Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 1 December 2000, Corrected Copy)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Friday 1 December 2000
______

The President (The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann) took the chair at 11.00 a.m.

The President offered the Prayers.

SEAFORTH TAFE SITE

Motion by Ms Lee Rhiannon agreed to:

That this House calls on the Minister for Education and Training to immediately and publicly disclose the proposed future use of Seaforth TAFE, including any plans to sell or lease the site.

TABLING OF PAPERS

The Hon. E. M. Obeid tabled the following reports:

Ordered to be printed.

PETITION

Council Pounds Animal Protection

Petition praying that the House introduces legislation to ensure that high standards of care are provided for all animals held in council pounds, received from the Hon. R. S. L. Jones.

SUPERANNUATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (SAME SEX PARTNERS) BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 23 November.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [11.08 p.m.]: I will conclude my remarks this morning, Further to my previous contribution, I have consulted the Parliamentary Counsel as to whether I am able to amend the legislation to conform with what I believe the words mean. I have taken a long-term objection to the type of definitions in legislation which, like a Lewis Carroll story, mean whatever anyone thinks they mean. I have spoken with Parliamentary Counsel to see whether that is possible. Parliamentary Counsel has advised me and has given me some draft amendments that I have taken to the Special Minister of State, who has had them examined. My understanding is that the Government will move those amendments during the Committee stage of the legislation. That will resolve my concerns about this legislation.

It is important to put on the record why I have done that. It is legal for me to have only one spouse at a time. Therefore, that makes a spouse different to a de facto, as I can have a number of de factos. It is also legal for me to have a wife and a number of de factos, or a number of different de factos and different types of partnership arrangements without breaking the law. But it is only possible to have one spouse at a time without otherwise breaking the law. If a married person wants to break that partnership he or she has to get divorced.

A married person is automatically a beneficiary under his or her spouse's superannuation scheme, whereas one can become a de facto at any time but has to wait two-years to qualify as a beneficiary under the scheme. Equally, a married person ceases to be a beneficiary only in the event of divorce, whereas a de facto ceases to be a beneficiary on a particular day by agreement. They are completely different legal arrangements and therefore they should be reflected in the Act without in any way changing the nature of the Act and the equity that is reflected in the amendments that I support.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [11.11 a.m.]: I am pleased to support the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Same Sex Partners) Bill, which seeks to amend various Acts regulating public sector superannuation schemes in New South Wales, including the State Superannuation Scheme, the State Authorities Superannuation Scheme, the Police Superannuation Scheme and the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Scheme. In essence, the bill will enable public sector employees and parliamentarians who are involved in a same-sex relationship to be treated in the same way as heterosexual couples. In addition, the bill will allow a former State Super or Police Super member to revoke a conversion election that transferred superannuation scheme membership and benefits to First State Super. As I understand it, that is because many people who took up the conversion offer in May of this year have claimed they would not have done so if they had known that this legislation was forthcoming.

During the past two decades, important advances have been made in this country in relation to the rights of same-sex couples. They include the decriminalisation of male homosexuality, the introduction of antidiscrimination legislation and the legal recognition of same-sex relationships under the New South Wales De Facto Relationships Act 1984. Nevertheless, many homosexual men and women continue to suffer discrimination in many areas of their public and private lives. A prime example is the refusal of superannuation schemes to pay superannuation benefits in respect of a same-sex partner.

Under the law as it currently stands, a spouse is defined as the opposite sex partner of a member of the abovementioned schemes. This means that a de facto partner of the opposite sex and his or her dependent children have the same superannuation entitlements as a legally married spouse and his or her dependent children. However, homosexual men and women do not have access to these benefits, despite the fact that they are required to make the same superannuation contributions as their heterosexual colleagues. I find that anomaly inherently discriminatory.

I acknowledge that some members have raised moral and religious objections to this bill. In particular, there seems to be a concern that by extending superannuation rights and benefits to same-sex partners, we will somehow be seen as endorsing those relationships. As a Christian, I must admit that I have some sympathy with those arguments. I am also conscious of the need to maintain a distinction between marriage and de facto and same-sex relationships. I understand that the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti will move amendments in that regard, which I will support.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: The Government has approved them.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: The Government has approved them. I will support them anyway because of the distinction being made. At the same time, I appreciate that the law must keep abreast of social change. This bill reflects the social reality that in our community there are people in same-sex relationships, many of whom have superannuation. I should also mention that the legislation has been considered by the Anglican Diocese of Sydney, the Catholic Commission of Employment Relations and the Council of Churches. Those organisations have not expressed opposition to the bill.

As I see it, the bill addresses the issue of social justice and equality. It is a fundamental human right for individuals to have equal rights, including the right to make arrangements with respect to superannuation benefits. As honourable members may be aware, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission recently conducted an inquiry into Australian superannuation legislation. Commissioner Chris Sidoti's report, published in April 1999 and tabled in Federal Parliament, found that the current Australian legislation breaches two international conventions to which Australia is a signatory. They include the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Labour Organisation Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention. Commissioner Sidoti recommended that the legislation be amended to allow surviving same-sex partners the same access to benefits as heterosexuals, and that is fair enough.

It is also worth noting that the bill is really only clarifying the law with respect to same-sex couples and the ability to divide property. As we all know, the New South Wales Property (Relationships) Legislation Amendment Act 1999 redefined "de facto relationships" in a number of Acts, including the New South Wales De Facto Relationships Act 1984. De facto relationships under those Acts now include relationships between two adult people who live together as a couple and who are not married to one another. The sex of each partner is therefore irrelevant, and that is logical. In conclusion, I congratulate the Government on its leadership in introducing this bill. The bill supports the principle of justice and equality for all community members. At the same time, it is an essential step in the process of achieving equal rights for same-sex couples in New South Wales. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. D. T. HARWIN [11.15 a.m.]: My colleague the Hon. J. F. Ryan has outlined the position of the Coalition parties on this legislation. We have resolved to have a free vote on this bill and, at the outset, let me indicate that I will support it. Our first division on legislation in this House during the Fifty-second Parliament was on the property relationships legislation, which I supported. That bill was about recognising that our laws relating to the distribution of assets were discriminatory and needed to be changed. The property relationships legislation was based on the principle that individuals, no matter what lawful relationships they are in, should be able to make arrangements in relation to the disposition of their private property without discrimination. To me that is fundamentally consistent with liberal principles.

This bill does nothing more than extend this same principle to superannuation and could be argued to be a consequential change, making the law relating to superannuation consistent with the law relating to other property. To justify opposing what is essentially a consequential change, honourable members who propose to vote against this bill will have to tell the House why it is appropriate for same-sex couples to be discriminated against in making arrangements concerning their superannuation.

So far, essentially three arguments have been raised. The first is that superannuation arrangements discriminate against single people, and somehow that justifies continuing discrimination against same-sex couples. It is a ridiculous and illogical argument but it has been advanced in the Parliament. It is true that a single person such as me cannot nominate a beneficiary to take up any residual superannuation benefits, at the same level and with the same concessional taxation treatment as a married person or a heterosexual de-facto spouse, upon my death.

This is an area that needs to be explored, but I would be the first to admit the enormous cost of making such a change, which would have very considerable actuarial implications for superannuation funds. By contrast, the reforms suggested are costed and the sums involved are modest, in a relative sense. In any case, no member has explained why that justifies discrimination against same-sex couples. Second, we have heard that this bill involves an unacceptable widening of the definition of "spouse". If that is so, a narrowly focused amendment may deal with members' concerns, and that is no reason to hold up the bill. The third and more substantive reason behind the opposition of some members to this bill is generally unstated, except by a few who are prepared to be honest about it, such as Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, who is at least prepared to acknowledge, as others do, that, for a variety of reasons, his disapproval of homosexuality is so profound that he believes that discrimination against same-sex couples is appropriate, even in relation to a simple matter of property.

Some honourable members sincerely hold religious beliefs that disapprove of homosexual acts, and they say that our laws should reflect their religious beliefs. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile referred to this in debate, and tried to draw some significance from the religious indications in the preamble to the Australian Constitution. I invite him to read section 116 of the Constitution because it reminds us that:

The Hon. J. F. Ryan gave an excellent outline of why many Christians take a contrary view, believing that a distinction is appropriate between the standards appropriate for our laws in a complex and diverse society, and what individuals choose to believe and practise arising out of their religious faith. As parliamentarians we operate under a system of representative democracy, and we must be mindful of those we represent in this place. But we must always be mindful of legislating in the interests of all the residents of New South Wales.

It is the case that in every society throughout recorded history a small percentage of its citizens will have had an involuntary emotional and sexual attraction to the same sex. There is considerable clinical evidence to support the view that such an attraction is involuntary, and not susceptible to change over time. Homosexuality is as involuntary for homosexuals as heterosexuality is for heterosexuals. It is a conclusion that instinctively makes sense when each individual considers his or her sexuality.

It is also the case that homosexuals today still experience a spectrum of societal attitudes ranging from acceptance on the one hand to hate on the other. Social and illegal discrimination based on an involuntary sexual orientation is, in my view, every bit as insidious as discrimination based on race. It also has the effect of legitimising the actions of those who, based on prejudice, ignorance or whatever other reason, seek to make our society a less-accepting, sometimes hostile and violent place for homosexuals.

Honourable members need to remember the cost to individuals in human terms of pandering to intolerance. Wedge politics is a political prescription that I fundamentally reject. The reality is that same-sex relationships are lawful, and on matters such as superannuation and property there is no good reason why they should not be treated in the same way as heterosexual de facto relationships. I commend the Government for introducing this legislation and I support it.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN [11.22 a.m.]: In recent years we have seen increasing academic interest in the topic of same-sex relationships in Australia. A number of court cases involving same-sex partners claiming property rights or access to custody have received wide publicity in the media. At times it has also become the subject of considerable debate in this Parliament. In the international context, notably in North America and parts of Europe, we have witnessed developments in conventional law and case law based on equality changes to legislation that had excluded same-sex couples.

As a newly emerging social group, gays and lesbians have worked systematically towards the right to have their relationships officially recognised by the law. In her recent article "Which, then, would be the 'husband' and which the 'wife': some introductory thoughts on contesting 'the family's court'", Jenni Millbank, lecturer in law at the University of Sydney, observed a shift in rights focus in the gay and lesbian initiatives from decriminalisation to civil protection and civil recognition. The fundamental issue is the claim for equality.

Realising that the current legal system confers legal status on heterosexual relationships from which various rights and responsibilities flow, gays and lesbians use the concept of family to justify their claim for equality. They say that the same-sex relationship is a new form of family with either two husbands or two wives, and that this new relationship reflects the changing social reality and adds to the diversity of the traditional nuclear family.

The gay and lesbian view is that the current legal system does nothing for them, but draws legislative distinction that regards them as second-class citizens, demeans them, and treats them as being less than useful for no good reason, or otherwise offends fundamental human dignity. They believe that the current legal system has to be radically reformed to give equal legal status to their same-sex relationships. Although both the Federal Marriage Act and the State-based de facto legislation, with the exception of the ACT Domestic Relationships Act 1994, still apply to heterosexual relationships only, there is a tendency to give same-sex relationships equal standing in a number of laws at State level.

New South Wales, for example, currently has about 20 State laws that treat same-sex couples as de facto couples. This includes the Property (Relationships) Act 1984, which this House debated and amended last year. The devil was in the detail of that Act because it redefined the term "de facto spouse" to include same-sex couples in those parts of the Act that dealt with adjusting property interests when a relationship breaks down. During debate on the same legislation last year the Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby further identified more than 50 New South Wales Acts that affected people in same-sex relationships, and proposed that all of them be amended.

We now need to examine a number of factors in determining whether we should undergo radical legislative reforms to our laws to accommodate changes that have occurred in our society. For example, the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Same Sex Partners) Bill deals with whether same-sex partners should be given access to superannuation and other benefits. We need to consider whether it is any more unjust if the new partner is of the same sex or the opposite sex. We need to consider how the legislation will consistently preserve and promote the special status of a marriage relationship.

I accept that it may be perceived as consistent and just for same-sex partners to be entitled to superannuation benefits in the manner proposed, given that since the passing of the Property (Relationships) Legislation Amendment Act 1999 homosexual de facto relationships are now recognised for a wide range of purposes. However, I find it unacceptable that proponents of the bill intend to achieve their objective by surreptitiously seeking an amendment to the definition of "spouse". I strongly oppose this backdoor attempt to diminish the value of a marriage between a man and a woman, which I regard as the most special, indeed the ultimate, form of human social relationship.

I acknowledge the contribution of my colleague the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti in drafting amendments to this effect. I understand that his amendments are now supported by both the Government and crossbench members. Despite the fact that the right to access the superannuation of same-sex partners is a flow-on from the Property (Relations) Legislation Amendment Act, I strongly believe that formal marriage should continue to be the benchmark against which other forms of relationships are to be measured.

Thus, family members should consistently be protected by the law. I believe that the original intent of superannuation legislation was to protect family members from hardship in the event of the untimely death of the breadwinner. This should continue to be the guiding principle in framing any amendments to superannuation legislation today. Protection of family members from financial hardship is not only the original intention of the first superannuation legislation in this State, but it should remain the goal of our legislation today. I refer honourable members to the first State Superannuation Act, which was introduced in 1913. The then Minister for Public Instruction, Mr Carmichael, the honourable member for Leichhardt, argued:

The Government then appointed an expert committee to investigate the feasibility of consolidating all the existing superannuation funds, extending the fund to all government employees who were not covered by any fund, and making an allowance to the family of the pensioner, as well as to the pensioner himself. In the report submitted by the committee, the legislative intention was once again confirmed along the following lines:

It is obvious that the original intention of the Parliament was to recognise the valuable contribution of wives, or spouses, to the family and to make sure that they and their children had some financial security in the event of the unexpected loss of the breadwinner. While there have been radical changes across a wide range of our social institutions, including the traditional family, I contend that the traditional family unit is the glue that holds our society together. So the challenge facing us is how we can best protect the interests of the family in the changing context of our modern society. I know that my colleagues in the other place have considered the impact of the bill from different perspectives. The member for Gosford, Chris Hartcher, noted the likely impact of the bill on the Anti-Discrimination Act and the effect this might have on the current exemption of religious institutions. He noted that:

The member for Hornsby, Mr Stephen O'Doherty, explored the tension between the justice and equity issue and the moral principle involved. I do not wish to elaborate any further on those aspects of the bill. However, I will affirm my belief that the traditional nuclear family of father, mother and their children living together remains the most effective safeguard for social order within our liberal democracy. In this respect, I refer to a quote from Bridget Berger's excellent speech given at the 1995 John Bonython lecture. She argued that today, as in the past, an uncontestable argument can be made that the family, and not the individual of the economist's paradigm, is the most basic building block on which all other social forms rest.

However, when we examine the family structure today we are compelled to notice that there are a number of newly discovered rights challenging the traditional institutional family form, such as gay and lesbian relationships. The question we need to consider is whether marriage should continue to be the benchmark against which other forms of relationships are measured and whether institutional marriage today is still desirable or viable. I acknowledge that there is obvious tension between institutional marriage and newly emerging rights, such as gay and lesbian rights. This is a reflection of the classical tension between individualism and social responsibility, between individual liberation and strong communal ties. As legislators, as members of this House, as elected representatives of the people, as individuals, it is our responsibility to try to seek a balance between those conflicting tensions, to achieve an outcome that is in the best interests of the majority of people within our society.

Whilst I am an advocate for the institution of marriage, this does not prevent me from seeking to understand the concerns of the gay and lesbian communities and their demands for justice and fairness. However, the principle of justice and fairness must, at all times, relate to the majority of people in our society. In this particular case, justice and fairness for lesbians and gays may well result in cases of injustice and unfairness for wives and children from previous marriages. The member for Camden, Dr Liz Kernohan, highlighted the most obvious inequity when she advised the members in the other place that single people are excluded from the provisions of this bill.

I believe we should always seek to add value to the institution of marriage and should remain vigilant for any legislative changes that could inadvertently undermine it. I regard the traditional family as the basic building block of our society, and for this reason we must ensure that the institution of marriage is accorded the highest respect. The protection, the love, the emotional nurturing and the personal security a child receives in a happy family is the best guarantee we can provide for their future success. I appreciate that some may regard this as an old-fashioned view. However, a large body of research supports this particular view. I am aware that one of the other minor concerns for gay and lesbian couples is the right for them to raise children. I am opposed to that proposition because it is not a normal environment for a heterosexual child. Children have enough pressures to contend with without having to try to work that one out.

So, with those factors in mind, the questions we must now ask are: How far should we go in recognising the rights of gays and lesbians to have access to superannuation? Do we have the right to undermine and dilute the institution of marriage, which stands as the cradle of modern civilisation? I appreciate that some may argue that superannuation is a form of property right and that as we voted for the Property (Relationships) Legislation Amendment Bill last year we should proceed with an affirmative vote on this bill. I contend, however, that superannuation is different from many other property rights in that superannuation contributions made by employers and employees enjoy favourable tax treatment. The quid pro quo for this favourable treatment is that access to the benefits of superannuation is tightly controlled by legislation, as is revealed in the Australian Institute of Family Studies working paper No. 18 titled "Superannuation and Divorce in Australia" by John Dewar, Grania Sheehan and Jody Hughes.

Superannuation is a significant part of family wealth. However, entitlements to the wealth represented by superannuation funds is unevenly distributed between the sexes. This is because entitlements under most superannuation schemes are linked to earnings from employment, and women tend to have interrupted employment due to the birth and rearing of children. This puts women in a very disadvantaged position. By extending access to same-sex partners, those women who have actually contributed during the marriage by supporting their husbands in their full-time work are deprived of their proper share of assets, and that is unfair. We therefore need to carefully consider the impact of the extension of superannuation rights to same-sex couples on the rights of wives and children in a traditional marriage situation, as well as the effect on single people. We also need to look at the impact on children. How will their wellbeing be protected in a same-sex relationship, and so forth?

In discussing complicated issues such as this, we will have to look not only at the legal issues but also at other social and economic consequences that the legal changes may bring about. In addition, we need to consider the general principles of the bill and the information on which the bill is based. I therefore take this opportunity to address my final concern that in introducing an important piece of legislation such as this the Government did not give the community sufficient chance for consultation. Indeed, the bill is introduced on the assumption that it might be welcomed, as the Property (Relationships) Legislation Amendment Bill last year was well received by the community. I note the words of the member for Marrickville, Dr Refshauge, in speaking to the bill last week:

I contend that subjective assertions such as those by Government Ministers should not form the basis of any justification for such important social legislation. The only way to bring the community with us, as legislators, is to consult widely with them. We need to consult with major and minor stakeholders if we are to achieve balanced outcomes that are fair and equitable for all concerned. In this particular case it is obvious that the public has not been consulted, and for that reason I oppose the Government's bill.

The Hon. ELAINE NILE [11.38 a.m.]: I will be brief in putting on the record my thoughts on this bill. The Christian Democratic Party opposes the bill. We do not see it as a human rights issue. Some honourable members say that this bill has nothing to do with homosexuality. However, at the same time it has been lobbied for aggressively by the homosexual movement and is regarded by that movement as a great victory for their cause. The use of the word "spouse" in this bill to describe homosexual same-sex couples helps to achieve their final objective, which is legal homosexual marriage. They have achieved this objective in Holland just recently. That is why we have opposed in principle moves such as this which will lead to legal homosexual marriage.

For Christians, including those in this Chamber, God has clearly revealed his will that the only marriage that can be recognised is that between a man and a woman. So we oppose the bill but support the Government's amendments which will remove any concept of homosexual or same-sex spouses. We also wish to support the traditional family, that is, a man and a woman together in marriage, which comes from the heart of God. We oppose the bill, and we will do so by voting against it when a division is called for on the second reading.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [11.39 a.m.]: I shall speak briefly to the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Same Sex Partners) Bill. I do so mostly as the Chair of the Standing Committee on Social Issues which, as honourable members would be aware, at the end of last year issued a report entitled "Domestic Relationships: Issues for Reform—Inquiry into De Facto Relationships Legislation". I am pleased that this legislation has been introduced because the rights of same-sex couples to access superannuation has been a major issue for a considerable period. Our committee dealt at some length with this issue in chapter 10 of the report entitled "The Administration and Regulation of Superannuation Schemes". We received advice from the Crown Solicitor and others.

I am pleased that the bill, as with other legislation introduced last year and this year, has continued the progress in this State towards reform in granting to people in longstanding same-sex de facto relationships the rights they have been denied for many years. Obviously, superannuation is a continuation of the rights to property which were enshrined in the Property (Relationships) Act that the former Attorney General Jeff Shaw introduced and carried through. I am delighted, and I am sure other members of the social issues committee are delighted also, that this legislation is making that major extension of rights in relation to public sector superannuation schemes in New South Wales.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.41 a.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members who contributed to this debate. Many of the issues raised are similar to those raised in the debate about the Property (Relationships) Legislation Amendment Bill in 1999 and reflect the concerns some honourable members have about the extent to which this bill will create precedents. This bill affects only superannuation entitlements to the extent that they are already payable to the widow, widower or opposite sex de facto partner of a deceased superannuation scheme member. The bill is limited to removing discrimination where a scheme member dies and leaves a same-sex de facto partner with whom he or she had a close and caring relationship.

Under the superannuation legislation that would be amended by this bill, a widow, widower or opposite sex de facto is entitled to a superannuation benefit on the death of the superannuation scheme member. In the State Superannuation Scheme and the Police Superannuation Scheme, benefits are also payable to children. In more modern superannuation schemes, such as First State Super and many private sector superannuation schemes, a person accrues a lump sum benefit which, on death, is usually paid to his or her personal representatives. The full accrued benefit can then pass to the same-sex partner.

In New South Wales, if a person who dies is survived by a same-sex partner, the same-sex partner would now be treated as an eligible person under the Family Provision Act, and has property rights under the Property (Relationships) Act, 1984. Yet in the older public sector superannuation schemes, the superannuation benefit that could have been payable, had the scheme member been survived by a widower, widow or de facto partner, cannot be paid if the member is survived by a same-sex partner. The benefit that might otherwise have been payable to a spouse or opposite sex de facto often remains in the fund and cannot be paid to anyone else.

It is the unfair discrimination in this narrow area of superannuation entitlements that the bill is proposing to address, and is a small but logical flow-on from the Property (Relationships) Amendment Act 1999. The bill has no impact on the adoption of children or any other circumstances than the treatment of certain superannuation benefits on the death of members of certain superannuation schemes. In this bill, we are talking only about the payment of benefits in the event of the death of a contributor or pensioner. The bill is not intended to have any impact, and has no impact, on the institution of marriage or on adoption rights.

I have already indicated that I will bring the parliamentary superannuation scheme legislation into line with the provisions of this bill early in the new year. I again thank honourable members for their contributions to this debate. Before concluding my remarks, I should add that following discussions between Government members, Opposition members and crossbench members, the Government has decided to amend the bill to tidy it up in the area of spouse definition. The bill was originally drafted with the objective of removing discrimination by varying the definition of "spouse" to include "de facto" as defined in the Property (Relationships) Legislation Amendment Act 1999. This has led to some confusion and concern about the definition of "spouse". I refer honourable members to their dictionaries for a clear-cut definition. A new definition is now submitted by the Government. This provides that the term "spouse" includes widow and widower and does not include a person who was in a de facto relationship; there is a separate definition of "de facto partner" as provided in the Property (Relationships) Act 1985. I believe that addresses some concerns honourable members have expressed. I commend the bill to the House.

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

The House divided.

Ayes, 27

Mr Breen
Ms Burnswoods
Dr Chesterfield-Evans
Mr Cohen
Mr Corbett
Mr Dyer
Mr Egan
Ms Fazio
Mrs Forsythe
Mr Gallacher

Mr Harwin
Mr R. S. L. Jones
Mr Kelly
Mr Macdonald
Mr Obeid
Mr Pearce
Dr Pezzutti
Ms Rhiannon
Mr Ryan
Mr Samios

Mrs Sham-Ho
Mr Tingle
Mr Tsang
Mr West
Dr Wong

Tellers,
Mr Jobling
Mr Primrose

Noes, 8

Mr Colless
Mr M. I. Jones
Mr Lynn

Mr Moppett
Mrs Nile
Revd Nile

Tellers,
Mr Gay
Mr Oldfield

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

STATUTE LAW (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL (No 2)

Second Reading

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [11.57 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No 2) continues the well-established statute law revision program that is recognised by all members as a cost-effective and efficient method for dealing with amendments of the kind included in the bill. The form of the bill is similar to that of previous bills in the statute law revision program. Schedule 1 contains policy changes of a minor and non-controversial nature that the Minister responsible for the legislation to be amended considers to be too inconsequential to warrant the introduction of a separate amending bill. I will mention some of them to give honourable members an indication of the kind of amendments that are included in the schedule.

The bill amends the National Rail Corporation (Agreement) Act 1991, which gives effect to an agreement between the State of New South Wales, the Commonwealth and certain other States relating to National Rail Corporation Limited. At present, the Act provides that the corporation must not carry on intrastate rail services in the State of New South Wales unless the Minister has given written approval for the company to do so. Such approval was given in 1998. The bill removes the statutory restriction on intrastate services. The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 is amended so as extend the existing offences relating to littering from motor vehicles to include the dropping of litter from a trailer attached to a motor vehicle.

The bill makes a number of amendments to the Registered Clubs Act 1976, including amendments to provide for the Licensing Court to make an order that an applicant for a gaming-related licence pay to the Liquor Administration Board any costs associated with investigating whether or not to issue a certificate that a person is qualified and competent to test gaming machines and that premises are suitable for the testing of poker machines.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: And a good thing too.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: And a good thing too, as the Hon. J. F. Ryan so wisely points out. Amendments are also made to the Liquor Act 1982 to make it clear that a person cannot use or operate approved gaming devices on premises to which a hotelier's licence relates except during the trading hours specified in the Act. And that is a good thing too.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: Absolutely—essential legislation.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Absolutely. It is essential legislation. At present the Act provides for liquor to be sold or supplied to lodgers, inmates or employees of a licensee outside those hours and for liquor to be consumed by such people outside those hours. I seek leave to have the remainder of the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The proposed amendment makes it clear that the relaxation of restrictions on trading hours to allow those people to buy or consume liquor does not extend so as to allow them to operate approved gaming devices at times when those devices would not be available for use by the general public. Amendments made to the Rural Lands Protection Act 1998 clarify that existing arrangements for registering brand designs and earmarks to identify stock will continue after the commencement of that Act, until a new scheme for identifying stock (established under the regulations) is in place. The amendments will also continue current arrangements to raise levies from feedlots and intensive piggeries, irrespective of land area.

Schedule 2 deals with matters of pure law revision, consisting of minor technical changes to legislation that the Parliamentary Counsel considers are appropriate for inclusion in the bill. Examples of amendments in schedule 2 are those arising out of the enactment of other legislation and those updating references to the names of bodies. Schedule 3 repeals a number of amending Acts where the relevant principal Act has been reprinted or is available electronically. The Acts that were amended by the acts or provisions being repealed are up-to-date on the legislation database maintained by the Parliamentary Counsel's office and are available electronically. Schedule 4 contains provisions dealing with the effect of amendments on amending provisions, savings clauses for the repealed acts and a power to make regulations for savings and transitional matters, if necessary.

The various amendments are explained in detail in explanatory notes set out after the amendments to each of the acts concerned. Rather than repeat the information contained in those notes, I invite honourable members to examine the various amendments and accompanying explanatory material and, if any concern or need for clarification arises, to approach me regarding the matter. If necessary, I will arrange for government officers to provide additional information on the matters raised. If any particular matter of concern cannot be resolved and is likely to delay the passage of the bill, the Government is prepared to consider withdrawing the matter from the bill. I commend the bill to the House.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
_______________

WYONG SHIRE COAL EXPLORATION

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: My question is to the Minister for Mineral Resources. The Minister informed the House on 23 November that he intended to seek further information concerning issues relating to the Wyong shire coal project following the Opposition raising with him concerns over the likelihood of proposed mining operations increasing the potential for flooding once the anticipated subsidence from such mining operations has occurred in areas west of the F3. As he indicated that he was alarmed by these concerns, is he now in a position to inform the House of the results of his inquiries on this matter?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I still am alarmed if these concerns are in the community but I am not in a position to give the honourable member an answer yet. In due course he will get one.

AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY ELECTORAL TACTICS

The Hon. D. J. GAY: I ask the Treasurer: As he represents the Premier in this House, will he give an undertaking to find out from the Premier whether he has received any letters from members of the Australian Labor Party detailing their concerns and giving examples of Queensland-style electoral fraud in New South Wales? Will he give an undertaking to get this information from the Premier and report back to the House next Tuesday?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I will refer the honourable member's question to my colleague the Premier.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Treasurer give an undertaking to get that information and report back to the House next Tuesday?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I refer to my earlier answer.

BULAHDELAH OLD-GROWTH FOREST PROTECTION

The Hon. I. COHEN: I direct my question to the Treasurer, representing the Premier. Although my question concerns a forest issue, I know that the Premier has a specific interest in the subject. The Government's 1998 forestry decision made $18 million available to State Forests to buy private land to log. Conditions for logging were meant to be the same as those applied to public land. Farrell's block at Stroud Mountain in the Bulahdelah area has approximately 600 hectares of old-growth forest and yet State Forests is insisting that only one-tenth of the old-growth of the block should be protected. Had the Farrell property additions been part of the public land estate in 1998, all the identified old-growth on the block would have been protected as high conservation value. Is it the Government's intention to have its own agency lead the way in the removal of high conservation value vegetation from private land that now belongs to State Forests? Is public money to be used to purchase old-growth forest for logging when community opinion, as sampled by a recent Newspoll survey commissioned by the North Coast Environment Council showing that 80 per cent of the community across all demographics, is that all old-growth forest across all tenures should not only be protected from logging but should also be recognised for its heritage value?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I will be happy to refer the question to the Premier for a considered response to the House as soon as I am able to obtain it.

EDEN DEVELOPMENT FUND

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: Will the Treasurer advise the House how the State Government is helping in the economic restructuring of the South Coast town of Eden?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: As members of the House are aware, the South Coast town of Eden stood to be economically devastated by the closure of the town's main employer, the Heinz Wattie's tuna cannery. When the cannery closed last July 145 jobs were lost. On 7 July—two days before the cannery closed its doors for the last time—the State Government announced that it would jointly establish a $500,000 Eden Development Fund with Heinz Wattie's. The fund was created to attract new business investment as well as to expand existing local businesses. I am pleased to advise the house that the fund has been a success. In fact, since we established the joint $500,000 Eden Development Fund we have offered assistance to 14 companies or projects in the Eden area. These projects or offers of assistance will lead to investment of some $15 million, and they are projected to create more than 180 full-time equivalent jobs over the next three years. That is well over the target set when the fund was established.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Small amounts of money go a long way in the country.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I admit that, but I assure the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti that we are not committing just small amounts of money to the country; we are committing very large amounts of money to the country. Indeed, in the budget that was delivered in May and passed by the Parliament in, I think, June over 30 per cent of the State's road maintenance and capital works funding went to country areas, where 27 per cent of the State's population resides. An offer of assistance has been made to the Broadwater Group, a boatbuilder and marine engineering firm. This could lead to the creation of 70 jobs and the retention of 14 jobs. Another firm we are assisting is Goldbat, a fish processing company. The Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries will be very interested in this. Goldbat is investing some $1 million into expanding its operation, with the creation of 10 jobs. The Government is working hard to create new jobs in country New South Wales and we are enjoying some success by working in partnership with industry and local government.

PRISON NEEDLE EXCHANGE PROGRAMS

The Hon. P. J. BREEN: I ask the Special Minister of State, representing the Minister for Corrective Services: Is the Minister aware that after correctional officers at Silverwater gaol witnessed the sharing of a needle by an HIV-positive prisoner 143 prisoners have come forward with serious health concerns arising from the event? With inmates in the system testing positive to Third World African rates of blood-borne communicable diseases, will the Minister explain to the community why the Commissioner for Corrective Services has dismissed out of hand the idea of a needle exchange program operating in gaols? Is the Minister aware that needle exchange programs have operated successfully and without incident in several prisons in Europe, including Germany, Switzerland, Denmark and Sweden? Will the Government move to ensure that the health risks to prisoners, their families and the wider community are addressed through the introduction of a trial needle exchange program in New South Wales gaols?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The Hon. P. J. Breen has asked a good question. I will refer it to the Minister for Corrective Services for a considered reply.

LAND TAX ASSESSMENTS

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: My question is addressed to the Treasurer. In view of the year-on-year volatility of land tax and the resultant concerns for taxpayers, will the Treasurer legislate to limit annual increases in individual land tax assessments? What Treasury investigation, if any, has been made into proposals to reduce the impact of year-on-year volatility of land tax? What Treasury investigation, if any, has been made into land tax incentives for the provision of low-cost rental accommodation, and what were the findings? Finally, will the Treasurer lower the land tax rate to 1.55 per cent, as it was in 1995 when the Carr Government was elected? If so, when?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: In the early 1990s the Coalition Government received about $900 million in revenue from land tax, and that is what the Government receives today. That is approximately the annual revenue that consolidated revenue receives from land tax. It is about the same amount in nominal terms as the Coalition received in the early 1990s. In real terms the proportion of total revenue that the Government has received from land tax has declined over that period. The Government has a strong record of reducing taxation.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: More importantly, you have increased taxes by more than 50 per cent, so land tax has gone up.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: No. Budget Paper No. 2 shows that in three successive budgets we have reduced tax rates in New South Wales.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: Rates, not take. The take has gone up.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Of course the take has increased.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: You are raking it in faster than even you can spend it.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I have the budget papers tagged, so I will give a comprehensive answer to this question. As I pointed out, in the past three budgets we have reduced tax rates. The Hon. J. F. Ryan said that tax revenues have gone up. Of course tax revenues have gone up, because we have an expanding economy. These days we have a State gross domestic product [GDP] in the vicinity of $230 billion. When the Carr Government was elected in 1994-95 I think we had a GDP of about $150 billion. There has been a huge increase in economic activity, and there has been a huge addition to the number of jobs in New South Wales. Some 350,000 new jobs have been created in the space of just a few years. These are very impressive achievements.

As the economy expands, so too does the revenue that the Government receives. Indeed, the proportion of the State's GDP that represents the Government's revenue is about 11 per cent. As a proportion of GDP, the tax take in New South Wales is lower than it was when the Coalition was in government. The Coalition was a high-deficit, high-taxing government. Let me explain the tax revenue of the Coalition Government. I refer honourable members to page 1-29 of Budget Paper No. 2. The Internet address is www.treasury.nsw.gov.au. There is an interesting table on that page which shows the policy-induced tax changes that have been introduced every year since 1989-90. In 1989-90 the policy-induced tax changes introduced by the Greiner Government added another $200 million.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: Because we were in a recession, you are not.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I will tell you why the Coalition Government had to do that: In 1989-90 the Coalition Government increased recurrent spending by 15 per cent. The Coalition was a profligate, big-spending government. It saw recurrent spending go through the roof—15 per cent in one year—and it was unable to cope with that. The Coalition Government also factored into its budget the conveyancing revenue it was receiving in the property boom and it assumed that that would continue forever and a day. It had revenue projections up near the sky and spending was going through the sky. But stamp duty revenue declined in 1989-90, and that started the string of huge deficits that nearly sent this State bankrupt.

I remember sitting in my office on level 10 one day and receiving a phone call from the then head of Treasury, Mr Percy Allan—now Professor Percy Allan. Percy said to me, "We are in trouble, Mr Leader of opposition business in the upper House, Mr shadow Minister for Finance. The Government is in trouble. Moody's is threatening to take away our triple-A credit rating." I said, "Percy, what can I do to help?" He said, "Mr shadow Minister for Finance, I would like you and the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Carr, to meet with Moody's and plead our case." So people from Moody's came out here and met with the Government; then the Government brought them to the Office of the Leader of the Opposition—

The Hon. D. J. Gay: We will send a copy of today's Hansard to Percy Allan and see if it is right.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Yes. The Leader of the Opposition and I sat there and pleaded with Moody's to let the Greiner Government keep its triple-A credit rating. And we succeeded!

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: Point of order: If my question had a disease, there is no chance that the Treasurer's answer would catch it—it has nothing to do with what I asked. My question was specifically about land tax. So far we have heard about a budget that was released years ago and what the Greiner Government did. I asked the Treasurer what he will do in the future. There is a limited amount of time for questions. The Treasurer cannot redeliver his budget speech every time he is asked any detail about Treasury. You should ask him to confine himself in some measure to answering the question.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: To the point of order: I am finding my answer very interesting and pertinent to the question, and I think I should be allowed to continue.

The PRESIDENT: Order! It is traditional in this House for Ministers to answer questions in the way they see fit.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: In 1989-90, policy-induced tax changes introduced by the Greiner Government saw an increase of $200 million. The year 1990-91 was probably the year that the Coalition Government doubled the financial institutions duty [FID]. Next year, this Government is abolishing FID. From 1 July next year there will be no more FID; it goes by the by.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: What about land tax?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I will come to that.

[Interruption]

So now the Coalition has a policy—a coalition government will abolish the land tax. At the last election members opposite said a coalition government would extend the land tax to properties with half an acre, whatever the value, in all parts of the State. That was their policy. Indeed, they introduced legislation in the lower House to do precisely that. So people across the State, whether they lived in the country or in outer suburban areas on land that was bigger than half an acre—two building blocks—would be charged land tax. That was the Coalition's reform of land tax. Its proposed reform of land tax was to remove the land tax from premium elite properties around the harbour with a land value of more than $1.4 million alone and put it on all half-acre land holdings of people who live in rural and regional areas, regardless of the value.

The Hon. H. S. Tsang: Shame!

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: It is absolutely shameful. In 1991-92 another $80 million of tax was collected as a result of increasing the tax rates. In 1992-93 it went up by $240 million because of the Coalition's policy-induced tax changes. In 1993-94 it went up by $100 million. In 1994-95, coming up to an election year, the Coalition Government reduced it by a measly $14 million. In 1998-99 we reduced tax rates by $95 million; in 1999-2000 we reduced tax rates by $395 million; in 2000-01 we reduced tax rates by $220 million; and in 2001-02 we will reduce tax rates by $250 million—it is already factored into the budget. Another $165 million in tax reductions have been planned for the following year, 2002-03. It all adds up to about $1 billion.

During the last three years we have reduced tax rates by almost $1 billion a year. We are the party that is reducing tax rates. What is more, we are the party that is achieving, for the first time in the history of this State, sustained surpluses. Let me turn to the budget results. We find that in 1989-90 the Liberal-National Party Government gave us a budget deficit, a cash deficit, of $515 million. The next year it was a cash deficit of $ 1,223 million. The next year—this is when things were getting perilous; this is when we had to get down on our knees to Moody's and say, "Please forgive these profligate people"—it was a budget deficit of $ 1,624 million.

I am pleased to say that we had a surplus budget in 1996-97, we had a surplus budget in 1998-99, and we had a surplus budget in 1999-2000 of more than $800 million. We have achieved sustained surpluses for the first time in the history of this State. For the first time in the history of this State, this Government has reduced the level of the State's net financial liabilities rather than added to them. We have reduced the liabilities, and at the same time we have fully funded the Olympics and invested almost $8 billion. Do members have any conception of how much that is? In just five years, we have invested $8,000 million to fund the unfunded superannuation liabilities, which under the former Coalition Government reached $15 billion. An albatross of $15,000 million was put around the neck of the taxpayers of this State, and we have put $8 billion into the funding of that. That is our record of financial responsibility. There will be tax reductions in the coming budget; I have already announced that. It will be the fourth successive budget in a row—that is a little redundant, I know, but it is worth making the point for emphasis—with tax deductions. And they will continue to come.

CENTRAL WEST EMPLOYMENT AND INVESTMENT

The Hon. A. B. KELLY: My question is directed to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. What is the Government doing to help create jobs and attract new investments to the Central West?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The State Government has recently secured five new job-created investments for the Central West. They represent a $100 million investment and will create some 267 new jobs. A $25 million investment by Woodchem is creating 23 new jobs in the town of Oberon. Woodchem is a world leader in the manufacture of resin for the timber industry and operates similar plants in Europe, Turkey and Canada. I understand that the resin plant is the first of its kind in New South Wales. The State Government has also provided support to another firm locating to Oberon. Jeld-Wen, an American firm with sales of $US2 billion annually, is one of the largest door skin manufacturers in the world. The company is investing $40 million to upgrade a former CSR plant, which will increase production by 300 per cent over the next three years. Most of the company's production will be exported. I must say that our export figures are looking very, very good. Jeld-Wen will create 26 new jobs over the next three years and has secured 78 full-time jobs.

Three other projects are bringing jobs to the Central West. Petchef, a pet food company which began in Forbes in 1994, is building a new $4.5 million factory that will allow it to almost double its production to meet growing export demand. That project will secure the existing 42 jobs and will create 20 new jobs. Another project is—I will have to be careful with my pronunciation—called Pace Farmers. It is spelt P-A-C-E, but I am sure that the company does not pronounce the word in the usual fashion. Pace is a 100 per cent Australian-owned family company. It is the largest egg and egg products producer in Australia.

The Hon. M. I. Jones: "Pace" is pronounced in the usual way. I know him.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Someone told me that it was pronounced differently, but I will take your word for it. Is he a good fellow?

The Hon. M. I. Jones: He's a good bloke.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Well, he obviously has a good company, because it is 100 per cent Australian-owned and it is the largest egg and egg products producer in Australia. Pace—how do you pronounce it again?

The Hon. D. J. Gay: As you would normally say "Pace". The owner of the company doesn't want the caffélatte set to change the pronunciation of his company's name—to take over his name and change it.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Okay, so it is just "Pace". Pace Farms is establishing a $25 million egg production and feed milling facility at West Wyalong, creating 36 new jobs. New jobs are being created everywhere—20 here, 100 there, 36 here. Cowra is also benefiting from State Government support for industry. I was in Cowra recently, and I have to say that it is a fabulous town. Unfortunately, it was about 30 years between trips for me. I was there when I was a young bloke, and it is a very, very impressive town. Windsor Farm Foods is investing $10.5 million on the purchase and upgrade of Cowra Export Packers, creating 42 new jobs. Regional New South Wales is a great place to do business.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: You haven't been to Crookwell yet!

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: No, but I am going. But I won't come at Easter.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: It will have to be close to Easter.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I don't mind if it is close to Easter, but I have other things to do at Easter. I inform the House that the Government will continue to work hard to encourage Sydney investors to look at the benefits of relocating to country New South Wales.

PRISON NEEDLE EXCHANGE PROGRAMS

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: My question is directed to the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Health. Given that the mode of transmission of AIDS is the same as for hepatitis C and that the report of the Standing Committee on Social Issues entitled "Hepatitis C: The Neglected Epidemic" has been totally neglected for two years, does the Minister concede that the neglect of that report has brought about the current AIDS situation in prisons? I ask the Minister whether the Government will move on this, in particular recommendation 122, which states:

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I will refer the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans' question to my colleague and obtain a response.

ETHNIC COMMUNITIES COUNCIL FUNDING

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS: My question is addressed to the Treasurer, representing the Premier. Is the Treasurer aware that full resumption of funding by the Ethnic Affairs Commission for the Ethnic Communities Council of New South Wales has not yet occurred? Is the Treasurer also aware that there is a proposal from the Government for an extension of interim funding to 28 February next year, providing funding only for an administrative officer and a receptionist? When will the Government be able to give an assurance of the resumption of full funding for the peak ethnic representative body, the Ethnic Communities Council of New South Wales?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: As to the first part of the Hon. J. M. Samios' question, the answer is no, I am not aware. As to the second part of the question, the answer is no, I am not aware. As to the third part of the question, the answer is no, I am not aware. As to the fourth part of the question, I do not know but I will find out.

EAST TIMOR ASSISTANCE

The Hon. P. T. PRIMROSE: My question is to the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries. What further steps has the New South Wales Government taken to help the people of East Timor?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I thank my colleague the Hon. P. T. Primrose for his interest in the people of East Timor. As honourable members would be aware, the people of New South Wales are interested in helping the people of East Timor. I am pleased to say that the Carr Government is continuing to build on its commitment to the United Nations to provide practical assistance to the East Timorese. One of the most practical ways we can help families in East Timor is to help them to feed themselves.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: We sent Pezzutti.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: The House sent Pezzutti—and we all congratulate him. What better way could there be than to help villagers catch fish to feed their families?

The Hon. D. J. Gay: We should send Egan as well.

The Hon. C. J. S. Lynn: You would have the first East Timorese boat people arriving in Australia if you sent him.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: It is amazing! The people of New South Wales are keen to assist the East Timorese to feed themselves, a gesture of goodwill, and the Opposition is not even interested in what the Fisheries agency is attempting to do in helping the East Timorese. The Opposition should listen and try to be a bit more compassionate. Last March the New South Wales Government sent a container load of fishing gear, including two small runabouts, to East Timor, where it was distributed to villagers. The consignment included donations from the New South Wales community, and equipment seized by the courts after the detection of illegal fishing activity. I am advised that a second container of fishing equipment from New South Wales is scheduled to leave for East Timor. It consists of more than 580 pieces of fishing equipment. Crab, lobster, yabby and fish traps make up almost half of the shipment. There are also 106 nets, 196 rods, reels and lines, tackle boxes, hooks, sinkers and other odds and ends. Included in the shipment is 5,000 metres of nets seized during illegal fishing operations and forfeited to the Crown. The amount of this type of mesh net is worth nearly $14,000.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Why don't you go to East Timor and help them with their pecuniary interest register?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked whether the East Timorese could help me with my pecuniary interests.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: No. You could help them.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: Let us talk about the efforts of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition as shadow Minister for Mineral Resources. Mind you, this is one of the most important portfolios that really achieves results for regional New South Wales. I asked him a question: "When was the last time you asked me a question on your portfolio responsibilities?" Let me advise the House—

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Point of order: The honourable Minister is now misleading the House. He did not ask me a question about when I had last asked him a question; he informed the House that I had not asked any questions. I was able to show him that he had misled the House in that case, because I had asked three questions. The situation is that one asks questions in this area only if one perceives that there are problems. I did not ask questions because I did not perceive there were problems. If the Minister would like me to waste the time of the House asking questions when I do not perceive that there are problems he should tell me so.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: To the point of order: I challenged the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to provide to this House details about the last occasion on which he asked a question related to his shadow portfolio responsibilities. In fairness to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, he did provide me with those details.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I have warned members previously against seeking to debate points while taking points of order. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may well have made a debating point but there is no point of order.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: For the benefit of those members of this House who are really interested in what is happening in regional New South Wales—those on the Government benches and on the crossbenches—of the 100 questions asked of me since this House resumed in April, 45 related to my portfolio activities. Let us look at the record of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The honourable member asked a total of two questions that were relevant to the mining industry. The last question was on 7 June. Well, it was only half a question. The First Secretary of Wales was in the Chamber and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition wanted to show how knowledgeable he was. He asked a question about Cardiff Arms Park and whether the name would be reinstated. As a sideline, he reminded me that there was a colliery where the electricity cut out, and what could I as Minister for Mineral Resources could do about it. Quite obviously, the Government is always concerned about the safety and welfare of miners, and the occupational hazards of mining.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Point of order: The Hon. P. T. Primrose asked a question about what the Government is doing to assist the people of East Timor. I am fascinated to know the answer, but what the Minister is saying has nothing to do with that.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: To the point of order: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition interjected while I was trying to provide the House with some very important information on the compassion demonstrated by the people of this State who are collecting fishing equipment from their garages to be sent to the people of East Timor. This smart bully has no policies and no input into his portfolio. He should not even be there.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind honourable members that interjections are disorderly at all times. I ask the Minister not to be sidetracked by interjections and to complete his answer.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I confirm for the benefit of the House that, of the 170 questions asked of me this year, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked two questions relating to my portfolio. He is the shadow Minister and he maintains that he is very keen and interested in what is happening in regional New South Wales. Mining is the biggest job provider to regional New South Wales.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Do they have a mining policy?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: They do not have a policy. We are spending $30 million on exploration in the State, looking for opportunities; looking for resources. We are spending an extra $14 million on mine safety. We have reviewed the mining general rule, for the benefit of workers. I have had not one question, but the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is very interested in my pecuniary interests. He asked seven questions about my pecuniary interests. Where did that get him? It got him nowhere!

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Point of order: Once again the Minister is misleading the House. He indicated that I had asked not one question. I have asked 30 questions in the House this session, only three of the Minister because he does not matter.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is saying that the mineral resources portfolio does not matter. It is the biggest export earner. It earns $6.5 billion a year. It employs many, many thousands of people in the regions.

The PRESIDENT: Is the Minister speaking further to the point of order?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: No.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that points of order are not to be used to debate points.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: He was misleading the House.

The PRESIDENT: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has made his point. The Minister will complete his answer.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: In conclusion, we hope that in the new year the Opposition will come up with policies that really test us on issues relevant to the people of New South Wales. I would like to be asked questions related to my portfolio responsibilities and to issues that are important to the people of New South Wales, not this grubby style of tactics that he is using—coming in here, making noises and asking irrelevant questions about pecuniary interests. Some members opposite have repeated in this House the false allegations reported in the newspapers.

I was informing the House about the people of New South Wales and their commitment to helping the people of East Timor. Included in the shipment that will soon be sent to East Timor is 5,000 metres of nets seized during illegal fishing operations and forfeited to the Crown. Normally this equipment would be destroyed. The courts could require any equipment used in illegal activities to be destroyed. We said that we would rather send it to the people of East Timor so that they could help to feed themselves.

What a tremendous innovation from the Carr Labor Government. As I said, this amount of mesh net of this type is worth nearly $14,000. The nets were used during the Olympics to net aquatic plants, and successfully ensured that Olympic rowers did not have problems with troublesome water weeds. We all heard about the problems that the rowers would have with the weeds. The nets that were seized by the courts were used initially to provide the safe flow of rowing in the Nepean.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: The weeds had all gone when I went there.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: Yes, they were not a problem, thank goodness. I hope that in the long term this aid will go a small way towards developing a commercial fishing industry in East Timor. I am advised that the ship, the Chekiang, is due to sail on 8 December. It will transport our container up the east coast of Australia, via Brisbane and Darwin, to Java.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: How else would it get there?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: What a laugh! You are a real scallywag. You are joking! For the benefit of the Hon. J. F. Ryan, it is important to advise this House that the ship will arrive in East Timor in due course. There were some problems with some products that were sent from Australia having curiously "walked". The cargo will be transferred to another vessel to be delivered in Dili early in the new year. I thank AusAID for covering the cost of the shipment, which is almost $5,000. I also thank Barry Duncan of Swansea for generously donating fishing rods, reels and gear to East Timor. His donation, in common with the donations of all those who have given generously to this East Timor appeal, will help to put food on the table for the people of East Timor. New South Wales is determined to help to make a real difference for the East Timorese. These two shipments are a practical way of making a real difference to villagers' lives. I assure the House that this Government will continue to play its part by providing whatever assistance it can.

PRIVATE SECTOR INFRASTRUCTURE CONTRACTS

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT: My question is addressed to the Treasurer. In order to prevent the taxpayers of New South Wales being liable for losses incurred by the private sector, will he give an assurance that any possible liability will be publicly announced before a contract is signed by the Government with private sector companies?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am not sure that I understand.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: It is about rail and future contracts.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I see. The honourable member is referring to privately funded infrastructure contracts.

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT: Will the Treasurer let the public know what their liability might be if losses are incurred as a result of contracts?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I feel that a lot more information needs to be provided about these contracts. The Government is in the process of looking at what sort of information properly should be made available to the public. I hope that, not too far down the track, I can provide a more detailed answer on the subject.

The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans: You can support my bill.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: It would be the most confused mumbo jumbo if it comes from the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans.

The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans: You can read it.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I will read it, but I will be surprised if anybody can make head or tail of it.

MERCEDES AUSTRALIAN FASHION WEEK

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: I direct my question without notice to the Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. I refer to my interjection during his answer yesterday on fashion week that "Peter Collins initiated that", which the Treasurer subsequently denied when he said, "No, he did not. Sorry, it was me." Is the Treasurer aware that in 1994, as Minister for the Arts, Peter Collins announced Australian Fashion Innovators, which was renamed Australian Fashion Week, an event conducted over four days to showcase the fashion industry internationally? Will he correct the record to show that the concept of fashion week was an initiative of the Coalition Government—in fact, it was a joint initiative with the Keating Government?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Australian Fashion Week is not Australian Fashion Innovators, or whatever it is called. The first Australian Fashion Week was held in Sydney in 1996. That was the first one. The honourable member's question is similar to saying that the first rugby league match was in 1852 because somebody threw a football rather than kicked it. That is ridiculous. The first game of rugby league was not played until sometime in the twentieth century. One could go through all sorts of convolutions to prove that rugby league was first played in about 400 AD, but that is simply not true. Instead of the honourable member wasting her time on such trivia, she would be much better off developing an Opposition policy, because she is one of the few intelligent people that the Opposition has. She should lead the way. She should prepare and present a policy. That might then provide an example to the rest of her colleagues to do likewise.

These days the Opposition reminds me of an old school friend I had, Michael O'Neill. I remember him when he was 10. It was in 1958 and I was 10 too. Michael O'Neill knew that my parents had just purchased a television set and one day at school he said to me, "Were you watching TV last night?" I said, "No, Michael, I wasn't. I was listening to Dr Evatt's policy speech." He said to me, "What is a policy?", so I explained to him what a policy is. It seems to me that that is the problem with Opposition members. They do not even know the meaning of the word.

I suggest that, instead of asking quite trivial questions such as the one asked by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe, members of the Opposition should consult the dictionary for the meaning of "policy", like Michael O'Neill did—at least I think he did, although he may have been happy with my explanation. I think he actually did look at the dictionary. Members opposite should look at the dictionary too and find out what a policy is. They should then go about formulating some policy, writing some policy documents and then present them to the people of New South Wales.

The criticism made of Peter Collins was that he did not come up with any policies. It is almost two years since the most recent State election and we are still waiting on a Coalition policy. We have a leaked policy on purchasing poker machine permits. According to the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Hornsby, Mr O'Doherty, the Opposition will increase taxes to replace the revenue from poker machines. In other words, it will not just replace the revenue that comes to the New South Wales Government but also the revenue that comes to the licensed clubs. The Opposition will have to raise taxes by approximately $1.9 billion a year, that is, $1,900 million a year. That is the amount by which taxes would have to be increased. That amount is twice the total of land tax revenue that the New South Wales Government receives every year.

In order for the Opposition to implement its policy on the buyback of poker machine permits, land tax would have to be trebled. Not only would the rate have to be trebled but also the threshold would probably have to be reduced. So the value of people's property would have to be very low not to be taxed. Alternatively, payroll tax would have to be increased by approximately 50 per cent. The Coalition would like to do that because, when it was in government, it increased payroll tax from 6 per cent to 7 per cent, whereas the New South Wales Labor Government has been reducing it. The New South Wales Labor Government has implemented three reductions: payroll tax went from 7 per cent to 6.7 per cent; from 1 December it will be 6.2 per cent, and it will finally be reduced to 6 per cent. That is not the only area in which this Government has reduced taxes. As I mentioned earlier, this Government has reduced taxes three years in a row and more reductions are coming up.

We want to hear more policies from the Coalition. We do not just want the poker machine policy, although we await public presentation of that policy. So far we have had to rely on an Opposition leak to obtain it. I might say to all the Opposition leakers that we realise that they are limited in what they are able to leak because there are so few Coalition policy documents. But the New South Wales Labor Government is willing to analyse any leaked policy that the Opposition wants to give us. We will help them out. We will analyse anything they may want to give us.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: What about Lynch yesterday? What about that one?

The PRESIDENT: I call the Hon. R. D. Dyer.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Has the honourable member for Liverpool become an Opposition policy adviser?

The Hon. D. J. Gay: It is a leaked document.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I will extend the offer. If Opposition members want any help drafting policy, not only will the honourable member for Liverpool be available to help, but all members of the Labor Government will be available to help them.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister will resume his seat.

The Hon. D. T. Harwin: Point of order: Madam President, my point of order is that you gave the call to the Hon. R. D. Dyer and he should be allowed to ask his question.

The PRESIDENT: Order! It is sometimes difficult to know when a member has finished speaking and is about to resume his or her seat. I had in fact called the Hon. R. D. Dyer.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Madam President, I think it is a very good point of order, and I think you should uphold it.

The PRESIDENT: I have.

OAKDALE COLLIERY SITE REHABILIATION

The Hon. R. D. DYER: My question without notice is to the Minister for Mineral Resources. What action has been taken by the Government to ensure proper rehabilitation of the Oakdale Colliery?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I am sure that honourable members will recall the sudden closure of the Oakdale colliery at Camden in May 1999. The Government was quick to act to support the miners and help their families, who were left without support by the mine company. The company did not fulfil its responsibility to clean up the Oakdale site. Without proper rehabilitation it would have posed a potential threat to the environment and the community. The Government has also been determined to safeguard the environment. Its first action was to ensure that the mine was fenced and made safe. A local security firm was hired to monitor the site. The Government organised for the clean-up and removal of oil and grease left on the site, which could have been washed into local waterways. The Government has called for expressions of interest for the rehabilitation of Oakdale. I look forward to updating the House when a successful tenderer has been selected to carry out further rehabilitation of the site. The Government has called in the security that was lodged by the former owners of the mine to fund this work.

Today I am pleased to announce that this security will be supplemented with a further $50,000 from the Government's Derelict Mines Rehabilitation program. The Government is committed to ensuring that our mines are fully rehabilitated. The Government has progressively increased funding of the Derelict Mines Rehabilitation program from $120,000 per annum in 1994 to a record $1.6 million allocation in this year's budget. Oakdale is just one beneficiary of the Carr Government's increased funding for rehabilitation of our mines.

GUY FAWKES RIVER NATIONAL PARK ANIMAL SLAUGHTER

The Hon. M. I. JONES: In the absence of the Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment and the Special Minister of State, I address my question to the Treasurer, representing the Minister for the Environment. Why is the RSPCA having to prosecute the National Parks and Wildlife Service for the slaughter of horses at Guy Fawkes River National Park? Why is the Government not enforcing legislation?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I will refer the honourable member's question to the Minister for the Environment and obtain his response, which I shall pass on to the House as soon as I am able to do so.

OYSTER INDUSTRY WATERWAYS SURVEYS

The Hon. D. T. HARWIN: I address my question to the Minister for Fisheries. Has the Minister's attention being drawn to the report of the Regulation Review Committee on the Fisheries Management (Aquaculture) Regulation 1995 and the Fisheries Management (Aquaculture) Amendment (Administration) Regulation 1999 tabled yesterday, which recommends that adequate staff are employed by the State Government to complete sanitary surveys of the State's waterways, which are vital for our oyster industry? Is the Government withdrawing funding this month for the senior officer who has already made progress in conducting surveys in the Hawkesbury, Clarence and Brunswick rivers, but with 23 estuaries along the coast still incomplete? Will the Minister expedite consideration of this recommendation in consultation with the Minister responsible for Safe Food Australia to ensure that our State's oyster industry is able to look to export markets but, more importantly, to ensure that we can always consume oysters with confidence?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: Yes, I have received a copy of the report on the Fisheries Management (Aquaculture) Regulation 1995 and the Fisheries Management (Aquaculture) Amendment (Administration) Regulation 1999. The Regulation Review Committee prepared a report which addresses a range of issues relating to the aquaculture industry. I am advised that the report examines both aquaculture regulations and makes a number of recommendations. I will carefully consider the recommendations of the committee. I received the report yesterday from the honourable Peter Nagle.

The Hon. M. J. Gallacher: He is not honourable.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: He is honourable to me. The Leader of the Opposition is only honourable by law, he should remember that. Sanitary surveys of estuaries are one of the requirements for compliance with the Australian Shellfish Sanitation Control program. The New South Wales Shellfish Quality Assurance program has conducted a preliminary sanitary survey in all shellfish harvest areas and is working towards meeting the control program requirements. As a first step, a pilot classification program that will meet the requirements is currently being undertaken for oyster harvest areas at Coori Island at Port Stephens. The New South Wales Shellfish Quality Assurance program now resides under the administration of Safe Food Production New South Wales, which is within the Agriculture portfolio.

Safe Food Production New South Wales is working with the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service to obtain a recognition of equivalence for the highest standard Shellfish Quality Assurance program in New South Wales. An operational review of the Shellfish Quality Assurance program by an international expert to ensure that the program meets world's best practice is currently under way. Matters relating to the progression of sanitary surveys should be directed to Safe Food Production New South Wales or the Minister for Agriculture.

The Hon. D. T. HARWIN: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister obtain an answer from the Minister responsible for Safe Food Production in New South Wales to the part of my question that referred to whether the Government withdrew funding this month that will stop progress being made on sanitary surveys of the 23 estuaries along the coast that are still incomplete?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: Yes, I will obtain that information for the honourable member.

PERMO-DRIVE TECHNOLOGIES LTD

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: My question without notice is to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. Will the Treasurer please give me and the House an update on the progress of Australian Technology Showcase member Permo-Drive Technologies Ltd?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am sure that both the question and the answer will be of interest to the Hon. Janelle Saffin and the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti. Honourable members would be aware of the Australian Technology Showcase [ATS] member, Permo-Drive Technologies Ltd, which is based in south Lismore. A former Deputy Prime Minister, Doug Anthony, is now chairman of that company.

Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: I am not surprised.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Yes, that was a good choice. The company has developed a unique truck engine that converts the momentum of a braking truck into energy for acceleration. Today I am pleased to inform the House that the company will now embark on a new phase of its development. Last week, Permo-Drive released a share prospectus aimed at raising $5 million to allow the company to globally commercialise its technology. The money raised will be used to produce and test 31 prototypes that meet international marketing standards. Of those, six will be used for further in-house testing, and the remaining 25 will be tested on a range of heavy vehicles throughout Australia.

As a member of the ATS, Permo-Drive has been able to access assistance from a number of sources. For example, the Commonwealth Government provided $931,000 for research and development. Permo-Drive has been able to promote its technology at Australian Technology Showcase exhibitions and via the ATS video, which has helped it attract seed funding. The ATS program funded the production of a CD-ROM multimedia presentation which Permo-Drive used to communicate with industry and investors. Permo-Drive is a fantastic example of the talent and initiative that exist in regional New South Wales.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: They got a million bucks from the Commonwealth.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The Commonwealth Government allocated $931,000 for research and development, which is a lot of money.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: A good investment.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: It was a good investment, yes. To date, with the exception of government assistance, all investment in Permo-Drive has come from the Northern Rivers region, principally from local companies and small investors. Following the release of its prospectus, the challenge for the company now is to convince city-based investors to invest in a regionally based venture, which is traditionally outside its investment criteria. Over the past three years the ATS has achieved tremendous results. Companies in the ATS have generated an additional $180 million in domestic sales, exports and new investment. The program has had great success in promoting innovative Australian companies while at the same time creating new jobs. I wish Permo-Drive all the best in its endeavours to raise the funds that will enable it to continue to grow in both Australia and internationally.

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: Hear! Hear!

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I thank the Hon. J. R. Johnson, who comes from that part of the world. He comes from Murwillumbah, which is not far from Lismore. That region is well represented in this Chamber by people such as the Hon. J. R. Johnson, the Hon. Janelle Saffin—

The Hon. M. J. Gallacher: And Brigadier Pezzutti.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: And Brigadier Pezzutti. Today has been a most interesting question time. My colleagues the Minister for Juvenile Justice and the Special Minister of State should stay away more often because the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries and I have had a marvellous day. We need more days like that.

The Hon. E. M. Obeid: It was great. We offered the Opposition some assistance.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: That is the sort of Government we are. Members of the Government are here to help. A strong Opposition, with good policies, is good for the State and it is good for good government in the State. So we are willing and able to help. All we need is a request and we will help the Opposition. We will give it whatever assistance it wants.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: Extra staff?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I will sit down with members of the Opposition, go through their policy proposals, if they have any, and I will advise them.

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

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: There were only five questions from the Opposition today.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: It was one of the worst question times ever.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I enjoyed it immensely.

Questions without notice concluded.

[The President left the chair at 1.03 p.m. The House resumed at 2.00 p.m.]

REGULATION REVIEW COMMITTEE

Reports

The Hon. Janelle Saffin, on behalf of the Chairman, tabled the following reports of the committee:

Ordered to be printed.

SUPERANNUATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (SAME SEX PARTNERS) BILL

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

Schedule 1

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [2.02 p.m.], by leave: I move my amendments Nos 1 and 2 in globo:

de facto partner

Property (Relationships) Act 1984

[2] Section 3 (1)

spouse

[3] The whole Act (except section 3 and Schedule 1)

Insert "or de facto partner" after "spouse" wherever occurring.

[4] The whole Act (except section 3 and Schedule 1)

Insert "or de facto partners" after "spouses" wherever occurring.

[5] The whole Act (except section 3 and Schedule 1)

Insert "or de facto partners" after "spouses" wherever occurring.

These amendments reflect the changes in the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Scheme, which I alluded to in my contribution to the second reading debate. They change the definition of "spouse" to mean a widow or widower and include separately the definition of "de facto" to have the same meaning as defined in the Property (Relationships) Act.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [2.03 p.m.]: The amendments proposed by Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti are accepted by the Government on the basis that the same amendments will be made to all public sector schemes, including the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Scheme. However, it will be necessary for the amendments to be referred to the Parliamentary Remuneration Tribunal for a certificate that the amendments are warranted before being considered by the Legislative Assembly. As honourable members are aware, the Parliamentary Remuneration Act 1989 was amended to ensure that all amendments to the parliamentary scheme are made only after consideration by the Parliamentary Remuneration Tribunal.

The tribunal provided a certificate under section 14A (1) of the Parliamentary Remuneration Act that the original amendment introduced into the Legislative Assembly was warranted. To ensure that the proposed amendments are consistent with the requirements of section 14A (1) of the Act, the Government intends to seek the tribunal's further certification that the amendments are warranted. This is the only superannuation scheme that will need that certification due to the specific requirements of the Parliamentary Remuneration Act. The Government supports the amendments.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [2.04 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports these amendments. We thank the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti for moving the amendments and the Government for supporting them. They make it clear that "spouse" only applies to people of the opposite sex who are in a married relationship.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [2.05 p.m.]: My position during the second reading speech was that this bill does not cause any conflict with religious freedom. The amendments moved by the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti further highlight the position that I and other members have taken, that is, they spell out the difference between "spouse" and "de facto". I support these commendable amendments.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [2.06 p.m.]: I speak against the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti's amendments. While I understand that legally the effect will be the same in respect of this bill, and they have the support of some members of the gay and lesbian rights movement, I do not believe that attention has been paid to the potential effect they will have on other legislation before the Parliament. In the past Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile proposed that the distinction between "spouse" and "de facto" be spelled out in the Property (Relationships) Act and in amendments to the Anti-Discrimination Act to cover carers' responsibilities.

The Parliament has already debated this proposed distinction and ruled that the use of "spouse" legally covers married and de facto partners in opposite and same-sex relationships. I believe that this definition has also been used consistently in fair trading legislation and in all definitions of "spouse" in legislation originating out of the Attorney General's Office. I am surprised that the Government has accepted these amendments. Although they may look benign, they have implications that the Government has obviously not understood. To avoid new definitions and for consistency, I do not support the proposed amendments.

Amendments agreed to.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [2.07 p.m.], by leave: I move Government amendments Nos 2 to 26 in globo:

de facto partner

Property (Relationships) Act 1984

[2] Section 2(1)

spouse

[2] The whole Act (except section 2 and Schedule 1)

[3] The whole Act (except section 2 and Schedule 1)

4 Spouse or de facto partner entitlements

de facto partner

spouse

Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Same Sex Partners) Act 2000

spouse

de facto partner

Property (Relationships) Act 1984

[2] Section 1(2)

spouse

[2] The whole Act (except section 1 and Schedule 6)

[3] The whole Act (except section 1 and Schedule 6)

[4] The whole Act (except section 1 and Schedule 6)

13 Spouse or de facto partner entitlements

de facto partner

spouse

Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Same Sex Partners) Act 2000

spouse

de facto partner

Property (Relationships) Act 1984

[2] Section 3(1)

spouse

[2] The whole Act (except section 3 and Schedule 5)

[3] The whole Act (except section 3 and Schedule 5)

4 Spouse or de facto partner entitlements

de facto partner

spouse

Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Same Sex Partners) Act 2000

spouse

de facto partner

Property (Relationships) Act 1984

[2] Section 3 (1)

spouse

[2] The whole Act (except section 3 and Schedule 6)

[3] The whole Act (except section 3 and Schedule 6)

8 Spouse or de facto partner entitlements

de facto partner

spouse

Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Same Sex Partners) Act 2000

spouse

De facto relationship

De facto spouse

Spouse

[2] Section 3 (1)

De facto partner

Property (Relationships) Act 1984

De facto relationship

Property (Relationships) Act 1984

Spouse

[4] The whole Act (except the definition of

Spouse

in section 3 (1) and Schedule 25)

[5] The whole Act (except the definition of

Spouse

in section 3 (1) and Schedule 25)

[6] The whole Act (except the definition of

Spouse

in section 3 (1) and Schedule 25)

[7] The whole Act (except the definition of

Spouse

in section 3 (1) and Schedule 25)

[8] The whole Act (except section 3 (1) and Schedule 25)

28 Spouse or de facto partner entitlements

De facto partner

De facto relationship

Spouse

Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Same Sex Partners) Act 2000

Spouse

De facto spouse

De facto relationship

Spouse

These amendments, in effect, carry through the amendments moved by the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti to the whole range of superannuation schemes.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [2.08 p.m.]: These amendments are precisely the same as my amendments Nos 3 to 28. Therefore, I support the Government amendments.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [2.09 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports these amendments.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [2.09 p.m.]: The Greens paid a great deal of attention to the proposed amendment of the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti concerning the institution of marriage. I understood his concerns were that the definition of the word "spouse" is degrading those who have been properly married in a church. He argued that the meaning of marriage is being watered down by including same-sex couples as spouses. What option do same-sex couples have when they are not allowed to marry under current laws and are not given an opportunity to obtain the same status as heterosexual couples? They have a real problem. We need to carefully consider the terminology. A spouse should properly have a definition that is sexuality neutral.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: It can't be.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: It most definitely can. It is a matter of how the terminology is used. The definition of the word "spouse" put forward by the Government is a positive precedent that is welcomed by the Greens. We want the definition extended into other Acts dealing with relationships that are discriminatory. The Greens will oppose that aspect of the present amendments. We congratulate the Government on bringing forward this most important bill and will be pleased to support it in its original form.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

Title agreed to.

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

TRANSPORT ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT (RAIL MANAGEMENT) BILL

Second Reading

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [2.12 p.m.]: I move:

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

Leave granted.

In 1996 the Carr Government introduced major reforms to the New South Wales rail sector following agreement at the Commonwealth level about making rail more competitive and efficient. Subsequent amendments to the Transport Administration Act 1988 split the former State Rail Authority into four organisations: the FreightRail Corporation, the Rail Access Corporation, the Railway Services Authority and a new State Rail Authority. The Government introduced open access to the New South Wales rail network which was to be supported by a formal rail access regime. These changes, which are leading-edge Australian rail reforms, were supported by both sides of the House. In 1998, the Government progressed these reforms by corporatising the Railway Services Authority and creating the new State-owned corporation Rail Services Australia. Again, this reform was supported on both sides of the House. In 1999, New South Wales became the first jurisdiction to have its open access system formally recognised as complying with national competition policy principles via certification by the Commonwealth Minister for Financial Services. At the time of corporatisation of Rail Services Australia, this House noted the positive results of the Government’s rail reforms. This trend has continued.

The first step the Government took in relation to addressing safety and reliability of the rail network and rail services was the appointment of Mr Ron Christie as Co-ordinator General of Rail in early June 2000. The terms of reference of his appointment included to manage and coordinate the exercise of the functions of the Rail Access Corporation [RAC], the State Rail Authority [SRA] and Rail Services Australia [RSA] for the network, and to review the effectiveness of existing arrangements, including contractual arrangements between the RAC, the SRA and the RSA in achieving reliable service standards for CityRail services. The Co-ordinator General of Rail was also asked by the Government to provide advice on the future structure of the rail industry. Mr Christie has provided this advice, which was also the basis of his recent evidence to the Special Commission of Inquiry into the Glenbrook Rail Accident.

His principal views, stated as part of the Glenbrook Inquiry, included that there was a lack of shared objectives and service standards in the rail industry—that is to say, each rail authority had different objectives which did not necessarily require them to act in the best interests of the network as a whole; the SRA had not performed as well as it could have; there was a lack of communication between the three rail entities, including on critical safety issues— this was also highlighted in the First Report of the Special Commission of Inquiry into the Glenbrook Rail Accident; there was a general lack of accountability of the rail entities to the Government for the overall performance of rail; the RAC was an uninformed client in that it did not have the requisite information and knowledge of the asset and maintenance management needs of the New South Wales rail infrastructure; despite having nearly all the engineering and intellectual property skills available to properly monitor and maintain rail infrastructure, RSA regarded itself as a contractor; and the overriding commercial focus of the RAC and RSA did not sufficiently address the requirements of the SRA to deliver safe and reliable passenger services.

The Bill

Merger of RAC/RSA

Formalisation of the Office of the Co-ordinator General of Rail

To address the second issue, the improvement of co-ordination and communication among the rail organisations, the bill provides for legislative formalisation of the Office of the Co-ordinator General. It also provides for the creation of a Rail Regulator. It is intended that the Co-ordinator General will continue for a transitional period of approximately 12 months. In this time, the Co-ordinator General will manage and co-ordinate the structural changes introduced by this bill. At the end of the transitional period, the Co-ordinator General's position will end and the Rail Regulator will commence operations. Co-ordination and communication is an essential task that must be performed within an industry that is as complex as rail in New South Wales. To perform this task, it is necessary for the Co-ordinator General to have certain powers, for example, to collect information, and to investigate certain matters. The bill provides for these.

Accountability—RIC as a State owned Corporation

Reinforcing this, the Rail Infrastructure Corporation will be subject to guidance and direction from the Co-ordinator General. The Co-ordinator General will have a strong and active interest in the transport performance of this organisation. Rail Infrastructure Corporation will also have to comply with performance standards set by the Minister and enforced by the Rail Regulator. Further, the Corporation will not be permitted to undertake work outside of New South Wales without the express permission of the portfolio Minister, the Premier and the Treasurer. This will place beyond doubt the fact that its core mission is to maintain and improve rail infrastructure in New South Wales. However, all contracts for work outside of New South Wales will continue to be honoured. The bill also strengthens the accountability framework for the State Rail Authority. State Rail will now come under the direction and control of the portfolio Minister. Like the Rail Infrastructure Corporation, it will be subject to the direction of the Co-ordinator General of Rail. State Rail will also have to comply with performance standards set by the portfolio Minister and enforced by the Rail Regulator.

Establishment of the Rail Regulator

As indicated earlier, the Government proposes in this bill the establishment of a Rail Regulator. This is a major change for the industry in New South Wales. Once again, New South Wales is taking the national lead in this area. The special commission recommended that the regulator should take over some of the functions of the Co-ordinator General after the transition to the new structure. The transition is expected to be in place by the end of 2001. The key functions of the Rail Regulator will be the development of performance standards for recommendation to the portfolio Minister and the subsequent enforcement of approved performance standards. The role of the Rail Regulator will enhance, rather than supplant, the current role of the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal. The Rail Regulator will not have a role in relation to pricing issues. The Rail Regulator's task will be to develop performance standards for passenger and freight services and rail infrastructure. Matters such as on time running and reliability will be addressed in the performance standards. These performance standards will be considered, and endorsed if appropriate, by the portfolio Minister and published for the community’s benefit.

Conclusion

As I observed in the debate on corporatisation of Rail Services Australia, the decision is about getting the balance right so that the rail industry can most effectively serve the New South Wales community. The special commission and the Co-ordinator General have argued that there needs to be a rebalancing of the industry. The Government accepts this argument. These changes do not involve a step back from fundamental precepts of the 1996 rail reforms—of open access or the attraction of safe and efficient public and private operations on the New South Wales network—precepts that have led to strong growth in rail in recent years. The Government and the community want a safe railway and an efficient railway. This bill will ensure its development. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING [2.13 p.m.]: The Opposition will not oppose the Transport Administration Amendment (Rail Management) Bill. The bill results partly from a motion moved in this House by the Opposition that sought to refer certain matters to General Purpose Standing Committee No. 4. The motion read:

Debate on the motion was adjourned when the Minister agreed that Justice McInerney should look into these matters when he finished the Glenbrook inquiry. The Opposition thanks the Minister for doing so. That has now been done and the Opposition believes that Justice McInerney was a most excellent choice to conduct the inquiry. The bill does a number of things. It seeks to implement the recommendations from the second interim report of Justice McInerney's special commission of inquiry into the Glenbrook rail accident. This bill provides for the merger of the Rail Access Corporation [RAC] and Rail Services Australia [RSA] to form the Rail Infrastructure Corporation [RIC]. This bill also deals with matters of safety and establishes the office of Rail Regulator. Many of the provisions of this bill are needed and probably should have already been implemented.

In 1996 the Government broke up the former State Rail Authority into four agencies. That move was not opposed by the Opposition. The break-up had some unexpected, and perhaps undesirable, results. The objective now is to bring the agencies back together and make them more efficient. The merger of RAC and RSA into the RIC will result in the formation of a statutory State-owned corporation. As one would expect the RIC will combine the functions, staff, assets, rights and liabilities of the two existing statutory State-owned corporations. As a regular user of country and city rail services I am probably one of a few members who are concerned that the administration of rail services is working well, that trains run on time and that security and safety matters are being attended to. I draw attention to the explanatory notes in the bill. In relation to the merger, subparagraph (a) states:

(a) will be required, as its principal objective, to ensure that the NSW rail network enables safe and reliable railway passenger and freight services …

That should have gone without saying. One would hope that rail services are reliable and safe. However, many of the passengers in the past two or three years might well have questioned that and wondered how it may ever come to pass. Subparagraph (a) continues:

I would have thought it incumbent upon any corporation, executive, management team and group of employees to ensure that any service is provided in that way. The bill has a number of problems. For example, in relation to the position the Rail Regulator the bill states:

I would have thought that was obligatory—

(a) rail passenger service reliability (including train cancellations and skipping of stops at train stations) …

Heaven help us! If you are running a reliable service, you would expect the trains to stop at the stations at which they are supposed to stop, and that they would be on time. You turn up, you get on a train and you know when it is supposed to leave. You have a pretty fair idea, according to the timetable, of when it ought to get to its destination. I mean no disrespect, but even in India in the 1960s the long-haul trains in India ran on time. People got on at Calcutta and they got off at Delhi. The train left when the timetable said it would leave and it arrived when the timetable said it would arrive. In fairness, though, it probably took three days for a journey in India that would probably take one day or so here.

The Hon. I. Cohen: We don't have passengers on the roof in Australia. Fair go!

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING: The honourable member refers to passengers on the roof. I confess that I have travelled on many trains that carried passengers on the roof. The only time they have to be careful is when they are looking in the wrong direction or when the train passes under a railway bridge or goes through a tunnel. It is hell on the passenger. However, by our standards passengers on the roof would be regarded as overcrowding. I would not be particularly pleased to see that. In India the trains stop for Brahman bulls, which are sacred. This may be of no concern to the honourable member, as he is not a member of the Hindu faith, but Indians look after their Brahmins. The next item is rail passenger comfort. Imagine that! How incredible! Rail passenger comfort includes the cleanliness of trains and overcrowding. It would not be unreasonable to expect a train to be clean. The McInerney inquiry was extremely scathing of our system in this regard. It exposed a decaying rail system, a system in which it appears that different groups do not speak to one another, do not have a commonality of understanding of service and safety.

The Minister has a great deal to answer for. Even though a huge number of people no longer work for State Rail, it is still not right. It is an important system. We need a rail system that works effectively. A huge number of people rely on it each day to get to work. They rely on it for transport because they do not own a motor car or because they no longer drive. I have received correspondence from pensioner and superanuant groups, as well as a number of other groups, pointing out that safe, secure, reliable public rail service is a basic requirement. A number of problems need to be dealt with. This morning the blow-out in the cost of security cameras was again raised when questions were asked of the Minister in the estimates committee. The Minister and his advisers pooh-poohed such suggestions. They said that the cost would be right, the time would be right, and that they would be in place before the Olympics. If anybody doubts what I say they can look at Hansard.

The truth is that security cameras are not in place, they are not right, and they are not operational. It will be a number of months before they are ready to go. The cost has escalated outrageously. Freedom of information [FOI] legislation has enabled us to obtain this information. Neither I nor my colleagues should have to resort to the FOI provisions to ascertain how many trains miss stations and why. I should not have to use the FOI provisions to find out what is declared a late-running train and how it is declared late running. Who declares it? The Minister and his advisers do not want to tell us. They refused, would you believe? It was almost ludicrous. Eventually we found out that the number of late-running trains was as low as 65 per cent per cent of all trains. That is the lowest figure I recall; the average was a little better than that. Nevertheless, they did not want to tell us. One of the excuses for their refusing to answer our questions was that, although it is a public service and the people have a right to know why the trains are late, why they do not stop, and why they do not arrive in many cases, the truth might embarrass the Minister; the job of the advisers was to advise the Minister and not answer any questions, even though the public had the right to know the answer—as was conceded in a letter I obtained under the FOI legislation.

I note that the rolling-stock is still a problem. We were going to have Olympic tangaras; we were going to have extra carriages; we were going to reduce the failure rate of rolling stock; we were going to reduce repair costs. Unfortunately, none of that has happened. We may now have millennium tangaras from 2001 or 2002 or so. It will not be before time because the maintenance of the old grey double-decker carriages on the railway lines must be costing a fortune. We were incredibly lucky during the Olympics that only one train fell off the tracks. State Rail got by simply by changing or cancelling services—and increasing the frequency gaps. Without doubt we need to do something about the rail system. We do not want a repeat of Glenbrook. I do not know of anybody who wants a repeat of that terribly tragic incident. We do not want more injuries or fatalities in the system.

We do not want late trains or dirty carriages. We do not want signal failures or collapsing wires. We do not want trains running red lights, which has become a common event. What we want is improvement. We want the rail transport system to run efficiently and on time. The only major difference I can perceive between the first, second and interim McInerney reports and the legislation proposed by the Government is the new merged body—a State-owned corporation rather than an authority. The change to the State Owned Corporations Act leaves me with some questions. I wonder whether safety is an objective for the new agency, and whether altering the ministerial power will provide the accountability the Government claims will be achieved.

I note that we need a lot more work in this regard; we have not yet got it right. However, we should support the bill because it is important to have a safe, reliable, regular service that is available to the commuter whether it is part of the CityRail network or part of country rail. In many cases country people rely wholly and solely on rail services for the only form of public transport to get from country towns and villages into cities and major rural centres. The service is not good enough. The "lose it or use it" argument is valid. In many cases I have openly said: Use it or expect to lose it. But the public will not use a service that is unreliable. I hope that the bill will achieve its objectives.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [2.28 p.m.]: The bill recognises the failure of the 1996 rail industry restructure. Therefore, the Greens believe the bill is worth supporting. However, in reality the bill is only a makeover. It proposes a few minor reforms but leaves the rail industry divided, and its structure confused and irrational. The bill leaves in place division of ownership and management responsibility at the point where the wheels meet the tracks. Rolling-stock and stations will remain separated from infrastructure, including tracks and associated control hardware. The Greens believe that this structure cripples the industry, leaving it incapable of realising its potential benefits to the community and environment. We are committed to changing this untenable situation.

Behind the 1996 restructuring lies a discredited and outdated neoclassical economic model that sees market forces as a panacea to, all problems and the reduction of public sector activity as the sole valid policy objective. Just like the private providers of bus transport, like privately owned and developed motorways and like private education and training, there is no reason to believe that private rail infrastructure and private rail operators can deliver for the community or for the environment. Inevitably, the primary objectives of the private corporation is maximising profit, reducing costs and increasing market share. Hand in hand with that is cutting corners to cut costs and compromising safety.

It is the myth of neoclassical economics that this selfish intent can be converted to the greater good by a competitive market. But this is only myth, based on simplistic models that fail to capture either the non-monetary impacts or the complexities of human society. In reality, it is a myth based on blind faith and the momentum of mass opinion amongst the neoclassical economists. The airport rail link is an example of this. It does not demonstrate a failure of public transport, because the hardware has never been given a chance to succeed. The outrageous price of tickets resulting from the private ownership of the stations has driven away potential users, forcing them back onto buses or, most disastrously, back into their cars.

The airport rail link does, however, firmly establish the inability of the private sector to develop infrastructure to match the social and environmental needs of the community that must escape came from the road network, and all that that means. It is an example of the blindness of corporate capital to the best interests of society. Short-term, profit-driven decision making cannot be expected to plan for the best long-term interests of society as a whole. It cannot be expected to account for the externalities, for the outcomes that do not translate to the simple profit-seeking models upon which neoclassical economics is based.

Last week the world watched aghast as its politicians and bureaucrats failed us, and future generations, in The Hague. Protesters and critics cried out with a similar voice: What will future generations think of decision makers who, warned of the inevitability of a climate catastrophe, did nothing to avert it? In Australia, transport is now the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions. A key component of our ability to curtail those emissions and pull back from the brink of climatic disaster is our public transport systems.

This morning we have the disturbing news from the Roads and Traffic Authority that private vehicle travel in Sydney is on the increase. This is very bad news. It is bad for the environment, bad for the economy, bad for air quality and respiratory health and bad for the long-term future of this city. Indeed, it is bad for the planet itself. It is a fitting tribute to the Carr Government and its friends in the private motorway lobby. They are to be congratulated for sacrificing our children's lungs and our children's future to their phoney and bankrupt definition of economic efficiency. People might groan when I say that, but that is the issue we are talking about. Everyone here has some connection with future generations, even if they do not have children and grandchildren. We are selling out on their health and on their future if we do not come to grips with this issue.

The Greens argue that there it is an alternative. By shifting the majority of heavy freight to the rail system, and by luring car drivers away from their highly inefficient machines and onto the CityRail system, we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We can improve urban air quality and we can begin to reduce the damage that motor vehicles and heavy trucks are inflicting on our cities, on our towns and on the whole of our environment. Public transport can deliver those benefits if its management and its structure are focused on the task of increasing patronage and reducing private vehicle travel and truck haulage. That is why we say that this bill has problems and that it is just a makeover. It does not go the full distance.

This bill fails to achieve a clear and desirable outcome. Because this Government is incapable of letting go of its privatisation agenda, we do not have a merger between the State Rail Authority and the newly formed Rail Infrastructure Corporation. This bill does not even contain a timetable for such a merger, nor does it establish an inquiry into the potential benefits of such a proposal. The Greens will move amendments to address those shortcomings of the bill. We will seek to impose social and environmental objectives on the various bodies that will constitute the rail system. Those objectives will include increasing patronage and reducing overall greenhouse gas emissions. The objectives will address also the need to realise the full job creation benefits of the rail industry, especially in rural and regional New South Wales.

The Greens also will increase the emphasis on safety and safe working conditions in the whole of the rail system. We will propose a legislated limit on the shift hours of train drivers, to create the greatest possible administrative safeguards against driver fatigue. The Greens also will seek an independent inquiry into the possible merger of the State Rail Authority and the newly formed Rail Infrastructure Corporation. Only an independent inquiry, where the community is given a voice, can free this debate from the yoke of Treasury's ideological commitment to privatisation and market forces, as is so ably expressed in Premier Carr's green paper. The Greens are committed to a publicly owned, publicly controlled rail network, characterised by its high standards of safety, safe working, on-time running and passenger comfort and convenience.

The Greens are committed to a rail industry structure that does not present barriers to the delivery of the maximum social and environmental benefits. We are convinced that this can only be achieved by a well-paid and well-respected public sector work force whose safety is always paramount and who are given the opportunity to develop knowledge, skills and expertise to a world leadership standard. The Greens call on the Government to share this vision with us and with the communities of Sydney and regional and rural New South Wales. We will support the bill but, as I indicated, we will propose a number of amendments for the consideration of honourable members.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [2.37 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Transport Administration Amendment (Rail Management) Bill, which amends the Transport Administration Act 1988 to reform the rail industry in New South Wales following evidence from the Co-ordinator General of Rail, Mr Ron Christie, to the Special Commission of Inquiry into the Glenbrook Rail Accident and the second interim report of that inquiry. The amendments are required to implement structural realignment of the rail industry which will improve the safety, reliability and performance of New South Wales railways.

Honourable members would recall the debate on whether a select committee of this place should have inquired into the railway system. Some of us felt it was better to expand the inquiry under Justice Peter McInerney. We are pleased that the Government did that, after consultation with the crossbench. The two initial terms of reference for the inquiry had been the causes of the accident and the factors that contributed to it, and the adequacy of the risk management procedures applicable to the circumstances of the railway accident. Because of negotiations, the terms of reference were broadened to include any safety improvements to rail operations, including relevant structural changes which he considers necessary as a result of his findings under matters (1) and (2) and as a result of consideration of the reports of the rail safety investigations and any coronial report into a number of railway accidents.

On 6 June Justice McInerney provided to the Governor his first interim report on the direct causes of the accident. All of the eight recommendations for safety improvements were adopted by the Government and are being acted upon by the rail agencies. In October the Government received a second interim report from Justice McInerney with a further 15 recommendations dealing with the structure of the industry. Many of those recommendations reflect the evidence of the Co-ordinator General of Rail, Mr Ron Christie, before the inquiry. They relate back to decisions of the House at the direction of the Government that it produce legislation to split up the various aspects of the railway system into basically three structures including the track owner, Rail Access Corporation, and the track maintainer, Rail Services Australia. It appears that co-ordination gaps were then left between those organisations and may have even reduced some of the expertise that had been built up over many years in the railway staff. Justice McInerney recommended:

Formal establishment of the Office of the Co-ordinator General of Rail to examine the ramifications of any structural and organisational change, including the management of the proposed merger and transitional period.
Establishing an Office of the Rail Regulator.
Transferral of any relevant functions concerning rail regulation from the Co-ordinator General's Office to the Rail Regulator, following the transitional period.
Deferral of legislation dealing with safety regulation and accident investigation, including the proposals for the establishment of a Rail Safety Inspectorate and a Rail Accident Investigation Board, until the delivery of the Special Commission's final report.

We support this legislation. We believe that the recommended improvements will ensure that, building on the success of the Olympic transport effort, New South Wales railways will meet the needs of the travelling public. Among the most interesting and pleasing aspects of the Sydney Olympic Games were the co-ordination of public transport and, obviously, the fact that there was no provision for motor vehicle transport to Games venues. People had to travel by bus or rail. There would have been great problems if public transport had not been organised efficiently. As I have said before, the transport services during the Olympic Games were carried out in a remarkably efficient manner. I recall being able to travel from Menai to the Olympic Stadium at Homebush Bay in about 45 minutes; there were no delays or problems. During the Olympic Games many Sydney city employers introduced staggered working hours for their employees to reduce transport pressure at certain times.

Those approaches should be further investigated by the Government to develop far more efficient public transport—bus and rail—not only for special events when transport services are expanded, but in normal times. Companies could be encouraged to vary business hours for their employees so that everybody is not rushing to catch the 8 o'clock train in the morning or the 5 o'clock service at night. In recent times numerous reports have been published about alternative means of providing energy for motor cars, that is a means other than petroleum to reduce greenhouse gases. I am speaking about the use of electrical power to provide energy for motor cars. In the past we have seen experimental electrical cars. Most of us thought that electrical power would never be adequate for everyday use. However, some large car manufacturers say it is now within the realms of possibility to produce for sale motor vehilces driven by battery-powered electrical motors.

In past experiments, so many batteries were needed to provide adequate power to drive the motors that there was no room for passengers. However, lighter and smaller extra heavy duty batteries have been developed—even smaller than the traditional car battery. I urge the Government, as well as developing and supporting public transport, to investigate the use of electrical power to drive motor vehicles. It may mean that the Government will have to subsidise such research; obviously, companies involved in the manufacture of petroleum products would not be keen to outlay money for research into producing an alternative method to petrol for propelling cars on roads.

The Hon. Dr P. WONG [2.45 p.m.]: I support the Government's Transport Administration Amendment (Rail Management) Bill. This is an obviously sensible move to improve the performance of the various government entities that maintain rail services in New South Wales. It includes the re-merger of the Rail Access Corporation [RAC] and Rail Services Australia [RSA]. In fact, this is such a sensible move one must wonder what the Government thought it was doing at the time it separated the entities only a few years ago. The division of responsibility and roles within the rail system has led to confusion and unclear lines of accountability in ensuring the safety and quality of rail transport. It simply does not make sense for the RSA, which is responsible for maintaining infrastructure, to also have an obligation to make money for the Government. Clearly, these are competing responsibilities. There has also been the temptation for the RSA to cut maintenance costs and to focus on other income generating activities. The trackside maintenance budget has been cut by $125 million.

The result of this poor decision has been made clear through the Glenbrook inquiry. I do not know if this error was made through a desire to reduce costs or if some bureaucrat was keen to prove his or her credentials in pursuing economic dry theories and wanted to prove his or her knowledge of how to use the words "competition" and "contestability". Whatever the reason, it was clearly a mistake and this legislation is a quiet admission by the Government that it was a stuff-up. In future I hope the Government will give greater consideration to demonstrated public benefit before dividing up public authorities or contracting out their responsibilities. Further, I hope that under the new structure the budget for rail maintenance and safety will be restored to an acceptable level.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [2.47 p.m.]: I support the Transport Administration Amendment (Rail Management) Bill, with amendments to be moved by the Greens. Recently when I was in the United Kingdom there was yet another rail crash in that country that caused loss of life. Considerable debate ensued on the radio and in the newspapers about the privatisation and break-up of British Rail. Clearly, that decision has been a disaster for the United Kingdom; there has been crash after crash. One key problem was that the gangs and those who used to look after the rail service no longer do. The separation of track owner from track maintainer was a bad idea because it resulted in weak rail tracks all over the United Kingdom. The debate finished while I was there and an announcement was made that £15 billion would be spent fixing up the problems caused by Margaret Thatcher's privatisation of British Rail. That equates to approximately $A41 billion.

They recognised the problems caused by the separation of rail entities. It will cost an awful lot of taxpayers money in the United Kingdom to try to put the pieces together. It is a good idea to merge the track owner with the track maintainer. Hopefully we will have some responsibility between them to maintain the actual rail tracks, although our rail tracks do not weaken like those in the United Kingdom. Their policy was to allow the tracks to weaken to a certain extent before replacing them! Now maintenance crews are travelling around the countryside replacing all of the tracks at an enormous cost.

As I have said before in the House, we need a visionary approach by this Government and by the next Government to look at the rail system in much greater detail. We need a metro-type system or an underground system such as the one in London. One does not need a car in London or in Paris. One can go anywhere from A to Z without a car. That makes a huge difference. The rail link from the city to the airport is not working because there are not enough stations or places for people to go to. It is not just the $10 cost of a ticket. From time to time I use that link, and sometimes it is quite inconvenient, especially when one is carrying a lot of luggage.

Many honourable members do not use that link, although one would automatically think they would when the railway station is so close to Parliament House. That rail link should never have been built privately in the first place. If it had been a public entity we would not have these problems. Most of the cost of the rail link was paid for with public money. Only the balance of about $140 million was private money. As a result, there is a high charge for those using it. If it was a public entity I am sure the fare would be no more than $5 or $6.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: Are you speaking about this ghost train?

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: It is the ghost train from the airport. I have seen some interesting things happening on the ghost train, with just two people on their own in several carriages. I will not describe to Parliament what I saw but it was an amazing scene. The Transport Action Group is generally in agreement with the reunification of some parts of the rail system, especially as it makes more remote the reduction in service standards by privatisation. There is no doubt, as I have seen myself, that there is a problem with the privatisation of rail in the United Kingdom. However, the group is concerned that the community have input and not just access to the Rail Regulator, especially in regard to the Rail Regulator's role in recommending operating standards for the rail operator.

On 28 November I raised these concerns in my office with Liz McNamara from the Minister's office, and she indicated that while the Minister does not think amendments are needed to address them, he has agreed to make a statement during his speech in the upper House in reply to the second reading debate. I was given a copy of that statement and I have faxed it to the Transport Action Group to check that it adequately addresses its concerns. Apparently the group is more than happy with the statement.

I urge honourable members to support the legislation and to support the Greens amendments, which will improve the legislation. I urge the Government to have another look at our rail system and to use the same kind of money that was used on the Olympics to ensure that we have a system that is equivalent to the metro or the underground, so people will get out of their cars and use this underground system. The Government spent $2.2 billion on the Olympics. Spending that amount on the underground in Sydney would improve it tremendously, and would improve air quality considerably if people got out of their cars and on to public transport.

The Hon. I. COHEN [2.52 p.m.]: I concur with previous speakers on the Transport Administration Amendment (Rail Management) Bill, and particularly Ms Lee Rhiannon, who has clearly stated the importance of rail as a mode of public transport.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: I will be supporting it.

The Hon. I. COHEN: It is also supported by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. It is clear there is consensus within this House about the importance of public transport and how it could resolve pollution problems, given the efficiency of rail over road, and improve the quality of life for many people.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: It would reduce the rate of road accidents.

The Hon. I. COHEN: This is a burning question that is always omitted from major debate when transport issues come to the fore. We do not put into the equation the financial cost or, more important, the cost in human terms of hospitalisation, death and destruction that comes from our roads. This is something rail can solve. Although I will be talking about the Glenbrook inquiry, we are looking at problems in the rail system. When we look at the overall picture, the road toll is akin to a war scenario, with the number of deaths that occur. Obviously, for society to continue in a sustainable manner in the future, rail must be the mass transit mode for a significant number of people. This is something the Greens have consistently been supporting. We have stated consistently that rail is the way to go.

I had discussions with the Minister for Transport yesterday, with Hon. P. J. Breen, about a bridge over the Brunswick River. Significant community concerns exist about the development of that infrastructure. So much of it is pandering to the heavy transport vehicle industry that is charging along the Pacific Highway and causing huge problems for other types of passenger transport. There is little choice in those country areas because there is not enough public transport infrastructure. I have said time and again we need to have a local transport option that allows lighter weight equipment, be it a diesel truck on a rail bogey, that runs between the local towns of Casino, Lismore, Byron Bay, Mullumbimbi and Murwillumbah as a regular transit service. This would be a great boon to the people of northern New South Wales and a fantastic tourist infrastructure support system.

The bill is the result of recommendations made by Justice Peter McInerney stemming from the Special Commission of Inquiry into the Glenbrook Rail Accident. This tragic accident happened a year ago tomorrow. This accident need not have happened. In 1996 the Government split the State Rail Authority into four organisations and they have all been corporatised. The Greens oppose corporatisation because it is usually the precursor to privatisation. It became evident during the Glenbrook inquiry that separating the State Rail Authority into four entities did not work. The break-up transformed a responsible single structure into unaccountable divisions, with State Rail no longer accountable for the tracks used by trains.

The Co-ordinater-General of Rail, Mr Ron Christie, and former New South Wales rail chief David Hill recommended merging two of the entities into one. The bill achieves this. It merges the Rail Access Corporation, the track owner, with the Rail Services Authority, the track maintainer. When David Hill gave evidence to the inquiry, he likened the State's rail bureaucracy to a scrambled egg. There was a lack of any clear lines of responsibility between the organisation's separate arms. This legislation will help unscramble the egg and help create clear lines of responsibility. In Committee the Greens will move an amendment to establish an inquiry into whether the State Rail Authority and the Rail Infrastructure Corporation should also be merged. Leaving three entities may not be the best system to produce the most safe and efficient outcomes.

One issue that still needs to be addressed by the Government is budget cuts and maintenance. On 10 November the Sydney Morning Herald reported that during the past three years there has been a $125 million budget cut to trackside maintenance. This was made public when the Chief Executive of Rail Services Australia, Terry Ogg, gave evidence to the inquiry. Mr Ogg specified that the trackside maintenance budget fell from $640 million in 1996-97 to $515 million this year. He said that the budget for trackside maintenance is inadequate, and at least $600 million is needed. He said that not enough money has been spent on maintaining infrastructure, that more work should be carried out and that funding should be better allocated. The budget cuts have led to an increase in the risk of train accidents in New South Wales. Mr Ogg pointed out that because Rail Services Australia was a State-owned corporation, its function, apart from maintaining the State's infrastructure, was to make more money for the Government. It is interesting to look at that concept.

Honourable members have previously discussed the airport to city rail link. It is privately run but was built with mostly public money. If it charged a normal fare it would not be a ghost train. I have used that train a number of times, and the service is efficient. It is handy to be able to go to St James Station and catch a direct train to the airport. It is a good way to go, but what a pity it is not a totally public instrumentality.

One of the inherent problems with corporations is that, to make money, they have to operate commercially. This has implications for the quality of the service. Cost cutting can occur. Not enough has been spent on trackside maintenance. Fares on the airport rail service are prohibitive. If I have to travel to the airport with another member, the cost of going by taxi is competitive, but it is in everybody's interest for more people to travel by rail, and there should be an incentive to do so. Rail services create advantages at every level, including greenhouse emissions, safety and road maintenance.

When the breakup of State Rail occurred in 1996 not enough attention was given to safety. This issue is still to be reported on in the special commission's final report. The Glenbrook tragedy that occurred a year ago tomorrow has affected my office. This morning I was listening to ABC radio on my earphones as I rode my pushbike to work. It was interesting to hear the sad stories of people deeply affected by the accident. The Government is offering compensation under the Motor Accidents Act rather than the common law.

There should be no equivocation regarding compensation due to the victims. People entrusted themselves to the rail system to travel to work. They suffered through no fault of their own. One of the people on the radio this morning said that he is greatly affected. He lives in the Blue Mountains and the most convenient transport artery is rail. He had a productive life yet he has difficulty driving in heavy traffic, particularly dealing with heavy trucks, and travelling by train.

Today I am missing Adele Doust from my office. She is a wonderful administrator, provides great support, and is a good friend. Adele is unable to come to work today because she is still traumatised from the accident her train suffered. I have first-hand knowledge of how she has worked during the year. We have made time concessions but sometimes as she travels to work in the morning by train she has panic attacks when remembering the tragedy.

Many people have been even more emotionally and physically affected than Adele, and they have ongoing problems. I hope that Adele is feeling well and will be able to work in my parliamentary office on Monday morning. People such as Adele, her husband and her family have been deeply affected. Train services must be well-managed and extremely safe. In an advanced nation such as Australia people should not have to suffer in this way.

I was the driving force behind calling the FreightCorp inquiry. There should be more funding for and more attention to this area. Viable and creative ideas should go into passenger and freight rail. The inquiry has already highlighted the problems with the breakup of rail services. We should maintain a publicly controlled and owned, safe rail system for passenger and freight transport. The lives and livelihoods of those who work on the rail system, those who move produce and those who travel to and from work by rail depend on the system. We should have world's safest and most efficient rail system and I look forward to further improvements to it.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [3.05 p.m.]: I support the bill but I wonder whether it is the real solution. I wonder whether we can solve management problems by legislation. My general feeling is that we probably cannot. The State Rail Authority was divided into four organisations in 1996, following the economic theory that that would facilitate competition. It was thought that the division would allow some degree of privatisation, which would then put pressure on the public sector to compete. I think that part of the reason for the division was that management was not able to break the public service culture, which it felt led to overmanning and to work practices and norms that were impossibly uneconomic. In a sense, privatising part of the system was an attempt to force efficiencies on the public sector.

People then say, "Oh gosh, the public sector simply cannot compete. It had better be sold." That is what is happening with FreightCorp. Rather than have privatisation, some competition is allowed and then the whole system is abandoned. This is because there has not been the will or competence—or both—to manage the system properly. The French have one of the best railway systems in the world. It is managed as a government monopoly, and it works very well. If there is a commitment to managing something, the competence is developed. It is a question of will. It is not a question of various economic theories that are bandied around.

The key economic theory is perfect competition. It existed in Middle Europe. If there are a lot of suppliers there are low margins because there is perfect competition. The theory is modelled on a village market. Farmers bring their produce to market. The produce cannot be stored or returned to the farm, so it must be sold. People who need food for the week come to the market with a certain amount of money. At the end of the day all of the food is sold at a price that is satisfactory, or at least optimised by the market. If there are many producers of the same goods there is competition. Of course, in practice people do not have to buy at that time and if there is co-operation between a small number of people in a market a monopoly situation occurs, the theory breaks down and people are worse off than before. This is what often happens in Australia with the silly application of chapter 1 of the economics book without any consideration of chapter 2 and all the subsequent chapters.

In this case the division resulted in four organisations to increase competition, and what developed was a management muddle. This happened in the context of a long-term lack of spending on rail infrastructure. A large amount was being put into roads. Large trucks that damage the roads were being heavily subsidised and the rail network was being run down. This is an open secret. The rail system was expected to make a profit but the trucks were not—if the total cost of building the roads is taken into account. So while we may have built more rail than we needed in order to ship commodities such as wheat and coal from inland regions of New South Wales, rather than capitalising on the cheap transport modalities we simply ignored rail and let it go to ruin. Effectively, we subsidised trucks without attempting to concentrate our big industries on the rail networks, which would have allowed much cheaper transport, better economic performance, better greenhouse performance and a better society.

Although the Howard Government has been criticised for the high cost of fuel, it is not making any serious attempt to address the problem of car dependence. It is trying to fix the problem by building roads in the country, rather than planning for cars, transport or rural rail. Interestingly, the American motor vehicle industry did a lot of harm to bus schedules to stop people catching buses so they would have to buy a car. This was considered good marketing. There was a series on SBS about that.

Rail services have been allowed to run down over a long period, and communications systems are archaic. This neglect finally led to the accident that is the subject of the McInerney report. McInerney's interim report deals only with the accident. Much of the report relates to the nature of the phones in that area and individual conversations about going through signals that are apparently not working or may not work at all. Indeed, the signals are often not expected to work, thus the drivers do the best they can with a phone call, if the phone is working, or whatever. In the hierarchy of safety controls according to risk management theory—I have studied this at some length as part of the occupational health and safety component of my master's degree, although I do not pretend to be an expert—the signals were neglected and are still being neglected.

We are trying to achieve a management system that works. At the time the management was devolved I was doing medicals; I did 150 apprentice medicals the year before devolution, and I did about 30 after devolution. All the people complained that they had to go through three interviews, have three of medicals and be checked out by three different hierarchical systems, so the system was much less effective in the interim. Fewer apprentices were taken on and presumably there were fewer trained people. Subsequently, a large number of people working on the railways who came for perfunctory examinations seemed to have little idea of rail procedures. I am not surprised to note that more people in track maintenance are being killed.

There is no co-ordination of the railways. Indeed, when the Minister spoke to crossbench members just before the middle of the year there was almost a comic scene with a gaggle of managers. Whenever one of them was asked a question they said, "That is not in my area. The question belongs to somebody else." It was like a Monty Python scene, and the lack of co-ordination between the various aspects of the railways was there for all to see. The Minister's basic plea at the end was, "Please leave it alone until the Olympics; otherwise you will just put the system under more stress and it really cannot cope."

We heard rumours that 100 carriages, to be called Olympic carriages, were to be bought in time for the Olympics. However, the bus interests persuaded the Minister to delay the purchase. The carriages are known as millennium carriages—they have a new name because they did not make it to the Olympics. The carriage shortage made a big difference to the running of trains. There were insufficient train carriages to run peak hour trains from the dormitory areas of Campbelltown to the emerging city of Parramatta. That had a severe effect on people who were unable to use that service. Many people became car dependent, and the roads were clogged by people making car journeys. The answer to that problem, we are told, must be to build an orbital road. If the carriages had been purchased and the trains had been working this problem would not have arisen. The ramifications of Sydney's worsening transport system are feeding into a cycle once more.

The fact that the private airport link has not made a profit in the short time it has been open has been raised in debate. That is not a surprise. However, as flats are built along the route in the industrial areas and more people use this line, it will become immensely profitable. I am amazed that the Government made a deal that enabled the private company that owns the line to claim a huge amount of compensation if it did not make a profit in the shorter term. However, it simply shows what happens if a company abandons its future because it needs quick capital, or believes the economic dogma about privatisation making money.

For the train system to work, some personnel problems must be solved. I have spoken in the House previously about Stephen Maher, the train driver who was drummed out of the railways because he asked for a workplace smoke-free policy to be implemented. I have some faith in Mr Ron Christie, the new chief executive officer, to pull the threads together as a railway person with an overall understanding of the various needs within the rail system and with the ability to provide sufficient co-ordination between its parts to enable it to run efficiently. I think it is a management problem. Although the Government is fixing one aspect of the railways structure, in the end its success or failure will depend on management expertise. I wonder whether we should look towards a French model rather than an American model for an overall concept.

We await with interest McInerney's final report. The terms of reference for the McInerney inquiry have been extended, so that a parliamentary inquiry is unnecessary. The expertise that McInerney has developed would not be fully utilised. A parliamentary inquiry would have to examine all the details and duplicate that effort. The parliamentary committee system is already overloaded. Hopefully this management change will fix the problem. The bill will be part of the management changes that will put the railways back on track. Obviously some lobbying of John Howard is needed to get him to release part of the money he is spending on country roads for rail infrastructure. The New South Wales Government needs to spend some of the surplus—and the money it is saving through not having to continue Olympics spending—on fixing the rail system so that we can all be proud of its impact both on transport needs and on our greenhouse gas performance.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [3.17 p.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contributions to the debate on this important legislation. I shall address some of the issues raised by honourable members during the debate. The Hon. R. S. L. Jones raised concerns with the Government regarding public consultation and the Rail Regulator. Under this legislation the Rail Regulator will have responsibility for recommending rail performance standards to the Government. These standards will be based on a standard of rail service that customers want. In that sense the Rail Regulator will be a customer advocate. The Government recognises that it is important, therefore, that the Rail Regulator be open to public consultation and receive submissions from the public on rail performance standards, such as on-time running, reliability of services, quality of carriages and quality of customer service.

It is vital that the Rail Regulator address the concerns of the public. The Government expects that the Rail Regulator will include proper and appropriate consideration of all public input into the standards recommended to the Minister. The Minister will then set the standards and make them public. Every year the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal [IPART] holds public hearings which consider both public transport pricing and service standards. The hearings give people the opportunity to make presentations in a public forum for consideration by the Rail Regulator in the process of recommending standards. In addition, there are also major five-year reviews of both pricing and service issues. The Government believes that through public submissions to the Rail Regulator and through IPART public hearings the community will have a number of opportunities to ensure that the rail performance standards meet their expectations of the rail service.

I shall now respond to issues raised by the Hon. J. H. Jobling. The honourable member asked whether the new Rail Infrastructure Corporation will have safety as a priority. I assure the House that safety will continue to be the highest priority for the New South Wales Government and the New South Wales rail agencies.

In conclusion, the bill, which provides for amendment to the Transport Administration Act 1988, will reform the rail industry in New South Wales in accordance with evidence given by the Co-ordinator General of Rail, Mr Ron Christie, to the Special Commission of Inquiry into the Glenbrook Rail Accident and the second interim report of the inquiry. It will ensure the implementation of structural realignment of the rail industry, which will improve safety, reliability and performance of New South Wales railways.

The final stage of the Glenbrook inquiry will deal with critical issues of safety across New South Wales rail operations and will have the full co-operation of all rail agencies. The New South Wales Government believes that the bill is essential in improving the level of service provided by New South Wales railways, and in ensuring safe and reliable passenger and freight rail services to the people of New South Wales. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Schedule 1

Ms LEE RHIANNON [3.22 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 1 on sheet C-087C:

No. 1 Page 5, schedule 1 [2], line 10. Insert ", and on its capacity to liaise with, and implement the recommendations of, a national rail safety regulator and any other relevant interstate or Australian body concerned with rail safety in connection with national safe-working standards" after "rail safety regulator".

This amendment would cause the Regulator General's review of the Transport Safety Bureau to also examine the capacity of the Transport Safety Bureau to work with interstate and national bodies concerned with safe working standards. It is one of those strange coincidences in life that today is the first anniversary of the tragic Glenbrook train crash in which a number of people died.

The establishment of a national body on rail safety, a national rail safety regulator or similar body is currently under consideration. It is important that the Transport Safety Bureau be able to liaise with any such body and implement its recommendations. Australia has a long and sad history of poor communication and poor working relationships between rail authorities at the national level. I always remember learning at school about the different rail gauges. Indeed, it is something that I am sure many remember. Although we do not have that problem today, we have other problems that cause significant difficulties and it is time we addressed those problems.
Given recent tragic events in New South Wales, and the importance of high safety standards if we are to attract people out of their cars and onto trains, it is vital that the Transport Safety Bureau be able to work with all the relevant bodies to ensure that the highest possible safety standards are implemented. I commend the amendment to my colleagues and hope that it receives support.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [3.24 p.m.]: The Government does not support the amendment. The establishment of a national safety regulator has not yet been agreed to at either Commonwealth or State levels. It is therefore too early to agree to the amendment. However, in due course, when the issue of a national safety regulator is agreed to by the Australian Transport Council of Ministers, the New South Wales Government will ensure the establishment of an appropriate working relationship at both State and Commonwealth levels.

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING [3.24 p.m.]: The Opposition has considered the amendment at some length and agrees with the Government's view that it is too early to agree to the amendment. Whilst the Opposition understands and has sympathy for the proposal put forward, at this stage it cannot support the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [3.25 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 2:

(2) The Co-ordinator General of Rail is, in exercising his or her functions under subsection (1) (a) and (d), to give the highest priority to rail safety performance.

One of the major shortcomings with this legislation is that it does not establish safety and safe working conditions as its top priority. That is indeed a tragedy, and I hope that it will not play out in the public field. The amendment is designed to make it crystal clear that safety is the highest priority of the co-ordinator general. It is vital that we learn important lessons from the Glenbrook rail accident. It is something that we, as members of Parliament, owe to the victims, their families and the public of New South Wales. Obviously, members of Parliament carry great responsibility, and that is one of the reasons why the Greens have brought forward this amendment.

It is in this light that we believe that the amendment deserves the support of both the major parties. The amendment states that the Co-ordinator General of Rail, in exercising his or her functions, should give the highest priority to rail safety performance. The amendment is quite simple. I am therefore surprised that, as I understand, it will not be supported. The paramount issue at all times is safety; indeed, it should be the overriding concern. I therefore urge my colleagues to support the amendment. However, I understand that it will not be supported. I look forward to hearing the Government's comments about why it cannot support the amendment.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [3.26 p.m.]: The Government does not support this amendment. The New South Wales Government agrees with the principle outlined in the amendment—that is, that safety is always the highest priority. This is demonstrated in the bill, with safety underpinning the entire bill. In my second reading speech I indicated the key principles which underpin the reform. If I may remind the House, I said:

This is consistent with the key evidence given by the Co-ordinator General of Rail, Mr Ron Christie, before the Special Commission of Inquiry into the Glenbrook Rail Accident, that the industry should be structured such that it delivers safe and reliable passenger and freight rail services. These principles are built into the bill, and on that basis the amendment is unnecessary and is not supported.

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING [3.27 p.m.]: As I said in the second reading debate, the bill makes changes to the management of the State Rail Authority. The authority will be required, as its principle objective, to ensure that the New South Wales rail network delivers safe and reliable passenger and freight services. The Opposition believes that the Government's intentions are good, and it will monitor the legislation carefully to ensure that the Government delivers on those intentions. The Opposition agrees with the Government's view with respect to the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [3.28 p.m.], by leave: I move Greens amendments Nos 3, 4, 6 and 10 in globo:

86 Social and environmental objectives of Co-ordinator General of Rail

, and

Division 4 Social and environmental objectives

19AG Social and environmental objectives of Rail Regulator

These amendments establish social and environmental objectives for the Co-ordinator General of Rail, the Rail Infrastructure Corporation, the State Rail Authority and the Rail Regulator. With regard to the Co-ordinator General of Rail and the Rail Regulator, the amendments also specify the requirement to report to Parliament on the achievement of these objectives. The proposed additional objectives for each of these entities include increased passenger and freight usage on the rail network; increased passenger convenience; reducing private motor vehicle use in Sydney, with an overall reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from transport sources in New South Wales; and an increase in employment in the rail industry, particularly in rural and regional New South Wales, based upon increased patronage.

Amendment No. 6 creates, as an additional objective for the Rail Infrastructure Corporation, the development of expertise in rail technology, operations and management. The bill as it stands focuses on financial and economic outcomes. Whilst these outcomes have an important place, this amendment is necessary to ensure that the important social and environmental benefits that can be obtained from the rail system are achieved. Our rail system can be a powerful instrument for change. It can deliver enormous benefits. It is so important that we look at and integrate these objectives with the financial aspects of running a rail system.

The Greens also received correspondence from the Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Association of New South Wales. Yesterday I received a letter from the vice-president of that organisation, Mr Bruce Hutton. Amongst the very sensible comments about our amendments, he noted that he saw these amendments as being very strong and having great benefit for the whole rail system. Indeed, he saw them as helping to achieve a fair and equitable social and environmental outcome for New South Wales consumers. So there is support from an organisation whose members are high users of rail services. I hope that honourable members will give wise consideration to these amendments.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [3.30 p.m.]: I speak in favour of the amendments. As I said before, Parliament can set the parameters by which management works. The amendments effectively do that by providing not only an economic but an overall view of the social impact of rail. I consider that these are unexceptional, clear objectives that ought to be accepted by all.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [3.31 p.m.]: The Government does not support Greens amendments Nos 3, 4, 6 or 10, for the following reasons. While the New South Wales Government supports the objectives generally outlined in amendment No. 3, the Government will not support it. The amendment confuses the responsibilities of various parties for these objectives. For example, the rail entities alone cannot be held responsible for reducing private motor vehicle use in Sydney and an overall reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from transport users in New South Wales. The New South Wales Government has a greenhouse policy and is committed to reducing greenhouse gas targets. Industry sectors need to reduce emissions and should be held accountable for their own actions.

However, it is difficult to see how the Co-ordinator General of Rail would achieve this. Other suggested objectives are too broad, such as a reduction in the use of private motor vehicles comparable to levels in European capital cities. The position of Co-ordinator General of Rail has been established to manage the transition process and the establishment of the Rail Regulator. The Government recognises that the primary objective of the co-ordinator general in managing the transition period is to ensure that the industry is best placed to meet the rail performance standards expected of it in the future. It would therefore be inappropriate for the co-ordinator general to focus on promoting other objectives—such as access to the network, which is a function of the Rail Infrastructure Corporation—at the cost of his key function.

As to Greens amendment No. 4—as stated in respect of the previous amendment dealing with the Co-ordinator General of Rail—the Government supports the objectives generally outlined in the amendment, but it will not support the amendment. Again, this amendment confuses the responsibilities of various parties for these objectives. The amendment calls for the Rail Infrastructure Corporation to promote access to the network. This is unnecessary as it is already dealt with in the bill. New sections 19D and 19E of the bill in particular outline the functions of the Rail Infrastructure Corporation. Specifically the Rail Infrastructure Corporation, under new section 19D (2) (a), is tasked with the objective of promoting and facilitating access to the New South Wales rail network in accordance with the New South Wales rail access regime.

Further, under new section 19E (2) (b) a principal function of the Rail Infrastructure Corporation is to provide persons with access to the network. In addition to this, it is not the function of the Rail Infrastructure Corporation to undertake the role of promoting passenger services. That is clearly the role of the State Rail Authority [SRA]. It is critical that the agencies' functions are distinguished to ensure that they are able to focus on their primary role. However, as outlined in the bill the agencies will continue to share common objectives of providing a safe, reliable and efficient rail network. As to Greens amendment No. 6, while the Government supports the objectives generally outlined in this amendment, the Government will not support it. The bill clearly establishes the key functions of the State Rail Authority.

Under new section 4A of the bill, the State Rail Authority has the principal objective of delivering safe and reliable railway passenger services in New South Wales. In meeting this objective the SRA is obliged to exhibit a sense of social responsibility by, under new section 4A (2) (b), having regard to the interests of the community in which it operates and, under new section 4A (2) (a) (ii), maximising the network of the State's investment in the authority. This means that the SRA is required by this bill to ensure that rail patronage grows, which means fewer cars on the road. Since 1992 patronage has grown by 20 per cent—that is, approximately 8.2 million extra passenger journeys per annum—and is projected to continue to rise by another 20 per cent by the year 2011. This will require further investment in the system and will have positive impacts on cars on the road, and therefore gas emissions. The State Rail Authority is committed to positively managing this growth and will report annually through its annual report. The amendment is unnecessary and the Government will not support it.

As to Greens amendment No. 10, while the Government supports the objectives generally outlined in this amendment, the Government will not support the amendment. As with all other agencies, the bill already adequately outlines the functions of the Rail Regulator. Under new section 19AC of the bill the Rail Regulator has responsibility for recommending rail performance standards to the Government. These will be based on a standard of rail services that both passenger customers and freight customers want. Through the enforcement of these standards rail services in New South Wales will rise to a level that is satisfactory to the public and will therefore encourage the use of public transport throughout the State. With regard to the other issues detailed in the amendment, it would be inappropriate for the Rail Regulator to focus on issues such as access and greenhouse gas emissions when the regulator's key role is the recommendation to the Minister of rail performance standards and their enforcement.

The amendment also calls for reporting by the Rail Regulator and the tabling of such reports. That issue is already dealt with in the bill. Under new section 19AE the regulator is to report to the Minister on agencies' compliance with rail performance standards. In particular, the Rail Regulator is to include in this report details of enforcement action taken or recommended. Under this section the Minister is to table a copy of the report by the Rail Regulator in each House of Parliament. The dependence of these reports is guaranteed under new section 19X of the bill, which states that the Rail Regulator is not subject to ministerial control in making reports or recommendations. The Government believes the amendment is unnecessary and will not support it.

Amendments negatived.

Schedule agreed to.

Schedule 2

Ms LEE RHIANNON [3.38 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 5:

No. 5 Page 12, schedule 2 [21], line 26. Omit "rail operator". Insert instead "public sector rail operator".

This amendment will ensure that the network control function remains in public sector hands. The amendment omits the words "rail operator" where it appears on page 12, line 26, and replaces it with the words "public sector rail operator". The safety and efficiency implications of rail network control are too serious to allow it to be potentially passed to a private sector organisation whose primary concern would be increasing profit, reducing costs and maximising market share. This amendment will guarantee that rail network control would remain in public hands and could not be privatised without legislative change. There should be one body in charge of rail network control and that body must always act in the best interests of safety and efficiency. That objective can best be served by a public body which is free to pursue policy objectives without risk of interference or the distortions of the market. I commend the amendment to my colleagues.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [3.39 p.m.]: This amendment is unnecessary and is not supported. The bill specifies the public ownership of the Rail Regulator, the State Rail Authority and the Rail Infrastructure Corporation. The bill supports the position of the New South Wales Government in continued public ownership of passenger transport services in New South Wales. The only real options for network control are the State Rail Authority or Rail Infrastructure Corporation and, as both are in public ownership, this amendment is unnecessary. Any change to the ownership of the State Rail Authority or Rail Infrastructure Corporation will require legislative change.

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING [3.40 p.m.]: The Opposition has considered the amendment. We concur with the comments made by the Minister in relation to public ownership of the Rail Regulator, the State Rail Authority and the Rail Infrastructure Corporation [RIC]. It is our belief from examination of the bill that any change to the ownership will require legislative change, that is, the ownership of the State Rail Authority or the Rail Infrastructure Corporation. Therefore, we believe the amendment is unnecessary.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule agreed to.

Schedule 3

Ms LEE RHIANNON [3.40 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 7:

[4] Section 13A

13A Minister to institute inquiry into merger of SRA and RIC

As honourable members know, this bill recognises and corrects one of the great errors of the 1996 restructuring by reconnecting the Rail Infrastructure Corporation [RIC] with its service functionary, the Rail Service Authority [RSA]. The Greens agree that that is a step forward but, as we have also stated, the bill does not go far enough. There are strong arguments that the separation, which this bill creates, of the rolling stock and stations owned by the State Rail Authority [SRA] from the track and infrastructure owned by the Rail Infrastructure Corporation has damaged the ability of the rail system to produce safe and efficient outcomes.

This amendment proposes that the Minister establish an independent inquiry into the environmental and social benefits of a possible merger between SRA and the Rail Infrastructure Corporation. Such an inquiry would enable the full range of potential costs and benefits to be independently explored. This amendment does not seek to determine the outcome of any inquiry, nor does it bind the Minister beyond the creation of the inquiry itself. However, it will provide the opportunity to examine the situation and the Greens believe that any examination can only lead to a rolling back to the disastrous division and corporatisation that occurred in 1996.

I note that at least there is an acknowledgement that that division has been a tragedy for the whole rail service in New South Wales and for the delivery of a safe rail system. Acceptance of the amendment can only lead to enhanced safety, better performance and improved environmental and social outcomes. I again urge my colleagues to consider the amendment and to support it.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [3.41 p.m.]: The Government will not support this amendment as we believe a further inquiry into this issue is unnecessary. The special commission of inquiry into the Glenbrook rail accident was given the specific task of reporting to the Government on changes to rail industry structure which will improve safety. I am sure that the Committee will recall that early this year the Government agreed with the extension of the terms of reference of the special commission to cover the issue of structure. Specifically, the terms of reference were broadened to include:

Any safety improvements to rail operations including relevant structural changes, which he considers necessary as a result of his findings under matters (1) and (2) and as a result of consideration of the reports of the rail safety investigations and any coronial report into a number of railway accidents.

The outcome of the investigation is the basis of the bill that is before the Committee. The report by Justice McInerney included a recommendation to merge the Rail Access Corporation and the Rail Service Authority. This merger was also supported by the Co-ordinator General of Rail in the evidence he gave to the Glenbrook inquiry. The report by the commission, as well as the evidence provided by Mr Christie, was powerful and extensive in its consideration of the structure of the rail agencies. Undertaking a further investigation would be unnecessary and would merely cover ground that has already been covered adequately by Justice McInerney. Therefore the New South Wales Government believes that this amendment is unnecessary and consequently it is not supported.

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING [3.44 p.m.]: At this time, the Opposition will not support a further inquiry. A resolution of the Legislative Council established referral of rail matters to a general purpose standing committee. As a result of support for the motion to refer the matter to the general purpose standing committee—Item No. 48 on the business paper—the Government agreed, albeit reluctantly, to order an extension of the inquiry being conducted by Justice McInerney. As a result of Justice McInerney's second interim report and a further report that has since been circulated, the House concurred that the inquiry by the general purpose standing committee should not proceed until the final recommendations of the McInerney inquiry were known.

The findings are slowly coming forward and the provisions of this bill reflects the known findings. Before deciding on whether to revive the referral of this matter to the general purpose standing committee or to seek to extend the investigation of these matters independently, either by Justice McInerney or some other person, the Opposition would like to examine the final recommendations and consider how those recommendations will work. At this stage, the Opposition will not support the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule agreed to.

Schedule 4

Ms LEE RHIANNON [3.45 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 8:

(a) safe working standards for employers and employees in the rail industry (including the accreditation of employees and the maximum working shift for train drivers) consistent with obligations under occupational health and safety legislation,

This amendment takes the safety issue one step further and focuses particularly on safety of employees. As I travel throughout New South Wales carrying out my various roles, I must say that I have been disturbed, while discussing the issue of privatisation with rail employees, by the incidence of death and injury in the operation of this State's rail services. The source of the deterioration in safety which is so disturbing and worrying can be traced to the division of the rail system in New South Wales. As I said earlier, honourable members clearly need to focus on the issue of safety of rail employees.

The amendment inserts safe working practices into the list of matters that constitute rail performance standards. As these standards are likely to become central to the regulation of the rail industry, it is essential to ensure that the safety of rail employees is included as a matter to be considered. The amendment is very simple but I understand that it is being opposed by both major parties. I really am left to wonder why something that is so simple—fundamentally, we are talking about people's lives—cannot receive support.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [3.47 p.m.]: I support the amendment. Although this amendment should not be necessary, I think it is necessary. Certainly I have had cause professionally to write letters on the basis of complaints of exhaustion.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: You are getting exhausted, by the sound of things.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: I am delighted to be paid to speak. I will settle down in the interim because I need a little more time.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: Nobody in his right mind would pay you a cent to speak.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: On that criterion, there are people in this Parliament who are not in their right mind. During my professional life, I have had cause to request that people be required to work fewer hours than those for which they have been rostered, and I have had to write as though there was something wrong with those people that would prevent them from working the roster. Their starting time, the hours worked and the gaps between shifts were, frankly, outrageous in the context of safety management. It should be noted that in FreightCorp, people were working at night particularly. Because rail infrastructure is used by passengers during the day, and large loads of freight are moved at night, those workers were commencing work at funny hours and finishing at funny hours. As a result of increasing privatisation and the weakening of unions and awards—which are perhaps necessary for flexibility—outrageous hours were being worked, particularly in the bus and coach industry.

Given that this crisis has been precipitated by an accident, and that accidents are frequently related to fatigue, it is necessary for that provision to be included. If the Minister is about to give a reason why it is unnecessary, he should be very careful in stating what guarantees he gives for shifts, working hours, et cetra, so that the working conditions of rail employees do not predispose to accidents. It is one thing to waffle on about the scope of the bill, but the important thing is that the hours being worked are not satisfactory. The deregulation of hours and a weakening of unions may lead to great problems. There is no point in fixing the infrastructure if the personnel cannot cope. The railway training requirements were significantly reduced in order to recruit drivers for the Olympic Games. This matter needs to be addressed at the highest level. I ask the Minister to give the guarantees I have requested and to be most astute in monitoring them.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [3.51 p.m.]: I will give good reasons for the Government's decisions to Ms Lee Rhiannon and the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans. This amendment clearly relates to rail safety. The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans asked a question but does not bother to listen to the answer.

The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans: I am listening to the answer, I promise you.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I do not understand how you could be listening, when you are obviously doing something else. The amendment clearly relates to rail safety. It is the Government's belief that it would be far more appropriate for the Parliament to consider these issues following the final report by the special commission of inquiry into the Glenbrook rail accident relating to rail safety. That report will be provided to the Governor on 31 December 2000. In accordance with Acting Justice McInerney's recommendations, the Government will not deal with safety regulatory functions until the final report is handed down on 31 December. However, the Rail Access Corporation is currently leading a rail industry project to rewrite the existing safe working rules to ensure that they underpin all decisions and actions by rail workers. Safety will continue to be the highest priority for the New South Wales Government and rail agencies.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [3.52 p.m.]: That was a most unsatisfactory reply. The Minister said that working conditions will be worked out after 31 December. If the hours worked are not satisfactory, that is a matter of concern that should be dealt with now. If a person's shift is so long that he is too sleepy to drive a train safely, that is something we should deal with now. We should not have to wait until a report is handed down, because this is not a new problem. The monitoring of working hours is totally unsatisfactory in a number of areas, including the trucking, coach and the medical registrar industries. I bring this matter to the Minister's attention now. For the Minister to say that a report will be handed down on 31 December and that action will be taken after that is not satisfactory.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: What about politicians?

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: Yes, and politicians.

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING [3.53 p.m.]: The Opposition has carefully considered this recommendation. Clearly, it is the view of all honourable members that we must be concerned about safe working conditions and rail performance standards. Under the circumstances it is probably reasonable to wait for the outcome of the report, which will be handed down at the end of the month, and we will certainly have every opportunity to consider that report if we do not agree with it. However, new section 19AA of division 3 sets out rail performance standards. Paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of subsection (1) detail the operation of the services. Problems that have been raised are covered by that division. New section 19AA (2) deals with the rail performance standards set out under the division and specifically deals with management of service delivery or anything else that is required. Frankly, everything is covered in the bill. The Opposition is prepared to await the report and will not support the amendment.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [3.55 p.m.]: In reply to the earlier comments of the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans, it is obvious he did not listen to what I said. I will repeat it for his benefit. In accordance with Acting Justice McInerney's recommendations the Government will not deal with safety regulatory functions until the final report is handed down on 31 December. If he does not understand the reason for it, I doubt that he was listening.

Amendment negatived.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [3.55 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 9:

(4) The maximum working shift for train drivers that the Minister may set as a rail performance standard under this section is 12 hours from the time a train driver reports for duty until the time the train driver ceases duty.

I understand that there is no support from the major parties for this amendment, which is extraordinary because we are talking about safety and how long people should work. One would think that we were back in Dickens day; all we are talking about is 12 hours. Really and truly, the thought of someone working 12 hours and having responsibility for trains is not wise, but it is a compromise that we were hoping that the Government would have the sense to support. Let us be clear about this amendment, it imposes a legislative limit of a 12-hour shift for train drivers.

Clearly, that would improve occupational health and safety and enhance the reliability and safety of the whole network. That would go a long way to ensuring worker and passenger safety and make the rail system safer for the employee and the general public. That is obvious when one considers the matter logically and does not let the politics of corporate interest come into play. To work a 12-hour shift is a long time, surely honourable members should consider whether it is safe to drive a train for 12 hours. I ask honourable members to consider my amendment.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: Some employees want to do that, because they get offsets.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I am talking about safety, and that appears to be the paramount issue. I know there is often denigration of unions and of working people by members of the Coalition. However, unions have a real understanding of the needs of the industry and recognise that we need a limitation on how long someone can work safely per shift. I look forward to hearing comments from honourable members on this final amendment. The Greens are obviously concerned at the lack of support, but for something as simple and basic as this, it is quite breathtaking.

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING [3.57 p.m.]: I understand that the Government is giving consideration to changes to the Rail Safety Act and supplementary regulations. I ask the Minister for guidance on when that may occur.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [3.58 p.m.]: The Government will not support amendment No. 9 moved by the Hon. Lee Rhiannon. The Government does not support train drivers working shifts which are too long. Driver fatigue is a rail safety issue as well as an individual health issue. As this issue is of critical importance to both railway workers and commuters, the Government believes the amendment is more appropriately dealt with in the context of changes to the Rail Safety Act and any supplementary regulations. The Government gives an undertaking to consider the issue again after the report is handed down on 31 December. The Rail Safety Act will be looked at in line with the question asked by the Hon. J. H. Jobling. Therefore, the amendment is not supported.

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING [3.59 p.m.]: On the basis of the Minister's undertaking to consider the issue again when the report is handed down, the Opposition will not support the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee without amendment and passed through remaining stages.

STATUTE LAW (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL (No 2)

Second Reading

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [4.01 p.m.]: I lead on behalf of the Opposition in debate on the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No 2), which will make mainly technical or minor amendments to various Acts. However, some of the more significant provisions in the bill relate to State-owned corporations. Although members of the Opposition are not opposed to the passage of this bill, we believe that matters relating to State-owned corporations would have been better dealt with in a stand-alone bill, which would have afforded greater opportunity for public scrutiny of the implications of these changes. Be that as it may, as I said earlier, the Opposition is not opposed to this bill.

The bill will amend the Registered Clubs Act 1976 and a number of gaming provisions in the Liquor Act 1982. The bill will also amend the National Rail Corporation (Agreement) Act 1991, which allows the corporation to carry out intrastate rail services in New South Wales. The Protection of the Environment Operations Act will be amended to make it an offence to drop litter from a trailer. I am sure that all honourable members would agree that that is an important amendment. I travel on a significant regional road on which there is a tip and an environmental recycling area. I am often extremely disappointed to see boxes of rubbish, garbage bags that have fallen off the back of trailers, which have ripped apart upon impact, and garbage strewn along the side of the road.

The amendments to the Protection of the Environment Operations Act will include a provision that will specify that people who take rubbish in their trailers to the tip for disposal must take greater care to ensure that it does not fall off the back of their trailers—unlike the documents that are leaked by this Government with increased regularity. The Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill will also amend the Rural Lands Protection Act 1998. The Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996 will be amended to provide for the Victims Compensation Tribunal to review a decision of the Director, Victims Services to pay for approved counselling services for a victim of violence—counselling services which are in excess of 20 hours.

Amendments that will be made to the Law Enforcement (Controlled Operations) Amendment Act—legislation that was debated at length in this Chamber—will delay a further review of the operation of the Act until after 1 December 2002. A report on the outcome of that review will be tabled in Parliament 12 months later. That will delay the implementation of an amendment that was agreed to in 1999 to provide for a further review after 1 March 2001 and for a report to be tabled in the Parliament by 1 June 2001. As I said earlier, the Coalition draws the attention of the House to the amendment to the State Owned Corporations Act 1989, which will provide for a voting shareholder to authorise another Minister to act on behalf of that voting shareholder.

A new and quite comprehensive section will be inserted into the Act. I again observe that those issues would have been more appropriately dealt with in a separate bill that could have been considered by the House in much greater detail. Schedule 2 to the bill, which deals with amendments by way of law revision, will make minor and technical changes to various Acts. Schedule 3 will repeal a number of Acts in those instances where the relevant principal Act has been reprinted or is available electronically. The Opposition is not opposed to those changes as they are fairly minor or technical amendments. I am sure that all honourable members are concerned about the proposed changes to section 49 of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999—the surrender and forfeiture of prohibited speed measuring evasion articles. I assure honourable members that that section does not include mobile phones.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [4.06 p.m.], in reply: I thank the honourable member for his comments, which, as usual, were to the point and, unlike the contributions to other debate of some of his colleagues, very brief.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN SYDNEY AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [4.08 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

Origins of Change

^st

The Audit Office is of the opinion that cost of administration at the university is unnecessarily high and could be reduced. In addition, its approach to administration can place barriers in the way of potential students and other users of the university.

To its credit, the university has recognised that administrative costs are high and is developing plans to reduce these costs. The Audit Office considers that there is now an urgent need to accelerate those activities and move from planning to implementation. Further delays will be costly and will affect the service the university provides to its customers, the students and other users.

Details of the Provisions of the Bill

Effect of the Changes

Conclusion

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [4.09 p.m.]: The Opposition is pleased to support the University of Western Sydney Amendment Bill, legislation that we believe will strengthen the administration of the university and, as such, will be of benefit to the university and to education in western Sydney. When the original University of Western Sydney Bill was introduced in the other place at the end of 1988 the then Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Dr Metherell, referred to the establishment of the University of Western Sydney as "an autonomous university in western Sydney and to lay the foundation for its growth into a university of national and international standing". We do not need to take any political points in relation to that issue. We regard the establishment of the University of Western Sydney as one of the great achievements of the Greiner Government—a vision shared by the Labor Party. Perhaps we were in the right place at the right time, or perhaps because of some judicious changes we were in a better position to introduce the legislation.

I share that vision for an autonomous university. The University of Western Sydney was the first university in western Sydney. It was established at a time when the majority of the population in the area had not attended university and did not have a strong tradition of university education. I relate to that because, as most honourable members know, I am a graduate of the University of Newcastle. I am proud of that. The first autonomous university in Newcastle was established in 1965, although there had been a higher education presence link to the University of New South Wales and an arts faculty link to the University of New England. The University of Newcastle provided people with a different outlook and created a sense of pride. Many young people looked to university as a natural part of their education. As a result of its impact on the city, it now shares the label of the largest employer with the area health service. It is no mean feat to go from a city dominated by manufacturing industry to one in which the major employer is the university.

The University of Western Sydney will bestow the same legacy on western Sydney. Over time that university, which is already the third largest university in New South Wales and the tenth largest in Australia, will do much to change the ethos of the community, to broaden its outlook and to add value to the economy of western Sydney. At the time of the establishment of the University of Western Sydney in 1988 Dr Metherell referred to the coming together of two colleges of education, the Nepean College of Advanced Education and Hawkesbury Agricultural College, which had a longstanding presence in that part of Sydney and were the only traditional higher education facilities. These two colleges formed a federated network—not a unified autonomous university system, as every other university had at that time. Dr Metherell compared the new university with the multicampus network institutions that exist overseas, particularly in the United States of America. Dr Metherell said:

As Dr Metherell said, the federated network university would comprise the University of Western Sydney, Nepean, the University of Western Sydney, Hawkesbury, and the University of Western Sydney, Macarthur. The concept was for a network of colleges and universities. With hindsight, Dr Metherell's vision about the operation and strengthening of the federated network did not come to fruition. After 1995 that failure was particularly exacerbated by the decision of the Nepean College to secede. Each of the university campuses regarded themselves as separate entities, not as part of a whole. By contrast, Charles Sturt University identifies itself as just that, not as Charles Sturt, Bathurst—or Mitchell, as it was—or Charles Sturt Wagga Wagga. The University of Western Sydney has traditionally regarded itself as being made up of separate campuses. Students relate to the campus they attend. The Auditor-General highlighted that issue in his report last year. In relation to achievement the University of Western Sydney has lived up to all that we expected of it and more. We need only look at the statistics provided by the university as an illustration of its success. That document states:

Between 1994 and 1996, higher education participation rates in the region for the age group 15-64 (and excluding TAFE participation) have increased from 41.23 per 1000 to 58.88 per 1000, an increase of almost 43 percent.

The document continues:

Many people in Newcastle, including myself, had the same experience after the establishment of our university. The document also states:

Importantly also, over 56% of our students come from Greater Western Sydney. The University has produced over 30,000 graduates, half of whom find employment in the region.

As a Parliament we have an obligation to ensure that the university functions efficiently and effectively. According to the Auditor-General, the university has not done so. The Auditor-General's report last year highlighted the fact that administration costs at the university were higher than those of other universities in this State. That is shown, significantly, on a graph of administrative staffing costs for universities. The bill will change the structure of the university from a federated one to a unitary one. That change will overcome many of the problems that were identified by the Auditor-General, who stated at page 17 of his report:

there was duplication of effort with each Member [campus] carrying out some of the same functions, when the function could be exercised more economically for the whole University—for example three separate payroll systems are run
where one Member had developed good practice, for example achieving good value-for-money from a supplier, this was not necessarily passed on to other Members, or if it was, might not be implemented by them
policies covering the same issues were developed independently by each Member, but often a single policy was ultimately needed, for example covering employment issues because the University is a single employer. This resulted in triplication of effort and additional effort to coordinate the policies where there was a University-wide dimension

All honourable members would agree that that is an extraordinary waste of effort and a totally inefficient way to operate an organisation. At the end of the day we want value for dollars. We do not want money being spent on unnecessary administrative costs; we want it spent on research, on the students and on the enhancement of university facilities. The Coalition supports this bill because we believe that the bringing together of the administrative functions of the university will enhance the benefit it provides for the whole region. I will not go through all the details of the legislation. Clearly, it has our absolute support. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [4.17 p.m.]: I support the University of Western Sydney Amendment Bill, albeit with certain caveats. Greater western Sydney consists of 14 local government areas: Auburn, Bankstown, Baulkham Hills, Blacktown, Blue Mountains, Camden, Campbelltown, Fairfield, Hawkesbury, Holroyd, Liverpool, Parramatta, Penrith and Wollondilly. It has a population of 1.6 million, making it larger than Adelaide and Brisbane. It is usually compared to the rest of Sydney, which is Sydney without Greater western Sydney and Gosford and Wyong, and New South Wales. Between 1991 and 1996 the population of Greater western Sydney increased by 7.5 percent, whereas the population in the rest of Sydney grew by only 6 per cent and the population of New South Wales by only 5.4 per cent. The population density is relatively low at 177 people per square kilometre. That is because of the area's predominantly rural nature. Sydney rates at 319.6 people per square kilometre. Not only is the population spread out, which causes transport problems, it is young, with a median age of 31 years. For the rest of Sydney the median age is 36 years. The higher education participation rate in Greater western Sydney at 58.88 people per 1,000 is low when compared to the rest of Sydney, which is 88.85 people per 1,000.

Western Sydney also has a large number of non-European migrants. The figures in one 1996 survey were Vietnamese, 2.8 per cent; Lebanese, 1.8 per cent; Filipino, 1.7 per cent; and Chinese 1.3 per cent. In the rest of Sydney the main groups are Italians with 1.5 per cent and Chinese 1.9 per cent. Apart from Australian-born residents European-born residents still make up the largest regional group in great western Sydney at 12 per cent compared with 14 per cent in the rest of Sydney. Asian-born residents are the second-largest group in great western Sydney with 11 per cent. Of the University of Western Sydney graduates who were surveyed in 1996, 50.1 per cent of those employed indicated they worked in greater western Sydney, the biggest employer being the Department of School Education. The pharmaceutical, chemical, petroleum and coal industries are worth $3.2 billion, while food, beverages and tobacco are worth $3.7 billion. Between 1995 the 1998, the number of small businesses in greater western Sydney grew by 13.7 per cent compared with 11.13 per cent for the rest of Sydney.

In summary, greater western Sydney is characterised by a young, growing population which is ethnically diverse. Income levels, employment, and tertiary participation rates tend to be lower than for the rest of Sydney. Families tend to live in detached dwellings and a substantial proportion of residents of the region are employed there. It is the third largest marketplace in Australia after Sydney and Melbourne. It has a gross domestic product of $35 billion. We are talking about a major area, yet its universities are not commensurate with the statistics I have given. One might think the bill would try to improve that imbalance. However, the bill basically wants to amalgamate the campuses of the University of Western Sydney following one year of consultation and an Audit Office report.

The Australian Democrats were approached by the University of Western Sydney, which was in favour of the bill. We were then surprised to be lobbied by a number of other groups that were concerned about aspects of the amalgamation. It would seem that staff of the university are not happy about it. I have been given a report from elected staff representatives to the Board of Trustees entitled "Will the last staff member to resign from UWS please turn out the lights?" The report states:

Year	Resignations
1997	61
1998	97
1999	102
2000	181

The figure has tripled in three years, which is a lot. The report continues:

Year	Resignations
1997	1
1998	27
1999	44
2000	115

Year	Academic	General
1997	0	1
1998	8	19
1999	12	32
2000/01	29	86

The staff were obviously concerned after they were briefed on the bill. There was a lot of consultation, involvement and participation, but when questioned about some of the concerns raised I was met with a sort of managerial speak, half promises and guarantees. There were no substantial guarantees on how the problems would be fixed. There is an uncomfortable uncertainty among some of the students who are unsure of the implications of the amalgamation. It seems that the amalgamation will increase the number of elective subjects. However, there has never been any declaration or guarantee about retaining the subjects at the campuses where they are now offered. There is no guarantee that students will not be forced to travel to other campuses as part of an imposed rationalisation of units, courses and subjects. There is concern about that aspect.

In a briefing members on the crossbenches received some guarantees that teachers and lecturers will have to travel, but that still means that if students want to ask questions of lecturers at times other than during lectures they will have to travel to them. Other concerns for the students include parking fees, which have been low in the Campbelltown area but high in Penrith. Students are concerned that they will have to pay for parking when they visit a campus in another area. That is an extra cost for a group that does not have much money. The cost of transport also has to be borne in mind. They do not believe that matter has been addressed. The community of Western Sydney as a whole obviously has a social need. The community is concerned about the lower participation rate in higher education and wants the university funded to address that matter. It is suggested that this rationalisation is aimed at saving money. Striving for efficiency at all costs obviously should not be to the detriment of students. The problem was highlighted on 8 July in an article in the Sydney Morning Herald by Malcolm Knox entitled "The University of hard knocks". That article shows what happens when the economic rationalists take over. The article states:

The article goes on to say:

We must realise that universities are centres of learning and education. One of the key functions of the University of Western Sydney is to serve the needs of western Sydney. The public and their elected representatives may believe that universities do not have to follow the prevailing economic rationalist business model in their operations. Perhaps the public and their elected representatives will recognise that something is inherently wrong, even if it is economically sound, to bury 10,000 books on the site of a university. It is amazing that UWS has survived this long. It receives almost no corporate support compared to other universities and it has a very poor staff-student ratio, yet it has expanded every year, providing educational opportunities previously unavailable to the young people of western Sydney, and it has remained remarkably cost efficient. The proposed staff cutbacks, which are a bid to build up capital reserves, are not reasonable. UWS is the most underdeveloped University in New South Wales, and it will remain so if government funding is not increased.

The effectiveness of departments and individuals was not analysed when it was decided to cut academic staff numbers. The cuts were made arbitrarily and based on cutting budgets rather than assessing rising enrolments and falling staff-student ratios. These concerns have been raised with me and, to a large extent, they are material. The general principle of a single administration for multiple campuses is not inherently flawed. It is all very well for this Parliament to say that the legislation will fix legislative problems and that it has nothing to do with management. Often we get what I call the two-planet syndrome: on one planet there is a big muddle and everyone's lives are disrupted for no apparent benefit; on the other planet management jargon assures us that the goal is ideal, that any glitches are very minor and that progress is entirely satisfactory. Naturally, these two planets describe exactly the same place at the same time and the same situation.

The Hon. I. M. Macdonald: Which planet are you on?

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: The honourable member is clearly on the planet that says that management is just great, as he always is. These types of shake-ups often occur because not enough money is allocated. I understand that the global budget has been cut. What guarantees can be given that these problems will be addressed? I stress that the political spin or managerial cliches are not really satisfactory answers. We will continue to monitor the situation. We trust that this legislative change will be followed by satisfactory management implementation of these changes.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [4.32 p.m.]: Much of what I might otherwise have said has been covered in debate. One of the reasons the University of Western Sydney has been so successful is not only because it has pioneered tertiary education in an area as vast as western Sydney, but because it has also been able to get close to its community. One of the things that has made the University of Western Sydney—and in this regard I differ from my colleague who spoke a moment ago—is the significant level of support it receives from local businesses to fund research. The university gets support because people believe that it belongs to them and their area. I support this bill, which is the result of an audit report that concluded that three different administrations were very expensive. But one of the advantages of three different campuses was that people who lived in the Nepean area felt that they owned a bit of the Nepean university; people who lived in the Macarthur area felt that it was their local university, and so on.

People who do not live in western Sydney do not quite understand that, even though it is a vast area in which we feel some unity with each other, there is great pride and distinctiveness in the different parts of western Sydney, just as there are in any other parts of Sydney. People who live in Maroubra do not necessarily think of themselves as living in Sydney's eastern suburbs. There is a special distinction between those who live in Penrith and those who live in Blacktown or Campbelltown. As someone who lives in the Macarthur area I can advise the House that the deletion of the term "Macarthur campus" will impact on people outside of the university because they will no longer feel close to it. I know that there is some level of commitment by the students and the staff to describe the campus at Campbelltown as the Campbelltown campus, but outside of the university there is some regret within the community that it will lose its specific identity with the Macarthur campus. People who live in Camden do not consider Campbelltown to be on the same planet. Perhaps they ought to think more globally, but at the moment they do not.

Marketing is very important. The positioning of the university and the concept that it belongs to the people of Macarthur, as opposed to its being a specific and distinctive part of Campbelltown, is an important distinction. If it is not handled properly, it could cause some disadvantage. I am not exactly sure where the boundary for Campbelltown is. I have a feeling that the university abuts the very boundary between Campbelltown and Camden; it is just inside the Campbelltown City Council boundary. In fact, it is what distinguishes Campbelltown from Camden. Although the proposal in the legislation will be great for the people who live in Campbelltown, and I have no objection to their feeling terrific about being a university town, there was an attachment to the concept of the Macarthur campus. It was special and its loss will be regretted. The Campbelltown campus was built on an open paddock. Nothing much was there prior to the building of a campus of the University of Western Sydney. It has had to fight tooth and nail for its existence. Every course added to the Macarthur campus has been the result of a great deal of argument, blood, sweat and tears.

Some of the people who live in the Macarthur and Campbelltown areas are concerned that to some extent the Campbelltown campus will be starved of resources while the other more established parts of the federation will get all the gravy. One need only go back to the enormous debate about whether a law faculty should be located at Macarthur. I have little doubt that, if the proposed structure of the university existed at that time, Macarthur would have been unsuccessful in having law added to the options available for students living in Campbelltown. The distance between Penrith and Campbelltown is 20 kilometres, and involves quite considerable travelling. The two cities are not linked by any form of public transport that does not involve a very roundabout train trip. Alternatively one can use the Northern Road. I understand that recently the Howard Government has committed itself to upgrading the orbital road, which will be an advantage for those who travel between Penrith and Campbelltown. People who live outside western Sydney do not understand that the distance between Penrith and Campbelltown is the same as the difference between Campbelltown and the city of Sydney.

Although both Penrith and Campbelltown might be described as being located in western Sydney, they have various distinctions, which they very jealously guard. The allocation of resources between a Bankstown campus, a Blacktown campus, a Campbelltown campus, a Hawkesbury campus and so on will be hard fought and will be of concern. But if the positioning of Macarthur versus Campbelltown is considered and an equitable distribution is made between the various campuses, I have no objection to the introduction of some level of efficiency to the management of the university. However, I do not understand why a complete shake-up of the federation was necessary to get the campuses to share the same payroll system. That is a nonsense. I would be surprised if the federation did not take steps to amalgamate those administrative-type aspects of the university. I hope that the amalgamation of what I regard as trivial things, such as the payroll and other management systems, does not result in the loss of some of the best arrangements of the federated university.

As I understand it, the honourable member for Campbelltown, who has duties in Athens at the moment, will not be a member of this Parliament when the House resumes next February. I, as a person who has had a great deal to do with the honourable member for Campbelltown over a period of time, would like to note that he is leaving the Parliament. Michael Knight has brought to politics perhaps some of its best and worst features. It would be fair to say that Michael Knight made campaigning in Campbelltown more combative than it ever needed to be. There are probably loads of good people with enormous bruises as a result of the political campaigns that Michael ran against them. But the occasion of a member's leaving is not a time to dwell on things done badly.

At this time I would be gracious in referring to a couple of things that I think Michael Knight did well, notwithstanding the fact that in saying these things I might generate some tension in members sitting behind me. I understand there are bruised persons all around this Chamber from the political activities of the honourable member for Campbelltown. I would simply say that I believe overall Campbelltown is a somewhat better place for his efforts in this Parliament. There is no doubt that the infrastructure of Campbelltown was improved by Michael Knight when he had the opportunity to put his hands on the lever, whether as Minister for Roads, Minister for Transport or even Minister for the Olympics.

Campbelltown now has some wonderful road infrastructure. The railway station has been terrifically improved—although I hasten to add that some of the improvements commenced during the time of the Fahey Government. The Campbelltown Sports Stadium and the athletics track will serve the people of Campbelltown well into the future. I know the honourable member for Campbelltown has been associated with those works, and he will be fondly remembered for having done so. I would like, at least, to pay that tribute. It is said that it is an ill wind that does not blow any good. The occasions that I have competed in political battles with the honourable member for Campbelltown have taught me some great lessons. There was a lot of discussion today about distribution of how-to-vote leaflets in a local government election in Canada Bay. The person who taught the world how to use the how-to-votes creatively was, without a doubt, the honourable member for Campbelltown. He used that technique very innovatively and particularly in Campbelltown.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: He did not invent everything!

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: It is a source of amazement that almost every time we had an election in Campbelltown we had to work out his new stunts or tricks. Notwithstanding their effectiveness, I felt at the time that they were deceitful. Nevertheless, I was impressed by the genius with which he was able to produce them. He might have suggested the poison, but I learned plenty in organising the antidote. As I said, it is an ill wind that blows nobody any good: I am today probably a better equipped and more effective politician for having had to compete with the honourable member for Campbelltown.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: This does not have anything to do with the University of Western Sydney.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: I note also that he served this State and country well in the contribution that he made to the running of the Olympics. I am not quite sure why the honourable member interjects, in a sense objecting to the fact that I would be praising a person on her side of politics. Perhaps they too have some bruises. But, like him or not, you could not ignore the honourable member for Campbelltown. I simply note his departure from this place at this opportune time and wish him well for the future.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [4.43 p.m.]: I am delighted to support the University of Western Sydney Amendment Bill. I would make a number of comments on it, mainly in my capacity as a representative of this House on the board of the university. I have been a member of the board since 1995, and therefore have sat through the meetings and discussions that occurred not only in relation to the changes to the Act that we are debating but also in respect of the changes that were made in the amending Act of 1997. I would like to say a little about the reason for those two sets of changes.

First, could I stress the importance of the bill that we are debating and the importance of the university under discussion. The University of Western Sydney is a new university. It was established in only 1989, 11 years ago, to fill an enormous gap in tertiary education. Until then, anyone who lived in western and south-western Sydney was almost excluded from a university education. The University of Western Sydney originally was formed as a network of three former colleges of advanced education: Hawkesbury Agricultural College, which I believe dated back to 1891, the Macarthur Institute of Higher Education, and the Nepean College of Advanced Education. Both of the latter bodies had grown out of former teachers colleges with histories going back some decades.

A point to remember when reflecting on the area served by the University of Western Sydney is that that area is larger than, for instance, the Australian Capital Territory or the City of Perth, and the population of the area is larger, for instance, than that of Adelaide or Brisbane. So the size of the region is an important factor. But also important in relation to the role that the university plays in the community is that greater western Sydney has a very young and growing population, is ethnically diverse, and has income and employment levels and tertiary participation rates which tend to be lower than those for the rest of Sydney. There has been improvement in some of those matters in the decade or so that the university has existed, but there remains much to be done in relation to the tertiary participation rate. I would briefly mention the work that the university has done to attract and keep indigenous students. The university has a very proud record in that respect.

Back in 1997 this Parliament passed the University of Western Sydney Act, which was designed to overcome some of the difficulties of the structure that had been set up when the university first began. Those recommendations and changes—which were introduced after much discussion and a great deal of heart burning—while retaining a measure of local autonomy for the members of the university network, vested increased authority in the member councils, as they then became. So that, while there was a move to overcome some of the problems that had caused considerable division, nevertheless the changes retained a very much federated structure. In the meantime, other universities have moved away from the federated structure towards a more unitary structure. The major example of that in New South Wales is Charles Sturt University.

One of the major reasons that have brought about the changes under discussion now is the role over the past four years of the Commonwealth Government. The workable and appropriate structure that was agreed upon by pretty well everyone four years ago has been overtaken by the harsh financial conditions that have prevailed in all Australian universities flowing from the Commonwealth Government's drastic budget cuts of 1996. The university's share of operating revenue provided by the Commonwealth has fallen over the past four years, although student numbers have continued to rise. At the same time, other financial pressures have continued to build. Those include more recent demands for academic salary increases, which will not be fully funded by the Commonwealth Government.

An increasingly competitive environment for funding many educational programs and research has compounded those difficulties. The people who comprise the University of Western Sydney community—from the Carr Government and the people of New South Wales, but most particularly the people of greater western Sydney—are all committed to overcoming the disadvantages that Commonwealth cutbacks have imposed on New South Wales universities. Many of us are committed to overcoming those cutbacks in funding to the new University of Western Sydney, particularly because of its role in serving a community whose participation in tertiary education had been severely disadvantaged.

The difficulty with the structures set up under the 1997 Act was that whilst they satisfied the wishes of the subregions, they were reasonably costly because of duplication of administration. Cutbacks also have made it more difficult to provide a full range of education programs and research opportunities across the different campuses. The University of Western Sydney [UWS] not only has three formal members but each member has two, three or four individual campuses. The university is spread out geographically and in later years this could impact on the numbers enrolling for certain courses and, if there are not enough students, those courses not being offered. Available travel services could affect that also. I recognise the concern about those issues in the structure, but I stress that those issues exist now for many students. Nevertheless, they are important issues that the university administration must address in light of these amendments.

I do not want to speak about the bill in great detail. Many changes are already under way and we are now dealing with measures to change the 1997 Act. I should like to say a little about some concerns raised by students and staff, which have been referred to by other speakers. I have mentioned the problems created by the increased need for some students to travel. Obviously that will involve both time and cost. The same concern will arise in the future for some staff. A number of guarantees have been made in the short term, but new students may face difficulties accessing particular courses. Some of that concern will be balanced by the university's ability to set up more viable courses on campuses that can be accessed by students who might previously have undertaken their course at another campus.

Although staff have been given guarantees about replacements during the restructuring process, I recognise also that issues have surfaced on that aspect. Obviously, staff interests will be looked after and staff have been guaranteed employment at their existing salary for a period. Staff are concerned that no staff will be made redundant, and that vacant positions will not be advertised externally unless it is absolutely necessary because none of the present staff have the requisite skills for a particular position. While some of those issues are difficult to work through, I believe that everyone from the chancellor and vice-chancellor down through the board members, like myself, have been aware of them and that a number of processes have been put in place to make sure they are addressed. It needs to be recognised also that some of the current difficulties in the staff negotiations actually have more to do with the fact that salary negotiations are under way. Naturally, some of the structural issues are being addressed in the context of the salary negotiations.

I should like to note the retirement at the end of the year of the chancellor, Sir Ian Turbott. He has been the university's only chancellor and has done a fantastic job over the past decade. When one thinks about it, he undertook a huge job of starting a university from scratch, particularly one made up of such disparate units spread over such a large geographical area. He has brought to the role of chancellor, particularly during the period of structural arguments that I have mentioned, a great deal of wisdom and an ability to negotiate with and talk to everyone involved, and to work always in the interests of the university.

Sir Ian Turbott has played an enormous role in the western Sydney community in his own right, as someone involved in business in the region, and someone with an amazing network of contacts. His role in the university together with the greater western Sydney community has been invaluable for both sides. The University of Western Sydney has closer links with its community than any other university of which I am aware. I believe that much gratitude is owed to the chancellor for the value of those links. I am sure that I reflect the views of the whole board when I express my appreciation of more than a decade of service that Sir Ian Turbott has given the University of Western Sydney.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [4.55 p.m.]: The Greens support the direction of the University of Western Sydney Amendment Bill. Obviously it is sensible to create a single institution, but in doing so one can do it well or not so well. Considering what is happening across the University of Western Sydney's [UWS] campuses, clearly there is a problem. The Greens have received information from staff and students concerned with the way management is handling the current situation. Indeed, the industrial action taken at the campuses reflects the problem over general restructuring. I understand that to date there have been one half-day stoppage and one full-day stoppage and that, with the support of student representative bodies at the various campuses, a ban has been placed on the transmission of examination results.

Between 300 and 400 staff have actively participated in picket lines during the stoppages and about 150 attended a demonstration at Werrington campus at the end of the one-day stoppage. That is a substantial level of active participation in industrial action and reflects that the way the restructuring is being carried out is insensitive—that is the kindest way to put it. The restructuring is causing problems that should be ironed out before embarking on this fundamental process as it is important to the future delivery of tertiary education in western Sydney. The other area that reveals problems with the restructuring program is in the number of resignations. There has been an enormous increase in turnover of staff. The general resignation rate in 2000 is twice that of last year. Academic resignations have almost trebled. Overall, staff resignations from 1997 to date have increased from 61 to 188. If Nepean campus is removed from the equation it is interesting to note that the number of resignations is more stark: from one in 1997 to 115 this year. This reflects the problem with and, indeed, the lack of confidence in management.

Concerns raised with the Greens also include worries about the reduction of courses offered with a move to the new structure. This is presenting students with a real problem. Let us remember that UWS was established to bring education to western Sydney. We urge that the university give priority to the provision of courses. Other honourable members have spoken of the long distances between campuses and of how students have an expectation that their campus will provide the courses. The amalgamation is not a justification for making sweeping changes to courses.

There is also the important commitment to lowering student numbers in tutorial classes. At the moment the numbers are quite high. I understand that a commitment was given by management that the numbers will drop from the present average of 25 to 20 by the year 2002 and that the further target would be to bring those numbers down to 15 by the year 2003. The students of western Sydney deserve class sizes that enable them to have quality education. Clearly, that needs to be a priority that is locked into the present restructuring.

I particularly note the role of student organisations. The Greens work very closely with a number of such organisations. We give absolute support to the need to have such representative bodies because they play a critical role at any university. The Greens also note that universities like the University of Western Sydney have been put under enormous pressure by the savage funding cuts to universities. These cuts were started by the Australian Labor Party and are being continued by the Federal Coalition. The increase in the number of indigenous board members to be co-opted is one aspect of the legislation that we welcome. We see this as a most positive development and it shows that universities are conscious of the wider community. That positive aspect is something we hope will be continued in the implementation of the amalgamation.

The Greens support increased representation of students and staff on university governing bodies. We believe that universities should be democratic institutions, and that the way to achieve that is to look at the representation on the councils. Accordingly, the say of students and staff needs to be paramount. Often management can override the combined concerns of students and staff, and a representative council reduces the likelihood of that. As I said, we support the general thrust of the bill. We believe there is a priority to proceed in the way laid out. However, we felt there was a need to signal that there are problems in the implementation. We did that because we believe fundamentally that in the provision of education the people of Western Sydney must not be disadvantaged. At the moment that is what is happening because of the way the amalgamation is being carried out. But we will support the bill.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. G. S. Pearce.

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion by the Hon. M. R. Egan agreed to:

ADJOURNMENT

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [5.02 p.m.]: I move:

Mrs SEKAI HOLLAND ZIMBABWE ASSAULT

The Hon. P. T. PRIMROSE [5.02 p.m.]: Many Australians concerned with human rights issues are very familiar with the name Sekai Holland. Mrs Holland spent 20 years living in Australia during the war of independence in Zimbabwe. She was a leading figure in the Australian anti-apartheid movement between 1966 in 1980. She became well known throughout the Australian community. She married an Australian, Mr Jim Holland, and her children are Australian citizens and still live in Australia. She is now a prominent member of the Movement for Democratic Change [MDC] in Zimbabwe. On the weekend she suffered a vicious beating. The attack took place outside the Beatrice Primary School polling station during the first by-election since the general election in June. Election monitors reported a strong presence in the area of so-called war veterans or ex-combatants. Voters were experiencing serious political intimidation and threatening behaviour. Before anyone was allowed to vote, they were forced to chant Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front [ZANU-PF] slogans. Mrs Holland had decided to visit the MDC monitors in that area to lend her support.

While Mrs Holland's car was parked outside the polling station, several carloads of ex-combatants surrounded her and started to interrogate her. One of the thugs suddenly grabbed a 14-year-old girl who was travelling with Mrs Holland and began strangling her. Mrs Holland was severely beaten, her clothes torn and her glasses smashed, leaving her terrified and unable to see clearly what was happening around her. Even after police arrived and tried to escort Mrs Holland's car from the town, several cars full of ex-combatants continued to ram her car and block their way. Two members of Mrs Holland's group and three MDC election monitors were kidnapped but later escaped. Another carful of MDC members, including Mr Mhashu, member of Parliament for Chitungwiza, spent the night hiding from ZANU-PF thugs in a graveyard near Mr Stevens' house. Mr Stevens was brutally murdered earlier this year.

Mrs Holland described them all as lucky to escape with their lives. She said, "We came face-to-face with Steven's killers and, like his friends who were attacked with him, we were the lucky ones this time." The MDC received strong public support in the electorate, which is considered to be a stronghold of ZANU-PF. The violent strategies of ZANU-PF only just succeeded, and it retained the seat by a greatly reduced majority. I spoke about Sekai Holland before, when she was illegally detained by ZANU-PF operatives. On this occasion, through a combination of her own ingenuity and the political pressure from her many friends in Australia through the Australian High Commissioner in Harare, she managed to escape and to contest the seat of Mberengwa East.

Because of Mrs Holland's significant position within Zimbabwe and internationally, her election campaign came under particular attention from the ZANU-PF thugs. There was a great deal of political violence and intimidation. Her struggle against the violent ZANU-PF campaign was documented and shown on Australian television. Unfortunately, many MDC supporters were too fearful to vote and Mrs Holland was not successful. However, elsewhere the MDC did fantastically well, winning 57 seats and establishing the party as a serious political force in Zimbabwe. It is continuing to attack the corruption and financial mismanagement of the Mugabe Government and to challenge the vote stealing and violent strategies of ZANU-PF. The land grabs and political violence have continued since the elections. The economy has deteriorated further, with inflation at about 60 per cent, crippling unemployment and food and fuel shortages. I urge the Australian Government and the Commonwealth to increase their efforts to bring an end to the violence and corruption in Zimbabwe. The concern of people around the world must surely protect the lives of brave activists such as Sekai Holland and give hope for a democratic future in Zimbabwe.

CANADA BAY LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTION

The Hon. D. T. HARWIN [5.07 p.m.]: Last night during debate on the Local Government Amendment Bill the Hon. Jan Burnswoods referred to the conduct of certain candidates for tomorrow's local government elections for the newly amalgamated City of Canada Bay. As honourable members may be aware, the City of Canada Bay has come about through the amalgamation of Drummoyne and Concord councils. Community opposition to the merger was high. Concord Council did not even vote on the merger proposal yet the Minister for Local Government recommended to the Governor that the amalgamation proceed after he received advice from the Mayor of Concord, Peter Woods, that the council would have had a majority in favour of amalgamation if a vote had been held.

There was a great deal of concern about the way the merger progressed. My colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition wrote to the Governor highlighting concerns in this regard. His Excellency's Private Secretary replied stating that the Governor was "dubious" about the validity of the Minister for Local Government accepting the advice of the Mayor of Concord in place of the vote of a full council. In any case, the election will be held tomorrow and the comments by the Hon. Jan Burnswoods cannot go unanswered. She made reference to the activities of Councillor Michael Cantali in registering several parties to contest the election. The inference conveyed by the honourable member was that these parties were established purely for preference allocations.

One of the parties registered by Mr Cantali is called Don't Amalgamate My Municipality, or DAMM. DAMM was registered in March 2000 at the request of Mr James Darby, who, as the Hon. Jan Burnswoods pointed out, is the son of the former member for Manly, Douglas Darby. DAMM is a registered party that was established to campaign in the Burwood and Strathfield local government areas when the merger proposal was first floated in the area. The Hon. Jan Burnswoods went on to accuse James Darby of what she termed "a fraudulent electoral enrolment". She stated that Mr Darby did not in fact live at the address in Cabarita that appears on how-to-vote material authorised by him. That is a very serious allegation. I have seen a copy of Mr Darby's electoral enrolment form, which clearly states his address as being a house in Stamford Avenue, Cabarita. His name also appears on the lease for the property at that address.

Mr Darby previously lived in South Street, Strathfield until August this year, and has never lived in Barker Road, Strathfield as claimed by the honourable member. The Hon. Jan Burnswoods has made a very serious and false allegation. I have with me a copy of an article that appeared in the Inner Western Suburbs Courier dated 16 October. This article concerns the registration of political parties for tomorrow's election and includes details of the parties registered for the election. I am not surprised that the Hon. Jan Burnswoods failed to mention during her contribution last night that one of those parties—the Canada Bay Residents Association—was set up by Stephen Lesslie, a councillor on Drummoyne Council who has strong links to the Australian Labor Party.

The residents of Concord and Drummoyne will vote tomorrow in the first poll for the city of Canada Bay. I suspect that this amalgamation, which has taken on all the hallmarks of a forced amalgamation and has caused a furore in the local community, will see a strong voter turnout. I place on record tonight the facts as presented to me about the comments made by the Hon. Jan Burnswoods—comments that appear to have been made not in the context of the debate in the House but in the context of a free plug for the Labor Party candidates for tomorrow's election.

There is one other matter that I should like to add in the time remaining. On page 84 of yesterday's Hansard the Hon. Jan Burnswoods incorrectly stated that a number of people who had been endorsed by the Liberal Party had their endorsement taken away. In fact, that is totally incorrect. The Liberal Party State executive did not take endorsement away from any candidates. It is true that while a preselection process was held and some people were selected, it has always been the case in the Liberal Party that preselection is a two-stage process: preselection and then endorsement. In fact, endorsement was never given to these people. So that comment by the Hon. Jan Burnswoods is incorrect. She should get better sources.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Is this under the old rules or the new rules?

The Hon. D. T. HARWIN: It is under the old rules and the new rules. The record on that matter needed to be set straight. What has happened in Canada Bay is an infamous situation, and I am sure that the electors there will reflect that in the result that is achieved tomorrow.

PARENTAL PHYSICAL PUNISHMENT

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT [5.11 p.m.]: I draw the attention of honourable members to the distressing testimony of a person who has written to me about the severe impacts of excessive parental physical punishment and how it has dramatically impacted on her life emotionally, sexually and financially. I will call her Jane. Jane is now 39 years old and married to the man she says saved her life. She is the mother of three beautiful daughters. She was one of five children, is the eldest daughter and was 10 years old at the time of the punishment. Jane belonged to a strict Catholic family. Her father was a labourer who worked long hours. Her parents kept two big black leather straps in the cupboard, each about 60 centimetres long and about six centimetres wide which could be doubled in half. The straps were called Charlie and Claude and they were put on the dinner table so the children would be good at dinner.

One day Jane's brother had Charlie used on him in the backyard and Jane was terrified. She then became a super good girl, being helpful and compliant so that her parents would not have any reason to hit her. When she was 10 years old her mother found a picture in her chest of drawers that she and her sister had drawn of boys and girls naked bodies. Rather than dismiss it as innocent curiosity, her mother was convinced that other things were going on. When her father returned home Jane and her sister were called in and physically punished. She was made to bend right over the double bed while her mother watched at the door. Full-force blows with the opened out length of the strap hit her buttocks, thighs and genital area.

Jane blacked out during the punishment and was put to bed. Later when she awoke she had a severe headache and saw in the mirror the bruises to her body, which covered her thighs, knees and buttocks. Jane could not sit down and she could hardly walk for about 10 days, for which her father ridiculed her. She was made to go to confession and confess her immodesty to the priest. She described her shaming as great. No-one talked about it. She became a silent person. She then experienced rapid weight gain to age 13 and was given the nickname "fatty", and then began to diet. By 14 she had noticeable anorexia and she did not begin menstruation until she was in her twenties. She stated that her spirit was broken.

When Jane was 19 she was sexually assaulted by a work supervisor. She lost her career over it because she was unable to speak up for herself. She believed that she would not be listened to and felt inhibited because of her fear of men. Her anorexia became worse and almost destroyed her life. At that point of hopelessness she became a Christian and met her future husband. In her twenties she also suffered severe allergies, chronic fatigue syndrome and bulimia. Once she was married she experienced sexual problems and had a nervous breakdown. Severe depression followed for two years and she was suicidal. Jane says that she cannot explain the horror and agony she went through to heal herself. When the memories came back her body would shudder with the force and impact of the blows. The burning pain in her sexual organs would make her scream.

She likens what was done to her to female circumcision; she felt "sexually dead". Jane says that the punishment was never spoken about at the time, nor was any sex education given. She found the courage to heal herself only after her father's death five years ago. Her mother has apologised on one occasion. Jane says she has now forgiven them and holds no grudges, and she has stopped hating herself so that she can now have a future. This is just one very clear example of how excessive physical punishment can lead to long-lasting trauma for the person concerned. I thank Jane for the courage she has shown in both contacting me and trusting me with her story.

INDUSTRIAL LOCK-OUTS AND SIT-INS

The Hon. I. W. WEST [5.15 p.m.]: I refer to lock-outs and sit-ins, a new phenomenon that is occurring in Australian industrial relations under Peter Reith, the Federal Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. The lock-out is the new management style adopted in Australia. The activity came about under new directions fostered by the Federal workplace relations Minister, Peter Reith. An example of lock-outs in Australia was the failed attempt in 1998 to crush the Maritime Union of Australia. Lock-outs this year have involved Joy Manufacturing workers at Moss Vale, Fairfax journalists in Sydney and Heinz Watttie's employees in Dandenong. The decision by Wattyl management to lock out workers at its Blacktown facility at 7.30 a.m. on Wednesday 22 November was childish, misplaced and showed poor judgment. Shortly after the day shift commenced at 7.30 a.m. on that day 80 Wattyl workers and Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union members were issued with lock-out notices. Workers met immediately and voted to stay inside the building and they held a sit-in.

The action spread across the nation, as workers copied the actions of fellow workers at the Blacktown site. Management turned off power to the plant when the occupation began. Production of more than three million litres of paint, worth an estimated $60 million, was stopped. Wattyl has eight manufacturing sites around Australia and employs 700 workers. It is one of the biggest paint manufacturing employers in Australia. Wattyl has 28 trade stores in Australia and it dominates the outdoor paint market. Sales of outdoor paint rise in the warmer months when consumers take advantage of the weather and their annual leave to paint their homes. The action came after the failure of three months negotiations for an enterprise agreement. Wattyl workers had made several concessions to management to arrive at an industry-wide agreement. On 1 November the national Wattyl agreement expired. Taubmans and Dulux agreements were also due to expire.

The union, in response to rank and file requests, sought improved conditions across the industry. The requests made included two-year company-wide agreements, 10 per cent pay rises, increased superannuation, an income protection scheme, an industry fund to protect entitlements and company-wide redundancy schemes. The campaign was partly a response to increasing centralisation and rationalisation in the paint industry. The company had moved away from regional, State-by-State strategies to national strategies. I noted that yesterday Wattyl management decided to continue with its lock-out strategy and locked out workers again in Blacktown and now in Queensland and Victoria. The dispute and lock-out look set to continue through to, and possibly past, Christmas if current negotiations are anything to go by. This is not a sound way to go about business or to treat workers, nor is it a good Christmas gift.

I was interested to read an article that appeared in the Australian on Thursday 23 November. It covered the Wattyl paint workers campaign and the new style of industrial management that had led to this type of action. The article stated that, according to Joe Isaac, the former Deputy President of the Industrial Relations Commission, sit-ins had not been a significant feature of the Australian industrial landscape until recently; sit-ins had been a European and Asian phenomenon up to this point. Militant companies engaging in childish lock-outs of employees have the overt support of Peter Reith. It is reasonable to expect that this practice will continue until a reasonable industrial relations Minister can be found. I have had a quick look at Peter Reith's recent publication entitled "Breaking the Gridlock: A Focus on Agreement Making". It may make for interesting reading, but it does not make sense and it does not concur with how Peter Reith encourages companies and management to behave. Peter Reith apparently now wants workplace relations to be based on the corporations power of the Constitution, on the basis that agreement making between employers and employees would be simplified under such a scheme.

A supposed advantage would be that there would be less red tape involved in making and processing agreements. This is simply a renewed attempt to undermine the award system and the conciliation and arbitration system. The sounds that Peter Reith is making regarding simplifying workplace relations do not mirror what is taking place on the ground—like the Wattyl paintworkers' experience at Blacktown. I am pleased to hear that the New South Wales Minister for Industrial Relations is meeting with his State counterparts today and that he will be putting forward some worthy ideas on how to take industrial relations forward.

GOSFORD CITY COUNCIL DOG POUND

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS [5.20 p.m.]: I draw the attention of the House to further information about conditions at Gosford City Council dog pound. The allegations include reports from a number of people, the first of whom states that puppies kept at the establishment are virtually starved to death during their holding period of seven to 14 days. Puppies as young as four or five weeks old are fed only large dry dog biscuits once a day and most puppies are unable to chew or digest this food. These unfortunate animals are kept on wet concrete; the puppies stay wet and are actually hosed when their cage is cleaned. The puppies are left with chemical detergent or bleach on their coats. No sun reaches the cage or the puppies and they have no bedding except a metal or wooden board on legs. The bed is always left standing on its side against a wall. Even if the platform was left down, it is too high for most puppies to climb onto to escape the wet conditions.

A Central Coast resident said that on some occasions he had seen a bowl of water in the cage but at other times they did not even appear to have that. The puppies have nothing else in their cage—no food or food bowl, nothing for stimulation, comfort or security considering most should still be with their mothers. Many puppies die at the pound and there is no attempt to find them a home. The staff at the pound tell anyone wanting to buy a puppy that it is pointless to choose one because the puppy will not last the week. Any puppies that do survive the week are sick, starved, dehydrated and extremely traumatised. Another person wrote that adult dogs are also treated inhumanely. She said that dogs are often crammed into a few of the available cages to minimise work for the staff. Dog fighting is prevalent, nothing is done about it and almost all of the dogs sustain some degree of injury. Aggressive dogs are rarely kept separate. Undesexed dogs are not separated from bitches on heat and this results in severe stress and injury for the female dog.

Several other people have written that they have seen dogs fighting and mating in the pound. One woman stated that people wanting to buy a dog at the pound are turned away. They are told that all the dogs are sick and that they should go to a pet shop or to the RSPCA to buy a healthy dog. Any dogs that are found a home are in poor shape and often diseased. They have multiple bites, concrete burns from the cold wet floor, and are always very traumatised. A spokesperson for a Central Coast animal welfare group writes that the group has been aware of problems at Gosford pound for some years. The group stated that many residents had spoken of the horrific conditions in which animals are kept at the pound and that they were aware that several people had complained to Gosford City Council, without any changes being made to improve the situation. These allegations are serious and should be investigated by the State Government, which should inspect the pound to ensure that it meets the code of practice for the maintenance of dog pounds both in spirit as well as in accordance with the law of the State.

AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [5.24 p.m.]: As honourable members of this House know, next year, 2001, will be the one-hundredth anniversary of the creation of the Commonwealth of Australia, and we will celebrate the Centenary of Federation. As I have already mentioned, there will be a great parade on 1 January, and on the Australia Day weekend, 26 to 28 January, there will be a special Centenary of Federation National Conference at the Southern Cross College. I wish to highlight the opening words of the Constitution:

WHEREAS the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established …

Those words are the preamble to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act. During my speech, I will make special reference to the background of those words. Many public meetings had been held throughout Australia regarding Federation in the years preceding 1901. On 2 March 1898 a convention was held at which the text of the Constitution was finally agreed to, particularly the role and reference to God. There had been many public meetings throughout Australia and petitions were signed to campaign for the recognition of God in the Commonwealth Constitution of Australia. For example, the New South Wales Council of Churches embarked on a campaign which included the following statements:

According to experts at that time, it is very unlikely that the Federation of States would have been approved if the preamble or opening words of the Constitution had not included a reference to Almighty God, as pointed out in a constitutional convention debate by Mr Lyne, who was one of the delegates from New South Wales. Even the editorial of the Sydney Morning Herald on 14 April 1897 stated:

… no Christian could in conscience vote for a Federation Bill that did not recognise God.

The preamble to which I referred earlier was adopted unanimously. At that stage Sir John Downer, who had a role in drafting the Constitution, made this remark:

... the Commonwealth will be from its first stage a Christian Commonwealth ...

As we celebrate the Centenary of Federation, I believe it is important to acknowledge this very important aspect of our Commonwealth Constitution. The focus of those words is to thank God for his blessings. The words "Almighty God" are very important because they do not refer to an idol or a statue. Almighty God is the one true God. It is interesting that during the constitutional convention debates, it was made clear that delegates understood that Almighty God applied to all Christians, Catholics and Protestants of all denominations and was also the name of God used by the Jewish and Muslim religions. The delegates saw the inclusion of the words "Almighty God" as not being divisive but, rather, a uniting factor. The mover of the motion, Mr Glynn from South Australia, apparently was a Catholic. He moved that those words be included in the Constitution after line two. In support of the motion he stated:

I wish to move the insertion of this form of words in the preamble, because I think that it embodies the spirit of the nine suggestions in regard to this matter made by the various [State] Houses of Parliament which have considered the Draft Constitution. The words I wish to insert are simple and unsectarian. They are expressive of our ultimate hope of the final end of all our aspirations, of the great elemental truth upon which all our creeds are based, and towards which the lines of our faiths converge. They will, I think, recommend the Constitution to thousands to whom the rest of its provision may for ever be a sealed book.

He went on to say that the words "Almighty God" are very important and should be included in the Constitution. [Time expired.]

SUPERANNUATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (SAME SEX PARTNERS) LEGISLATION

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [5.29 p.m.]: I wish to put on the record my speech on the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Same Sex Partners) Bill, which, because of changes in the timetable, I was not able to speak to.

The Hon. C. J. S. Lynn: Point of order: The bill was extensively debated in the House today. The bill is subject to amendment and is yet to go back to the Legislative Assembly. It is possible, if the Legislative Assembly does not accept the amendment, that the bill could come back before this House. Therefore, the honourable member would be pre-empting possible debate on the bill.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: To the point of order: The bill has now passed the House and so I am free to speak on it, as I am on any other subject.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: To the point of order: It makes a mockery of the standing orders if members use the adjournment debate to speak on bills that have already been passed by the House.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: Or further debate the bill.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Yes, or further debate the bill. The House has made its determination on the bill. Admittedly the standing orders provide that in the adjournment debate a member may speak on any matter not relevant to the motion; that is, not relevant to the motion "That the House do now adjourn". It seems to me quite ludicrous for the adjournment debate to become an opportunity for people who, for one reason or another, good or bad, have missed the boat, to speak on bills before the House.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: To the point of order: The Leader of the House raised an important question. If members start to again debate the bill, other members may feel that they must respond. That is not the intention of this adjournment debate.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: Further to the point of order: It is a tradition of this House that someone may speak during the adjournment debate on any subject that they regard as important. Many members speak on subjects that I do not agree with, and I do not get an opportunity to respond. So the point raised by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile is totally invalid. I wish to put my speech on record, and I should have the right to do so in this House.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: To the point of order: I support the contention put by the Leader of the Government that the adjournment debate should not be a means for correcting an error made by a member. Standing Order 76 states that no member shall quote any debate in either House of the same session.

[Time for debate expired.]

Motion agreed to.

House adjourned at 5.32 p.m. until Tuesday 5 December 2000 at 11.00 a.m.
______________

PARLIAMENT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 1 December 2000, Corrected Copy)

Legislative
Assembly

Legislative
Council

Members

Bills

Committees

Hansard

Research Papers

Engaging with Parliament

External Links