—That this House:

(1) Congratulates Grevillea Preschool, at Hornsby Heights, on celebrating 40 years of education to the community's young children.

(2) Wishes Grevillea Preschool all the best for many more years of providing a happy and engaging learning environment.

Mr MATT KEAN—That this House:

(1) Congratulates Mr Guy Seymour, of Normanhurst, for being selected in the State under 19 years and the New South Wales schoolboys cricket teams.

(2) Notes that Guy has been playing in the western suburbs second and third grade ranks and in the Poidevin-Gray Shield, which earnt him the Michael Clarke Scholarship.

(3) Congratulates Guy in being nominated for a Local Junior Sports Star and wishes him every success with his cricketing career.

Mr MATT KEAN—That the House:

(1) Congratulates Mr James Clarke, of Hornsby Heights, for being nominated in the Local Junior Sports Star Award for his dedication to coaching younger players after school and refereeing on weekends.

(2) Congratulates James on playing at a representative level for the Hornsby-Berowra Eagles and Sydney North Region.

Mr MATT KEAN—That the House:

(1) Congratulates Ray and Ilma Archbold, of Brooklyn, on the celebration of their 60th wedding anniversary.

(2) Wishes Ray and Ilma all the best for many more years together.

Mr STEPHEN BROMHEAD—That this House:

(1) Congratulates Luke Moore, of Wingham, on his selection by the National Student Rodeo Association to represent the Australian High School team in the saddle bronc event at the National High School Rodeo Association Finals in Rock Spring's, Wyoming, USA.

(2) Notes that Luke gained selection in the team by beating more than 20 competitors at a recent rodeo in Coonamble.

(3) Notes that Luke is also a successful athlete, having ranked fifth in New South Wales in high jump and has also performed well in running events at a regional level.

Mr STEPHEN BROMHEAD—That this House:

(1) Congratulates Winthrop Professor Paul Powles, a former student at Taree High School, on being admitted as a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Science.

(2) Notes the academy represents Australia's leading research scientists that annually recognises a small number of scientists for their outstanding contributions to science by electing them to the academy.

(3) Notes that after leaving Taree High School Professor Powles was sponsored by a local business to attend Tocal College, was a Rotary scholar and then completed his degree at Hawkesbury Agricultural College.

(4) Notes that Professor Powles completed a Masters in Agriculture in the United States of America and in June will give an address to the US National Academy of Science on herbicide resistance.

Mr STEPHEN BROMHEAD—That this House:

(1) Congratulates Thomas Wood, Jacob Shelton and Jeremy Miller, year 12 students at Chatham High School, who have won Defence Technical Scholarships worth $3,000 each.

(2) Notes that Defence Technical Scholarships are aimed at students who intend to pursue entry into a technical trade career with the Australian Defence Force after completing year 12.

(3) Notes that Thomas Wood is keen to join the Air Force and train as an aircraft technician.

Mr STEPHEN BROMHEAD—That this House:

(1) Acknowledges the significant donation of dental practice equipment to the Biripi Aboriginal Corporation Medical Centre, in Purfleet, to enable the provision of effective dental services to the local Indigenous community.

(2) Notes that the equipment donated by Dr Nader is valued at $25,000 and was made available through his friendship with Dr Eardley Rosario of the Biripi Aboriginal Corporation Medical Centre.

(3) Notes that Dr Nader and Dr Rosario spearhead a campaign to improve the dental health of Indigenous people, in particular children.

Mr STEPHEN BROMHEAD—That this House:

(1) Congratulates Nathan Monk, of Nabiac, on being named the number one player in the New South Wales primary schools tennis team that will contest the Bruce Cup to be held in Perth in October.

(2) Notes that Nathan is one of seven boys selected following the New South Wales championships and will play singles, doubles and mixed doubles in the national teams championship in Perth.

(3) Notes that at the New South Wales championships Nathan won six out of seven singles matches for selection in the team as the number one seeding.

Mr STEPHEN BROMHEAD—That this House:

(1) Acknowledges Dr Annette Clement for her donation of a baby grand piano to Great Lakes College.

(2) Notes that Annette received the piano as a 21st birthday gift from her parents in the 1950s.

(3) Notes that music has always been Annette's hobby and is pleased to donate the piano as arthritis in her hands has made playing more difficult.

Mr STEPHEN BROMHEAD—That this House:

(1) Congratulates the Taree Historical Motor Club on celebrating its 40th anniversary by hosting the National Motor Heritage Day on 20 May 2012.

(2) Notes that a large crowd attended the successful event which drew a wide range of veteran, historic and current vehicles, ranging from a Model T Ford to a current series racing Porsche.

(3) Acknowledges the dedication and hard work of club president, Michael Kemp, and the committee of: Lindsay Higeon, vice president; Don Phillips, AM, secretary; Brian Braithwaite, treasurer; and Bob Newling, Kevin Hickling and Paul Tollis, committee members.

Mr STEPHEN BROMHEAD—That this House:

(1) Congratulates 17 year-old Ella Hartcher, of Wingham, on winning a bronze medal at the Trans Tasman archery tournament in New Zealand.

(2) Notes that Ella shot personal bests in the competition and in the individual match.

(3) Notes that Ella's next venture is to qualify for the World Youth Championships to be held in China in 2013.

Mr MARK COURE—That this House:

(1) Notes the Sing Tao Daily, Hong Kong's second largest Chinese language newspaper, is circulated in 16 different countries and over 100 cities across the globe.

(2) Notes that the Sing Tao Daily has the second largest global coverage in the world, following the International Herald Tribune.

(3) Applauds the Sing Tao Daily's facilitation of news and current events to Australia's Chinese born population in Oatley.

Mr MARK COURE—That this House:

(1) Congratulates the Australian New Express Daily for its decade of service to Australia's Chinese communities, particularly in the Oatley electorate.

(2) Commends the Australian New Express Daily for its excellent coverage of current events and applauds the paper's high standards of journalism.

Mr MARK COURE—That this House:

(1) Commends the Daily Chinese Herald, one of Australia's leading Chinese newspapers, for its high standards of journalism regarding national and international issues.

(2) Notes the Daily Chinese Herald's commitment to analysis of the latest developments throughout the Asian region and its wide strong circulation throughout Australia’s Chinese communities, particularly in the Oatley electorate.

Mr MARK COURE—That this House:

(1) Notes the excellence of the Chinese Times in reporting current affairs.

(2) Notes that this excellence is reflected in the Times having one of the highest circulations amongst Australia's Chinese newspapers.

(3) Applauds the Times for its rich journalism and contribution in the local community.

Mr MARK COURE—That this House:

(1) Congratulates the Australian Chinese News Weekly for its 20 years of service to Australia's Chinese communities, particularly in the Oatley electorate.

(2) Notes that the Weekly was the first Chinese business news weekly in Australia, and is distributed along with the Chinese Times every Friday.

Mr MARK COURE—That this House:

(1) Notes the outstanding radio broadcasting of Australia Oriental Radio.

(2) Notes the diverse range of topics covered by the station, which spans international affairs, culture, the arts, education.

(3) Particularly commends 20R for its work towards facilitating the development of the relationship between Australia and China.

Mr MARK COURE—That this House:

(1) Applauds the work of the China Radio Network for delivering high quality broadcasts to the Australia's Chinese communities, particularly in the Oatley electorate.

(2) Notes the wide range of informative news and radio shows delivered by the station, and notes the large audience who tune in regularly to its broadcasts.

(3) Congratulates the station for its extensive contribution to Australia's multicultural community.

Mr MARK COURE—That this House:

(1) Commends TVB for its excellent Chinese commercial television broadcasts that reach out to the Chinese community of the Oatley electorate.

(2) Applauds the significant contribution that foreign television programs make to Australia's Chinese communities.

Mr MARK COURE—That this House:

(1) Notes Oriental BQ, one of Australia's major Chinese business magazines.

(2) Commends BQ for its excellent contribution to Australia's multicultural communities, particularly in the Oatley electorate.

(3) Further notes BQ, for its high quality journalism and its excellent editorial content.

Ms GABRIELLE UPTON—That this House:

(1) Acknowledges the work of St John Ambulance, a volunteer-led organisation dedicated to helping people in sickness, distress, suffering or danger.

(2) Notes the launch on 19 May 2012 of the book Celebrating Women in St John Ambulance Australia: Our Past, Present and Future, which profiles some of the St John women who have made a substantial contribution to the organisation and broader community.

(3) Congratulates Dr Neil Conn AO, Chancellor, St John Australia, the Hon Peter Collins AM QC, Chairman of St John New South Wales, Mr Mark Newton, Chief Executive Officer St John New South Wales, and Ms Sally Hasler, of the St John Women's Network and Board Director, on the initiative and for their dedication to building a culture that engages and celebrates its women.

Mr JAI ROWELL—That this House:

(1) Notes the passing of Geoffrey Scharer, owner of Picton's George IV Inn for over 40 years.

(2) Notes that Mr Scharer, a Wollondilly local, was the first person to be granted the first brewpub licence in 1981.

(3) Acknowledges the generosity of Mr Scharer and his significant contribution to the Wollondilly area, often donating time, money and resources for the improvement of the community.

Mr JAI ROWELL—That this House:

(1) Commends 24 year old Natalie Cepenuik, of Wilton, for her generosity to injured and abandoned animals in the Wollondilly region.

(2) Notes Miss Cepenuik currently cares for 15 dogs and 23 horses that have been abandoned or are homeless.

(3) Notes that Miss Cepenuik's generosity lessens the strain on local government resources.

Mr JAI ROWELL—That this House:

(1) Acknowledges the visit by CareFlight MediSim team to the Wollondilly electorate to provide advice and education to residents and local emergency service volunteers.

(2) Commends Bargo Sports Club for hosting the workshops and donating $10,000 to CareFlight.

(3) Recognises the good work done by CareFlight, to serve our communities with dedication and professionalism.

Mr ROB STOKES—That this House:

(1) Congratulations Pittwater High School has won the 2012 New South Wales Interschools Teams Sailing Championships.

(2) Notes that the team comprising of captain Oscar Stranack, Angus Stranack, James Farquharson, Xavier Kempton, Adam Bradley, Harley Walters and Travis Thorn defeated Scots College in the final and Cranbrook School in the semi final.

(3) Notes Pittwater High School's proud history in interschool sailing and the education and development of some of Australia's most eminent and successful sailors.

(4) Commends all those involved in the establishment and success of Pittwater High School's sailing program.

Mr ROB STOKES—That this House:

(1) Recognises the outstanding work undertaken by staff and volunteers at Mona Vale Hospital's palliative care unit.

(2) Notes the strong support provided to this service by Mona Vale Hospital Auxiliary, Pittwater Rotary and Pittwater Council.

(3) Notes the commencement of the upgrade and extension of the unit through a partnership between the Northern Sydney District Health Service, Mona Vale Hospital Auxiliary and Pittwater Rotary.

(4) Recognises the Pittwater community's overwhelming support for this service and all those involved in its operation.

Mr TONY ISSA—That this House:

(1) Congratulates the Australian Foundation for Disability for launching its Community Participation Program at Guildford.

(2) Commend the efforts of the foundation in providing valuable and enriching community activities for people with moderate and severe disabilities that help improve the quality of life of participants, their families and carers.

Mr CHRIS HOLSTEIN—That this House:

(1) Recognises the achievement of Tom Slingsby, of Point Frederick, on winning the Laser World Championship in Germany recently.

(2) Congratulates Tom on his fifth world title in the Laser class in six years.

(3) Wishes him every success as he represents Australia at the Olympics in London.

Mr CRAIG BAUMANN—That this House:

(1) Notes that two staff members and a volunteer of Port Stephens Veterans and Citizens Aged Care have been recognised in the Aged Community Services Association State awards for excellence.

(2) Congratulates Kacey Hancock for winning the employee of the year award.

(3) Congratulates Brooke Greentree-Kent for winning the trainee of the year award.

(4) Congratulates tireless volunteer Mollie Carter for placing third in the volunteer of the year award.

Mr CRAIG BAUMANN—That this House:

(1) Notes the outstanding contribution of Malcolm Milliken, of Soldiers Point, to the Marine Rescue Port Stephens as its commander.

(2) Congratulates the incoming commander, Bob Young, of Soldiers Point, on his appointment.

Mr CRAIG BAUMANN—That this House:

(1) Congratulates Jim and Mamie Page, of Raymond Terrace, on the milestone of 60 years of marriage.

(2) Notes the couple married at St John's Anglican Church, Raymond Terrace, on 24 May 1952.

Mr BART BASSETT—That this House:

(1) Congratulate the organisers of the Werrington Community Festival held on the 20 May 2012 at Namatijira Neighbourhood Centre and Reserve in Werrington County.

(2) Notes that the festival had around 30 stalls including rides and entertainment for children and families.

(3) Thanks Werrington Community Project Inc for organising the annual festival as well as the community support programs it runs throughout the year.

Mr BART BASSETT—That this House:

(1) Notes that the Mayor of Hawkesbury, Councillor Kim Ford, recently launched the Rotary graffiti removal trailer and recognised the work of the Kurrajong⁄North Richmond Rotary Club.

(2) Acknowledges Rotarian Joseph Blair who was awarded a Paul Harris Fellowship for his service to Rotary and the community.

Question put and resolved in the affirmative.

Community recognition notices agreed to.

Debate resumed from 24 May 2012.

Mr ANDREW ROHAN (Smithfield) [10.16 a.m.]: I thank the member for Bankstown for raising this issue in the House. The issue relates to an open stormwater channel or drain in the middle of Stacey Street between Macauley Avenue and Stanley Street in Bankstown which is under the jurisdiction of Sydney Water. The drain takes all the stormwater from the Bankstown central business district and discharges it in the Cooks River to the south. The drainage system is partly exposed to the surface and in other parts is underground. It is worth mentioning that the problem with the open drain on Stacey Street has existed for many years. Actually it was there and was overlooked for the entire 16 years of the Labor Government. I notice that the member for Bankstown was a councillor of the Bankstown City Council from 2004 and mayor from 2006. That is interesting because at that time New South Wales had a Labor Government. Was this issue raised by the Bankstown Council since 2004? If the answer is yes, I am interested to know the outcome.

Stacey Street is a major road. It is part of Metroad 6, which is one of many major arterial roads in Sydney. It connects many suburbs from Hornsby in the north to Heathcote in the south. Stacey Street also links major industrial areas in western Sydney, including Sutherland, Bankstown, Silverwater and Chullora industrial park. This corridor also links the M5 and M4 and provides access to Parramatta via the M4 connection at Silverwater Road. It also connects educational centres such as the University of Sydney Cumberland campus and provides access to Rookwood Cemetery and many other important centres in surrounding suburbs. There is no doubt that this stormwater channel presents some problems. It could be considered a major obstacle for any future widening of Stacey Street. This drainage channel needs some type of modification to improve road capacity through that section of Stacey Street.

For some years Sydney Water has advised that it is not, and will not be, in a position to undertake channel relocation or modification in the short to medium term. However, Roads and Maritime Services continues to monitor the performance of Stacey Street to find a practical solution. For sure, this stretch of Stacey Street is considered, to some extent, a traffic hazard. However, the NSW Centre for Road Safety's crash data revealed that over the five-year period from 2005 to 2009 a total of 20 crashes were recorded along this length of Stacey Street, of which 16 were reported as rear-end collisions. There are no reports suggesting crashes involved with vehicles hitting or entering the stormwater channel

Therefore, the presence of the stormwater channel does not appear to be a safety issue at this location and the current arrangements are not considered to present an untenable situation. Given the performance of Stacey Street from a traffic viewpoint and safety record, works cannot be justified at this time. Therefore, to do improvements on this part of Stacey Street would require diverting funds from other projects, either proposed or underway, which are considered to be necessary on more congested and more heavily trafficked sections of main roads across Sydney and New South Wales, such as the widening of the M5 or extension or the M4 East and many other projects that the State badly needs.
Mr GUY ZANGARI (Fairfield) [10.20 a.m.]: I support the motion moved by the member for Bankstown, Ms Tania Mihailuk. The contribution by the member for Smithfield was interesting and I will come back to the member for Smithfield in my speech. I congratulate the member for Bankstown on having the good sense to move this motion. It represents the many promises members of the O'Farrell Government, and in this case failed Liberal candidates, made before the last election—commitments made at the side of local streets and major arterial roads to fix pot holes, black spots and change traffic management restrictions that local residents have relied upon, promises that were underhandedly swept under the rug after the March 2011 elections.

The member for Bankstown outlined that Stacey Street as an important arterial thoroughfare in the greater Bankstown area. It connects the M5 with the Hume Highway and runs through the Bankstown central business district. It is a major route accessing the Chullora Business Park, one of the largest business precincts in New South Wales. Stacey Street is an important thoroughfare for the residents and businesses in the Bankstown area. That is why it is important that the O'Farrell Government uphold promises made before the last election to upgrade Stacey Street. Furthermore, that is why the Minister's response that the situation on Stacey Street was not untenable is a direct sign of disregard for the community of Bankstown. This statement represents the O'Farrell Government turning its back on the trusting residents of Bankstown.

This road is a vital piece of infrastructure. The O'Farrell Government's decision to deprive the people of south-west Sydney and the Labor heartland is appalling. Stacey Street is comparable to many similar thoroughfares across New South Wales. In the Fairfield city area our version of what has happened with Stacey Street was the promise by then Liberal candidate and now the member for Smithfield, Andrew Rohan, to upgrade the blackspot at the intersection of Polding Street and the Cumberland Highway. Just like Stacey Street, the Polding Street and Cumberland Highway intersection involves a major thoroughfare.

As we all know, the Cumberland Highway is an important arterial road connecting the Sydney basin, including some of the State's biggest industrial hubs. Polding Street too is an important arterial road, connecting many suburbs in the Fairfield electorate. The intersection is a major blackspot in the area. That is why, as with Stacey Street, the promise by Mr Rohan to commit $3 million dollars to upgrade it was so important for the people of the city of Fairfield. Furthermore, the Government's failure to fund that project in its first budget was a major blow for the city of Fairfield. Once again I commend the member for Bankstown for her gumption, grit and determination in holding the Government to make good its promise at the last election to upgrade Stacey Street. I commend the motion.

Mr CHARLES CASUSCELLI (Strathfield) [10.24 a.m.]: I speak in response to the motion moved by the member for Bankstown in relation to Stacey Street, traffic management arrangements and traffic congestion. One of the things the previous administration did not get was that roads form part of the transport network. Traffic congestion is not necessarily dealt with by looking at individual roads. Traffic congestion does not affect just Stacey Street; it affects many roads across the transport network of Sydney and New South Wales. I note the comment of the member for Fairfield about how we appear to have deprived the people of Bankstown of something. Let me ask: How much deprivation occurred as a result of $500 million of waste?

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! The member for Strathfield will direct his comments through the Chair.

Mr CHARLES CASUSCELLI: Mr Deputy-Speaker, are you aware how much deprivation occurred as a result of the wastage by those opposite when they spent $500 million on a central business district metro project that went absolutely nowhere? Are you aware of the amount of wastage and deprivation caused to the community of New South Wales because those opposite built a bridge at Iron Cove that was not necessary? It was not wanted by anyone but they went ahead anyway. Do you know how many Stacey Streets could have been fixed with $676 million that that lot opposite wasted when they were in government? I will leave that to everybody else to sort out.

Because of those opposite Stacey Street, and many streets like it, such as Centenary Drive within my electorate, Frederick Street within my electorate, Burwood Road, Parramatta Road—one of the busiest roads in New South Wales and voted number one in traffic congestion—Liverpool Road, Victoria Road, King Georges Road and Punchbowl Road need work. All those roads could have been attended to with the $676 million that those opposite seem to have flushed down the toilet. The bottom line is we have many roads crying for funds. Right now we have limited funds to address traffic congestion issues across the road network. Yes, Stacey Street happens to be one of those we need to do something about.

In the past decade the previous administration had a program called the pinch points program. It went over a number of years and had hundreds of millions of dollars committed to it over four, five, six or seven years. On the number one road that had to be dealt with for traffic congestion, which is Parramatta Road, which happens to border my electorate, not a single cent was spent over the past decade. If the Labor Government could not spend a cent on one of the State's busiest roads, the most-affected by traffic congestion, what chance does Stacey Street have in attracting any funding for dealing with traffic congestion? Labor did nothing on the State's highest priority road. It did nothing for lesser roads such as Stacey Street.

We have limited funding. The Government has to make sure it gets maximum effect when it spends those limited dollars. There is traffic congestion in Stacey Street, and I commend the local member for raising this matter–good on her–but traffic congestion has to be dealt with on a network-wide basis. Unfortunately, many roads on the network require higher priority treatment than Stacey Street. I commend the member for raising this matter but there are other priorities on the road network right now.

Mr RYAN PARK (Keira) [10.28 a.m.]: I start with that wonderful publication Strathfield Life. A couple of months ago in that publication we saw the glorious home theatre of my good friend the member for Strathfield. It is the place where he relaxes and enjoys the moment as his constituents have to struggle along Stacey Street. We do not all get to have home theatres. I do not think many members on this side have home theatres. As mere mortals from the Australian Labor Party understand, they are nice things to have a look at but we go to our Greater Union or our town cinemas to see movies.

Mr Charles Casuscelli: Mr Deputy-Speaker.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! Does the member for Strathfield wish to take a point of order?

Mr Charles Casuscelli: I do. I cannot understand the connection between a home theatre and congestion on Stacey Street.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): There is no point of order.

Mr RYAN PARK: I am trying to outline that in the beautiful surrounds of the home cinema we do not get to understand—

Mr Mark Coure: Point of order: I refer to Standing Order 76. It is not relevant—

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! Does the member for Oatley wish to take a point of order?

Mr Mark Coure: I do.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): What is the member's point of order?

Mr Mark Coure: I refer to Standing Order 76. The member's comments are not relevant to the debate.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): The member will direct his comments through the Chair.

Mr Mark Coure: I am. The member's remarks are not relevant. I ask that he be directed to return to the leave of the motion.

Mr RYAN PARK: They are relevant because the newspaper article—
The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! I have not ruled on the point of order. I am having difficulty understanding what a home theatre has to do with the debate about Stacey Street in south-west Sydney.

Mr RYAN PARK: Let me outline the reason. The home theatre is relevant to Stacey Street because in the article the member talks about how congestion impacts on his local suburb and the way he gets away from that congestion and relaxes is by sitting in the beautiful surrounds of his home theatre. I was attempting to outline to my good friends who reside in the Strathfield electorate that perhaps not all of them have the luxury of going home and relaxing in a home theatre.

Mr Charles Casuscelli: Point of order—

Mr RYAN PARK: Some of them have to sit in traffic, day in and day out.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! The member for Keira will resume his seat. Does the member for Strathfield wish to take a point of order?

Mr Charles Casuscelli: It is Standing Order 76.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! What is the member's point of order?

Mr Charles Casuscelli: My point of order is under Standing Order 76. I do not have any movies with Stacey Street in them.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! One comment has deserved the other. That is not a point of order. The member for Keira will continue.

Mr RYAN PARK: I am trying to help members opposite because I can feel a direct mail campaign coming on. I was attempting to outline that the member for Strathfield might not consider Stacey Street an important congestion issue when he is sitting in his home theatre. But it is an important issue for the people of western Sydney who use that congested street every day. I commend the member for Bankstown for raising this matter in the House.

Ms TANIA MIHAILUK (Bankstown) [10.32 a.m.], in reply: I take this opportunity to thank members representing the electorates of Smithfield, Fairfield, Strathfield and Keira for their entertaining contributions to the debate. The member for Smithfield raised a few interesting issues, but I reiterate that the Liberal candidate who ran against me at the last State election made the Stacey Street upgrade his number one campaign priority. Of course, he failed to mention during the election campaign that he had a major multistorey development from which he would benefit directly if Stacey Street were upgraded.

Mr Ryan Park: Andy? He would never have done that.

Ms TANIA MIHAILUK: I am sure we will hear more from him in the future. Stacey Street must be upgraded urgently to attend to the open drain and to mitigate the impact of the Port Enfield terminal, which will begin operating in 2013. The New South Wales Government announced the widening of the M5 West but has not committed to the M5 East duplication, which will result in a major traffic bottleneck in Bankstown. The member for Oatley agrees with me because many of his constituents are extremely concerned about the potential bottleneck. Commuters will exit the M5 to avoid the bottleneck and go straight onto Stacey Street and Fairford Road, which will impact heavily on the constituents of Oatley and Menai and, of course, Strathfield. I have not referred to the contribution of the member for Strathfield, but some of his comments leave a lot to be desired.

The member for Keira said quite rightly that a great many Strathfield constituents also use Stacey Street regularly and certainly are impacted by the current traffic congestion. No doubt continued pressure will remain on this major arterial thoroughfare. The Government must stop playing the blame game and accept responsibility. Government members said they will make New South Wales number one again. In order to achieve that, an immediate major decision must be made about infrastructure. The Government has failed to make a decision about the M5 East duplication and the M4 East extension. The Government must consider upgrading Stacey Street. I expect funding to be allocated in the next budget given the support my motion has received today from the member for Smithfield and the member for Strathfield.
The motion should be agreed to by all members. The motion proposes finding a solution by sitting down with the agencies concerned—Sydney Water and Roads and Maritime Services. The former Government committed to a study on the proposed upgrade. The O'Farrell Government should conduct a study to find the best solution for the Stacey Street traffic congestion. Unfortunately, the Minister for Roads and Ports, Duncan Gay, claims that the situation is not untenable. He says that traffic congestion on Stacey Street is acceptable. We say that it is not.

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

Motion agreed to.
Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst—Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Infrastructure NSW) [10.37 a.m.]: I move:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended at this sitting to permit consideration of the Legislative Council amendments to the Electricity Generator Assets (Authorised Transactions) Bill 2012 forthwith.

As I indicated earlier, the Government would not normally move for government business to take precedence over debate on general notices of motions, which occurs every Thursday morning, unless the matter was extremely urgent. Today a matter of urgency has arisen regarding the Electricity Generator Assets (Authorised Transactions) Bill 2012, which was debated in the Legislative Council. Amendments were made to the bill and have been transmitted to this House for consideration. Accordingly, the Government proposes to deal with the amended bill this morning during the time normally allocated to discussion of private members' general notices of motions. As also indicated earlier to members, I will review the time taken to deal with the amendments. If consideration is conducted reasonably and expeditiously, the Government will make sure that members who otherwise would have moved their motions this morning will have the opportunity to do so later today during the time allocated for government business.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY (Maroubra) [10.39 a.m.]: The Opposition opposes this suspension motion; it opposes the law that requires a suspension; it opposes everything upon which this law is founded. The Leader of the House walked in and put to the House that the passage of the Electricity Generator Assets (Authorised Transactions) Bill 2012 is urgent. The only reason the bill is urgent is that it has to do with the reputation of the Premier. That is not a consideration for this House. The Premier made a promise, in effect, that: There will be no shooting in national parks in any government I lead. Yesterday the Premier did a tawdry and grubby deal with the Shooters and Fishers Party that breaches that promise. That is law founded upon the carcass of the ruined reputation of this Premier. No longer has the Premier any moral authority to complain about broken promises in relation to a carbon tax, or anything else.

"There will be no shooting in national parks in any government I lead"—that was the effect of the promise of this Premier. The reason that the Premier wants this bill dealt with now is so that he can get it out of the way before the budget; so that it will not be discussed day in, day out; so that his broken promise, his breach of faith, his spivvy conduct in relation to this bill will not be discussed from day to day hereafter. I can tell the House now, on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, on behalf of the Opposition and on behalf of the people of New South Wales, that the Premier's credibility is at the very heart of this issue—and that is not a consideration for this House when deciding whether to deal with this bill expeditiously.

The bill should sit on the table and be the subject of full community discussion—not only full community discussion about the merits or otherwise of electricity privatisation, but full community discussion about the Premier's decision to ditch one promise so he could breach another. There is no way the Opposition will agree to this suspension; and we will not agree to the bill. The only difference between the bill as it was when it first came through this place and as it is on return today is that there are a whole lot more grubby fingerprints all over it. We will not abide by this suspension, and we will not support the bill.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Mr Anderson Mr Annesley Mr Aplin Mr Ayres Mr Baird Mr Barilaro Mr Bassett Mr Baumann Mr Bromhead Mr Brookes Mr Casuscelli Mr Conolly Mr Cornwell Mr Coure Mrs Davies Mr Dominello Mr Doyle Mr Edwards Mr Elliott Mr Evans Mr Flowers

Mr Fraser Mr Gee Ms Gibbons Ms Goward Mr Grant Mr Gulaptis Mr Hazzard Ms Hodgkinson Mr Holstein Mr Issa Mr Kean Dr Lee Mr Notley-Smith Mr O'Dea Mr Owen Mr Page Ms Parker Mr Patterson Mr Perrottet Mr Piccoli Mr Provest

Mr Roberts Mr Rohan Mr Rowell Mrs Sage Mr Sidoti Mrs Skinner Mr Souris Mr Speakman Mr Spence Mr Stokes Mr Stoner Mr Toole Mr Ward Mr Webber Mr R. C. Williams Mrs Williams Tellers, Mr Maguire Mr J. D. Williams

Mr Barr Ms Burney Mr Daley Mr Furolo Ms Hornery Ms Keneally Mr Lalich Mr Lynch

Dr McDonald Ms Mihailuk Ms Moore Mr Parker Mr Piper Mr Rees Mr Robertson Ms Tebbutt

Mr Torbay Ms Watson Mr Zangari Tellers, Mr Amery Mr Park

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Consideration of the Legislative Council amendments.

No. 1 Page 10. Insert after line 3:

15 Payments to employees leaving public sector employment

(1) The Treasurer or another public sector agency may enter into agreements or other arrangements with respect to the making of transfer payments to employees of an electricity generator in connection with the transfer of employment of those employees to employment in the private sector as a result of a transaction arrangement.

(2) A transfer payment is not to exceed an amount equivalent to 30 weeks of pay at the rate of an employee's base salary (that is, salary less any allowances).

(3) Without affecting any entitlement to a transfer payment under this section, an employee of an electricity generator is not entitled to receive any payment or other benefit (including in the nature of severance pay or redundancy compensation) merely because the employee ceased to be an employee of a public sector agency as a result of a transaction arrangement.
No. 2 Page 10. Insert after line 3:

15 Employment guarantee of employees transferred to private sector and maintenance of apprenticeship
(1) If the employment of an eligible employee of an electricity generator is transferred to employment in the private sector as a result of a transaction arrangement, the employment of the employee cannot be terminated by the private sector employer during the employee's employment guarantee period, except:

(a) for serious misconduct, or

(b) pursuant to the proper application of reasonable disciplinary procedures, or

(c) by agreement with the employee.

(2) An employee's employment guarantee period is:

(a) for eligible employees who are permanent employees—the period of 2 years (the standard period) after the transfer date, or

(b) for eligible employees who are temporary employees—the remainder of the employee's current term of employment (as specified in the arrangements under which the employee was engaged as a temporary employee) immediately before the transfer date, or the period of 2 years (the standard period) after the transfer date, whichever period ends first.

(3) The object of this subsection is to provide an additional job maintenance guarantee because the transfer of electricity generator assets under this Act is by way of sale. The standard period of 2 years is extended by an additional period of 2 years for eligible employees.

(4) The Treasurer is to take all reasonable steps to ensure that, under the transaction arrangements with all private sector employers, a total of at least 150 apprenticeships is maintained in the electricity generation businesses of those employers in NSW during any employment guarantee period under this section.

(5) In this section:
casual employee means an employee whose employment is in a category of employment that is described in or classified under a relevant award as casual employment or who is otherwise engaged as a casual employee.

contract employee means an employee whose terms and conditions of employment are provided by an individual contract and not by a relevant award.

eligible employee means a permanent employee or temporary employee and does not include a contract employee or casual employee.

permanent employee means an employee whose employment is of indefinite duration and who is not a casual employee, temporary employee or contract employee.
private sector employer means the employer in the private sector to whose employment the employment of an eligible employee is transferred as a result of a transaction arrangement.

relevant award means any award, agreement or other industrial instrument (under a law of the State or the Commonwealth) that provides for the terms and conditions of employment of employees.

temporary employee means an employee (other than a casual employee or contract employee) whose employment is in a category of employment that is described in or classified under a relevant award as temporary employment or whose employment is, under the terms of his or her employment, for a limited period.

transfer date means the date on which an eligible employee is transferred to employment in the private sector as a result of a transaction arrangement.

Mr MIKE BAIRD (Manly—Treasurer) [10.50 a.m.]: I move:

That the House agree to the Legislative Council amendments.

I thank members for their contributions to the debate and for supporting the Electricity Generator Assets (Authorised Transactions) Bill 2012 in the upper House. This is a historic day for the people of New South Wales. We have waited for this day when, hopefully with the support of this House, we pass legislation that has been spoken about in this place for two decades. I note the contortions on the other side of the House. Those opposite went to the 2007 State election saying that they were going to do nothing whatsoever about electricity.
The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! The Leader of the Opposition will have his opportunity to contribute to the debate.

Mr MIKE BAIRD: They spent every hour of every day trying to get an electricity transaction through this place. When that failed, they turned to a model outside Parliament and delivered to the people of New South Wales a transaction that the Auditor-General said gave away assets for half their book value. That was shameful and the people of New South Wales should be very upset about it. But today that process has come to an end and this House will make history for the people of New South Wales. I note that a number of Labor members did not vote on this bill. When the bill was first debated the member for Maroubra, the member for Heffron and the member for Toongabbie were absent.

At least the member for Toongabbie has publicly opposed the legislation. Last night the former Treasurer did not turn up to vote on the bill in the upper House. That is an example of the contortions on the other side of the House. This is legislation that those opposite introduced in this House. They then spent four years working on a transaction that did not proceed. Today Labor members say they do not want to support the legislation, but these amendments give them a chance to rectify past wrongs. It is a historic day because we are releasing up to $3 billion for the people of New South Wales. That $3 billion will be invested in infrastructure that this State needs desperately.

Mr John Robertson: Let's wait and see.

Mr MIKE BAIRD: It is a complex transaction—I am glad the Leader of the Opposition acknowledges that—because the gentrader the former Government left behind makes it about as difficult as it can be to get a great outcome for the people of New South Wales. But we will achieve it. The transaction also avoids spending potential capital of more than $7 billion on base load generation and on the existing generators. We want to put all that money to use for the people of New South Wales. Instead of spending it in the electricity sector, we have the capacity to invest it in much-needed State infrastructure. Importantly, a third of every dollar that goes to Restart NSW goes to regional New South Wales. The O'Farrell Government is proud of our regions and is determined to look after them. This legislation ensures that we will do that because it will release billions of dollars that will be spent not just in metropolitan areas but across regional New South Wales. I acknowledge that it was not an easy negotiation—in the upper House we have to deal with the crossbenchers.

But through those negotiations we believe we have reached a solution that is in the best interests of the people of New South Wales. I congratulate all those members who supported the legislation. I note that in his recent diatribe the member for Maroubra called the amendments to the bill grubby. I believe protecting workers is completely noble and all members should support these amendments. I said publicly that the intention of the bill is to look after the workers, and we have done that. Specifically, the amendment on sheet C2012-072D confirms the power of the Treasurer to negotiate transfer payments for employees transferred to the private sector as a result of the transaction arrangements. Transfer payments will be offered as part of the negotiations for the transaction. While the Government does not consider that it is necessary to include this provision to enable transfer payments to be made, the Government has no objection to its conclusion and I confirm that we will be making those transfer payments to those employees.

We do not oppose the second amendment on sheet C2012-73E. The amendment provides employment guarantees for eligible staff affected by the transfer of electricity generator assets to private sector ownership. The standard employment guarantee period is two years. An additional job maintenance guarantee of a further two years is also provided to eligible staff. This additional two-year period is supported because the transfer of electricity generator assets under the bill is to proceed by way of sale rather than lease. The effective eligible permanent employees will be guaranteed employment for a four-year period. The employment guarantees apply to permanent and temporary employees of electricity generators whose employment is transferred to the private sector as a result of the transfer of electricity generator assets under the bill.

The employment guarantees commence from the time that employees move to the private sector. This maximises the period of protection for employees. We will not be guaranteeing an ongoing role in the public sector for employees who choose not to take up the two-plus-two job guarantee and the transfer payment. However, the Government will assist employees in applying for roles in the public sector. The employment guarantees contained in this amendment are in addition to existing laws and the provisions in clause 14 of the bill. In combination, these provide for continuity of service, preservation of industrial conditions on transfer of employees and continuity of superannuation arrangements. This amendment also provides that at least 150 apprentices are to be employed across the electricity generation businesses for the duration of the employment guarantee period.
This is an increase of about 25 per cent on current apprentice levels. The Government intends that all existing apprentices will have the benefit of the employment guarantee provided by the amendments. The employment of apprentices helps to grow the skills base of the State's workforce. The Government encourages employers to hire apprentices in New South Wales, and the continued employment of apprentices in electricity generation businesses is supported. This day has been a long time coming, and as we move to the next stage I hope that those opposite will put this episode behind them and support what is in the best interests of the people of New South Wales.

Ms Anna Watson: An episode.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! I will not tolerate those kinds of interjections.

Mr MIKE BAIRD: The O'Farrell Government is proud to do what it said it would do. We said that we would take the electricity assets issue to an inquiry and respond to what the experts said. That is exactly what we have done. We have delivered a transaction that is consistent with what the former Government tried to do. When passed today, this legislation will release around $3 billion for the people of New South Wales. Earlier this week those opposite called for more infrastructure funding in this State. I would have thought they would stand in this place today and say, "Good on you for finding $3 billion to put into infrastructure across every part of New South Wales". The O'Farrell Government is proud to have secured this funding today for the people of New South Wales. The State cannot wait for this infrastructure, and today we will deliver it.

Mr JOHN ROBERTSON (Blacktown—Leader of the Opposition) [10.59 a.m.]: I lead for the Opposition and oppose the amended Electricity Generator Assets (Authorised Transactions) Bill 2012. I will read the first paragraph of my second reading speech to demonstrate how insightful my contribution was at that time. I said:

The bill is not about electricity generators or even privatisation. It is about trust, honesty and integrity. More accurately, it is about the Government's lack of any of those qualities. The bill stands as an undeniable testament to the Premier's complete lack of honesty and integrity and as a massive breach of trust with the people of New South Wales. Premier O'Farrell came to the last election promising to be whiter than white: He promised to raise the bar on ministerial standards and accountability; he promised, in relation to electricity, that he was "prepared to be upfront with the people of New South Wales about our plans". And he promised that he had absolutely no plans to privatise the State's electricity generators.

How insightful that was. Today the Treasurer led for the Government on this bill and spoke about contortions. Let us spend another minute talking about contortions. The contortions of Barry O'Farrell started in the weeks following the introduction of the bill into this House and they have continued up until this morning. First he said, "We only ever talked about poles and wires". On 29 January the Premier stood before the workforce and the media in Lithgow and emphatically said he had no plans to privatise generators, or the poles and wires. But he has backflipped on that statement. What did the Premier have to say about national parks? In April 2011 he stared down the camera and said he would not turn our national parks into hunting grounds.

But yesterday in this grubby deal we saw more contortions and spin. Hunting will now be allowed in 79 national parks, and 1,000 endangered species of flora and fauna will be trashed because this Premier did a backflip with pike. The Premier said that he would not do deals with the crossbenchers to get his legislation through the Parliament. The evidence against that statement is that soon be hunting will be allowed in our national parks. The pristine national parks of New South Wales will be traipsed through by people with guns shooting up the environment. Today the Premier has shown just how much of a grub he is. We learnt today that the Premier has offered financial inducements to the Shooters and Fishers Party to get his legislation through the Parliament.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: I remind the Leader of the Opposition that this debate is simply about the amendments to the bill. If he seeks to go outside that I ask you to direct him to not do so. I would also ask that the debate be conducted in a respectful manner. Standing Order 75 requires him to address members by their proper titles, not with any other epithets he might like to put on them. Government members do not do that to Opposition members, and they should not do it to us.

Mr Michael Daley: To the point of order: The amendments have already been put and passed by the House. This is a discussion that the bill now be read a third time. That is the totality of the bill.
The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! That is not correct. If the amendments had been passed members would not be debating them. I uphold the point of order and I ask the Leader of the Opposition to return to the leave of the amendments.

Mr JOHN ROBERTSON: These amendments are the result of a grubby deal done by a Premier who has offered financial inducements to the Shooters and Fishers Party to get this legislation through the Parliament. I would have thought that those on the other side, some of whom were here when former Premier Nick Greiner was around, would understand the implications of financial inducements and when one is Premier. I saw Nick Greiner out the front earlier when a few of those on the other side were ogling some car. I am not sure whether that car was purchased with the unrecognised and as yet unfound proceeds of the sale. But I do know that there is and there will continue to be debate on this issue. The debate will not go away because more contortions have been performed by those on the other side than would be seen at a circus. In 2008 the man who is now the Premier said that a Coalition government would not support privatisation of electricity until conditions that he described as fundamental were put in place to protect the public interest. I will read those conditions because it is worth noting that not one of them has been met. According to Barry O'Farrell, Condition 1 was:

All sale and/or lease arrangements be subject to the Auditor-General reporting to Parliament before the finalisation of the sale or lease. These arrangements would include—but would not be limited to: timing and price; conditions for workers, pensioners and low income earners and; price guarantees for consumers.

Not one amendment to this bill deals with the timing and price, or says that it will be dealt with by the Auditor-General. Not a single amendment to this bill contains any additional consumer protection, which goes to show that Barry O'Farrell was opportunistic then and he is opportunistic now. He could not be trusted by the people of New South Wales in 2008 and he has put beyond doubt that he cannot be trusted now. Condition 2 was:

Completion, release and adoption of a rural communities impact statement focusing on, among other issues, jobs, prices and service levels.

Is an amendment before the House that deals with prices or service levels? Nothing has been done to provide any of those protections to a single soul. Condition 3 was:

Establishment of an independent oversight body comprising the Auditor-General, a community representative and a financial expert to monitor the use of the funds realised from the sale.

We know that the Treasurer is no financial expert and I do not see too many bright lights on the other side when it comes to financial matters. Not one amendment talks about the establishment of an oversight body. Nothing in the bill addresses that issue. Condition 4 was:

Establishment of parliamentary oversight committee to guarantee improvements in clean, green and renewable energy investment resulting from the sale.

Nothing in these amendments addresses any of these issues. The only time we hear anyone on that side of the House talk about renewables is when the Premier says that if he had his way New South Wales would have no more wind farms, and when the planning Minister says with great pride that we have the toughest planning regime for the introduction of renewables. Condition 5 was:

Retention of the so-called poles and wires business in public ownership, and appropriate safety nets for pensioners, low-income families and employees as determined by the Auditor-General.

We know that condition 5 cannot be met because nothing is in the bill about the Auditor-General. Today we have seen those opposite, led by a Premier who has clearly shown he cannot be trusted, perform a set of contortions. As the Treasurer rightly points out, yesterday was an historic day. It was an historic day because Barry O'Farrell put beyond doubt the fact that the people of New South Wales can have no faith in anything that he says to them. Before the election the Premier swore black and blue that he had none of these plans. He swore black and blue that he would not deal with our national parks in that fashion. He swore black and blue that he would not under any circumstances do deals with the crossbenchers. He would not do deals to get his legislative agenda through this Parliament.

This morning on the radio with Adam Spencer, what was the Premier's excuse? "Oh, I have to deal with the Parliament that I have been delivered." He should have thought about that before the election. He should have thought about that before he made promises that he cannot keep. He should have thought about that before he did what he did today. What we now know is that he could not get his bill through the Parliament by allowing our national parks to be shot up or hunted in, so he had to offer financial inducements to the crossbenchers. The Treasurer said the people of New South Wales should be upset, and he is right. They should be upset because they have been hoodwinked by the Government. They now have a Premier who is prepared to offer financial inducements to pass this bill. That is why this bill should fail. That is why this Government should hang its head in shame. We have a Premier, who said he would be whiter than white, now offering financial inducements. It is a disgrace.

The Premier should be mindful of what happened to the last Coalition Premier who offered financial inducements, where he ended up, and how that played out for him. This is a set of circumstances in which New South Wales consumers will be worse off as a result of this bill passing through Parliament. We know from the experience in South Australia that energy prices increased by 30 per cent. We know that energy prices increased by 18 per cent in the first four months of this Government. We know that nothing in this bill will provide additional protection for families who already cannot pay their bills. There is nothing in the bill about improving assistant payments for families who are struggling to pay their bills. This Government and this Treasurer have already cut assistance that is provided to families who struggle.

Even before winter starts, families have been taken to hospital because they cannot turn their heaters on at home. They cannot afford to do that under this Government, so they brought their barbecue inside the house. We know about pensioners sitting in the dark wrapped up in blankets because they cannot afford to pay their electricity bills. They are so terrified of how big their bill will be that they sit in the dark, wrapped in a blanket. Nothing in this bill will help one pensioner or one family. The Treasurer says, "Oh, we're going to spend this money on the people of New South Wales." The Government is not spending it on the people who need it. The Government is making sure that people who need assistance get none from the Government when it comes to paying their power bills—not one cent.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: While I am reluctant to impede the Leader of the Opposition's broad-ranging debate, unfortunately this is about just two amendments. Those amendments are under the headings, "Payments to employees leaving public sector employment", and "Employment guarantee of employees transferred to private sector and maintenance of apprenticeships". The Government is prepared to entertain a little bit of margin during this debate, but unfortunately the Leader of the Opposition is now embarking on a broad-scale debate. This is a very narrow debate about amendments. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to restrain himself. If other members proceed in this manner I will have no choice but to terminate the debate. If members want the opportunity to speak, they should confine their comments to the amendments. There are rules of the Parliament that ensure all members can have an appropriate debate in an appropriate environment. This debate is strictly about two amendments.

Mr Michael Daley: Point of order: Under ancient convention of this House, members of either side of the House, particularly when a Minister who is leading the debate for the Government has laid down the ambit of the debate, are entitled to reply to matters that have been raised during debate. The Treasurer's in respect of these amendments was wideranging. Mr Deputy-Speaker, it would be a long stretch indeed for you to now rule that, with the Treasurer having made wide and far contentions, the Opposition is not allowed to answer them.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Further to the point of order: I said the Leader of the Opposition could have a bit of margin. I am not actually being that restrictive. If he does not get back on his feet he will lose his five minutes.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! I remind all members that we are debating the amendments. The Treasurer touched on different parts of the bill, but all members will keep their comments within the confines of the amendments to the bill.

Mr JOHN ROBERTSON: Then let us talk about the amendments that the Treasurer so happily praises. They are amendments that he did not introduce. They are amendments that had to be introduced by others. They are amendments that are part of the inducements to get this bill through the Legislative Council. The bill does not need employment protections if the Government does not sell the assets. The Government does not need those types of provisions if it is not flogging off the assets and not putting jobs at risk. This legislation is about putting jobs at risk. This legislation will put jobs at risk in rural and regional areas of New South Wales. These amendments are not what a government would be doing if it were concerned. If Government members are so good, they would have had the provisions in the amendments added to the original bill, but what we have seen is a government that has had to provide inducements to get its bill through this Parliament.
These amendments are not what Government members would have liked to have agreed to. If these amendments were what the Treasurer wanted to put in place, they would have appeared in the original bill. No amendments were moved by Government members to provide employment protection, no amendments were moved by Government members to provide protections for struggling families, no amendments were moved by Government members to drive prices down—the only move they made was crossing their fingers and hoping that it happens—and not a single amendment has been moved by Government members that will make it easier for struggling families. Amendments are before this House simply because that is what the Government had to concede to get the bill through the Legislative Council. This entire process is a disgrace. It is something that the Premier will live to regret, not simply because energy prices will increase and not simply because once the employment guarantees expire, jobs will be lost.

Jobs will be lost after this legislation comes into effect and Government members should not kid themselves. These provisions will be very difficult for a worker who is being forced out the door to enforce. I have seen how this works. I know what goes on in these places because I have looked after people in the private sector who were in a similar position. I know that the affected employees will be marched out the door, regardless of the protections that have been put in place. These amendments will not provide protection of any substance for the workers. The protections in the amendments will result in jobs being lost in the electorates of Newcastle, Swansea, Wyong, Orange and Bathurst. Each member who represents those electorates and votes in favour of this bill will have workers fronting up at their doorstep to hold them to account. That is what will happen. This bill is a disgrace. It is a farce. It is as farcical as the speech we just heard from the Treasurer.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! I remind members that they are required to confine their remarks to the leave of the amendments.

Ms LINDA BURNEY (Canterbury) [11.19 a.m.]: I will make sure my comments are about the amendments and what they represent.

Mr Richard Amery: And how they got through.

Ms LINDA BURNEY: And how they got here. The Treasurer is supporting these amendments that purport to protect and look after people. I will come to that. These amendments represent to those people, as well as to the broader New South Wales community, a breaking of trust. One of the most sacred things a member of Parliament has to protect is trust with the community that has elected him or her. These amendments are absolutely representative of breaking that trust. My prediction is that these amendments and the legislation they will form part of will be an enormous millstone around the neck of every member of the Coalition. Members might think that is hyperbolic and that it will not be the case, but those of us who have been in this place for some time, including you, Mr Deputy-Speaker, know what a millstone around the neck will do eventually. It gets heavier and more and more obvious. This Premier and his Government, represented by these amendments, and their hypocrisy, will come to understand that.

These amendments that purport to look after the workers who will be affected by this legislation are absolutely hypocritical. The Premier waxed on about how important they were. I repeat the assertion of the Leader of the Opposition that if they were so important they should have been in the legislation in the first place. If the Treasurer is so concerned about workers, why do we have to deal with them through amendments? If he is so concerned about workers, why did he do what he did to the police death and disability scheme? If he is so concerned about workers, why did he sack 5,000 public sector workers? If he is so concerned about workers, as he purports to be with these amendments, why has he capped wages at 2.5 per cent? If he is so concerned about workers, why are teachers so upset with him and why will thousands of people be out there on the street come the week of the budget?

I put to the Treasurer that the amendments represent a crossing of the Rubicon. One thing that people value, whether they are in rural areas or in the city, is our national parks. They are iconic in the culture of New South Wales, including Mootwingee National Park, for the benefit of the member for Murray-Darling. These amendments and the legislation they will become part of will not be seen as protecting the workers; they will be seen as a complete betrayal of trust and a painting of the Premier for the liar he is. I say that again: a painting of the Premier for the liar he is. He held himself out, as all Government members do, as being the champion of the people, and those opposite use their numbers to try to prosecute that. Today with these amendments and this debate, Government members have completely lost their ability to continue to do that. They can try to do it, but their words will be hollow. We know, and the people of New South Wales will know, that those opposite have broken their trust. They lied to them about the sale of electricity.
Those opposite should not try to paint these amendments as looking after the people. That approach will not work, and they will not fool the people because they can see what this is all about. This is more than a grubby deal, it is actually filthy: The Government had to offer financial inducements to smaller parties to get these amendments through the House. This Government has allowed amateur shooters into national parks—a filthy deal that no government I can think of would do. How on earth will it police that? How will it stop cowboys with guns in national parks from taking pot shots at things other than feral animals? It cannot. Please do not try to paint this as feral animal control. It is not. It is a filthy deal to get this legislation through.

As I say, the Government has crossed the Rubicon and has committed the cardinal sin of breaking trust with the people. If the Government thinks this issue will go away after today, it is sorely mistaken. Debate on whether the sale of electricity is a good or bad thing might lessen but what will not go away, as these amendments represent, is that the Premier lied. That narrative will build and build—it has already been established and this is its crowning glory. Parliaments are challenging places, there are no two ways about it, but one is elected to serve the people and people expect their member to stay true to what he or she says to them. The Premier has lied, and I am sure other speakers say the same thing. He said there would never be shooting in national parks.

Mr Daryl Maguire: Point of order: On three occasions the member for Canterbury has made insulting remarks about the Premier: she called him a liar. I draw your attention to previous rulings by Speakers Ellis and Kelly. I ask that the member refrain from using such unparliamentary language. I refer the member to those rulings.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! I was wondering why it was taking so long for a member to take a point of order. The word "liar" is very unparliamentary language. Is the member for Wagga Wagga asking for it to be withdrawn?

Ms LINDA BURNEY: He did not say that. I will continue because—

Mr Stuart Ayres: Point of order: I ask the member to withdraw.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! Only the person who was offended can ask for the unparliamentary language to be withdrawn. However, the language was very unparliamentary and I draw the Deputy Leader of the Opposition back to the leave of the amendments.

Ms LINDA BURNEY: I will take that on board and I will not call the Premier a liar again in my remarks over the next few minutes. I will not say again that he is a liar.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! I take offence at the member's comments and I ask her to withdraw them.

Ms LINDA BURNEY: I will withdraw them and use the phrase "a teller of untruths" instead.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! That is the member's opinion.

Ms LINDA BURNEY: You have challenged my assertions and that is your absolute right, Mr Deputy-Speaker. I point out that it is not just me who has made that comment today. On radio station 2BL this morning Adam Spencer said much along the same lines and asked the Premier how he can say in one breath that he will never allow shooting in national parks and in another breath say that he will never sell the generators and never sell electricity. If he said those two things and then does the complete opposite by selling off electricity to allow hunting in national parks I am not sure how else to characterise it other than to say it is a significant misleading of the public of New South Wales. I conclude my remarks by saying that these amendments mean that this Government and this Premier can never again claim the moral high ground about anything.

Mr John Williams: Oh rich. You started the sell-off.

Ms Linda Burney: I ignore the trivial comments from those opposite. The end result is that Government members have lost any moral high ground they think they have.

Mr Jonathan O'Dea: What rubbish.
Ms LINDA BURNEY: The member can call it rubbish. I predict that that millstone around his neck will get heavier and heavier.

Mr John Williams: Point of order: The member is conducting a debate across the Chamber.

Ms Linda Burney: I have concluded.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY (Maroubra) [11.29 a.m.]: I shall make a brief contribution to the debate on the amendments to the Electricity Generator Assets (Authorised Transactions) Bill 2012. I should like to clarify some events that took place in the House for the sake of the Hansard, which will record some remarks of the member for Lismore when he was in the chair. At the outset of the debate the Deputy-Speaker put the question that the amendments be agreed to and he should then have called on the Leader of the Opposition to lead for the Opposition on that question. What happened was that the member for Lismore in his capacity as Deputy-Speaker put the question to the House, which resulted in some confusion about what stage we were at.

The ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Andrew Fraser): Order! I hear what you say and it was by misadventure. It was not by intention.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: That is correct.

The ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Andrew Fraser): Order! Putting it on the record is probably somewhat political.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: No, Mr Assistant-Speaker. I am reluctant to do this and I have done it after consulting the Clerks because the member in the chair at the time said to me, "No, member for Maroubra, you are wrong." I was not wrong and I wish to clarify that for the edification of the House.

The ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Andrew Fraser): Order! I have clarified that issue and I ask that the member for Maroubra return to the amendments before the House.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: I am happy to do that, but when the ruling is that I am wrong and I am not, I am entitled to clarify that for the purposes of the Hansard.

The ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Andrew Fraser): Order! The matter has been clarified.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: It has not, actually. The amendments proposed by the Treasurer are not part of the original bill. It is not true for the Treasurer and other speakers to say that the Government has done this as a goodwill gesture and out of concern for the workers in the electricity sector. These amendments have been accepted as part of a deal—we say a grubby deal—with the Shooters and Fishers Party to get this bill through. That deal was promulgated on the back of a broken promise by the Premier not to allow shooting in national parks. That will be discussed for many years, as will the subject of this bill: the privatisation of the electricity industry. When speaking to these amendments the Treasurer raised the question of value for money in the gentrader sale. He failed to inform the House that the Tamberlin inquiry, set up by his Government, found that value for money was achieved.

Mr John Williams: Point of order: This issue has been raised with previous speakers. We are discussing amendments to a bill. The debate is narrow and the member is about to talk about the Tamberlin report and whatever else. I ask that the member be directed to return to the leave of the amendments.

The ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Andrew Fraser): Order! I listened to the debate with some interest before taking the chair. It has been a somewhat wideranging debate. I ask the member to try to stick to the amendments. I will not be overly harsh on the breadth of the debate, but I ask the member to peak to the amendments before the House.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: I understand that. My remarks will most probably conclude within the next two minutes. I simply wish to address only one or two points raised by the Treasurer. The Treasurer talked about value for money, but I ask him to read the Hansard of the debate on the Electricity Industry Restructuring Bill 2008 (No. 2). Mike Gallacher in the other place on behalf of the then Opposition, of which the Treasurer was shadow Treasurer and the Premier was the Leader of the Opposition, said:

The Opposition opposes this bill.

The value of the generation assets at that time was $15 billion; it is worth far less today. If the Treasurer was concerned about unlocking value for taxpayers he, the former Leader of the Opposition and all former Opposition members would have supported that 2008 bill. It is rich for them now to talk about good value for money when those assets have been undervalued by probably 50 per cent because of what happened in time. The Treasurer is being very hypocritical.

The ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Andrew Fraser): Order! The member for Maroubra will return to the leave of the amendments.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: In response to one further matter, the Treasurer contended that I was absent from the House when this bill passed. The Treasurer knows that I was paired on that occasion because I was overseas on parliamentary business. Last night in the upper House four members were paired.

The ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Andrew Fraser): Order! I suggest to the member for Maroubra that he is now discussing the subject of a personal explanation. I ask him to return to the leave of the amendments before the House.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: I am directly responding to contentions raised by the Treasurer this morning when discussing these amendments to the bill. The Treasurer knows that Mr Roozendaal and Mr Whan were similarly paired last night in the upper House and their votes were counted.

Ms TANIA MIHAILUK (Bankstown) [11.36 a.m.]: I contribute to the debate on the amendments to the Electricity Generator Assets (Authorised Transactions) Bill 2012 and note particularly that members are limited in their comments despite the Treasurer having the opportunity to raise as many issues as he chose. In 2008 the Coalition proposed five conditions to be met for its support of electricity privatisation, stating that they were fundamental to protecting the public interest.

Mr John Williams: Point of order: This debate now has reopened the whole electricity privatisation debate. The House is not debating electricity privatisation; it is debating two amendments to the bill. If Opposition members want to continue speaking they should stick to that matter otherwise I will pull them up.

The ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Andrew Fraser): Order! The member for Murray-Darling has raised a valid point, though poorly put. I ask the member for Bankstown to restrict her comments to the amendments before the House.

Ms TANIA MIHAILUK: In 2008 the member for Murray-Darling said the electorates would be copping a backlash from the privatisation of electricity.

The ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Andrew Fraser): Order! If the member for Bankstown continues in the same vein, I am quite happy to sit her down. She is to speak to the amendments or not at all.

Ms TANIA MIHAILUK: Fine. I will not remind the Coalition of the five conditions it said had to be met for its support of electricity privatisation. However, it is interesting that we are expected to believe that this Government will hold true to the amendments. The Treasurer expects the people of New South Wales to believe that jobs in the electricity industry will be protected. The reality is that people take on 25-year mortgages and centre their entire lives around their job security. These amendments will provide little job security. Obviously, the Opposition supports some degree of job security, but is appalled that this Government has made this decision. I reiterate the concerns that the member for Maroubra, the member for Canterbury and the Leader of the Opposition raised in this debate.

This bill and these amendments are a betrayal of the people of New South Wales. The supposed contract that the Premier drew up with the people of New South Wales has been torn apart by the bill and the Government agreeing to privatisation of electricity generators. I note that members have been strangled by limitations on the debate and restricted by the issues that we can raise in it. I concur particularly with the point made by the member for Canterbury that the Premier is a teller of untruths; there is no doubt about that. Everyone in this Chamber knows that. The fact is that a large number of Nationals members are absent from the Chamber during this debate. I will be interested to see whether the member for Orange and the member for Bathurst will vote in favour of this legislation.
Yesterday they remained absent when the House was debating the matter accorded priority—the sale of electricity generators, a motion that the member for Penrith was so keen to move as a matter of priority for consideration by this House. The member for Penrith well knows—as, I believe, should most members representing electorates in western Sydney and regional and rural New South Wales—that the people do not want electricity generators and electricity poles and wires sold off. They believed the Premier when he said on 28 January: "We have absolutely no plans to privatise either generators or the poles and wires." Sadly, the people believed that lie.

Mr John Williams: Point of order: The member for Bankstown might consider that two Independents might not have the opportunity to speak on the amendments, if they are keen to speak on the amendments. If the member for Bankstown wants to ensure they will be able to speak she should confine her remarks to the amendments or there will no further contributions to the debate.

The ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Andrew Fraser): Order! There is no point of order. The debate has been wideranging. However, I will not tolerate any intimation of lies on behalf of the Premier or any other member of this House, because that is unparliamentary. The member for Bankstown commented that the debate has been restricted. The rules for debate are laid out in the standing orders. If the member does not like the standing orders she should move to have them changed. The rules of debate provide that a member will address the issue before the Chair; and the issue before the Chair at the moment is the proposed amendments. I ask the member to confine her comments to the amendments.

Ms TANIA MIHAILUK: I reiterate that it is very disappointing that the bill does not contain amendments to protect struggling and low-income families. Broad-ranging amendments could have been included to make it clear that the Government will not permit electricity prices to rise as a result of this bill. Stronger amendments should have been put in place to ensure that. We know that struggling families were very much affected by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal recommendations—recommendations that this Government chose not to reject last year—that is, an increase of 15.5 per cent in electricity prices across metropolitan Sydney, and up to 18 per cent in rural areas. Those recommendations were endorsed by the Government. It had the opportunity to reject those recommendations. In the past the Deputy Premier always called for the Labor Government to reject such Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal recommendations; this Government has chosen not to do likewise.

The ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Andrew Fraser): Order! The member for Bankstown is canvassing my ruling. The member will refrain from making comments on anything other than the amendments before the House. If she does not I will order her to resume her seat. The member for Bankstown has the call.

Ms TANIA MIHAILUK: I again reiterate that it is of concern that low-income families across Sydney, and western Sydney, are not being given the protections they deserve. It is sad that the bill does not contain amendments to afford those families protection. There is no doubt that the amendment to guarantee employment to employees transferred to the private sector and to maintain apprenticeships is a worthy amendment, as are payments to employees leaving public sector employment. However, those amendments are not sufficiently significant to have members on this side of the House believe that the Treasurer and the Government are genuinely interested in protecting the employment of those workers.

I think the Coalition will find that the constituents of a lot of its members will be very upset. It would be interesting to know whether Government members read the blog in today's Daily Telegraph. Many people are keeping a tally of the Government's broken promises. Many people are upset that this sale will lead to higher electricity prices. Some of those people live in the Southern Highlands, the Blue Mountains and a whole host of areas across New South Wales. They are raising their concerns that this sale will lead to increased electricity prices; and there is no doubt that it will. This bill is another sign that the Government is more than willing to break a contract that it supposedly wrote up with the people of New South Wales.

Mr JAMIE PARKER (Balmain) [11.44 a.m.]: Mr Deputy-Speaker—

The ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Andrew Fraser): Order! Assistant-Speaker.

Mr JAMIE PARKER: Thank you, Mr Assistant-Speaker. I will make sure I get that right, because I recall that last night it caused some consternation. I am going to write that down. Thank you very much, Mr Assistant-Speaker. I rise to speak to the amendments to the Electricity Generator Assets (Authorised Transactions) Bill 2012. The Greens oppose the amendments. We opposed the original bill proposed by Labor, and we opposed the bill now proposed by the Coalition. I want to ask a few questions about the amendments. I know there was some discussion about this in the upper House, and I ask the Treasurer in his reply to address this question about the four-year protection provision. Let us look at the amendments. Clause 15, headed "Employment guarantee of employees transferred to private sector and maintenance of apprenticeship", provides in subclause (3):

The object of this subsection is to provide an additional job maintenance guarantee because the transfer of electricity generator assets under this Act is by way of sale.

It then refers to the "standard period of 2 years". I am glad the Treasurer is in the Chamber, because I want to ask him a question. Does this provision allow for only two years of employment protection if the transfer is by way of long-term lease? I understand that the protection is for four years if the transfer of the assets is by way of sale. I ask the Treasurer to address my question. I know this was the subject of some debate in the other place; but, if that is the fact, then from the workers' perspective there is no real difference whether the assets are transferred under long-term lease or sold. I understand that these amendments are designed to support the workers at those facilities. I ask the Treasurer to address the question whether the amendments provide for a two-year guarantee if the assets are transferred by long-term leasing, and for a four-year guarantee where they are disposed of by sale, which is specified in the amendments.

The amendments, by and of themselves, are positive. The difficulty that I have—and I am sure many in the House have—is that this arrangement is part of a broader deal or arrangement with the Shooters and Fishers Party, a matter that members have heard discussed today. Members in this House know the view of The Greens: We do not support that arrangement. We do not think the financial arrangement, as discussed in the Daily Telegraph, is an appropriate arrangement. We do not agree with the arrangement with the Shooters and Fishers Party permitting shooting in national parks; and we do not think that any other arrangements that the Government has made are acceptable. So, while the amendments themselves are positive—subject to the discussion with the Treasurer—it seems to me that they should not be supported.

This is a very important day, a threshold day for many voters. When this sale was proposed by the Labor Party the Coalition opposed it. When the Coalition proposed it the Labor Party opposed it. So people are asking what members believe in. One of the issues highlighted in my electorate about this proposal is whether Labor members support privatisation. They kind of do and they kind of do not. They do when they are in government but when in opposition they do not. Do Coalition members oppose privatisation? They opposed it when the matter last came up but now they do not.

Mr Jonathan O'Dea: It did not come to a vote.

Mr John Williams: It never got to a vote.

Mr JAMIE PARKER: We know that the Government opposed it. I raise this because it goes to the heart of what politics mean for the people of this State. We should be dealing with these important matters—obviously philosophical matters—as important matters and matters of principle for many people, not political footballs to kick around to score points against the other side. So I take these amendments on face value. I hope the Treasurer will be able to answer my question. As I said, I will not be supporting the amendments because of the connection they have to the other arrangements—reported additional funding and shooting in national parks. But I would like that question addressed. I thank the House for the opportunity to address this matter.

Mr GREG PIPER (Lake Macquarie) [11.49 a.m.]: I speak on the Legislative Council amendments to the Electricity Generator Assets (Authorised Transactions) Bill 2012 and address the issues raised by the Treasurer this morning. First, I put on record my concern about the process of this legislation and how the news has been delivered to this House and the people of New South Wales. I am concerned that people may consider this to be a much-compromised decision based on an agreement with the Shooters and Fishers Party to get this legislation through the upper House.

Lake Macquarie has a very significant stake in this legislation. Lake Macquarie is the location of one of the largest energy producers in New South Wales, Eraring Energy. It was also the site of the largest power station in New South Wales in its time, Wangi Wangi power station. Lake Macquarie—the body of water—is part of my electorate of Lake Macquarie and is part of the operations of Delta Electricity in that Vales Point power station draws and discharges cooling water into the lake. From a power-producing perspective, Lake Macquarie has a very real interest in this legislation because it is a significant part of the employment base in southern Lake Macquarie in particular.
Watagans National Park is in the electorate of Lake Macquarie, and while it is not part of the amendments it is hard not to reflect on the component of the legislation that will have an effect on the national park. The amendments relate to additional job protections for employees and taking steps to protect apprenticeships. In that narrow perspective I commend the Government for incorporating these amendments in the legislation, but I believe that the process has been sullied. Because I opposed the original premise behind the legislation it is very difficult for me to commend it other than within that very narrow perspective. I have some questions I would like the Treasurer to answer, and I think they were touched on by the member for Balmain.

I want to know what the real impact will be on the employees of one of these State-owned assets and whether they will receive two years protection for their employment as opposed to four years, based on whether the asset is on a long-term lease or on a sale basis. I would imagine that for the employee it is a moot point. Amendment No. 2 (4), which appears at face value to be the laudable inclusion of protecting apprenticeships, calls on the Treasurer to take all reasonable steps to ensure that under the transaction arrangements with all private sector employers a total of at least 150 apprenticeships is maintained in the electricity generation business. I commend that within the narrow perspective I spoke of earlier. However, I believe that the question of what constitutes a reasonable step will be of great concern to apprentices and to those people who wish to see opportunities for apprenticeships in these areas maintained.

I have consistently opposed the proposition that these publicly owned assets should be disposed of, and so too have the residents of Lake Macquarie. I shall continue to oppose it, but I note from a pragmatic point of view that the decision has been made. There is no denying that this legislation will be passed. We can stand on this side of the House and argue against it all we like, but it is like trying to hold back the tides; it cannot be done. I ask the Government to address these issues, including taking all reasonable steps to ensure that the transaction arrangements provide for at least 150 apprenticeships and, more importantly, that the asset realisation is used very much in the best interests of the people of New South Wales.

I will not stand here and suggest that the reason for all my concerns rests with the Government of the day. My concerns go back to the previous Government and the underinvestment in infrastructure in the industry over 16 years that I believe made the situation ripe for this major intervention. The asset value was diminished, particularly by the gentrader agreements that were put in place by the previous Government, which gutted the true value of the publicly owned assets. I will not unfairly apportion blame; I acknowledge that these issues do not all sit with this Government. However, I am very concerned about the arrangements that allowed this proposal to progress through the upper House. I ask the Government to be cognisant also that through the years of providing power for the State through Wangi Wangi power station, Eraring power station and Vales Point power station—particularly coal mining for the provision of the fuel source for these power stations—the people of Lake Macquarie only joyed the benefits of the employment connected with that.

No other great dividend was provided to the residents of this area for the impact on them as a result of providing that benefit to the State. I also ask the Government to consider the lack of investment in southern Lake Macquarie in particular—over successive governments. For example, Wyee—one of the largest coastal communities in New South Wales—has remained without sewerage for years. The area needs investment in infrastructure, health and roads and I ask the Government when making a transition in ownership in this period to acknowledge that and pay perhaps a premium dividend to this area. This is nothing beyond what I believe the communities in this area deserve. The Government has a sacred trust in handling and managing this asset owned by the people of New South Wales and I implore it to use it wisely.

Mr NICK LALICH (Cabramatta) [11.58 a.m.]: I speak on the Legislative Council amendments to the Electricity Generator Assets (Authorised Transactions) Bill 2012. The object of the bill is to authorise and provide for the transfer of State electricity generator assets. Electricity prices are rising as winter approaches. Never is there a greater need for affordable electricity to power heaters, heating systems or electric blankets than in winter, but the O'Farrell Government is going to subject hardworking families in New South Wales to a cold, hard winter, devoid of warmth in their homes and warmth from this Government. Families are already struggling with the cost of living. Rents are high, the housing is unaffordable—

Mr Jonathan O'Dea: Point of order: Mr Assistant-Speaker, consistent with your earlier rulings, I ask you to bring the member back to the leave of the amendments.

The ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Andrew Fraser): Order! I remind the member for Cabramatta that the amendments are to be discussed. This is not the time to read a prepared political speech. I advise the member to return to the leave of the amendments rather than to go back through history or to attack the Government.
Mr NICK LALICH: Mr Assistant-Speaker, I appreciate what you are saying but these amendments would not have been necessary had this legislation not been pushed through. The Iemma Government introduced electricity privatisation legislation in this Parliament. The then Opposition was the loudest voice against selling the electricity industry and the sale did not go through. The then Leader of the Opposition, Barry O'Farrell, said on radio and on television that he was not going to support it, even though business and industry argued that the industry should be sold for the sake of the assets—

Mr Jonathan O'Dea: Point of order: Mr Assistant-Speaker, you have ruled correctly that we are considering amendments to the bill; we are not debating the bill. The member for Cabramatta had the opportunity to speak on a range of issues at the appropriate time. Now is not that time. We are considering the amendments.

The ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Andrew Fraser): Order! I draw the member for Cabramatta back to the leave of the amendments

Mr NICK LALICH: This is a big backflip by the O'Farrell Government from its original stance on this issue. The amendments before the House refer to an employment guarantee. That would not be necessary if the legislation had not been passed to sell the electricity industry. The guarantee of 150 apprenticeships in the generator industry is quite good. However, I worked for Prospect Electricity for 23 years—the company was sold off and merged with others. It employed about 75 electrician apprentices every year. That is how many apprentices just one little company, Prospect Electricity, employed at that time. Now we are talking about a statewide electricity generator having only 150 apprentices. That is disgraceful.

As I said earlier, the amendments before the House would not be necessary if we were not selling the electricity industry. Since the O'Farrell Government has come to power the price of electricity has continued to rise. It has been proven in South Australia that electricity industry privatisation has led to price rises of 30 per cent. That will happen also in New South Wales. How can it be helping hardworking families in New South Wales to allow the private sector to take over an industry that the people have said they do not want sold? The people said that before the last election—Alan Jones, Ray Hadley—

The ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Andrew Fraser): Order! I know what the point of order will be. I remind the member for Cabramatta that the amendments concern payments to employees leaving public sector employment and an employment guarantee for employees transferred to the private sector and maintenance of apprenticeships. The amendments describe casual employees, contract employees, eligible employees, permanent employees, private sector employees, relevant awards, temporary employees and the transfer date. They are the amendments before the House. As I said to the member for Bankstown, if members do not understand the rules of debate in this place they should not bother to contribute. I draw the member back to the leave of the amendments.

Mr NICK LALICH: Obviously this is a way of gagging the debate.

The ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Andrew Fraser): Order! If the member for Cabramatta wishes to canvass my ruling, I will ask him to resume his seat. The member may contribute to the debate in relation to the amendments before the House. The debate on the bill and other matters has been had previously. I ask the member either to return to the amendments or to resume his seat. I commend the standing orders to the member.

Mr NICK LALICH: The debate relates partly to the price of electricity.

The ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Andrew Fraser): Order! I went through the amendments that are before the House, and they do not mention price. There is nothing there in relation to price. The amendments are as circulated. I warn the member for the last time that if he continues to canvass my ruling I will ask him to resume his seat.

Mr NICK LALICH: The people of New South Wales will remember the backflips of the Barry O'Farrell Government. I am certain they will take that out on Government members at the next election.

The ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Andrew Fraser): Order! I call the member for Cessnock to make his contribution and I ask him to be mindful of my previous ruling.
Mr CLAYTON BARR (Cessnock) [12.05 p.m.]: Thank you, Mr Assistant-Speaker. I assure you that I will use the term "amendments" frequently during my contribution. In introducing these amendments, the Treasurer spoke at length about the historical context of the decision to sell the electricity generator assets. I sat in the upper House last night and watched most of the debate—I watched the remainder of it on the television in my office. The Treasurer is right when he says that these amendments fit a context. The amendments are within the context of a broad range of political thoughts and opinions across all parties. The Treasurer spoke about the difficulties and challenges that the Labor Party had with this issue and that today's parties continue to have with it.

The Treasurer said the amendments are a terrific outcome and that he welcomes them. If he is so welcoming of these amendments, why did the Government have to be dragged to them kicking and screaming? Some on the other side will argue that they were not dragged anywhere. I put it to them that this bill has been in the other place for about three months. Someone who was not dragged kicking and screaming might have come to the party a little earlier. Are these amendments the best outcome for all people of New South Wales, including the workers, or are they simply a convenient outcome agreed to for the sake of political expediency? Last night in the other place members of the Shooters and Fishers Party recognised that these amendments are not an ideal outcome. They are not the outcome that they had hoped to achieve; they are not the outcome that they argued, put to or negotiated with the Government.

The Treasurer used the word "negotiation" in exchanges in the House this morning. He spoke to the amendments with an apparent warm conviction that would almost make one believe he was part Labor. But behind that warmth is a cold Coalition heart that deliberately low-balled the original bill so that there was room for negotiation and amendment. Make no mistake, without negotiation and amendment by the Shooters and Fishers Party the cold-hearted Treasurer would most certainly have pushed the original bill through this House without batting an eye lid. Labor he is not.

Mr Mike Baird: I thought you were trying to have a go at me.

Ms Katrina Hodgkinson: Don't provoke him.

Mr CLAYTON BARR: Do not provoke me. I refer now to the amendments. New part 4, clause 16 (4), states that the Treasurer is to take all reasonable steps to ensure under the transaction arrangements with all private sector employers that a total of at least 150 apprenticeships is maintained in the electricity generation business of the employers in New South Wales. A lifelong friend is fairly high up in Energy Australia. In about October last year I had a conversation with him and he asked me what was going on with apprenticeships in the electricity sector. I had to reply that I knew nothing about it. As Coalition members will appreciate from their time in opposition, it turns out that people on this side of the House get very little information from the Government. So I asked my friend to find out more about the matter.

The next time we spoke he told me that there was a freeze on apprenticeships. He said that no further apprenticeships would be undertaken in 2012 because negotiations were underway and part of those negotiations was the number of apprentices currently employed and the number to be employed in the future. In the upper House last night the Minister for Finance and Services spoke about the importance of government-driven apprenticeships. He said that apprenticeships in government departments are a core part of government business. I do not think the Minister realised that I was aware that this Coalition Government had deliberately put a freeze on apprenticeships in the electricity sector during 2012. I ask the Treasurer to please state on the public record whether he was aware of this freeze.

In an industry as big as electricity generation, 150 apprenticeships indicates to me that New South Wales is punching well below its weight and expectation. We in New South Wales need to drive employment. We have a skills shortage that is widely recognised and well publicised. Currently I am endeavouring to support the Kurri Kurri TAFE to expand its facilities and to train more apprentices to service the mining boom in the Hunter and beyond. The Treasurer might be able to indicate in his response something about that as well, but possibly not. One hundred and fifty apprenticeships is a low-ball figure, just as so much of the original bill also is low ball. The amendments before the House seek to address that. I ask the Treasurer to please respond to my remarks.

This has been a difficult debate over a long period and over a range of issues, and today we are at the precipice. Is the privatisation of electricity in New South Wales, with these amendments, a good or a bad thing? Is it the best thing for the State? Is it the best possible outcome for workers, the workers listed and sought to be looked after under these amendments? The difficulty of this bill and these amendments has been highlighted by both Labor and now The Nationals members' willingness to vote or not vote, cross the floor or not cross the floor, be in the Chamber or not be in the Chamber. This has happened over a long period. My predecessor was one of the Labor members who made a commitment to crossing the floor should Labor pursue its previous interests in privatising electricity. Yesterday five members of The Nationals failed to vote on a motion accorded priority. One of them was in the chair, one was paired, and three were absent.

The ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Andrew Fraser): Order! Until now the member for Cessnock has addressed the amendments. The member will confine his remarks to the leave of the amendments.

Mr CLAYTON BARR: When amendments were moved in the Legislative Council last night, The Nationals members were asked whether they would stay in the Chamber and do all the hard lifting for their party while The Nationals in the lower House got a free pass. Would it be a consistent position of The Nationals that members do not necessarily have to vote on this issue, or will The Nationals in the upper House be the faceless members who do not have to answer to electorates?

Mr John Williams: Point of order: The member for Cessnock is now addressing party tactics. What goes on in The Nationals party room is our business, not his.

The ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Andrew Fraser): Order! I draw the member for Cessnock back to the leave of the amendments. If he continues to stray from the leave of the amendments, I will ask him to resume his seat.

Mr CLAYTON BARR: It is very difficult to support the amendments when ultimately they relate to a bill that I do not believe in and do not think is good for the State of New South Wales. Will these amendments achieve the best outcome for workers, or are they a political convenience? I argue that they are more the latter than the former.

Ms SONIA HORNERY (Wallsend) [12.13 p.m.]: The Treasurer began his speech in support of the amendments to the Electricity Generator Assets (Authorised Transactions) Bill 2012 by stating that it is an historic day for New South Wales. I agree with the Treasurer: It is an historic day for New South Wales. It is an historic day for workers in the Hunter, Bathurst, Lithgow and on the Central Coast, and it is an historic day for the battlers in our communities. I say that because these amendments sound the death knell for jobs and job security, the price of electricity and reliability of the service once the Liberal Government achieves its aims—it has the numbers—and sells New South Wales power generators.

In regard to the job protections in the amendments, I agree with the Leader of the Opposition, who said that we would not need those provisions if we were not going to put jobs at risk. The Leader of the Opposition also mentioned in the context of the amendments that jobs will be lost and that the provisions in the amendments would provide limited protection for workers. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the member for Canterbury, said that the amendments represent to the people of New South Wales a breaking of trust, and I agree with her. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition also said that these amendments will become an enormous millstone around the necks of Government members, and again I agree with her. I opposed the original sale, as proposed by the Labor Government, in 2008. I continue to oppose the sale now for the very same reasons.

I opposed the sale and I oppose these amendments because I am concerned about job security. I am concerned about the reliability and cost of the service. These amendments do not solve my dilemma because they do not address reliability, cost and complete job protection. It must be remembered that on 28 January last year the Premier, Barry O'Farrell, promised to keep the State's electricity generators in public hands. Now the people of New South Wales are seeing these amendments to the electricity generator assets bill and they feel betrayed. In relation to these amendments, which will result in the sale of power stations, will Government members who represent electorates in the Hunter and on the Central Coast and the member for Bathurst have the courage to stand up for the workers and battlers in their communities who will be affected by the sale? I would, if I were their representative.

Dr ANDREW McDONALD (Macquarie Fields) [12.17 p.m.]: In politics, as in life, it is a matter of not listening to what people say but looking at what they do. Since the March 2011 election, we have considered a variety of bills—including the Library Amendment Bill 2011, to which more than 50 members spoke, and the Constitution Amendment (Restoration of Oaths of Allegiance) Bill 2011, to which an enormous number of Government members spoke—that Government members believe in and spoke in favour of. Today I expect that virtually no Government members will speak to these amendments because they know that this is a mistake.

Ms Katrina Hodgkinson: It is not a mistake.

Dr ANDREW McDONALD: All the great mistakes that have been made by governments have one thing in common: Those governments did not listen to the wishes of the people. Yelling it at me, interjecting it or even saying it does not make it so. As Churchill said, "The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." The truth is that the overwhelming majority of the people of New South Wales in the street and in every electorate of every member of this House do not support either the sale of electricity assets or hunting in national parks.

Ms Katrina Hodgkinson: Yes, we do.

Dr ANDREW McDONALD: The Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Small Business says, "Yes, we do" about hunting in national parks. The people of New South Wales object to this sale because they know that electricity prices will increase more than they need to and, more importantly, that once the assets leave government hands, there will be no capacity for a safety net for those in greatest need.

Mr Jonathan O'Dea: Point of order—

Dr ANDREW McDONALD: I was about to turn to the amendments.

Mr Jonathan O'Dea: The member admits his fault so I am happy to show some grace.

The ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Andrew Fraser): Order! I remind the member for Macquarie Fields that the matters open to debate are the amendments on the Business Paper, which I am sure he has looked at.

Dr ANDREW McDONALD: I show members my copy, with the amendments circled. I will raise some issues that I hope the Treasurer will speak to. New clause 15 (2) of the amendment passed last night provides that a transfer payment is not to exceed an amount of 30 weeks pay at the rate of an employee's base salary. I ask the Treasurer to explain to the House what will happen to those who have been in the public service since before 1988. A few such people are employed by these generators. They come under the old State Authorities Superannuation [SAS] Scheme, which was abolished by Greiner and is now closed. Will their entitlements as public servants be preserved by this Government? Many of these workers are nearing retirement age and stand to gain considerable financial benefits from the scheme.

The Treasurer needs to ensure that all entitlements of members in the old superannuation scheme—I expect he knows the one I am talking about, the old SAS Trustee Corporation—will be preserved as though the generators were not being privatised. My second concern is about the long-term future of some employees, because they now have only a standard two-year guarantee period. This leaves workers with an uncertain future, which is another reason why I oppose the amendments. The amendments should be known as the shooters bill—not "bill" as in a piece of legislation but "bill" as in invoice. Yesterday we heard polemics about the difference between hunting and feral culling, but all members know that this bill is potentially very dangerous.

Mr Andrew Constance: Point of order: The member is straying well and truly outside consideration of the amendments. I ask you to draw him back to the leave of the amendments.

The ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Andrew Fraser): Order! The member for Macquarie Fields has the call.

Dr ANDREW McDONALD: The deal necessary to bring these amendments to the House is very dangerous, and the overwhelming majority of the people in New South Wales oppose it. Last night at dinner in the Strangers Dining Room members of the Shooters and Fishers Party, the Christian Democratic Party and some senior Liberal members were sitting together at a circular table.

Mrs Leslie Williams: They were socialising.
Dr ANDREW McDONALD: It did not look like much fun if they were socialising, as the member for Port Macquarie suggests. I wonder whether they were discussing the financial up-front inducements that were part of the deal—

Mr Andrew Constance: Point of order—

The ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Andrew Fraser): Order! I know what the member's point of order will be. Who eats where in the Strangers Dining Room has absolutely nothing to do with the legislation. I draw the member's attention to Standing Order No. 76.

Mr Jonathan O'Dea: He was eating by himself.

Dr ANDREW McDONALD: That is true; I admit that I eat by myself regularly. Like a thief in the night, this Government is doing what it said it would not do. That is a fatal error. When it comes to electricity, I think nobody said it better than AC/DC: This is a dirty deed done dirt cheap.

Mr MIKE BAIRD (Manly—Treasurer) [12.23 p.m.], in reply: I thank members for participating in the debate. Certainly a lot of emotion has clouded this issue over many years and it is only appropriate that we have the chance to hear all members' views. Most of those views were put in debate when the Electricity Generator Assets (Authorised Transactions) Bill 2012 came before the House previously. However, some final thoughts were aired in relation to the amendments, and I thank members for them. I will make a couple of factual points in addressing some members' concerns. There seems to be a problem in the Opposition's tactics group. Last night Labor members in the other place did not oppose the amendments. I am not sure what has happened today, but it seems that Labor is doing one thing in the upper House and something different in this place. That is a matter for the Opposition tacticians.

Several members claimed that the Government would not have looked after the workers unless pushed to do so. For the benefit of the House, I point out that in my second reading speech—which is part of the legislation—I said the protection and transfer mechanisms offered to employees would be important considerations during the negotiations on the transaction agreements. It was always the Government's intention to put protections in place for those workers. We have done so, and that is what these amendments address. It was the Government's intention all along, and part of the transaction negotiations.

A number of members spoke about prices. I have gone over the comments of the member for Maroubra in this House. We understand his position. The member for Maroubra said that when Tony Harris, the former Auditor-General, examined the effect of privatisation in Victoria he noted conclusively that the electricity reforms had led to a significant price decrease in that State. I have said all along not to listen to me on this subject, but to listen to the experts. Today Roman Domanski, the head of the Energy Users Association, talked about this transaction and its impact on the electricity market. He said that the market should be more competitive and, if it is—all other things being equal—electricity should be cheaper. Most telling are the views of former Treasurer Michael Costa. He looked at this issue in some detail. I did not agree with everything Michael Costa said—

Mr Richard Amery: Only when it suits you.

Mr MIKE BAIRD: He said some sensible things and some things that were not sensible. He commissioned an independent report that found that electricity prices in Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom dropped following privatisation. The review, which was conducted by Deloitte's, states that the cost of electricity for residential and small business customers when adjusted for inflation decreased following the reform of electricity retail services. Members can talk about prices all they want but it is better to be factual. They should listen to what the experts are telling us and what the Opposition's experts told them in government. The Leader of the Opposition and the member for Wallsend expressed concern about jobs in regional New South Wales. I understand that. I refer them to a report that Labor commissioned, a rural community impact statement, into the effect of an electricity transaction on the regions. It found no evidence that rural employment in the sector would decline. That was a report on that specific issue commissioned by the former Government, and we strongly agree with it.

Concerns were also raised by the members for Lake Macquarie and for Balmain. I commend the member for Balmain for taking a considered approach to whatever bill is before the House; he is always very interested in the financial details. Those members raised some valid concerns. They asked about the release for sale. The legislation is clear: The Government's policy is a two-year employee protection provision. If there is a sale, such as this, it is an additional two years. The bill specifies that what we are seeking as part of this transaction is a sale. So the four years will apply. Proposed section 3 (2) of schedule 1 talks about the mechanism, and that is a direct sale to the transferee. This is a direct sale and therefore the four years will apply specifically. We will honour our commitments to the workers as outlined in the amendments and in the comments made by the Government.

Concern was expressed about apprentices. The member for Cessnock raised this issue particularly, and I thank him for doing so. It is another positive part of the amendments. We want to look after apprentices. According to the numbers provided to me, there are currently about 119 apprentices, and our intention is to boost that number as part of the sale. More apprentices in the regions is a good thing and another reason that we put those provisions into the amendments as part of this deal. The member for Macquarie Fields spoke about specific entitlements relating to some employees of the generators. I give an assurance that all existing entitlements for every worker, from bottom to top, will be preserved. There will be no dilution; whatever entitlements workers have will be preserved in the arrangements put forward as part of this transaction. I thank members for their contributions. I note the opportunity this bill now provides for the people of New South Wales not only in infrastructure but also in downward pressure on prices. I commend the amendments to the House.

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

Motion agreed to.

Legislative Council amendments agreed to.

Message sent to the Legislative Council advising it of the resolution.

General Business Notices of Motions (General Notices) No. 130, 173 and 191 called on and, pursuant to Standing Order 99, lapsed.

Mrs SHELLEY HANCOCK (South Coast—The Speaker) [12.34 p.m.]: I move:

That this House:

(1) acknowledges the continued work of PILARI, the Pregnancy and Infant Loss Awareness and Research Institute;

(2) notes that 15 October is internationally recognised as Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day;

(3) notes the Fifty-fourth Parliament unanimously endorsed a motion to give consideration to recognising an annual Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day in New South Wales; and

(4) calls on the Government to declare 15 October as Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day in New South Wales.

Members might consider this motion redundant and unnecessary and wonder why I have not withdrawn it. But they probably are aware that not two months after giving notice of this motion last August the Minister for Health announced that 15 October 2012 would be declared first Infant and Pregnancy Loss Remembrance Day in this country. It was a fantastic announcement. The member for Heffron also attended the announcement and perhaps also the member for Macquarie Fields. I acknowledge and thank the member for his contribution to debate on the original motion in this House in 2009. I did not withdraw the motion for two reasons. Members should be aware that it may take one, two, three or four years for something to happen in this House. Members give notice of a motion and 12 months later it is called on for debate. I gave notice of this motion in 2008 and it was called on for debate in 2009.

Both sides of this House unanimously agreed to debate the motion and I thought that the former Government would have done something, but, no, it was too difficult and too problematic a task. The former Government referred the matter to the Federal Government, which sent it back to the State Government. The lesson for all members in this place is that things take time, but with persistence and patience things actually can be achieved. We have achieved an enormous step forward for all the women in this State who have lost a baby through stillbirth or soon after birth and who continue to grieve for the loss of that baby. During the 2009 debate I said that I am one of the lucky ones because I have not suffered this misfortune. But many women have lost babies and infants through miscarriage and other tragic events, and continue to grieve for that loss.

During the 2009 debate the former member for The Entrance, who had been presiding in the chair, came onto the floor of the House to make a contribution. If I recall correctly, he talked about how his family had lost a two-day-old infant many years earlier and how they still grieved for the loss of that child. This motion is the result of women telling me that in other jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom and Canada, 15 October is recognised as a day when women can at least remember and appropriately mourn for their children who have died. If it is good enough for the United Kingdom, Canada and other jurisdictions, including Japan, which set up special shrines to mourn and grieve the loss of children, it should be good enough for this State and country.

It is good news that the Minister for Health has declared 15 October 2012 to be the first Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day in this country. A working party comprising various groups has considered how to best celebrate the day in 2012 to make sure that appropriate remembrance services are held on 15 October. One very important member of the working group was a lady who is the behind the reason this all began—Ms Nicole Ballinger from Nowra. I remember talking to her in my Nowra office about her experiences with four miscarriages and how research certainly has improved and how the number of stillbirths has been reduced. But there is still much to be done. I understand the member for Port Macquarie will talk about Red Nose Day and about an event in the Speaker's Garden for Red Nose Day and sudden infant death syndrome.

But let all in this place come together in a bipartisan way to say we need to do something to help women, who have been told many times in their lives, "You've lost a baby, get over it; have another one." That simply does not work. Many of these women are still grieving after many years. Many women who have attended services have been able to appropriately mourn the loss of their babies. I commend the Minister for Health, Jillian Skinner, for listening not only to these women but also to their husbands, siblings and families, and for enabling New South Wales to move forward and be the first State in Australia to have an appropriate day this year. In conclusion, I believe the Federal Government should also do something to mark this day. Quite frankly, I believe the Federal Government has been playing games with this issue—sending it back to the State, and giving inappropriate responses to the working group. Today, we can actually make representations to the Federal Government from this Parliament, as I have already done, in a move to ensure that the women of this country as a whole are able to mourn the loss of their babies and loved ones on 15 October each year.

Dr ANDREW McDONALD (Macquarie Fields) [12.41 p.m.]: I am very pleased that the member for South Coast left this motion on the Business Paper, because few things are more important to the people with whom we share our lives than pregnancy and infant loss. This issue is far too often hidden, far too often never spoken of, but far too often a lifelong cause of grief. Since 1914 this country has lost many times more of its citizens than were lost in all the wars combined. Every year we lose thousands of babies Australia-wide through pregnancy and infant loss. Every one of those losses is a tragedy. For the affected families, the grief is often unrecognised and far too often unacknowledged. I commend the Minister for Health for nominating this day; I am very pleased she has done so.

As I have said, far too often the affected families are left to suffer their grief in silence. On Tuesday night I spoke about Ruby Murphy, who died aged 102. The one thing that she remembered most in her life was the death of her baby twins in 1930. The grief is lifelong; the pain does not go away; people do not get over it, as the member for The Entrance so eloquently said in this House during the last Parliament. The day itself will be a day of great pain. I understand the concerns that many have about how best to commemorate a day like this and that loss that it commemorates. It will be a work in progress, but it is important. Hopefully, we can also do something to raise funds for research. Research has reduced the rate of sudden infant death syndrome to about one-third of the rate it was in the early 1990s.

However, in the area of stillbirth occurring before labour and during labour we still have not managed to reduce the death rate to the extent that we would have liked. Electronic foetal monitoring, despite its widespread use in pregnancy and labour, is not accurate in telling us that a baby could die. Far too many children are lost in Australia and worldwide because of the inadequacy of this technology to tell us what we need to know. Hopefully, Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day can be used to raise money for this much-needed research. I commend the member for South Coast and Nicole Ballinger for their advocacy on this issue. They have been reasonable, realistic and persistent. I am pleased the motion is being discussed in the House. I commend everyone involved in advocating to commemorate these dreadful tragedies.
Ms MELANIE GIBBONS (Menai) [12.45 p.m.]: I support the motion moved by the member for South Coast and thank her for bringing it to the House. It is not an easy subject to talk about, but it is one that should be brought out and put under the spotlight. I am pleased that 15 October 2012 will make New South Wales the first State in Australia to acknowledge this day. I may not be a mother, but I have seen the devastation that the death of an unborn child had on some friends of mine. Their little girl had a name and she already had a personality. They continue to feel the impact of her death and they will continue to do so; the hurt will never go away. It was also brought to my attention by Jill Deering, now Chief Executive Officer of the Sylvanvale Foundation, but who was involved with SIDS and Kids; and by Melinda Cruz, Chief Executive Officer and founder of Miracle Babies. They taught me about the impacts on the surviving twin and on the family. They showed me the support offered and the understanding they bring to this issue.

Pregnancy and infant loss is an issue that society is quick to ignore, but with 32 per cent of pregnancies ending in loss it is time to start talking. This day is important to promote awareness that sometimes babies and infants die, that their deaths have a significant impact on parents, siblings, broader family, friends and colleagues, and that it is okay to talk about the loss. This day will serve to promote awareness of the services and support available to those who have suffered a loss and provide the opportunity to remember and honour the life of that child. The Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day Working Group, organised by the Minister for Health, identified a need for information on the issues that parents may need to consider when a baby or infant dies, including whether they wish to see their baby, or whether to create memories such as photos or handprints. One way to acknowledge the death of a child is the Garden of Angels in Woronora cemetery. It provides a brilliant and heartfelt opportunity for parents who have lost a child to remember that child. There was nowhere for them to go until this garden was opened in 2010.

Rhonda Matthews, who worked at the cemetery for 25 years, had suffered miscarriages. She knew that there was no public place to grieve. The medical fraternity told her, "You will be right; come back in a year. It's just a miscarriage." So she grieved, alone and in silence, for a long, long time. It was Mrs Matthews' idea to build the memorial that would be a place to go some way to alleviating the pain, even though it never stops. I commend the New South Wales Government, and the Minister for Health in particular, for declaring 15 October the New South Wales Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day. In particular, I acknowledge the member for South Coast for persisting in bringing this important motion to the attention of the House.

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY (Heffron) [12.49 p.m.]: I speak today on this motion not only as the member for Heffron but also as the patron of the Stillbirth Foundation Australia. I thank the Speaker for bringing this motion to the House and all members of the House who have supported it. This is a difficult issue to talk about; it is difficult for women, for their families and for our society to talk about it. But it is important that we talk about it, because until we start to talk about the scale of the problem of pregnancy loss as a major public health issue in this country we will never be able to direct the type of money and resources needed for research that could avoid this tragedy for so many families. I can speak of this from personal experience: I am the mother of a stillborn daughter, Caroline, who was born in June 1999. Her life stays with me always. She changed me and she changed our family. I have never met the parents of a stillborn baby who have said anything but that—that a very short life, a very small life, has introduced enormous changes to them and to their families and, indeed, brought a new dimension of love into that family; great sorrow and loss but also love.

That is why days of remembrance are important. Stillbirth is a major health issue in this country. Six babies a day are stillborn in Australia; that is one baby stillborn for every 135 live births. More than 2,000 babies are stillborn in Australia every year, and that rate has largely unchanged for decades. To put this into context: stillbirth can be credibly claimed to be the leading cause of death for infants under the age of one year in Australia. Sudden infant death syndrome accounts for 66 deaths a year. Those are tragedies, but as the member for Macquarie Fields has pointed out, the incidence in the rate of sudden infant death syndrome has come down not just by one-third but by 85 per cent since the 1980s when the campaign started to put babies to sleep on their backs—an insight that was gained and a campaign that was developed out of research. That is why research is so important when it comes to stillbirth.

As I said, more than 2,000 babies are stillborn in Australia every year—that is 7.4 deaths per 1,000 live births. If we cannot recognise that as a major health problem in Australia and put the resources we need into research then as a nation we are failing families, we are failing parents and, particularly, we are failing those babies. Some people ask me how stillbirth can be prevented. We know a whole range of things about stillbirth, but we need to know more. Some jurisdictions in the world already provide advice to mothers about how to sleep and how to do foetal monitoring, and the role that maternal age and other risk factors play in stillbirth. Yet in Australia one-third of all stillbirths at term are still unexplained. If we can do anything as a country to prevent those tragedies we should.
That is why a day like Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day on 15 October is so important. Legislation is currently before the South Australian Parliament to provide a birth certificate to mothers who have gone into labour and who have given birth to a child who has died before 20 weeks into pregnancy. It will be the parents' choice whether they receive a birth certificate. Those mothers have given birth, they have held their child and they have buried it, yet they have no access to any form of legal recognition from the State. The legislation in South Australia may pass in its current form, it may be rejected or it may be modified, but I encourage all of us in this State to pay attention to what is happening in South Australia; it may provide some insight into how we can better honour those parents and those families who have suffered the tragedy of a stillbirth.

Mrs TANYA DAVIES (Mulgoa) [12.53 p.m.]: I fully support the motion moved by the member for South Coast to establish Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day. I note that since notice of the motion was given, the Minister for Health has indicated her support for the motion and I thank her for that. I also acknowledge and thank the member for Heffron for sharing her personal story about the stillbirth of her daughter. On 15 October we will not only recognise infant loss but also pregnancy loss. As leaders of the community it is important that we do all we can to stand up and be counted and let the wider community know when we have also walked their path. I too suffered a number of pregnancy losses before the birth of our daughter, Laura.

Many others in the community who have had a number of miscarriages have shared the fear, the shame and the confusion that the process brought to our family. We did not know the prevalence of pregnancy loss until it happened to our family. One in four pregnancies will end in miscarriage; the parents cannot be blamed for that. A remembrance day is significant for everyone in our community—people in the health system, average families and average mums and dads. People will realise that pregnancy loss and infant loss are common occurrences and that there is nothing to be ashamed of, nothing to be fearful of and nothing to hide. I encourage people to share their story if and when they can to help others who are still struggling with their loss or who are still struggling to conceive a child. We should let them know that we respect and encourage everyone who has gone down that path.

Miscarriage and stillbirth are very personal and painful events, and I honour and respect the mums and dads who choose to remain silent in their pain, but I also encourage them, if they can or when they can, to share their story of how it has impacted them, because that can help others who are going through the grieving process. I have created a scrapbook page in my daughter's album of the ultrasound of our little six-week-old bubby who never made it. That is my way of marking a life that began here on earth but that, sadly, could not reach completion. This is my way of acknowledging that that life was important, that that life was wanted and meaningful, and that that life did exist, even though no-one got a chance to meet that child. I thank the member for South Coast for this motion and I thank the Minister for Health for pinpointing a day on the calendar, 15 October, when we will stop and reflect on pregnancy and infant loss and how it impacts families.

This day will serve as a reminder that we should do more to find ways to prevent babies being stillborn and to begin to unravel the mystery that is miscarriage. I believe that human life begins at conception—a life that wherever possible should be nurtured to fulfil his or her full destiny. In my case that did not happen on a number of occasions, but we were lucky that in having Laura we have one child and we are assisting her to reach her full destiny and her full purpose here on earth. I am very proud to speak to this motion. I thank the member for the South Coast and I thank the Pregnancy and Infant Loss Awareness Research and Information organisation, which is working very hard to assist other families who are going through this process.

Mrs SHELLEY HANCOCK (South Coast—The Speaker) [12.57 p.m.], in reply: It is amazing that in giving members an opportunity to reflect on their personal experiences we are probably barely scratching the surface. Probably a number of members in this place could recount the kinds of experiences that we have just heard about from the member for Mulgoa. I want to go back a little bit and thank those in this place who contributed to the original debate in 2009. The member for Macquarie Fields gave a fine contribution at that time and the former member for The Entrance Grant McBride gave a very heartfelt and significant contribution, which I think brought us all to tears—it was extremely surprising. The former member for Hornsby, Judy Hopwood, also made a wonderful contribution, as she always did on issues such as this. Today I thank those who have contributed to this motion, those who have shown respect for this motion and those in their rooms who perhaps are contemplating a similar experience within their family.

I thank the member for Menai for her contribution and sharing her personal stories this morning. I also thank the member for Mulgoa, whom I have already mentioned. In particular, I thank the member for Heffron. We are all aware of the efforts that she has made and continues to make as an advocate for research into this area. The member for Heffron said that sudden infant death syndrome is a significant health issue in this State. We have made groundbreaking progress, but there is still a long way to go. However, this day will provide individuals in this State with an opportunity to grieve and mourn their loss in an appropriate way. A lot of individuals already do that in their own way; however, this motion means that there will be a special day for us to contemplate the loss of special babies.

I still recall a church service that was held in an Anglican church in Ulladulla. When this motion was first raised the minister decided that he would hold a special service for lost babies. I remember a lady who attended that service and spoke to me afterwards. She burst into tears for the baby she had lost 70 years earlier. Seventy years ago she had been told to move on with her life and to have other children, and she had. But on that day she felt she was allowed to grieve for the first time. She no longer had a sense of guilt. Many women have felt a sense of guilt that they have contributed to a stillbirth or a miscarriage. She was allowed to cry, and cry she did. Many other people and I cried with her. This is a special day, but we have a lot further to go with days such as this. I hope all of the men in the Chamber and in their offices will also join with the women they know who have had these kinds of experiences in the past.

Again I thank the member for Macquarie Fields in particular for the knowledge that he brings to the Chamber about these kinds of motions. I also thank the member for Heffron for the knowledge and experience she brings to this Chamber during debate on these motions that are supported in a bipartisan way. The day will be acknowledged on 15 October this year as a result of our working group and people such as Ms Nicole Ballinger, who came to me four years ago and spoke about bringing this motion to the Parliament. I thank everybody for their contributions this morning.

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

Motion agreed to.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst—Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Infrastructure NSW) [1.02 p.m.]: I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as to allow:

(1) General Business Notices of Motions (General Notices) Nos 130 and 191 to be deemed postponed; and

(2) consideration of General Business Notice of Motion (General Notice) No. 173 during the period in the routine of business for Government Business.

Just by way of clarification on business of the House for the balance of the day, I indicated earlier in the day that after dealing with the Electricity Generator Assets (Authorised Transactions) Bill the Government would look to accommodate the Opposition and other private members in regard to their general notices of motion. There has been some discussion with members who were going to be involved in those debates today. It has been determined that general notice of motion No. 130 standing in the name of the member for Wallsend, which was to have been dealt with next, will be deemed to be postponed. I make clear that it is deemed to be postponed; it has not been lost. There was some mix up earlier on.

The next motion that would have been discussed, and in fact now will be by agreement, is general notice of motion No. 173 regarding Yagoona station standing in the name of the member for Bankstown. I indicate to the House that, again with the agreement of the Government, this afternoon following the usual business of question time, in what would normally be Government Business time, the motion of the member for Bankstown will proceed. We would have been prepared to consider further motions but I think at this point, for a variety of reasons, it is probably more appropriate that we do not proceed with any more general notices of motion this afternoon. We will deal with general notice of motion No. 173 in its entirety. At the conclusion of that we will return to Government business for the afternoon for the duration of the time.

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

Motion agreed to.
Question—That the House take note of the report—proposed.

Mr STEPHEN BROMHEAD (Myall Lakes) [1.05 p.m.]: As chair of the Legislation Review Committee I take this opportunity to comment on the recent Legislation Review Digest report tabled on 29 May 2012. This is the eighteenth digest prepared by the Legislation Review Committee of the Fifty-fifth Parliament. As I always say, it is the busiest and hardest working committee in Parliament. The role of the committee is to identify issues in proposed legislation and regulations as outlined in sections 8A and 9 of the Legislation Review Act. The eighteenth digest examined the bills introduced in the sitting week commencing 22 May 2012: the City of Sydney Amendment (Central Sydney Traffic and Transport Committee) Bill 2012, the Energy Legislation Amendment (National Energy Retail Law) Bill 2012, the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Demolition Orders) Bill 2012, the Health Services Amendment (National Health Reform Agreement) Bill 2012, the Inspector of Custodial Services Bill 2012, the National Energy Retail Law (Adoption) Bill 2012, and the Public Sector Employment and Management Amendment (Procurement of Goods and Services) Bill 2012.

The City of Sydney Amendment (Central Sydney Traffic and Transport Committee) Bill 2012 establishes the Central Sydney Traffic and Transport Committee to provide for effective coordination of transport and traffic management in the Sydney central business district. The Sydney business district is defined by the land shown on an area map which the bill allows for changes to be made to by the regulations. Given the significant impact on the operation on the bill, the committee refers to Parliament whether allowing the map to be amended by regulation is an inappropriate delegation of legislative powers. The bill also protects officials of the committee from liability and commences by way of proclamation; however, the committee made no adverse comments in relation to these issues.

The committee has referred two elements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Demolition Orders) Bill 2012 to the Parliament. The first issue to which the committee draws Parliament's attention relates to the timeframes outlined in the bill, and whether 10 working days notice is sufficient. The second issue that the committee has referred to Parliament for its consideration is whether providing a local council with the power to determine what is unsightly and detracting significantly from the amenity of the neighbourhood constitutes a wide and ill-defined power. The committee has expressed concern that the delegation powers contained in the Inspector of Custodial Services Bill 2012 may be too wide and ill-defined and has referred its concerns to the Parliament. The committee noted elements of this bill that raised issues relating to rights to privacy, silence, and compensation. However, the committee resolved to not make any adverse comments relating to these issues.

The National Energy Retail Law (Adoption) Bill 2012 forms part of the application of a uniform scheme of legislation for retail energy in Australia. The committee has referred to the Parliament its concerns relating to: the authorisation of the disclosure of private information; immunity for breaches of contract and duties of confidence; right to privacy; and a Henry VIII clause. The committee raised concerns regarding the Public Sector Employment and Management Amendment (Procurement of Goods and Services) Bill 2012, which allows the functions of the NSW Procurement Board and the details of an offence involving a term of imprisonment to be prescribed by the regulations, which may be an inappropriate delegation of legislative powers. The committee also considered the Energy Legislation Amendment (National Energy Retail Law) Bill 2012 and the Health Services Amendment (National Health Reform Agreement) Bill 2012. The committee made comments in relation to issues in both bills. However, the committee felt none of the issues necessitated referral to Parliament.

I invite members to review the digest for a detailed consideration of the identified issues in the bills. I remind the House that the digest aims to assist members in their consideration of bills and highlights the issues that the committee has considered when reviewing bills that have been tabled in the House. I thank members of the Committee staff who worked on the digest together with the members of the committee—the member for Swansea, the member for Rockdale, the member for Bankstown, the member for Parramatta and our colleagues in the other place the Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane, the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps and Mr David Shoebridge, who provided invaluable assistance in the scrutiny of bills introduced to this Parliament and in ensuring that the digest will continue to be of assistance to all members. I make special mention of the return of the member for Swansea, whose service to the committee was missed during his absence.
Ms TANIA MIHAILUK (Bankstown) [1.11 p.m.]: I address the Legislation Review Digest No. 10 of 2012 and No. 18 of the Fifty-fifth Parliament. This week we had our meeting at 1.30 p.m. and I was able to attend. I further note that this week all members of the committee were able to attend, whereas last week, for our morning meeting, three members were unable to attend. So lunch-time meetings certainly appear to be a great success. I thank the chairman for making this change. I take this opportunity to acknowledge the members for Myall Lakes, Parramatta, Kiama, Rockdale and Swansea and our colleagues in the other place the Hon. Dr Phelps, the Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane and Mr Shoebridge. I thank the always hardworking committee staff—Emma Matthews, Emma Wood, Jason Arditi and Todd Buttsworth—who have done a great job in preparing the digest.

This week's digest considered seven bills, a considerable volume for this Government. The Energy Legislation Amendment (National Energy Retail Law) Bill and the National Energy Retail Law (Adoption Bill), cognate bills, were passed through this place very quickly yesterday. The bills represent the culmination of a reform process that began with the former Federal and former State governments in 2004. The national energy market comprises New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory and will be regulated by the Federal Government. This legislation is intended to implement the national energy market with a single national regulatory framework. The National Energy Retail Law (Adoption) Bill 2012 adopts the national law into New South Wales law and the Energy Legislation Amendment (National Energy Retail Law) Bill 2012 makes necessary consequential changes to existing legislation.

The Opposition's primary concern is to ensure that adequate consumer protections are provided so that New South Wales customers are not disadvantaged. Thanks to successive Labor governments, we presently have a stringent system of consumer protections in this State. The Opposition will oppose any move to water them down. The digest noted that the bills will be commenced by proclamation but it concluded that this was probably appropriate given the unique circumstances. The committee raised a number of issues with regard to the National Energy Retail Law (Adoption) Bill. In particular the committee made the following referral to Parliament:

The Committee refers to Parliament its serious concern in relation to section 12 of the Bill which provides that Schedule 1 to the Bill may be amended by regulation. The Committee also refers to Parliament clause 11 of Schedule 1 to the Bill which outlines that the regulations may exempt any area or person from any or all of the provision of the National Energy Retail Law. The Committee considers this an inappropriate delegation of legislative power.

This is a significant issue that the Government should carefully consider. The digest also reviewed the Inspector of Custodial Services Bill 2012. In particular, the digest noted the bill might trespass on the Right to Privacy in so far as it gives "unfettered access to another person's health records". However, given the unique nature of individuals in corrective circumstances the committee chose to make no adverse comment with respect to this matter. I commend the digest to the House.

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

Report noted.

[Acting-Speaker (Mr Lee Evans) left the chair at 1.15 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]

The SPEAKER: Order! On 31 May 1942, as night settled on Sydney, three midget Japanese submarines slipped past submerged boom nets at Sydney Heads and entered the harbour, bringing World War II to Sydney. By the early hours of 1 June HMAS Kuttabul had been struck and 21 sailors had been killed. We especially mark this occasion out of respect for the lives of 19 Australian sailors and two British naval personnel who were lost that night. Six Japanese submariners also died.

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

The SPEAKER: I welcome to the Speaker's gallery Mr Pehin Dato Haji Judin, Clerk, and Ms Rose Ismail, Deputy Clerk of the Legislative Council of Brunei Darussalam.
[Question time commenced at 2.21 p.m.]

Mr JOHN ROBERTSON: My question is to the Premier. Given that the Premier has broken his promises not to privatise power stations, not to allow hunting in national parks and never to do deals with minor parties, does the Premier stand by his pledge to restore trust and integrity to the people of New South Wales?

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: For the benefit of the Grumpies, who do not just sit in the gallery, I will again reprise the answer from yesterday. Firstly, the claim is that we broke our promise not to sell electricity. Our promises at the election were very clear: not to sell poles and wires, distribution businesses, but to establish a special commission of inquiry to set the best course forward for the State's electricity industry. That commission was established last April; it reported in October. The commission said that those opposite having sold the output of those generators, in other words having sold the State's future electricity output, it was suitable to then sell the generators. That is what we have done with the legislation that was passed by this place this morning. I reach for that famous quote of the Leader of the Opposition:

I was, I am and I always will be opposed to electricity privatisation. My position has never changed.

For the benefit of the constituents of the member for Keira, the Grumpies, the real grumpy in this place, the member for Wollongong, is not here today. But last year she excelled and highlighted herself during a protest by leaving to go and have lunch.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Canterbury will come to order.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: Today the Leader of the Opposition failed to vote against the electricity generator sale bill.

Mr Michael Daley: Point of order: My point of order relates to Standing Order 129. The quote is, "We have absolutely no plans to privatise either the generators or the poles and wires". That is what the question was about.

The SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order. The member for Maroubra will resume his seat. If the member for Maroubra continues to argue with the Premier under the guise of taking a point of order, as he did yesterday, he will be removed from the Chamber. If members do not have a valid point of order they should not seek the call. The Premier has the call.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: On the first point, our promise was clear: we will not sell the poles and wires. We are not selling the poles and wires. Secondly, we would establish a commission of inquiry.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will come to order.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: Thirdly, our commitment on national parks was not to turn them into hunting reserves, and we will not turn them into hunting reserves.

Ms Linda Burney: Point of order: My point of order relates to Standing Order 129. "We have no intention of doing deals with minor parties"—

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Canterbury will resume her seat. I remind the member for Canterbury of my previous ruling: If you do not have a valid point of order, do not seek the call. The Premier has the call.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: For the benefit of the member for Canterbury, who obviously cannot count, that is the third point made in the question. I am still on the second point. I hope members opposite ask for a two-minute extension. As I quoted the former Premier, the member for Toongabbie, as saying yesterday, there is a huge difference between people going into national parks with hunting dogs and the like and recreationally shooting and what we are proposing. We are proposing hunting under strict supervision, which is what happens now with the National Parks and Wildlife Service to control feral animals.
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Mount Druitt will come to order.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: So the great protectors of the environment do not want feral animals eradicated. Rather than use the National Parks and Wildlife Service option of culling feral animals by shooting, they would prefer to use the poison option. Guess what? Poison baits in national parks are taken not only by pigs, dogs and goats but also by native species. Nothing in our proposal relates to native species.

The SPEAKER: Order! Opposition members will come to order.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: I make no apologies for standing up for the public interest.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Cessnock will come to order.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: We went to the election saying that we would restore the State's economy and that we would build and fund the infrastructure that members opposite ignored for 16 years. We went to the election asking for people's support across the State, and we got it in spades in this House. Three-quarters of the members of this House represent the change for which people voted.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will come to order.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: But the electorate gave us an upper House that the Government does not control.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Canterbury will come to order.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: The electorate elected an upper House that has four crossbench members.

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Canterbury to order.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: When public interest determines that we have to push legislation through, we will make deals in the interests of the people of New South Wales to unlock the proceeds of assets in order to invest in infrastructure that was denied by members opposite.

Mr CHARLES CASUSCELLI: My question is directed to the Premier. What is the importance of selling the State's electricity generators?

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: As the Treasurer said in question time yesterday—

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Cessnock to order.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: —and in the debate earlier today, sale of the electricity generators will assist us in delivering that enormous backlog of infrastructure that members opposite left to this State. For the benefit of the people in the gallery, earlier this week the Leader of the Opposition attacked the Government for allegedly increasing debt by $1.9 billion in New South Wales—

Ms Linda Burney: Allegedly.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: Yes, allegedly because we never trusted anything the member for Canterbury said.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Canterbury will cease interjecting.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: However, the projections show that as at 3 June the debt will be $8 billion less than it would have been under members opposite. In the same breath as telling us that we had increased debt, the Leader of the Opposition then listed $20 billion worth of infrastructure projects that we should fund—$20 billion worth of infrastructure projects that Labor ignored.

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order.
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: That is the importance of the long-term lease of the desalination plant, which realised $2.3 billion. That is the importance of the sale of the generators, which could realise not only a sale price of $3 billion and $850 million in operating costs but a potential $6 billion bill that the taxpayers would have faced had the generators been kept in public ownership. That is money and capacity that can be put into renewing infrastructure in the city, in the Illawarra and in other parts of the State. I am pleased that at least one person in this State gets it. This morning I was with the Minister for Transport at Lilyfield to talk about the extension of the inner west light rail system to Dulwich Hill.

Ms Carmel Tebbutt: What about the GreenWay?

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Marrickville will come to order.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: The "green way" is when the Government does something good. Welcome it because that is the green way to which the member for Balmain adheres. As I came into the House today I saw the press release of the member for Balmain, which states that the Government's decision to start work next month on the extension is "a tribute to the effectiveness of the community's support for this program." He continued:

This is a great example of what we can achieve when community commitments join with local councils and members of Parliament.

No doubt he is talking about himself and the Minister for Transport because we saw last week their very close relationship over the inner west extension.

The SPEAKER: Order! Members will come to order.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: Those tracks lead only in one direction: to the extension of light rail across Sydney, which is supported not only by the member for Balmain and the Minister for Transport and the Government but, to be fair to my long-term friend, by the Lord Mayor of Sydney. I was pleased to announce this morning with the Minister for Transport that the $176 million inner west light rail extension contract has been signed with John Holland Construction. Workers will be on that site next month building one of nine stations to give people living in the inner west out to Dulwich Hill the option of getting out of their cars and jumping onto public transport.

[Interruption]

I heard another whine from those opposite, the real Grumpies in the House. We should conduct a history lesson. The State's greatest Treasurer will be interested in this. Which Government and which transport Minister first committed to the existing inner west light rail? It was indeed the last Coalition Government. The Minister responsible was Bruce Baird, the very young father of the Treasurer. We know his genes have been passed on because the Treasurer is also a big supporter of light rail. [Extension of time granted.]

The SPEAKER: Order! Opposition members will come to order. I remind the member for Marrickville that interjections are disorderly at all times.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: I remember that when the light rail system was opened Bob Carr, the Minister for doublespeak—"Bob Carr, Bob Carr"—said it would be a renaissance of light rail. He said that it would result in a blossoming of light rail across Sydney. What happened from 1997 until 2010? Zip, zilch, zero.

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Marrickville to order.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: The renaissance lasted much longer than that small extension to the light rail system. This side of politics has always supported light rail. This side of politics has studies currently underway in relation to extensions.

Ms Linda Burney: Studies.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: For the benefit of those in the public gallery, those opposite scoff at studies. Why do we do our homework before we spend your money? Because we know it is your money. We want to ensure that every dollar we spend on your behalf is spent wisely. Once upon a time there was a former Labor member for Balmain and those opposite thought it would be a good idea to build a rail system to Balmain. They spent half a billion dollars of your money and did not build a single centimetre of rail track. That is why we do our homework.

The SPEAKER: Order! There is no need for the member for Dubbo to shout.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: That is why we have studies. We will see the results of those studies because we are committed to light rail. Whether it is light rail extension, the North West and South West rail links or Sydney's road projects, the fact is that the sale of generators along with the lease of the desalination plant will assist us to fund those projects that should have been built a decade ago and which the people of this city need. It will help our economy and help move people and freight around this city. It will create jobs and generate the opportunities this city has had for 224 years and that need renewal.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Cabramatta will come to order.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: My question is directed to the Premier. Why has the Premier done a secret deal with the Shooters and Fishers Party—

The SPEAKER: Order! Government members will come to order. The member for Kiama will come to order. Members will listen to the question in silence.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: Why has the Premier done a secret deal with the Shooters and Fishers Party and the Christian Democratic Party to funnel $280,000 a year into minor party coffers in exchange for their support on electricity privatisation?

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: There was no secret deal; there is no secret deal. That was made clear to media yesterday when I revealed the full extent of the discussions between the Shooters and Fishers Party and the Government about the sale of the State's generators. I will table a letter that may bear some resemblance to what those opposite are trying to suggest. They are worried about the question because they did not allow the Leader of the Opposition to ask it.

Mr Adrian Piccoli: Deniability.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: Absolutely. Before I read the letter I should explain that, as happens after every election campaign, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters—a committee of both Houses of Parliament that is currently chaired by the Hon. Trevor Khan, a member of The Nationals— reviews the conduct of the past election. As this House knows, last year I asked the committee to review also the operation of the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Act, and the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act. For the benefit of those in the gallery, those two pieces of legislation, and donation laws, govern how elections are conducted and financed. It is important to review those Acts regularly. After the 2011 election campaign when speaking to the Electoral Commissioner I was astounded to discover that changes had been made to both Acts without consulting him. As a result, both Acts have different definitions for the same thing and that causes what are known as compliance costs. Costs for all parties for complying with the State's electoral laws are an issue. On 30 May I addressed a letter to the Hon. Trevor Khan, Chair, Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, and said:

As the Minister responsible for the administration of the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Act 1981 (the Principal Act) I wish to refer to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for inquiry, matters relating to the administrative funding for minor parties.

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Cessnock to order for the second time. I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the second time.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: I continued:

Specifically, I refer to section 97E of the Principal Act relating to public funding of eligible parties for administrative expenditure. I ask that you inquire into and report on whether the annual amount to be distributed from the Administration Fund to any such eligible minor party remains appropriate.

I would appreciate your earliest attention to this matter.

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Canterbury to order for the second time.

Mr John Robertson: Will you table it?

The SPEAKER: Order! Members will cease interjecting.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: It was given yesterday to the committee, which has Labor members. The letter calls for a reference to the Administration Fund, which was set up by those opposite. There is nothing untoward about having a review of compliance costs. There is nothing untoward about checking whether the provisions in the Act to assist with compliance costs are meeting expectations. The problem with those opposite is that they have been hanging around with themselves for far too long—every time we seek to do something they jump to conclusions. For the benefit of the Minister for Education, this reminds me of the hysteria that Opposition members whipped up over a review of ethics classes in schools. As soon as we announced a review of ethics classes to see whether they were being conducted properly—

Dr Andrew McDonald: Point of order: My point of order is under Standing Order 129. The question asked about a deal that the Premier claims never existed.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Premier clearly has been answering the question and has been entirely relevant. He is now drawing a comparison.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: As soon as we announced the review of the effectiveness of ethics classes, Opposition members went about beating up a storm that we were about to ban ethics classes. What happened this week when the committee came back with its report? It recommended no changes—to keep ethics classes going. If we want to talk about secret deals and attempts to influence the upper House, I ask: Why is it that there is an Assistant-President position in the upper House? Who established that position in the last Parliament? Who established that position, which has dollars attached to it?

Mr Michael Daley: Point of order: Just because the Premier wants to assert something—

The SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order.

Mr Michael Daley: It is under Standing Order 76. The Premier cannot use an assertion as an excuse to launch an attack on a member on this side of the House.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Premier is not launching an attack.

Mr Michael Daley: Barry, no-one believes you.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member does not have a point of order. The Premier has the call.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: There is no secret deal. Look at yourself.

Mr CHRIS SPENCE: My question is directed to the Treasurer. What action is the Government taking to ensure responsible management of the State's finances?

Mr MIKE BAIRD: I thank the member for his question—a member of the fabulous four from the Central Coast and upper Central Coast.

The SPEAKER: Order! Opposition members will come to order.

Mr MIKE BAIRD: I have to make the point that this is the last sitting day before the budget and yet we are in the incredible position of the shadow Treasurer not having asked a question about the budget this year. I do not know whether he will ask a question next week.

Mr Michael Daley: Point of order—

The SPEAKER: Order! Does the member have a valid point of order?
Mr Michael Daley: I refer to Standing Order 129. I asked the Treasurer about Waratah bonds yesterday, and he refused to answer that question as well.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member has ignored my previous warnings. I direct the member for Maroubra to remove himself from the Chamber for the remainder of question time. The member for Canterbury seems very happy about that. The Treasurer has the call. Members will come to order.

[Pursuant to sessional order the member for Maroubra left the Chamber at 2.41 p.m.]

Mr MIKE BAIRD: The New South Wales Government is pleased to introduce today its revised fiscal responsibility legislation, to reinforce our commitment to restore the State's finances. When we came to government this State's finances were unsustainable, and the Commission of Audit stated that a marked deterioration in the State's financial position since 2005-06 had produced an unsustainable financial position, and demonstrated a complete lack of financial leadership in this State. How did that affect the State's finances? It is quite simple: expense growth grew faster than revenue growth, by 0.5 per cent each year. That meant about $300 million a year less on the bottom line because of an inability to control expenses; and if that were compounded over five years there would have been $1.8 billion less to put towards providing the services of this State.

There was a huge infrastructure backlog. I think every member on this side of the House would be amazed that Labor members could think they actually delivered the infrastructure that this State needed. As the Minister for Health knows, more than 50 per cent of all health infrastructure in this State—hospitals and health facilities—is more than 50 years old. That is what Labor left behind. The Commission of Audit also noted that the triple-A credit rating, which was under threat, would have been lost under the legacy that Labor left this State. Labor's track record under the Fiscal Responsibility Act was very clear; indeed, the last report brought to this Parliament showed that only three of 14 targets were met; so 11 of those 14 targets were not met—on Labor's own fiscal responsibility targets. In contrast, this Government has the very clear objective to be responsible with the State's finances.

For the first time in Australia, today I am pleased to confirm that a government will legislate its commitment to keeping the triple-A credit rating. It is a tough ask, and it will take guts, but provided the levers remain in our hands we will do all we can to keep the triple-A rating of this State. The triple-A rating is important. If it were lost the cost to the State, according to Treasury, would be $3.75 billion over the next 10 years; and it would mean less capital would be available to build the infrastructure we need. We know Labor did not concern itself with infrastructure, but we want to get on with the job of building infrastructure. Losing our triple-A rating would result in a loss of confidence. The last thing this State needs is less confidence. We will ensure that we retain confidence in this State. This Government will ensure that the State lives within its means. We will also confirm in the Act that expenses will grow at a rate less than the long-term revenue, and we will also eliminate our unfunded superannuation liability by 2030. Those opposite had a fiscal responsibility approach that led the State close to destitution.

Mr Richard Amery: To a triple-A rating.

Mr MIKE BAIRD: No; you were taking the State close to destitution. While we face difficult economic circumstances, our revenue is being impacted; global events are impacting our revenue. Less confidence means less GST and an unprecedented downturn in revenue.

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Canterbury to order for the third time. I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the third time.

Mr MIKE BAIRD: The loss in GST revenue next year will be $1.5 billion, and $5 billion over the next four years. Opposition members try to laugh that off, but that is an unprecedented write-down in revenue that the State has to face. But this Government will deal with that. We have seen two different approaches. From those opposite, for many years we had fiscal betrayal: they hid deficits, let expenses go like a runaway train, and they sold assets at half their value. That was their approach to fiscal responsibility—fiscal betrayal. This Government has fiscal responsibility: it will be open, transparent and responsible. We will make decisions to get finances back on track, and get the State back on track. We are proud to deliver an amended Act to the Parliament today.
Mr JOHN ROBERTSON: My question is directed to the Premier. How can the people of New South Wales believe his promise to keep electricity poles and wires in public hands, given that Endeavour Energy is secretly market testing functions like field operations, meter/relay change, substation maintenance, pole replacement and cable laying?

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: The fact is that the people of this State will trust us more than they trust the Leader of the Opposition. I say that with confidence, because which side of politics was it that delayed the release of an Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal report on electricity prices for a month until after an election campaign? That report just happened to recommend the figure that those opposite love to trumpet in an attempt to claim that this Government is responsible for it—an 18 per cent increase in electricity prices.

Mr John Robertson: You should have rejected it.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: What was that?

Mr John Robertson: You should have rejected it.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease arguing with the Premier.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: The Leader of the Opposition says this Government should have rejected that report. Those opposite know that their legislation prevents a government from rejecting electricity price increases recommended by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal. That is why those opposite have a credibility problem when it comes to electricity. This is the man who says, "I was, I am and I always will be opposed to electricity privatisation", but who signed up to it as a member of the last Cabinet when it came to the gentrader sale, which sold the output of the State's generators into the future.

The SPEAKER: Order! I remind the Leader of the Opposition that he is already on three calls to order. I call the member for Cessnock to order for the third time.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: The man who said, "I was, I am and I always will be opposed to electricity privatisation" would not even front up in this House at lunchtime to vote against the generator sale bill.

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Mount Druitt to order.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: Not a single member opposite was prepared to come into this House and vote against this piece of legislation, which when they go outside this place they put hand on heart and say they oppose.

Mr John Robertson: Point of order: As much as the Premier would like everyone to believe there was an opportunity to vote against the bill, there was no such opportunity.

The SPEAKER: Order! What is the member's point of order?

Mr John Robertson: The Premier is misleading the House.

The SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order. No standing order has been breached. The Leader of the Opposition should read the standing orders before he takes a point of order. The Premier has the call. If the Leader of the Opposition does not stop arguing he will be removed from the Chamber.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: The question, as those in the gallery clearly understood, goes to credibility. What I am saying is that we on this side are credible. We promised an inquiry into the future of the electricity industry. We delivered that inquiry. It recommended the sale of the State's generators, and that is what we effected today through this Parliament. Those opposite, when outside this place—down at Trades Hall or at any union gathering in the Hunter Valley and on radio—profess their opposition to that course of action; but when they had the chance in this House this morning to stand up and vote against that legislation, did they take it?
Mr Paul Lynch: Point of order: It is taken under Standing Order 73. It is disorderly to impute improper motives to members of this House. Imputing to us that we did not vote on a question when in fact we had no option to vote on the question is imputing improper motive and is an act of disorder.

The SPEAKER: Order! I uphold the point of order.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: It is not an improper motive; it is gutlessness and cowardice. It is gutlessness and cowardice to come into this place and refuse to stand up for your principles and go outside the House and say other things. That is hypocrisy, that is gutlessness and that is your type of cowardice.

Mr Paul Lynch: Point of order: Once again, my point of order is under Standing Order 73. Calling someone a coward is clearly imputing improper motives.

The SPEAKER: Order! If members had listened to the debate this morning and heard the unparliamentary language used to describe the Premier they would not be raising such points of order. Debate in this Chamber is robust. I accept that the word "coward" is not unparliamentary language. However, I will not accept that the word "liar", which was used in this Chamber this morning, is not unparliamentary language.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: I am happy to withdraw the aspersion of coward; it is unkind to real cowards outside this place. I am sorry that the member for Maroubra has left the Chamber because what did he say about Labor's electricity sale when in government? He said:

There will be no impact on price or reliability regardless of whether the Government remains a player in the industry.

Mr Richard Amery: Point of order: I refer to Standing Orders 129 and 130. The Premier is now broadly debating the electricity debate. What we are asking is what is going to happen with the privatisation of the Government's sale of poles and wires.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Premier has been relevant to the question asked.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: As the member for Mount Druitt knows, we are not selling poles and wires. But the member for Mount Druitt himself said:

It is now outmoded for government to be involved in a national competition fight with other electricity sellers.

That was said by the member for Mount Druitt on 19 June 2008.

Mr GARRY EDWARDS: My question is directed to the Minister for Health, and Minister for Medical Research. What is the Government doing to reduce the serious harm that smoking imposes on the community?

Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER: I thank the member for Swansea for his question. May I say at the outset how pleased we all are to see him back in this Chamber after having undergone treatment for his condition. I wish him a great deal of success with it as he goes forward. The member for Swansea understands the importance of reducing the harm that tobacco inflicts on not only individuals but also on their family and the wider community. That is why I am very pleased to announce to the House this afternoon that I will introduce the Tobacco Legislation Amendment Bill 2012. This is the O'Farrell Government leading the way on tobacco control in Australia. The stress and cost that smoking inflicts on families and imposes on the health system is simply unacceptable. This legislation will send a message to the community about the dangers of smoking. I will inform the House of some of the things people have said about what we are proposing. The Chief Executive Officer of the New South Wales Heart Foundation, Tony Thirlwell, said today:

There is a bit of good news around on World No Tobacco Day. At least in New South Wales there is some legislation going into the Parliament this afternoon to really deal with the dangers of smoking outdoors. The New South Wales Government is making a stand on that today.

In February we outlined our tobacco strategy plans for the next two years. It has been described as one of the most progressive tobacco reforms ever seen in Australia. Dr Andrew Penman, Chief Executive Officer of the Cancer Council NSW, said:

Cancer Council is delighted that the NSW Government has taken this crucial step to protect children, parents and the whole community from toxic second-hand smoke.

The outgoing President Australian Medical Association, Dr Michael Steiner, said:

This is a great preventable health measure and something the NSW Government should be proud of.

The former Labor Assistant Minister for Health (Cancer) Frank Sartor said in the Daily Telegraph on 22 February this year:

I had discussions about a tobacco strategy to ban smoking in food areas, but my lot were too stupid to support it.

I agree with the former member. Why is it important that we do this? Smoking-related illness is a leading cause of preventable mortality and morbidity in New South Wales and, in fact, in the world. Smoking-related illness accounts for around 5,200 deaths in New South Wales alone and 44,000 hospitalisations each year. They cost around $8.4 billion. Disproportionately, this affects the most disadvantaged and vulnerable members of our community. The key focus of our tobacco strategy is reducing smoking rates in disadvantaged populations such as Aboriginal communities and people with mental illness, where high smoking rates are a serious concern.

I was very pleased to be joined yesterday by my colleague the member for Ryde in releasing a multicultural grants program to encourage those populations that have very high smoking rates to give up smoking. Some 39 nine per cent of Arabic men smoke and 29 per cent of Arabic women smoke; 32 per cent of Vietnamese people smoke; and 22 per cent of Chinese people smoke. That compares with a State average of around 15 per cent. It is shocking that we have such high smoking rates. I am very pleased that we were able to announce grants that will target those particular communities. We made a commitment in our State Plan to reduce the smoking rates of Aboriginal people by 4 per cent by 2015. Recently I visited Long Bay Forensic Hospital, which has implemented a no smoking policy. It is not true to say that it is very difficult to address smoking in people with mental illness or people in prison. [Extension of time agreed to.]

The people running the forensic hospital, which is now completely smoke free—and that applies to parents, staff and visitors—said the no smoking policy has been a great success. It is now about providing support for people as they give up smoking. I am very proud that the New South Wales Liberals and Nationals are leading the way in tobacco control measures. We supported the Federal Government's plain packaging legislation, and the Greiner and Fahey governments were the first in Australia to ban smoking in public offices and the advertising of tobacco at all sporting events; they also introduced other anti-smoking measures. The New South Wales Liberals and Nationals have supported all tobacco control legislation introduced into this Parliament. It has been a bipartisan approach and I hope that it will always be that way.

Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT: My question is directed to the Premier. Given the Premier broke his promise to the people of New South Wales by announcing that volunteer shooters be allowed to hunt in 79 national parks, will he rule out extending the program to other parks and reserves?

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: Surely the first duty of a member of Parliament is to be factual. There will not, under any deal or arrangement entered into by this Government, be feral shooting allowed in 79 national parks. That is straight-out wrong; it is a lie. As announced yesterday, there are 234 national parks across the State and in total 799 national parks, reserves and other parks across New South Wales. In relation to national parks that are subject to the arrangement to extend feral animal eradication we are talking about 34 national parks—national parks away from metropolitan areas—and any wilderness or world heritage listed areas will be excluded. The others are not national parks, they are parks.

Ms Carmel Tebbutt: That's an interesting distinction.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: It is a distinction you put in your legislation. Is the member for Marrickville the Environment spokesperson?

Mr Adrian Piccoli: No, she is Education.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: She is the Education spokesperson. I think she will get detention today. I will go through it again for the benefit of the visitors in the gallery. A total of 79 out of 799 parks, reserves and other pieces of land across the State will be subject to an extension of the existing pest eradication programs administered by the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Those programs have existed for years and have enabled the National Parks and Wildlife Service to use the option of shooting, as well as poison as an alternative, to get rid of feral pests. That is particularly important this year given the great season we have had. All that rain and sunshine has thankfully caused an explosion in crops for farmers across the State, but it also has caused an unfortunate explosion in feral pest and animal populations within national parks. The Government and the National Parks and Wildlife Service are determined to deal with those animals, whether they are pigs that do enormous damage, wild dogs that harm cattle and sheep, or other introduced feral species.

As I said yesterday, the National Parks and Wildlife Service spends more on feral animal eradication than it spends on visitors to its national parks. We are talking about a conservation program in 79 areas of the State—34 of which are national parks—in order to try to eradicate those feral animals. They must be eradicated so that they cannot destroy habitat and native flora and fauna. This program is the same as that which has existed in the past under which contract shooters were hired. The only difference is that restricted licensed shooters will be invited in under strict control and under the supervision of the Minister for the Environment. The Minister will set the framework for how, when and where the shoots will take place.

It will not be 24 hours a day, seven days a week or 365 days of the year. As I said yesterday, it is akin to the hazard burns we see from time to time that are planned, run for a limited period, scientifically based, properly controlled, and carried out after adequate and effective notification to the public. Importantly, this program is an extension of what has been going on within the National Parks and Wildlife Service across the National Estate in New South Wales. We have been upfront with the people of the State. We announced yesterday the precise names of the areas that will be affected. We made clear that it does not affect parks in metropolitan areas or near to metropolitan areas.

I say again that it does not include any park or any part of a park that is a wilderness area or a listed world heritage piece of the National Estate. This is a responsible program and it is in the interests of conservation. Given the season we have had, we are determined to address the feral animal problem in our national parks. That is in contrast to those opposite who claim to be great defenders of the environment yet are prepared to ignore feral animals in our national parks. Although in office for 16 years, those opposite refuse to accept what even Adam Spencer accepted this morning. That is, that shooting in national parks to reduce feral animal numbers has been going on for years. The member for Marrickville has asked a question that in the first instance is simply wrong and ultimately has no relevance.

Mr John Robertson: Point of order: The Premier's own release says 79 national parks. I would ask that he withdraw the fact that there was a lie—

The SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order.

Mr John Robertson: There are 79 national parks, Madam Speaker.

The SPEAKER: Order! There may be an argument about this, but that is not a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I remind him that calling somebody a liar is unparliamentary.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: For the record: There are 79 parks including 34 national parks out of a total of 234 national parks.

Mr MATT KEAN: My question is directed to the Minister for Tourism, Major Events, Hospitality and Racing, and Minister for the Arts. What is the latest information on the State's violent venues list?

Mr GEORGE SOURIS: I thank the member for Hornsby for his question. The New South Wales Government has published its latest list of the State's most violent venues subject to special conditions based on the number of violent incidents recorded at the premises. The revised list, around seven, is based on data provided by the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research for the 2011 calendar year and has resulted in 31 licensed premises being subject to special restrictions, the lowest in the history of the scheme. There has been a steady decline in numbers, with 33 venues on the list in round 6, and 44 in round 5. Seven venues recorded 19 or more assaults in the 12-month period. They will be subject to level 1 operating restrictions for the next six months. Another 24 venues recorded between 12 and 18 violent incidents in a year, and so will be classified as level 2 premises. The list is reviewed every six months based on updated violence incident statistics.
The latest round has resulted in the lowest number of venues being listed in the history of the scheme, with two less venues than in round 6 and 13 less venues than in round 5. The number of incidents attributed to level 1 and 2 premises is also the lowest of all rounds in the scheme, with a decrease of 36, or 6 per cent, from round 6. The number of level 1 venues has decreased by three and the number of incidents by 54, or 24 per cent, on the previous round. Any violence on licensed premises is unacceptable, but it is encouraging to note that just 31 licensed premises in New South Wales have been named on the latest violent venues list. I congratulate the industry and the authorities on an overall positive result, but I acknowledge there is more to be done. The latest statistics show that establishments that have been at the top of the list for some time have reduced their incidence of violence considerably and they have now been removed from the list entirely.

I can report that 10 licensed venues were removed from the list as their violent incident rates now fall below the threshold of 12 incidents in a year. However, five venues have been added to the list for the first time. Level 1 and 2 venues will be subject to a range of special operating conditions designed to reduce the risk of alcohol-related violence and antisocial behaviour such as bans on glass, alcohol time outs, ceasing alcohol service 30 minutes before closing, and maintaining detailed incident registers when trading. These restrictions are not about running businesses out of town; they are designed to reduce the risk of further violent incidents. The Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing is willing to work with venues to implement these measures or alternative measures that can be shown to more effectively lessen the risk.

The Government is committed to cracking down on venues that do not do enough to stop or minimise alcohol-fuelled violence and antisocial behaviour that threatens public safety. Its three strikes disciplinary scheme ensures that breaches of the significant conditions imposed through the violent venues list are included as strike offences. This linking of the three strikes scheme to the violent venues list has provided unprecedented motivation for all licensed venues to lift their game or risk the ultimate sanction—loss of licence. Seven licensed venues have so far incurred first strikes, while the Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing had been informed of a further 21 licensed venues in which police have detected alleged liquor offences captured by the three strikes scheme. These venues will automatically incur strikes if they pay a penalty notice or are convicted in court. The Government has also stated its commitment to reviewing the violent venues scheme to include examination of the three strikes scheme to ensure that its policies of penalising persistently violent venues, promoting individual responsibility and recognising good practice in the industry are effectively implemented.

Ms CLOVER MOORE: My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Sydney will be heard in silence.

Ms CLOVER MOORE: Given that pregnant pigs will continue to be cruelly confined in sow stalls until 2017 when pork producers voluntary phase-out concludes, will the Minister follow Tasmania's lead and introduce a ban next year to eliminate this unnecessary cruelty as soon as possible?

Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON: I thank the member for Sydney for her question. It is an important issue; however, it also relates to food security in this State and that is an issue the Government takes extremely seriously. Clearly there are issues in relation to animal welfare that various members will have difficulty in understanding, and also in relation to our need to manage production and enable sufficient supply for consumers. Concerns are regularly raised with me about egg production and poultry production, but these are necessary parts of the human food chain. No matter how we try to dress it up, the fact remains that we need a sufficient food supply for consumers as well as for people beyond Australia. Animal welfare standards in New South Wales are very good when our production needs are taken into consideration.

All sorts of things could be done to try to appease those who perhaps do not really understand farming, but would that be productive for our food sector? Animal welfare rights are respected. Recently a lot of work was done on the handling of cattle in a particular abattoir, which raised welfare issues. We took steps to address that because it was a clear breach of animal welfare guidelines. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act exists for a reason. Under that Act, the RSPCA examines animal welfare issues very closely. When there are clear breaches, the Government takes immediate steps to address that. In relation to pigs, sow stalls, hens and egg-laying, the Government examines closely all the issues and considers those matters very carefully.

We make sure there is compliance with requirements relating to particular movements that an animal needs to make. At the end of the day, the Government takes food production very seriously. As someone who comes from a rural background, I understand primary production and the need for a farmer to be able to make money and continue with production. It is very important to consider both sides of the issue. The Government must be able to assure a food supply for human consumption and we must have food security in the State without importation. That is the way we will continue to operate.

Mr GEOFF PROVEST: My question is directed to the Premier. How will New South Wales celebrate the sixtieth anniversary of the crowning of Queen Elizabeth?

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: I thank the member for Tweed for his question. Whatever our view, monarchist or republican or simply a supporter of this State and country, it is important to acknowledge the virtue of the woman who holds the office of Queen of Australia. From her crowning in 1953, she has been exemplary and has set an example of public service for all forms of public service. It ill behoves members of the Labor Party to try to make light of a woman who has given so much, not just to this country and other parts of the Commonwealth but also to her country. It is a sad indictment on members of the Opposition that the Leader of the Opposition walked out of the Chamber as soon as the question was asked.

The SPEAKER: Order! Members should show some respect.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: Queen Elizabeth II was a young 25-year-old when she came to the throne on the sad death of her father, who had led the Commonwealth during World War II. It is widely known that the stresses and strains he put up with accelerated his death. Her Majesty came to the throne at the age of 25 and 60 years later she is a great-grandmother and a figure who is admired throughout the Commonwealth and beyond because of the incredible effort and commitment to public service she has displayed. Six decades of growth and change across the world, but particularly in this country, have been oversighted by the Queen. She is Queen of Australia and has been Queen for the entire life of most Australians. I say that with due respect to visitors in the gallery. It is appropriate that New South Wales commemorate this significant milestone. Obviously official celebrations are occurring in Britain as I speak, but they will also occur in New South Wales over the long weekend, which is the weekend after next, to celebrate the Diamond Jubilee.

The New South Wales Government is pleased to join as a partner with ClubsNSW in encouraging the State's clubs movement to support the Diamond Jubilee by hosting a celebratory lunch or by engaging in an appropriate alternative activity. By hosting a Diamond Jubilee-themed event, our local clubs can provide an environment in which their community may gather with their neighbours to acknowledge the contributions the Queen has made to the Commonwealth and to this country over the past 60 years. On Monday of the Queen's Birthday long weekend, I will be attending a Diamond Jubilee lunch at the Merrylands RSL to join with that community in celebration of this magnificent achievement. I acknowledge that earlier this month New South Wales had a presence at the Diamond Jubilee pageant at Windsor Castle. Indigenous Australians performed at the event as well as members of the New South Wales Mounted Police Force.

Mr Guy Zangari: Bring back cracker night.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: Cracker night was not a bad night. My birthday used to fall on cracker night, 24 May. For many years when I was a young child I thought people were celebrating me, not the British Empire. But enough about me: What I like about the Queen, the monarchy and the Royal Family is the way in which that brings Australians together—Australians of all complexions. I will not forget being at the Swans-Carlton match on 29 April last year. It was a sad day for Swans supporters because we went down by 16 points. It was a miserable night—atrocious. The weather was appalling. But it happened to coincide with the royal wedding in London.

I noticed after the first half that the only two people outside in the box were Richard Colless, the Chairman of the Swans—who had his head in his hands, as he does when he is watching the Swans play—and me. I looked around and saw all the Labor lovelies gathered around the television. They could tell me who the designer of the dress was, what the shoes were and all about the royal rankings, which just goes to show the power of the monarchy, the power of the Royal Family and the power of pageantry. And what I loved most of all was the way the lefties in particular got involved. The person who used his elbows to get closest to the television was the husband of the member for Marrickville and Federal Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Anthony Albanese. There was "Albo" using the elbows to see the royal wedding. There can be no greater example of the power of the monarchy, the power of pageantry and the power of the Royal Family. [Time expired.]
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL, by leave: In response to the claim made by the Leader of the Opposition I table my press release of yesterday that clearly shows three categories of parks affected: national parks—34, as I said; nature reserves; and State conservation areas. It is all very well for the Leader of the Opposition in a rush to feign indignation, but he got it wrong again.

Document tabled.

Question time concluded at 3.16 p.m.

Mrs Leslie Williams, as Chair, tabled the report entitled "Review of the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 Annual Reports of the Health Care Complaints Commission", dated May 2012, together with transcripts of evidence.

Report ordered to be printed on motion by Mrs Leslie Williams.

The Speaker announced that the following petition signed by more than 10,000 persons was lodged for presentation:

Petition noting that restricted trading days are held up by the New South Wales community as days of social, cultural and religious significance and requesting the retaining of existing retail trading laws to protect the health and wellbeing of the community, received from Mr John Robertson.

Discussion on petition set down as an order of the day for a future day.

The Clerk announced that the following petitions signed by fewer than 500 persons were lodged for presentation:

Petition calling for a royal commission into the impacts of coal seam gas mining, a moratorium on coal seam gas mining and a ban on the extraction technique known as hydraulic fracturing, received from Mr Jamie Parker.

Petition requesting that pets be allowed on public transport, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Petition requesting improved bus services for the Walsh Bay precinct, and ferry services for the new wharf at pier 2/3, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Petition opposing the sale of animals in pet shops, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Petition requesting the Government introduce a container deposit levy to reduce litter and increase recycling rates of drink containers, received from Ms Clover Moore.
Petition requesting an increase in funding for mental health services, received from Ms Clover Moore.

The Clerk announced that the following petition signed by more than 500 persons was lodged for presentation:

Petition noting the risks of water fluoridation requesting the repeal of the Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies Act 1957 as an outdated and undemocratic Act, received from Mr Andrew Stoner.

Ms TANIA MIHAILUK (Bankstown) [3.20 p.m.]: I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that Yagoona Station potentially services up to 30,000 people in the suburbs of Yagoona, Yagoona West, Georges Hall, Bass Hill and Bankstown West;

(2) notes that this is an area with a growing and ageing population; and

(3) calls on the Minister for Transport to make Yagoona Station a priority under the Easy Access Program.

I am pleased to address the House on the Yagoona station easy access upgrade. I campaigned for this project both prior to and since becoming the member for Bankstown. The Yagoona station easy access upgrade is of vital importance to the community of Yagoona and is a matter that has great support in the community of Bankstown. Yagoona is a growing suburb. It also has an ageing population. Yagoona also has a high proportion of disabled people and young mothers. For all these reasons Yagoona should be prioritised to receive an easy access upgrade. Yagoona has a number of significant facilities. I refer to the Yagoona Senior Citizens Centre, which is right alongside the train station. This facility provides a variety of services throughout the week for a range of different groups.

Yagoona also has an early childhood health centre that is located within walking distance from the train station. The early childhood health centre works with Bankstown Hospital in supporting and providing child and family health nurses to families of children up to the age of five. The centre provides information on and support in caring for babies and young children. It is an important centre in Yagoona and provides services not just for that suburb but for the whole region. Therefore, a number of people travel to that centre by car and also, most importantly, by train. I also have a couple of issues to raise as to why I believe the Yagoona station easy access upgrade is particularly significant. One is that the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy that the former Government adopted back in 2005 has seen Bankstown City Council, together with the former State Government, look at how we can accommodate a range of additional dwellings, particularly in the Hume Highway corridor.

We knew from that State Metropolitan Strategy that most highways and major arterial roads in Sydney would have to help to support additional dwellings given the additional numbers entering Sydney. In those days we had figures that over 1,000 people would be coming into Sydney each week. The statistics our council had showed that the vast majority of those people were moving into south-western Sydney. The number of dwellings in Yagoona has increased and a range of development applications lodged with Bankstown City Council will lead to further increases. As a result of the rezoning that has taken place in the Hume Highway corridor potentially more than 2,000 new dwellings will be built in Yagoona. These dwellings are being reconstructed right now. Because of this extra residential construction in Yagoona the need for an easy access upgrade is only going to increase.

The O'Farrell Government has recognised this. The document released by the Government, "Sydney over the next 20 years", identified Yagoona as an important local centre. Successive governments have recognised that new developments in existing suburbs are best located around major transport centres. Many people in the local community have spoken to me about Yagoona: in particular, mothers who have young children and therefore have prams and strollers and who have had difficulty accessing their local train station because Yagoona does not have a lift. They are forced to travel to Bankstown, which is quite a few kilometres away, to access the lift at Bankstown station. We also have a large number of people with disabilities and an ageing population needing access to Yagoona station. All of these people have great difficulty at Yagoona station and have to travel to Bankstown station as an alternative.

As I mentioned in my motion, this station services the suburbs of Bass Hill, Georges Hall, Yagoona West and Bankstown West. Those suburbs do not have their own train stations and people there often commute to the city by taking a bus to Yagoona. There is a commuter car park there and from there they head onto the train service at Yagoona. There is no doubt there is already quite a need for a service at Yagoona but undoubtedly Yagoona's train station will feel the pinch as additional dwellings are built in Yagoona and additional families move there. In the past couple of years the housing stimulus package from the Federal Government, together with the State Government, has caused single-block dwellings to upgrade to multi-unit dwellings. This has brought additional numbers to Yagoona and undoubtedly will put a lot more pressure on Yagoona train station. A petition is circulating from my office now to get an upgrade at Yagoona. A couple of hundred people have already signed it.

Our local Neighbourhood Watch group has been very active in getting people to sign the petition to upgrade Yagoona Station. I understand that Yagoona Senior Citizens Centre members want to sign this petition and put pressure on the Government also to support the Yagoona station Easy Access Program. I have written to the Minister the Transport on this issue a number of times. Last year the Minister told me that the Easy Access Program is prioritised to ensure that those stations with the greatest need are upgraded first. Key reasons for prioritisation include patronage and whether the station is an interchange or a terminating station. Based on these criteria Yagoona station is not a current priority to receive funds under the Easy Access Program. However, late in September the Minister changed her position and said the Government had committed to an extra $60 million over four years for easy access upgrades. I hope a review will be undertaken and Yagoona will be considered as part of this review.

Mr TONY ISSA (Granville) [3.27 p.m.]: I heard the words "easy access" rolling off the tongue of the member for Bankstown. It is a shame that members of the Labor Party have short memories. At the same time it is encouraging to see that members on both side of the Chamber are seriously thinking about facilities for the area.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Barilaro): Order! The member for Kogarah will come to order. The member will be heard in silence. I warn the member that I will not hesitate to have her removed from the Chamber if she continues with unruly behaviour.

Mr TONY ISSA: Members are always talking about a better service and better facilities. When there was a change of government the Labor Party called on the new Government to do this and to do that.

Mr Guy Zangari: You are the Government.

Mr TONY ISSA: We are the Government.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Barilaro): Order! The member for Granville will direct his comments through the Chair and not incite Opposition members.

Mr TONY ISSA: We are the Government, but it is a shame members opposite have a short memory. They had been in office 16 years and 23 days, which is 5,867 days. Did Labor install a lift? No. Did Labor upgrade that station? No, they did not.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Barilaro): Order! The member for Kogarah and the member for Fairfield will come to order.

Mr TONY ISSA: Yagoona station was built in 1928. Because of Labor's uncoordinated approach to station upgrades—what it called the Easy Access Program—it would take 90 years to upgrade all the stations on the network. Labor's approach to infrastructure upgrades was uncoordinated. Instead of six separate programs run by different agencies we now have the Transport Access Program. Transport for NSW has taken over the planning and organisation of improvements. This means the community can now have confidence that works will be delivered where and when they are needed. The Transport Access Program aims to provide stations that are accessible, more modern buildings and facilities, better interchanges, safety improvements, including closed-circuit television and lighting, signage and maintenance improvements.
The Government is committed to ensuring that infrastructure improvements are delivered in a coordinated and integrated way. We are committed to delivering for our customers. We are not just making empty promises as members opposite did. In 16 years Labor did not deliver one inch of rail, one inch of transport or one inch of maintenance. It did not deliver any improvements. The member for Bankstown wants Yagoona station to be upgraded. I have checked the records at Bankstown City Council and nowhere do they show that the mayor of Bankstown approached Labor transport Ministers about upgrading Yagoona station. Labor failed to do that. When we came to government people wanted us to take the lead. We have taken the lead to provide mechanisms. That is why we are here.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Barilaro): Order! The member for Fairfield will come to order.

Mr TONY ISSA: On 23 April this year the Minister for Transport announced more than $100 million to build key facilities and undertake much-needed upgraded works at stations and interchanges. On Tuesday, only two days ago—members opposite have short memories—the Minister announced $170 million for nine locations. One of them is Granville. The Government announced $14 million for Granville. Do you know why? The former member for Granville failed to deliver.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Barilaro): Order! The member for Granville will direct his comments through the Chair.

Mr TONY ISSA: Labor promised $6 million for Granville but nothing happened.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Barilaro): Order! The member for Bankstown will come to order.

Mr Guy Zangari: Point of order: My point of order relates to Standing Order 76. I ask you to direct the member for Granville to address the motion before the House, which is about easy access to Yagoona station.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Barilaro): Order! The member for Granville is talking about access, transport and the railway system and stations. I do not uphold the point of order.

Mr TONY ISSA: The motion is about easy access. I am talking about easy access that the Government is providing to the community. The Labor Government failed to provide easy access. The Government has allocated $82 million for the brand-new Flinders station in the Illawarra, including car parking and bus bays; a major upgrade to Cardiff station in the Hunter, with new lifts, improved ramp, new station building and closed-circuit television; and an upgraded interchange at Fairfield, including an expanded bus interchange with better pedestrian access. That will make the member for Fairfield look good in his community. The Sutherland interchange will also be upgraded, with a new bus interchange, and the ferry wharf at Balmain will be upgraded. [Time expired.]

Mr GUY ZANGARI (Fairfield) [3.31 p.m.]: What a contribution from the member for Granville: I would like the member to deliver that speech at the entrance to Yagoona station, to the elderly, the pregnant mothers and the disabled people who have difficulty getting onto the station. I support the motion and I congratulate the member for Bankstown on bringing this issue—an important issue to the Yagoona community—to the attention of members. The issue of the provision of easy access facilities is not confined to Yagoona railway station. In my electorate of Fairfield the Villawood community has also been waiting for a commitment from the O'Farrell Government to install easy access lifts and ramps at their local railway station.

Like Yagoona, Villawood has a substantial aged population, with a cohort of 65 years and older making up 16.5 per cent of the Villawood population. This is an extremely high concentration considering that 9.9 per cent of residents in the Fairfield local government area are aged 65 years and older and the percentage of people aged 65 years and older in the greater western Sydney area is 9.3 per cent. These figures show how important easy access lifts and ramps are at railway stations such as Villawood, Yennora and Yagoona. Villawood has a high concentration of seniors who live within a one-kilometre radius of the railway station.

Mr Tony Issa: Point of order: Earlier the issue was Yagoona station. The member for Fairfield is now talking about Villawood station.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Barilaro): Order! That is not a point of order.
Mr GUY ZANGARI: Two weeks ago I had the opportunity to visit Villawood and I spoke to a long-time resident of Villawood named Peg, who is 86 years old. She told me that there are more than 70 steps from the station entry at street level to the platform—more than 70 steps that she and many other seniors who wish to take public transport must take in order to get on the train. She also told me how convenient the train is to her and other seniors as a primary means of transport. However, the steps that the seniors must negotiate are the biggest deterrent to using public transport. Easy access facilities do not aid only the elderly; they also help the disabled members of the community, pregnant mothers and general commuters to access train services. As the member for Bankstown pointed out, Yagoona railway station is a major transport hub in her electorate and is used daily by thousands of people.

People who reside in Bass Hill in the Fairfield electorate use Yennora station. As with Yagoona railway station, the restrictions faced by many members of the community, in particular older residents, because of a lack of easy access facilities such as lifts and ramps resonate through many suburban areas throughout the State. Because of the rising cost of petrol train services have become the most viable option for people to get from A to B. The O'Farrell Government needs to commit to upgrading suburban railway stations such as Yagoona and Villawood by installing easy access facilities. I congratulate the member for Bankstown on listening to her community and bringing this issue before the House.

Mr ANDREW GEE (Orange) [3.32 p.m.]: I am pleased that the member for Bankstown put this issue on the agenda today. On one hand I am pleased; on the other hand there is an element of sadness because the member for Bankstown has reminded the Parliament and the whole of New South Wales that Labor had 16 years to do something about Yagoona station but did absolutely nothing. Labor failed miserably. It was no wonder because Labor lacked coordination when it came to infrastructure upgrades.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Barilaro): Order! Opposition members will come to order. The member for Orange will be heard in silence.

Mr ANDREW GEE: Thank you, Mr Acting-Speaker, for restoring order once again. It is great to see you on the front foot this afternoon. Under Labor's program it would have taken 90 years to get every station upgraded. We will not perpetuate the mistakes of that side of politics. On 23 April the Minister for Transport announced more than $100 million out of $770 million this term for infrastructure upgrades across the network. Many more announcements are to come and customers will see improvements at 38 locations on the transport network in the coming months. Instead of six separate programs being run by different agencies we now have the Transport Access Program.

Transport for NSW has taken over the planning and organisation of improvements. This means that the community can be confident that works will be delivered when and where needed most—in contrast to the decay and rot that set in over the past 16 years. For 16 years when the doors opened on any train in any suburb, including those on the airport line, passengers could smell urine and see graffiti and litter. Welcome to New South Wales. Welcome to Australia for our international visitors! Our proactive transport Minister is cleaning up RailCorp and our trains, and upgrading our infrastructure. We on this side of the House salute her. The Transport Access Program aims to provide accessible stations for customers.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Barilaro): Order! Opposition members will cease interjecting. Members will be heard in silence.

Mr ANDREW GEE: Mr Acting-Speaker, I ask that you discipline the Yagoona kahuna opposite.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Barilaro): Order! The member is on his final warning.

Mr ANDREW GEE: The Transport Access Program will provide more modern buildings and facilities for all modes of transport, better interchanges, safety improvements, including closed-circuit television and lighting, signage and maintenance improvements. This Government is committed to ensuring that infrastructure improvements are delivered in a coordinated and integrated manner. I am pleased that Opposition members finally are taking note of these important points. This announcement demonstrates the commitment of this Government to improving the transport network. My colleague has mentioned some major projects being undertaken in the first round of funding. I am happy to detail other improvements and upgrades being rolled out to make life easier for public transport customers.

Mr Ryan Park: Tell us.
Mr ANDREW GEE: In the Illawarra, Dapto, Gerringong and Albion Park stations will be upgraded and have their access ramps, lighting and pedestrian access improved. In western Sydney, Riverstone, Auburn and Penrith stations and interchanges will be improved through access ramps, kiss and ride facilities, and lighting upgrades. In the Hunter, Hamilton station will have access ramps redesigned and rebuilt.

Mr Ryan Park: What did you get for Orange?

Mr ANDREW GEE: The member for Keira interjects, but we know he spends most of his time advocating on behalf of One Direction fans in his electorate. They are the big issues affecting him. [Time expired.]

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Barilaro): Order! The member for Kogarah will be heard in silence. I will not tolerate interjections. We want to get through business this afternoon. This is the final sitting day of the week.

Ms CHERIE BURTON (Kogarah) [3.36 p.m.]: I support the motion of the member for Bankstown regarding the Easy Access Program. For the benefit of the member for Orange and the member for Granville, who gave embarrassing speeches, when the Coalition last left office only one station out of 380 in this State had easy access facilities—a lift. That is fact, not the fiction those opposite spread. Today over 200 stations have a lift. That is what Labor was doing for the past 16 years. I refer to just a few of those stations in my electorate alone: Kogarah, Rockdale, Allawah, Carlton, Kingsgrove, Beverly Hills and Hurstville. Out of eight train stations in the Kogarah electorate only Bexley North does not have a lift—because it cannot fit on the platform.

The member for Granville must be embarrassed because he knows nothing about the subject. I am happy to sacrifice my remaining two minutes if the member for Oatley can provide start dates for the lifts he promised the people of Oatley and Narwee. I am not talking about start dates for getting on with the job, because the community does not know what that means. Government members keep talking about project start dates, but nothing is happening. I want actual start dates. What happened to the widening of King Georges Road or the Hillcrest Avenue flyover?

Mr Gareth Ward: Point of order: The member for Kogarah knows that if she wants to attack a member she must do so by way of substantive motion instead of this gutless manner in this debate. She should be sat down and told to return to the leave of the motion.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Barilaro): Order! The member for Kogarah will return to the leave of the motion.

Ms CHERIE BURTON: While we are on the subject of governments getting on with the job, I ask the member for Oatley to provide start dates for the other commitments he has made: the Hillcrest flyover—an engineering friend of mine said that would cost about $50 million; the widening of King Georges Road; the duplication of the M5 East; and the long-awaited commuter car park at Mortdale. For the benefit of the Minister for Transport, I need to warn her that I have been reliably informed that the member for Oatley has threatened to resign if he does not deliver the lifts at Oatley and Narwee stations by the next election. I know he is an honourable man of his word, but I wish him luck in achieving that. I have some advice for the member for Oatley, because I know he follows my lead closely. He consistently tries to take credit for the commitment and funding allocations of the previous Labor Government, such as for St George Hospital emergency department and Hurstville primary school.

Mr Ryan Park: I saw that.

Ms CHERIE BURTON: Yes, he does it quite often. He will take credit next for the $20 million upgrade of Hurstville Boys High School that started long before the last election. The member for Oatley desperately seeks my advice so here it is.

Mr Tony Issa: Point of order: I ask that the member be directed to direct her comments through the Chair.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Barilaro): Order! The member for Kogarah will direct her comments through the Chair.
Ms CHERIE BURTON: Yes, no worries. My advice to the member for Oatley is, with 69 of them sitting there—

Mr Gareth Ward: No, actually 68.

Ms CHERIE BURTON: Yes, a technicality. If I were the member for Oatley I would be getting out of the office and stop typing the little press releases that tell everyone how happy he is with delivering on his commitments— [Time expired.]

Ms TANIA MIHAILUK (Bankstown) [3.40 p.m.], in reply: I would have loved to have heard more from the member for Kogarah, a woman who knows what she is talking about. I take this opportunity to thank the members who contributed to the debate. Some of the suburbs surrounding Yagoona fall into part of the Fairfield electorate, so the member for Fairfield certainly understands the plight of our areas and the need for a lift at Yagoona station. I thank also the member for Kogarah, who has played an integral role to make sure that the Easy Access Program was successful over the past 16 years in delivering over 200 lifts across the State. I take the opportunity also to acknowledge the contribution of the member for Granville. I shall not comment at length, but I often hear about him in my electorate. I know he has some good friends in Yagoona and Bankstown who had hoped he would support the installation of a lift at Yagoona railway station.

Mr Tony Issa: You know why they come to me? Because I deliver.

Ms TANIA MIHAILUK: The member for Granville makes a good point. Often I have to give bad news to constituents when I cannot provide housing and certain other things. They always say to me, "We're told if you can't deliver something, member for Bankstown, we only have to go to the member for Granville. He'll deliver for us housing." I might send those constituents to the member for Granville to help me deliver the Yagoona train station easy access upgrade. I might send them to him because he may have strayed from the track. I take this opportunity also to invite the member for Orange, next time he is bypassing Bankstown on his way home to Orange, to stop at Yagoona, have a coffee and check out the Yagoona train station. He too, once he sees the station, will agree that it needs a lift.

But things are different in Yagoona now because of zoning changes along the corridor of the Hume Highway. The former Government instigated those changes, but this Government supports them. The O'Farrell Government has released a discussion paper called "Sydney over the next 20 years". That identifies Yagoona as an important local centre. I just remind Government members of that. That corridor is part of the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy of providing additional dwellings along corridors such as the Hume Highway, and that will mean additional dwellings around Yagoona train station and the surrounding suburbs. This will put increased pressure on Yagoona, and require Yagoona to provide additional rail and public transport services.

This matter should be given priority. I have written to the Minister about it on a number of occasions. My first approach was not successful; the Minister's response was quite negative. But on the second occasion the Minister gave me some hope; she changed her position and said the New South Wales Government has committed to an extra $60 million over four years for easy access upgrades; that a review of station priorities is underway and Yagoona will be considered as part of that review. I will hold the Minister to that. I ask the Minister to inform the House whether Yagoona will be identified at some point as a part of the review. I will be writing more letters and asking the Minister more questions. I know she has provided a lift at Riverstone station and one at St Marys station, within the electorate of Penrith. Yagoona station deserves a lift. [Time expired.]

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

Motion agreed to.

Debate resumed from 24 November 2011.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst—Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Infrastructure NSW) [3.44 p.m.], in reply: Of course, the budget announcement for the upcoming year is imminent, so it is appropriate to conclude the budget estimates debate that has taken place over the past 12 months. I would like to thank members who have taken part in that debate. In particular, I thank members representing the electorates of Swansea, Hawkesbury, Davidson, Penrith, Cabramatta, Coffs Harbour, Keira, Drummoyne, Fairfield, Vaucluse, Bankstown, The Entrance, Charlestown, Auburn, Riverstone, Shellharbour, Orange, Mulgoa, Parramatta, Camden, Bathurst, Wollondilly, Blue Mountains, Campbelltown, Mount Druitt, Cronulla, Menai, Coogee, Wallsend, Goulburn, Marrickville, North Shore, Wollongong, Bega, Monaro, Granville, Port Macquarie, Tamworth, Burrinjuck, Strathfield, Sydney, Baulkham Hills, Cessnock Smithfield, Dubbo, Lake Macquarie, Tweed, Heathcote, Oatley and Kiama. It is clear from the number of members who spoke in the debate that there has been a great deal of interest in the fiscal position of our State.

The debate has made it clear also that there is a level of concern on the part of all members, particularly on the Government side, that until this Government was elected by the people of New South Wales the fiscal position of this State was looking very bleak indeed. As the Treasurer pointed out earlier today, there was an expense and revenue gap, as expenses were growing by 0.5 per cent each year over revenues; and that would have led to an inevitable downward spiral of a $300 million each year and a growing deficit. Also clear from the debate is that, without the Federal stimulus and accounting packages offered by the Federal Government—otherwise known as the housing package and Building the Education Revolution—New South Wales would have been in deep trouble. We have lived through an artificial period. We now have a new, intense focus under this Government on getting infrastructure right and getting our fiscal issues in an appropriate space. We are moving forward and cutting our expenses growth; we are going to preserve our triple-A credit rating. It is with great pleasure that the Government now concludes this debate and looks forward to the budget's formal presentation.

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill introduced on motion by Mr Mike Baird, read a first time and printed.

Mr MIKE BAIRD (Manly—Treasurer) [3.46 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Fiscal responsibility is one of the cornerstones of good government. Fiscal responsibility means governing not only for the immediate needs of the community but also for its future needs. It means ensuring that taxation levels, expenditure and capital investment are sustainable. One need look no further than Europe to see the current havoc that fiscal irresponsibility can wreak on governments and communities. There, prolonged periods of excessive borrowing have led to government services being cut, taxes being increased and social dislocation. In Australia, the community expects its governments to be fiscally responsible. Accordingly, all States and the Commonwealth have legislation that enshrines principles of sound financial management in legislation. New South Wales has had two attempts at such legislation.

Labor did reduce debt levels consistent with the General Government Debt Elimination Act 1995. However, the resultant lower levels of infrastructure spending were not sustainable from the community's perspective, and created long-term legacies that this Government continues to deal with. Labor then introduced the Fiscal Responsibility Act in 2005. However, Labor met only three of the 14 measures. Key failures include net financial liabilities being nearly double the target and net debt levels two and a half times the target in 2010. As revealed in last year's budget papers, the previous Government's fiscal management left the State's finances on a path to losing the triple-A credit rating.

The requirement to review the Fiscal Responsibility Act gives this Government the opportunity to set out what is important to it in managing the State's finances. The lesson from Labor's Act is that, rather than having a range of measures so numerous that they were in essence ignored, it is much better to have a clear objective with a few supporting goals and principles. These provide a much better framework and discipline. Let me be clear about this Government's primary fiscal objective: to retain the triple-A credit rating. The New South Wales Government is committed to retaining the State's triple-A credit rating. This minimises interest expense and maximises the amount available to spend on services and infrastructure over time. It also provides the best opportunity for New South Wales to raise debt readily in times of financial market uncertainty. Further, retaining the triple-A credit rating provides confidence for business, consumers and the community.

The experience of Queensland under its Labor Government is a salutary lesson for those who say the triple-A credit rating is not important. Queensland lost its triple-A rating a few years ago, and being downgraded even one notch has had a marked impact on the cost and availability of finance. During times of financial market uncertainty, the cost of borrowing for Queensland has been over half a per cent higher than for New South Wales and continues to be volatile in current financial conditions. For New South Wales, such a one-notch downgrade would significantly increase the cost of servicing the State's debt by an increasing amount every year, totalling around $375 million over the first four years. Assuming the triple-A credit rating was regained after 10 years, the cumulative credit cost would be $3.75 billion.

The O'Farrell-Stoner Government is determined that New South Wales will retain its triple-A credit rating and that is why it is the primary objective of the new Fiscal Responsibility Bill 2012. However, as with any family budget, this will require New South Wales to live within its means. New South Wales is not facing the bounty of windfall State revenues that flowed into the State's coffers in the past decade. Indeed, GST revenues have been falling markedly since the start of 2011, with New South Wales losing a further $5.2 billion. Despite the history of windfall revenues, New South Wales has a significant infrastructure backlog—in rail, such as the North West Rail Link; roads, such as the need for a new motorway in Sydney; and in hospitals and schools.

Providing the funding for this infrastructure will require the State to control its spending, and that leads to the proposed Act's first target—that annual growth in general government expenses of the State is less than the long-term average general government revenue growth of the State. Only by ensuring that expense growth is less than average long-term revenue growth can New South Wales generate the surpluses to provide for additional infrastructure investment. This will also provide a buffer for managing overall debt levels and therefore support the triple-A credit rating, particularly at times of economic challenge. Using a long-term measure for revenue growth ensures that variations across the economic cycle are taken into account. Revenue growth, excluding stimulus spending, has been 5.6 per cent over the past 10 years. This will be evaluated with each review of the Act.

The other main source of funding for infrastructure investment is asset sales. This can provide funding in two ways: first, by repaying the debt already owed by the business being sold and enabling the Government to re-borrow that amount for new infrastructure, as happened with the desalination plant; and, secondly, from the additional net proceeds—again, as happened with the desalination plant. The objective of the triple-A credit rating places a limit on the amount of debt that the State can borrow. Accordingly, the Government has to ensure that its valuable capital is invested in the most productive infrastructure priorities for the community. However, managing debt levels by managing expense growth and using targeted asset sales are not the whole story when it comes to maintaining the triple-A credit rating.

New South Wales, like the Commonwealth and many other States, has a significant unfunded superannuation liability for past and some present employees. It is essential that this liability is eliminated over time rather than ignored, which puts the State's finances at risk. This leads to the Act's second main target: the elimination of the State's unfunded superannuation liability by 2030. We must budget for tomorrow as much as for today. I have long argued that this burden on the State's finances needs to be reduced and in this way we will continue to do so. To recap: The proposed Act will seek to maintain the triple-A credit rating by constraining expense growth below revenue growth so as to provide funds for infrastructure investment, to eliminate the unfunded superannuation liability by 2030 and to ensure that New South Wales' finances are sustainable.

While the Government is willing to commit in legislation to maintain the triple-A credit rating, we of course cannot control all the events that would enable us to maintain the top-tier credit rating. Such events include if Australia were to lose its triple-A credit rating, which would flow on to New South Wales and other States because States cannot have a higher credit rating than the sovereign; if the ratings agencies were to unilaterally lower the levels of debt and other financial liabilities from current levels that are considered consistent with a triple-A credit rating; or if, due to global circumstances, all Australian States were downgraded by ratings agencies, similar to what has happened with Australian banks since the global financial crisis.

The bill includes a mechanism for government to map out plans to rectify any breaches and, should that occur, we would undertake to do just that. The principle is to manage the levers that are within our control. The proposed triple-A objective and the two fiscal targets, while outcome based, are not sufficient to provide a completely responsible fiscal framework. That is why I am proposing three principles of sound financial management. The first is responsible and sustainable spending, tax and investment, which includes pursuing stable and predictable spending and taxation policies and investing in infrastructure that has the highest benefit for the community. The second is effective financial and asset management, which includes policies and processes for performance management, investment funding and risk management. The third is achieving inter-generational equity, which includes the current generation funding, the current cost of its services and ensuring that policy decisions have regard to their financial effects on future generations.

Together, these will require the Government to aim for fiscally responsible outcomes for the community and to ensure that the management of finances occurs in a responsible manner and does not leave the bill for subsequent generations to pay. It is essential that the Government is held to account for meeting the objective, targets and principles. Accordingly, that is why the Treasurer will be required to include the following in the budget papers each year: a statement of the Government's fiscal strategy; a report on the Government's performance against the bill's objective, fiscal targets and principles; an assessment of the impact of the budget measures on the State's long-term fiscal gap; and the reasons for any departure from those targets and principles, together with details of the planned remedial actions.

The long-term fiscal gap is based on the primary balance, which is broadly equivalent to the sum of the budget result and net capital investment before interest. It is calculated for the general government sector on the basis of no policy changes for the period to 2050-51. The long-term fiscal gap is to be reassessed in the budget papers every five years. The Act is also to be reviewed again in five years time. The 2012-13 budget has been developed as the first under the terms of the proposed Fiscal Responsibility Bill 2012. Fiscal responsibility is one of the key expectations that the community has of our Government. The former Labor Government demonstrated little regard for the responsible management of government finances, as shown in the last report on the Fiscal Responsibility Act, where it had met only three out of the 14 targets and principles.

This Government inherited a position where State debt levels are so high and a structural deficit so entrenched that there is only limited flexibility within the State's triple-A credit rating. But it is a challenge we are determined to meet. The proposed objective of the amended Fiscal Responsibility Act is to retain the triple-A credit rating. This will enable the Government to maximise funding for service provision, to retain the flexibility to meet shocks, and to provide the greatest capacity for infrastructure investment over time. By approving this bill Parliament will send an important signal to the community that it supports fiscal responsibility and a Government that is committed to fiscal responsibility. I commend the bill to the House.

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

Bill introduced on motion by Ms Jillian Skinner, read a first time and printed.

Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER (North Shore—Minister for Health, and Minister for Medical Research) [4.03 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I am very pleased to bring before the House the Tobacco Legislation Amendment Bill 2012. Around the world today governments and communities are celebrating the success of existing tobacco control initiatives. In New South Wales the latest Adult Health Survey has confirmed that the percentage of adults who currently smoke has dropped to 14.8 per cent—down from 15.8 per cent in 2010. These results show that smoking rates in New South Wales have reached an all-time low. This laudable achievement demonstrates the effectiveness of our tobacco control efforts.

I remind the House that the Greiner and Fahey governments were the first in Australia—perhaps the first in the world—to ban smoking in public offices. I well remember those days when people were aghast that a government would do such a thing. We have certainly come a long way. New South Wales was also the first State in Australia to introduce a tobacco display ban in retail outlets so that tobacco products cannot now be visible to community members or displayed in specialist tobacconist shops by 2013. I supported that legislation, and as I visit communities across New South Wales I am pleased to see the positive results. New South Wales has a history of leading the way in tobacco control in Australia in respect of the selling of tobacco and the prevention of smoking in enclosed spaces.

The next stage of tobacco control is now before us—the regulation of smoking in outdoor public places. The Tobacco Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 seeks to prohibit smoking in a range of outdoor public places in order to better protect public health and to de-normalise smoking in the community. Before turning to the specifics of the bill, I want to talk about the need to decrease the incidence of smoking in the community and exposure to second-hand smoke. The facts about the impact of smoking on our community are clear. Smoking is the leading cause of premature death and disability in New South Wales. The social cost of smoking in New South Wales is over $8 billion annually, including costs to government, to individuals and to business. Smoking accounts for around 5,200 deaths and 44,000 hospitalisations in New South Wales every year.

All those deaths and hospital admissions are preventable with a strong tobacco control program. We know that smoking causes significant harm to smokers. One in two lifetime smokers will die from their habit and a third of those deaths will occur in middle age. Smokers are 20 times more likely to develop lung cancer and smoking increases the risk of heart attack by up to six times. There are plenty of shocking smoking statistics. I often think of the personal stories I have heard as I move around the health system and people share with me their experiences of the disease and premature death that comes from smoking.

While the impacts on smokers are horrible, real, and persistent, non-smokers can also be affected by other people's smoking. In adults, breathing second-hand tobacco smoke can increase the risk of cardiovascular disease, lung cancer and other lung diseases. It can exacerbate the effects of other illnesses such as asthma and bronchitis. The evidence shows that exposing ex-smokers to other people's tobacco smoke increases the chance of them relapsing. For children, inhaling second-hand tobacco smoke is even more dangerous. This is because children's airways are smaller and their immune systems are less developed. Children are more likely to suffer negative health consequences from second-hand tobacco smoke, such as bronchitis, pneumonia and asthma.

The evidence is also clear that opening a window or turning away from a smoker does not prevent the risk of second-hand smoke-related illnesses in children. More than 90 per cent of people hospitalised due to second-hand tobacco smoke exposure are children. This is a shocking statistic. No child in New South Wales should be hospitalised because of the impact of another person's tobacco smoke. For this reason, in 2009 a ban was placed on smoking in a car with a passenger under 16 years of age. However, with children participating in our community in many different settings, further protection is needed.

The Smoke-free Environment Act 2000 has prohibited smoking in enclosed public places for more than 10 years. The Government knows it is time to take the next steps in reducing the harm caused by tobacco smoking. The New South Wales Government has already demonstrated its commitment to reducing smoking and its impact in our community. The Government has established ambitious targets to continue to reduce smoking through the NSW 2021 Plan. The plan states that the New South Wales Government will aim to: reduce smoking rates by 3 per cent by 2015 for non-Aboriginal people and by 4 per cent for Aboriginal people; and reduce the rate of smoking by non-Aboriginal pregnant women by 0.5 per cent per year and by 2 per cent per year for pregnant Aboriginal women by 2015. These NSW 2021 Plan targets are reflected in the NSW Tobacco Strategy 2012-2017, which I launched earlier this year.

The strategy was developed by considering the evidence base in tobacco control and Aboriginal health and by consulting with key stakeholders, including the Cancer Institute NSW, the Cancer Council NSW, the Heart Foundation NSW and the Aboriginal Health and Medical Research Council. The strategy commits the Government to activities which together comprise a comprehensive, evidence-based and responsible smoking reduction program in New South Wales. One of the key pieces of the strategy is the introduction of a range of important law reforms supporting smoking cessation and the de-normalisation of tobacco in our community. These include introducing both public outdoor smoking bans and expressly prohibiting the sale of tobacco over the internet. The issue of internet sales of tobacco is an important but complex issue and while the bill before the House does not incorporate internet sales bans, the New South Wales Ministry of Health is pursuing legal advice to ensure that when legislation is introduced it will be comprehensive and legally effective.

Based on the need to decease smoking in our community and the health risks associated with second-hand smoke and smoke in outdoor areas, the Government's focus will now be on creating smoke-free environments across a range of outdoor public places that are frequented by members of the community, particularly children and families. It is these outdoor areas that this bill focuses on. There are some who argue against smoking bans in outdoor areas, thinking that the health risk of passive smoking in outdoor areas must always be lower than passive smoking indoors. However, the research shows that the level of risk depends on the factors influencing the removal of tobacco smoke such as wind and ventilation and the position of physical barriers such as walls.

Emerging evidence on the effect of smoking on air quality in outdoor locations, such as alfresco cafes, outside buildings and in parks, has found that under some circumstances tobacco smoke affects air quality in outdoor locations just as much as indoor locations. The truth is there is no safe level of exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke. In addition to the health benefits to non-smokers, smoke-free areas are also expected to reduce tobacco consumption by current smokers and will mean there are fewer environments in which smokers can act as role models to children. Broadening smoking bans to popular public outdoor areas will act to reinforce the broad social unacceptability of smoking and ensure that our children do not grow up to think that tobacco is a normal product and smoking is a normal activity. Tobacco should not be thought of as an everyday item like milk or a newspaper.

Smoke-free areas also help ex-smokers from relapsing and support current smokers in cutting down and quitting successfully. The Government wants to continue to reduce the number of people who smoke and to avoid young people taking up the habit. The bill is an important element of this intention and will ban smoking in a range of public outdoor areas. There is strong support from the New South Wales community for the provisions in this bill. A comprehensive public consultation process was undertaken in respect of the Strategic Directions for Tobacco Control in New South Wales 2011-2016 Discussion Paper, which was issued in late 2010, the results of which have informed the development of this bill.

The public outdoor areas in which smoking will be banned under the bill have been chosen because they are key public outdoor settings. They are areas that are often frequented by children and families, areas that can be crowded or areas that people have limited opportunity to avoid. The bill proposes to amend the Smoke-free Environment Act 2000 to prohibit smoking within 10 metres of children's play equipment in public outdoor areas. Included in the bill will be areas such as children's play equipment in local government parks and gardens, State-owned facilities and privately managed places such as fast food outlets, eateries and sporting venues. Going to the playground at the local public park is a popular outing for families with young children. Playgrounds provide vital physical and social development for children and opportunities for parents to socialise with other parents. Playgrounds are not an appropriate place for smokers to light up.

I understand that some local governments have banned smoking within entire parks and reserves under the Local Government Act 1993 and notices are in place where the local ban extends beyond the playground. The provisions in the bill before the House will not affect additional prohibitions against smoking put in place by local councils. Another area that is frequented by children and families is the local swimming pool. Public swimming pools often attract large numbers of people, particularly families with children and can become very crowded on hot days. These areas are for exercise and recreation, not for smoking. It is very difficult for parents with their young children to avoid other people's tobacco smoke when they are in a crowded setting like a local swimming pool complex. For this reason, the bill proposes to amend the Smoke-free Environment Act to ban smoking in open areas of all public swimming pools in New South Wales. This means there will be no smoking within the perimeter of the public swimming pool complex. Patrons will need to exit the pool complex if they wish to smoke.

The bill also proposes to amend the Smoke-free Environment Act to ban smoking in the spectator area of public sports grounds, major sporting facilities and other recreational areas when sport is being played. When organised sporting events are held, patrons who wish to smoke will need to leave the spectator area. For the more than 85 per cent of New South Wales adults who do not smoke and are exposed to second-hand tobacco smoke in public places it is the right thing to do. Public sporting fields and other recreational areas where children play sport are environments in which adult smoking sends a message that is directly inconsistent with the promotion of exercise and healthy lifestyles. Another public outdoor area where people gather and which at peak times become crowded is public transport stops and stations.

Non-smoking commuters often cannot move away from a smoker at a bus stop without losing their place in the queue. Many complaints have been made to me about this aspect of smoking. For people with illnesses such as asthma, inhaling other people's tobacco smoke in the bus queue can directly impact their health. Smoking is already banned in enclosed areas of public places in New South Wales, including some areas of public transport stops and stations. The bill takes this one step further by amending the Smoke-free Environment Act to extend the smoking ban to cover the public outdoor areas of bus stops, railway and light rail platforms, ferry wharves, taxi ranks, and light rail stops regardless of whether the area is covered, and this will include the area where people queue or gather. This will be welcome news to the users of the New South Wales public transport system who now will be able to enjoy a smoke-free journey.

As smoking is already prohibited in all enclosed public places and buildings, it is common for smokers to congregate immediately outside the entrances to those places and buildings. Overseas visitors frequently comment to me that they are puzzled by the congregations of people, particularly outside offices. People smoking in these areas has the effect of forcing people entering and leaving those buildings to run the gauntlet through groups of smokers clustered around doorways, thereby exposing them to second-hand tobacco smoke and the stench of that smoke. The bill addresses this issue by proposing to amend the Smoke-free Environment Act to ban smoking within four metres of a pedestrian access point to a public building, which will provide protection from tobacco smoke to those entering or exiting a building. The prohibition on smoking within four metres of a pedestrian access point to a building will apply to a range of public buildings, such as professional, trade, commercial and other business premises, local and government premises, shopping centres, malls, and plazas, and, from 2015, licensed premises and restaurants.

The prohibitions on smoking at transport stops and within four metres of a pedestrian access point to a public building are aimed at protecting non-smokers from inhaling second-hand smoke in areas they cannot easily move away from and preventing smokers congregating in areas where other individuals are required to pass through. It is not aimed at prohibiting smoking entirely in public areas. Therefore, appropriate defences are included in the bill in respect of smokers who are not congregating at light rail stops, taxi ranks, bus stops or within four metres of a pedestrian access point to a public building but are passing through the area. I know that the issue of smoking in common outdoor areas is an issue of concern to people attending health services and medical clinics, where consumers' health can be expected to be more vulnerable and the potential impacts of smoking possibly greater.

Smoking on hospital grounds is an all too common sight when I attend meetings at these venues. I see the shadow Minister nodding in agreement. Patients, staff and visitors should not be exposed to second-hand tobacco smoke at health facilities. Smoking is currently banned by law in enclosed public places such as hospital buildings. Smoking is also banned on most parts of hospital grounds under the NSW Health smoke-free workplace policy. However, in practice, many health consumers, visitors and staff do smoke outside on NSW Health grounds and enforcement has been difficult for the local health districts to manage, given the complex and sensitive environment of hospital campuses and the transient nature of the visiting population.

The bill proposes to address this issue by amending the Health Services Act to allow local health districts and statutory health corporations to enact by-laws to ban smoking at public hospitals, health institutions and health services. If, as part of local decision-making by local health districts and statutory health corporations, the by-laws are enacted, under the bill it will become an offence to smoke on NSW Health grounds. I am pleased that NSW Health campuses will be able to lead the way with the implementation of outdoor smoking bans to protect those in our community whose health is vulnerable as well as the staff, volunteers, carers and visitors who are working to promote the good health of the community.

I now turn to a concern often raised with me by members of the New South Wales community: smoking in outdoor dining areas. Smoking is currently prohibited in enclosed public areas of cafes, restaurants, hotels and clubs but is still permitted in outdoor dining areas. Smoking in these settings exposes staff, customers and pedestrians to second-hand tobacco smoke. The fact that smoking is currently permitted in outdoor dining areas can make it difficult for non-smokers to enjoy a meal in an alfresco environment. This is particularly the case for families with children. The ability of people to smoke in these situations also makes it difficult for recent quitters to maintain their resolve.

This issue is important for the amenity of public outdoor settings, but the main concern is for people's health and wellbeing. Therefore, the bill seeks to amend the Smoke-free Environment Act to prohibit smoking in commercial outdoor dining areas. The definition of "commercial outdoor dining area" will capture: a seated dining area being an area in which seating is provided and in which food that has been purchased and served on plates or packaged for immediate consumption is consumed; with respect to restaurants and licensed premises such as pubs and clubs, within four metres from the seated dining area; and within 10 metres of a place where food is sold or supplied for consumption at a food fair, such as the Hyde Park Noodle Markets.
The bill has been carefully drafted to balance the protection of public health and the legitimate interests of venue owners and operators. Therefore, the bill prohibits smoking in commercial outdoor dining areas, but only while food is being consumed or available for consumption at seated areas, or in the case of a food fair only while the food fair is being held. For example, if a pub has a kitchen that provides food for patrons' consumption in an outdoor seating area between the hours of 5.00 p.m. and 9.00 p.m., after the kitchen is closed and patrons have stopped eating the outdoor area will not be considered a food consumption area and, provided the other requirements of the Smoke-free Environment Act are complied with, smoking will be allowed.

By consent discussion on a petition signed by more than 10,000 persons postponed to permit the conclusion of the current debate.

Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER: It is important to note that the new provisions in the bill prohibiting smoking in outdoor commercial dining areas will not commence until July 2015. I acknowledge that there has been some criticism of the staging of this provision. However, as the ban on smoking in commercial outdoor dining areas is likely to have the greatest effect on the community and business, it is appropriate to give businesses and the community sufficient time to adjust to the changes to ensure a high level of awareness and compliance. This sort of time frame was used by the former Government when such matters were introduced. For example, under the previous Government licensed premises had three years to fully implement the ban on smoking in enclosed areas of pubs, clubs and nightclubs under the Smoke-free Environment Act 2000.

New South Wales Health considers that this staged approach contributed to the high level of compliance with smoke-free environment laws achieved across licensed premises after the commencement date. Rushing the introduction of such a significant piece of public policy would be detrimental to its effectiveness. The Government is keen to ensure that the community is aware and complies with the proposed requirements. As such, a comprehensive community education campaign will be conducted to ensure a high level of awareness and compliance. The campaign will tell people which locations are covered by the smoking bans, when the bans will start and the consequences of disregarding the laws. The Government knows from past experience that sometimes it takes time for people to accept new laws.

As such, the Government will focus primarily on an educative approach to enforcement during the early stages of implementation in order to ensure understanding of and ongoing compliance with the laws. We need to remember that tobacco kills 50 per cent of its long-term users, causes heart disease, cancer, gangrene, strokes and a myriad of other health problems. There is no such thing as a safe level of exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke. In conclusion, I acknowledge the work of local councils, the Heart Foundation and the Cancer Council in implementing smoke-free outdoor areas policies across New South Wales. This bill will build on the significant progress already achieved and the readiness of the New South Wales community for additional protections from tobacco smoke. I commend this bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Dr Andrew McDonald and set down as an order of the day for a future day.

Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT (Marrickville) [4.32 p.m.]: I am pleased to speak on behalf of more than 10,000 people in support of the GreenWay: a walking and cycling path with bushcare sites in the inner west. It is rare in public life to see an issue on which there is such unity, agreement and unanimous support; the GreenWay is such an issue. It matters to the more than 10,000 people who have signed this petition, it matters to those seated in the visitors gallery on this cold Thursday evening, and it matters to the future sustainability of the inner west. We all have one clear goal: We want to make it matter to the O'Farrell Government so it will commit to constructing the GreenWay. The GreenWay began as a grassroots initiative to improve recreation and transport options in the inner west. Local environmental advocates were inspired to develop the GreenWay project after seeing what was being achieved elsewhere in Australia and overseas. The inner west freight corridor was a natural fit.

I pay tribute to the local community and groups such as the Mudcrabs and the Friends of the GreenWay, as well as Ashfield, Marrickville, Leichhardt and Canterbury councils, for their ongoing work to bring this project to life. The Friends of the GreenWay have been the heart and soul of the campaign. Light rail in the inner west has a long history. Currently, the Metro Light Rail is the only operating light rail in Sydney. The line, opened in 1997, was originally to serve the redeveloped areas of Darling Harbour, Ultimo and Pyrmont. Contrary to what the Premier told the House earlier today, in 1999 the Carr Government announced, and then built, the extension of the line to Lilyfield, which was opened in 2000. In February 2010 the Keneally Government allocated $500 million to extend the light rail to Dulwich Hill and Circular Quay—more than doubling the size of the light rail. The project also included the GreenWay. It was to be an integrated transport corridor that would include community bushcare sites to provide valuable habitat for flora and fauna.

The GreenWay was to run alongside the light rail and be constructed in conjunction with it. Community advocacy has always been critical to these projects, as has the support of local members of Parliament. Tonight both the member for Canterbury and the member for Balmain will make a contribution to this debate. I also acknowledge the work of Sandra Nori and Verity Firth, both former members for Balmain, who played such an important role in advocating within government for extensions to the light rail in the inner west. Prior to the March election, contrary to what the Government contends, substantial progress had been made on the inner west extension, including extensive public consultation, granting of development approval, and preconstruction work on the tracks and on the GreenWay.

Both the member for Canterbury and I inspected that work prior to the election and substantial progress had been made. Despite the clear recreational, environmental and transport benefits of the GreenWay, particularly for a high-density, inner-city community like the inner west, in less than a year of the Government winning office it announced that it would scrap the GreenWay and delay the time frame for constructing the light rail extension. The strong community support of the GreenWay is well known. It is so strongly supported because it will provide transport, recreational and environmental benefits. Clearly the O'Farrell Government has got its priorities wrong. It claims it cannot afford to proceed with the GreenWay, yet the Minister for Transport has spent $18 million on private consultants' fees in her first 10 months in office.

The Government claims it is committed to active transport, yet it has scrapped an active transport project with no legitimate explanation. The Government also claims that it will listen to the community, yet it is not listening to the 10,000 people in the inner west who are telling it to go ahead with the GreenWay. The Government must listen to what the community in the inner west is saying. The GreenWay will provide for sustainable transport and recreational opportunities, and a wildlife corridor for a relatively modest investment of funds. The community support for this project is huge. Community members have petitioned, rallied, cycled and talked, and at every stage the groundswell has grown. There is a very good reason for that—namely, the project makes good sense. I urge the O'Farrell Government to listen to the community as it said it would and build this project.

The SPEAKER: Order! I presumed those in the visitors gallery had been warned about interrupting the debate. People in the gallery are not allowed to make any noise during parliamentary debates. I acknowledge your excitement in hearing this debate, but I warn those seated in the gallery against making any noise. In the past I have cleared the gallery.

Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN (Willoughby—Minister for Transport) [4.37 p.m.]: I acknowledge those seated in the visitors gallery and I thank you all for signing this petition. Indeed, 10,000 signatures is a significant number of people and this is what our democracy is about. I also acknowledge and thank those residents who have come to see me and those who have participated in our various planning forums. I empathise with your wishes for better integrated active transport, cycling, pedestrian access and open space. Like many of you, I live in and represent a densely populated community in close proximity to the central business district. My community also values open space. I acknowledge that prior to the last election the Labor Government made some commitments in relation to the GreenWay and to light rail. The Coalition listened to those commitments and, just over a year ago, I had the honour and privilege of becoming the Minister for Transport.

Unfortunately the Labor Party said the cost of the GreenWay and light rail would be approximately $150 million. When I became the Minister for Transport, I inquired into that issue. Regrettably, the cost is at least $63 million more than Labor said it would be. It will cost at least $213 million if we proceed with the GreenWay and the light rail. More concerning than that is that a lot of the engineering work for the GreenWay had not been done, so we had experts do more of the engineering work. The advice I received was that if we proceeded with the light rail and the GreenWay at the same time, it would delay the light rail project. To my mind, that was a matter of concern.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Canterbury will cease interjecting.
Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN: The cost blowout also was a concern. I emphasise the point that regrettably Labor Opposition members are not telling the truth when they accuse the Government of delaying the light rail. What they said before the election was that light rail would be completed by 2012. It did not mean that that was a fact. When I became the Minister of Transport I asked the experts and we did the work. They said, "There is no way you could build and have the light rail open by this year. There is no way that could happen." Regrettably, a long list of Labor transport projects were announced but were never delivered. I know I spoke to many visitors who are in the gallery about the CBD metro to Rozelle. That also was an ill-conceived project: It wasted half a billion dollars.

When Labor members talk about waste, that really gets my goat because Labor's record was appalling when it came to public transport. I do not want to take away from my responsibility, and that is why I have spent a lot of time on inner west transport, such as ferry services or light rail. I am very pleased that coincidently today we signed a contract with John Holland to construct the inner west light rail project. In as short a time as a few weeks we will have people on the site to start construction of that line, which is so important. In relation to active transport, I thank many of you who have made submissions to the Government's Long Term Active Transport Master Plan. For the first time in our State's history, cycling, pedestrian access and integrated routes will form part of an official public transport policy.

When I was the shadow Minister for Transport for four years one thing I was able to do was look very closely at plans the Government published at the time. The sad thing about Bike Plan 2000 and Bike Plan 2010, which were 10 years apart, is that not much happened in those 10 years. Unfortunately, while a lot has been said about cycling, pedestrian access and integration—and I do not take away from the fact that a lot has been said about that in the past decade—unfortunately, not a lot has been done. My commitment to communities in the inner west and other parts of Sydney is to make sure we get integration right and to make sure that when it comes to active transport, cycling and pedestrian access, we get the long-term vision correct.

I would much rather have time to spend to make sure we get the planning right and make sure that we have an integrated strategy for active transport, whether it is in relation to the GreenWay project or other projects. My decision to defer the GreenWay was not taken lightly. Even though 10,000 signatures is a lot, and I do not wish to take away from that, I also acknowledge that there are differing views on whether the project should have been deferred. The Inner West Courier conducted a survey, which revealed that more than 80 per cent of people supported the Government's decision to defer, based on the fact that it would have delayed the inner west light rail extension and the engineering issues would have compromised the integrity of the project. [Time expired.]

Ms LINDA BURNEY (Canterbury) [4.42 p.m.]: I say to the many people in the visitors gallery who have come to listen to this debate today that what they heard just then from the Minister for Transport was a big fat "No". That is precisely what we just heard; let us not mince our words. I join the member for Marrickville in recognising the visitors in the gallery. I also recognise the hard work contributed by each person and their organisations, members of Parliament and local councils in the collection of more than 10,000 signatures, which is a magnificent effort of community advocacy. That is what those 10,000 signatures represent. It is incredible that there was no discussion, consultation or any decent answer given to questions and letters that were sent to the Minister, and no clear explanation except for, "Oh, it's not properly planned and not properly costed", which is very convenient.

Ms Gladys Berejiklian: That is not true.

Ms LINDA BURNEY: The letters never ever got to you.

The SPEAKER: Order! Members will cease arguing across the Chamber. I have asked visitors in the gallery to contain themselves. I now ask members to contain themselves.

Ms LINDA BURNEY: It seems to me the GreenWay has absolutely no downside, except that the Minister decided she was not going to spend money on people in the inner west who had spent years working passionately and collaboratively with local councils to design something that would be a winner all round for health, walking, riding, the environment and sustainable transport—the very things that the Minister is supposed to support. I acknowledge the magnificent work of the member for Marrickville, the member for Balmain, and visitors in the gallery. The campaign would not have been possible without the commitment to the project of people in the inner west and their local councils.
The GreenWay project is iconic in the area because it represents collaboration and good common sense, and it brings together all the things we would want in an integrated transport arrangement. I state very clearly to the Minister and to Government members that as much as they want to be snide and smile about this, if they think this debate is the end of advocacy for the GreenWay they are so very wrong. Every person in the visitors gallery, their families and the community groups they represent will let the Government know every day that this decision is wrong. It is a mean decision and it is not the decision that the Government proposed and advocated as its transport plan. [Time expired.]

Mr JOHN SIDOTI (Drummoyne) [4.45 p.m.]: I appreciate having the opportunity to participate in debate on this very important issue. I am a member of this House probably because my predecessor tried to deliver projects to the electorate without ever consulting. We all fought against the duplicate Iron Cove Bridge because we knew what it would do—pretty much nothing. We knew how much it would cost, and it exceeded that cost, yet it was delivered. I will never forget the opening of the bridge. The then Premier officially opened the duplicate bridge in a drive-by on a bus because she was too embarrassed to front the public.

The SPEAKER: Order! Members will cease arguing across the Chamber.

Mr JOHN SIDOTI: Since being elected as the member for Drummoyne, I have listened to the public. We probably would not be arguing if Labor had not wasted $500 million on the Rozelle metro during its term in office. If that had not happened we would have the money to deliver on active transport projects. I would be a strong advocate for this project, but I will not put up with being dictated to by Labor Opposition members who delivered absolutely nothing in Labor's 16 years in government.

Ms Linda Burney: What a load of codswallop.

Mr JOHN SIDOTI: It delivered absolutely nothing.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Canterbury has had her opportunity to contribute to the debate.

Mr JOHN SIDOTI: We deliver good public transport.

Ms Linda Burney: Name one project.

Mr JOHN SIDOTI: I stood up for my electorate of Drummoyne to have an extra five RiverCat services from Cabarita wharf every day, which is a total of 25 additional services a week. That will benefit not only Cabarita but also Drummoyne, Chiswick and Abbotsford. Hopefully, the additional services will be taken into Balmain. I advocate for active transport because I am a cyclist and a runner. We use common services, walkways and pathways not only in the Drummoyne electorate but also in the electorate of Balmain. The O'Farrell Government always has been up-front about proceeding with the inner west light rail extension from Lilyfield to Dulwich Hill, but what we do not want to do is what the former Labor Government did—announce something and then not deliver, or announce something and try to deliver it at triple the cost.

The Government really must act in a fiscally responsible manner for the sake of the taxpayers of this State. We will not lower our standards for the sake of politicking by delivering a project that Labor designed on the back of an envelope six weeks prior to an election. Planning approval for the project that was granted by the previous Government included a shared cycling and walking path. The GreenWay largely followed the alignment of the inner west light rail. However, the GreenWay approval was granted without any depth analysis so it is very important. On coming to office Transport for NSW reviewed the work that the previous Government did not do on light rail and the GreenWay. [Time expired.]

Mr JAMIE PARKER (Balmain) [4.48 p.m.], by leave: I welcome all the people here today who have dedicated themselves to supporting the GreenWay, in particular, the Friends of the GreenWay. I acknowledge all the fantastic work of local councils, which have worked tirelessly to support the GreenWay—Leichhardt, Marrickville, Ashfield and Canterbury councils. Their hard work and dedication brought the campaign to the floor of the Parliament to record the importance of this matter. It is just another step in the campaign. The collection of 10,000 signatures is a great achievement and is evidence of the groundswell of community support for the GreenWay.

It is a fact that campaigns work. This same campaign forced the former Labor Government to drop its opposition to the inner west light rail project from Lilyfield to Dulwich Hill, and eventually it rightly supported the combined light rail and GreenWay project. With such strong support and an active, ongoing community based campaign, the Government cannot continue to ignore this. I have raised this issue in Parliament, along with other members who have spoken eloquently here today, in speeches, questions, meetings with the Minister and questions on notice. Today we have heard the Government make the positive and wonderful announcement that work will commence on the light rail project. However, the project is incomplete without the GreenWay. We have engaged in this campaign around the GreenWay because it stands on its merits.

It is not about deals, political expediency or politicking; it is about an important project that delivers environmental, social and economical benefits, not just to the people of the inner west but to all of Sydney. The GreenWay will deliver wide-ranging benefits both for the inner west and the thousands of commuters who will benefit from an integrated active transport option that will enhance the effectiveness of light rail. The GreenWay provides a safe option for children to walk or cycle to school, with 21 schools located in the GreenWay catchment. We have heard the Government talk about a lack of funding. Funding priority has been given to a $300 million gift to the registered clubs; a $300 million tax cut to poker machine businesses but there is not enough money for the GreenWay project.

It is time for the Government to commit to building the GreenWay alongside the light rail corridor; we know it will cost significantly more to add the GreenWay to the light rail corridor later. I am pleased the Minister for Transport is in the Chamber; I respect her for attending because Ministers are often not present for debate on petitions. I invite the Minister to tour the project and see firsthand how effectively the GreenWay links with other transport options, to encourage active transport and to increase patronage on the light rail system. The GreenWay enjoys huge support within my electorate of Balmain. After over a decade of community campaigning, I look forward to working with the Government and agitating to ensure that it acts now to build this important project. We call on the Government to build the GreenWay.

The SPEAKER: I thank the people in the gallery for their demeanour this afternoon. I wish them well with their future campaigning.

Discussion concluded.

Mr PAUL LYNCH (Liverpool) [4.53 p.m.]: I advise the House of issues of concern for some of my constituents, especially Owen and Kay Knight. My constituents are both long-term residents of the suburb of Warwick Farm, in particular, of the horse training precinct in Warwick Farm, which is bounded by the railway, Warwick Farm railway station, Governor Macquarie Drive and industrial estates. There are about 100 adult residents in this precinct. Mr and Mrs Knight are most concerned at proposals to create a new road to convey industrial traffic and trucks from Governor Macquarie Drive to Scrivener Street through the horse training precinct. Currently traffic goes along Manning Street. In their view this new road would substantially affect their amenity as well as probably do serious damage to Rosedale Oval.

Among other things Rosedale Oval is a very rare thing—a turf cricket pitch on which high-level cricket is played. For some time a campaign has been run to have traffic moved from its current route along Manning Street. The area is one for horse trainers and there is a claim by owners on one side of Manning Street about conflict between horses and traffic. Numerous traffic calming measures have been implemented in the precinct over many years by Liverpool City Council to reduce the potential conflict between vehicles and horses. For example, a number of roads have been made into cul-de-sacs. With an apparent increase in traffic to the industrial area over time, the concerns of residents, especially on the western side of Manning Street, have increased.

For residents who have been there for some time this has been very keenly felt. There is inevitably less sympathy for more recent arrivals, who have built various developments and should have been alert to the issues and subsequently try to make capital gain by changing road patterns. One particular person in that category I am thinking of is not a horse trainer. One resident is so outrageous and disgraceful in his behaviour that he has been the subject of court proceedings to protect some of the councillors. There are also other problems on Manning Street. Dawn O'Neill, to whom I spoke on Tuesday, has a problem in premises next to her with the Sydney Horse Transport Company, which is operating a horse transport facility and thus may well be outside its appropriate zoning. I call on Liverpool City Council to take all appropriate action to deal with Ms O'Neill's legitimate concerns.
I return to the issue of traffic through Manning Street. Councillor Peter Harle seems to have been active in the vicinity. The precinct is a comparatively small area but Councillor Harle's son-in-law lives in the area, as do other family members. At council Councillor Harle sometimes declares an interest and sometimes does not when the Warwick Farm is discussed. That is another matter that needs proper investigation somewhere else. In the media reporting there seems to be an issue with the traffic in Manning Street. However, as Mr and Mrs Knight have very correctly pointed out, the solutions proposed involve massive cost and manage to disadvantage another group of residents. As Mr and Mrs Knight correctly state, they simply have not been heard in the public debate. Their point of view and legitimate interests have been completely ignored by much of the public commentary to date. They have relayed a number of other concerns to me.

Mr and Mrs Knight are concerned about the lack of transparency by council in its decision-making process. Earlier this year council retained a consultancy group Straight Talk Pty Ltd to obtain community feedback. Before that process was complete council made decisions in March this year regardless of community views. That seemed to Mr and Mrs Knight to be quite wrong. This is also aggravated by the fact that meetings were held by Straight Talk consultancy to which they were not invited. In March council resolved to write to the Premier seeking $6 million for one of the bypass road options. The council report had several bypass options but it was made clear that council could not fund the road itself, despite the fact that all roads were council roads.

Mr and Mrs Knight heard Councillor Harle was having meetings with selected residents but certainly not with them. He was alleged to have said to one of these residents that the bypass road proposed by council to the Premier would never be built but that another one would be. That other bypass road would travel across Horseshoe Pond and link up with Priddle Street via the southern end of Rosedale Oval. That may or may not be what he said but it reveals the confusion generated by the activity of some councillors and the complete lack of clarity surrounding the issue. Mr and Mrs Knight quite reasonably would like to know what council's real plans are and the result of the community feedback from the Straight Talk consultancy. Mr and Mrs Knight are concerned at the inaccuracies in the council's letter to the Premier dated 11 April 2012, which seem to assert that everyone in the precinct is currently adversely affected by the issue of traffic.

Mr and Mrs Knight make the point that that is simply not the case. They are particularly critical of one activist in the saga who is in Manning Street but is not a trainer, who bought a property in Manning Street, erected three townhouses and then added some stables to try to get around the zoning restrictions. It is important that all sides in this debate are heard and that there is transparency in the council's treatment of this issue. Issues concerning Warwick Farm horse training precinct and the environs have been regularly discussed and voted on at Liverpool City Council since October 2010. Councillor Harle started declaring an interest only in about August last year. The nature of interest he variously declares—

Ms Melanie Gibbons: Point of order: The conflict of interest of the councillor at Liverpool City Council is not for the member for Liverpool to judge. He should not impugn a councillor on that council.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gareth Ward): Order! I uphold the point of order. I do not believe the member for Liverpool was outside the rules governing private members' statements.

Mr PAUL LYNCH: I note the defence via the Liberal Party of Councillor Harle. He should work out exactly what his interest is and be upfront with the people of Liverpool. Up until now he has not been.

Mr BART BASSETT (Londonderry) [4.58 p.m.]: It would be an understatement for me to say that I am disappointed at having to make this statement today. However, I am doing so to make the public aware of the sad and disgraceful situation affecting the Child Flight Helicopter Service—a service that I and two other people established in 1989, after working on establishing such an organisation since 1985. For four years I worked in a cab at night. During the day I would go to the Children's Hospital at Camperdown to ensure that we would be funded by the New South Wales Health Department. I lobbied, obtained corporate sponsorships, established a charity, worked hard and donating a great deal of my time to establish a really great organisation which, since 1989 has helped to save the lives of thousands of babies and children across New South Wales.

One can only wonder what has happened to that great organisation. Tonight I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the Minister for Health is aware of the situation and is working hard to ensure that we save Child Flight—its name, its banner and its reputation—and, importantly, ensure that the service continues. The Newborn and Paediatric Emergency Transport Service in New South Wales [NETS] has a helicopter platform that is able to carry that team throughout New South Wales and western Sydney. One can only wonder why this has happened. Dr Andrew Berry, the medical director of the Newborn and Paediatric Emergency Transport Service is one of the founders of the Child Flight Helicopter Service, along with me and one other pilot, Mr Jeremy Ovens.

Dr Andrew Berry, who has been medical director of the Newborn and Paediatric Emergency Transport Service since before 1985, was the honorary medical director of Child Flight for a number of years. Dr Berry is no longer the honorary medical director but he still plays a major role in controlling that charity. Why did Dr Andrew Berry, medical director of the Newborn and Paediatric Emergency Transport Service, stand idly by and let this great charity of New South Wales fail? Why did he stand idly by when an incompetent board of Child Flight allowed it to fall into financial disarray? It purchased helicopters worth millions of dollars without taking into consideration whether it had enough money for maintenance and to ensure that engines and gearboxes worth hundreds of thousands of dollars were able to be replaced. The board did not dispose of those aircraft prior to buying new aircraft.

When I left in 1996 New South Wales was being adequately served with a BK117. The organisation now has three helicopters—it has not disposed of one—and it wonders why it has fallen into financial disarray. It is an absolute disgrace. I always stood up for the donors and the corporate sponsors, many of whom I was involved with. Since leaving that organisation I have stood up for other corporate sponsors. I thank them for the amazing financial contributions that allowed Child Flight to operate in New South Wales. I thank the communities in New South Wales who set up fundraising organisations to raise money for Child Flight. I thank the individuals who raised money and gave money to the pensioners who would give $5 at a shopping centre thinking it was going to a good cause and would be well managed. It was going to a good cause, but the money has been wasted.

I call on the board to resign today. The organisation is trading insolvently. The Child Flight board should resign immediately and notify the Minister for Health tomorrow that it has done so. The management should stand aside as well; they have not notified anybody of this situation. More importantly, over the past two years CareFlight, which also operates out of Westmead, has approached Child Flight to work with it in partnership to make sure the service would survive and continue to serve New South Wales. Child Flight dismissed that offer out of hand. It has now placed itself in an insolvency position. It is totally unacceptable. Why did this happen? I have my suspicions as to why Dr Andrew Berry stood silently by and allowed this to happen. I have had complaints from his staff about his micromanagement. I heard he wanted the Canadian-operated service to run the service so he had more control. It is a disgrace. The board should resign.

Mr ANDREW FRASER (Coffs Harbour—The Assistant-Speaker) [5.03 p.m.]: Today it gives me great pleasure to advise the House of the progress of the University of New South Wales Rural Clinical School in Coffs Harbour. I had the pleasure of attending the opening of the extension of the Rural Clinical School only a couple of weeks ago. The Rural Clinical School is a Commonwealth-funded initiative of the University of New South Wales and the Australian Department of Health and Ageing. It plays a leading role in the education of medical students in rural Australia. The school teaches the undergraduate medical course, promotes rural and Indigenous medicine, and conducts research. There are four schools: Coffs Harbour, Port Macquarie, Wagga Wagga and Albury. Obviously, Coffs Harbour is the best of the four. The Coffs Harbour campus commenced in 2003 with eight students. It has grown to the current enrolment of 46 undergraduate medical students from years 3 to 6. In 2011, 15 new doctors graduated, including the recipient of the prestigious University Medal.

The expansion of the Rural Clinical School is being facilitated by the extension of the building, which the Rural Clinical School is proud to have opened on 17 May. The Coffs Harbour campus recognises the contribution of the Coffs Harbour hospital, the regional medical fraternity and their patients in the provision of high-quality education. In addition to the staff employed at the university, many local professionals offer their time and expertise to teach students at the hospital. The staff involved are many and varied. We have permanent staff of Mark Daddo, Jodie Kennedy and Sandie Walker, who are friendly faces. Every time you go there they greet you with open arms. They make sure the medical students get on in a small campus and are educated, housed and looked after. Even their mums would not give them the assistance they get there.

On the numerous occasions I have been there I have spoken to students. It is amazing. Over the years only two students who have studied there and graduated have not wanted to come back to regional New South Wales to practise medicine. That is a credit to the staff and to the local doctors. Local doctors have assisted there over the years. I am sure I will miss someone, but I have to mention James Curran, a lovely man, and Ned Abraham. I also mention Dr Karen Chia, Dr Mark Henschke, Dr Robin Jelliffe, who is an absolute legend in the Coffs Harbour community, Dr John Kramer and Dr Kathy Kramer—people who have done a phenomenal job. I mention my good friend Dr Mike Ridley, past president of the Australian Medical Association, who is undergoing treatment for a savage form of lymphoma in Brisbane. That is very sad. Mike is a fantastic man.

Tonight I most want to mention Dr David Amies and give members an idea of his curriculum vitae. He was educated in Norwich City. He went to London Medical School. At London Hospital he was a house surgeon and physician. Then he went to Bournemouth and Boscombe Hospital as a casualty officer, and worked as a medical officer in northern Nigeria and a medical officer in the Royal Air Force. While serving in the air force he trained in ophthalmology, and worked at Moorfields, Wolverhampton Eye Infirmary and at St John's Ophthalmic Hospital. In the last two years in the Royal Air Force he was a Wing Commander and consultant in ophthalmology. He had a private ophthalmic practice in Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan. He had a private practice in Grande Prairie, Alberta, worked as an ophthalmologist in Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Grande Prairie, had a private practice in Calgary, Alberta, worked in Darwin and was senior lecturer in surgery at Flinders University Outreach Medical School.

Dr David Amies has been at the Coffs Harbour campus since it started. He is a wonderful man. Sadly for us all, he retires on 15 June. The University of New South Wales needs to give him a professorship. He is a man highly regarded not only by our community but also by the medical fraternity, the students and everyone else. He is a gentle man. He and his wife, Pat, have been great assets to our community. I wish them extremely well in their retirement. I say to this House and the people of Coffs Harbour that we owe them a great deal of gratitude. Without them the school would not have been as successful as it is. I wish them a long and happy retirement.

Mr GREG APLIN (Albury) [5.08 p.m.]: About 3,000 years ago the Old Testament presented the story of an unequal contest between young David and the giant Goliath. In the fifth century BC a storyteller named Aesop immortalised the tale of the hare and the tortoise. Now another underdog tale will soon be retold, this time to a new generation. Filming has been underway recently in Albury and the region for a movie on the famous Sydney to Melbourne Ultra-marathon of 1983. This was the year in which a 61-year-old potato farmer from Beech Forest beat some of the best long-distance runners in the world, completing the 875-kilometre road race in 5 days, 15 hours and 4 minutes. The race should have been a typical earnest but dull minor sporting event. But this was to be no ordinary race. For almost six days the nation was transfixed as Cliff Young made his way into the lead and into the record books as one of the truly great long-distance runners.

Written by Robert B. Taylor, produced by Clock End Films and Nigel Odell and directed by Dean Murphy, the Cliffy telemovie will screen on the ABC next year, which is the thirtieth anniversary of the famous race. The film stars Kevin Harrington—seen in The Dish, Underbelly and Neighbours—as Cliff Young. I have said it was a running race but all who witnessed Cliff in action will know that that is not the real story. For the one thing Cliff Young did not do in this race was run. I remember the time well. On television we would see this man shuffling along the Hume Highway, barely moving his body or lifting his feet off the ground. I also have strong memories of the incredulous reaction of reporters. How could this older man possibly be competitive if he refused to run? Of course, it was never going to be enough to shuffle along, no matter how much energy that limited action conserved.

There was a second masterstroke: While most runners took to their beds overnight to recover from a gruelling day averaging 18 hours of running Cliff mostly dismissed the need for sleep. He was unstoppable. In this unassuming way Cliff covered more than 150 kilometres, on average, each day. Australians respond strongly to stories of unlikely achievement by ordinary folk. The 1980s were a time of great change in sport. We saw an increasing professionalism take over from enthusiastic amateurism. As members may recall, these were the times when the price of sports shoes mysteriously jumped from $20 to $200. People had to have the right gear to be taken seriously as a competitor. It was big money too.

For example, Nike Air cushioning jogging shoes hit stores in 1979, and seven years later that company's sole revenues topped $1 billion. But Cliff Young did not dress to impress. He had latent athletic talent that made him one of the fastest potato pickers in Beech Forest. He appeared casual but he was also determined. Indeed, his whole life was preparation for his moment to shine on the national stage. In his 30s he started running competitively. He could run a marathon in a bit over three hours, finishing in the middle of the list, but he knew something was wrong. A biographer, Phil Essam, quoted Cliff saying about these early marathons:

I was not much chop. I was like a Melbourne Cup horse ... I needed it longer.

When asked why they based themselves in Albury for much of the filming the producers said they chose Albury because of the hospitality shown by the community to film makers and productions over many years. Indeed, in recent years the Albury region has been a crucial workplace for film makers producing movies such as The Sapphires and Strange Bedfellows. Producer Nigel Odell has been quoted as saying it was his and director Dean Murphy's good experience on the border while filming Strange Bedfellows that brought them back to Albury. Signs were placed in shop windows to call forth extras. We could see these people in the streets and car parks late at night, stomping their feet to keep warm while they waited for the call to action. Extras raided their parents' wardrobes for clothes that spoke of the 1980s. There were browns and tans, woolly jumpers, plain shoes, beanies, leather jackets and even a Kiss T-shirt. Cliff Young passed away in 2003 aged 81 years. Cliffy's director, Dean Murphy, caught up with Cliff's brother, Sid, when researching the story. Murphy said:

He was just like him, with the same dry sense of humour …

When brother Sid was told there was going to be a movie about Cliffy he replied:

[The story is] pretty well-known around our generation in any case—the young ones wouldn't know what it was, I suppose. It won't do them any harm.

There is the dry humour, self-deprecating and laconic, that lies at the heart of the Australian character. As one person posted online:

Cliff was one of Australia's great sporting Legends and proof that it does not matter what age you are, you can get up and have a go.

It will not do us any harm to hear the story afresh. It may even do some of us some good.

Mr RICHARD AMERY (Mount Druitt) [5.13 p.m.]: In my electorate of Mount Druitt, situated in Glendenning Road, Plumpton, are a number of works depots previously run by Integral Energy, now Endeavour. There are other depots in various parts of western Sydney, certainly on the fringe of my electorate. Employees at these depots and my constituents have been following the debate about electricity privatisation with more than just a passing interest or political interest. After all, their jobs are at stake. Electricity privatisation was raised during the last election campaign.

There was some relief in the minds of my constituents and the employees at those depots when the Government indicated that the current process would not affect the distribution sector of the industry—this is often called the poles and wires. However, the relief appears to be short lived. Recently I spoke to an employee and a constituent in my electorate office who came to me with a number of documents that had been circulated to a large number of people in my electorate who are employees at several depots. One document was headed "Employee Update" with the subheading "Market testing" and was dated 1 March 2012. The document states:

As part of achieving our goal we are reviewing our workforce delivery model and intend to market test Field Operations (Field Officers), Meter/Relay Change and Substation Civil Maintenance services.

The employees received another update from Vince Graham dated 18 March 2012. If I have time I will refer again to Mr Graham. These employees are employed with what is called the distribution sector, commonly referred to as poles and wires. They recognise that the generators and the retail sections have been sold. My constituents are happy that the sector that is described as poles and wires is not being sold. It would be dishonest if the suggestion was that the entity or the company is to be sold but the employees who work for them will be privatised or contracted out to private companies. I refer again to the employee update dated 1 March 2012, which states:

The first functions to be considered for market testing are:

· Field Operations (Field Officers)—

my constituent has written "40"; I assume that is 40 jobs—

· Meter/Relay Change—

he has written "15+"—

· Substation Civil Maintenance—

he has written "15+"—

This morning we advised employees from each of these functions and the Peak Contractor Consultative Committee of our intention to market test these functions.

I understand that these issues have been broadly debated in relation to legislation and so on. In this private member's statement I am only concerned with the welfare of the employees who are my constituents. Endeavour Energy has been sending out a lot of material to my constituents and its employees. One document headed "Electricity Network Reform" was of interest to me. It states:

The following questions and answers have been prepared by the NSW Government's Electricity Reform Task Force and have been distributed to all three NSW electricity distributors for the information of staff.

It is one of those documents with commonly asked questions and answers that are often sent out. I suppose question 1, which interested me, is hypothetical. It states:

1. How many jobs will be lost from Endeavour Energy and from which areas?
It is important to understand this reform is not about cutting frontline jobs or services. The efficiency savings we have set out do not depend on cuts to frontline positions.

…

It is expected that the current combined workforce of 13,000 (across the three distribution networks) will be reduced by up to 780 jobs through this reform. Naturally this will mean the consolidation of some Executive and back office functions.

In the short time remaining I highlight that my constituents working in the poles and wires or distribution sector, who not long ago were happy that the sector was not being privatised, are now concerned about their employment.

Mr THOMAS GEORGE (Lismore—The Deputy-Speaker) [5.18 p.m.]: I recognise and pay tribute this afternoon to the Casino Beef Week Inc. board of directors and committee and Casino's community and industry upon celebrating the thirtieth anniversary of Beef Week last week. I felt very humble and proud as the inaugural chairman and a life member of Casino Beef Week committee to see how the festival has grown over 30 years. Never did I think 30 years ago that I would still be assisting with the running of Casino Beef Week. I pay tribute to the Mayor of Casino Municipal Council at that time, Gerry Kelly, and his good friend Michael Zann, both Casino boys, who came up with the idea of having this promotion some 31 years ago. We had a meeting in Casino and Beef Week eventuated from that.

I was very pleased to attend the official opening of Beef Week on the first Saturday night with the Mayor of Richmond Valley Council, Col Sullivan, who is also a past president and life member of the Beef Week committee. We had the honour of presenting Verla Hayes, our coordinator for 16 years, with life membership. It was a successful week even though Friday was very wet. On Friday night I was driving home after having been in Sydney for the week and I thought, "Gee, how are they going to run this tomorrow?" I woke up on Saturday and it was typical of Casino: it turned the weather on and it was a great day for the culmination of Beef Week. As part of Beef Week 60 led steers and stud cattle were paraded and tied up in the main street. The champion steer was exhibited by Trinity College, Inverell, and the runner-up was a Murray Grey cross steer exhibited by Dockrill and Hagan of Casino.

It was brought to my attention that there were a lot of third-generation descendants of the people who worked with me on the first Beef Week. The grandchildren of the people who were involved 30 years ago were exhibiting cattle and attending this great promotion. Something like 20,000 people were there on Saturday to witness the main day of the Beef Week activities. After seeing that crowd in the street enjoying themselves I have no hesitation in saying that it was the best festival ever. Never in my wildest dreams did I expect it to grow to that size. It is a credit to Casino and a reflection of what Casino is all about, with community and industry combining their resources to come up with this unique promotion. A promotion like this is the envy of many country towns.

I have been the ground announcer and master of ceremonies for the event for the past 30 years but on Saturday I thought it was time I stood aside. I did so with great pride. Richmond Valley Council has been a great supporter of Beef Week all the way through. It is their signature event and it has had the support of the Northern Co-operative Meat Company, which employs 1,000 people in the Casino area, Destination NSW and Forest Enterprises Development Consulting [FEDC], which is owned by Mick and Rhonda Benton. They were the sponsors for the week and had the naming rights. It is a credit to a local boy who grew up there with his family. They have developed a big business and now they have taken up the naming rights sponsorship of Casino Beef Week and it was known as FEDC Beef Week 2012.

My son Stuart is the current chairman of Beef Week and both as a father and as the inaugural chairman I felt very proud of the job he has done. I congratulate him. He was the first to acknowledge that none of it would have been possible without the support of his board and the volunteers and sponsors, all of them having combined to make this an outstanding success. I also note that Stuart has had the support of his wife, Margaret, and their lovely children, Molly and Charlie, who were there on Saturday and spent most of the day up on stage with me. Again, Beef Week was a reflection of what Casino is all about. The people of the Northern Rivers got together to produce what has turned out to be a wonderful promotion for the community.

Ms LINDA BURNEY (Canterbury) [5.23 p.m.]: My private member's statement is about a quite remarkable woman from the Canterbury electorate, Mrs Ruth Chong. She is a wonderful example to everyone she encounters. Mrs Chong lives in the Cardinal Freeman Village in Ashfield, which is for aged people. She is 98 years of age and is the oldest marriage celebrant in Australia. I am not sure how many people she has married but I am certain there are a great number. In addition to this, she still offers her services as a justice of the peace. At her age that is quite remarkable. Mrs Chong is a third-generation Australian-born woman of Chinese background. She was married to Ray Chong, who passed away some 16 years ago, and they had two children.

Mrs Chong has received many awards during her long life and I would like to advise the House of some of them. In 1977 she received the Silver Jubilee Medal from the Queen; in 1979 she was made a Member of the British Empire, the first woman of Chinese origin in Australia to receive this honour; in 1982 she became a member of the Knights of Rizal in the Philippines for her community service; in 1987 she received the Medal of the Order of Australia for her charitable activities and her promotion of multiculturalism; in 1990 she received a Senior Citizens Award; and in 1997 she received the Order of Australia. Everyone would agree that the accumulation of those awards over a 20-year period demonstrates what a remarkable person Mrs Chong is. In her younger days she also played parts in movies and commercials.

Mrs Chong founded the first Sydney Chinese Lions Club in 1994 and this year was awarded the Melvin Jones Fellowship in recognition of her contribution to the community and Lions Club International. This award was given to Mrs. Chong at an event in this place on 8 February this year. I joined the member for Oatley last Saturday night at the Lions Club International fundraiser in Chinatown for the I Have a Dream Foundation. Al Grassby, a former Federal Minister for Immigration who fought strongly for multiculturalism and who knew Mrs Chong well through her time on the Ethnic Communities Council, referred to Ruth as the Chinese Hurricane, a term she chuckles about and fondly remembers. She acknowledges that this label accurately reflects her approach to life and its challenges. Mrs Chong has undertaken many roles in her active life, being a freelance press photographer and social editor for a number of publications. She supported her husband in retail businesses and has also taught English. I have the utmost respect and deep admiration for Mrs Chong.

I wish Kai Ma, as she is fondly referred to by the Chinese community—it means benevolent godmother—peace, good health and happiness in the future. The conferring of the words "peace, good health and happiness in the future" on a senior woman is very significant. Private members' statements are important. They are an opportunity for us to be generous and to talk about our electorate and the pride we take in our electorate. Someone who is 98 years of age and who still participates actively in the community is certainly deserving of recognition by way of a private member's statement. I wish Mrs Chong all health and happiness. I am very proud she is a constituent of the electorate of Canterbury. I am even more proud that I have the honour of representing her in the Parliament of New South Wales.

Ms MELANIE GIBBONS (Menai) [5.28 p.m.]: In honour of the NSW Women of the Year Awards announced on Wednesday I wish to share the achievements of two amazing women in my electorate. The first woman is Linda Lambourne from Chipping Norton. Linda is a mum who contacted me soon after the election for my assistance. Her son was attending Newbridge Heights School at the time and she was concerned about known asbestos contamination in the school playground, but which was believed to be contained. For the past few years she has been tirelessly advocating not only for her son's wellbeing but also for the rest of the school community. She has written letters, made calls, attended numerous meetings and spent countless hours concentrating on this issue. She mobilised other parents and compelled me to assist her in getting the grounds remediated and the asbestos removed. Within a few short days she was able to get hundreds of names on a petition to present to Parliament. She told me personally that she could not, in good faith, let this issue go until she could be sure that the school community was safe from any potential harm. I felt exactly the same.

Last year, with the assistance of the education Minister, the Hon. Adrian Piccoli, the playground of particular concern was thoroughly retested. The results showed little reason for concern, but the Minister made the commitment to have the grounds remediated. During the school holidays a team came in and worked to remove the areas found to have low-levels of asbestos. When school resumed the students were able to play again without concern for their wellbeing. Despite her son now attending high school, Linda remains involved in the school community and makes sure this issue is kept under control. I nominated her for the NSW Women of the Year Awards because of her dedication to this cause and her commitment to the safety of her local school community. It was a pleasure to stand with her on Wednesday and to honour her contribution to the Menai electorate at the Premier's special awards presentation. It is only fitting that her name appears on the 2012 NSW Women of the Year Awards Honour Roll for her contribution. She joins a long list of inspiring women who are all working hard in their communities to benefit others. I thank each and every one of them.

The other woman has committed her life to caring for others—Katherine Watson. Katherine is a nurse at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and is a renowned specialist in transplant nursing. Her story is quite remarkable. Katherine and her husband, Robert, came from the United Kingdom to Australia on a holiday in 1977 for what was intended to be a five-week stay; 35 years later she is still here, living in Menai, and has been working as a nurse in a life-saving field ever since. Katherine was part of the team that worked on the first liver transplant at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital. Today she is one of the most experienced nurses in the emergency transplant field. She is also involved in the training of new transplant nurses at the hospital, passing on her decades of expertise to staff. Royal Prince Alfred Hospital patients and staff can only benefit from her invaluable knowledge being passed to the next generation. In addition to her 35 years to the health service in Australia, she already had 11 years under her belt in the United Kingdom. Katherine is one amazing woman.

I hope she does not mind my mentioning her age, but at 65 she is still working full time in what must be an incredibly demanding career. Her commitment to this field has not gone unnoticed. Her husband, Robert, rang our office on an unrelated matter but mentioned his wife's achievements and wondered whether there was some way she might be recognised. Unbeknown to Katherine and in honour of the recent International Nurses Day, we were able to organise a letter from the health Minister, the Hon. Jillian Skinner, thanking Katherine for her long service to the community. Tomorrow I will present Katherine with a certificate of appreciation from both of us. I am sure Katherine will claim she has done nothing to deserve such acknowledgement. In fact, that is what she said to me on the phone when I called her with the news. But as a woman from the Menai electorate who has dedicated her life to caring for others I believe she deserves to be recognised. I am pleased to be able to honour and recognise the outstanding contributions both these women have made to the local community and to the general public. I thank them for all they have done.

Mr STUART AYRES (Penrith) [5.33 p.m.]: I draw to the attention of the House the tiresome and often thankless work done by an organisation within the Penrith electorate known as substance.org. Known previously as the Western Sydney Drug and Alcohol Research Centre Inc. [WESDARC], substance.org provides invaluable support to individuals, families and community organisations in our region who want to break the unhealthy hold addictive substances have on vulnerable people in our society. Since 1978 the organisation has operated within the community to promote the principles of harm minimisation in creative and responsive ways that reflect an understanding of the diversity of needs of people living in the Penrith, Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury local government areas. Through the provision of education resources, skills development, community development, training and advocacy, substance.org strives to improve health, increase alternatives and bring about change.

I recently met with the organisation's chief executive officer, Ms Sandra Pedler, to promote the O'Farrell Government's new 24-hour Mental Health Line to individuals at a more regional level. From meeting Ms Pedler it became quite clear that she is passionate about what she does and her small but dedicated team comprising Milena Mijas, Ian Hanslow, Sandra Williams and Sonja Godschalk share this passion for assisting people with substance abuse problems in Penrith. While discussing the Mental Health Line, Ms Pedler made an obvious comment, but one worth repeating to the House. She said that she had not come across one client in her time with the organisation who had not in some way been affected by a mental health condition. This is worth considering, because when government and society deal with substance abuse issues often a rather significant story is behind it. Often something occurs in someone's immediate environment or general outlook that leads him or her to seek refuge in an unhealthy substance. Substance.org engages in education and support programs to bring relevance to the attention of service providers and get individuals the support they need.

This motivation was behind its most recent project, Better Futures Young People, Families and Workers Learning Together. This was run as a collaborative effort between substance.org and Children of Parents with a Mental Illness—COPMI—coordinators from the local health district. The first plank in this project was Time on Our Mind, a two-day camp for children of parents with a mental illness. It provided fun activities, and a learning, sharing and supporting environment while no doubt providing the parents with valuable respite. The other side of the project was Keeping Families and Children in Mind, which focused on preparing educational resources and online learning toolkits for service providers to help them support their clients and their clients' families. It is important that the House acknowledge that the work of organisations such as substance.org in increasing training opportunities and resources for health workers, providing referral pathways, and building the coping skills and resilience of families and individuals is simply invaluable and an important contribution to our communities.

The work of substance.org under the leadership of Sandra Pedler is invaluable to our local area. The O'Farrell Government is the first Government in this State's history to identify the importance of mental health issues by establishing a Minister for Mental Health. It is a critically important stage in recognising that discussion around mental health needs to be more open and transparent. One thing Sandra rammed home to me was the importance of not stigmatising people with a mental health issue. Often those who access the services of substance.org have battled some issues surrounding mental health. Ongoing support from an organisation such as substance.org provides individuals with hope and opportunity to see through the darkness that surrounds them and often leads them to using addictive substances. I applaud the work of substance.org. I recognise the important work of the O'Farrell Government with the establishment of the 24 hour Mental Health Line. These two organisations can work together. I strongly urge members to seek out other organisations in their electorates that help people with mental health issues as they are invaluable to our State.

Dr GEOFF LEE (Parramatta) [5.38 p.m.]: I bring to the attention of the House my support for local schools in the Parramatta electorate, particularly Yates Avenue Public School, Dundas Public School and Parramatta Marist High School. A few months ago I was fortunate to attend Yates Avenue Public School for its open day, in conjunction with Telopea community services, which was attended by hundreds of people. It was great to be part of the celebrations. That school's successful community builder's grant of $14,000 will modernise its out-of-hours school care facility not only for students but also for parents and teachers. Many rooms have been refurbished in this small school that has a big heart. It has a couple of new preschool rooms the opening of which will be eagerly awaited by me. I commend its principal, Tracey Lee, for her work in developing the school, in addition to Kirsten Groll and Jo Smith. I was provided with a delicious morning tea.

I met Jan Thurgar, principal of Dundas Public School, who runs an effective and well-loved school in the area. I also met Melissa McAulay, president of the parents and citizens association, who did most of the baking for the best morning tea I have ever had. I hope to be invited again to partake of the array of cakes, cookies and delicacies, which was akin to having high tea in Dundas. I also congratulate other members of the parents and citizens association—Sue King, Cath Willcox, Kim Thomas, Amanda Hao, Connie Sheaves and Mary Mansell—who spent time with me to discuss some of the issues of importance to their community, for example, Local Schools, Local Decisions. They told me what that program meant for their school and they were well informed of its implications.

They acknowledged some of the challenges that it would present for principals and said that it seemed like the good idea to give principals more scope as they were are at the heart of decision-making in the areas of investment and staffing arrangements. I have referred on other occasions in this Chamber to Parramatta Marist High School. Full credit goes to its principal, Brother Patrick Howlett, who runs a good school which has a problem-based approach to learning. As a former teacher I am aware that it is difficult to teach adolescent boys or young men. However, this school has opened up its classrooms and it provides a problem-based learning environment that challenges students and empowers them to work in teams to sort out their problems. It was great to see the involvement of staff.
That technology high school has achieved success as a result of its curriculum changes to problem-based learning, its use of technology and the time and effort it has invested in staff. I also commend assistant principals Peter Stephens and Shane Morris, business manager Anne Clark, leader of pedagogy Gavin Hayes, religious education coordinator Kurt Challinor, Karen West and Adam Henry for their work. I have often been asked whether alternative education is as good as chalk and talk where the teacher is the conveyor of all knowledge. Problem-based learning offers students a valuable tool and empowers them to learn by resolving their own problems. I commend Parramatta Marist High School on being named last year as being in the top 100 schools throughout the State. Well done, Parramatta Marist.

Mr GLENN BROOKES (East Hills) [5.43 p.m.]: I do not think anyone will argue with me when I say there is a lot of crime in the Bankstown area. We hear about it every day on television and on the radio and we read about it in the papers. I am not saying that crime happens only in Bankstown; I am saying that unfortunately crime happens frequently in that area. Yesterday the member for Bankstown made comments that were incorrect. The south ward of the Bankstown local government area is not part of the electorate of Bankstown. Based on figures released by the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research—statistics that are freely and publicly available, Bankstown has been shown as a high density crime hotspot with respect to assault, especially domestic violence; break and enter; malicious damage to property; motor vehicle theft; robbery; steal from dwelling; and steal from person—and the list goes on.

At no time have I ever criticised the people who live, work and/or operate businesses in the Bankstown area and I am deeply disappointed by any suggestion that I would have done so. When I referred in my private member's statement on 29 May to criminals and thugs I did so within context and without any reference to the honest and hardworking people of Bankstown. Any suggestion to the contrary clearly is incorrect. As I have already stated, the comments I made about crime are factual. I was not elected to engage in cheap political stunts; I was elected to represent the people of East Hills, which is what I have been doing since 27 March 2011. I have been working hard for the people of the East Hills electorate and I intend to continue to do so without distraction.

Mr GUY ZANGARI (Fairfield) [5.46 p.m.]: Tonight I acknowledge an unsung Fairfield hero, Mr Kevin Bourke, who has been a part of Fairfield's history for many years as a father, grandfather and, moreover, an educator. On 7 June 2012 Kevin will celebrate his eightieth birthday. It is no ordinary birthday. Whilst most 80-year-old men would stay in the comfort of their place of residence on their birthday, Kevin will be at work teaching Extension 1 mathematics, formerly known as 3 Unit maths. Mr Kevin Bourke is a truly remarkable man. He is a very modest fellow who always shies away from any fuss that is made about him. That is the sort of bloke he is. Kevin is loved by thousands of former students and colleagues at Patrician Brothers College, Fairfield.

Affectionately known as "Bourkey", Kevin has been teaching at Patrician Brothers for a remarkable 52 years. It is interesting to note that the college is in its fifty-ninth year. Kevin has witnessed great achievements at the college during that time. From humble beginnings as a disused vineyard to the modern campus that it is today, Kevin is a walking historian about all things Patrician Brothers. My wife and I were fortunate to have worked with Kevin during our time as teachers at the college. We recall Kevin possessing a sharp sense of humour as well as having a no-nonsense approach to teaching mathematics. A common question that former students ask teachers at the college is whether Mr Bourke Senior is still teaching. The answer to that question is that he most certainly is.

Although Kevin is teaching on a reduced load he still manages to go to work every day. I know that his contribution is greatly appreciated, especially by year 12 Extension 1 students. Up until recently Kevin was teaching Extension 2 mathematics, the equivalent of 4 Unit mathematics, to those who sat for the Higher School Certificate under the old tertiary entrance rank system. Kevin's passion has always been mathematics; so much so that he spent 25 years as the mathematics coordinator. Many of his former maths students were so inspired by him that they chose to become maths teachers themselves and ultimately work alongside their mathematical mentor. Kevin's son Bill, who is in the gallery this evening, a former student of the college, is also a teacher at the college and continues the longstanding Bourke family tradition. Bill is a great teacher as well as an outstanding basketball coach. Like father, like son.
Another former student of Kevin went on to become the college's first lay principal, Mr Michael Krawec. The current assistant principal, Mr Michael Kelleher, is also a former student of Mr Bourke, as are a dozen or so other teachers. It is truly priceless. Not only is Kevin a talented teacher but also a championship winning coach. He has been the most successful A grade rugby league coach in the history of the college. Kevin's greatest accomplishments occurred during the 1970s and 1980s, when Patrician Brothers bought home the Commonwealth Bank Cup no less than four times. Patrician Brothers were the talk of the rugby league world. During his time as rugby league coach Kevin's most notable protégé was a little known blond half back who went on to become one of Parramatta's greatest players. I am of course referring to the great Peter Sterling. Kevin also coached the likes of Greg Alexander and Paul Langmack; he coached for a total of 18 years.

Kevin's coaching talents also extended to athletics, swimming and cricket. His most notable student outside the realm of rugby league was none other than former Australian Olympic swimming champion Michael Wenden, who won gold in the 100 metres and 200 metres freestyle at the 1968 Mexico City Summer Olympic Games. No matter what team needed to be coached, Kevin could always be counted on to lend a hand. Even today, Kevin continues to give his time generously, teaching and coaching on weekends, mornings and after school. On behalf of the Fairfield community, the Fairfield electorate and this House, I wish Kevin Bourke all the best for his eighth birthday and congratulate him on a magnificent 52 years of teaching in Fairfield.

Mr BRYAN DOYLE (Campbelltown) [5.51 p.m.]: It gives me great pleasure to update the House on the Maori and Pacific Islander Ministerial Consultative Committee. The Hon. Victor Dominello, Minister for Citizenship and Communities, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, established a number of ministerial consultative committees to embrace and celebrate multiculturalism and to identify the value, respect and unity that we share. As the inaugural chair of the Maori and Pacific Island Ministerial Consultative Committee, I am pleased to serve with John Whiu, Jan Nicoll, Toese Faapito, Mal Fruean, Ta'ane Tupola and Eddy Brown.

I want to share with the House one of the greatest ceremonies that has ever taken place at the New South Wales Parliament. It was held at 10.00 a.m. last Wednesday 23 May, when the Maori community, especially the Te Kete Kahurangi Maori cultural group, were my guests at Parliament House to gift Minister Dominello a prized piece of Maori artwork that had been commissioned and developed by a young man, Benjamin Faoagali. The group came to the Fountain Court at Parliament House. It was such an occasion that Martin Welsh, Consul-General of New Zealand, was here to witness it. Also present were the Minister for Citizenship and Communities, the Hon. Victor Dominello; the Minister for Primary Industries, the Hon. Katrina Hodgkinson; the Speaker of the House, Shelley Hancock; the President of the Legislative Council, Don Harwin; the Hon. Marie Ficarra from the upper House; and my fellow members Garry Edwards, the member for Swansea; Stuart Ayres, the member for Penrith, Andrew Fraser, the member for Coffs Harbour; and Jonathon O'Dea, the member for Davidson.

The members of Te Kete Kahurangi, under the leadership of Hohepa Waapu and Awhina Rameka-Waapu, practised and prepared long and hard for this prestigious event; it is a great honour to present to the Parliament knowing that the communities of two nations are watching. The group had fasted before their performance; I had the honour to observe and take part in some of their preparations. One night they practised for six hours, from 6.00 p.m. till midnight. When I had to leave they were still practising. I knew the importance, the deep honour and respect that the Maori bring to such welcomes. I told them that the Maori had a friend in me and a friend in the people of Campbelltown and Australia.

After an opening prayer, we had an Acknowledgement of Country by Arron Hayes. The Korero, or speech, was prepared and presented by young Siobhan Nicoll. What followed were the most amazing scenes that this Parliament has ever witnessed in the Fountain Court: the group advanced with Haka Taonga, with gifting. The haka they performed as they respectfully and honourably presented the Minister with the beautiful piece of Maori artwork, which now hangs proudly in his office, was something to behold. We are so fortunate to have Australians of Maori cultural background here in Australia. The group graced us with beautiful Maori songs of haunting melodies and dances that were beautifully choreographed, presenting stories of their culture. One in particular told the story of the Polynesian people travelling in a waka. You could sense the group actually riding on the waka across the waves and feel the spray of the surf. The songs and melodies rang throughout Parliament House. I am sure they could have been heard in this Chamber, and certainly in the Legislative Council.
An acknowledgement from the Minister was very important. The Minister acknowledged and thanked the group not only for their gift of artwork but also their song and dance presentation. As always, there was the closing prayer. The event was of such import that it was filmed by Real Films Australia and Kiwi TV—and Robert Elliott from my office. Never before had the Parliament experienced an honour such as this bestowed by Australians of Maori background, heard such wonderful singing, witnessed such dance, and shared the joy of being an Australian of Maori cultural heritage. I am very proud and honoured to be the chair of the Maori and Pacific Islander Ministerial Consultative Committee. I commend them to the House.

Mr CHARLES CASUSCELLI (Strathfield) [5.56 p.m.]: This evening I acknowledge a wonderful worker in the Korean community, a woman I selected as a nominee for the NSW Women of the Year Awards. This woman, Rebecca Yi Jeong Shin, came to Parliament to accept the award earlier in the week. Rebecca is a publisher of the Korean newspaper Hoju Donga Korean Daily. I nominated her particularly because she uses the publication to increase understanding in the mainstream community of the Korean culture, and vice versa. She has also been known to organise many community events. One of the largest took place recently at the Sydney Opera House. She is a supporter of many initiatives that promote Korean culture, and is always involved in activities that encourage greater harmony and understanding between our mainstream cultures and that of the Korean community.

I would like to talk about Rebecca's latest contribution to the Korean community—in fact, to the broader community as well. She commissioned a report called "Korean Immigrant Entrepreneurs in the Sydney Restaurant Industry". The report identified that there are in fact hundreds of Korean-run restaurants across Sydney. The population of South Korean immigrants in the greater metropolitan area of Sydney is thought to number more than 150,000. However, the report highlights, despite boasting the highest rate of entrepreneurship of any ethnic group, the Korean culture and food lack a deserving profile in the broader Sydney community. It was noted in the report that Sydney has a number of wonderful areas, such as Chinatown, Little Italy, Little Portugal, the Spanish Quarter and the Vietnamese culinary enclave of Cabramatta.

There are now moves within the Korean community to create a Little Korea. The report's authors, Jock Collins and Dr Joon Shin, from the Cosmopolitan Civil Societies research centre at the University of Technology, Sydney point out that the community must come together to create a Little Korea that will showcase Korean culture and the wonderful things it offers. The report has identified Strathfield as having the highest concentration of Korean food outlets in the country, so it is highly likely that Strathfield will be home to a Little Korea in the not too distant future. It will be a destination not only for the local community but also for international tourists.

The heart of Strathfield and the broader inner west area already have 49 Korean food outlets. However, I draw the attention of the House to a concern that I will be taking up with the Federal Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. The University of Technology, Sydney report found that more than 80 per cent of Korean immigrant restaurants owners cited immigration restrictions, which were tightened after the global financial crisis, as the main impediment to the viability of their businesses. That issue has been raised with me at meetings of the three ministerial consultative committees that I chair involving the Chinese, Korean and Russian communities. I am pleased to inform the House that I have had correspondence with the co-chairs of the ministerial consultative committees and with the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship about resolving the issue. The report states:

There is a strong case for the relaxation of immigration restrictions that constrain the business success of Korean immigrant restaurateurs in Sydney. Easier access for them to employ Korean immigrant Chefs is one clear way to assist Korean immigrant entrepreneurs in Sydney. Another way is to encourage greater numbers of temporary immigrants from Korea, particularly youth who are international students or working holiday makers (WHMs) because they are a key part of the workforce of the restaurants owned by Korean immigrant entrepreneurs. They also form a key part of the customer-base of these restaurants, together with Korean tourists and permanent immigrants. Moves to relax immigration restrictions to encourage greater permanent and temporary immigration and tourism from Korea and China would also enlarge the customer base of restaurants and food outlets owned by Korean immigrant entrepreneurs in Sydney.

That is an issue not only for Korean restaurateurs but also for all multicultural businesses in the greater Sydney area. [Time expired.]
Mr MARK SPEAKMAN (Cronulla) [6.01 p.m.]: I draw the attention of the House to the Cancer Council's Relay for Life and the recent Sutherland shire relay that took place at the Sylvania Waters athletics track in my electorate earlier this month. It was in May 1985 that an American doctor, Gordy Klatt, first spent 24 hours circling a track in Tacoma, Washington, to raise funds for his local cancer council. Since that extraordinary first effort—which raised $27,000—the Cancer Council's Relay for Life has spread to 20 countries around the world. The first Australian Relay for Life was held at Murrumbeena, Victoria, in 1999. Relays are now held in every Australian State. Cumulatively, the relays raise more than $18 million every year for cancer research in Australia. Cancer affects an enormous number of people in our community. Tens of thousands of people are diagnosed with cancer each year in New South Wales and one in two Australians will be diagnosed with cancer before the age of 85.

Research costing more than $16 million will be funded this year by the Cancer Council. The projects are spread across the four areas of focus: prevention, diagnosis, treatment and survivorship. The Sutherland Shire 2012 Relay for Life had an incredible 2,269 participants. To date, it has raised more than $580,000. When all the promised donations have been collected, the relay should exceed its target of $750,000. This makes the Sutherland relay the largest in New South Wales and one of the largest in Australia. I would love to see it become the largest relay in the country. The Sutherland Shire 2012 Relay for Life embraced the overarching motto of "Celebrate, Remember and Fight Back". A candlelight ceremony was held at dusk to remember those lost to cancer, and candles with messages of love inscribed on them were placed in paper bags around the track in remembrance of those who lost the fight and as an inspiration to those participating in the relay to keep going.

Local survivors and carers were celebrated when they walked the first lap of the track while the rest of us supported their bravery and spirit. A special ceremony was held for participants to make a personal pledge about how they will make a change to fight cancer. Over the past 11 years the Sutherland Shire Relay for Life has raised more than $3.3 million. As well as vital cancer research, this money has helped local programs such as the cancer information centre at St George Hospital. The relay has an excellent organising committee. I acknowledge in particular: Rod Coy, the chair; Tony Cain, the deputy chair; Rob Stanley-Jones; Don and Marion Wood; Kris Shepherd; Luke Barbuto; and Greg Smith. I am pleased that I was able to participate in this fantastic event. I congratulate all the participants and the organising committee.

Mr DARYL MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [6.06 p.m.]: I want to inform the House about two events that have occurred in the Wagga Wagga electorate in the communities of Batlow and Lockhart. Interestingly, both communities are recovering from disasters: one a hailstorm and the other a flood. I attended the inaugural Batlow CiderFest on 19 May. The fest was organised by a number of Batlow residents to promote the benefits of cider and, more importantly, the local community, which recently suffered a terrible hailstorm that damaged much of the local apple crop. The local cooperative has responded by producing cider and I am pleased to say that consumers have embraced the product and it has been very successful on the Australian market.

The fest was all about promoting Batlow, the benefits of cider and the fact that Australia can grow great produce. It was well supported. The street was closed off and people came out in force to browse the stalls and to buy all sorts of interesting wares. The manager of the cooperative told the crowd how cider is made and what the future might hold for the local product. This event demonstrates the great strength our communities have when they are confronted by challenges. I have spoken about Batlow in the House previously when it has faced challenges. Once again, the community joined together to promote the region, and people came from far and wide. I acknowledge Mr Harald Tietze, the Batlow resident who drove the CiderFest, and the wonderful committee that supported him in ensuring the day was a huge success. People dressed up in costumes and the effort put in was amazing. Everyone was keen to promote their terrific community.

Lockhart was devastated by floods in 2010 and again in 2011, when some 160 homes were inundated. Renovations were only just completed or were still underway following the 2010 flood when the 2011 flood occurred. To its great credit, Lockhart Shire Council instigated a tender process to find an operator for a local visitor information centre. Lockhart has a wonderful history of early settlement of which the community is very proud. It wants to share that history with the people of New South Wales, Australia and the world. Greens Gunyah Museum was the successful tenderer and will now house a tourism information centre. The museum is also home to the Doris Golder collection, which is a unique collection of artworks using fine wool. I encourage members to travel to Lockhart to see it. Lockhart is known as the verandah town. It is an amazing town with a deep history in agriculture. The main street is paved with the history of the residents who built the town and walked the streets.

When I was first elected the community held a fundraising event at which families bought pavers and had their names and their history engraved on them. The pavers tell a great story as one walks along the street. People bring their grandchildren and great-grandchildren to Lockhart and tell them stories about their childhood and what the town means to them. Lockhart is a great example of a community that is addressing the challenges of rural areas—in this case, flood events. The community is promoting their town as the verandah town and they are taking the opportunity to tell people the attractions available in their town. Of course, all of this is done by volunteers. Both Batlow and Lockhart information centres are manned by volunteers; there is not a paid person amongst them. Those volunteers give up their time to man the information centre five days a week and to organise the Batlow Ciderfest promotion and the Apple Blossom Festival in October. I congratulate those communities; they are a great credit to our State.

Mr ROB STOKES (Pittwater—Parliamentary Secretary) [6.10 p.m.]: I want to update the House about the fight for fair access for offshore residents in Pittwater. In 2006 the offshore community published an anthology called "Water Access Only", which contains stories of this wonderful community of oystermen, fishermen, writers, artists and retirees and the amazing exploits of this unique and close-knit community. People who live in an offshore community face a significant challenge, one not familiar to us mainlanders. For the vast majority of New South Wales home owners and occupiers, their crossing of public land to enter their home every day is free and unimpeded. Most of us will hop on a bus, drive our car or walk to our front door. For most suburban home owners and occupiers the only cost they face for using public land to enter their property is the cost of mowing the nature strip. But as with every rule there is an exception, and that exception is the 1,000 or so residents—many of them in Pittwater—who can only access their homes across water.

These residents, who often choose to live offshore because it provides a cheaper housing option to a house with road access, have been forced to pay large fees to access their homes across the submerged and littoral Crown lands separating their property from their jobs, families and communities on the mainland. This fee—colloquially known as the "jetty tax"—is uncertain as it is tied to a formula related to the land value of adjacent land, a valuation subject to annual change. This fee provides no long-term assurance to offshore residents that they will continue to enjoy access to their homes as do the majority of residents in New South Wales. I am delighted that the New South Wales Government has recognised the anomalous situation confronting offshore residents by establishing a fair and equitable access regime across submerged and littoral Crown lands for residents whose properties can only be accessed over a pond.

Following a Government-commissioned review by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal, amendments will be made to the existing fee structure to ensure that offshore residents with no other means of accessing their properties are no longer charged exorbitant and discriminatory fees to do so. Jetty owners in Pittwater's offshore communities—which include Scotland Island, Elvina Bay, Morning Bay, Lovett Bay and Coasters Retreat and up the Hawkesbury River—will have rental fees waived on structures that are essential for access to their homes and instead will pay only a small basic administration fee. Rents for non-essential structures, such as boatsheds and slipways, will be assessed according to the simpler and fairer system applied to other waterfront owners.

The fundamental point is that those who require a jetty for the purpose of simply accessing their home of an evening—a right that the rest of us take for granted—will not be charged an exorbitant rental. Offshore residents need to come and go from their properties just as everyone else does. That is why the Government believes that they should not be slugged with a huge fee for doing so. Pittwater's offshore communities have endured years of frustration because their concerns and queries, which they had raised over a long time, were never taken seriously. I want to acknowledge those whose efforts have helped in this victory. I start by acknowledging the former member for Hornsby Judy Hopwood, who kicked this whole thing off when the rents were first introduced in 2004—since then rents have increased significantly and currently are 20 per cent higher than when they commenced.

Judy Hopwood tried to introduce a private member's bill to force the issue. Subsequently, members such as the current member for Hornsby, the member for Hawkesbury, the member for Gosford, the Deputy Premier, the Minister for Roads, the Minister for Primary Industries, the Hon. Greg Pearce when he was shadow Minister for Lands, and the former member for Myall Lakes John Turner fought this issue from Opposition. I acknowledge from the Home Access Association Paul Purvis, the irrepressible Carl Joy, the delightful Lesley Stevens and the noble Greg Roberts for their efforts in galvanising the community, as well as all the others up and down the river who have helped to restore fairness. I thank Bill and Cass Gye from the Scotland Island Residents Association, Michael Wiener from West Pittwater Community Association and everyone who has been involved in this victory. John Donne in Meditations XVII said:

No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.

I am delighted that now our laws will reflect this observation and we can finally provide fairness for those who can only get home across water.

Mr GREG PIPER (Lake Macquarie) [6.15 p.m.]: It has not taken long for news of the Government's deal to allow hunting in a number of national parks for Lake Macquarie residents to express concern at the prospect of allowing hunters into Watagans National Park and other parks across the State. Controlling feral animals in national parks is important, but recent developments on the matter seem politically expedient rather than in accordance with any comprehensive plan appropriate to dealing with the problem of feral animals. Government oversight of amateur shooting of feral animals is currently undertaken through the Livestock Health and Pest Authorities, which report via a State management council to the Minister for Primary Industries.

Control of pest animals is one of four core responsibilities of these authorities. The only vertebrates declared as pest species are rabbits, dogs and pigs. The authorities specify acceptable control measures and the only shooting supported is that of wild dogs. The situation is that the advice to the Minister for Primary Industries—advice that has not been countermanded or even questioned—is that the only acceptable shooting of pests by amateur shooters on private land is for the control of wild dogs. There is now an unjustified and dangerous proposal to allow amateur shooters in public places to shoot a broad variety of species. This situation is ludicrous, but worse still is the prospect that this could be considered without first quantifying the problem and developing a method to evaluate the success of amateur shooters.

No credible argument exists for allowing amateur shooters into national parks when the National Parks and Wildlife Service considers the only safe and effective method for shooting vertebrate pests in national parks is the planned and monitored deployment of professional marksmen in helicopters. The Government's openness to the retrograde step of handing national parks to amateur shooters is clearly a folly, and it is made even worse by the absence of a comprehensive plan for controlling vertebrate pests. Such a plan is an essential prerequisite and the only justifiable yardstick against which success can be measured. Yesterday in the other place the Minister for Police and Emergency Services stated:

This is a huge win for the environmen.

He quoted former Premier Rees as saying:

Getting rid of animals that wreck the environment, wild pigs, dogs, that sort of thing, I don't think anyone will have an issue with that.

The Minister continued by referring to the Government's decision as a huge win. All of this talk is purely speculative and any claimed benefit would be spurious without a yardstick to measure it. The only legitimate way forward in allowing amateur shooters is to have comprehensive fauna surveys to set baselines for subsequent use for evaluating the success or otherwise of any shooting program. The unquantified claim of a benefit to national parks and native fauna is a serious problem in itself, but the bigger issue is the impact on the safe use of public open space. There are real questions that must be answered on risk and equity. Will it be safe to visit national parks? How is the public to assess the risk or even know of it? How will people walking in national parks have any knowledge of the timing and location of risks?

Members of the public are rightly concerned about how they will know where it is safe to go or, worse still, whether they could unknowingly place themselves at risk by visiting these parks. It is fallacious to describe opening national parks to sporting shooters as a step towards eradicating feral animals when it is really only a way of accommodating a sporting activity. This is not a criticism of the participants, just a question as to whether the equity and risk issues were adequately considered and whether the decision is the right one. In September last year Lake Macquarie City Council resolved to write to the Minister for Primary Industries expressing concern over local State forests being opened for recreational hunting, citing the negative impact on other recreational uses of State forests.

In its letter to the Minister, the council also requested that the Government engage in professional methods of feral animal control to ensure that it is carried out in the most effective and humane way possible. Concerns raised last year about State forests are paralleled by concerns raised this year about national parks. Opening any area in a national park to shooters will eliminate the certainty of safe access for a variety of other recreational pursuits. To do this without a view to a measurable benefit for conservation would be a folly. I therefore request that before these changes are made the Government require baseline fauna surveys to allow for subsequent assessment of feral animal control under these changes.

Private members' statements concluded.