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

The President offered the Prayers.

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

Assent to the following bills reported:

Funeral Services Industry (Days of Operation) Repeal Bill
Protected Estates Amendment (Investment) Bill
Evidence (Audio and Audio Visual Links) Amendment Bill
Coal and Oil Shale Mine Workers (Superannuation) Amendment (1999 Superannuation Agreement) Bill

Petition praying that construction of a women’s prison at Windsor be abandoned, that additional funds be channelled into research to assist girls, adolescent and adult women at risk of offending, and that social programs on crime prevention be introduced, received from the Hon. R. S. L. Jones.

Bill introduced and read a first time.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [2.36 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Trustee Companies Amendment Bill amends the Trustee Companies Act 1964 to ensure that trustee companies can recover the goods and services tax from estates, and overcomes a technical difficulty caused by the application of the Corporations Law to the Act. Honourable members will be aware that the Act enables trustee companies to act as executor and trustee of and have power of attorney over personal estates. The Act sets out the manner in which commissions and fees are charged to estates in exchange for the services provided by the trustee companies.

Honourable members will be aware that the Commonwealth's A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999, the GST Act, commences operation on 1 July 2000. Liability for the payment of GST will attach to many areas of commercial activity which did not formerly attract tax liability. The Crown Solicitor has advised that the provisions in the Act and regulations which provide for the recovery of fees do not allow the trustee company to recover GST. The proposed amendments would ensure that any Goods and Services Tax [GST] which is payable by a trustee company in connection with services supplied by the trustee company in the management or administration of an estate or trust fund can be recovered from the estate or trust fund.

Honourable members will be aware that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [ACCC] has issued price exploitation guidelines, which provide that any price increases which are attributed to GST by service providers must be referable to the real cost increases caused by GST, and that service providers should not take advantage of the introduction of the GST to disguise additional profiteering. Of course, the trustee companies are subject to these guidelines. However, in order to remove any doubt about the increases to fees and commission charged by trustee companies which are permitted, the bill provides that the trustee companies must adhere to the ACCC guidelines.

The other matter covered by the bill concerns the application of the relevant interest provisions in the Corporations Law to the trustee companies. Part 3A of the Trustee Companies Act prohibits a person from acquiring certain interests in trustee companies, which would give the person control of more than 10 per cent of its voting shares, without informing the Attorney General. The goal of the provisions is to ensure that ownership of trustee companies is spread widely and to prevent concentration of ownership. These controls help to maintain stability in the industry. Formerly, the tests in the Companies Code were used to determine the kinds of acquisitions which had to be notified to the Attorney. However, legal advice obtained by my department indicates that it appears that the Corporations Law now applies to these provisions of the Trustee Companies Act.

The Corporations Law differs in many respects from the Companies Code. One way in which it differs is in the definition of "relevant interests" in a company. The Corporations Law now provides that the shares held by a company include shares held by a company in itself, and by its directors. This was not the case under the Companies Code. When applied to part 3A of the Trustee Companies Act, the effect of these provisions of the Corporations Law is that a trustee company would have to notify the Attorney General of the combined shareholdings in itself, and of its directors, if they exceeded 10 per cent of its voting shares. However, it was never intended that the test in the Trustee Companies Act would apply to the shareholdings of a company in itself. The purpose of the amendment is to disapply the relevant provisions of the Corporations Law and validate any breach of the Trustee Companies Act which may have been caused by a past failure to notify the Attorney General of an acquisition of shares by a director of a company. I commend the bill.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. J. H. Jobling.

Debate adjourned from 25 May.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [2.42 p.m.]: I am delighted to speak on the bill in relation to the Parramatta to Chatswood rail link. As a resident of the Ryde area I will concentrate on the benefits that the Parramatta rail link will bring to the people of Ryde, in particular North Ryde and Macquarie Park. As other members have said, this project will be the biggest single railway project undertaken in this State this century. For too long many people have urged our planners and transport administrators to pay much more attention to public transport and much less attention to the motor car and the building of roads, in particular freeways.

The arguments are gradually being overwhelmingly accepted that public transport, in particular heavy rail, provides an efficient way of moving people. It suits the residents of a city the size of Sydney and is also incredibly important in reducing growing pollution. We have only to look out any morning, even in the cold and windy weather that we are having at the moment, to see the pollution which is largely induced by the prevalence of motor cars in Sydney. To have a Government that is prepared to develop such a major project as the Parramatta to Chatswood rail link is very much to be welcomed.

There will be four new stations: at UTS Kuring-gai, Delhi Road, Macquarie Park and Macquarie University. I draw attention to the two that will be located in the Ryde electorate: Macquarie University and Macquarie Park. In the past the Ryde electorate has been served by a rather strange combination of transport. People who live on the western edge of the electorate have had an excellent railway service at Epping, Eastwood, West Ryde and Meadowbank. People living in my area are at the end of the traditional government bus service, the 500 route to Ryde. Those living in East Ryde, North Ryde, Macquarie Park and Marsfield, the areas that will be served most usefully by the new railway line, have been served mostly by privately owned bus companies.

I was absolutely delighted earlier this year that the Government purchased the North and Western bus company and its subsidiary the Riverside bus company, thus enabling the government bus service to run through to Parramatta and to cover our whole area. Already this year the Carr Labor Government has made a tremendous difference to bus services in the whole inner northwestern sector of Sydney. The new service operating from Parramatta to the city along Victoria Road is already achieving a great deal. It is a very popular service and fills enormous gaps for many different groups in the community, particularly less advantaged people including pensioners and residents of Rydalmere, Telopea, Dundas and other areas. The Government has a major commitment to the improvement of public transport. The Parramatta to Chatswood rail link will provide a service to enable the residents of Western Sydney to have easier access to areas such as Chatswood and the North Shore than the present incredibly difficult and time-consuming route.

The new rail line will open up areas of job growth in Chatswood, in the North Ryde information technology [IT] area and along the northern railway spine. People living in North Ryde, Macquarie Park, Marsfield and East Ryde will be able to use the new stations at Macquarie Park and Macquarie University. Many of my colleagues from Western Sydney pointed out in the debate on the bill in the lower House that Macquarie University for the first time will be brought within effective reach of many of its students who come from the areas to the west of the university. Since Macquarie University was opened at the height of the car age in the 1960s it essentially has had to be reached by car. Only a very small percentage of its students have been able to travel to it by public transport. Those who did found the journey difficult, time consuming and, with the local private bus company I referred to, unreliable.

The new station at Macquarie University will improve the university's links with the IT corridor. It will also serve the adjacent Macquarie shopping centre and therefore bring it within reach of many local people. The service will allow people from North Ryde, Macquarie Park, East Ryde and Ryde to gain access to Macquarie shopping centre. Essentially, people without a car have not been able to access that shopping centre. Anyone who visits that shopping centre will know that over the past few years there has hardly been a time when car parks have not been under construction. They have been broadened, lengthened, raised and sunk in every possible direction. But now for the first time efficient public transport will bring the Macquarie shopping centre within reach of the surrounding suburbs.

I have referred to the pollution reduction that can be expected from the new rail link. Other speakers have referred to the role that the new rail link will play in getting cars off the roads and reducing the regular traffic jams, particularly in the Epping Road area. The rail link will ensure that Sydney's transport is not essentially radial and does not concentrate cars in the centre of Sydney. Another excellent aspect of the railway line will be its role in enabling people to go from suburb to suburb, from major centres such as Liverpool to Parramatta, Carlingford and so on.

Sydney, with a population of more than four million people, for too long has been served by a radial rail, bus and roadway transport system which causes pollution and affects efficiency. The Parramatta to Chatswood railway line is an important step in alleviating congestion and reducing pollution. Along with other honourable members I, too, have been deluged recently with correspondence on the proposal. The only point of contention is whether a railway bridge or tunnel should be constructed at or near Fullers Road Bridge across the Lane Cove River. Arguments have been received from both sides but the correspondence would be more impressive if it did not involve a large quantity of form letters put in identical envelopes addressed to honourable members on both sides. This causes one to doubt whether the letters have been composed by the people who sent them. However, both sides have sent letters in a similar form, so apparently each side is forcing the other to send more and more letters.

There are several arguments in support of a bridge. First, a bridge would mean that the tunnel would not have to be dug to anywhere near the depth that it would if it were to go under Lane Cove River. That, in turn, will enable construction of stations to serve University of Technology, Kuring-gai campus, and Delhi Road. Stations many metres underground impact on tunnelling, building of the stations, ease of use and attractiveness. Those are major considerations.

The argument against the bridge essentially relates to the fact that it crosses the Lane Cove River National Park. That is true, but those who know the area like I do also know that the point at which a bridge would cross is a very degraded part of the park. That point is alongside Fullers Road Bridge and in morning peak hours it is like a long car park. Fullers Road Bridge carries a large number of cars through the park and in the past it has had a variety of different uses. For those who have walked along or canoed through the park that location has nothing like the pristine environment of areas to the north and south.

The building of the bridge as part of the general construction of the railway link will provide massive environmental benefits. The single environmental drawback is the bridge across the Lane Cove River. I do not think there is too much doubt about the choice that should be made. I am amazed at the amendment moved by the Opposition that the bill not be read a second time but be referred to a Legislative Council committee. That is a little strange, given that the Opposition in this House and in the other House keeps reiterating support for the proposal. However, the Opposition proceeded to devote all of its speaking time to opposing it. It is strange that a concept that is supported should lead to an amendment referring it to a committee, especially as the amendment specifies that the committee report by Tuesday 20 June. I do not believe that the proposal can be taken seriously.

A reference to a committee with a reporting date of a maximum of three weeks is nothing but a con, a trick. There is no way in the world that members can inquire into a project of this scale and significance in a period of three weeks while this House is sitting and while members are serving on a number of committees and carrying out other roles. Clearly, the Opposition is seeking what it has sought to do in its pathetic little way on so many issues lately, that is, to win support from a relatively small group of people by moving an amendment which it does not have its heart in and which it knows is wildly impractical and could not be delivered.

I am serving on a committee at present which was supposed to report almost a month ago. About a month ago that committee had to hold a special meeting to extend its reporting time by a month and last week another special meeting was held to extend its reporting time by a further two months. However, people in this Chamber have suggested that the amendment is credible and genuine and that something will be achieved by referring the Parramatta to Chatswood railway link proposal to a committee so that it can initiate and carry out an inquiry, presumably with public input, and report within a maximum of three weeks.

I feel sorry for those people in the community who may be taken in by the hypocrisy and game playing of the Opposition. I place on record the fact that no-one in this House believes that such a foolish amendment is designed to do anything other than attempt to win a few brownie points from people who may actually believe that the Opposition can have its cake and eat it. I reiterate that it is a great pleasure to support this proposal, particularly as I am a resident of the Ryde area and over many years have opposed the preoccupation of many governments in this States with tollways and expressways. I fought against the building of the M2 and I still consider the M2 to be a major environmental blight on north-western Sydney. I am delighted to be a member of a party that not only opposed the M2 when in opposition but now in government is delivering to the utmost by constructing a railway link, mostly through tunnels, that will add significantly to Sydney’s public transport system and help to reduce pollution.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [2.58 p.m.]: If that is the best case that can be made by the Government against scrutiny of this most important bill, it is unbelievably pathetic. Apparently the reason that the Parliament of New South Wales cannot take a better, closer and public look at the legislation to facilitate this rail link is because members of the New South Wales Legislative Council cannot get together to hold public meetings between now and 20 June.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: Tell us about the committee you extended for two months last week. You are the Chair of that committee. Tell us how you get committees together.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: The honourable member's interjection is so inane it is hardly worth replying to. This Parliament has considered, initiated and carried out inquiries into several hot political issues—and has done so very quickly. One issue of great importance to the people of New South Wales is gun laws. The Strathfield massacre in 1991 caused widespread concern about this State’s gun laws, which had been the subject of a recent review. The Parliament convened, held and completed a gun laws inquiry in a couple of weeks, which resulted in a major firearms law revamp that was not much different to current law.

It is certainly possible to conduct an inquiry in this case. What is the honourable member worried about? The infrastructure that this bill is designed to facilitate will stand for a couple of hundred years. If we do not provide an opportunity for public scrutiny and get it right, that infrastructure will be around for a long time. Apparently there is only one reason why this project is not worthy of at least some public input. Heavens above, honourable members have received enough mail recently about this issue, which indicates the extent of public concern. I believe that, when public concern is expressed, members in this place have a duty to act. We are the House of review; that is our supposed role.

The Government dropped the bill into the House last week and wants to gun it through this week. That is the extent of the scrutiny that the legislation will receive in this place before it is gunned through the other place. It makes a joke of parliamentary democracy. Debate in another place will be gagged, votes will be held and the legislation will be delivered without receiving any public scrutiny and before the environmental impact statement [EIS] is completed. The public will have no opportunity to express their views or concerns about the project.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods said that this is a great project—the Opposition accepts that this is an excellent project; I will return in a moment to the Opposition's record on rail and public transport—except for the fact that a large bridge will cut through a national park. The honourable member went on to say that a value judgment must be taken as to whether to build a tunnel through the national park that services other places. I believe the public has a right to have some input in those decisions. They should not be made privately over a weekend in a secret deal between the Government and the crossbenches in this place. If I chose to look, I am sure that I would find that some crossbench members who support gunning this bill through the House have spoken many times about the need for open scrutiny of legislation. I support open scrutiny, but clearly Government members do not.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: Did you support an EIS on the M2 when you were in government? No, of course you did not. You are a hypocrite.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: Yes, always. What rubbish! The honourable member had a wonderful opportunity to make personal reflections on me when she gave her speech. She should follow my example and listen for a moment because people want to ask some important questions.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I ask honourable members to ensure that the honourable member speaking can be heard. It is very difficult for Hansard if the honourable member with the call cannot be heard.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: The former Coalition Government had an excellent record with regard to the provision of public transport. For example, the Coalition initiated the Southern Railway link to the airport. However, when we commenced that project we envisaged that people would be able to travel with their luggage and that the rail link would facilitate aeroplane passengers. The Carr Government apparently believes there is some other reason for a rail link and stations at the international and domestic airport terminals. The Government believes if people have any luggage at all—and most people arriving at or departing from airports do—they should grab a cab and add to urban pollution.

This Government has a great record of building freeways. It is currently working as fast as it can to extend the M5 East, notwithstanding residents' concerns about the stack. This Government gave us the Eastern Distributor and it widened the M4 to six lanes. They are the achievements that the Government racked up in its last term of office. This Government has a strong commitment to building roads. It is false to argue that there is any choice to be made—as the Hon. Jan Burnswoods claimed—between the two options. Sydney desperately needs an integrated transport plan that manages the road and rail systems so that they complement—but not necessarily duplicate—each other.

If I recall correctly, the Coalition initiated this project in 1994. It would not be difficult to find and read the press releases issued at the time by the Hon. Jan Burnswoods, who probably joined the chorus of abuse that the Coalition Government received from the Labor Opposition. Members of the then Opposition complained that we were spending too much money and that the project was a pipedream about which the Government was not serious. This Opposition supports the Parramatta rail link: it will serve many Coalition voters, so there is no reason why we would not support it. However, we believe that, before the Government builds infrastructure of this nature—it will be one of the largest pieces of rail infrastructure constructed in a long time—it would be a good idea to ensure that every opportunity for public scrutiny and input is made available.

The Government wants simply to trample over various community concerns because the Lane Cove River National Park is situated in an electorate that it perceives to be held comfortably by the Coalition. Therefore, it will not matter if a bridge is built over it. I wonder what would happen if it were proposed to build a bridge in an environmentally sensitive area in a marginal seat that the Government held or hoped to hold. I am pretty sure that the legislation required to facilitate such a project would not be handled in this manner. The Opposition believes the value judgment described by the Hon. Jan Burnswoods should be open for public scrutiny. We are concerned that the legislation will pass through this place without the opportunity for public scrutiny and review—and that is the supposed role of this House.

To avoid a circus, the legislation will pass through Parliament as a result of negotiations between the crossbench and the Government that have not received any open, public scrutiny. We believe that such decisions should be open to all. If the Opposition and the Government had reached a deal of this sort, I am pretty sure that crossbench members would make similar protestations—and rightly so—that at least a modicum of public scrutiny was necessary. The Hon. Jan Burnswoods complained that time for the committee inquiry is too short. If members had been given plenty of time to examine this matter at their leisure, the committee would have been accused of holding up the project.

The Government's position would not change; it would not be swayed by arguments to allow more time for the inquiry. The Government would say that we were bushrangers trying to delay a project that offered vast environmental benefits. Government members would change their arguments, not their position. The Opposition has tried to accommodate the Government's desire to proceed quickly with this project and not get in the way, while simultaneously accommodating the legitimate concerns of members of the public who want to be certain that their views have at least been heard. The Government cannot be trusted to give people a fair hearing when it comes to environmental concerns about a project of this nature and size.

For example, we need only to consider those who met outside the Parliament today to complain about the Government's actions with regard to ventilation from the Northside Storage Tunnel. They are concerned about the environmental impact of the tunnel, but the Government would employ the same nonsense arguments to justify that project. Government members would refer to the environmental benefits of containing the sewer overflows that normally flow into Sydney Harbour. They would claim that the environmental benefits were so enormous we could ignore the fact that the tunnel pipelines and ventilates organisms into a nearby school. Do honourable members believe that?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: It is a private school, though.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: Yes. It has a wonderful reputation for respect for the environment and the parents who send their children to that school put tremendous value on the environment. Yet the Government plans to ventilate the fumes from the Northside Storage Tunnel all over the playground of that school, which is situated less than walking distance from the vent. That is an environmental choice. Has the Government allowed any scrutiny of that project? It promised that Sydney Water would participate in mediation with the public on that issue, yet only last week representatives of Sydney Water walked away from the public discussion.

The Government does not want any public ventilation of its projects; it does deals and it guns them through the Parliament. Earlier the Hon. Jan Burnswoods referred to a committee of this House that conducted a speedy and expeditious inquiry into another matter of environmental concern—the M5 East and its accompanying single stack proposal, currently being pursued in haste by the Government. Before the committee inquiry was held Government members said that it had conducted an inquiry in advance and that nothing useful could be further done or said. The Government said that we could all trust the Roads and Traffic Authority, that the RTA had produced the best possible environmental outcome and that there was no worthwhile prospect in holding another inquiry. After the committee completed its inquiry, at which a consensus was adopted—

The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho: What a quick inquiry.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: Yes, it was a quick inquiry. The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho has become a virtual spokeswoman for the Labor Party in this House. I have no doubt that she will stoutly defend the Government's lack of scrutiny, again. She said that the M5 East committee inquiry was conducted quickly. The Minister for Transport complimented the committee on the outcome it produced. Government members agreed with some of the criticisms that the committee made about the M5 East project. Carl Scully wrote to the chairman of the inquiry and complimented the committee on some of the recommendations it made. In his response to the committee's recommendations, the Minister wrote:

In recognition of the need to provide more detailed and authoritative information about the management of road tunnel emissions from overseas and relative to the Sydney environment the RTA will host an international workshop on the management of road tunnel emissions in 2000.

International experts experienced in the design, management and monitoring of road tunnel emissions will be invited. Community groups will be invited to submit questions in writing that will be addressed by a panel of speakers.

The RTA will also proceed with a peer review of the tunnel ventilation design by experienced international experts to ensure tunnel ventilation systems continue to meet the world's best practice.

The outcome was achieved as a result of this House conducting an expeditious inquiry into a contentious environmental infrastructure project. Good things can be done and are done. There is no reason why this matter cannot be subjected to the same sort of inquiry. The Government will argue that all questions can be magnificently handled by public servants who will, of course, have an opportunity to respond appropriately to any matters raised on behalf of the Government. We are told: You can trust the Government. Let me say how we cannot trust the Government, and particularly how we cannot trust the Minister for Transport, Carl Scully. In this regard, I refer to his response to the committee's report regarding the proposed M5 East tunnel and stack which I have quoted.

Next week the conference referred to in the Government's response will be convened. A number of overseas speakers will address the conference about the best possible emission standards that can be achieved for tunnels that carry road traffic. The forum has appointed a very interesting facilitator, a Melbourne barrister who, among other things, has represented CityLink in Victoria and has led the charge in the Victorian court against tunnel ventilation systems. During the M5 East inquiry he was mentioned in dispatches as to whether he was able to objectively assess the value of tunnel ventilation equipment. The RTA's response to issues raised by the committee stated:

RTA again confirms that no treatment systems are in use in any European tunnels, and this has been confirmed by our representative, Mr Arnold Dix, who last week attended both the Long Road and Rail Tunnels First International Conference in Basel.

The RTA referred to Mr Dix as "our representative". Mr Dix met other people and, apparently, assisted the RTA in making submissions against ventilation systems. Now he is to be the independent chairman of an international forum convened to objectively discuss whether a ventilation system is appropriate for a road tunnel. I would have thought that there are significant questions to be raised as to whether he is the appropriate person to be appointed. I am also informed that the RTA has sent Mr Dix overseas, I suspect at its expense, to brief the speakers who are coming to this country to discuss this matter. I have no doubt that he is likely to tell them what is politically sensitive and what they ought and ought not to say about tunnel ventilation systems.

That is the level at which we can trust the Government! It appears to be environmentally aware and to have an open hand on environmental issues, but it then sends a representative—who already has a particular record with regard to this very question—overseas to nobble the outcome of this supposed inquiry. The Minister who made that decision is the Minister whom Government members trust with this project. I ask the members of the Greens, when they consider whether there ought to be an inquiry, if they can trust Carl Scully. Given this particular experience, the obvious answer is no. He simply rents the Greens by the minute to obtain their agreement for whatever the Government wants to do and then he rides roughshod over them when it suits him and his department.

Whether there ought to be a deep underground tunnel through Lane Cove River National Park or a rail bridge should be open to public scrutiny and opinion. If members of this House do not have the courage to allow that level of independent inquiry they are not serving the public properly. The Opposition is fairly and squarely putting before this House an opportunity for a modicum of public scrutiny. The onus is on the crossbenchers as to whether they believe in parliamentary scrutiny and democracy. If they are satisfied with the deal, good for them, but there might well be other members of the public who have a different view. The public has a right to put their views to the Parliament and to have them heard.

At the end of the day it may well be that the best outcome is the one that has been announced. However, if the Government is so comfortably confident that nothing better can be done to improve the environmental outcome of this project, what is it frightened of? Why is the Government too scared to allow a high level of exposure? I suspect it has nothing to be frightened of, other than the fact that its preconceived ideas might be reasonably challenged. As has already been said, this project is one of the most significant rail infrastructure projects pursued by a government this century. Critical questions might well be addressed by an inquiry, and not only environmental questions. It is time to start public discussion about other aspects of this proposal, which are well worth parliamentary scrutiny. For example, which of the current north line services—West Ryde, Eastwood or Epping—will be diverted by the airport rail link?

We do not want a catastrophe similar to that which occurred with the airport rail link. It might be a good idea to think about that question first. Which of the western line services will be diverted via the new link and, consequently, which stations east of Parramatta will lose services? People may want to have input into those decisions. Has a detailed operation plan been undertaken and, if so, why has it not been made available? The parliamentary committee could start discussion on that matter. What about the rail stock that is to be used on the new link? If the current intercity stock is diverted via the new link, what will be the terminating arrangements at North Sydney? Can 20 trains per hour operate reliably on the North Shore in the morning peak, given CityRail's current operating performance?

As a direct result of the line, how many government departments, complete with their directors-general, will move from the central business district to western Sydney? This rail line is supposed to facilitate a restructure of the way businesses operate in Sydney. The idea is that the relocation of businesses to Parramatta will eliminate the mad rush of people driving from western Sydney into the city every day. How successful will that proposal be? What can be done to make it more successful? People may want to discuss those issues. As I said, this project must represent the largest single construction task inside metropolitan Sydney. As it is a rail project, why is more than 60 per cent of the spoil being removed by road? That is another question that might be looked at. With the Castle Hill line becoming operational by 2010-11, how many trains will cross the Lane Cove bridge in peak periods in each direction?

Although we are talking about the construction of a rail bridge in the middle of a national park, we are not sure how many trains will cross it, or what will be the environmental impact of the constant level of train traffic over it. That is an important issue, as opposed to the issue of University of Technology Sydney students having to use a few lifts from an underground rail service. Was the patronage forecast audited? If so, by whom and how robust were the estimates? We need to be fully informed of the economic viability of the project in its current form. How much additional traffic will be attracted to the area around Epping railway station as a result of the new link? By the years 2006 and 2011 what will be the peak-hour commuter movements from western Sydney to North Ryde by various modes, as opposed to the current volumes? There are many questions worth asking about this rail project.

The Opposition does not expect a committee to address all of them, but members of the public would be able to raise these issues with the committee and at least start the process of government inquiry. Then we can discover more about the impact of this proposal at the beginning of the project, rather than make plans as we go along or when the link is finally opened. Additionally, the Opposition is concerned that a guarantee given to residents in the Bardwell Park area in relation to the M5 East tunnel has not been given to residents who will be affected by the Parramatta rail link. The guarantee was probably given to the Bardwell Park residents because it was close to an election year. The Government gave a cast-iron guarantee to residents that the diversion of the M5 East road link from the existing road reservation to underneath their houses would not adversely affect their house prices.

However, the Government has not been prepared to give any level of guarantee to residents who are affected by this rail link. The Opposition believes that there are good reasons for the same guarantee to be given to those people. The provision of infrastructure should not place an unfair burden on individuals in our community. This project is for the whole of Sydney, and individuals should not lose on their house values as a result of the project going ahead. The Opposition will move an amendment during the Committee stage to ensure that the same guarantee that was given to the residents of Bardwell Park is given to residents on the north side of Sydney who are affected by this rail link. Let us see what the Government does.

So confident was the Government of its guarantee to residents in relation to the M5 East, as I understand it, that no claim has been made against the scheme announced by the Government. The Opposition has not been able to find any allocation in last year's or this year's budgets to fund the purchase of any properties that were adversely affected by the M5 East project. Often, a guarantee of this nature does not result in any government expenditure. It quickly settles the property market in the areas so that people who feel they are losing might be getting a significant benefit. The Opposition will move the following amendment during the Committee stage:

It is the intention of Parliament that the State must offer to purchase any property used for residential purposes located above any underground rail facilities (within the meaning of schedule 6B) that form part of the Parramatta Rail Link, at a price that the property would attract if there were no such underground rail facilities plus reasonable relocation expenses.

That is exactly the same guarantee that was given by the Government to the residents of Bardwell Park Valley with regard to the M5 East project. I wonder how the Government will respond to giving the same guarantee to people who are affected by the Parramatta rail link. Will we get the Michael Knight approach: If you live on the North Shore you are not part of the community for which the Carr Government governs. You can take all the hits, but you will not receive any government assistance. It is only people who live in marginal seats who are given guarantees for these sorts of projects, particularly if they ask for a guarantee prior to a State election. The Opposition asks the Government to consider the amendment and make some decisions. The Government should concern itself with that amendment. Additionally, we ask crossbench members: Is this House about scrutiny? Clearly the answer is yes.

What is there to lose by a delay of a couple of weeks? The committee would advertise and hold a couple of days hearing. The transcripts of those hearings would be reported to the House with some recommendations from members. It is not rocket science. We accept that it would be a quick process and could even be described as a dirty form of public consultation. However, it is better than nothing. The Opposition says to crossbench members that the proposed amendment is reasonable. I want to know the reason why a committee is not possible. It is only a matter of members of this House giving up some of their time to do what they are supposed to do in any event.

The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho: We need expertise.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: We do not need any expertise.

The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho: Of course we do. As you say, it is so important.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: I look forward to the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho giving us the benefit of her expertise as to how she can confidently make an assertion that members of Parliament need special expertise to be members of a committee. I am currently chairing a committee that is inquiring into the prison system in New South Wales, yet I do not have any special expertise about prisons.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. A. B. Kelly): Order! Interruptions are disorderly. The honourable member will be heard in silence.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: We are using the benefit of the expertise of members of the Public Service, and other independent commentators and academics.

The Hon. D. T. Harwin: Point of order: I refer to Standing Order 93 in relation to interruptions. The Hon. Jan Burnswoods has been disorderly throughout the entire contribution of the Hon. J. F. Ryan, although her contribution was heard in silence. I ask that she be named.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: To the point of order: I do not know whether the Hon. D. T. Harwin was present during my contribution, but to suggest that I was heard in silence is absolute fantasy.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT: Order! Interruptions are disorderly. I ask all honourable members to be more orderly and to allow the debate to continue uninterrupted. I also remind the people in the gallery that they are not part of the Parliament; they are here at the good grace of the Parliament. They should listen to the debate in silence and not interrupt.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: We do not need special expertise before convening a committee. If honourable members put forward that furphy we would never convene a committee of this Parliament. I am a member of a committee that is inquiring into the Appropriation Bill, yet I have no particular expertise in accountancy. I serve on the Law and Justice committee. Although I have never been trained as a lawyer, I am trusted by this Parliament to make decisions in that committee. I have sat on numerous committees inquiring into firearms issues, and I have never fired a gun in my life. To say that special expertise is needed by honourable members before this Parliament can conduct an inquiry is a specious argument, if ever there was one. Members of this House have a duty to the public of New South Wales to allow scrutiny and to allow the public to have their say. That is why the upper House exists. If it does not exist for that, we might as well pack up and go home.

I can half understand why members in another place guillotine legislation: they are elected to give the perspective of their local electorates. Sometimes I do not have the specific role of committee work, which is part of the normal activity of members of this House, and an activity that will continue to increase. To resist a fairly strong request from the community that we inquire into this matter is to not do our job. Admittedly, the position put before the House by the Opposition is a modest one, but we are quite serious about it. We are prepared to be any place at any time to hear public submissions. I wonder where Government and crossbench members will be when such a request is made.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT: The Hon. Ian Cohen.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: This will be good. Are you going to apologise?

The Hon. I. COHEN [3.30 p.m.]: As long as I keep you entertained. As the second speaker for the Greens, I support the bill, but I also acknowledge the community concerns that have been raised about it. The Parramatta to Chatswood rail link will have substantial benefits for the community.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: You did the deal. Live with it. You did a deal. Own up to it.

The Hon. I. COHEN: What is the deal? You make a supposition. It is undeniable that the Parramatta to Chatswood rail link will have many substantial benefits for the community. But many people have genuine fears about its impact on the environment, and their views must be respected. First I will mention each of the objections that have been raised. The main argument against the bill is the impact of the proposed Lane Cove River viaduct on the Lane Cove River National Park. Some local residents, environmentalists and users of the park suggest that the bridge will affect the amenity of the park. There is no doubt that it is an important recreational area. The Greens recognise the value of public urban green space, and this value must be at the forefront of the decision-making process. The Greens cannot countenance any incursion on public land that will result in the alienation of that land for purposes that cannot be demonstrated to be in the public interest. I can assure honourable members that it has been very difficult to decide what is in the public interest. Our decision was based on a great deal of communication and debate within the Greens—

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: What did you get in return?

The Hon. I. COHEN: As a Green member of this House I have got absolutely nothing in any so-called deal in return for a vote. I endeavoured to reach a decision after listening to all sides of the argument and to a number of conflicting concerns that have been strongly expressed throughout the community. I reached a decision in a manner that may be alien to the Hon. Dr. B. P. V. Pezzutti, who is used to what goes on between the major political parties. Those on his side of the House are so bereft of leadership that they are accusing our organisation of making political deals. I want to make it quite clear: There is no deal. I have gained nothing.

I have gone to a great deal of trouble to consider all the issues. I have spent a great deal of time discussing this matter with people and creating an avenue for them to be heard. My office has received a stack of information on both sides of the argument, which clearly indicates that the community has a number of considered positions on this matter. The matter has generated significant concern among the community, and both sides of the argument have been acknowledged. But it would be too much for the Opposition to acknowledge that there are two arguments, to acknowledge that there are benefits for both sides. Bereft of leadership, the Opposition charged into the Lane Cove valley—

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Point of order: The Hon. I. Cohen should be drawn back to the leave of the bill. Although he has a problem with his conscience and he has difficulty explaining the lack of consultation on this matter, he is trying to justify himself. It would be better if he spoke about the bill.

The Hon. I. COHEN: To the point of order: I am not quite sure what the point of order is, other than that the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti is feeling a little hurt because there is opposition to his very narrow viewpoint. I was putting forward a number of positions in the debate but I was diverted into answering the honourable member's rather untimely interjection to try to facilitate some understanding on the part of the Opposition that there are members of this House who can reach a position that is based on conscience and acknowledges both sides of the debate.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order. However, the Hon. I. Cohen raises a point that a previous President ruled on: that interjections are disorderly and that it is neither in the interests of the interjector to interrupt nor the member speaking to respond to interjections.

The Hon. I. COHEN: The incursions into public land that will result in the alienation of such land for purposes that cannot be demonstrated to be in the public interest has been the subject of informative and lengthy debate within the Greens and the general environment community, including a number of people who are listening to the debate in the gallery today, some of whom may strongly disagree with the Government and some of whom may equally as strongly support the Government. That is the situation we are dealing with today in this House. That overall public interest has been of great concern to the Greens.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: In your judgment.

The Hon. I. COHEN: I apologise to the Deputy-President for responding to the interjection, but it is all in our judgment. It is for the Government and the Opposition to make a judgment about their decisions. It is for the Greens to make a judgment about our position.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: You've been conned!

The Hon. I. COHEN: To say that we have been conned is a rather inferior argument. I will listen with great interest with one ear and if there is a worthy interjection I will answer it. The community has raised the problem of noise from the line intruding onto the park. However, it must be remembered that the bridge will follow the same corridor as a road that currently carries 30,000 cars per day. I understand the importance of having quiet spaces in the middle of the city for people to escape from noise. I would therefore ask the Minister to investigate the option of incorporating noise barriers, which would lessen the noise from the line. Although it may seem like an add-on, it is a substantial issue. Despite the fact that I have huge reservations about the M2 and despite the fact that when the Coalition was in government it went ahead with the M2, we were discussing in my office today the fact that one need only walk underneath bridges on the M2 to realise the effectiveness of its noise-calming devices.

We recognise that noise is a major problem, but that may be solved by employing appropriate engineering devices. There is no doubt that the bridge will cause some damage to bushland. Bush-care groups that have worked in the area do not want to see their work destroyed, and I certainly understand their anxiety. All of Sydney's bushland is a precious and finite resource that must be recognised for both its biodiversity and the role it plays in enriching the lives of the people of Sydney. However, the position of the Coalition on this issue lacks credibility. When the Coalition was in government it made the decision to proceed with the M2 motorway, which cut a swathe through some of Sydney's most important bushland and caused real damage to biodiversity.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: It was a road reservation from the beginning.

The Hon. I. COHEN: The Wolli Creek valley was a road reservation from the beginning, yet the Government chose to go underneath it. I used to live there; it was a road reservation for many years. The M2 cut a swathe through some of the most important bushland and caused real damage to the biodiversity. Mrs Chikarovski's claim that she is concerned about the bushland is simply an attempt to greenwash the Liberal Party's record on this issue. I was at Macquarie University along with the Hon. R. S. L. Jones during the construction of the M2 and saw the terrible destruction near the university site. I saw animals being collected and flung from significant mature trees during the roadway's construction. It was a sad time.

The Greens' proposed amendment will incorporate a parcel of bushland of some 2.8 hectares within the park. This is approximately 0.9 of a hectare larger than the area to be affected by the bridge. The Greens call on the Government to provide further funds for bush-care groups and for the management of the park to continue regenerating the bushland. Incursion into the national park and failure to follow proper planning processes is the next issue. National parks are vital for biodiversity conservation. The principle that these areas of public land are being managed for their environmental values and not for commercial or other purposes which damage those values is a fundamental policy of the Greens. However, this is not the case with commercial activities that exploit the park. This is not a case of clear-felling or damaging biodiversity. This public infrastructure project has multiple public and environmental benefits.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Like the M2.

The Hon. I. COHEN: I disagree with the honourable member. We have to agree to disagree. I cannot compare the absurdity of the M2 with the overall future social and environmental benefits of such a major infrastructure as the Parramatta to Chatswood rail link. I cannot compare it and I do not accept that it is relevant. I suspect the honourable member is just baiting me for the sake of it.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: No, I'm not. I just don't believe your breathtaking dishonesty.

The Hon. I. COHEN: I will find it breathtaking when the honourable member comes up with a relevant interjection! The alienation of national parks presents a broader issue. I make it quite clear that the Greens' support for this bill does not lessen our commitment to ensuring that national parks not be alienated or violated. Our support for this bill was conditional on the incorporation into the park of the Browns Waterhole area, which is of great ecological value. It must be acknowledged that the planning process for this project has been deficient. Unfortunately, many people in the community feel that they have not been given an opportunity to have their views considered. This has been a feature of the planning processes that have applied to most major projects the Government has undertaken. Community participation needs to be encouraged at the earliest stages of project planning, not at the end of the process when so many important decisions have already been made.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: It's never too late.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: So the inquiry will not be held because?

The Hon. I. COHEN: To answer the honourable members, from my perspective the matter has been exhaustively investigated and information has been clearly brought to the fore. Some of the things I have heard from the Opposition concern me.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Have you seen the EIS on this one?

The Hon. I. COHEN: Indeed I have. It is a substantial document. The Greens did not establish the process for consideration and approval of this project. The Greens would have preferred that the planning issues, including route selection, be more fully considered prior to the bill coming before the House. It must be remembered, however, that this bill authorises the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning to approve the project, but does not require him to do so.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: The Nature Conservation Council doesn't really support it, does it?

The Hon. I. COHEN: The Opposition should look at Greens amendment No. 2, which is aimed at ensuring that this bill does not pre-empt the planning process.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: We've looked at it and we have an open mind on it. You've closed your mind to what we say.

The Hon. I. COHEN: Our amendment shows that we have an open mind on and concern for these matters. If we simply look at the impact of this rail link on the Lane Cove River picnic area in terms of the issues I have just mentioned, it is tempting to conclude that the bridge is totally inappropriate. That is certainly the view of many people, and it was my view when I visited the park last year. However, since then I have reflected on the meaning of urban sustainability and the need to look beyond the immediate and most obvious issues and problems that grab headlines. This brings me to the most important issue raised by the bill: urban sustainability, which is different from environmental protection and conservation—terms that environmentalists such as myself are more familiar with.

The most significant influences on the environment no longer arise from local impacts, such as the construction of this bridge. Global impacts now cause the greatest threats to our environment. In relation to biodiversity, for example, it is predicted that the greenhouse effect is a major threat to the future existence of many plants and animal species which may not be able to adjust to extreme fluctuations in the earth's climate. We have already witnessed a major bleaching of the world's coral reefs. Scientists predict that the world's reefs may not survive this century.

The simple fact is that the way of life of people living in the world's wealthy cities such as Sydney is a major cause of the global disruption to the world's environment. In Sydney this is symbolised by people's addiction to using the car for transport. Other transport options are available that improve the liveability of the city and do not contribute to the greenhouse effect. Rail is an efficient way to move people around cities and would lead to an enormous reduction in greenhouse gas emissions as it creates less pollution and a better environment for the city as a whole. Cities with good rail systems are on the path to urban sustainability, but cities that rely on car transport are on the path to oblivion.

Social justice is the other aspect of sustainability that is important to the Greens. This rail link will make Macquarie University and the University of Technology Sydney, [UTS], Kuring-gai campus, accessible to students who do not live on Sydney's North Shore.

[Interruption from gallery]

I note the interjection from the gallery about cut and cover, which certainly has attracted a great deal of discussion. It is something I will cover in a moment and avoid the cut of the Opposition with its blunt instrument!

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: The Y-link will open up a lot more.

The Hon. I. COHEN: I do not agree with the resolution about the Y-link as I believe that link has certain problems. I should like to refer to a fax forwarded to the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho from Robyn Kemmis, Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Administration, UTS. Robyn details some of the points about UTS Kuring-gai as follows:

• 13% of UTS Students and staff use public transport. The station will reduce dependence on personal transport and alleviate pressures in relation to road safety, traffic congestion and parking
  
• Lindfield and Roseville stations are a considerable distance from campus especially at night when lectures finish
  
• UTS subsidises a bus service and provides an inter-campus bus because of public transport inadequacies
  
• UTS students come from across Sydney and include many students from the west and north western suburbs
  
• Public transport serving students and staff in west and north west suburbs require numerous changes of mode
  
• UTS station will provide public transport links to Macquarie University and University of Western Sydney
  
• UTS station will provide links with business at Chatswood, Delhi Road, North Ryde, Epping and Parramatta
  
• UTS station will provide links from the Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery and Health with Royal North Shore Hospital and Westmead
  
• Demand figures in EIS understate patronage from UTS station

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: What about when UTS moves campus? What are you going to do then?

The Hon. I. COHEN: If the honourable member allows me to continue, I will present an argument that he might find reasonable. The document continues:

• UTS has a commitment to remain at the Kuring-gai Campus which will see staff and students levels increase
  
• UTS overall student numbers continue to grow strongly and the provision of a station on campus will enable the development capacity of the campus to be fulfilled
  
• The UTS Kuring-gai bushland setting provides unique and well supported education programs
  
• UTS has agreed to progress a Conservation Agreement for its bushland by the end of 2000

There is no doubt that the Parramatta to Chatswood line will be an important step towards achieving sustainability in Sydney. The real debate is whether this is the best route. Taking into account all the issues I have mentioned, I am advised that this is the only route that ensures the feasibility of the line. I accepted that advice after going through a great deal of discussion with government bureaucrats, people involved in transport, and people in non-government organisations. There has been a series of long and arduous discussion sessions on the matter.

[Interruption from gallery]

To respond to that interjection from the public gallery, I am following my own conscience. I turn now to the cut and cover issue. I have been to the site. I had concerns about the bridge from the very beginning. I still have concerns and I hope that they will be ameliorated to at least a reasonable level. The information I have is that the cut and cover proposal would result in huge changes in sediment load in the river. The river would be dammed at certain times and that would have impacts upstream and downstream. It would be extremely damaging to aquatic organisms and there could be an impact for five to 10 years. I am advised that it is not a viable alternative.

There is also a great deal of concern about the level of the crossing under a cut and cover scheme. The gradients would be too steep for a train going up to a station at Kuring-gai. A previous speaker suggested that passengers could catch lifts but there are safety issues in regard to how deep a station can be. The station would be as deep as Moscow station, and there could be serious safety problems in case of evacuations. There are problems with the cut and cover proposal. There are short to medium serious environmental concerns about damming the river. I am convinced that the environmental issues are of substance. The Vice-Chancellor of the University of Technology, Sydney, Professor Anthony Blake, who is based at Broadway, said in a letter to Kerry Chikarovski:

On behalf of the University and its Council, I would like to assure you that our commitment to remain at the Campus is firm and that we will continue to implement initiatives to strengthen the University's operations on that site.

The provision of a station at the Campus will provide a significant link between ourselves, Macquarie University and the University of Western Sydney and will strengthen the valuable links with business and the community along the corridor. The new rail link with stations at the three universities will open up these campuses to the communities of the western areas of Sydney and the Central Coast via accessible public transport.

UTS is strongly committed to remaining on the Campus and to developing its full educational potential. The opportunity to do so is dependent on the construction of a station on the site.

Earlier this month I signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of Transport. That memorandum highlights the University's commitment to the Kuring-gai Campus and to its long term development.

The challenge of urban sustainability is greater than almost any other challenge that has ever confronted humanity. We need to accept that if our society is to make real progress in achieving urban sustainability the old ways of looking at the world which have not worked must be reassessed. This applies to the conservation movement just as it applies to everybody else. Senator Bob Brown promotes the idea that before parliamentarians do anything they need to ask themselves what people living 100 years from now would want us to do. I have asked myself that question and I believe the answer lies with the Greens amendments. The issue has been very vexed and I have not come to my position easily. There are acknowledged problems on both sides, but I believe that the bill should be supported.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Once it is built we will live with it forever. Give yourself more time.

The Hon. I. COHEN: Yes, we will live with it forever. I looked at the other options with the route going through pristine bushland, and others that had unviable terrain and gradients. The Greens are convinced that this is an important infrastructure project and therefore we support the bill.

The Hon. R. D. DYER [3.56 p.m.]: I strongly support the bill both as an individual Government member and as the representative of this House on the Macquarie University Council. The Parramatta to Chatswood rail link will be of great advantage not only to the North Shore, which the Hon. J. F. Ryan is mentioning at the moment, but to residents of western, southwestern, and northwestern Sydney and to northern Sydney as a whole. The new link will facilitate access to rapidly expanding employment areas. Taken together—this is an interesting fact—the employment areas of Macquarie, North Ryde, Chatswood, North Sydney and St Leonards-Artarmon already provide more than 100,000 jobs.

The Parramatta central business district [CBD], which is of course outside the areas of employment I have just mentioned, is expected to almost double current employment levels to about 60,000 by 2021. The rail link will strengthen Parramatta's role as Sydney's second central business district and in addition will provide growing population areas in western and northwest Sydney with links to employment growth centres in Parramatta, North Ryde and Chatswood. The new rail link will provide a new 27-kilometre rail line fully integrated with existing rail lines through Westmead, Parramatta, Carlingford, Epping, North Ryde and Chatswood. Eight existing stations at Parramatta, Rosehill, Rydalmere, Dundas, Telopea, Carlingford, Epping and Chatswood will be upgraded to the latest standards.

There will be four new stations in areas not previously served by rail—at UTS Kuring-gai, Delhi Road, Macquarie Park and, very importantly, Macquarie University. The new underground platforms at Parramatta station will be part of a major new regional transport interchange. There will also be a new transport interchange at Carlingford station. During construction, up to 2,000 people will be employed at peak periods, and over the life of the project more than 10,000 jobs will be created. This is an important part of the Government's post-Olympics construction plan. Completion and operation of the rail link is projected for 2006. Following completion, up to six trains per hour will run between Parramatta and Epping and up to 10 trains per hour will run between Epping and Chatswood at peak times. Proponents of the rail link have advised me that by 2006 the rail link is anticipated to have 15,000 users per day, including 5,400 users in each of the morning and afternoon peak periods, that is, between 6.00 a.m. and 9.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. and 8.00 p.m. respectively.

The rail link and the provision of rail stations at Macquarie University and the University of Technology, Kuring-gai campus, will benefit both institutions. Macquarie University opened in 1964 and has a student enrolment of about 20,000. In April this year 3,400 students graduated at eight graduation ceremonies at Macquarie University. I was able to attend one of those graduation ceremonies. None other than the Commissioner of Police, Mr Peter Ryan, was made an honorary doctor of laws in recognition of his achievements and services to the State and to the university, particularly its graduate school of management, which is generally regarded, according to a recent survey in Business Review Weekly, as the best graduate school of management in the State.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: My question without notice is to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. Is the Attorney aware of a 1988 agreement between the union movement and the former Unsworth Government for public service salaries to be paid into bank accounts, with cheques and cash payments no longer available as payment alternatives? Has the Labor Council recently approached the Attorney or his Government, as the public service employer, to consider the payment of a loading to compensate for the cost burden placed on employees by bank fees, or, alternatively, the reintroduction of cash or cheque payments? If such a loading was introduced, what would be the cost to the Government?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I am not aware of the 1988 agreement to which the honourable member refers, and I have had no submission in recent times about it or matters related to it, to the best of my knowledge and belief.

The Hon. A. B. MANSON: My question without notice is to the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries. I understand that the Government requires mining companies to lodge security deposits to help ensure full restoration of mine sites following expiration of mining. How will the Minister protect our environment and ensure that this system works?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I thank the Hon. A. B. Manson for his question and his continued interest in mining. The Carr Government is committed to protecting the environment, especially rehabilitation of derelict mine sites, and the community expects nothing less. Our record speaks for itself. Since 1995 the Carr Government has more than trebled funding for rehabilitation of abandoned sites, but it is early days yet and it has much more to do. This Government is determined to prevent this burden being paid by future generations by tackling this problem right from the start through security deposits.

The Government holds security on all titles under the mining and petroleum Acts. All new mines must supply security equivalent to the estimated cost of rehabilitation. Individual mines are lodging securities of up to $15 million. This will be used by the Government to complete the restoration of mine sites if the leaseholder defaults on its obligations. Two years ago the Carr Government reviewed liability and security bonds of nearly 100 New South Wales mines and many were increased to better reflect the amount of work required. As of 1 May 2000 the Government held securities worth more than $252 million. This includes securities worth more than $57.5 million for mineral leases, $193.4 for coal leases and $2 million for petroleum leases.

The Carr Government is serious about our environment. A new mining lease will not be granted if a company cannot afford a realistic security deposit. In this case the New South Wales Government regards the potential environmental and financial cost to this State as unacceptable. This Government, like no other, has demonstrated that it is committed to increasing mining and exploration in New South Wales. It creates vital jobs in our regions and boosts investment in rural New South Wales. Labor is serious about our environment and about supporting mining with appropriate controls. Security deposits ensure that our community benefits from mining and does not bear the financial burden of restoring mine sites.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: My question without notice is to the Minister for Mineral Resources, representing the Minister for Local Government. Is it not a fact that papers distributed to ratepayers for the postal ballot on the important Drummoyne-Concord amalgamation proposal in many cases were empty envelopes, which contained no papers at all? Does the Minister agree that he would hate Mayor Peter Woods not to have the full hand of democracy to help him to go wherever he is going?

The Hon. M. R. Egan: He is not a Labor candidate.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: I did not say he was a Labor candidate. He was thrown out of the Labor Party. He is a former Communist from New Zealand. Is it also not the case that similar problems occurred in the amalgamation ballots for the Richmond River and Casino shires and also for Armidale and Dumaresq shires? Will he explain why three separate postal ballots have now been mismanaged? What will the Minister do to try to allow democracy to take place in Concord?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I am not aware of the issues raised by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I would be surprised if they were not attended to by my ministerial colleague in the other House. I am aware of Concord as I lived in the area for more than 17 years. No doubt Peter Woods does a very good job for the Concord community. He is an excellent mayor and has continued to do a excellent job for that area. I have no doubt, if the merger does occur between Drummoyne and Concord, that he will continue to play an important role in that merger. In the interests of democracy I will seek an answer from my colleague in the other House to satisfy the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Health. Is it true that work in call centres and administrative support areas of the ambulance services will be disrupted by industrial bans between 2 June and 9 June? What action is being undertaken to ensure that this action does not impact upon the response to emergency calls?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I must admit that I am not aware of the issue so I will refer the question of the honourable member to my colleague the Minister for Health for a full reply.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I ask the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations a question. Will the Attorney provide a perspective on some of the issues canvassed at his recent forum on New South Wales defamation?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: A useful forum was conducted at the Parliament House Theatrette on 10 May. The forum, which included presentations from speakers representing the legal profession, academia and the media, was followed by lively debate on defamation law reform. The proper role for juries in defamation proceedings was keenly debated throughout the evening, with the 1994 reforms limiting the role of the jury the subject of strong criticism from representatives of the legal profession. I found myself defending the reforms of my predecessor, the Hon. J. P. Hannaford. Perhaps some aspects of those reforms should be reconsidered but, in essence, I defended the Parliament's decisions in 1994, which had effect in 1995.

Those reforms included having the trial judge rather than the jury determine whether a defence was established and the amount of damages. Despite the vociferous criticism that emerged, I had to tell the forum that I had not heard any sustained arguments or serious submissions suggesting that we should restore the role of the jury to the traditional area, but that I would be happy to receive a submission on that issue. In 1995 the New South Wales Law Reform Commission made some far-reaching proposals for defamation law reform. At the heart of the commission's recommendations was the idea that, if the object of defamation law is to protect reputation and if defamation laws are to result in the effective vindication of reputation, the principal issue in such actions should be the truth or falsity of the imputation. The commission recommended that awards for damages should focus more clearly on providing plaintiffs with compensation for the loss that they have suffered rather than seeking to effect the vindication of a plaintiff's reputation. Vindication should come instead from the finding of falsity.

The Defamation Bill 1996, which I brought before this House, sought to implement some of the commission's recommendations. It was introduced into Parliament but, in the face of strong criticism—and, frankly, no substantial support—it did not proceed.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: You took your bat and ball and went home.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I ran a flag up the flagpole and no-one saluted it. I spoke at the forum about the need for a more uniform approach to defamation across the eight different jurisdictions operating in Australia. The reality of modern communication is that material will often be published simultaneously in a number of jurisdictions. If the material is defamatory, this means that a separate tort will have been committed in each jurisdiction with its own governing law. Differences in defamation law across the country can also mean that a plaintiff may recover damages in respect of a publication in some jurisdictions but not in others.

The level of debate generated at the forum reflects the diversity of opinion that surrounds this area of law. Consensus is problematic; compromise is essential. I am looking at reforming New South Wales defamation laws. While freedom of speech will be the overriding consideration, there must still be compensation for maliciously inflicted financial damage as well as avenues for the prompt correction of factual error.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE: My question is directed to the Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. Can the Minister confirm whether there is a serious problem with an illegal black market in handguns in New South Wales? Is it possible to estimate how many unregistered handguns are in illegal possession in this State and whether this is giving the criminal community greater access to handguns? If that black market has increased, where are the handguns coming from and how are they reaching the market in New South Wales? Has there been an increase in this black market activity since the Firearms Act 1996 tightened access to firearms?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I must admit that I am not aware of the issue. I take it from the Hon. J. S. Tingle's question that he is suggesting that a black market in handguns has developed. If that is true, it would be a matter of great concern to every honourable member. I shall certainly take up the matter with my colleague the Minister for Police and obtain a considered response.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: My question is directed to the Special Minister of State, representing the Minister for Education and Training. In light of the unrest that is occurring at Wilcannia following a recent report on the 60 Minutes television program, what action has the Government taken to provide additional counselling and support to teachers and students at Wilcannia Central School?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I did not see the 60 Minutes program, but I have been advised about the story and the work being done by Wilcannia Central School in partnership with the community. I was also informed about a young woman who completed her higher school certificate [HSC]. Heidi Bugmy is the first Aboriginal woman from Wilcannia Central School to achieve her HSC, and on behalf of the Parliament I congratulate her on this wonderful achievement.

Wilcannia Central School runs many welfare projects for students, including breakfast and lunch programs for children requiring nutrition, and there is particular emphasis on literacy and attendance and on Aboriginal language and cultural programs. Daily attendance rates have improved dramatically since term 4 of 1998. I am advised that there have been some problems—some of which the honourable member mentioned. However, I am told that, when those problems have arisen, the school has made appropriate notifications both to the police and to the Department of Community Services, as it is legally bound to do.

Department of Education and Training officers have met, and are continuing to meet, community groups to work towards the resolution of community concerns. The latest 60 Minutes segment that was screened on Sunday 28 May referred to alleged incidents concerning three young females. These incidents did not occur while the females were under the control of the school. The follow-up 60 Minutes program generated staff concerns that are being addressed by Department of Education and Training officers. Students have returned to school and all classes are operating as normal.

The Hon. J. HATZISTERGOS: My question is directed to the Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment. Will the Minister update the House on provisions that the Department of Juvenile Justice has made for clients of the department who have disabilities?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I thank the honourable member for his question on the important issue of young people who are detained in custody. As part of their induction to a centre, all young people receive information in a variety of formats—including plain English, audiotape, videotape and cartoons—to assist them in understanding their rights and responsibilities as well as the routines of the centre. Young people on control orders receive a detailed assessment prior to sentencing as part of the development of a court report to assist the magistrate. This report may include reference to any disability the person may have. This background report, along with an existing community-based case plan and other relevant casework information, must be sent directly to the detention centre within 48 hours of notification that the young person has been admitted to custody.

Once in custody, the young person is subject to a brief appraisal by admission staff, a nurse's holistic health assessment within 48 hours and a psychologist’s appraisal within two weeks if on a control order. Young people attending school receive an educational assessment of their abilities and skills. Further assessments are carried out as needed—for example, an assessment may be conducted by the Alcohol and Other Drug Counsellor—and the results of these assessments are discussed at the multidisciplinary centre support team meetings that are held at least weekly to guide and monitor service delivery for detainees. All young persons on control orders are engaged in the case management process whereby a case plan is developed with and for the young person. This case plan will outline the programs and strategies designed to assist the young person being supported within the detention centre, address their offending behaviour and assist in their community reintegration, including any needs arising from the young person's disability.

In September 1999, the department established a disability working group to review programming for specific needs groups; case management and support; assessment, including the need for a screening instrument; existing policy and legislation; cultural/gender needs; and the adequacy of current staff training. The disability working group is chaired by the Director of Psychological and Specialist Services. While the review is continuing—recommendations are expected later this year—one important aspect of this review concerns the Hayes Ability Screening Instrument [HASI], which is an instrument developed by the University of Sydney to assist in identifying people with an intellectual disability.

Initial data indicates that the HASI was useful in its capacity to identify quickly and reliably those young people who would benefit from further assessment and tailored programming or who might have special management needs. The department has decided that training for psychologists in the administration and use of the HASI will be undertaken in the next three months. The department is also providing additional disability awareness, client management, programming and referral training to community and custodial staff that will commence in October 2000. This will support the use of the HASI, which will commence when education and training is complete. Data will be collected on the use of the HASI and the number of clients screened as well as its impact on case planning, service delivery and referral. The use of the HASI will be reviewed 12 months after its initial implementation.

The Hon. Dr P. WONG: I ask the Special Minister of State, representing the Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development, a question without notice. What legislative and management structures are currently in place which aim to ensure that the management and operation of Sydney's Star City Casino is free of criminal influence and exploitation? Is the Minister satisfied that these structures have been successful in the past? Is the Minister satisfied with the performance of the Casino Control Authority in its role of preventing criminal influence on and exploitation of the casino? What measures is the Minister planning to implement in the future to ensure a more reliable regulation and protection of Star City Casino from criminal activity?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I do not know the measures that the Minister for Gaming and Racing has contemplated and whether or not he is satisfied with the current state of affairs. But I will seek a response from him and provide it to the member at the earliest possible convenience.

The Hon. J. M. Samios: This year?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: It will be well before the end of the year, and I thank the Hon. J. M. Samios for prompting me. The standing orders oblige me to provide the answer well before the end of the year and it will be provided by then. All members of this House would agree that the Minister for Gaming and Racing has a fairly complicated and difficult portfolio.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: He is not looking terrific at the moment.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I think he is looking excellent. All members of this House would know that he applies himself diligently. I will not pay attention to further nonsensical interjections by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The Government is satisfied that the Minister for Gaming and Racing is very much on top of that administration and will provide an answer to the question.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General. Attorney, are you aware that the Government is proposing to introduce legislation to overcome the decision in Meriton Apartments Pty Ltd v Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning because the judge in that case was not aware that legislation passed last year by Parliament had been proclaimed? Why did the Crown Solicitor and the barrister representing the Government in that case not inform the court that legislation which had been passed by this Parliament and intended specifically for that case had been proclaimed? How much does the Government have to pay in legal costs because the Government lost that case as a result of the court not being advised that the law had been changed?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I will take that question on notice because it is a very precise question. The principles are that prospective legislation is irrelevant to a court proceeding.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: It was actually the law.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: Can we take this one step at a time? Legislation that is contemplated by the Parliament is irrelevant, that is clear. If the legislation is in force and effect, that is a different matter. The Hon. J. P. Hannaford asserted that legislation in force and effect was not drawn to the attention of the court. I have no knowledge about that; if it was not drawn to the attention of the court and was in force and effect, obviously an error was made. I will look into it and give a considered reply in due course.

The Hon. JANELLE SAFFIN: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries. Will the Minister inform the House of current work being conducted in New South Wales on abalone aquaculture? How is current research benefiting recreational and commercial fishers and the aquaculture industry?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I thank the honourable member for her continued interest in aquaculture. No doubt the House has heard me on many occasions speak about aquaculture, an industry that creates jobs in regional New South Wales. The Carr Government is well known for our commitment to developing the State's aquaculture industry and abalone is yet another seafood with terrific potential. New South Wales Fisheries research is contributing to the development of our State's abalone industry. This month, the New South Wales Fisheries research team at Port Stephens set a new aquaculture record. They successfully bred more than 19 million abalone larvae—the largest batch ever produced in New South Wales. More than half of those larvae—about 10 million in total—have already been seeded onto reefs around the Tomaree Peninsula at Port Stephens.

These abalone are part of a major Government program to establish self-sustainable abalone populations on the Central Coast and South Coast. Recreational and commercial fishers are the winners in this outstanding Government project. Central Coast and South Coast communities also benefit, since a sustainable abalone harvest means more job security in these regions. I am pleased to say that both the Abalone Management Advisory Committee and the Abalone Divers Association support this Government program. The research team is now focused on maximising the survival of abalone which have been bred in captivity and then introduced into the wild.

New South Wales Fisheries detailed knowledge of abalone will ultimately benefit the production of farmed abalone. Apart from this month's record abalone production, New South Wales Fisheries' research is successfully producing millions of batches of abalone eggs out of season. This is great news for future abalone aquaculture. Much of this research will also help in developing the local abalone farming industry. Apart from the millions of abalone larvae already released, an additional 200,000 of 12- to 26-week-old juvenile abalone will be released this week. They will be seeded onto reefs near Fingal Island, three kilometres south of Tomaree Head. At less than 20 millimetres in length the juveniles are ready to attach to rocks. The Carr Government will continue to promote aquaculture which in turn creates sustainable employment in regional New South Wales.

The Hon. P. J. BREEN: My question without notice is to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. Will the Attorney inform the House whether he intends to proceed with the proposed increase in the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Division of the Local Court from $3,000 to $10,000? Is the Attorney also willing to proceed with plans to make the Local Court more accessible to ordinary people by limiting the circumstances in which solicitors can recover fees in the Small Claims Division?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: There has been some controversy about the expansion of the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Division. I would like to take time to consider whether I affirm or deny the Government's intention to proceed with the increase. I will respond to the honourable member at a later time.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: My question without notice is to the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries. Will the Minister advise why there has been a delay in announcing the total allowable catch for the lobster fishery? When will the announcement be made? Does the Minister believe that the lobster fishers are reasonable in their expectation that the total allowable catch will be increased?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: The rock lobster industry is an important one in this State. New South Wales has the tastiest and best lobsters in the country.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: We also have the best oysters.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: There is no doubt that Sydney rock oysters are the best not only in Australia but in the world. For the Treasurer's benefit, we are working hard to ensure that we have world best practice for our export market, so that other parts of the world can enjoy our product.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: I do not want to share our oysters and good Hunter reds with the world.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I think they should share in the excellent products from our water systems. Oyster growers are entitled to maximise their returns on the excellent product they produce in this State. As to the question of the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner, there is no delay. When this issue reaches my desk I will make an announcement. I do not see why there should be any great concern. These issues need to be looked at carefully. A tremendous amount of research is done to make sure that the rock lobster industry remains viable. The catch is limited to an amount that ensures the sustainability of the industry, and it is with the consensus of the industry. When the issue reaches my desk I will be more than happy to share the information with the House.

The Hon. A. B. KELLY: My question without notice is to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. Will the Treasurer inform the House on how Sydney is placed as one of the world's leading convention centres?

The Hon. D. J. Gay: The bed tax doesn't help.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The bed tax will be levied for only about another month. With the support of this Parliament, I imposed a 10 per cent tax on hotel beds in the Sydney central business district [CBD] and areas nearby. Now John Howard and Peter Costello are applying a 10 per cent tax on every hotel, motel and caravan park bed throughout the nation. I know which tax the people of regional and country New South Wales would prefer. They would much prefer the Egan bed tax to the Costello-Howard bed tax, because my tax applied only to the Sydney CBD. It meant that business and international tourists visiting the world's greatest city contributed to the upkeep and perfection of this city, which is so close to being perfect it does not matter.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Who asked this question?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The Hon. A. B. Kelly asked the question.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: The convenor of Country Labor?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Yes, the convenor of Country Labor.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: He asked a question about Sydney?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Absolutely, because our strategy is to try to get the tourists who land in Sydney out to the regions. They are doing that in droves, in increasing numbers. They come to Sydney and realise that there is a lot more to New South Wales and Australia than Sydney. However, we cannot get them to New South Wales regions and country areas unless we get them to Sydney in the first place.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: You banned cuddling koalas. Tourists go to Queensland so they can do it, and it is costing New South Wales millions of dollars.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I do not know what experience the Hon. J. F. Ryan has had with cuddling koalas, but my experience has not been very good. I would not recommend it.

The Hon. M. J. Gallacher: They must be a good judge of character. Your dog ran away—it must be a good judge of character too.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Yes, and I still have not brought the photo of my dog in. Just under two weeks ago Sydney was named the world's top convention city by the International Congress and Convention Association. It was not named in the top 10 or the top five; it was named the world's top convention city. This is the second time in three years that Sydney has taken out the top position. The win places Sydney ahead of cities such as London, Paris, Rio de Janeiro, Amsterdam and Stockholm as the first choice for convention organisers. Given that the Sydney Convention and Exhibition Centre is unavailable for two months during the Olympics, the top ranking is a remarkable achievement.

Preliminary results for next year indicate that Sydney is likely to take out the award again. Already the convention association has 73 major international meetings listed in Sydney in 2000 and 2001. This compares to 54 slated for Melbourne. That is a fine record for Melbourne, and I am pleased that it is doing so well. It is important for Australia that our two greatest cities are successful in attracting not only tourists generally but conventions in particular. Conventions and meetings are a major source of jobs and investment for New South Wales.

According to the 1999 Sydney Convention Delegates Study, business tourists spent nine times more than the average holidaymaker—$810 per day compared to $86 per day. That is an incredible amount of money—$810 per day! Last year more than $1.78 billion was spent in New South Wales by business tourists. With some 1,700 local and international events taking place in Sydney and regional New South Wales in 2000 and 2001, this is expected to increase considerably. I am confident that Sydney's position as the world's top business tourism destination, coupled with the profile generated by the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, will continue to see the business tourism industry boom.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: My question is to the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Police. Is the Minister aware of an article in today's Daily Telegraph by Lisa Power and Anthony Peterson about the vicious assault of two unarmed security guards who were on patrolling duties at Blacktown Hospital on Sunday night? One of the officers, a 37-year-old woman, was slashed and stabbed on the chest and neck as she attempted to defend herself from the three assailants. Why was the role of security guard replaced with that of special constable, with the removal from the officers of batons and handcuffs? Has this decision now been reversed? What strategies will be put in place to counteract and prevent such violent attacks on hospital staff at Blacktown Hospital in the future?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I have not read today's Daily Telegraph.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Are you avoiding it as well as the Sydney Morning Herald?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: No, I have a special relationship with the Sydney Morning Herald, as the honourable member may be aware.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: You employed Fred Hilmer at one stage.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I have a lot of time for Fred Hilmer. However, the inherent problems with the Fairfax press will not be overcome by one chief executive. It will need a succession of chief executives before the affliction is finally rooted out. In recent times the Premier has reminded me and others that the Sydney Morning Herald is the newspaper which before the State election of 1944 urged its readers in its editorial to vote against the McKell Labor Government in order to send a message to the wartime Curtin Government. Nothing has changed: the Sydney Morning Herald is still as stupid as it was in 1944.

The question was not about the Sydney Morning Herald, nor my father's advice to me about the Sydney Morning Herald and the Liberals. His advice, which I never forget and always heed, was: "Never trust the Liberals and never trust the Herald". He also told me never to trust the banks, but that is a different matter. If you are right two out of three times, you are entitled to some credit. I have not read today's Daily Telegraph, but I am aware from what I saw on television last night or the night before on a late night news program that there is an issue. I am not aware that previously special constables were providing security at hospitals. That is news to me.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: That is news to me too.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: It strikes me as a bit bizarre. I am grateful for the advice of the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti. This is an important issue. I will refer the question to my colleague the Minister for Police, and obtain a response. I am always grateful for the assistance of the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti. He plays a valuable role in this Parliament and, indeed, within the Liberal Party. Once upon a time there were two factions within the Liberal Party, the Groupers and Uglies. I always took umbrage at the fact that a section of the Liberal Party had taken a noble Labor term like "Grouper" and applied it to themselves. But they are no longer the Uglies or the Groupers, I am told they are the Gallachers and Forsythes. I would not normally be expected to support someone with an Anglo-Saxon name but someone with a Celtic name. But if I were pressed to indicate which faction of the Liberal Party I support, I would have to go with the Forsythes.

Before question time I was looking around the Chamber, looking at the Liberals and doing a headcount. It seemed to me that only two Gallachers were in the Chamber: the Hon. M. J. Gallacher and the Hon. C. J. S. Lynn behind him. All the rest, I am sure, are Forythes. The Special Minister of State tells me that he supports the Gallachers. He should be ashamed of himself because they are the most primitive and undeserving people involved in Australian politics. I give my full support to the Forsythes. I wish them well. I know that they certainly have the numbers in this House; I hope that they can persuade their colleagues in the lower House that some changes are due. I thank the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans for what was an important question. I take it seriously. I will refer it to the Minister for Police for his response.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS: My question is to the Treasurer, representing the Premier. Is he aware that the Lord Mayor's plan for a multimillion dollar refurbishment of the Museum of Contemporary Art may be derailed by the National Trust recommendation to preserve the Circular Quay building? In view of the ongoing debate about the future of the Museum of Contemporary Art, will he outline the Government's plan for the future of this contemporary art centre?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The short answer is no. Honourable members will be aware that some years ago the Government provided the Museum of Contemporary Art with the old Maritime Services Board building. At the time it was made quite clear that that was the extent of the State Government's ongoing involvement with the Museum of Contemporary Art. I understand that the museum is having difficulties, and there have been discussions between various members of the Government, other people within the community and the arts community. I am not sure what stage those discussions are up to. I know that the Lord Mayor has passionate views, and I give him full marks because he is someone who brings commitment, dedication and passion to his job. I know that full well because I am often bombarded with his telephone calls at all hours of the day and night, but I do not mind that because he is a good Lord Mayor and good friend. I point that out to underline his diligence.

The Museum of Contemporary Art is an appalling building. I thought that many years ago when I was appointed as a member of the board of the Maritime Services Board and I went into it for the first time. Honourable members must remember that the building was built in the same decade in which construction of the Sydney Opera House commenced. It is beyond belief to contemplate that those two buildings were constructed in the same decade. It is an appalling, fascist structure that should never have been built. However, I do not suggest that it should be pulled down, used for apartments, used for hotels or anything else. I simply want to place on the record that it is an appalling building. I have come up with some grandiose plans for the site, but I was thinking more along the lines of Cook and Phillip Park—we could have a Kable and Holmes park named after my great, great, great, great, great, grandparents who, of course, were First Fleeters. Unfortunately, that idea did not meet with support or approval from anybody, so I quietly dropped it.

That building will be here for a long time. I do not know what the National Trust is up to, but I certainly did not support the National Trust sanction over the Sydney conservatorium, nor did I support its view over the redevelopment of Walsh Bay. Adaptive reuse of buildings and structures like the Walsh Bay wharves and other things is the sensible way to go. All these things cannot be community centres, art galleries or museums. If we are going to have buildings that are worthwhile we have to find contemporary uses for them. I do not think that the building down there is worth a crumpet, but it is there and I do not propose that it should be pulled down.

The Hon. P. T. PRIMROSE: My question is to the Attorney General. Will the Attorney General inform the House about the New South Wales State wage case decision?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I thank the Hon. P. T. Primrose for his question.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Just another ministerial statement!

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: It is information given to the House that is useful and contemporary.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: It is ministerial.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: It will not take long, I can assure you. Section 50 (1) of the New South Wales Industrial Relations Act requires that as soon as practicable after the making of the national decision a full bench of the State commission must give consideration to the decision and, unless satisfied that it is not consistent with the object of the Act or that there are other good reasons for not doing so, must adopt the principles or provisions of the national decision for the purposes of the New South Wales award system. On 30 May a full bench of the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission handed down its decision in the State wage case 2000. The commissioner decided to adopt the Safety Net Review—Wages, May 2000 decision of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission [AIRC], which was handed down on 1 May, and which awarded a wage adjustment of $15 per week in Federal awards, which had the effect of increasing the minimum wage to $400.40 per week.

The State commission noted that no party that appeared in the State wage case proceedings had submitted that the adoption of the AIRC decision in New South Wales was economically unsustainable. In fact, in demonstration of the co-operative approach to industrial relations in New South Wales, all parties to the State wage case proceedings agreed on the wage-fixing principles to be adopted. The New South Wales commission expressed satisfaction that the $15 per week safety net adjustment was not inconsistent with the objects of the New South Wales Industrial Relations Act 1996, and that there was no reason on this occasion for departing from the AIRC decision. As part of its decision, the New South Wales commission stated its agreement with the submissions made on my behalf, which found that the New South Wales economy had demonstrated strong, non-inflationary growth over much of the 1990s and that the New South Wales economy compared favourably with that of the national economy.

The commission further stated that this conclusion was not surprising, given the continuing significance of the New South Wales economy to national economic outcomes. The commission also ordered that any wage adjustment arising from this decision would be available by application, and generally only 12 months after the State wage case 1999 increases have been inserted into the relevant award. The hearing of the State wage case 2000 was held in Wollongong for the first time. The full bench noted that the decision to hold the State wage case proceedings in the Illawarra reflects the significant contribution of the people and the enterprises of Wollongong and the Illawarra area generally to the State and national economy, and to the development of industrial relations in New South Wales and Australia.

It also recognises the importance of the region in the work of the commission itself. Locating hearings in Wollongong recognised the important contribution to the commission's activities and the important contribution of the industrial parties in the region by members of the commission who regularly sit in Wollongong. I commend this decision of the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission as being economically responsible, and representing an appropriate balance between providing for fair minimum standards and the needs of the low paid on the one hand, and the relevant economic considerations on the other. It shows that our State legislation can deliver fair, reasonable, minimum standards for the battlers of New South Wales. It shows the flexibility of the New South Wales State tribunal in sitting in a regional area, and recognises the contribution of that region to our economic development.

The Hon. I. COHEN: I ask a question of the Minister for Juvenile Justice, representing the Minister for Information Technology, Minister for Energy, Minister for Forestry, and Minister for Western Sydney, the Hon. Kim Yeadon. In light of the proposal to use activated carbon filters for filtration of sewage gas discharge at the proposed Northside Storage Tunnel at Scotts Creek, Middle Cove, which is 40 metres from a school boundary, will the Minister advise which Sydney Water sewage pumping stations utilise activated carbon filter systems, how long these have been in operation and whether the activated carbon filter system is used in conjunction with other means, such as hydrogen sulphide sensors, telemetry or alarms?

Have the operations and performance of the existing activated carbon filter installations been reviewed by the consultants employed by the proponents of the Northside Storage Tunnel? Have the details of Sydney Water activated carbon filter installations been reported to the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning to assist in the assessment process of the Northside Storage Tunnel? Will the Government guarantee that these filters will adequately protect kindergarten children at school 40 metres from the proposed outlet with its vaporised viruses and bacteria?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: The question of the Hon. I. Cohen is detailed, and not one that I would undertake to respond to at this time. However, I will refer it to the Minister in the other place and obtain a response as soon as possible.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: My question is to the Minister for Fisheries. Why did the Minister agree to meet a delegation led by One Nation leader, the Hon. D. E. Oldfield, to discuss new industries in far western New South Wales? Why did the Minister not invite the local Labor member for Murray-Darling, who is so often touted as the florid face of Country Labor? Is this so-called Country Labor member such an embarrassment that the Minister will not expose him to business delegations during the evaluation process? Does the Minister agree that his preference to deal with One Nation rather than his own local member exposes the myth of Country Labor for the absolute sham it is?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I am sure all honourable members who regularly attend in this House will wonder how long the Hon. C. J. S. Lynn will remain on the Opposition front bench. He seldom asks a question about public works. He is an embarrassment to the Liberal Party, but he is of more embarrassment to the National Party. I am sure the Hon. C. J. S. Lynn is either always asleep or does not understand what happens in this House. As every member of this House knows, particularly Opposition members, every member of this Government has an open-door policy. We are more than prepared, in the interests of Broken Hill or any other part of New South Wales, to accept any delegation that is interested in talking to this Government about issues relating to their community. The Hon. C. J. S. Lynn takes umbrage at the fact that Peter Black is one of the best State members we have in this Parliament. Not only does he represent 44 per cent of the area of this State, but he does a great job. Every Government Minister knows when Blackie wants something he makes sure he gets it! I assure the honourable member that in the spirit of accommodating any delegation—

[Interruption]

They are a rowdy lot! They do not want to see how well we service country New South Wales. It was bad enough last week that the Hon. C. J. S. Lynn stated four times that there was nothing good in country New South Wales. I repeat it because I feel ashamed that not one member of the National Party took him to task—instead, members of Country Labor did so.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: They weren't here.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition was present. You were sitting there. It was during question time. The Hon. D. F. Moppett and the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner were here. I am not sure whether the Hon. R. T. M. Bull was present.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: Point of order: I know Ministers have a wide latitude as to how they answer questions, but I understand it is a fairly solid convention and adherence of the standing orders that one may not launch a substantive attack on a member of Parliament without there being before the House a substantive motion for debate. The Minister has gone on for some time criticising the member opposite. It is not just an odd criticism; he has gone on for some time and made a point. He should answer the question or sit down. He is clearly launching an attack on a member.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I have previously made the point that members should try not to be diverted by interjections. If interjections remain at a minimum, Ministers will not be diverted.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I will continue to have an open-door policy for any such member of the public or any person with responsibility in local government or otherwise. It was because of my interest and this Government's continued interest in Broken Hill that the Hon. D. E. Oldfield asked whether I would receive a delegation from the local council at Broken Hill. It is my duty as Minister to see any such member of the public, and I will continue to do that. It is an absolute furphy for the Hon. C. J. S. Lynn to suggest that Peter Black would not be present when I receive that delegation. It is untrue because I would insist that Peter Black, who is the hardest working member and represents his community with great vigour, always be present when I receive any delegation from the Broken Hill electorate. What offends the Hon. C. J. S. Lynn is that we care about country New South Wales and we are prepared to see any delegation from country New South Wales.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Where was Blackie?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I suggest the Deputy Leader of the Opposition grab the Hon. C. J. S. Lynn on the side and make him wake up because he is destroying the party's base. I would like to see the National Party continue its presence in this Parliament, but every time the Hon. C. J. S. Lynn opens his mouth the party loses thousands of votes.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: Point of order: In your previous ruling you said some latitude was given for people responding to interjections. The Minister is now continuing his attack on a member in this House. Again there is no motion before the House and there was no interjection that caused the response.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister is quite clearly answering the question, which was about a delegation from Broken Hill.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: The Hon. C. J. S. Lynn ought to sit in this House and listen instead of going to sleep and deluding himself with his own self-importance. He should listen to questions, listen to answers and understand once and for all that we on this side of politics, the Carr Labor Government, believe in serving country New South Wales.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Point of order: On two occasions the Hon. J. F. Ryan raised the point of order that a member cannot make a personal attack in this House without having moved a substantive motion. Yet the Minister continues to make a personal attack on the Hon. C. J. S. Lynn. I ask that you draw his attention to that fact and ask him to desist unless he moves a substantive motion in the House.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: To the point of order: It surprises me that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition takes up the point of the Hon. J. F. Ryan because he is a more experienced and mature parliamentarian than the Hon. J. F. Ryan. If the Hon. J. F. Ryan or the Deputy Leader of the Opposition regard the remarks of the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries as a personal attack, I suggest they should look for a different career. I suggest they are not used to the rough and tumble of parliamentary debate. There is quite a difference between the rough and tumble of debate and a personal attack. That is well known to any member of the House. The Hon. J. F. Ryan is simply trifling with the House, and I am surprised that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is doing his bidding.

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order. I agree with the points made by the Leader of the Government. There is certainly a tradition in this House of a certain robustness of debate and I think that that is what is occurring. There has been no imputation against any members, and they can make a personal explanation under Standing Order 70 if they wish to.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: My question without notice is addressed to the Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. Will the Treasurer please inform the House of the latest boost to the Sydney film industry?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I would be delighted to respond to the Hon. I. M. Macdonald's question. I am pleased to advise the House that tonight the major blockbuster Mission: Impossible II opens at the Fox Studios at Moore Park.

The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans: Are you in it?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am not but if I had known that they were auditioning for extras I would have been there on the day. The event passed me by without my knowing. The film has already opened in North America, where it took some $US70 million in its first five days.

The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans: How much did New South Wales get out of it?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans should just sit there patiently and I will let him know. At approximately $US8 a head admission to the movie will mean that more than 8.7 million Americans have already seen the stunning Sydney Harbour and outback scenes that feature in the film. As the House is aware, Mission: Impossible II was filmed in large part around Sydney and in Broken Hill—thanks to Blackie! It also made full use of the facilities on offer at Fox Studios. It injected $70 million into the New South Wales economy and it created 630 jobs for—

The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans: For how long?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: For the duration of the film. It created 630 jobs for set builders, technicians and crew. The film also created work for another 30 actors and approximately 8,000 extras. The film called on the expertise of a number of specialist tenants located on the Fox site including film stock, casting and stunt companies. The post-production companies Animal Logic, Spectrum Films and Soundfirm also worked extensively on the film. I am told that, apart from the excellent facilities and crew the producers found in Sydney, they were also knocked over by Sydney's diverse cultural make-up.

A major part of the film is set in Spain, which required a large number of Spanish extras. I am told that Sydney's large Spanish community rose to the occasion and that the production company had no trouble turning the sound stages into realistic Spanish vistas. Fox Studios and the films that are being made there have now firmly placed Sydney and Australia at the centre of the world's film industry. Every year more and more international production companies turn to Sydney as a viable alternative to North America and Europe. Sydney now has the foundations of an industry that will generate thousands of jobs and inject millions of dollars into New South Wales in the years to come. I congratulate the producers of Mission: Impossible II. I wish them well at the box office and I welcome them back to make any future Mission: Impossible film or any other films for that matter.

I am sure most honourable members would have seen The Matrix. But The Matrix could have been filmed anywhere. Mission: Impossible II actually features Sydney as Sydney. Therefore hundreds of millions of people around the world will see not only a glimpse of Sydney but also a great deal of Sydney. I am sure that it will whet their appetite to visit here. It will also influence their opinion about everything that happens here. I urge honourable members to see Mission: Impossible II. I did not see the first Mission: Impossible film.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: It was on television.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Was it? I am not sure that it was my sort of film, but the fact that Mission: Impossible II was made here certainly makes it my sort of film.

The Hon. M. J. Gallacher: You would like it. It is your sort of film.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I saw Gladiator. The first 10 minutes reminded me of the Government and the Opposition. You need to know when you are conquered. When I saw in the film the leader of Rome's opposition, who had a big beard and was jumping up and down, I thought: That is Gallacher and that Opposition. It really should be renamed the New South Wales Government and Opposition. It might not do much for the box office takings but it would be a more accurate name.

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT: My question is addressed to the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Police. As of today have all the DNA samples, related papers and profiles of innocent people obtained during the April Wee Waa police operation been destroyed? If not, why not? If they have been destroyed, what method was used to destroy the samples, papers and profiles?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I do not know. I will find out and advise the honourable member and the House as soon as I am in a position to do so.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Will the Treasurer confirm that the Carr Labor Government is receiving a proportion of the petrol excise collected by the Commonwealth to distribute to motorists in northern New South Wales to maintain petrol price parity between southern Queensland and northern New South Wales? Will the Treasurer then explain why Lismore motorists are paying 5¢ a litre more than they should for petrol? Why is there a gap between petrol prices in Tweed Heads and petrol prices in Burleigh Heads?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti is wrong. We do not receive any money from the Commonwealth to subsidise petrol prices on the Queensland border. We do subsidise them—

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: From the money that you get back.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: No, we do not get any money back.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: From the 8¢ a litre?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: No, it is purely a contribution the New South Wales Government makes to ensure that petrol prices on our side of the Queensland border enable our service stations to compete with those on the other side of the border. The Queensland Government does subsidise petrol prices in Queensland.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: In the same way.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: No, in a different way. As I understand it, it subsidises the whole State. It can do that because each year it has the benefit of literally hundreds of millions of dollars that it is able to rip off Victoria and New South Wales. Queensland is the lowest taxing State, notwithstanding that it has—

The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans: It has shocking hospitals, though.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: They are not shocking hospitals but I would agree that they are nowhere near the standard of New South Wales public hospitals or, I would think, hospitals in other States. When I was chairman of the Public Accounts Committee from 1981 to 1984—

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: When you were in the other House.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: When I was in the other House, before I was thrown out by the electors of Cronulla, who did not actually know that that was what they were doing. In any event, as chairman of the Public Accounts Committee I conducted an inquiry into budget overruns by hospitals. That took me and other members of the committee to Queensland, where we visited some public hospitals. I was surprised by what I saw. They are not up to the standard that we are used to or would accept. Nevertheless, Queensland is able to subsidise petrol prices across the board. We spend, I think, about $30 million—

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: It is $36 million.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I will take the honourable member's word for it. I am aware that in recent days there have been claims that the subsidies are not reaching the motorists. I intend to have some inquiries made, firstly, to find out whether that is true. I can assure the honourable member that if it is true we will take whatever action is needed to ensure that motorists benefit from the $36 million that we are providing every year for that purpose.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: I have a supplementary question.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: You cannot ask a supplementary question because I am about to call question time off. It has gone 10 minutes over time. If members have further questions they might like to place them on notice.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I would like to add to the response I gave to a question asked by the Hon. P. J. Breen today. The Courts Legislation Amendment Act 1999 increased the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Division of the Local Court from $3,000 to $10,000. Representations have been received from various groups concerning this amendment. In order to fully consider the issues that have been raised, this provision has not been proclaimed to commence, but I can inform the House that I am currently considering the commencement of the provision.

Questions without notice concluded.

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. R. D. DYER [5.10 p.m.]: Earlier I mentioned the support given by Macquarie University to the Parramatta to Chatswood rail link and the undoubted advantages that the rail link will provide to the staff and students of that university. I place on record a letter that the Vice-Chancellor, Professor Di Yerbury, recently wrote to the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads as evidence of that support for this rail link. Professor Yerbury wrote to the Minister on 15 May in the following terms:

Dear Minister

I am aware of the support already expressed by the Vice-Chancellors of the University of Technology, Sydney and the University of Western Sydney for UTS (Kuring-gai Campus) to be included in the Parramatta-Chatswood Rail Link. I apologise for the lateness of my own letter of support, having only yesterday returned from overseas.

Macquarie has already separately expressed its own very strong support for involvement in the rail link, and I would like now to add my voice to the sentiments expressed by Professor Blake of UTS and Professor Reid of UWS about the importance of public transport in facilitating greater co-operation between our institutions. Such co-operation must form an important part of the future of Australian universities in this region, and I am committed to pursuing such opportunities to the fullest.

I therefore am pleased to join my fellow Vice-Chancellors in supporting this valuable transportation link between our universities.

It is not particularly easy at the moment for students of Macquarie University to access that campus. Currently, students travelling by train to Macquarie University connect with buses to the university from stations at Epping, Eastwood, North Sydney, St Leonards, Chatswood, Lindfield, Gordon, Pymble or Turramurra. Parking facilities are available on campus for students who travel by car. However, these require the purchase of a parking sticker at a cost of $94 or payment at casual parking rates.

The Registrar and Vice-Principal of Macquarie University, Mr Brian Spencer, has told me, following an inquiry I made, that the university has 5,000 car spaces on campus but that increasing traffic congestion in the area surrounding the university is becoming a problem. The university is confident that rail facilities will shift a proportion of students attending the university who currently utilise cars in favour of public transport commuters.

I would like to raise a question that might come under the heading of social justice, that is, giving access to Macquarie University from greater western Sydney. Mr Spencer has advised me that currently 25 per cent of Macquarie's non-overseas students come from greater western Sydney and that 28 per cent of Macquarie's students from metropolitan Sydney overall come from greater western Sydney. The registrar is confident that these numbers and proportions will increase when the rail link is in operation.

In concluding my remarks I simply wish to say that this rail link will be of great benefit by creating better access from various parts of Sydney, particularly greater western Sydney, and more employment opportunities in the areas I mentioned at the outset of my remarks. The rail link will also have great importance so far as accessing both the UTS Kuring-gai campus and Macquarie University. For those special reasons, and others that I will not delay the House identifying at the moment, I strongly support this legislation.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [5.15 p.m.]: The bill will amend the Transport Administration Act, the National Parks and Wildlife Act, the Public Works Act, the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and the Heritage Act in order to provide for the development of the Parramatta rail link. The bill enables land within the Parramatta Regional Park and the Lane Cove River National Park to be acquired for the development; confirms that the Public Works Act applies to the development; excludes the development from the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act which relate to the liability of private certifiers; allows approval under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and the Heritage Act to proceed concurrently; confirms that no compensation is payable for the construction and use of the tunnel, underground stations and platforms if the surface is not disturbed; and protects underground rail facilities from interference or damage.

It has been a long time coming, but finally the Government has produced a sound transport infrastructure and initiative that I and many public transport, conservation and resident groups applaud. Those groups include Action for Public Transport, Eco-Transit Sydney, Coalition for Transport Action Groups, Blue Mountains Commuters and Transport Users Association, Ryde-Hunters Hill Flora and Fauna Preservation Society, Bundara Bushcare Group, Blue Mountains Conservation Society, North Ryde Residents Group, New South Wales Urban Environment Coalition and Friends of the Earth. They all support the project.

Other members and I have received numerous letters of support for the project from individuals and families who live or have lived in or close to the Lane Cove Valley. I have also received a number of emails and representations from groups that are very much opposed to the alienation of any land from Lane Cove River National Park, and that is entirely understandable. The $1.4 billion Parramatta to Chatswood rail link, which will cover 27 kilometres and have five new stations, will be the largest railway line built in Sydney since the Blacktown to Richmond line in 1864. Seven existing stations on the Carlingford and western Sydney lines will also be upgraded during the project. The new double-track line will travel from Westmead through Parramatta, Carlingford, Epping and Macquarie University to Chatswood and St Leonards. It will offer great travel benefits to the residents of the western suburbs and other areas, including the Carlingford region, North Ryde, the Central Coast and the North Shore.

Not only will many of them no longer have to drive to their workplaces and shops, they will also be able to use public transport to travel to their universities and colleges, hospitals, recreational areas, and so on. For example, students will no longer have to travel from Parramatta to Macquarie University by car, burning up thousands of litres of petrol and contributing to air pollution. The entire project will reduce the emission of major greenhouse gases by 14,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year. By 2006 the project will reduce annually carbon dioxide emissions by 14,079 tonnes, nitrogen oxide emissions by 182.6 tonnes, volatile organic compound emissions by 90.5 tonnes and carbon monoxide emissions by 1,118.5 tonnes.

The new line will also take some of the load off the railway bottleneck at Strathfield and Redfern, where congestion frequently delays trains for several minutes, and contributes to faster and more reliable access to the central business district [CBD] from Sydney's west. In providing the missing and much-needed cross-city rail link between Chatswood and Parramatta, the line will take up to 55 minutes off a trip between the main centres of Sydney—which is a considerable reduction. It will also reduce travel times between the Central Coast and Parramatta and make the demographic centre of Sydney city and the fastest-growing region in the greater Sydney area accessible to each other. In so doing, the line will fulfil a longstanding transport and social need of the outer suburbs of Sydney.

This new rail link is a massive undertaking. When the line is completed in 2006 approximately 18 million passengers will use the service. While a project such as this constitutes a rational alternative to further motorway development and each new passenger carried is one more person who will not need to use a car every day, it is absolutely crucial that we get it right. Concerns raised about the impact of the new rail link on prized community parkland such as Parramatta Park and Lane Cove River National Park must be considered carefully and addressed adequately. Plans for the crucial sections of the Chatswood to Parramatta rail link, for example, have been revised extensively to protect heritage items in Parramatta Park.

Under the original environmental impact statement [EIS] up to 900 square metres of land would have been excised permanently from the park, in addition to other land temporarily excised as a work site. The entrance would have been widened and the original stone gate pillars removed. Public access to the entry road would have been denied and all public traffic would have been rerouted in front of old Government House. Other historic remnants, including the remains of the old Observatory, the Governor's bathhouse and several historic trees, would have been either removed or damaged by construction work. Under the new revised scheme, construction will focus on the existing rail corridor, with some tunnelling under Park Parade. As a result, there will be no permanent impact on the park and no land will be taken permanently from it. These changes, which were achieved through detailed negotiations with the Parramatta Park Trust, Parramatta City Council and Parramatta Golf Club, fulfil the Minister's promise to Mr Tom Uren and address the concerns expressed by the Parramatta Park Trust.

While concerns about the impact of the project on Lane Cove River National Park have not been addressed entirely through alterations to the plans, the Government has proposed a course of action that will ensure minimal loss of land and the addition of other land as a trade-off. I understand that this trade-off is not satisfactory to many residents and conservationists—and I fully understand why as I have passed through the area many times and was reminded of it today when shown photographs. Following discussions with Peter Katz and Bill Grant of the Parramatta rail link project, I understand that, while 1.9 hectares of park land must be acquired for the construction of the Parramatta rail link, only a small proportion of that land will be required permanently for the operation of the link. Any land excised that is not required permanently will be restored and returned to the park. The Government will also add to the park approximately a further 2.8 hectares of land at Brown's Waterhole, which featured in a recent article in the Sydney Morning Herald.

The land at Brown's Waterhole, which is a combination of land owned by the Roads and Traffic Authority and Crown land under a road reservation and the care, control and management of Ryde City Council, has been selected on the basis of the priorities for acquisition identified in the park's management plan. I understand that the Greens will move an amendment to the legislation providing for the preservation of Brown's Waterhole. The preservation of Brown's Waterhole as part of Lane Cove River National Park will therefore ensure that there is no net loss of land to the park. That does not of course abide by the principle that many believe in—a principle held by the late Milo Dunphy: there should be no reduction of the national park estate and no alienation that establishes bad precedents for the future.

These additions to the park also ensure that the precedent set for similar or other intrusions into national parks in New South Wales is one of no net loss—that is, any intrusions must be mitigated with compensatory additions. It is understandable that many people are upset about the idea of losing this precious little piece of the park, which includes some important rock structures. In fact, the precedent set by this project goes further: not only will there be no net loss of land within the park as a result of the link, but the park will actually be larger. Although that is true, the same result could have been achieved without any net loss to the park at all.

While I understand that some residents would have preferred scrapping the planned 14-metre railway bridge through the edge of the park in favour of a tunnel, I understand also that such modifications would have severely reduced the public transport benefits of the project. Others oppose that view. The tunnel option would require building a tunnel under the Lane Cove River. It would also require 800 metres more track and eliminate the proposed stations at Delhi Road and the University of Technology, Sydney [UTS] Kuring-gai campus.

The maximum gradient at which rail track can be built is a grade of three in 100. Therefore, railway lines can rise and fall at a rate of only 3 per cent. The combination of the depth of the tunnel required to get under the river and the maximum rail gradient mean that the proposed stations at Delhi Road and UTS Kuring-gai would have to be constructed at a depth too great for safety. In the event of an emergency, platforms have to be cleared in four minutes and everyone must be able to reach a safe location within six minutes using fire stairs, not escalators. According to our information, this would not be possible at stations that are 50 to 75 metres underground.

The removal of the Delhi Road and UTS Kuring-gai stations would serve to take an expected 10,000 train passenger movements from the line each day, many of which would replace car trips. That is up to 3.5 million train trips per year. Abandoning the two stations because of the depth of the tunnel would also mean that a third of the 27 kilometres of line would be underground without stations. The tunnel option also places a constraint on the operating capacity of the railway as it is considered undesirable to have more than three trains in a single segment of tunnel, however long. Operational safety protocols also allow up to three trains only in a tunnel section at any time as it is not considered safe to bank up more trains in a long tunnel section. The bridge option, on the other hand, splits the underground train line into two sections and would, as a result, accommodate twice as many trains and lead to speedier recovery from delays. The bridge option would also be less intensive due to the shallower gradients and shorter distance, and it would have no operating costs.

Concerns have also been expressed about the possibility of the bill pre-empting the EIS process. I believe those concerns are well founded. However, advice received from Parliamentary Counsel on 25 May 2000 states:

There is nothing in the Bill that pre-empts any aspect of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, but to allay any possible concern in that regard Section 123 was included.

New section 123 specifically states that the bill's new provisions do not affect the operation of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. This opinion is supported by advice received from the Environmental Defenders Office, which states:

… from a strict legal perspective the Bill does not affect the decision that may be made in relation to the proposal after consideration of the EIS has occurred.

Nevertheless, the provisions in the bill may at least give the appearance of pre-empting the EIS decision. We do not want that to happen. I understand that the Greens will therefore move an amendment that states explicitly that, even though the bill gives the Government the power to acquire the land for the proposed route, that land cannot be acquired unless the preferred route is approved in the EIS process. The Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning will therefore be free to approve the proposal, approve the proposal subject to conditions, or refuse the proposal after careful assessment and consideration of the environmental impact.

Those opposed to the currently preferred route, such as the Guardians of Lane Cove River National Park—who so eloquently put their case to us in no uncertain terms this morning—will also be free to put their case to the Minister and request modifications to the proposal. The Guardians prefer the Chatswood to St Leonards Y-link option, and they detailed this morning their reasons for doing so. I urge honourable members to read the document provided by the Guardians.

However, I understand that the benefits of that route do not outweigh the operational problems associated with it. According to advice that I have received, those operational problems include the fact that only about one kilometre of the nine-kilometre railway route from Macquarie Park to St Leonards could be shared with the M2-Gore Hill motorway link as trains can manage only a 3 per cent maximum grade while roads can be designed to a 9 per cent grade. A substantially longer bridge will be required, passing through higher quality native vegetation, as the tunnel is not likely to be practical due to geotechnical conditions under Lane Cover River. In any case, the Y-link proposal has been submitted in response to the EIS and, as a consequence, we hope will be assessed properly—along with other alternatives—by the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning. I hope that those who oppose the loss of this precious piece of bushland and rock formations in Lane Cove River National Park will have a chance to put their views across adequately and that the Government, the Minister and the EIS process will assess properly the various options to ensure that this, rather than the Y-link, is the most environmentally beneficial.

I hope, therefore, that when the whole EIS process has been finalised those involved on both sides of the argument accept that the decision made is the best one for the environment, whether it be that the national park is preserved or that bushland is lost as a result of the Y-link bridge. I hope it is the best decision for the environment generally, and that it will benefit the people of Sydney. I sympathise very much with the guardians of the park and hope that we can come to the conclusion that the best option has been chosen. Irrespective of what decision is reached, presumably there would have to be very good reasons for it. I hope that the EIS process is thorough and results in the right decision.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [5.30 p.m.]: The Australian Democrats believe in public transport; it is extremely important and it should be provided as early as possible in the development of a suburb. If public transport is built early it assists the development of a city or a suburb immensely. Unfortunately, in this case that has not occurred and a tunnel has to be built largely because of the cost of acquiring and building the infrastructure. The Democrats document "Going Places" contains a thorough analysis of Sydney's transport needs. We are in favour of the Glenfield to Rooty Hill rail link along the western orbital easement onto Kings Park and continuing to the north-west sector. We believe that it is absolutely necessary for the future of western Sydney.

The Democrats have already spoken about the rail link to the Dunheved Australian Defence Industry site. Those plans are a cause for concern, because a lot of money is being made out of selling off Department of Defence real estate for the Federal budget. It is a credit to the Minister that the Parramatta to Chatswood rail link, which he proposed, will see the light of day. An east-west route on the north side of the Parramatta River is absolutely necessary. Historians can cite many good stories about the historical development of railways in New South Wales, which make for interesting reading. Some railway stations along the western line are close together and that is because people who owned land wielded power and had stations constructed for their benefit. That is why Petersham and Stanmore are so close together.

The southern railway route should have gone towards San Souci, but went inland to Hurstville. That was because someone in the know owned land in the area, and that land increased immeasurably in value when the railway was constructed. In the United States of America the robber barons owned the railways and they held towns to ransom, telling them that they would be bypassed if they did not pay large amounts of money. The robber barons earned their titles by becoming rich when towns paid up—but they had no choice. If the towns had no railways and were bypassed they would soon become ghost towns.

The siting of rail links is always subject to political forces; and this rail link is no exception. With regard to the Parramatta end of the line, submissions have been received from David King and Neil Parker about the Y-link. That proposal takes the route from Parramatta around the existing track to Harris Park and Granville and then a Y-link on the Carlingford line. Under that proposal, trains coming from Liverpool would be able to join the Parramatta to Chatswood rail line at Granville, effectively providing a train from Gosford through Epping to Liverpool, another southern line. That would obviate the need for a tunnel from Parramatta to Rosehill, but would add a few minutes and two extra stops to the route.

Under that proposal there would be no need to dig into Parramatta Park and no need to dig deeply under the existing Parramatta station. The tunnel under Parramatta station would need to be deep, down to the water table, which would increase tunnelling costs. I understand that about $3 million could be saved with the Y-link. The downside of that is that Parramatta has no extra platforms but an augmentation of the station should be considered because they are four rail lines on both the east and west of Parramatta. The capacity of the station to load and unloaded needs to be augmented, not the number of train lines. The money saved could provide an upgrade of the station with an automated bus link. Hopefully, some of that money could be used towards the Castle Hill and north-west sector lines, which are extremely important.

When I questioned the need for the large tunnel, I was assured that the extra platforms are absolutely necessary. However, the Anzac Bridge was totally over-engineered; two extra lanes were needed to cross to Glebe Island. But there were practically no boats going there, so there was no need for a high bridge. That huge structure is magnificent to look at, but extremely over-engineered for its purpose, probably because the RTA was allocated some money for the bicentennial. It built a project that was not really needed. The Northside Storage Tunnel is a very expensive solution to the problem of sewage overflows. That problem could have been handled, and money could have been saved, if small gangs worked on the separation of rainwater and sewage. One cannot help wondering whether the engineering forces who wanted to win expensive government contracts managed to get them, and the planning followed afterwards. I confess I have a deep suspicion of that.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: History will remember this. You should be more suspicious of Cohen and Rhiannon.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: I acknowledge the interjection. The Hon. I. Cohen and Ms Lee Rhiannon have said nothing about this at all. The question is: Do engineers push to win government contracts? The history of public works departments in New South Wales suggests a resounding yes. For the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti to throw his prejudiced mud at the Greens is quite irrelevant to this discussion, and quite an embarrassment. The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti is totally uninformed and does not know what he is saying; he is just slinging mud. As I said, it is a disadvantage that there is no extra line under Parramatta and that there are fewer station platforms—I concede that. I wonder whether the extra money, the number of options, the development of Parramatta and the possibility of tunnelling other routes later as the bus transitway is turned into a light or heavy rail line, should be left to be debated at a future date. An EIS should investigate those aspects very thoroughly.

When I put that proposal to some planners, they said that the legislation is necessary only because the rail line is to cross the park at Lane Cove. They suggest that Parliament is not involved in decisions such as this, and I wonder whether that infers that the Government is not sufficiently involved in the management of the State. That may well be the case; we ought to have a more open decision-making process. I believe an extra station is needed between Carlingford and Epping because railways lead to increased urban density. While that is sometimes unpopular locally, the alternative is an urban sprawl. I was impressed to see that Stockholm has blocks of tasteful houses around a square that provides child-care facilities and parks. In between, there are parlklands and cycleways, where people can enjoy an almost bushland environment close to clusters of relatively high-rise housing.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: When did you last visit Stockholm? I was there last year and I did not see that. What did I miss?

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti should have gone up the new northside railway line and he would have seen that. The new Macquarie University and Macquarie stations will be close together, with Delhi Road nearby. The issue that has caused the most controversy is the crossing of the national park. I have received 66 letters, 25 emails, and submissions from Helen Fern, David Robinson, Caron Morrison and Jim Donovan of Action for Public Transport, among others.

The crossing of Lane Cove River National Park by a low-level bridge, which is the favoured option in the departmental material, has the advantage of requiring the least construction and the lowest gradients. Another advantage is that commuters will have a view, albeit fleetingly, of the park. As the Hon. R. S. L. Jones said, there is the important aspect of improved safety for trains because of access to the bottom of the tunnel. A newspaper article the Sunday before last reported that the Greens made a deal to support this option in return for saving Browns Waterhole. Labor people have quietly murmured to me that Browns Waterhole was already going to be incorporated in the park, but it was smart to get the Greens vote. I am not able to comment on the rights or wrongs of that; I merely note it in passing.

As an Australian Democrat I sometimes feel constrained, but the Democrats tend to look at each proposal on its merits. We are not willing to trade off one issue for another. Should Browns Waterhole be incorporated in the park? The answer is yes. Should this bridge go ahead? That is a separate question that should not be dependent on saving Browns Waterhole. The construction of a bridge should stand or fall on its merits. That is the way we look at the alternatives. The alternative to a bridge is tunnels, which will preserve the escarpments. That alternative assumes that bridges are ugly. I do not think that all bridges are ugly. In some cases they may be the least invasive structure. Compared with motorways, railway bridges do much less harm and damage to the environment.

The cut and cover option, which is the construction of a relatively shallow tunnel, is as damaging to wildlife as a deep tunnel. That option would create a large hole, generate a large amount of silt and cause considerable grading problems. Further, I understand that that option is difficult to construct and requires coffer dams and other structures. An issue that has been widely discussed is a Y-link along the Epping Road route. It is important to look at the technological aspects of a long bridge and grades further down the river, rather than the one that has been suggested near Fullers Bridge. A route along Epping Road would have the advantage of servicing the Lane Cove shopping centre, the nearby Lane Cove industrial area and the Artarmon industrial area. However, a rail line to Chatswood would continue north. Many trains would terminate at Chatswood because not enough commuters would want to go further up the North Shore line. Another problem with the diversion of trains in two directions is that fewer trains would go to the city. People tend to want to catch trains that run frequently. If the train lines divert, by definition the trains will run less frequently and people will have to change trains.

That problem may not occur if a rail line to the northern beaches is constructed. It would be possible for that line to come from either the Y-link along Epping Road or a route through the University of Technology, Sydney [UTS]. Is the UTS Kuring-gai campus route better than the Epping Road route? The department thinks so. I received a letter from the Vice-Chancellor, Professor Blake, in which he confirms a continuing commitment to UTS Kuring-gai. It seems odd that it should be necessary to say so. It would be more likely that the campus would stay at that site if a rail line were constructed there. It would be madness not to stay there. UTS has the Fairfax building, which is currently leased to SOCOG, that would allow a large amount of room for expansion on its Broadway campus. That would have to be considered, as it is more convenient to have courses held at the one site.

Film Australia is near UTS Kuring-gai, although I am told there are fewer people employed there than previously. With a railway station there, a great deal of development would be required in the area. That is generally unpopular with residents in the short term, but the dramatic rise in land values would lead to such development. In the long term, density development would occur along the railway line, which is probably a good thing.

When development does not take place along railway lines, governments do silly things. For example, the disuse of the Windsor train line around Schofield and the car-based development on the north-west sector have been a disaster and have created a huge bottleneck. It will cost a fortune to fix. A large number of the easements that could be used by an underground railway line have been foolishly sold to developers who wanted large parcels of land to make more money. It was a disastrous approach to planning. Why did the department choose the route through the UTS? One assumes the department was technologically neutral and had no vested interest in the UTS route over the route along Epping Road. I was a little perplexed about this unusual decision. I wondered if the decision related to gradients, lengths of bridges and so on. I received a submission from Caron Morrison, who has studied this matter for some considerable time and has been an activist, particularly for the Lane Cove River National Park. Her submission on this matter is significant. It states:

There is a real merit in the argument that the rail line should proceed to St Leonards, rather than to Chatswood. Unfortunately the M2 contract, signed by Bruce Baird several years ago makes consideration of this route extremely difficult. The M2 contract contains a clause which requires the State Government to financially compensate the Motorway operators if the patronage levels are affected by alternative transport in the area of M2 influence. This can be either private roads or public transport, and is referred to as an "adverse material impact". I have a good reason to believe that the State Government has received legal advice that, because the St Leonards route more closely parallels the M2 than the Chatswood route, this option could become extremely expensive for the State as a whole. Once again, we see that the M2 involved much more than the destruction of bushland and communities.

This may be a conspiracy theory, but a great deal of work has been done on the M2 contract. I have spoken about this in this House, and I know that the Hon. R. S. L. Jones has done a great deal of work on it. I refer to a document entitled "Insights into the Privatisation of Roads in Australia" by John Goldberg, who wrote a submission to the Senate select committee into a new tax system. Annexure A of his submission refers to the uneconomics of the M2 motorway. People may be interested to look at a web site on this subject at www.brushtail.com.au/hills.report.fiscal.98.html, which then refers one to a web site at www.brushtail.com.au/m2.traffic.analysis.html.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones searched for the M2 documents, which he spoke about on 21 October 1999. The honourable member spoke about the M2 contract on 30 November 1999. The Australian Financial Review published articles on the matter on 8 June 1999 and 6 October 1999. At that time I received a prospectus from the Macquarie Infrastructure Group, which sells shares in a number of infrastructure programs, such as the M2, M5 and Eastern Distributor in Sydney, the link project in Melbourne, two bridges in Lisbon, a motorway near Manchester and in Yorkshire, and a tunnel in Germany.

It is interesting to note that the tolls on the Lisbon bridge did not cover the payments to the Macquarie Infrastructure Group—it was getting extra money from the Portuguese Government—and that some of the payments were late. The prospectus contained a risk analysis about securing money from governments that were tardy in making extra payments. Governments were assessed on their risk of making contract payments. It was suggested that good deals could be made and that the governments would cough up. The concept of a public transport link that takes profits from the M2 and enables an infrastructure group to sue the State Government and receive money is a risk in the routing of the rail line. It is only natural that the Government would be reluctant to talk publicly about this matter, but it may be a major factor in the selection of the University of Technology, Sydney, [UTS] route versus the Y-link. I say that without any detailed technical knowledge, but it is possible and one cannot help but wonder about it.

If the route is set by such a constraint, the option of building a bridge is probably the lesser of a number of possible evils. I am not able to comment on whether Chatswood is a more or less important destination than St Leonards. I understand that more people get off trains at St Leonards than Chatswood, and that Chatswood is becoming increasingly residential and that some of its commercial space is being converted to residential space. However, Chatswood remains an important destination. It would be better if trains passed through Chatswood on the way to the city rather than facing north and terminating at Chatswood as part of the Y-link. The Coalition is waxing lyrical about the park.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: We haven't had a chance to wax, yet.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: Because of their interjections I have a very low tolerance for their humbug. I quote from Caron Morrison, who deals with this humbug extremely well. Although she may be in this House tonight, she does not normally write about this House as we do not get that much publicity. She said:

Mrs Chikarovski and Mr O'Farrell appear to be attempting to present themselves as Parliamentary "guardians" of the Lane Cove Valley. This makes me deeply unhappy. These two individuals have had plenty of opportunities to protect the bushland of the Lane Cove River and its tributaries. When the M2 issue was being hotly contested, and constructed, Mrs Chikarovski was fighting for preselection in Lane Cove, and when in government was a staunch supporter of Bruce Baird, Minister for Roads. Mr O'Farrell was Bruce Baird's Chief of Staff. Many of us tried, and failed, to protect the Valley, but none of us were as well placed as Mrs Chikarovski and Mr O'Farrell. Why didn't they protect the Valley when they could?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Where were you when the M2 was on the go?

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: When the M2 was on the go I was with the protesters trying to stop it. As a matter of fact, I was at the Macquarie Shopping Centre if you would like to know—but I wasn't arrested—as were the Hon. I. Cohen and the Hon. R. S. L. Jones.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: I walked the route with the residents on that occasion. Did you? I bet you didn't!

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: There were plenty of residents there. Yes, of course I was there. That's who I was there with. What do you think I was doing, walking on my own? Caron Morrison continued:

Peta Seaton, the Opposition Environment Spokesperson, issued a press release on May 26 saying that Labor and the Greens had "sentenced thousands of road users to decades of future road transport problems". That is arrant nonsense. I could easily accuse Bruce Baird and the M2, or even Laurie Brereton and the Harbour Tunnel of that particular sin, but I cannot say that Peta Seaton's argument has any validity at all. When Ms Seaton says that "Bob Carr is treating national parks as vacant construction space", I can only say that I wish she had been there when the Devlins and Terry's Creek bushland was being cleared for the M2.

Caron Morrison went on to say:

I am also worried by the Opposition's insistence that this rail line was their idea. That is certainly not my interpretation of events. I distinctly recall being contacted by several large engineering firms, including Barclay Mowlem, Abigroup and Ove Arup, in the very early 1990s, when they were canvassing community support for the then-called Macquarie Rail Line (Chatswood-Parramatta). Over time, and with a number of other people, I attended several meetings to discuss this proposal, only to see them lose interest after they formally approached the Fahey Government. I formed the impression that the Government had asked them to delay their interest until after it had the M2 up and running. It may be my imagination, but at the time it seemed that reducing its interest in the Macquarie Rail Line was beneficial to Abigroup who now has a major interest in the M2 consortium. It cannot be disputed that the construction of this rail line was part of the Fahey Government's 1995 campaign platform, but it was there as a result of a concerted community and corporate campaign. It was there to defuse community anger and concern over the M2, not because they genuinely had the communities' interests at heart.

That is merely one activist's opinion, but it is nice to talk to someone who was there at the time. The Opposition is strident in its saving of a tiny bit of park when it puts a motorway through a huge slab of it. I need to be persuaded that the rail link has to go across the park. If it cannot go along the Epping Road route for either technical or contractual reasons related to the M2, then that is the best option. We must ensure that the environmental impact statement [EIS] properly examines those issues. In relation to other environmental issues: as much spoil as possible must be carried by train; steps must be taken to ensure that no silt gets into the river; builders of the rail line must take part in reafforestation and select native creepers to minimise the impact of the bridge structure; money should be provided for bush care to assist in regeneration and make amends for the damage caused by the construction process; and grants should be provided to national parks and local bush regeneration groups, which get a lot more work done for far less money than people on short-term contracts.

The construction of the bridge should include noise-mitigation engineering, similar to that used under the Tivoli Theatre. I understand that trains can run on rubber tracks to reduce their noise. It cannot be disputed that the proposed route damages the park, but we may not be able to use Epping Road, even though it would be preferable from the point of view of workers along Lane Cove Road, the residents of Lane Cove, the high density housing along Lane Cove Road, and the industrial areas of south Artarmon and along Epping Road. I am not sure of the legalities of either route, and I do not know whether they are likely to manifest themselves. If the UTS route is used, the M2 builders will not have a case because the route would not impinge on their catchment or their patronage. It may be that the UTS route is the better route for that reason. I support the bill. I trust that the EIS process is properly conducted. Another investigation would be necessary only if the existing processes are not completed satisfactorily.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [5.59 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party is pleased to support the Transport Administration Amendment (Parramatta Rail Link) Bill. The object of the bill is to amend the Transport Administration Act 1988 to allow a number of matters to be finalised and facilitated so that a railway can be built from Parramatta to Chatswood, known as the Parramatta rail link. To achieve this certain land that is currently reserved as regional or national park must be acquired. The Public Works Act 1912 will apply to the project as an authorised work under that Act. Further objects of the bill are as follows:

(iii) providing that building and subdivision work that is part of the project is not subject to certain provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 that provide for the apportionment of liability and time limitations on commencement of actions for defective work, and

(iv) providing that approvals under Division 4 of Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in respect of the Parramatta Rail Link may be granted prior to determination by the Heritage Council under the Heritage Act 1977 of applications concerning heritage items.

The bill will also extend to all underground rail facilities the principle under the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 that no compensation is payable under that Act for the acquisition of land to be used for a tunnel, or for the use of those facilities. Finally, the bill will protect underground rail facilities, including but not limited to the proposed Parramatta rail link tunnels and facilities, by enacting provisions for an entitlement to compensation for damage, a right of support, an implied protective covenant, and removal of interference.

The Christian Democratic Party supports the bill because it is a major part of the Sydney Action for Transport Plan for 2010. The Parramatta to Chatswood rail link is a big project totalling $1.4 billion. This measure should proceed because, as the Government has said, much concern has been expressed about the anticipated let-down after the Olympic Games. A huge building program involving many workmen on various projects has been under way with the construction of the Olympic Stadium and many other associated facilities Those projects are nearing completion and a post-Olympics job plan is needed. This project will help satisfy that need. Many other projects will be forthcoming.

The Parramatta to Chatswood rail link will create at least 1,100 jobs directly during the construction phase, and peak employment at times will reach 2,000. The project will help reduce this State's high level of unemployment. The Parramatta rail link is not opposed per se, but certainly the Lane Cove River bridge proposal has attracted controversy, as have other proposals in the Parramatta area, which have been resolved. I understand this project is supported in principle by the New South Wales people and therefore should be allowed to go ahead.

The rail link will help to establish Parramatta as Sydney's second central business district, spread the opportunity for employment and development across broader areas of Sydney, and encourage the development of other rapidly growing employment centres such as North Ryde and Chatswood. The Parramatta rail link will support development by providing improved public transport access. Young people have difficulty finding jobs, but their task is often made more difficult when public transport to job locations is inadequate or nonexistent.

When public transport is not readily available, private transport is a necessity. Many young people have difficulty obtaining finance to purchase a vehicle, pay for registration and third party insurance, and meet other private transport obligations. Young people who travel to work by public transport save a great deal of money. It is estimated that 90,000 people will work in Parramatta by 2021 and that the area will have a large residential population. This employment goal could not be accommodated without major improvements in public transport to relieve the increasing pressure on Parramatta's road system.

At times Parramatta Road and the M4 have so much traffic that they look like a permanent parking station stretching for kilometres. The public transport system must be expanded. This project will provide relief to traffic congestion. The Parramatta rail link, combined with the new rapid bus-only transitway network, will provide a fast and reliable public transport system to cater for future growth in the region. The project will involve 27 kilometres of new track and 12 stations—and many employment opportunities. The Parramatta to Chatswood rail link will offer opportunities for employment and education, particularly in the Rydalmere, North Ryde and lower North Shore areas; and improved public transport access to Parramatta. The line will be integrated into the CityRail network and will ensure that CityRail is able to meet growing demand for rail services. From all reports the main western line is currently running close to its capacity and will reach saturation in 2006.

The extra capacity of the Parramatta rail link will provide potential for an extra 13,000 seats from western Sydney to the Sydney CBD in morning peak time. In the rail link's first year of operation it is expected that 26 million passengers will use the new services. Direct rail access will be provided to Macquarie University, University of Technology, Sydney, [UTS] Kuring-gai campus, and University of Western Sydney Rydalmere, where 30,000 student places will be offered. There has been controversy about how the rail link will affect UTS Kuring-gai and whether there were plans to close down that campus. Like other honourable members, I received correspondence from the vice-chancellor indicating the university's enthusiastic support for the rail link. In fact, the university urged Christian Democratic Party members to vote for the bill and not defeat it or delay it by inquiries. In a letter dated 17 May the vice-chancellor said:

I am writing to you to set out the reasons why the University of Technology, Sydney and its Council believe the rail link merits your support.

The rail link proposal includes a station at UTS Kuring-gai. Clearly, this will strongly benefit the University and reinforces our long-term commitment to the campus. However, it will also benefit the broader community in a number of ways.

UTS is one of Sydney's leading universities. About Kuring-gai campus we currently have 5,000 students and staff. The campus has established a strong reputation for studies in business, law, leisure and tourism, nursing, midwifery and health sciences, and teacher education, attracting students from all over Sydney and overseas. However, the appeal of the campus as an education centre is severely hampered by its relative of isolation. The station will solve this problem and unlock enormous potential for the future. With stations at Macquarie, UTS Kuring-gai and UWS Rydalmere, the rail link represents a significant investment in the future infrastructure for tertiary education.

He goes on to make a number of points. I will not read the entire letter. It indicates other advantages: strong links with research and education, strong links with commerce and academia, and social equity. It makes the important point that the rail link will open up this corridor of research, education and employment opportunities to residents of broader Sydney. It states:

From a social equity perspective these opportunities must be made widely available if Sydney is to maximise its pool of talent and develop a well educated, innovative and technologically advanced work force for the future.

The letter goes on to say that the preferred option also provides easier access for students and staff, and provides environmental benefits. That is pretty obvious. The letter states:

The rail link will provide a vital piece of transport infrastructure which in turn will yield tremendous environmental benefits—the equivalent of a reduction of over 14,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases per year. As a University which is committed to the concept of sustainability, we applaud this.

The last point made in the letter concerns safety, operational and cost considerations. Vice-Chancellor Blake sent a second letter, dated 25 May, because there were rumours that UTS intended to sell the site. He wrote:

Last week I wrote to you setting out the reasons why the University of Technology, Sydney and its Council believe the rail link merits your support.

Since I wrote, it has come to my attention that there is a perception held by some members of the House that construction of a railway station on the Kuring-gai Campus would provide an opportunity to sell the site. I must reaffirm very clearly that the University has no intention of selling the Campus.

Indeed, UTS is strongly committed to remaining on the Campus and developing its full educational potential. The opportunity to do so is dependent on the construction of a station on the site.

Earlier this month I signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of Transport. The memorandum highlights the University's commitment to the Kuring-gai Campus and to its long term development. I look forward to your support for the rail link proposal which will enable UTS to pursue that commitment.

We agree with what the vice-chancellor said in that the project will be a great advantage. As I said earlier, 90,000 people will work in Parramatta by the year 2021. There are many other advantages of the Parramatta to Chatswood rail link. It will provide more services and more reliability. Train services will operate approximately every eight minutes during the morning and evening peaks on the busiest section of the rail link between Epping and Chatswood. There will be a train about every 15 minutes on the section between Parramatta and Epping. The rail link will relieve congestion on the main western line between Strathfield and the Sydney CBD.

The new line will allow for up to 16 extra trains and 13,000 additional seats from western Sydney to Sydney's CBD during the two-hour peak period. Obviously, it will also provide faster travel. Public transport will be much faster between many destinations. For example, a trip from Parramatta to Chatswood will be reduced by around 25 minutes. They are some of the advantages of the project and reasons for our supporting the bill.

I note the concerns in regard to the Lane Cove River National Park. I understand that the Parramatta Regional Park concerns have been resolved by the announcement in March this year that the environmental impact of the proposal will be reduced to ensure that Parramatta's park heritage assets are preserved and protected. There will be no permanent impact on the park and Parramatta golf course will be able to remain open for business during the construction period. The temporary land requirements, which have the support of the Parramatta Park Trust, involve use of an existing gravel car park as a construction site and relocating Park Parade to allow tunnel construction.

The issue that is causing controversy is the bridge crossing of the Lane Cove River. The bridge will enable the provision of additional stations at Delhi Road and UTS Kuring-gai campus. If other proposals were accepted the change of route for the Parramatta to Chatswood line would mean that those two stations could not be proceeded with. While it is recognised that the bridge option has localised environmental impacts, it provides greater public transport benefits for Sydney. This avoids having an unbroken eight-kilometre stretch of tunnel from Macquarie Park to Chatswood. The bridge option also provides significant safety and operational advantages, including greater flexibility in train operations.

The bridge option would require acquisition of approximately 1.9 hectares of land in the Lane Cove River Valley as a construction site. Of this land, about 0.8 of a hectare is national park and the remainder is a mix of public ownerships including Crown land, road and open public space. A number of people from the various community groups in the area have raised concerns about the bridge. They put up a proposition that there should be either a tunnel or a cut and cover tunnel. I checked some of the EIS documents to see whether some of these issues had been thoroughly investigated. Sometimes the impression is given that this is new material that has not been previously considered. All those options have been considered in great detail. It is not a matter of the Government going ahead with the project and ignoring other options.

The report announcing the Parramatta rail link goes to a great deal of trouble to set out the amount of time taken to go through all the routes of the railway lines, stations, bridges and tunnels. All the factors were considered before arriving at the preferred option. The Government, through its agencies, had to assess and identify a long list of potential heavy rail, light rail and bus routes, station locations and so on. It also had to establish the technical feasibility of the various options. It had to identify the most feasible concepts for the transport mode and so on. There was a short list of route options and identifying the potential for and cost of constructing various sections of the routes and stations so as to reduce the up-front capital costs. The sites for major and intermediate stations, stops and so on also had to be shortlisted.

There were 12 development options combining the most attractive of the shortlisted routes, construction, staging, cost-reduction possibilities and station stop locations. The operational feasibility and potential system-wide benefits of each of the development options had to be evaluated for their operational benefits, travel time benefits, land use benefits, ability to meet forecast patronage demands, environmental impact, likely economic performance, and overall risk.

They are just some of the matters involved in the preparation of the proposed plan contained in the bill. It included identifying preferred development options, financial opportunities and necessary future actions to arrive at a preferred option. This meant considering the various types of bridges that might go through Lane Cove River National Park. Detailed work was done on the high-level bridge option. It has been rejected. The low-level bridge option is the one that is preferred. A high-level bridge would be approximately 375 metres long and 33 metres above the valley floor. Cut and cover excavation for the bridge, portals and abutments would be 120 metres long at the eastern abutment and 88 metres long at the western abutment.

The bridge deck structure would be between 5 metres and 9.8 metres thick. The scale of this structure would be a significant visual intrusion within the river valley, and the extent of short- and long-term site disturbance would be substantial. The report went on to state that this was of some benefit to the Government in that the option offered a shallower UTS station and longer daylighting for railway passengers to view the national park as the train travelled through that areat. However, the high level option has been rejected by the Government. The report further stated:

The low level bridge would be approximately 235 m long and 14 m above the valley floor. Parts of this structure would be obscured from view by the existing tree canopy. The structural depth would be approximately 3 to 4 m; approximately 50% less than the high level option (excluding any mast structures). The amount of excavation for tunnel portals required for the low level bridge option is also reduced in this option—44 m at the east abutment and 30 m at the western abutment. The reduced excavation and lower height of the bridge result in significantly less impact on the habitat on the mid and upper slopes of the valley sides and on the threatened species in the area.

These matters have all been considered in great depth and nothing has been rushed without due consideration. In relation to the environment the report states:

In terms of the environmental and visual impacts of the bridge on the National Park and environs, the low level option is preferred. This option involves significantly less excavation and site disturbance, and the bridge will be partially obscured from view. While the visual intrusion within the valley is recognised, there is greater potential to produce an elegant, architectural and engineering solution with the low-level bridge option due to the smaller spans involved.

The report considered in detail the options for a tunnel, which have been raised by members of the crossbench with various groups, as well as the Minister and his advisers. The tunnel is not a practical option. The report states:

To minimise tunnelling and remain below maximum grade, the tunnel crossing would have to be located further west than the bridge crossings. Its precise location would also be determined by the river bed and substrate characteristics and depth. The line would surface at the same location as the bridge options, near Boundary Road at Chatswood. An alternative tunnel alignment to the bridge crossing was developed.

This was shown in some of the other development plans. Another matter that has just been raised with crossbench members is the option to have a cut and cover tunnel. This also has been widely considered and rejected. The report states:

The cut and cover tunnel option was developed as a concept during the engineering studies associated with the EIS preparation. It would be similar in alignment to the low level bridge, but it would necessitate construction of an open trench across the Park. It would be supported with piled walls and up to four coffer dams for the river crossing. Park access would be maintained throughout the construction period of up to 18 months. Following construction, the trench would be covered, leaving the rail line in a shallow tunnel and reinstating the Park.
This finished option would pass just under the river and, after construction and rehabilitation, would not be visible. The advantages of the option in comparison to more northerly tunnel options are that it is shorter and has a lower gradient. The main disadvantages are the impacts of the construction phase. This option was only developed in concept and has not been subjected to more detailed scrutiny in terms of costs and other impacts.

This material indicates that many of these matters have been considered. It is time to move on. The Opposition may find it easy to try to delay the matter, but I am sure that if it were in government it would pursue the project with great enthusiasm and vigour. The Christian Democratic Party supports the project and the bill.

[The Deputy-President (The Hon. J. R. Johnson) left the chair at 6.24 p.m. The House resumed at 8.00 p.m.]

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [8.00 p.m.]: I support the Transport Administration Amendment (Parramatta Rail Link) Bill. I do not think there is much opposition to this legislation, but objections have been raised about where and how the line will be constructed. There are several options, such as the Y-link that some people prefer. Nevertheless, the construction of a rail link between Parramatta and Chatswood, at a cost of $1.4 billion, will address many longstanding problems in the transport system and will create jobs during the projected employment slump following the Olympic Games. The new rail link will allow commuters from western Sydney and northern and north-western areas to travel directly between major suburban centres from west to north and vice versa, while eliminating the need to commute through the city.

Considering the congestion on city-bound lines in peak periods, the new rail link has the potential to save the time and effort of regular train users and many other people. The rail link should also reduce the need for many people to travel by car to and from work. With the newly opened airport train line and this proposed line in operation, a large portion of areas with jobs will be serviced by rail. The area extending from the mid North Shore to Botany encompasses 28 per cent of Sydney's jobs. There would be little point in workers in these areas driving and being caught in unending peak-hour traffic if the public transport system provided an efficient alternative. I spend about 15 or 20 minutes a day stuck in traffic waiting to cross the Sydney Harbour Bridge. If I could catch a train from the area where I live I would certainly use it, as the traffic jams are becoming unbearable. I believe many people would make a similar choice if they were able.

The rail link will not only benefit people who work in those areas but will be a boon for higher education facilities. Macquarie University, the University of Technology, Sydney [UTS] and the University of Western Sydney will be accessed much more easily via this transport network. I must declare a special interest in this debate: as a member of the UTS council, I am particularly keen to see a station constructed at the UTS Kuring-gai campus. Last year there were student demonstrations about the inadequacy of the shuttle bus service between UTS campuses. I refer honourable members to a letter of 28 March from Ms Robyn Kemmis, Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Administration) at UTS. Some other crossbench members have mentioned this correspondence, which states:

The station will greatly strengthen ties between various UTS campuses by facilitating access for students and staff. It will dramatically reduce reliance on private transport. Currently 87 per cent of staff and students at Kuring-gai are forced to rely on private transport. By having a station on UTS' doorstep, they will be able to use public transport. This will alleviate major concerns of local residents regarding road safety, traffic congestion and parking.

I assure the House that the campus will not be sold to developers if the station is constructed at UTS. I checked directly with the Vice-Chancellor of UTS, Professor Tony Blake, on 25 May and I was reassured, both verbally and in writing, that the rumour that UTS Kuring-gai is to be sold is completely unfounded. Crossbench members have also received this letter, from which some have quoted in the House. Members of the crossbench were briefed this morning by a representative from Guardians of Lane Cove River National Park who suggested that the UTS station was expendable for several reasons—all of which are invalid. The representative told a crossbencher that the UTS campus at Kuring-gai was already well served by existing public transport, citing two train stations, a private bus service operating from Chatswood to North Ryde and an intercampus shuttle service operated by the UTS.

If public transport to UTS Kuring-gai is truly adequate, why does the university run a shuttle bus service? The two train stations are not particularly close to the campus and access to the campus is not adequate. Furthermore, one can understand why students who have lectures at night—particularly in a leafy area such as that in which UTS Kuring-gai is located—may fear for their safety and security if they have to walk a distance of more than one kilometre in the dark to reach a station. The existing public transport system does not address these concerns, so staff and students currently utilise private transport in preference to existing public transport.

The Guardians of Lane Cove River National Park also stated that a "patronage demand study" from an unspecified source revealed that 2,600 people would commute daily to UTS in 2021. This figure is questionable in the extreme. Estimates by Action for Public Transport suggest that commuters using the UTS station alone will make about 10,000 to 12,000 trips per day. While we cannot look into a crystal ball to see whose prophecies about patronage will come true, I remind honourable members that the campus at UTS has about 5,000 students. If we consider also the number of local residents who would be likely to use the station, I suggest that Action for Public Transport's prediction is more likely.

Another inconsistency within the presentation by Guardians of Lane Cove National Park was that, on one hand, it stated that UTS Kuring-gai is situated in "a remote area of bushland" but, on the other hand, it alleged the campus is already well serviced by public transport. According to the Australian Pocket Oxford Dictionary, Fourth Edition, "remote" can mean "isolated", so I am concerned about the accuracy of the Guardians' assertions. I suggest that one of the reasons for UTS Kuring-gai's isolation is precisely because of inadequate public transport. I also counter allegations contained in the letter sent to honourable members on 25 May by the Willoughby Environmental Protection Association which states that the construction of a station at UTS is of "dubious value" because existing public transport is poorly patronised. This is another example of honourable members being provided with misinformation.

As I quoted from the UTS letter, 87 per cent of UTS Kuring-gai students and staff use private transport. I do not deny that at present there may be little use of public transport. However, the Willoughby Environmental Protection Association has not considered that a very real possibility for this is because existing public transport to Kuring-gai is inadequate. More students and staff would use public transport if it were more efficient and attractive. Furthermore, the association has failed to consider that the construction of the link between the western suburbs and the north would allow thousands of young people from the western suburbs to have convenient access to universities on the new train line, including UTS Kuring-gai, Macquarie University and the University of Western Sydney. I have been the Legislative Council's member for Macquarie University and a governor of the University of Western Sydney, and I am currently the Legislative Council's representative at the University of Technology, Sydney. I have a good link with universities.

Presently, enrolment at those universities is unattractive to students from Sydney's west because of the difficulty in reaching the areas by public transport. I suggest that if transport arrangements were improved there would be increased enrolments in universities along the new line from students living in western Sydney. The allegation that existing public transport is underutilised by UTS Kuring-gai students and staff should not be used as proof that a new station would also be underutilised. As I have already stated, estimates by Action for Public Transport are that around 10,000 to 12,000 trips per day will be made by commuters using the UTS station. Therefore, it can be seen that the rail link has the potential to vastly reduce car use.

As the Hon. I. Cohen pointed out, a letter from UTS concerning the misinformation about UTS Kuring-gai was referred to at the crossbench briefing this morning. With a reduction in the need for cars, there will also be a decrease in the demand for new motorways and the widening of existing roads. Another clear benefit of the proposed link will be improved air quality. By taking thousands of cars off our roads, carbon dioxide emissions will be reduced. The Government's EIS for the link estimates that this will avoid the production of 14,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide by vehicle emissions, thus addressing, in part, the excessive amount of greenhouse gases which Australia produces. Additionally, as more people travel by train and less by car, the incidence of car accidents will inevitably reduce. The link, therefore, can be seen to be a great benefit to people's health and wellbeing.

In the past week I have been inundated with letters, emails and faxes about the impact of the proposed bridge in Lane Cove River National Park. Community groups including the Blue Mountains Conservation Society Inc., North Ryde Residents Group, Bundara Bushcare Group, New South Wales Urban Environment Coalition and Eco-Transit Sydney support the existing rail link proposal. Other groups including the Fullers Bridge Residents Association, the Environmental Liaison Office, Willoughby Environmental Protection Association, Guardians of Lane Cove National Park, West Lindfield-Killara Residents Group and West Killara Residents Action Group have sent me letters arguing against the bill. Many other interested individuals and residents from areas near the proposed bridge have sent me emails stating their support for the protection of Browns Waterhole.

As in any similar situation in which railways are being built there is considerable criticism from the residents who do not want the project in their backyard, including, in this case, the Leader of the Opposition, Mrs Kerry Chikarovski. On the other hand, through the newspapers and the briefing I received from the Parramatta Rail Link Project Director and other concerned parties, I have been informed that the area affected is not pristine bushland. Indeed, the area in which the bridge is to be constructed was a vineyard, an orchard and a rifle range before its present incarnation as part of the park. Some opponents of the bridge suggest that the tunnel should be built. To build a tunnel under the Lane Cove River, it would be necessary to dig in the rock beneath the river at a considerable depth so as to penetrate under the problematic soils and rocks.

I was advised that this alternative route would necessitate 27 kilometres of underground tunnel with no stations to be constructed because of factors such as topography and exceeding the gradient at which it is safe to construct rail stations. Stations which would then be scrapped would be those at UTS and Delhi Road. I believe the experts. The Hon. J. F. Ryan said that we parliamentarians would understand those simple terms and judge for ourselves whether the proposal is good or bad. I suggest that the tunnel does not resolve perceived problems with the construction of the rail link. Instead, it creates more problems. Is it not the purpose of the link to provide better, safer and faster public transport options? A tunnel stretching 27 kilometres underground should be the last resort. It is usually only in cases where there is no alternative that such a long tunnel would be constructed with no stations in its entirety, as it can be dangerous in emergencies.

Furthermore, if the tunnel option were to proceed, many thousands of people would not have access to a station which they would have if the bridge over the river were to be built. The public needs stations to access the benefits that train transport can bring. If an underground station were to be constructed at UTS I have been told that it would need to be at a depth of more than 60 metres. It would not be safe to have a station constructed at that depth, because of the difficulties in evacuating the station in emergencies. In brief, it is my summation that the tunnel suggestion simply does not appear to be in the best interests of commuters on either of the grounds of safety and convenience. Criticisms from many parties to the perceived inadequacy of the EIS appear to ignore the fact that the project has been under serious consideration for eight years. Indeed, the link has been on the drawing boards since the Coalition was in power, and at that time there was no consultation.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan wants a quick inquiry, but that is unrealistic. I would rather have a lengthy, thorough inquiry. But eight years of consideration is long enough. The EIS addresses many possible options and this final proposal, the Parramatta to Chatswood rail link with a bridge over the Lane Cove River, has been considered to be the most appropriate. I said before that I cannot claim to be an expert in engineering but, on balance, from all the information I have received, I honestly believe that the proposed option is the best. I am firmly convinced that since the Greens are giving the Government their support for the bill, the environmental consequences of the bridge have been carefully evaluated. I trust my Greens colleagues. Their support for the construction of the bridge particularly highlights the fact that the environmental impact of it is not as bad as the Leader of the Coalition, Mrs Chikarovski, and her neighbours would have us believe.

For all of the reasons I have outlined, I am absolutely not opposed to the construction of the bridge. In fact, I want the Government to commence the project as soon as possible. That is part of the reason why I will not support the amendment moved by the Hon. J. H. Jobling. It would be a waste of time, effort and resources. Even if the project were built now, it would not be completed until 2006 at the earliest. The construction of the Parramatta rail link will become a vital artery in the public transport system, and will bring new life and energy to the areas serviced by the rail line. Improving the transport connections between the western and northern suburbs will bring social benefits by increasing and improving access to educational institutions and employment opportunities.

I also support the rail link because of its capacity to reduce car usage, providing us with cleaner air and safer roads. It is also predicted that property values in the areas the rail link services will rise. The improved transport system will help reduce the divide between the regions of greater Sydney, which will be of great benefit. I have reached the view that the benefits of the construction of the rail link far outweigh the disadvantages. There is no doubt that there are some disadvantages, which have been brought to my attention. I am more than happy to support the bill. My personal view is that the Parramatta to Chatswood rail link is necessary. I do not support an inquiry, as has been proposed by the Opposition, or the Opposition amendment. However, I support the amendment proposed by the Greens. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. Dr P. WONG [8.21 p.m.]: I support this bill, which will allow for the construction of the Parramatta to Chatswood rail link project. I am pleased that after eight years of planning and development this project is in the final stages of being realised.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Without consultation.

The Hon. Dr P. WONG: There has been and continues to be consultation. We are awaiting the environmental impact statement. This bill sets in place the necessary legislative structures to allow the Minister to approve the project, after the environmental impact statement has been successful and the tendering process has been finalised. The Parramatta to Chatswood heavyweight rail link will be a significant contribution to transport in western Sydney and the lower North Shore. This project, as it is proposed in the environmental impact statement, will result in the construction of 27 kilometres of new tracks, with 12 new stations on the line between Parramatta through Epping to Chatswood. At present, there is considerable traffic and public transport congestion between western Sydney and the Sydney central business district [CBD], particularly during morning peak hour, and this will possibly increase in the years to come.

The Parramatta rail link will, to a large extent, alleviate these transport problems by providing an efficient travel route from western Sydney to the lower North Shore, without passengers having to travel to the Sydney CBD on their way to the North Shore. It is predicted that the rail link will add an extra 13,000 seats on this route and about 26 million passengers will use these new services. By providing improved and expanded travel facilities, this project is of great social and economic value to Sydney, particularly western Sydney, and is highly commendable. The new rail link will greatly contribute to Parramatta's future as the capital of western Sydney. It will also open up new opportunities for people living in western Sydney to access education and employment at Rydalmere, North Ryde and Chatswood.

The area between northern and western Sydney is one of fast commercial growth and is the focus for many companies that operate in the information technology and multimedia sectors. The proposed station at Kuring-gai would broaden the prospects of the University of Technology, Sydney, campus, which will be able to attract many more students to its many courses, which include business, law, leisure and tourism, nursing, teaching and health sciences. Currently, the 5,000 students and staff of the campus are forced to drive. Those who are unable to drive miss out altogether on the educational and employment opportunities. Another great contribution of this project will be to reduce, or at least to manage, the great environmental and health impact of increased car pollution.

This project must be supported on the basis that it is a great and much-needed investment in public transport. The University of Technology, Sydney, which strongly supports the project, estimates that the rail link will yield a reduction of more than 14,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases per year. This is due to the fact that public transport provides a cheaper and viable alternative to private transport. I have received correspondence from individuals and groups who are concerned about the environmental impact of constructing a rail line in Lane Cove River National Park. I have considered these arguments seriously and I am sympathetic with the view that a new rail bridge will have localised environmental impacts, particularly for the residents living in this area.

I am also conscious of the land lost and damage to beautiful bushland in the Lane Cove River National Park. However, I am satisfied with the argument that the new rail bridge will alleviate the already high impact of car and noise pollution on the bridge over the Lane Cove River. Furthermore, the current plan for a rail bridge crossing Lane Cove River will enable additional stations at Delhi Road and the UTS Kuring-gai campus. These two new stations are of great value to the rail link, as they will produce about 10,000 new passenger movements every day, many of which will replace car trips. As I said earlier, a new station at Kuring-gai will be of great value, not only to the future of the UTS campus but also to many students from western Sydney.

I have balanced the plan to construct the Lane Cove River bridge with the other alternatives presented in the environmental impact statement, such as the Y-link option which will divert the rail line from this area in the national park. However, I was informed that the Y-link option may not be the best alternative. I am satisfied that the Government has committed to a compensatory measure for the land to be permanently excised from the park at Fullers bridge by supporting the Greens amendment. This amendment will add the Browns Waterhole parcel of approximately 2.8 hectares to the Lane Cove River National Park. I have received correspondence from local residents and groups in support of this amendment, and I congratulate the Greens on their hard work and dedication.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [8.27 p.m.]: I support the Transport Administration Amendment (Parramatta Rail Link) Bill. I will not burden the House about the nature of the line because that has been adequately covered by many previous speakers. This project was announced by the Fahey Government, and it has taken six years to get to this stage. The Fahey Government had allocated in its last budget a large amount of money for this project, which the Carr Government took away and then started again two years later. This project has been delayed by two years by this Government.

The Hon. I. Cohen: A change of Minister.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I think Carl had a lot of trouble getting his mind around anything, and he still does.

The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: He has trouble with the mind he has already got, let alone any issues.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: That is right. I refer to my main concern and that of many other people: that is, the choice of route and the way in which the route will be constructed. There will be arguments about the most appropriate way to link Parramatta with northern Sydney. There will be arguments for a long time about how we will get the capacity up and down the northern line, particularly on the Gosford line. I am sure the Special Minister of State will be interested in that issue, as he struggles to find himself a lower House seat in that area. If he settles into that seat he will have to cope with the continuing complaints from the people of Gosford as the travel times from Gosford and Newcastle increase, not decrease.

The Hon. A. B. Kelly: You have left Parramatta and Chatswood—you will be talking about Lismore in a minute.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: The impact will be on the northern line, which many members have referred to. I have been collecting a large amount of information on this matter. I am concerned about this issue. What I am most concerned about is the political trade-off and sell-out of the national park. If honourable members think that is over the top, I refer them to a press release issued on 22 May by Judy Messer from the Nature Conservation Council. The press release is headed "Political Trade-off is a Sell-out for Lane Cove National Park" and expresses my views and the views held for a long time by people up that way. As many honourable members would know, there have been many plans to construct various freeways through that area to connect Hornsby to the freeway at Lane Cove. The press release states:

The Nature Conservation Council of NSW has expressed strong opposition to the construction of an overhead railway bridge within the Lane Cove National Park and the political expediency driving the decision-making.

"Whilst NCC supports the proposed Parramatta Rail Link in principle, the NCC is always concerned that public transport initiatives should not occur at the cost of conservation of NSW's natural and cultural heritage", said Council Chairperson Dr Judy Messer. "The NCC is specifically disturbed that the current preferred option will result in an unacceptable level of impact on Lane Cove National Park and the adjoining bushland areas of high conservation value."

Dr Messer said that adverse impacts will include: loss of biodiversity and habitat values, public open space, recreational amenity, Aboriginal and European cultural heritage, the alienation of national park lands, and unacceptable noise.

They are all the things that the Hon. I. Cohen and Ms Lee Rhiannon sprout about every single day.

[Interruption from gallery]

I agree with that comment from the public gallery: "Used to." Dr Messer continued:

"The Council is further concerned that the NSW Government proposes to enact legislation to remove the affected portions of land from the jurisdiction of the National Park—

something, of course, that the Greens are complying with—

thus pre-empting the outcome of the EIS but in no way legitimating the destruction of park land."

"It should also be noted that the Lane Cove National Park has over 1 million visitors a year thus confirming its premier recreational importance for the people of Sydney. Clearly the overhead bridge option is not at all acceptable. There is no way that the dedication of Brown's Waterhole will compensate for this gross alienation of national park values."

Despite this press release and this now considered opinion by the Nature Conservation Council—

The Hon. I. Cohen: A person in the Nature Conservation Council. It wasn't the opinion of the whole organisation. There has been a lot of debate within the organisation.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: That is what Dr Messer, the head of the Nature Conservation Council, said. I accept that the Hon. I. Cohen is a forthright person who does his job with some diligence. However, I will read from an article from the North Shore Times:

Conservationists and the State Government have cut a deal, swapping a patch of bushland in return for supporting a bridge across Lane Cove National Park.

Greens MLC Lee Rhiannon has secured a commitment from Transport Minister Carl Scully that Browns Waterhole, near South Turramurra, will be gazetted as part of the Lane Cove National Park.

It is an awful shame that Ms Lee Rhiannon does not have that commitment from the green Premier or, in fact, the Minister for the Environment. The article continues:

In return Ms Rhiannon is expected to support a rail bridge across the Lane Cove National Park as part of the Parramatta-Chatswood link.

The Browns Waterhole land has long been part of a political football—a small parcel of bushland contained in the abandoned freeway corridor formally earmarked for a connecting link between the M2 and F3.

Honourable members are now beginning to understand why I am vaguely concerned about this matter. As honourable members would know, the Pacific Highway is being duplicated at vast expense, and not without time, to try to save some lives and provide reasonable travelling time and safety for people travelling from the North Coast. The Hon. I. Cohen takes his life in his hands when he drives around on the North Coast, particularly when he visits the Tweed and travels around Byron Bay. But the improvements to the highway stop suddenly at Hornsby when the F3 meets the Pacific Highway. One then travels down the Pacific Highway for something like 16 kilometres until one hits the Lane Cove freeway, and then one travels into the city and into Parliament House. Unless the F3 is somehow connected to the M2—

The Hon. I. Cohen: Catch public transport.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Trucks will still come down the highway to deliver produce, because the people of Sydney do not grow their own food. They come down the freeway, they hit Hornsby, then they struggle down the Pacific Highway until they can turn right at Lane Cove Road to go west to deliver their goods. An enormous traffic jam occurs right through the northern suburbs of Sydney up to Turramurra. We give away any chance of an access corridor from the Pacific Highway to western Sydney for most of the goods that travel to Sydney because Ms Lee Rhiannon thinks she can do a dirty little deal by swapping a bit of bushland for something that totally disrupts, bisects and disturbs the national park of Lane Cove. Many country kids come to Lane Cove River National Park for various camps. It is often the place that young kids from the country visit as a learning experience. My kids did it when they were in primary school when they visited Sydney.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Did they go canoeing?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: They did all of those things in the Lane Cove River National Park. It is a wonderful place for kids to recreate when they visit the city. But they can thank Ms Lee Rhiannon forever for disrupting the Lane Cove River National Park and, as Dr Messer said, for "the loss of biodiversity, the habitat values, the public open space, the recreational amenity, the Aboriginal and European cultural heritage, the alienation of national park land and unacceptable noise." I have repeated those words for Ms Lee Rhiannon, as she is now the Chamber, so that she is aware of what she is creating. A number of options have been proposed.

The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho, who is hardly qualified to make comment about various infrastructure, has no shame. She told us with a straight face that she has made a judgment about all the options available and that this was the very best option without any doubt. There are people who disagree with her. Alan Rae from Alan Rae Consulting Pty Ltd is an engineer who knows about these matters. He wrote:

On Saturday 27th May I met with the residents of River Street and was requested to prepare a comparison of costs to construct a bridge structure versus a cut and cover tunnel for the above project [the Parramatta railway, Delhi Road].

On PM 28th May, I inspected the site with resident Tim Gates who indicated key geographical features. A geotechnical report was not available and certain assumptions were made as to the extent of rock outcropping and the depths of the river flat material. Should this information become available, an updated costing can be provided.

Indications at this stage are that there is little difference between the two methods. There may be additional costs resulting from environmental requirements to the western bridge abutment. Similarly there may be some extra costs not foreseen at this stage in crossing the river.

He is referring to the bridge, which has not yet been designed. Yet the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho wants us to stop mucking around, get on with it and build it straight away. She does not want us to wait for the environmental impact statement, the consultation or the usual processes of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act to be followed. Darling Harbour and the tunnel under the harbour were great programs of the previous Wran and Unsworth governments—they were terrific—but from what the Greens say in this Chamber I do not think they would agree with those sorts of developments.

I have a great deal of respect for the Hon. I. Cohen, who does his job quite well, but from my reading of what happens in this Chamber I cannot say the same thing about Ms Lee Rhiannon. The North Shore Times published an article about this matter expressing considerable concern. Some people say that the Parramatta to St Leonards rail option would save $200 million and provide a better service. The North Shore Times reported on that on 26 May as follows:

The two critical items not accounted for in the Parramatta Rail Link EIS are the relative costs of various options and the rate of passenger growth.

Is that not amazing? We have no idea of the relative costs of the various options, nor of the rate of passenger growth—that is, the need for this line—or of how much traffic had to be diverted. I would have thought these were important considerations that people who were as keen as I am about public transport would have taken into account. But, no, Ms Lee Rhiannon saw the glittering prize—the Rhiannon Reserve. The name will be changed. I dare say the piece of excised scrubland, which is protected at the moment by being put into the national park, known as Browns Waterhole, will be renamed the Rhiannon Memorial Reserve—but at what cost to the community for building this rail line? A significant amount of money is involved. Of course, a large number of people from Turramurra are pleased about this. They do not want railway lines or roads near their homes. They were pleased to write to me, and to many other honourable members who receive these copy letters, stating:

It is imperative that this precious area be preserved as it is of great significance and occupies a special place in the environmental history of the Lane Cove National Park.

Of course, it is not part of the Lane Cove National Park yet. However, they do not comment about what happens further downstream; they are not worried about that because that happens away from their homes. I have a letter from Matthew, Linda, Sean, Patrick and Emma Thompson, who live in The Field of Mars Avenue, Turramurra, that states:

Except for the ever-present threat of a future freeway destroying our suburb, South Turramurra is a perfect place to live, particularly for people with growing families. If and when that freeway is built, Sydney and the world will have lost an incomparable treasure. The bushland of the upper Lane Cove Valley is home to boundless varieties of wildlife and flora, many of which are rare and endangered. As local residents we see ourselves as custodians, not just owners and users of the land and are relieved to hear the Greens and the Government are working towards preventing any freeway being built there in the future.

I have news for the Thompsons: they will no longer be custodians of their bushland. The National Parks and Wildlife Service—quite a different kettle of fish—will take over that role. It will be doing things as it does regularly—without consulting neighbours and without the money to do it. If Ms Lee Rhiannon can support a piece of legislation that allows the excising of a bit of the Lane Cove National Park, one of the icons of Sydney, what is to stop a future government from doing precisely the same thing to the Lee Rhiannon Memorial Reserve? These poor people are relieved to hear anything that supports what they are working for, which is to prevent any freeway being built there in the future.

The Hon. I. Cohen: Were you complaining when they excised the Brunswick nature reserve for a motorway up north?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: No. I am just saying that these people have been misled by Ms Lee Rhiannon if she has been saying to them that this legislation will protect it forever. They forget that just down the road a bloody great railway bridge will be built 300 metres long and 20 or 50 feet above the ground.

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: What sort of bridge?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: A bloody great big one! This bridge will rise up right across the middle of the Lane Cove National Park with all the traffic and other noise that comes from railway lines, not to mention construction noise.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: It will dissect it.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Absolutely. But Ms Lee Rhiannon does not care about that because that is not going to be called the Lee Rhiannon Memorial Reserve.

Ms Lee Rhiannon: The new Cahill Expressway.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Absolutely right, the new Cahill Expressway. I am amazed at the people who write letters, but I understand their concerns. The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans spoke about how he became involved in a protest about the M2 being built. The Coalition was in government at the time and I was chairman of Bruce Baird's backbench committee. I had a number of consultations on behalf of the Minister, listening to what people had to say about the M2 as the environmental impact statement process [EIS] went on interminably and completely, with consultations et cetera. I walked the area, which since forever has been designated a road reserve.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Did you find the trees beautiful?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I found them beautiful, but it had always been set aside by people with foresight as a necessary road reserve to support the growth of Sydney to the north-west, which of course is effectively what this railway line will do. I went through the EIS process with them at length. This time the Greens are happy not to bother about the EIS process. The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho has been quite convinced by her Greens friends and said, "Let's stop mucking around and get on with it and start it tomorrow"—before the EIS. I presume that is what she has been told to say by Ms Lee Rhiannon because the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho would not have thought of that all by herself. I do not believe she would do that. It is a possibility that she could do it.

She has made this wonderful determination about which she is absolutely certain. Let us hope that she has not been led up the garden path and that Ms Lee Rhiannon has not got something in store for the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho. Did Ms Rhiannon say, "I've got this great deal going. It's not just about this little park bit here. There's a few more things the Government has come along and supported and we need your support, Helen, to get the numbers in the Chamber. The Government has given me their commitment"? Carl Scully is giving a commitment to put this piece of land into the national park. I hope the honourable member has it in writing signed by the Premier! Carl Scully is accident prone. He may not be the Minister in four weeks time. He has just given away about $8 million in his fare-free day.

The Hon. H. S. Tsang: Free travel tomorrow.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I know. That is great, but people with yearly tickets will receive 20 per cent off too.

The Hon. J. S. Tingle: Monthly tickets.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Yearly tickets as well. They bought half-yearly and yearly tickets.

The Hon. J. S. Tingle: That's great, they'll travel cheaply.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Yes, but this year the poor old Treasurer is giving less money for transport. This year the public transport budget receives about $140 million less, and public rail fares have increased by something like 30 per cent in the past two years. That is great encouragement and support by this Government for public transport. Is Ms Lee Rhiannon really pleased to support something like that? The railways desperately need $145 million to remain safe and on time and to do what it is meant to do. This procedure will give public transport a bad reputation for safety, reliability, cleanliness and, more importantly, on-time running. However, Ms Lee Rhiannon is quite happy to support this proposal.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: On-time running?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Yes. Everybody wants on-time running. They cannot deliver it.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: They can't even make 80 per cent and they're going to try for 92 per cent!

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: They are thrilled if they can get 92 per cent. The people of Turramurra are a natural constituency of the Greens; they probably own their homes and are not looking for a hand-out. They are not part of the socialists set, the old DOGS—Defence of Government Schools—set, the good friends from the Communist Party days. These people naturally are throwing their weight behind the new socialists and believe they are more trustworthy than the old socialists! The old socialists told people they could have everything. Ms Lee Rhiannon says, "You can have it all. No problem at all. Vote for us. We are the Greens. We are good socialists." These people will be just as disappointed by the new socialists as they all were by the old.

The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho is greatly concerned about people losing property rights, as we are. They are trying to get the same deal as the residents of Bardwell Park near Wolli Creek on the basis of disturbance and loss of property values. I wonder whether the people in the areas which will benefit from the new railway line—particularly University of Technology, Sydney—would be prepared to give a bit back from the increased property values. There will be a major advantage from this huge State investment. The Eastern Suburbs railway line was built at public expense. It probably has the best service in Sydney—modern, fast and cheap, and with a train arriving every three minutes. It is fantastic. When it was opened, property values from Waverley through to Bondi Junction increased by an average of $180,000, and that is in 1984 dollars. To give an idea of what that means, in 1983 I bought a BMW 5 series that cost about $34,000. That was a lot of money in 1983. The cost of the equivalent car now is $194,000.

Ms Lee Rhiannon: Point of order: Standing Order 81 states that no member shall digress from the subject of any question before the Chamber.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: To the point of order: I was simply going to the issue of property values and the possible loss of property values, which is one of the matters that the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho raised in the House. It is an issue when public money is being expended. There is an increase not only for the environment but also in dollars in people's pockets.

Ms Lee Rhiannon: Further to the point of order: The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti was not speaking about property values; he was speaking about the cost of cars.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Further to the point of order: Ms Lee Rhiannon does not like private property and does not understand motor cars but I will explain what the relevance is: I am trying to give an appreciation of the difference in dollar values and the benefit that $180,000 brought people in the Eastern Suburbs who lived near the railway.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile): Order! There is no point of order.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: If the average property value increase in the Eastern Suburbs was $180,000, wait for the bonanza along the route of this railway line. I wonder how many of the Greens' supporters will be able to live in any of these areas. The benefit from the rising property values will accrue to the people who live near the railway line. I do not deny that there is public benefit; the new railway line will increase the amenity of the area. As the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho and the Hon. Dr P. Wong pointed out, it will increase access to educational facilities. The line will be an enormous boon to people who live in western Sydney who have jobs in the North Shore area but cannot afford to live there.

The Hon. H. S. Tsang: Support the bill, then.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I am supporting the bill. I have done nothing but support the bill. But I am concerned about the detail of the railway line, and the bridge across, and the destruction of the Lane Cove River National Park. That is a legitimate concern in relation to the bill. I am concerned because the EIS has not been completed and consultations have not been completed. We do not have a final costing. We do not know about the costs of the other options. Yet we are expected to pass the bill.

The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho said, "Let us get on with it. Let us just do it. Do not worry about the costs." I am concerned about that. The project will be completed in eight or nine years. The Fahey Government thought it would cost $300 million; it is now well over $600 million, and it will rise. For example, in the previous budget the cost of the freeway from Chinderah to Yelgun was estimated at $60 million. It has blown out by about $20 million in one year. That motorway has been costed a number of times. It was meant to have been completed two years ago. As the Hon. I. Cohen knows, there have been deaths up and down the Pacific Highway. Almost once a week a truck goes over on the pass to Murwillumbah.

The Hon. I. Cohen: Because the rail service has been degraded. If we got a lot of the heavy equipment onto the rail we would not have the same problems.

The Hon. Dr. B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I am talking about passenger trains as well as freight trains. The speed limit on the road is down to 70 kilometres an hour, but there is still one truck accident a week. Instead of a two-lane divided road we are down to one lane on either side, a 70 kilometres an hour speed limit and four speed cameras.

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: The estimate is now $2 billion.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: That will blow out. Every dollar spent on the railway line is another dollar that is not spent on simple roadworks in country New South Wales, which are the lifeline of people in the country. There is no public transport outside Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong. What number of buses or amount of infrastructure could be built for country New South Wales with that sort of expenditure—and what is the blow-out in that sort of expenditure? Anything that can be done to produce a cost-effective and cost-competitive railway line from Parramatta to Chatswood is an advantage. Any EIS should include consideration of that.

The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho says, "We should build the project tomorrow. Let's get going. Let's stop mucking around." But all the costs have not been included. We are lamenting the cost to Lane Cove River National Park and the swap of one parcel of land for another. It is a case of doing a trade. In the old days when we talked about balancing the environment against other matters the Greens always said that there can be no trading or balancing: something has value in its own right and it cannot be traded off. That Green principle has been thrown away, and in a very short time. Negotiation on this matter has not gone on too long. There must have been a heated debate to get Ms Lee Rhiannon to move so quickly.

I have received a number of very detailed submissions, which I have read. the Hon. I. Cohen would know that I am a voracious reader of the things that people send me. I have read all the submissions I have received. It amazes me that some of the extremely detailed submissions that we have received have not been swayed one iota by the quick trade done by Ms Lee Rhiannon.

The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: Maybe we are using the bush for the railway sleepers.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Chopping down the trees to build the railway? Possibly. People have done good work on the cut and cover tunnel process and looked at other options for where the railway line might go. Ms Lee Rhiannon does not worry about these things. Today I received an email which reads:

Brian,

Do the Greens know that the gift of Browns Waterhole may one day be resumed based on the precedent set by this Bill going through …

I have made this point before. The email continues:

Unbelievable to see Ian Cohen's speech this afternoon.

I must admit that he did look uncomfortable when he made it, but I dare say the deal was stitched up by Ms Lee Rhiannon. The email continues:

Experts are the best ones to determine the viability of the "cut and cover" option, however every Engineer we have consulted (including the PRL Engineer) could find no reason why a station at the precious UTS cannot be achieved—albeit by moving the station easterly towards the UTS car park—which is not a bad thing when all is considered.

People have also raised the concern that a car park with the tunnel option would mean that the station would be 60 metres underground. Stations at Dupont Circle in Washington are more than 60 metres underground and the escalators seem to go forever. That system is operational and carries a large number of people on public transport in Washington DC. I do not know the depth of the railway station at Town Hall but it must be at least 60 metres because it is four levels down, so we should not get carried away with that issue.

This debate has gone on for a long time. I shall not burden honourable members further except to mention a letter I received that caused me some surprise and is a reason why from time to time I am concerned at some adjournment speeches. I cannot mention the name of the person from whom I received the letter because I do not have permission to name that person but it is someone of substance in the Greens, offering the services of members of the Greens party to do adjournment speeches should they provide the appropriate typed material. The number of adjournment speeches made by the Greens each session were quoted and the number is substantial. I note that Ms Rhiannon and the Hon. I. Cohen both made a large number. This is almost speech for hire and in future I will look carefully at adjournment speeches to see how many are the work of honourable members and how many have just been typed up and sent in, given an offer that was made in the name of the Hon. I. Cohen, although I do not know whether it was authorised. I was surprised and astonished at that letter.

I believe a deal has been done. People will be advantaged and disadvantaged by the proposal. At the end of the day that railway line is desperately needed as part of the network in Sydney and it should be extended further. Careful consideration should also be given to a railway line from Central to the University of New South Wales. Enormous numbers of cars and buses travel throughout that area and to attractions such as Centennial Park, Moore Park and Fox Studios, not to mention the university and beaches.

I hope that the Government further extends the railway system but in a responsible way so that environmental impact statements are adhered to and the community is consulted and listened to. I hope that the next step will not be Ms Rhiannon wanting a railway line straight through Moore Park, with a little bit here being excised and another part being declared Rhiannon reserve No. 2. This proposal is similar to putting a railway line through Centennial Park, which I daresay she would support if she got the right sort of deal. I think it is appalling and she will live to regret it. Every time she speaks about biodiversity or protecting national parks, or demonstrates about a road going through the Daintree because national parks so precious, I will remind her of it.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [9.03 p.m.]: This debate has gone on a long time so I shall speak only briefly. I did not intend to speak in the debate at all, but I cannot help myself because the contributions have been so whimsical. I approached it with an open mind and had yet to decide what my response would be to the debate and how to vote, but as the debate has continued I have become more confused than I was earlier because the Chamber seems to be full of boots on all the wrong feet. I never thought I would see the day in this Chamber when the Hon. I. Cohen, speaking in favour of a development, would be heckled by protesters; he is usually the one doing the heckling. And I never thought I would see the day when the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti would use the Nature Conservation Council as a referring authority. We seem to have got it all back to front.

However, without going into all the detail that has been discussed in this Chamber today at such length, let me say that there has been a lot of talk about Browns Waterhole. The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti has assumed that the name of the waterhole will be changed to the Lee Rhiannon Reserve. How does he know that Ms Rhiannon would not resist that entirely and that Browns Waterhole is not named after her very distinguished mother? It could be, I do not know. I do not know what the deal is that might have been done.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: You'd like to know, though.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE: It is not for me. You find out. I guess the Greens justify it by saying that public transport will be extended and their long-term goal of getting cars off the road will be served. I lived in Lane Cove for 19 years within a couple of kilometres of the national park and there is no doubt that this is a very popular public park. It is in the centre of residential areas, it is easily accessible to teams of people who go down there in family groups at weekends and have a wonderful time. I have driven over the Lane Cove River Bridge. I am not sure that the railway bridge will cut into the park or obstruct it as the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti said, but will simply be an extension of the road bridge.

The former Coalition Government initiated this project 6 years ago, originally as an answer to the perpetual traffic block on Parramatta Road and Epping Road and now the traffic congestion on the M2. The rail link will cut across from Chatswood to Parramatta and public transport will become the main means of access between those areas. It has taken six years to get this far and will take another eight years. Why are we getting into such a froth about it at this moment.

Like all honourable members, I have received a vast number of letters both for and against this proposal. Since I regard form letters as only one letter, I have actually received more letters in favour of the proposal than letters against it. The great majority of the letters against the plan that I have received approve of the idea of the railway line but object to certain specific parts of the proposal, such as the bridge and other aspects that people, depending on where they live, find exceptionable.

To bring this debate back into focus, this measure is only an enabling bill, designed to give the Government the capacity to resume land that is needed for the railway link if the environmental impact statement says that is necessary. We are told that the EIS will be out at the end of August. I do not know what is in it but I will be fascinated to learn. The EIS should be a vital part of the argument as to how and when the Parramatta to Chatswood rail link is developed.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: We would like to know what is in the EIS before we vote on the enabling bill.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE: Whether the enabling bill will allow resumption of the land depends on the EIS, as I understand it. However, we have a long way to go. I approached this matter with an open mind, although not quite sure how to vote on the bill and the amendments. Having listened to the debate, having been confused and then unconfused by the cross-play between the Hon. I. Cohen, Ms Lee Rhiannon and the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti, I really feel that six years down the track, with eight years to go, we should get on with it, but as soon as the EIS says we may.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [9.08 p.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contributions to this debate. In particular, I single out the considered comments of Ms Lee Rhiannon, the Hon. I. Cohen, the Hon. R. S. L. Jones, the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho, Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, the Hon. Dr P. Wong, the Hon. J. S. Tingle and my colleagues the Hon. Jan Burnswoods, the Hon. R. D. Dyer and the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans. I was not very impressed by the contributions of the Opposition. The Government is committed to the development of the Parramatta to Chatswood rail link and this legislation reflects that commitment. Obviously, the crossing of the Lane Cove River is a complex issue. The environmental impact statement acknowledges the sensitivity of this issue and has placed considerable focus on its assessment. As a result, the Government is proposing a solution that maximises public transport benefits and reduces environmental impact as far as possible. This process is continuing through the examination of a submission. The Opposition is having a two-way bet on this project, claiming that it started the project and then claiming not enough time has been spent in project development.

The Opposition knows as well as we do that many years of project development and 18 months of rigorous environmental assessment have resulted in the preferred project, which includes the bridge crossing. In any case, I assure the House that all alternatives in the EIS and those lodged in response to it will be examined in the usual course of assessment by the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning. I assure the House also that concerns raised by honourable members during this debate will continue to be considered. In particular, noise mitigation measures for the Lane Cove River bridge and funding for regeneration of the construction sites will be considered in preparing the representations report that will be submitted to the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling has proposed an amendment that seeks to refer the bill to General Purpose Standing Committee No. 4 for inquiry and report in relation to the proposed rail bridge in Lane Cove River National Park. The Government opposes this amendment for the following reasons. The crossing of the Lane Cove River has been investigated through the preparation of the EIS, and submissions on the EIS are currently being examined in preparing the representations report. The Department of Urban Affairs and Planning has also commenced its assessment of the project, including the Lane Cove River crossing. All alternatives, including the Chatswood to St Leonards Y-link option have been forwarded already to the department for consideration. It is not clear how a three-week parliamentary inquiry would enhance the department's assessment of the project. However, it is clear that delaying the legislation through this inquiry has the potential to affect the project gravely.

This legislation is one of many activities running concurrently to ensure train services on the Parramatta rail link can commence in mid 2006. With a project of this size, the design, construction and commissioning phases will take about six years, and timing is already critical. Over the next few months critical activities will include finalising the representations report on the EIS, short-listing the consortia responding to the registrations of interest, and processing and developing design criteria and specifications for tenders. As these processes are interrelated, a delay in any one of them will have a flow-on effect for the overall project program.

The legislation underpins many of these activities; the bill was introduced during this parliamentary session to guide the next stages of the development. The development of design criteria is a particularly intensive and prolonged activity. Uncertainty about the legislation means uncertainty affecting large sections of the route, and development plans for the Macquarie Park to Chatswood sections would be severely compromised. As this eight-kilometre section constitutes 30 per cent of the route, the impact on maintaining the momentum of the project would be enormous. The tender process for the remainder of the route could not credibly proceed until the question about 30 per cent of the route was resolved.

Extensive efforts have been made to explore the best option for this project. Some 62 different rail, light rail and busway options were examined before the Parramatta to Chatswood via Epping railway was approved for assessment in the EIS. A public call for alternatives was undertaken to give the community an opportunity to suggest options for inclusion in the EIS. The EIS then involved further assessment of alternatives, including a detailed investigation of alternatives for crossing the Lane Cove River. This information is currently being assessed by the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning. As a result of these efforts, the Government is confident that the planning approval process will result in the best option being developed. Allowing the planning approval process to run its course will ensure that alternative options continue to be assessed properly and independently by the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning. It will ensure also that the project remains on schedule. I commend the bill to the House.

Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Corbett Mrs Forsythe Mr Gallacher Miss Gardiner Mr Gay

Mr Hannaford Mr Harwin Mr M. I. Jones Mr Lynn Mr Oldfield Dr Pezzutti

Mr Ryan Mr Samios Tellers, Mr Jobling Mr Moppett

Mr Breen Ms Burnswoods Mr Cohen Mr Dyer Mr Egan Mr Hatzistergos Mr Johnson Mr R. S. L. Jones

Mr Kelly Mr Macdonald Mrs Nile Revd Mr Nile Mr Obeid Ms Rhiannion Ms Saffin Mr Sham-Ho

Mr Shaw Ms Tebbutt Mr Tingle Mr Tsang Dr Wong Tellers, Mr Manson Mr Primrose

Mr Bull

Mr Della Bosca

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING [9.25 p.m.]: I move Opposition amendment No. 1:

No. 1 Page 2, clause 2, lines 5-7. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

2 Commencement

(1) This Act commences on a day or days to be appointed by proclamation, except as provided by subsection (2).
(2) Schedule 1 [3], to the extent that it inserts section 128 into the Transport Administration Act 1988, commences on the date of assent.

The Opposition moved this amendment because on many occasions the Government has passed a bill through this House, accepted the amendments, and proceeded to not proclaim the amended parts of the bill. This amendment ensures that the Government can no longer adopt that tactic and technique and ensures that any amendment moved to the bill, and I am sure that some will be passed tonight, will go forward with the bill. If the Government accepts the amendments, it will proclaim the amendments when it proclaims the bill.

The Opposition is concerned about the current tactic of partial proclamation, of excision from bills and, from time to time as the record shows, non-proclamation of an entire bill. If the Government is to be honest and proposes to consummate the arrangements that have been made, it must agree with this amendment. The Opposition is concerned and hopes that the crossbench members, with that explanation in mind, will support the Opposition's amendment.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [9.27 p.m.]: This excellent amendment is well worth supporting. It is true that sometimes the government of the day attempts to thwart the outcome of votes in the upper House when it does not have the numbers. This important amendment sets a very good precedent. I certainly support it.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [9.28 p.m.]: The Government opposes the amendment.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [9.29 p.m.]: During debate on the Motor Accidents Compensation Amendment (Medical Assessments) Bill it was found that if a section had been proclaimed it could have blown out green slip insurance premium levels. There may be an odd occasion on which that could occur, even with this bill. Retrospective legislation could blow out the cost of the whole project, which may not be the intention of the mover of the amendment. That problem occurs with finance bills. An amendment to deal with compensation for housing may be proposed on compassionate grounds but might still cost the State $1 billion—a possibility not fully understood when the amendment was before the House. Crossbench members do not always have the facts and figures to back up their consideration of an amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Schedule 1

Ms LEE RHIANNON [9.30 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 1:

No. 1 Page 4, schedule 1 [3], new section 124. Insert after line 33:

(6) A rail authority may not acquire as provided by this section any part of the Project park land that forms part of Lane Cove National Park unless and until the land described below is reserved as part of Lane Cove National Park in accordance with Part 4 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974:

Land situated at Marsfield, in the Local Government Area of Ryde, Parish of Hunters Hill and Field of Mars, County of Cumberland and State of New South Wales being Lot 2 in Deposited Plan 841477 (being land in part of Crown Reserve in R89885 for Public Recreation, Gazette No. 99 dated 6 August 1976 Folio 3380) and Lot 4 in Deposited Plan 881923 (being land in Certificate of Title Folio Identifier 4/881923).

(7) A rail authority may acquire the land described in subsection (6) by agreement or by compulsory process in accordance with the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 for the purpose of facilitating that land’s reservation as part of Lane Cove National Park.

This amendment presents a win-win situation. Having weighed up the matter carefully, we have the opportunity not only to consolidate the Lane Cove River National Park but also to ensure that this most important public transport project goes ahead in its entirety. That means that we are able to include the important stations at the University of Technology, Sydney, Kuring-gai campus and at Delhi Road. We strongly recommend this important amendment. The land known as Browns Waterhole is an area of high-quality, dry sclerophyll forest surrounding the creek that flows into Lane Cove River. This amendment shows what good negotiation can deliver for the community, for the environment and for a public transport system that will take many cars off our roads. We will all be able to look out at Sydney skies without that filthy smudge which damages our children's lungs and presents difficulties for older people. The Greens are excited about this development and strongly recommend the amendment.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [9.32 p.m.]: The Government supports this amendment. This land has been identified by the National Parks and Wildlife Service as compensatory habitat for the Parramatta rail link. This land, comprising 2.9 hectares, will link two separated areas of Lane Cove River National Park near where Terrys Creek meets Lane Cove River. The construction site for the Lane Cove River bridge is 1.9 hectares, of which 0.9 hectares is national park. About one hectare of the construction site is expected to be returned after construction, making a net gain to Lane Cove River National Park. Lot 2 is currently Crown land and includes a county road reservation for a road link between the F3 freeway and the M2 motorway. Gazettal as a national park would permanently lift this reservation. Lot 4 is currently owned by the Roads and Traffic Authority and was used for the construction of the M2 motorway.

The Hon. I. COHEN [9.33 p.m.]: The Greens moved this amendment to secure the protection of Browns Waterhole, an important remnant of bushland. Various speakers have accused the Greens that the many letters are a public relations campaign. In fact, a significant number of letters have been received from local people and children who have eloquently explained the values of urban bushland to both the wildlife and the quality of life of the people who are privileged to live in the surrounding areas. It was suggested during debate on this bill that the Greens were duped by the Government into doing a deal.

The claim has been made that this land was earmarked for inclusion in the national park, irrespective of the rail line. This argument underestimates the power of the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] and the road transport lobby in this State, which the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti alluded to earlier. Browns Waterhole is in a corridor which has long been earmarked for freeway development. As Crown land it has no protection from any future freeway proposal. Experience with the M2 shows that bushland of this quality means nothing when the RTA and the Government decide to build a freeway. I am glad that the Government is supporting this amendment and believes that it is worthy of support. On a comparative balance, this urban bushland is a valuable addition to the national park. I support the amendment.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [9.35 p.m.]: This amendment will disappoint those who wish to see the link between the F3 and the M2 constructed. Those who promote motorways will not support this amendment. The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti alluded to the fact that this was part of a road reservation, and he thinks it should remain as a link for that road reservation. He was part of the M2 lobby.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: No, I did a lot of consultation on it.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: The honourable member did a lot of consultation on it. A number of senior Liberals pushed very hard for the M2 project. During its construction 100,000 trees, untold Aboriginal relics and heaven knows how much natural heritage were destroyed. The M2 is not making money now, and it never will. The environmental impact statement at the time indicated that the road should not be built because there was not sufficient traffic to make it viable. That has since been proven. Some of us said before it was built that those who invested in the M2 would be very bold investors. That project was a failure. Now certain people are pushing for this link to make the M2 more viable. Undoubtedly they will oppose this amendment .

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [9.36 p.m.]: I am concerned that this amendment, as has been indicated, will permanently block any opportunity to join together the M2 and F3. I asked the Minister about that, and he said that he could see no way in which they could be joined if this amendment were passed. The Minister agreed to it as part of the deal on this legislation. I asked whether the project could go right around the circle, and he said no. This is a serious amendment. Although some honourable members have suggested that the Roads and Traffic Authority is a big monster, it has plans for more than 50 years where expressways and highways will be built. We had a debacle with the Wolli Creek project because we did not use the original route for the highway. There have been arguments about the need for stacks and the siting of them. If we had stuck to the master plan, we may not have had the harmful side-effects from emissions from the tunnels that are being constructed throughout the metropolitan area. The Christian Democratic Party will not be supporting this amendment.

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING [9.37 p.m.]: The Opposition has some concerns about this amendment. We consider that the amendment is premature, coming before the presentation of the environmental impact statement. Looking at the briefing notes and listening to comments that have been made, this Greens amendment will have the effect of incorporating a parcel of land within the Lane Cove River National Park. As has been described, it is about 2.8 hectares in size and is located in the Browns Waterhole area. It is a nice and interesting area, and is probably a desirable addition. The amendment does that, and describes precisely where it is.

I agree with the National Parks and Wildlife Service when it describes the area as high-quality bushland. The Opposition does not have an argument with that. I accept the argument that the parcel is a habitat for the endangered powerful owl and common bentwing bat. The protection of this area will help secure a habitat area for those species to survive in the Lane Cove valley area. However, it should be noted that the amendment is worded in such a way that no land can be acquired for the construction of a rail link until the Browns Waterhole parcel has been reserved as national park. Therein lies the trade-off.

The Browns Waterhole parcel at approximately 2.8 hectares is approximately 0.9 of a hectare larger than the area being excised from the park at Fullers Bridge. It is composed of very nice bushland, whereas the area being excised is principally open grass space that is used by many families. It should be understood that inclusion of the Browns Waterhole parcel in the park will effectively prevent any government from proceeding with the Lane Cove Valley Freeway. We have no problem with the inclusion of the Browns Waterhole area, but one has to ask where the extra money will come from, and where in the budget the Treasurer has indicated that he will find the money to acquire the land and then maintain it. At this stage the National Parks and Wildlife Service is singularly short of money.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: It is strapped for cash.

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING: It is strapped for cash, as my colleague said, and it is short of staff. The ability to add land without the ability to maintain it is a problem. Despite the cacophony from the crossbenchers, they should listen carefully to these concerns because they will have to address them. How was the deal done? There is little doubt a deal was done in relation to this amendment that deals with Browns Waterhole and a bridge across the Lane Cove River National Park. I would like to know what the deal was, what the arrangements were, what was offered and how it was done. I do not know why the Greens did not insist on funding and financing as part of the deal. I guess we will never know. But if they should ever come back into the Chamber and complain, they will be hoist on their own petard as hypocrites. The Opposition will allow the amendment to pass without opposing it.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [9.42 p.m.]: One of the values of being on the back bench in the Coalition is that one can speak it as it is. I predict, with some experience of having been in this place for nine years, that one day the Parliament will have the Hon. I. Cohen and Ms Lee Rhiannon sitting on one side, or their successors, and every member of the Labor Party and Coalition sitting on the other side as we agree to lift the national parks reservation to put the tunnel under this very area of land. The extricable link of the M2 with the road system in Sydney is inescapable. Sydney needs a road system as much as it needs a good public transport system. The Labor Party has sold out the Hon. I. Cohen and Ms Lee Rhiannon very cheaply: They could have had, had they held out properly, the tunnel under Lane Cove River and lost none of it; and a tunnel under this area and lost none of it.

Ms Lee Rhiannon: We would have lost the station.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: They can rejoice tonight because they will glory in some sort of victory, but I know how the argument will go: It is inescapable. Sydney needs a road system, which must link these two parts of Sydney. It is impossible not to do it. Reluctantly, just as we have to take some of Lane Cove River National Park, we have to put a tunnel under this part of the national park so that we can link the two parts of Sydney's road system. Unfortunately, when that happens, and it may happen in 10 years or more after I have left this Parliament—I will not be hypocritical enough to say which party it will be—one party will suggest it and the other party will be unafraid to do otherwise. Members on the crossbenchers who believe they have done a wonderful deal for six weeks will have a thundering great bridge through Lane Cove National Park and a road underneath it. They have stuck out for a pyrrhic victory. The famous story of the Trojan horse comes to mind. They have been roped in by the Labor Party to achieve the second-best result for the environment.

The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans: Have you got the guts?

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: I have guts. This is not the position of my party. At the moment I am being utterly, 100 per cent honest. I know that it is inescapable that these things will happen. I suspect that the party that will do it will not be the Coalition. We would not be able to do it because members opposite guarantee that we will behave responsibly. The Labor Party takes the view that it can take our responsibility for granted. We will do the best thing for Sydney when it comes about, and members opposite take it for granted that we will. When we are in government they will play politics and carry on. When the troggs get control of the Labor Party and the developers get in touch with the Treasurer and the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning and tell them it has to happen, it will happen.

It will not matter what the Hon. I. Cohen and Ms Lee Rhiannon or their successors do; they will have a tunnel under this new bit of Lane Cove River National Park and a rail bridge. That is the bitter truth. It will happen within 20 years. I might not be here, but I will smile wryly that the best environmental outcome was not achieved because the crossbenchers in this place thought that they could sell us out cheap. It will not be us who make a decision; it will be our successors. But it will be a decision that is made and they will have sold out that part of Lane Cove River National Park and erected a noisy railroad bridge. The Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] will tell us that we cannot ever stop the noise; that it is the best possible outcome. In fact the RTA will tell us that it is world's best practice. It is the best option possible. We should not complain about it because it will save the world from all the greenhouse gases. But it will be on Lane Cove River National Park—as large as the Cahill Expressway is on Sydney Harbour.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Don't you attack the Cahill Expressway.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: It will be as big as the Cahill Expressway, and it will be the memorial to the 13-member crossbench in this place. We all worshipped the RTA; it was to be trusted. Trust the RTA; do not worry about it. It will give us what it wants. It sucks us in by the minute. It tells us incrementally that we can cop this and we can cop that, but at the end of the day we will have missed the big picture. One of the best lessons I learned in this Parliament was taught to me by Pam Allan, a member of the Government. She told us that we could get rid of the Castlereagh liquid waste dump. But my side of politics was advised that we could not get rid of it, that Sydney could not survive without it, that it was impossible to get rid of it. Pam Allan, God love her, struggled away and worked at it. She achieved what she wanted. The Government doubled the site of the Lidcombe waste dump, and now, thank heavens, we are dealing properly with our waste. We are not dumping it in the ground to leave for future generations to clean up; we are dealing with it properly because she insisted.

The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans: Progress!

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: As the honourable member said, progress can be made. She must have said to John Cook and his ilk in the environment department, "You can clean it up. It will cost some money, but we are going to do it, because we are going to do it for future generations. Do not tell me that it is impossible." Honourable members have been told that this is impossible; that it cannot be done with a tunnel. They have bought it, but they bought it too early. It is possible. The Treasurer is smiling wryly at me because in his heart of hearts he knows that it is true: one day it will be possible. Tunnelling seemed to be impossible. I remember when tunnelling was incredibly expensive, when it was argued that we could not do it, and when the nonsense was argued that it would result in five years of degradation.

I suspect that it will not be impossible in Lane Cove and that we will end up with something as wonderful as the Cahill Expressway running through Lane Cove River National Park. I bet the future of my children that the M2 will link up with the rest of the road system and that it will be achieved with a wonderful gallery of crossbenchers wringing their hands and saying, "We shouldn't be doing this." I have no doubt that they, or their successors, will be wringing their hands. When it happens—as it will—someone will read this obscure speech from this odd backbencher John Ryan, who said it was not impossible—

The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho: Point of order: What is the relevance of the Hon. J. F. Ryan talking about predictions? We are talking about the Greens amendment.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: To the point of order: I have no difficulty arguing the relevance of what I am saying. We are talking about a block of land, one part of which has been given away to allow the construction of a rail bridge. It is entirely relevant. I do not intend to spend a long time dealing with the issue. I just want to put on the record that one day it will happen.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: To the point of order: This has been a sufficiently wide-ranging debate. The Hon. J. F. Ryan has been debating and addressing a number of matters. His comments are relevant; he is perfectly entitled to make them.

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

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: I want to make sure it is on the record that somebody was honest enough to tell the truth. One day, in our dotage, when we are reading the Hansard of the Legislative Council, we will recognise that we had an opportunity and it has gone.

The Hon. E. M. Obeid: Cross the floor and put your job on the line.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: Don't give me this cross the floor business. For a Minister of the Crown to carry on with that nonsense—

The Hon. E. M. Obeid: Your party is going one way, you're talking another way.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: I am not talking another way. I am simply telling the truth. It is the effervescence of the Minister that makes the most noise. I remember being in government, Minister. If I am ever a government backbencher again—which I hope will occur after the next election—I will take with me an enormous lesson: I will not believe the nonsense served up to me by various public servants when they say that things are impossible. I will be able to stake a claim as to what is possible and what is achieved. It may cost me the opportunity to be on the opposition or government front bench, but it might be more fun to achieve the impossible, because a few impossible things will be achievable.

Some Opposition members are carrying out the role that should have been carried out by members on the crossbenches, and are going down for the third count on this bill. In the future, when the Chamber is debating the Transport Administration (Lane Cove M2 Better Transport System for Sydney) Amendment Bill, we will look at today's Hansard of the Legislative Council and see who let us down. On this occasion, it was members on the crossbenches. Members on the crossbenches normally make sound decisions.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: It is the Greens.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: I accept that the Greens are responsible. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile is easily convinced by bureaucrats—I have been a member of enough committees to know that—though the speech he gave on this bill was one of his best. It was a great intellectual argument; it was state-of-the-art, but it had no vision. We could have had a tunnel and a completely intact and expanded Lane Cove River National Park if the arguments had been hard enough. I am a resident of western Sydney, so perhaps to some extent it is not something I should care about. However, I care about the environment. One day, when we are canoeing up and down the Lane Cove River, we will know who was responsible for the irritating noise every time a train goes over the bridge.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [9.56 p.m.]: I did not hear the remarks of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, but the Hon. J. F. Ryan has a hide to say that the honourable member showed no vision. If anyone suffers from tunnel-vision in this debate it is obviously the Hon. J. F. Ryan. I am not familiar with the intricacies of this issue.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: I know.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I know, and I know you know that I know.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Point of order: It is perfectly obvious that during the Committee stage of the bill we are constrained to be relevant. The Minister has stated clearly that he has absolutely no idea what is going on in this debate. So, the chances of his comments being relevant are zero. I ask you to draw his attention to the debate and ask him to be relevant or sit down.

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

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I repeat: I am not familiar with the intricacies of this issue, but I was interested to hear the Hon. J. F. Ryan talking about this evil event he predicted would happen in 20 years time. I just wanted to acknowledge the honourable member's perspicacity in indicating that when this evil event occurs in 20 years time, an event which I know nothing about, I am very grateful for the fact that he indicated I would be Treasurer.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: You'll be in a nursing home somewhere.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: But I will still be the Treasurer of New South Wales.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [9.58 p.m.]: The Hon. J. F. Ryan had many surprising things to say, but he introduced us to his various lines of argument by saying that as a backbencher he is able to speak his mind. We were left waiting for a long time because he just regurgitated the usual arguments. We heard the usual one about the inevitable benefits of motorways. It is a sad state of affairs that he is not looking at what is happening with motorways on the world stage. It is true that the Greens are members of many European parliaments, but that is not just because they are merely members. In so many parliaments of Europe and the United Kingdom motorways are off the agenda because, as with the Eastern Distributor and the M2, they do not deliver.

The need for a decent public transport system has been recognised. Again I go back to the comments of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. He was concerned that if we gain Browns Waterhole it will lock up that piece of land and it will not be available to provide the Lane Cove Valley Freeway with the necessary conduit from the F3 to the M2. This would be of great benefit, because at the moment there is a push from the major developers to give us more motorways. Public transport is the way to go. It is absolutely essential for the health of our children and our whole environment, and indeed for efficient transport.

People complain when trains run late, but how many times do people run late because cars are stuck in traffic? That is what will happen increasingly. When a piece of motorway is built the traffic jam is moved down the road but there is still a traffic jam. It will occur sooner or later. That is why in Europe people are starting to get away from building freeways. I am disappointed that the Hon. J. F. Ryan moved away as soon as I mentioned that point. He made a rather sad speech. The Greens amendment represents a real plus for the community and the environment. The Hon. J. F. Ryan told us of the pain of having to listen to trains when visiting Lane Cove River National Park. How many people does he think have to listen to trains every night? Today I was fortunate in having my mother join me in the Chamber. She lived at Erskineville with a railway line at the back of the house. Hundreds of thousands of people go to bed at night listening to trains. Listing to a few trains in a national park is not the end of the world. I am surprised that he came out with such a pathetic argument.

The reason we had to listen to such a painful speech was that there is a case of sour grapes on the Opposition side. The Coalition was going to negotiate a plan with the Government but, as so often happens, it did not get its act together or hold the necessary discussions and the result was a win for Lane Cove River National Park. The Hon. J. F. Ryan really hit rock bottom when he had to blame public servants. He came out with the tragic statement, "If I end up in government I will not listen to public servants, because of the terrible advice they give." What a copout! It is an absolute disgrace that he has reached that point. The Coalition should take responsibility. The Coalition certainly knows how to deliver for its big developer mates. The only area that it knows is the big end of town.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: I am starting to like you.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: I can get you a psychiatric appointment.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Considering those comments, let us run through it again. The Treasurer said he was not sure what this project is going to do. To recap, the amendment will expand the national park. It is a major win because it will safeguard Sydney from more crazy motorways, clean up the air, and give us a fantastic public transport project. The Hon. J. F. Ryan lost sight of the issue: this $1.4 billion public transport project will be delivered to this city. That is the way to deliver proper transport to everybody, not just to a select few.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [10.04 p.m.]: My head is reeling, so I seek clarification from the Minister. I listened to the subdued performance of the Hon. J. F. Ryan with a great deal of interest. I think he is wrong when he suggests that there will be a link between the M2 and the F3 by building a tunnel under Browns Waterhole. I do not believe that the Government could come at that. Can the Minister give the Chamber details of the proposed bridge over Browns Waterhole?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [10.05 p.m.]: I apologise to the Chamber but I am unable to give the technical details of the bridge. I am more than happy to have my colleague the Hon. Carl Scully or his staff provide details to the Hon. J. S. Tingle.

Amendment agreed to.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [10.06 p.m.]: I move:

No. 2 Page 4, schedule 1 [3], proposed section 124. Insert after line 33:

(8) A rail authority may not acquire as provided by this section any part of the Project park land unless and until approval for the construction of the Parramatta Rail Link has been obtained under Division 4 of Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

In essence, this amendment will provide us with an assurance that the environmental impact statement [EIS] process is able to run its course. The amendment will ensure that no project parkland is transferred from Lane Cove River National Park or Parramatta Regional Park unless or until the project has received planning approval. It will give the very important safeguard that so many members are committed to and that has such strong support in the community. The Greens acknowledge that the EIS process needs to be improved enormously. The amendment will ensure that the project is able to run its course and then the normal processes will be followed. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [10.07 p.m.]: This really is the dizzy limit. My colleague the Hon. J. P. Hannaford got it right: There is no chance of the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning knocking this project off, no matter how terrible the EIS is, no matter how little consultation there is. This is nothing but a fierce joke on the people of Lane Cove.

The Hon. J. P. Hannaford: Why would you not even insist on a commission of inquiry?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Exactly. The Greens are saying, "We want to see the process through. We know what the result will be. Let's do the process because it is cute." What a joke! If Ms Lee Rhiannon reads her own amendment and bursts out laughing she will know what we all think of it.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [10.08 p.m.]: All members of the Committee will note how sensitive the Opposition gets when it sees the crossbenchers making up their own minds on issues. I cannot get over the venom and the futuristic appeal about what will happen in 20, 30 or 50 years time. Opposition members would not know what is happening tomorrow or in the next two years, let alone what is to happen in the next 20 or 30 years.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: You have visions too, do you, Eddie?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: No, and we do not pretend to. We have much more faith in the system than the honourable member does. He has insulted all the staff of the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning, the good planners and the people who really do good EISs. The Government supports Greens amendment No. 2. It confirms the Government's position that land under the control of the National Parks and Wildlife Service will not be excised unless and until planning approval is obtained. It also confirms that there is no intention of pre-empting the outcome of the EIS process. If the consent for the project does not require the use of the specified "Project park land" the land will remain in its current status.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [10.09 p.m.]: This amendment requires that the processes be followed correctly and that this legislation not pre-empt the correct processes. On that basis I withdraw my foreshadowed amendment, which I was encouraged by the Environment Liaison Office to move to ensure that in this case the Parliament would have to approve the situation. In most cases this material does not come before the Parliament and that was the case with the M5 and various other matters involving inquiries into government processes. Government processes are becoming more visible and people are becoming more aware of them. The Government is under increasing pressure to do the right thing by the people and to make the processes more transparent.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: It fooled you.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: I must confess that I supported a motion to establish a committee to look at these matters but, since that has been defeated, this is better than nothing and as such we should support it.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [10.10 p.m.]: Did I hear the Minister say that nothing will happen on Lane Cove River National Park until planning approval is given? No honourable member would believe that planning approval will not be given by the Government, which has utter control of the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning [DUAP]. I shall give the Committee another dose of truth. The Department of Urban Affairs and Planning has a budget of around $30 million or $40 million. It is swamped by any one project of the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA]. The Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning is swamped by the Minister for Transport, who is basically the Minister for Sydney. If there is a project he wants to proceed, he will simply say that it has to have approval because all of Sydney is waiting for it to happen.

The Minister for Transport is not worried that the young students of the Rudolf Steiner School might die from the vapours of the Northside Storage Tunnel or that people who live in Bardwell Park have to suffer from a level of emissions greater than 50 parts per million. The problem is that the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning does not have any capacity to influence planning. It is not big enough to come to the table. We all know how the political system works. The department has the capacity to give professional advice but it does not make the decision. The decision is made by the Minister for Transport, who runs the Roads and Traffic Authority. We should not kid around because this will happen if the bill goes through; and the Minister's statement is one piece of cant that I cannot cope with. I was listening in my room to him and in the interests of the people of New South Wales someone, if it is not the Greens or crossbenchers, has to say that these decisions are made in places—

The Hon. E. M. Obeid: So you believe in nothing.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: Of course, I believe in something.

The Hon. E. M. Obeid: No planning controls, no EISs, no DUAP, no processes. Nothing works any more.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: If there were any honesty in this process there would be a commission of inquiry, conducted by an independent judge, to determine whether this should go ahead. Unfortunately, the crossbenchers have been sucked into believing that there is a political solution. I forgive them for accepting advice from the two advisers and the people from the RTA in the President's gallery because people are inclined to accept advice that they are given. But please do not give us the cant that there is a planning process that supervises this, that the political process will supervise this. If the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning is told by Cabinet that he has to allow this to go ahead, it will go ahead. Please do not kid people that there is an independent process that will look at this and make an independent decision. If this bill is passed tonight Lane Cove River National Park will have a rail link going through it. This is a political decision made by no less than the Parliament of New South Wales.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [10.14 p.m.]: I have developed a great interest in listening closely to the Hon. J. F. Ryan because I am on a committee with him and his arguments are often well-reasoned, but tonight it would have been better if he had stayed in his room. He is agonising over the planning processes! What double standards and hypocrisy! When the Coalition was in government it had plenty of opportunity to do something about the process. It has been in opposition for five years and could make some suggestions about its great plans and what it will do when it is back in government.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: Point of order: These speeches are getting perilously close to second reading speeches. The comments being made by Ms Lee Rhiannon have little to do with the amendment; they are assertions about and aspersions on the Opposition. They are irrelevant to the Committee's consideration of the amendment and I ask you to direct her back to the normal usages of the Committee stage.

The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans: To the point of order: The Hon. J. F. Ryan has heckled us at length and the comments of Ms Lee Rhiannon provide some consistency in adjudication of the matter.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: To the point of order: Points made in Committee need to be answered while we have an opportunity to debate them. I am talking about the planning processes, which is relevant to the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! I uphold the point or order. The Hon. D. F. Moppett said, "These speeches are getting perilously close to second reading speeches". I assume he was referring to all the speeches that have been made in Committee, and I tend to agree with him. They have been perilously close to second reading speeches. I have shown a fair degree of latitude but I ask all honourable members to restrict their comments to the amendments.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: The EIS process was ridiculed.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: We are wonderful, aren't we?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Isn't the EIS process just terrific? You just love it.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: We have acknowledged all the way along that it has great shortcomings. I shall make a comparison with the M2, the Coalition's favourite project.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: Ancient history.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti said it was a great project; it is good to have that on the record. With the M2, the RTA proposed the project and the RTA was the consent authority, so there was obviously a contradiction there.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Point of order: The fact that the M2 had a couple of commissions of inquiry, which are more than EISs, does not even make that comment relevant. This speech is irrelevant, Mr Chairman, and I ask that you direct the honourable member to speak to the amendment. I will keep taking points of order until she does.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: To the point of order: I am speaking about the planning process, which is relevant to this amendment. We need to be able to clarify that for all members who wish to participate in the debate.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member is being distracted by interjections, which are disorderly. It is a bit precious to interject and then, when the honourable member responds, to claim that she is not speaking to the amendment. I ask honourable members to desist from interjecting, and I ask the honourable member to speak to the amendment.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: The M2 was compromised in that the RTA played both roles. The EIS in this project has many problems but at least there is a separation. The Department of Transport has proposed the project and the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning is the consent authority. Honourable members should acknowledge that there is that difference.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: It was with the Northside Storage Tunnel too.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Yes.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: I think we will hold this speech for the future

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Yes, and it would be good to hear the Coalition, if all of a sudden it is so concerned about the planning process, to actually put something concrete. I commend this amendment to the Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING [10.20 p.m.]: I move:

No. 2 Page 5, schedule 1 [3]. Insert after line 23:

128 Offers to purchase homes above Parramatta Rail Link Tunnel

(1) It is the intention of Parliament that the State must offer to purchase any property used for residential purposes located above any underground rail facilities (within the meaning of Schedule 6B) that form part of the Parramatta Rail Link, at the price that the property would attract if there were no such underground rail facilities plus reasonable relocation expenses.

(2) This section operates for 4 years from the date of approval of the Parramatta Rail Link under Division 4 of Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

I draw honourable members' attention to some of the Minister's statements and urge them to consider what happened with the M5 East project. I note that the Minister complained about the cost of this proposal when the matter was discussed in another place. He argued that the properties above the rail line were valued at about $600 million and that their holding cost would amount to tens of millions of dollars. They are seriously expensive properties. The problem is that the property guarantee given on the M5 East project contrasts with the Government's approach to property that clearly will be affected by the rail link. It is a case of one rule applying to one group and another rule applying to everyone else. A document entitled "The M5 East guarantee; the new M5 East responding to community concerns" states:

Property value guarantee. The tunnel will be deep beneath the surface and will not affect your quality of life or property. There will be no noise and no vibration. Residents will be able to build or renovate as before. However, as an act of good faith, the Government is proposing a property value guarantee. For a four-year period from approval for the project, the Government will offer to buy any home above the tunnel. Purchase will be at the price each home would attract if there were no M5 East plus relocation expenses.

What is different about this project? What is the difference between the M5 East tunnel and the homes above it and the homes that will be above the tunnel built for the Parramatta rail link? The Government has done a 180-degree about-face on the rail link project. The consultant's report states:

In every case investigated we have come to the conclusion that there is no evidence to support the view that the presence of a railway tunnel below the residential property will adversely affect the market value.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: If that is the case, the Government should support the amendment.

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING: My colleague is correct. In one case—the M5 East project—as an act of good faith, the Government proposed a property value guarantee for four years from the approval of the project. Honourable members will note that this amendment calls for the section to operate for four years from the approval date of the Parramatta rail link. The Government must be fair dinkum. It was prepared to offer a guarantee to the M5 East project. The Government said that that was an act of faith and it argued that construction of that project would cause no noise and no vibration.

Will the Government make the same offer regarding tunnels built for the Parramatta rail link? Will the Government show good faith or will it simply say, "Tough luck people, we will not do anything for you—although we looked after Bardwell Park and the M5 East."? Several crossbench members expressed enormous concern about noise and stack emissions from the M5 East tunnel, and the Government satisfied those honourable members and allayed their fears. I believe it should do exactly the same thing, as an act of good faith, in relation to the Parramatta rail link.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [10.25 p.m.]: I do not know why the Opposition has moved this amendment, which simply asks the Government for a guarantee. It is almost universally accepted that property values in an area will rise if the local transport improves. Therefore, if the Government had to purchase properties because people were scared of the tunnel's impact on land values, it would probably make a profit. No doubt the Treasurer would be delighted about that little real estate investment. Perhaps the Government could build railways by harnessing the increased profits from local land values rather than allowing lucky people living nearby to make a private profit.

There may be some noise at points where the train enters a tunnel, and subsequently land values in those restricted areas may fall. In that case it is probably not unreasonable to ask the Government to buy the property. I am certain that within a few years the Government would make a profit that would more than cover its investment. I do not know why the Government would not accept this amendment. Perhaps it will. This amendment is so unlikely to be necessary as to be almost irrelevant, but there is no reason why it should not be supported.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [10.26 p.m.]: I have sought some background information about the amendment, to which I referred indirectly in an earlier discussion about forcing the Government to proclaim every part of a bill that might have unintended financial costs. That occurred with the motor accident legislation, and the same could apply with this bill. As other honourable members have said, the Parramatta to Chatswood rail link will increase the value of properties in the area. The question for the Opposition is: If the amendment is carried and people seek to sell their properties to the Government, what will it cost? I understand that this amendment was moved in the other place and defeated.

Approximately $500 million worth of residential property is located above the underground corridor. Funding this program would divert money and effort into the management of a residential property portfolio spread over 27 kilometres. Transport works in 2010 include six rail projects with significant tunnelling sections. This amendment would set a precedent for each of those projects, with a total liability to the State of hundreds of millions of dollars. The Opposition referred to the M5 East freeway. I was involved with that project from the beginning and there was talk about property compensation, mainly because three chimney stacks were to be erected in the area. As soon as that announcement was made, local property values dropped dramatically. The guarantee was part of the Government's agreement to assist residents in that area; there was no question of vibrations and so on. In this case, the Government would have to administer the project over 27 kilometres. Therefore I believe the amendment should not be supported.

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT [10.29 p.m.]: If damage occurred to a residence as a result of tunnelling work, would the Government guarantee to make some compensation payment or at least repair that house? It would obviously have an impact on property values.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [10.29 p.m.]: The Government opposes the amendment.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: Surprise, surprise. Are you going to answer his question?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: Allow the crossbenchers, who are really interested in the facts, to hear me. The Opposition has been most irresponsible in the way it has approached the bill. For half an hour we have listened to a lecture by the Hon. J. F. Ryan, telling us what is going to happen in the future and that he is going to vote for it. I thank Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile for his contribution.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: Are you going to answer the member's question?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I will come to that, but I will work in sequence. Approximately $1.4 billion of taxpayers' money will be spent on the Parramatta rail link, improving property values along the route. Of this amount, tens of millions of dollars will fund mitigation measures to ensure that impacts are limited while benefits are maximised. The amendment, totally uncosted by the Opposition, is seeking a further commitment of tens of millions of dollars to directly pay people who are already benefiting from this State-funded investment. This program would divert funds and effort into the management of a residential property portfolio spread over 27 kilometres. The Government's transport plan, Action for Transport 2010, includes six rail projects with significant tunnelling sections.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: This sounds the same as the Nile speech.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile takes notes when he attends committees. He cares about the facts. He can recall issues because he takes notes. The amendment will set a precedent for each of these projects and create a total liability for this State of hundreds of millions of dollars. The M5 East project is not comparable with the Parramatta rail link project. The M5 East property guarantee applies to limited sections such as the four-kilometre section of the 10-kilometre route where the roadway will be diverted from a road reservation established in the 1940s.

An airport line project is comparable with the Parramatta rail link. The Opposition should be silent so that the crossbenchers can listen to what the Coalition did when it was in government. This project, which was developed by the Coalition when it was in government, did not include a property value guarantee. Experience with the construction and operation of this line demonstrates that such a guarantee was not required, as property values along this corridor have increased greatly with improved public transport services.

Why is the Opposition asking this Government for a property value guarantee. The Opposition is being hypocritical. There are approximately 600 houses and 70 unit blocks along the 20 kilometre tunnel section of the Parramatta rail link. The total value of those properties is approximately $500 million. A conservative estimate of administering the program, paying removal costs and carrying holding costs, is estimated at $50 million. This money should be directed towards maximising the benefits of the project. In reply to the sensible question asked by the Hon. A. G. Corbett, I am advised that if land compulsorily acquired under this Act consists only of an easement or right to use land other than for the service and construction of works such as a tunnel, pipe or conduit for the conveyance of water, sewage or electrical cables, compensation is not payable except for actual damage done in the construction of the work or caused by the work.

[Interruption]

The Hon. J. F. Ryan should be quiet and listen. If land under the surface is compulsorily acquired under this Act for the purpose of constructing a tunnel, compensation is not payable, subject to subclause 1, unless the surface of the overlying soil is disturbed, or the support of that surface is destroyed or injuriously affected by the construction of the tunnel. Any mine or underground works in or adjacent to the land are thereby rendered unworkable and injuriously affected. If the land compulsorily acquired under the Act consists of or includes an easement or right to use the surface of any land for the construction and maintenance of works such as canals, drainage, stormwater channels, electrical cables, openings or ventilators, the easement is taken to include a power from time to time to enter the land for the purpose of inspection, unless the acquisition notice otherwise provides. If the soil is disturbed they will be compensated.

The Hon. D. J. GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [10.35 p.m.]: Considering the reply from Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and the Government, it is important to read what is contained in the Opposition's amendment. Proposed clause 128 (1) provides that it is the intention of Parliament that the State must offer to purchase any property used for residential purposes located above any underground rail facility within the meaning of proposed clause 6 (b) that forms part of the Parramatta rail link. That key part states "at the price that the property would attract if there was no such underground rail facility, plus reasonable relocation expenses".

The Hon. E. M. Obeid: You did not do it with the airport line.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: The Minister has done a lot talking; he should now listen. The Government believes that the problem with the Opposition's amendment is that it would cost more because a railway has been put in. The Opposition is saying that a property’s value should be what it would be worth if there were no railway. If the land is worth more, who would want the Government to resume it? Not one person would want that. I suspect that if the Government does its job and spends the money properly, not one person would want his land resumed. Who would want his land resumed when it would cost them money? As the Government and Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile said, land that is part of a rail link will be worth more money.

There will not be a rush of people making claims, contrary to what the Government has said. This sensible Opposition amendment will remove a blight on the land of people who will be affected by this rail tunnel. If the Government does what it says it will do and what the RTA says will happen, the Government will not have to pay an extra shilling above the cost of putting in the tunnel.

The Hon. E. M. Obeid: Why?

The Hon. D. J. GAY: Why, indeed. Why did the Government do it in Bardwell Park?

The Hon. E. M. Obeid: Why did your Government not do it with the airport line?

The Hon. D. J. GAY: We did not do it then because we did not know about it. This is an eminently sensible proposition. We would do it to make sure that the Government does the right thing and removes a blight on affected land. If the Government does the right thing this measure will not cost one extra shilling. The Minister is trying to kid this House, to deliberately mislead the House. When members vote they will have to read the amendment.

Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

Mr Breen Mr Bull Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Corbett Mrs Forsythe Mr Gallacher Miss Gardiner

Mr Gay Mr Harwin Mr R. S. L. Jones Mr Lynn Mr Oldfield Dr Pezzutti Mr Ryan

Mr Samios Dr Wong Tellers, Mr Jobling Mr Moppett

Dr Burgmann Ms Burnswoods Mr Cohen Mr Dyer Mr Egan Mr Hatzistergos Mr Johnson Mr M. I. Jones

Mr Macdonald Mrs Nile Revd Nile Mr Obeid Ms Rhiannon Ms Saffin Mrs Sham-Ho Mr Shaw

Ms Tebbutt Mr Tingle Mr Tsang Tellers, Mr Manson Mr Primrose

Mr Hannaford

Mr Della Bosca

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with amendments and passed through remaining stages.

Bill received and read a first time.

Motion by the Hon. E. M. Obeid agreed to:

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

The following bill was returned from the Legislative Assembly without amendment:

Legal Profession Amendment (Mortgage Practices) Bill

Message received from the Legislative Assembly agreeing to the Legislative Council's amendment.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [10.47 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [10.47 p.m.]: Honourable members may remember a speech I made to this House on 4 May in relation to the Blackburn family, owners of a landscape contracting firm in the Newcastle district, who were experiencing difficulties with the Home Warranty Insurance Scheme. Tonight I raise the plight of Joanne Green Landscape Design. Company director Mark Neylon contacted his local member, my colleague and the honourable member for Pittwater, John Brogden, regarding difficulties his company is experiencing in obtaining insurance. In November last year he received an interim quote of $8,452 for his home warranty insurance from Dexta Corporation. This quote came as a shock, considering the previous two annual premiums were $920 for 1999 and $1,209 for 1998. That is a 918 per cent increase in premium costs in one year. I emphasise: a 918 per cent increase in one year. As honourable members would appreciate, a company faced with a nine-fold increase in its insurance premiums will find it difficult to meet such an increase within its budgetary constraints, and will have to pass the increased cost on to its clients.

I am told that since 1981 Joanne Green Landscape Design has never had a claim against its home warranty insurance, and has not at any time received notification from its insurer that premiums would increase. Joanne Green Landscape Design has won more than 15 industry awards, including landscape construction of the year in 1991 and 1993. To continue trading, landscapers such as Mark Neylon have to accede to enormous increases in their insurance premiums; or cease trading. There is no alternative. Unfortunately, this sort of problem is not isolated. Recently I met with the Landscape Contracts Association about these sorts of problems with the privatised Home Warranty Assurance Scheme, a scheme privatised by this Government. Last year the Landscape Contract Association wrote to the Minister for Fair Trading about its concerns with the privatised Home Warranty Assurance Scheme.

The letter highlights the constant battles landscape contractors throughout New South Wales have with insurance companies approved to provide insurance, including: premiums increasing by more than 500 per cent, despite the association being unaware of any insurance claims against any of their members; poor service from insurance companies, including delays in having policies issued in time for contract works to commence; abnormally high levels of financial data required, more than that required by financial institutions for loan purposes; and no distinction by some insurance companies between hard and soft landscaping. Soft landscaping is predominantly horticultural and hard landscaping is construction. Obviously, the insurance risks are different for soft and hard landscaping and, therefore, premiums should reflect the differences.

The letter further highlighted the problem of phasing out annual insurance policies in favour of job-specific premiums, which adds to the difficulties of obtaining insurance and ensuring that a contract will be insured. The letter requested a meeting with the Minister. The Minister responded to the Landscape Contractors Association in what can only be called great length, five pages in total, to the issues raised by the association. However, the request by the association for a meeting with the Minister was denied. This is the Minister for Fair Trading whose Government created the scheme that landscape contractors know does not work, and a Minister for Fair Trading who receives complaints both from businesses and the very people it was designed to protect, the general public. The residents of New South Wales deserve much better than this Minister.

The Hon. JANELLE SAFFIN [10.52 p.m.]: An exciting expo is underway in the Northern Rivers region, the Northern Rivers FILMWORKS Project. The Northern Development Task Force [NDTF] and North Coast CAMERA have collaborated to publicly showcase the best of the local film industry, and to raise its profile within our region. The Northern Development Task Force is a lead organisation in the Northern Rivers region, with membership drawn from the Northern Rivers Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Northern Rivers Regional Development Board, the Southern Cross University, the North Coast Environmental Council, Master Planning Services Australia Pty Limited, the Grafton Business Enterprises Centre, the Northern Rivers Social Development Council, the Northern Rivers Regional Organisation of Councils, Many Rivers Regional Council of ATSIC, the Southern Cross Regional Research Institute and the North Coast Regional Combined Unions Committee Incorporated.

The task force pursues sustainable economic development in partnership with co-operating organisations, communities and individuals within the Northern Rivers region, as well as others outside the region whose activities or decisions impact on the economic wellbeing of the region for the purposes of increasing regional prosperity and regional employment through attracting appropriate investment. The sustainability principles form the framework within which it operates, as well as forming the basis of the Northern Rivers Regional Strategy, which is a project of the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning, the NDTF, the Northern Rivers Regional Economic Development Organisation [NOREDO] and the Northern Rivers Regional Organisation of Councils. It is a strategy I have previously detailed in this House. The 10 principles within which it operates are the precautionary principle; intergenerational equity; conservation of biodiversity and ecological integrity; improved evaluation, pricing and incentive mechanisms; global perspective; qualitative development; limits on natural resource use; constant natural capital and sustainable income efficiency and resilience together with implied transparency in all decision making, and community participation.

North Coast CAMERA is the other collaborating partner. The publication from Northern Rivers FILMWORKS written for the expo states that CAMERA is a non-profit community organisation established in 1995 to support and encourage local filmmakers. It encourages all members of the community to participate in creative productions that reflect the unique culture of the communities, especially those groups that do not normally have access to mainstream media. CAMERA encourages the growth of a viable film, video and multimedia industry that supports the work of both businesses and individuals within the region. It hosts film screenings and training workshops. It also produces a wonderful newsletter. It is located at the back of the conservatorium in Lismore.

Exactly what is FILMWORKS? What is this wonderful showcase? FILMWORKS was initiated by local film-maker Cathy Henkel, who is well known in the region, as part of her Masters by Research Degree. Cathy is undertaking a detailed study of the local industry to produce a more accurate picture of the size and scope of audiovisual activity in the region. The study will form the basis of further research into the cultural and economic impact of the industry in the region, what is needed to make its growth sustainable and the feasibility of developing the FILMWORKS centre within the region. It was launched in Lismore and received wonderful local support and coverage. It is also touring Byron Bay, Grafton, and the Tweed. Local organisations and businesses have given support, in both cash and kind, and although I do not know them all, I know that NOREDO and Thursday Plantation both gave cash.

On Saturday 6 May, from 10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. in Lismore's Strand Arcade, FILMWORKS launched the first of a series of film industry forums. The discussion was wide ranging and covered the major benefits and obstacles to working at regional level and looked at what further is needed to make the Northern Rivers a viable and dynamic centre of multimedia production and relevant to a digital age and strategies for the challenges of this century. The panel of speakers included local and well-known people, such as Deb Cox, David Bradbury, Wayne Young, Catherine Marciniak, John Weiley, Professor Steve Garlick, Jane Oliver, Nicollette Boaz and Owen Johnson. One of the themes was: Why is the Northern Rivers region attracting large numbers of practitioners from the film, video and multimedia industry? It is a great initiative, and I congratulate everyone on their involvement.

The Hon. ELAINE NILE [10.57 p.m.]: I refer to a program I saw on the Australian Broadcasting Commission at 8.00 tonight about a group called Justice Action for Youth, whose main aim is to disarm the police. The group held a rally outside the police headquarters calling on the Commissioner of Police, Peter Ryan. It was a loudly spoken and wild group. The main actor appeared to be Kilty O'Gorman, the daughter of Ms Lee Rhiannon, herself the daughter of Freda Brown, former activist and well-known Communist and supporter of North Vietnam during the Vietnam War. I remember well seeing her in Hyde Park selling pieces of bombs she said had been dropped on the North Vietnamese.

The program disturbed me greatly because I know what happens in the Police Service. My husband received a copy of the book Real Cops written by Brett Stevens, a policeman of 12 years experience. I commend the book to all members of this House to enable them to understand what police officers go through. I remind honourable members of Senior Constable Peter John Addison and Senior Constable Robert Bruce Spears, who were shot dead on the night of 8-9 July 1995 in Main Street, Crescent Head.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: What's this got to do with a demonstration?

The Hon. ELAINE NILE: The group that was demonstrating wants to take guns away from the police. It wants to disarm them. These two police officers were shot to death by the offender McGowan. They did not have a chance because they did not have the right guns. I would ask honourable members to cast their mind back to 24 April 1989 and the death of Allan McQueen. The book Real Cops states:

On 24 April 1989, only a day before millions of Australians remembered the dead of Gallipoli and many other battlefields, the quiet streets of Haig and Boomerang had also become a battleground. It was on this day that Allan McQueen, along with his two work partners Ross Judd and Jason Donnelly, spotted John Porter peering into parked cars, in an area that was well known for its car thefts. At the time, the three were part of the plain clothes anti-drug unit—and for Donnelly, it was his first and last day.

The cops had realised that Porter looked out of place and the warning bells were ringing.

While Judd stayed with the car, Donnelly and McQueen walked towards him, keeping an eye on where he put his hands, making sure that he didn't try to dispose of any drugs or anything else he shouldn't be carrying.

John Porter, a 29-year-old with a long record of run-ins with the law, instantly picked the pair as police, despite the fact that they were dressed in jeans and T-shirts. He recognised the slight bulges in their waistbands for what they were—six-shot .38-calibre police specials. Nervously he ran his hand over the hardened steel of a semi-automatic pistol. Porter knew that if these two undercover cops decided to search him, he was gone—there was no way that he was going back to jail, no way at all.

... Jason Donnelly was standing behind Porter when he saw his partner knocked to the ground. He threw his arms around the man, trying to stop him from throwing any more punches. But a fist fight could not have been any further from Porter's mind as he grasped the handle of the .32-calibre Browning, his finger on the trigger, the muzzle pointing back toward Donnelly's stomach. With the impact of the bullet, Donnelly released his grip. Porter swung the barrel towards McQueen as he bounced back off the bitumen, his fist raised. The gun exploded twice, one bullet smashing into McQueen's arm, the other striking him in the chest, the small piece of lead ripping through his lungs, kidneys and liver.

We lost that young man. He seemed to be responding well, but pneumonia set in and he died. It is good for people, especially in this place, to read about what the police do and what they go through. This book labours in its last chapters on the death of young McQueen. One of the officers, Constable Gerry Rowhana in charge of guarding McQueen, looked tired and faded as he came out of the unit where McQueen was in hospital. The writer continued:

"I doubt if he'll last out the night," Rowhana whispered under his breath. "They're pumping blood into him, but it's just pouring straight out of his wounds. It's not clotting ..."

And as I looked through the doorway, I could see Allan laid out in bed. To those who have seen death many times before, it was obvious that he was knocking at its door.

I couldn't wait for the final moment, that moment when he slipped silently into death's waiting arms, but I remember exactly where I was standing when I heard the news ...

I commend this book because these young people on our streets have no idea. [Time expired.]

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [11.02 p.m.]: On Sunday 28 May I, like many other members of this House, walked across the Sydney Harbour Bridge with approximately 250,000 people. I should like to make a few comments about that very happy day. It was wonderful to see the Premier and the Deputy Premier, Kerry Chikarovski and many Opposition members, and members from all parties walk with the 250,000-odd people from Sydney, Newcastle, Wollongong and throughout New South Wales. It was a happy and inspiring day, one that makes us all feel more confident and optimistic about the prospects for reconciliation. I was struck by yesterday morning's Sydney Morning Herald editorial. Like other honourable members, I do not often agree with the Sydney Morning Herald; more often I am critical of it. However, in summing up several things about the walk the Sydney Morning Herald got it absolutely right. I refer particularly to the comment about the Prime Minister which, referring to the Reconciliation Corroboree 2000 events at the Opera House on the Saturday, stated:

On the bridge next day, he [Mr Howard] was physically absent but on people's minds, as one so spiritually out of touch as to have lost the claim of leadership.

As I said, that comment in the editorial summed up how so many people felt as we walked across the bridge on Sunday. Two groups from my local area joined in the walk. One was a large group of Labor Party members walking under the banner "Bennelong ALP". The other group was Bennelong and Surrounds Residents for Reconciliation, which walked across the bridge with its banner not long after 8.00 a.m. I have mentioned before in this House the activities of the Bennelong and Surrounds Residents for Reconciliation and I am more than happy to pay tribute to its efforts in the Bennelong electorate, across all parties and with all sorts of people to bring people together at regular meetings and events in the cause of reconciliation.

The other group that played a role was Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation [ANTAR]. Groups from many areas took part in the walk and I particularly mention a group from the Lowe electorate called the ANTAR Action Group, which was involved in organising the walk across the Sydney Harbour Bridge on 28 May and also organised an Aboriginal Cultural Awareness Day in Concord the previous Saturday. I pay tribute again to people such as Anna Logan and all those other people in the Lowe electorate and council areas, including places such as Concord, Drummoyne, Burwood, Ashfield and Strathfield, who have been active in furthering the cause of reconciliation and awareness of the Aboriginal cause in general.

The group organised a successful Aboriginal Cultural Awareness Day, which was celebrated for the whole day commencing with Aboriginal heritage walks at 8.00 a.m. and flowing onto a number of events at Concord Community Centre in Gipps Street between 10.00 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. I am sure most members of this House could make similar comments about similar groups and people from their areas with whom they are associated who joined in the Walk for Reconciliation across the bridge on Sunday. I have drawn attention to some groups I know. I mention also a large contingency from the Teachers Federation and a number of other unions.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: The Liberal Party.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: Indeed, the Liberal Party. I assume National Party members also were there. Certainly the minor parties and Independents represented in this House were present. I have mentioned already how delighted I was to see the Premier and leading Opposition figures appearing together early in the march. It was a day that most honourable members of this House joined in proudly and happily. I am delighted I was able to share it.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [11.07 p.m.]: On Thursday and Friday of last week I was given leave of the House to attend the inaugural conference of the Italian Australian Institute, which is a new institute established in Victoria. The conference was launched by the Victorian Premier during a visit by the President of the Republic of Italy. It was sponsored by the Consul-General, whom I met in Victoria.

The objects of the organisation are to represent and advance the interests of Italian Australians; to promote and preserve the Italian heritage and culture in Australia; to encourage teaching of the Italian language and culture in schools and universities; to help young Italian Australians with their education and careers; to work closely with government and Italian community groups; to conduct or sponsor research on issues related to the Italian Australian community; to strengthen cultural, economic, business and diplomatic links between Italy and Australia; to promote the appointment of Italian Australians in government, and to provide support and assistance to Italian Australians who have been so appointed; to help elderly and necessitous Italian Australians to obtain suitable welfare assistance and work opportunities; and to monitor the portrayal of Italian Australians in the news and media.

The conference was hosted by the chairman, Mr Rino Grollo, and his wife, Diana Ruzzene-Grollo, in the presence of a large gathering of important individuals. Amongst the parliamentarians in attendance were Philip Ruddock, Con Sciacca, Carlo Filetti, Morris Iemma—from this Parliament— and a number of Victorian members of Parliament, Mr Tony Staley and the Italian Ambassador, Mr Castellaneta. Lord Mayor Frank Sartor was a guest speaker on Friday in the presence of the Deputy Lord Mayor of Melbourne.

Also present during the gathering were Sir James Gobbo, Cardinal Frank George from Chicago, and Archbishop Pell. The guest speaker for lunch on Thursday was Justice Stephen Charles. A number of other ambassadors were also present. The whole organisation was supported by a number of important sponsors with the acknowledged presence of many leading academics from across Australia, from the Australian National University, Deakin University, Monash University, the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Swinburne University, the University of Melbourne, the University of Southern Queensland, the University of Sydney, the University of Western Australia and Victoria University. There were a number of speakers from other universities as well.

This was the first gathering of the institute, which has an enormous future. It was held at the Park Hyatt in very pleasant surroundings and attended by a large number of people on different days. Whilst there, I had the opportunity to visit and look at some aged care facilities which had been set up by an Italian family and now handed over to a major public company. This major public company cares for people who are severely disabled in small group homes and in small settings with a very dedicated staff. It is an organisation of the highest quality which should be replicated in New South Wales. I have invited the organisation here to meet with Mrs Lo Po' because I think it has something very definitely to offer here in New South Wales.

The speakers were of a uniform high standard and acknowledged excellence within their own fields. The questions were most enlightening. I learnt an enormous amount from being there—about Italian culture and the two million Australians who have Italian background, but more importantly about the work that Italian Australians have to do to make this multicultural nation worthwhile to continue to live in, to be more inclusive of all the other national groups, which are of course smaller, and to ensure that multiculturalism is of benefit to both sides, for giving and for taking. It was a most extraordinary event. I pay tribute to Rino Grollo, his organisation, and the director of the institute, Mr Gaspare Sirianni, for a well-run very positive experience. I believe that most of the people who attended would have come away from the conference thrilled to have been there and most enlivened by the conversations.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [11.12 p.m.]: There have been a couple of nasty, inaccurate and libellous articles in the Sunday Telegraph lately written by amateur journalist Matthew Rogers. One was entitled "Papers ignored by MPs", which appeared on 23 April, and there was one last Sunday claiming that crossbench members had fallen silent. He failed to say of course that whilst crossbench members averaged six questions each at the time he wrote the article that was as many questions as we could possibly have asked in the roster of asking questions. We also spoke as many times as we needed to speak in the House, so the article was completely wrong. I understand that a complaint by other crossbench members will be made to the Press Council about last Sunday's article.

The article entitled "Papers ignored by MPs" was completely inaccurate. I would like to set the record straight in regard to the role and usefulness of papers which have been made public as a result of motions moved by crossbench members and the Opposition in this House. The Treasurer, as is typical of bean counters, was very selective with the figures he bandied around in the House recently. The Treasurer made reference only to the number of members who have been to view the documents presented to Parliament. He failed to mention the members of the public who have been to view the papers. I have a list of people who have viewed the papers asked for in the House.

Twelve people went to view the Northside Storage Tunnel papers on 20 different occasions on 16 days; 10 people went to view the roads and traffic papers over five days; eight people went to view the M5 papers over six days; five people have been to view the M2 papers on eight different occasions over six days; three people have been to view the Delta Electricity papers on five occasions over five days; and two people went to view the Walsh Bay papers at seven different times over seven different days, including me. I have also been to view all the papers that I have called for in Parliament.

The Treasurer also failed to mention that all the papers requested by crossbench members were called for in response to specific community requests. The papers I called for in regard to the Northside Storage Tunnel work, for example, was requested by concerned parents and other residents whose children attend the Glenaeon Rudolf Steiner School, a mere 100 metres from the tunnel vent, which will spew out 600 cubic metres of toxic fumes every minute. Those people protested outside Parliament House today; they complained that the Government is not listening to them. The parents and other residents wanted to view the documents to determine whether Sydney Water was being motivated by the commercial terms and arrangements with its alliance joint venture partners rather than public environmental and health interests, as was specified in the original EIS.

Similarly, the papers that I called for in relation to Delta Electricity were requested on behalf of the Nature Conservation Council [NCC] of New South Wales, which was concerned that the water usage practices of Delta Electricity seriously hydrologically, geomorphologically and ecologically stressed the Coxs River. The NCC needed to view the papers requested to establish the actual water usage of Delta Electricity and to determine its ability to implement environmental flows to the Coxs River, and only resorted to having them called for in Parliament when attempts to get information they contained under freedom of information legislation proved unsuccessful. My call for the papers in relation to the Walsh Bay development was in response to repeated requests that I had received from community members who were concerned that the public has not received value for money from the development agreement entered into between the Walsh Bay partnership and the New South Wales Government.

It was necessary to place the papers requested on the public record in order for those concerned community members to have access to them and to determine whether the Government had acted responsibly or burdened the public with an onerous agreement which may have serious financial ramifications. In fact, the papers which I viewed and which another person viewed for several days revealed that there was an outrageous giveaway of half a billion dollars of public assets for virtually nil return and that the theatre costs have blown out enormously. The papers I have called for in Parliament were in response to requests from concerned members of the public directly affected by the development they related to but who could not get access to the information that they contained in any other way.

Therefore, I have not asked for the papers just for my own perusal; I have acted on behalf of concerned members of the public who have come to me, as one of their elected representatives, for assistance. Those that I have acted for have endeavoured to make the most of the access to information that my actions have afforded them. I have also endeavoured, and will continue to do so, to make the most of that information as no doubt several Ministers could attest. The articles by this rather poor journalist, Matthew Rogers, are inaccurate. No doubt he will be hearing from the Press Council at some point about the accuracy of last Sunday's article in particular, which offended very many members of the crossbench who were libelled in it.

Motion agreed to.