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

The President offered the Prayers.

The President reported that the House had presented to Her Excellency the Governor its Address in acknowledgement of Her Excellency's message notifying the assumption of the administration of the Government of the State, and that Her Excellency had been pleased to give thereto the following answer:

President and Honourable Members
of the Legislative Council

It gives me much pleasure to receive your Address and your kind comments upon my appointment by Her Majesty the Queen as Her representative in the State of New South Wales.

It will be my endeavour always to strengthen the links between the Crown and the Parliament and the people of New South Wales. My husband and I will expend our energies fully and willingly in the interests of this State, and trust that we shall be able to fulfil our part in the years ahead.

I welcome this opportunity of meeting all Members of the Legislative Council today, and assure you of my close co-operation with you and of my earnest consideration of all matters which you may bring forward.

The Honourable the President
and Honourable Members of
the Legislative Council of
New South Wales

The Hon. J. J. Della Bosca tabled the following reports:

Administrative Decisions Tribunal, Annual Report 1999-2000
Annual Report to the Minister for Information Technology by the Board of Surveyors of New South Wales
New South Wales Government Telecommunications Authority, Annual Report 1999-2000
Community Justice Centres, Annual Report 1999-2000
Report by the Attorney General of New South Wales of those applications advised pursuant to section 26 of the Workplace Video Surveillance Act 1998 for the year ended 31 December 1999

Ordered to be printed.

The PRESIDENT: On Monday I was made aware that a serious breach of safety protocol occurred during routine maintenance work on the building. I have called for an urgent investigation into what happened, and I will report immediately to Parliament when that report is completed.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [11.05 a.m.]: I move:

That, standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 83 outside the order of precedence, relating to a motion of censure of the Minister for Police, be called on forthwith.

The House divided.

Mr Breen Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Cohen Mr Colless Mr Corbett Mrs Forsythe Miss Gardiner Mr Gay

Mr Harwin Mr M. I. Jones Mr R. S. L. Jones Mr Lynn Mrs Nile Reverend Nile Mr Oldfield Dr Pezzutti

Ms Rhiannon Mr Ryan Mrs Sham-Ho Dr Wong Tellers, Mr Jobling Mr Moppett

Mr Della Bosca Mr Dyer Mr Egan Ms Fazio Mr Hatzistergos

Mr Johnson Mr Kelly Mr Macdonald Mr Obeid Mr Tingle

Mr Tsang Tellers, Mr Primrose Mr West

Mr Gallacher	Ms Burnswoods
Mr Pearce	Ms Saffin
Mr Samios	Ms Tebbutt

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Motion by Ms Lee Rhiannon agreed to:

That Private Members' Business item No. 83 outside the order of precedence be called on forthwith.

Debate resumed from 7 March.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN [11.14 a.m.]: This morning's division is another attempt by the Government to throw an asbestos blanket over a problem in south-western Sydney that it can no longer contain. The Government has learnt nothing from Peter Beattie's experience in Queensland: when he had a problem with voting rorts, he confronted it and said that he would deal with it. It is time that this Government confronted the law and order and drug problems in Cabramatta and did something about them. It should not use every resource at its disposal to shut down debate and intimidate those who are trying to address those problems. This morning's tactic is an indication of how worried the Government is about this issue. Yesterday the expert filibusterers rode shotgun, raising points of order in an attempt to waste time and stifle debate. A diversionary amendment was moved regarding the Cabramatta High School that has absolutely nothing to do with this motion to censure the Minister for Police for interfering with the processes of the House.

The Hon. I. M. Macdonald: You weren't here.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: I was here for all of the debate.

The Hon. J. J. Della Bosca: Was that the other Charlie Lynn?

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: Will you sit down and shut up?

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: There has been an attempt to shut down this parliamentary committee. As I said yesterday, I have visited Cabramatta many times and spoken to the community. In Cabramatta one can see a uniformed policeman standing on a corner while, in his direct line of sight, a dealer conducts a drug deal in broad daylight. Either the police in Cabramatta have been instructed to turn a blind eye to drug dealing in the streets or they are incompetent. In a recent interview with John Laws, the Minister for Police said "It's not a resource problem that we have out there, it's an industrial relations problem." I contend that there is a serious law and order problem in Cabramatta. Fourteen police are sharing one police car and the Minister claims that it is not a resource problem.

Yesterday Ms Lee Rhiannon, the Hon. G. S. Pearce, the Hon. R. H. Colless and the Hon. I. Cohen gave clear and comprehensive overviews of the process and worth of the committee system in this House. They spoke of the checks and balances in our democratic system—particularly those that prevent any abuse of power by the Executive—and the division of powers between Parliament, the judiciary and the Executive. That is the fundamental foundation of our democratic system. There is no doubt in my mind that the Minister for Police warrants censure for his outbursts. The Hon. P. J. Breen said yesterday that the Minister for Education and Training and the Premier were also worthy of censure for condemning the committee and its chair, the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho. He said:

The condemnation of the inquiry into Cabramatta police resources is not an isolated attack by the Government. It is not a hysterical response out of left field …

It is a carefully orchestrated, strategic tactic to discredit the committee, to intimidate potential witnesses from appearing before the committee and to discredit those who have already given evidence. The Hon. P. J. Breen hit the nail on the head when he said:

This House is much too democratic for the Government.

That is the issue at stake here. The Treasurer has a motion on the notice paper to abolish this House. If this House were abolished, the Treasurer would not be a member of Parliament. He has already been rejected by the community he sought to represent in the other place. This House gives him a stage on which to perform his theatrical antics every day. Anything for a lark from the Treasurer! The Hon. I. Cohen went to the crux of the issue when he said, "This is not an issue about the adequacy of police and their work; it is about the rights of a committee to proceed without outside interference." All speakers in the debate yesterday noted that the attack on the committee by the Minister was not random. As I said, it was part of a carefully orchestrated campaign to cover up the unacceptable law and order failures of the Government in Cabramatta by using the full power of its public relations machine to attack the workings of the committee and the credibility of witnesses called before the committee.

In 1997 Premier Carr said, "Cabramatta has had enough. We have had to mobilise even more resources to bring relief to an area under siege." One has only to read newspaper reports or visit the area to see that the Government's policies and its rhetoric about Cabramatta have had no impact on the community there. In 1997 the Premier went on to say, "A telephone hotline is going to be established to assist the local community with the problem of discarded needles and syringes." Yesterday there was a report that on Clean Up Australia Day 2000 syringes had been picked up in one park in Cabramatta.

A number of people in Cabramatta are putting their careers, businesses and lives on the line in regard to this issue. I single out two heroes. The first is Sergeant Tim Priest. When he had the courage to speak out on this issue he would have had no doubt that his career as a police officer would be effectively finished. He has since moved out of Cabramatta. Since appearing before the committee he has borne the brunt of attacks by the Premier, the Minister for Education and Training, the Minister for Police and the local member. They have focused on discrediting Sergeant Tim Priest. Yesterday we learned that 60 police at Cabramatta unanimously supported Sergeant Tim Priest. They know what the problem is. They know who the dealers are. They know what the drug problem is. But they are not allowed to do anything about it.

The Government has an unwritten policy, a policy we will not hear about, to contain the drug problem in Cabramatta. A couple of years ago police were brought to Cabramatta from all over the State in a big operation to push the dealers out of Cabramatta. The dealers went to Liverpool, Campbelltown, Granville, St Marys and Penrith. This created major problems in those areas that the Government could not handle, because it does not have the police and it does not have the will. Retail businesses in the streets of Campbelltown had to lock the doors to their shops during the day. Customers had to knock and almost prove that they were clean before being admitted. The Government has quietly withdrawn from Cabramatta to suck the dealers back to Cabramatta to confine the drug problem there rather than tackling the heart of the problem. Never mind the business people and the honest, hard-working residents of Cabramatta who want a normal life with their families.

Yesterday the Labor Party moved a ridiculous amendment to try to create a diversion in relation to Cabramatta High School. There was almost a denial that there was a problem around Cabramatta High School. I was there last year when there was a siege in the flats around the high school. People living there can identify all the drug houses, the cars doing deals and the people standing outside the school gates trying to recruit students. This can be seen on any day of the week. But the Government has gone into denial, accusing the Opposition of attacking the public school system. This has nothing to do with the public school system; it is about dealers being able to operate in daylight without fear of retribution or arrest by the police. The dealers have taken over Cabramatta. The Government has also used police statistics to try to suggest that it is dealing with the problems at Cabramatta. Murders, serious assaults and drug dealing were excluded from the statistics to show that Cabramatta was safer than Mosman and Roseville. Those offences are not criminal activities according to the Government!

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Does the local member still live on the North Shore?

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: I understand that the local member commutes from the North Shore in the comfort of a very prestigious BMW. Back in 1997 in another place she congratulated the Carr Government on the announcement in relation to the development of a comprehensive strategy to deal with the ongoing crisis on the streets of Cabramatta to attack the entrenched trade in narcotics and drug-related crime. She said that since the beginning of Labor's term of office there had been a tremendous input to beef up police resources. Yet we found out the other day that to beef up police resources in the crime hot spot of this State 14 police share one car. Did they have a horse and buggy before? Does that explain the beefing up? The local member went on to say that the initiative was a demonstration to the people of the Cabramatta area that the Carr Labor Government was listening to community concerns.

The other hero of the Cabramatta community is the President of the Chamber of Commerce, Mr Ross Treyvaud, who has had the courage to stand up and speak out and lead the community on this issue. But when he and Sergeant Tim Priest say that there is a major problem that they want fixed they are attacked, intimidated and discredited by Ministers. It is an absolute disgrace. As recently as 22 June last year Reba Meagher, the BMW-driving local member for Cabramatta, said, "I am proud to be a member of the Carr Government because it is prepared to tackle this issue head-on and it is prepared to take the community with it." The Legislative Council, as the House of review, whose job it is to check the powers of the Executive government, formulated terms of reference for a committee to deal with community concerns. We all know the process for the calling of witnesses before a parliamentary committee. If Labor members of a committee think that people should be called to give evidence to give a counter view they are able to do so. But they did not do that in this case. They accused Coalition members of giving short notice to Sergeant Tim Priest, not inviting other people and so forth. If that is the case they must have been asleep on the committee. They have now been told to wake up and do something.

As a result of Sergeant Priest speaking out, and the publicity that that has generated, not only did 60 police yesterday unanimously give their support to Sergeant Tim Priest but I read in today's paper that an additional nine police now want to give evidence to the committee, despite the obvious risk of attacks on their character from members of the Carr Government. It is quite obvious that this problem has now become uncontrollable for the Carr Government, which should follow the line taken by Premier Beattie in Queensland and admit that there is a problem. It should match its own rhetoric by endeavouring, with the community, to find out about the problem. If it means the problem blows out in Cabramatta and spreads to other suburbs, the laws will need to be changed to enable police to effectively tackle the dealers.

At the moment the laws relating to dealers are ridiculous, and the dealers know it. They have to be warned three times, so they deal in traffickable quantities twice in a month. They then stay in their flats until the month is up, and do the same thing again. Everyone knows that they have mates across the road who act as a mother ship for their supplies. The system allows dealers to operate by providing them with this indemnity from prosecution. I support this motion. It is important to censure the Minister and to send a message to the Government that we will not be intimidated. The committee should be allowed to continue its deliberations with the complete protection of this House.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [11.31 a.m.]: I have some real problems with this motion but not for the reasons that might be expected. I should take about 60 seconds to explain what they are. I believe I can claim that my record in this House on law and order matters is pretty good and, in fact, in legislative terms I think it is probably better than the record of the Government. Nobody can deny how horrific the problem is in Cabramatta and nobody in this Chamber, I am sure, would hesitate to do whatever needs to be done to try to deal with that problem. However, in deciding not to support the censure motion I am not defending the Minister for Police, nor am I seeking to justify his curious outburst against the committee. I do not believe that the committee has been impugned or discredited by what has been said by the Minister for Police. I think it was a very unwise thing for him to say. I do support the committee system and if, in fact, there was any real attempt to close this committee down, I would fight that move with whatever resources I have.

I believe we need an effective mechanism to enable us to deal with Ministers or members who we believe have erred or have misused or abused their position in any way. However, I do not believe that censure and expulsion motions are the correct mechanisms. I remind honourable members that not very long ago we expelled the Leader of the Government from this House, but he is still here. My problem with motions of this sort is that they have absolutely no effect on the person who is targeted. They run like water off a duck's back. Until we have a better mechanism to enable us to deal with this sort of thing I, for one, believe that every time we pass a motion of this type we demonstrate once again the powerlessness of this House to deal with such matters. When we do that we undermine our own position in the face of the many people who would like to see this House abolished. I will not support the motion.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [11.33 a.m.]: I realise that a number of members want to speak on this matter so I shall speak only briefly. Two issues seem to be tangled up in this censure motion. One is the reflection on the work of the committee; the other is the serious crime problem in Cabramatta, which is what the Opposition is mainly referring to. We all agree that there is a serious problem with drugs in Cabramatta, but the censure motion deals with the committee itself, and we should remain focused on that. I move:

That the motion be amended by omitting in paragraph 2 the word "censures" and inserting instead "reprimands".

The word "censure" is a parliamentary term and it is a serious term. Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice states:

From time to time the Opposition put down a motion on the paper expressing lack of confidence in the Government—a "vote of censure" as it is called. By established convention the Government always accedes to the demand from the Leader of the Opposition to allot a day for the discussion of such a motion. In allotting a day for this purpose the Government is entitled to have regard to the exigencies of its own business, but a reasonably early day is invariably found. This convention is founded on the recognized position of the Opposition as a potential Government, which guarantees the legitimacy of such an interruption of the normal course of business. For its part, the Government has everything to gain by meeting such a direct challenge to its authority at the earliest possible moment.

Honourable members are targeting the Minister for Police, but a motion of censure of a Minister of the Crown is, in fact, a challenge to the authority of the Government. I do not believe this matter is serious enough to warrant that. I am not a member of the committee, but the contributions indicate that the waters are muddy in regard to the way in which the evidence has been handled by the committee, and there is some justification for concern.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: How can you say that if you are not on the committee?

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: From the debate in this House it would appear that the waters are muddy. It is not a simple black and white situation and therefore the word "reprimand" is more appropriate.

The Hon. R. D. DYER [11.36 a.m.]: I speak in opposition to the motion of Ms Lee Rhiannon and in support of the amendment moved by my colleague the Hon. J. Hatzistergos. I serve on General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3 in place of the Hon. J. R. Johnson, who relieved me from another inquiry. Whether he or I have the better part of the deal is not for me to say. Perhaps I should query whether or not my serving on this committee is a fair cop. Quite simply, the position is that the committee is inquiring into a contentious and difficult matter. In the course of inquiring into the terms of reference, namely, the resources of police in Cabramatta, the committee has, it could be said, stirred up a hornet's nest in the sense that a conflict has developed between certain members of the Police Service.

The contentious issue that arose was the evidence given by Detective Sergeant Priest and the reaction to that evidence from what I will loosely term the police hierarchy, and Assistant Commissioner Clive Small in particular. The Minister for Police and Assistant Commissioner Small felt aggrieved by the evidence that was given by Detective Sergeant Priest. I am not going to analyse the sequence of events in close detail, because time does not permit. However, I want to say that if there is a crime, the punishment does not fit it. If one reads the press release issued by the Minister for Police, the Hon. Paul Whelan, it certainly is expressed in robust language. However, it is not abusive or intimidatory language. At last report New South Wales is a democracy and free speech does apply.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Do you know about division of powers?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition interjected to refer to the division of powers. That has absolutely nothing to do with this motion. We are talking about the Legislature. We are not talking about the judiciary or anything else; we are talking about a committee of Parliament which has been criticised by the Minister for Police. Whether the Minister for Police is right or wrong in his criticism of the committee, he clearly has a democratic right to express his view. As I have said, he has done so in not intemperate, but, perhaps, confronting, direct and robust terms.

In his contribution yesterday the Hon. I. Cohen referred to the gagging of the committee debate. There has been no gagging of debate. The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho has been running the proceedings, and as recently as Monday of this week circulated a draft letter to the Minister for Police and to an official in the police department. The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho circulated a draft letter to members of the Committee, including me, last Monday. I took the opportunity to comment on the terms of both of those draft letters. It is not known to me whether the letters have been sent. However, the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho, as the chair of the committee, has the full and undoubted right to forward correspondence on behalf of the committee under her hand—

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: Time! Time!

The PRESIDENT: Order! Time is not up for the speaker until 15 minutes remains on the top clock. The Hon. R. D. Dyer may continue.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I am simply making the point that it is competent for the chair to reply, as I believe she has done, to the Minister for Police. It is not a matter, in my view, that ought to be discussed in this House. It ought to be a matter confined to the committee. I have had long experience, extending over 21 years, of committee operations in this House, and committees ought to conduct their own business.

Pursuant to sessional orders debate interrupted to allow the mover to speak in reply.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [11.42 a.m.], in reply: The Greens have clearly triggered an historic debate today. As far as I am aware—

[Interruption]

How extraordinary! Government members are already interjecting. We can hear laughter coming from the Government benches. Today we should be attempting to get the democratic process in this State back on track. We have witnessed a most serious attack, not merely on the committee process but also on the way that the New South Wales Parliament works. For members to start laughing when I am speaking in reply is most unfortunate. I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. It has indeed reflected the gravity of the situation. So far as I am aware—and this is why, before those rude interjections commenced, I said that it was an historic debate—no member of the lower House has been censured by this House in 30 years. It may be the case that a lower House Minister has never been censured by this House. Let us remember why we are having this debate. This motion is before us because the Minister for Police is trying to gag the House of review.

The Hon. I. M. Macdonald: He is not.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: He most definitely is. One has only to look at the contributions from the Government benches to see the weak ground that the Government is standing on. They were not in a position to defend their Minister. They talked about the situation at Cabramatta High School but they could not go to the essence of the issue, which is the Minister's behaviour. The reputation of the Legislative Council is on the line. Honourable members can stand up for the right of the committee system, or we can be intimidated. If we vote to censure the Minister for Police today it will be a new day for politics in New South Wales. I say that because of what we have seen happening around the country. The major political parties are on the nose, and they are on the nose because they will not speak frankly in public or in Parliament about issues that concern voters. That is what is occurring now in respect of our committees.

The Hon. J. Hatzistergos: You want to gag them.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: We are not trying to gag anybody. The Hon. J. Hatzistergos is a member of the committee. We want the committee to be able to function; to have everybody who can make a contribution appear before it—not to gag people, as the Hon. J. Hatzistergos accuses us of doing. In regard to the amendments before the House, the Greens believe that it would be a positive move to support the amendment moved by the Hon. P. J. Breen, which acknowledges the situation at Cabramatta High School, but the amendment moved by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile is effectively a watering-down of the important motion before the House. When such extreme statements are made about the workings of a committee we must censure the Minister concerned.

I believe that the Greens, the other crossbenchers and members of the Opposition are taking a stand to protect our role as parliamentarians in what I believe is a quite fragile democracy. When one sees how democracy works in this place, one can see that we are still at a quite immature stage in the development of democracy in this State, and that a great deal needs to be done to assist it. We believe the censure motion will help to put a stop to Labor's arrogant style of Executive government. We see it too often. We have seen it very clearly from Mr Whelan in the past few weeks. I sincerely thank the members of this House for their support in bringing on debate in the first instance. We want the inquiry into policing in Cabramatta to proceed and to proceed unencumbered by certain attitudes we have seen on the part of the Minister who is responsible for policing in this State.

Our role is to use this House of review to unearth the truth, and that truth should be allowed to come forward unencumbered, without attempts by the Minister, members of the committee and members of the Government sitting on these benches throughout this debate attempting to further intimidate us. Mr Whelan was unwise to call for the termination of the inquiry. That is where he overstepped the line. I noted during the debate that members of the Government did not explore that issue because they knew that they were on indefensible ground. Such bullying as we have seen from the Minister is, unfortunately, stock-in-trade for the slick Labor media machine. I have often heard it said, "Oh, that is just a day's rhetoric." Well, one cannot just dismiss statements and a media release from the Minister as today's rhetoric. Our political process has to go much deeper than that.

Attempting to use the media to beat up on a committee is just not on any more. What is more, the Government has to realise that the public is aware of this. At times the media described the orchestrated media blitz that came from the Premier down as quite extraordinary. Mr Whelan went public last week to say he was disgusted by the conduct of a committee, on which there are three Government members. Again, I remind honourable members as we sit here and consider how we are going to vote, that when the evidence was given by Mr Priest those Government members did not call for that evidence to be taken in camera. They did not take action at that stage.

The Greens have moved this motion because New South Wales needs its House of review, and everything that has happened in relation to this Minister has shown us how important that is. We need our House of review to check the excesses and arrogance of the government of the day, as happens so often, and we need it to check the excesses and arrogance of the Carr Government. It is not there all the time, but it is certainly there in this instance. The Greens and the members of this House need to turn things around. I most sincerely thank all members of this House who participated in the debate and the Greens look forward to getting this House and the Parliament of New South Wales back on track so that we can do the right thing by the people of New South Wales.

Question—That the amendment of the Hon. J. Hatzistergos be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Mr Della Bosca Mr Dyer Mr Egan Ms Fazio Mr Johnson

Mr Kelly Mr Macdonald Mr Obeid Mr Tsang Mr West

Tellers, Mr Hatzistergos Mr Primrose

Mr Breen Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Cohen Mr Colless Mr Corbett Mrs Forsythe Mr Gay Mr Harwin

Mr M. I. Jones Mr R. S. L. Jones Mr Lynn Mrs Nile Reverend Nile Mr Oldfield Mr Pearce Ms Rhiannon

Mr Ryan Mr Samios Mrs Sham-Ho Mr Tingle Dr Wong Tellers, Mr Jobling Mr Moppett

Ms Burnswoods	Mr Gallacher
Ms Saffin	Miss Gardiner
Ms Tebbutt	Dr Pezzutti

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment of the Hon. P. J. Breen agreed to.

Question—That the amendment of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Mr Della Bosca Mr Egan Ms Fazio Mr Hatzistergos Mr Johnson Mr M. I. Jones

Mr Kelly Mr Macdonald Mrs Nile Reverend Nile Mr Obeid Mr Tsang

Mr West Tellers, Mr Dyer Mr Primrose

Mr Breen Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Cohen Mr Colless Mr Corbett Mrs Forsythe Mr Gay

Mr Harwin Mr R. S. L. Jones Mr Lynn Mr Oldfield Mr Pearce Ms Rhiannon Mr Ryan

Mr Samios Mrs Sham-Ho Mr Tingle Dr Wong Tellers, Mr Jobling Mr Moppett

Ms Burnswoods	Mr Gallacher
Ms Saffin	Miss Gardiner
Ms Tebbutt	Dr Pezzutti

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Question—That the motion as amended be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Mr Breen Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Cohen Mr Colless Mr Corbett Mrs Forsythe Mr Gay

Mr Harwin Mr R. S. L. Jones Mr Lynn Mr Oldfield Mr Pearce Ms Rhiannon Mr Ryan

Mr Samios Mrs Sham-Ho Dr Wong Tellers, Mr Jobling Mr Moppett

Mr Della Bosca Mr Dyer Mr Egan Mr Hatzistergos Mr Johnson Mr M. I. Jones

Mr Kelly Mr Macdonald Mrs Nile Reverend Nile Mr Obeid Mr Tsang

Mr West Tellers Ms Fazio Mr Primrose

Mr Gallacher	Ms Burnswoods
Miss Gardiner	Ms Saffin
Dr Pezzutti	Ms Tebbutt

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion as amended agreed to.

Motion by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 81 outside the order of precedence, relating to funding to peak groups, be called on forthwith.

Motion by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe agreed to:

That Private Members' Business item No. 81 outside the order of precedence be called on forthwith.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [12.04 p.m.]: I move:

That this House:

(a) condemns the Government for its proposed withdrawal of funds to peak groups who engage in policy and systemic advice to government,

(b) notes that peak groups including the Association Children's Welfare Agenda, Council of Social Service of New South Wales, People With Disabilities and the Council for Intellectual Disability, along with many other peak groups, are opposed to withdrawal of funds,

(c) notes the Coalition's support for increased funds for individual advocacy, but not at the expense of the funding otherwise given to peak groups involved in systemic and policy matters, and

(d) calls on the Premier to direct the Minister for Community Services to guarantee funding for such recognised peak groups.

Nothing symbolises an arrogant government more than its proposal to withdraw funds from peak advocacy groups that not only provide policy and systemic advice to government, but also act as voices of the community criticism of the Government. From time to time those groups effectively represent a solid body of opposition to government decisions. This Government could not care less about the voice of the community reflected through peak groups. Clearly, this Government has no regard for peak groups in the community and will do everything it can to nobble organisations to make sure their criticism is silenced. It is attempting to do that through withdrawing key funding, which will have a major impact on the capacity of these organisations to operate at any level, let alone operate effectively.

This is a clear sign from an arrogant Government that it has no regard for the interests and needs of those who receive funding through the Ageing and Disability Department. This decision alone will be enough to cost this Government the support of these peak groups because it puts at risk the work of important agencies in New South Wales. If this decision is not a sign of arrogance, then clearly it is a sign of a desperate Minister without the capacity to adequately accept or deal with criticism. The Minister is incapable of understanding that organisations such as the Council for Intellectual Disability provide broad advocacy on behalf of people with disabilities in a fearless manner and have done so regardless of which party is in government. This Minister is so desperate to stifle criticism that her response has been effectively to say, "I will cut your funding." This decision is a sign of a desperate Government, of a desperate Minister and of a department that does not have the ability to face its many hothouse issues. We have ample evidence, albeit anecdotal, that in the Department of Community Services every phone call and fax is monitored lest somebody speak out of turn.

This Minister has turned her attention outside those groups to embark on what is a very effective means of public criticism: cut their funding and their capacity to be advocates. But these groups are advocates in the broader sense. Who would know better than a peak organisation—such as the Council of Intellectual Disability [CID] or People With Disabilities [PWD]—the needs of people with disability, not merely at the level of individual advocacy but at the broadest level of understanding the future direction of policy? I make these comments against a background that many of us will never forget. During the last election campaign the Premier was at a dinner in Strathfield when PWD was having a public meeting about funding and policy. Those attending the meeting, some of whom were in wheelchairs, decided to visit the Premier en masse at the dinner. It was an interesting spectacle. The Premier was so terrified at the thought of having to confront the issues they wished to speak to him about that he scurried out the kitchen door.

These organisations, along with the Council of Social Service of New South Wales [NCOSS], are paying the price for fiercely speaking out. They have been told that they will no longer receive funding for their lobby work or systemic advice; they will receive funding only for individual advocacy. If that action is not the sign of an arrogant or desperate Minister—although, it could be both—it is certainly the sign of a Minister who is being held captive by her bureaucrats. The Minister may be surprised to know that this proposal has been tried on governments for years. If the Minister were to go through the files from 1991 she would find that the Treasury and the Cabinet Office thought it was a good idea at that time. But the Coalition did not accept it because it believed it was appropriate to review funding and the grants program.

A paper containing a variety of issues was released, and a review was undertaken. The Coalition concluded that withdrawing funds from peak groups, as is proposed today, was not on. Treasury and the Cabinet Office did not get their way. Our Ministers did not take the bait. Treasury likes to control everything. It thinks that handing over grants to peak groups is a risk because such groups operate in a broad manner. They provide systemic advice and systemic criticism of the lack of appropriate policy. This decision is true to form for this Government: when it does not like the message on whatever issue, but particularly in this portfolio, it shoots the messenger. The previous motion is indicative of the fact that the Carr Government never listens to the message; it never listens to what the peak groups might say. Why? Because a committee was effectively listening and providing a vehicle for criticism about aspects of police work and aspects of the Government policy on crime, and law and order in Cabramatta.

The Minister for Police tried to silence the committee. This is the same principle. The Government does not listen to the view of its citizens. It does not think their views are important, but they are. Their views are important whether they are in the form of a parliamentary committee doing its job or whether it is peak advocacy groups doing their jobs. This Government is intent on shooting the messenger. It arrogantly says, "We are not interested in those views. We know best what is in the interests of the community. No-one else could possibly know." It is the Big Brother approach. That is not so at all. The Government should recognise that peak groups provide a strong service and a break in the system. The Government cannot rely solely on its bureaucrats to be its eyes and ears in the community for all it needs to know. It needs the support of the peak groups and it must listen to them.

Peak groups provide the best advocacy because they deal on a day-to-day basis with all these groups. As CID said in its February newsletter, "The exercise of power for political means has never been as ugly as the recent decision by the Carr Government to dump peak disability organisations. In one fell swoop State groups have been defunded, effectively leaving all people with disability without a voice at the State level." This motion is about a decision by the Carr Government that was announced behind closed doors. Early in February the Department of Ageing and Disability called all the groups to a meeting, only to be told that the current system of funding would cease. The Government stated that it would put new emphasis on individual advocacy. Paragraph (c) notes that we, of course, support the need for increased funding for individual advocacy. The decision to increase that funding by nearly $1 million, or 25 per cent, from 1 July is welcomed.

But that increase is not a substitute for the defunding by the Government of peak groups. Of course it is important to provide more money for individual advocacy, because the needs of individuals with a disability and the work done by numerous organisations across the State are important. One need only look at the list of grants funding for 1999-2000, which honourable members would have received recently, to understand the provision of respite care, community access, health and community services—a whole variety of important works and advocacy—by community groups across the State. But that is not the issue; the issue is the withdrawal of funding. Regardless of how the Government wants to dress is up, it will never get over the fact that it is a payback for organisations speaking up fearlessly on behalf of people with disability. One need only recall a variety of issues in recent years, such as conditions in some of the boarding houses for which the department has responsibility and conditions in some of the group homes, to realise the truth of that statement.

Many members in this Chamber will recall some of the issues that I highlighted as shadow Minister. We in Opposition, with our extraordinarily limited staff resources, do not have the capacity to knock on the doors of all of these places. We rely on groups, such as CID, NCOSS and PWD to be our eyes and ears in the community, but they should also be the eyes and ears of the Government. A government that chooses to ignore them does so at its peril because they can fix the system; they can avoid the headlines if the Government takes note and works with them. That is what we want to achieve by moving this motion. We want the Government to understand that its actions are in no way an advantage to people with a disability. In fact, they are an absolute disadvantage. Although individual advocacy must be a big feature of the work of organisations it is not, and cannot be, the only role. To cut back funding for peak disability groups is to undermine the community work and the capacity of individual advocates to seek advice and support from within their sector, as well as being able to talk to government.

I think this is one of the most extraordinarily regressive steps that this Government has proposed. Perhaps the Minister should examine the 1991 review undertaken when the Coalition was in government to see why we rejected such a proposal out of hand. It is cowardly to cut the funding of these organisations in order to stifle their voice and prevent future derogatory headlines. The Council of Social Service of New South Wales provided an interesting briefing note, dated 26 February, to crossbench members setting out its concerns about this issue. NCOSS—ever an organisation to move forward—even proposed a form of compromise to the Minister, which was rejected out of hand.

This Government is intent upon ignoring these organisations and their advice. I would have thought the Minister would want to receive accurate information about what is happening in the community. She will get information from her department and objective advice from the peak organisations. The Minister suggested in a recent radio interview that she could not get an accurate account of how these peak agencies are spending their money. She said that she could not simply allocate funding and assume that everything would be okay. The system of grant funding for these organisations has existed for a long time. As I have said, it was subject to review at the beginning of the 1990s when new aims and objectives were put in place. The department has not complained about the system since then. This is not sensible reform; it is about nobbling the system.

The Minister has rejected out of hand any compromise because she is not prepared to listen. This Government is desperate. The Minister suggested on radio that the organisations currently receiving funding do not want to be accountable for the public moneys provided to them. That is absolutely untrue; nothing could be more offensive to those groups. They are perfectly able to be open and accountable, but they want the Government to be open with and accountable to them. Why does the Minister not simply say, "The Government does not want your criticism; every new headline hurts us"? It is about shooting the messenger and not listening to the message. I strongly urge honourable members to support this motion. We must send a clear message to the Premier, the Minister for Disability Services and to other Ministers who might think they can get ahead by cutting funding to peak groups.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: They say, "Do what we say or the money is gone."

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: Yes. There is no objectivity. This decision is about ending criticism of the Government, and it advances not one jot the cause of people with disabilities and the needy in our community. Additional funding is a separate issue. We welcome it. More funding should be provided to individual advocates—it should not be an either/or situation—but it should not occur at the cost of support for peak agencies. The Government must recognise that those peak bodies can be its best allies: no-one is better equipped to provide systemic advice to government than the agencies that work every day with people with disabilities. Once the Government has applied this principle in this area it will apply it in many others—perhaps it will cut funding to children's welfare agencies in future. If the basis for the decision in this case is public accountability, as the Minister claimed—that is the line she used on radio—what will happen to the funding provided to peak bodies in other portfolios? If this principle can be applied throughout the Ageing and Disability Department, can it be applied in other areas?

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: What a starting point!

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: My colleague is right: it is the thin end of the wedge.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: Which department is next?

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: This Government is seeking to silence criticism—whether it is the Minister for Police criticising Parliament or the Minister for Disability Services withdrawing funding—from those who dare to speak out. We have anecdotal advice from the Department of Community Services that every departmental telephone call and fax is monitored in case anyone dares to attempt to bring to the public's attention some of the problems that this Government and the department are facing. This motion is about the withdrawal of funding to peak groups that are involved particularly in the disability area and that provide policy and systemic advice to government. The Government is seeking to avoid criticism by attempting to silence parliamentary committees and by cutting funding to peak agencies. It is not prepared to listen to the people.

This Government is so arrogant and out of touch with ordinary groups in the community that it thinks it can get away with cutting funding. We must not let that happen. The House must send a clear message to the Government. I hope that the media will find this issue sufficiently important to question the Government's motives. If we start down this path, we will give all power to this Government. Where will it stop? Once these peak bodies are de-funded, they will lose the capacity to perform their core functions. I urge honourable members to support this motion and to send a clear message to the Government, the Premier and the Minister for Disability Services that this decision, related to the peak groups behind closed doors in early February, is not good enough. It is not good enough from the standpoint of any government, especially a Labor Government that I assumed would be interested in people's welfare. The Government must be stopped. The Minister's line about public accountability is hollow rhetoric.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [12.27 p.m.]: I wholeheartedly support the motion moved by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe. I read with shock in the correspondence that I received recently from the Council for Intellectual Disability that the Government was considering withdrawing funding to that organisation and to other respected groups, such as People With Disabilities. Except for children, people with disabilities have the weakest level of advocacy within our community. This is largely because many of the issues that are important to them do not capture the public imagination quickly and easily for voting purposes. These people need strong, organised advocacy such as that provided by the Council for Intellectual Disability. People with disabilities are too easy to ignore. They had to fight tooth and nail to win recognition in the form of the Disability Services Act 1993 and the application of principles that were passed by Parliament almost a decade ago. Notwithstanding that legislation, there are still many areas where people with disabilities are not treated with the equity that they deserve and have a right to expect.

They still struggle for access to public transport and public places and to be able to make decisions about their lives which all of us take for granted, even on such issues as the food they receive in respite care centres. What chance would there have been of having the focus that has occurred on their needs over the past decade without the efforts of organisations such as the Council for Intellectual Disability and People With Disabilities? The Hon. R. D. Dyer, who represents the Government side of the House, well knows the advocacy that those groups have, even during elections. From time to time they may not bring forward messages which I as a politician want to hear, but I welcome the fact that they are there because their needs are so easy for the rest of the community to ignore. They cannot exert the same pressure that other sectors of the community are able to exert, even other sectors that are disadvantaged. They attract a level of sympathy, no doubt, but it is not sympathy that they want; they want to be able to exercise the same right that everybody else has to put pressure on politicians and to have their voice heard.

The Australian Labor Party says so much in all sorts of places, including this Chamber and the other place, about the right of collective bargaining. In a sense, the funding of organisations such as People With Disabilities and the Council for Intellectual Disability is about collective bargaining. I support the funding of individual advocacy for people with disabilities—it is a further step towards giving them the right to take control of their own lives—nevertheless, if there is not the opportunity for collective bargaining by people with physical or intellectual disabilities or other impairments, they will not receive the attention they deserve. I have made it part of my mission as a member of the Liberal Party to bring to the attention of my party at every opportunity the plight of people with disabilities and to strongly advocate for them within the party room and within the community generally.

I would not say that I have been immensely effective but I would not have been able to be in any way effective had I not been able to contact organisations such as the Council for Intellectual Disability and People With Disabilities to get an update on the situation and their concerns. I have no doubt that occasionally I would be able to find individuals with disabilities but they would not have the research capacity to link together their needs and to know the rest of the field. One of the largest concerns confronting people with disabilities is unmet need. That is what the Government does not want people to know about. The only way of knowing about unmet need is through the efforts of organisations such as People With Disabilities and the Council for Intellectual Disability, which count unmet need. They can do an audit by asking people to contact their office and surveying people whom they know. The Government wants only bureaucrats, who can be easily silenced, to know the level of unmet need. It is all very well for the Ageing and Disability Department to know about unmet need but there is no way that the Government would publish information if it could be embarrassing.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: And it would be.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: It would be difficult for any Government to deal with. I have attended enough meetings at which members of the Liberal Party—particularly the Federal Government at the moment—have been criticised by the Council for Intellectual Disability and People With Disabilities. I have not found those organisations to be politically partisan; I have found them to be nothing more than strong advocates for the people whom they represent. Their communities need funding. I find it unbelievable that the Government could think that such organisations could function without funding. It is dangerous for the Government to have a monopoly on information about the level of unmet need because that makes it too easy for the information to be ignored.

I draw the attention of the House to the fact that it passed a motion about 12 months ago asking the Minister, Faye Lo Po', to publish a disability services plan. A government, regardless of which one is in office, could use such a plan over a period to deal with the level of unmet need. Notwithstanding that this House passed the motion by a substantial majority, we have not heard another thing about it. No plan has emerged. The Government is probably still working on it, and it will work on it forever because it does not want it published. It does not want an objective benchmark by which its efforts can be measured. I accept that almost no government wants that. The level of neglect of people with disabilities has been entrenched for so long that it is embarrassing to the entire community that these people are allowed to suffer in the way they do.

I cannot believe that in the twenty-first century we would still tolerate a situation in which parents have to raise children with disabilities for 40 or 50 years, to the stage that the parents have accumulated disabilities caused by age. It is taken for granted that people whose children do not have disabilities are in the fortunate position of being able to show their children the front door when they are ready to become independent adults. People whose children have disabilities should also be able to take it for granted, but they cannot. Such is the level of unmet need that parents in their sixties and seventies are still caring for their children who have high support needs. The Government is only inching towards meeting that desperate need. But we would not know about the level of that need, nor the desperation of the people involved, were it not for organisations such as the Council for Intellectual Disability or People With Disabilities.

It is fair enough for the Government to test the credentials of these organisations to see whether they represent the people they say that they represent. In many other areas of government activity it is all too easy for a group of people to form a committee, print some letterheads and claim that they represent groups of people. However, I am sure that many members from both sides of the House have attended meetings hosted by People With Disabilities and the Council for Intellectual Disability. They have to hire large auditoriums in order to accommodate the number of people that turn up to the meetings to show their support. Few other community organisations regularly test their level of credentials to represent a particular constituency. I do not cast any aspersions on them, but many environmental lobby groups cannot boast the level of support that those two organisations have.

It is unbelievable for the Government to be suggesting that these community groups are not worth funding. The only reason behind it is the straight need of the Government to manage the issue as part of its political agenda. It does not want difficult statements that it might have to address coming from these people at inopportune times. New South Wales and Australia have undergone unsurpassed economic growth. Revenues to all levels of government have been very healthy. There has been no better time than the last two or three years to address unmet need. There has been some progress in that area but it is too little and too slow. There are signals that the period of sustained economic growth may be coming to a halt, for all kinds of reasons, most of which concern overseas circumstances. For example, the United States is looking down the barrel of recession. We are unlikely to escape the impact of that recession.

In today's press the Treasurer pointed out that the Government will have to look at its level of expenditure and it may have to make cuts. An area in which it is too easy to make cuts is services for people with disabilities. Without organisations such as the Council for Intellectual Disability and People With Disabilities it would be years before anybody discovered that there had been cuts. That is what the Government wants. It will take ages for the information to percolate out, for individuals affected by such decisions to make representations to members of Parliament and for members of Parliament to ascertain an accurate assessment of the level of need on a general issue concerning large numbers of people with disabilities. That is what the Government wants. The de-funding of such organisations removes them as a political force.

It is amazing that the Government is contemplating defunding an organisation such as the Council for Intellectual Disability, an organisation that has done so much good in the community. It is true that from time to time the organisation has been embarrassing to politicians, but it has embarrassed politicians of all colours because, frankly, it is embarrassing that people with disabilities cannot assume today that they have the same rights as all other people in the community. The community is only beginning to learn what it means to give full and unfettered rights to people with disabilities. We learn much during the recent Paralympic Games and Olympic Games and that has given me enormous pleasure.

I recall sitting in Darling Harbour with my family when I saw four young people in wheelchairs roll up without any hindrance at all, sit themselves at a table, order food and do all the things that we take for granted. We would not have been able to contemplate such a scene 10 years ago. They would have been unable to negotiate steps and public thoroughfares and do those things that most of us accept as a basic part of life. It was a wonderful exhibition of people with disabilities declaring that they are free at last. This is not the time to defund organisations who advocate so effectively and strongly. I look forward to the Government's comments in respect of that because I do not see how it can defend the indefensible. How can the Government contemplate taking funding away from people such as Wendy Potter, Phillip French and John Jacobsen, individuals who have successfully lobbied for people with disabilities, and placing disadvantaged people in an even weaker situation?

I ask Government members to examine their credentials as they claim to be strong voices for the disadvantaged. I ask them to examine their consciences and to support this motion because it is a mistaken concept that threatens people with disabilities. It is an unfortunate part of Labor tradition that it does not readily accept criticism and shows of independence. Plenty of business people have complained to me that if they upset the Labor Party, local council or the local member who represents the Labor Party, they are frightened of the consequences, even if Labor is not in office at the time—so strong has been the malevolence that the Labor Party exercises against its critics.

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: Fair go.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: It is true. It happens to me regularly. People will not criticise a Labor government because they are frightened of the consequences that might be visited on them. They are frightened for their jobs, they are frightened of missing out on some development approval. It is blind fear. It is a dark part of Labor Party tradition, of which Labor should not be proud. I find it astonishing that the Government is contemplating doing this to such a vulnerable group. I will listen with interest to the Government's defence in this matter. I urge the House to stand up for people with disabilities and support this motion as a demonstration of wider community support, even if they do not enjoy the support of the Government at this time. I support the motion.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [12.44 p.m.]: When I looked across the Chamber and saw the Hon. J. F. Ryan, the Hon. J. H. Jobling, the Hon. Patricia Forsythe, the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner and the Hon. D. F. Moppett, I thought I would see an Opposition. However, they have such a demeaned sense of their own self that as I got up to speak, they said I wanted to get it over and done with quickly because there was nobody around. They really meant that there are no bodies around. They are no bodies and that is their problem. The Hon. Patricia Forsythe spoke for half an hour in this debate yet presented not one skerrick of information to support her position. She relied on anecdotal evidence, monitoring faxes and phones, alleged cuts to funding and some paranoid statements about funding.

The motion is clearly predicated upon the words "proposed withdrawal of funds", those organisations "are opposed to withdrawal of funds", and this House "notes the Coalition's support for increased funds for individual advocacy". Ms Lee Rhiannon obviously forgot about the rest of the House when she drafted this motion. The motion then calls upon the Minister for Community Services to guarantee funding. What is the real position? The Government is increasing funding for disability advocacy services from $3.7 million to $4.7 million per year. These increased funds will deliver enhanced advocacy services for people with disabilities. Funding will be allocated through a submission process after a call for expressions of interest, observing relevant probity considerations. As a responsible Government, we are required to ensure financial accountability for taxpayers' money.

Effective disability advocacy services have nothing to fear and will only gain from this injection of new funds—an extra $1.1 million. This is not muzzling advocacy, as suggested by the Hon. J. F. Ryan, nor is it threatening the advocacy groups. It is putting in place an accountability system in which groups demonstrate where they allocated their funds for advocacy services. Accordingly, they will then receive the appropriate funding. It is not defunding these organisations. The New South Wales Government funds organisations to provide advocacy and information services for people with disabilities, their carers and families.

The goal of advocacy and information services is to allow people with disabilities to gain greater access to community life and to maintain their rights as citizens. In practice, this includes helping people with disabilities to participate in work and community life, and supporting them to make informed choices about their lives. A range of disability advocacy and information services already exist in New South Wales. The State Government funds 36 service providers through the New South Wales Ageing and Disability Department [ADD].

The Hon. I. Cohen: Are those 36 service providers still going to get money?

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: If the organisations present the appropriate submission about their advocacy work, I believe they will then get funds. If the Hon. I. Cohen wants to raise that in debate, I will reply later. The Commonwealth Government's National Disability Advocacy program funds 18 service providers in New South Wales. The State Government funds 36 service providers. The New South Wales Government also supports individual and systemic advocacy through other bodies, including the Community Services Commission, the Community Visitors Scheme, the Public Guardian, the Protective Commissioner, the Anti-Discrimination Board and the Office of the Ombudsman. The Government is committed to improving services for people with disabilities. Its actions have been prompted by the findings and recommendations of various reporting consultations, including: the 1999 review of the National Disability Advocacy program; a report of the Audit Office on group homes for people with disabilities; the review of large residential centres for people with disability in New South Wales by the Auditor-General and the Community Services Commission; and consultations undertaken by the Ageing and Disability Department.

On 6 February the Ageing and Disability Department [ADD] held a seminar for the 36 community-based organisations currently funded by the State Government to deliver disability advocacy services. A total of 34 services attended the seminar. At the seminar the ADD provided information about the process in which the Government wants to engage to achieve improvements in the advocacy services that it funds. An expressions of interest [EOI] process is preferred as it provides all organisations with an equal and open opportunity to specify what they want to do in the future. Regional seminars are planned in the coming months. The 6 February seminar was for existing services and was only the first of a series of discussions that will be held in the community involving people with disabilities, their families and supporters. Information collected by the ADD prior to the seminar indicates that: New South Wales funded advocacy service providers varied widely in size, scope and cost structures; advocacy service provision is uneven across New South Wales; and the types of services provided range across shorter-term and longer-term advocacy services; published material, training and information referrals, and creation and maintenance of phone information-lines, databases, web sites and libraries.

Service providers themselves raised key issues with the ADD prior to the first seminar, including the need for: more advocacy and information services for a greater number of clients, particularly individual advocacy which focuses on encouraging and assisting individuals to maintain their rights as citizens and to achieve equity of access in the community; better access to services for people with disabilities who are people of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent, non-English speaking backgrounds or who live in rural or remote parts of New South Wales; addressing changes to remote services areas; improving access to mainstream services, updating libraries, databases and web sites; and providing better and clearer information. Improvements in New South Wales disability advocacy and information services will reflect the goal and objectives of the National Disability Advocacy Program. The national program's goal is to enable people with disabilities to gain access to, and participate in, community life, and to achieve and maintain their rights as citizens, involving their families wherever possible and appropriate.

The national program's stated objectives are: to prevent abuse, discrimination and negligent treatment of people with disabilities; to promote and enhance the rights of people with disabilities; to encourage people with disabilities to make informed choices; to increase economic and social participation for people with disabilities in the community; to assist people with severe disabilities to participate equitably in community life; to increase the knowledge and understanding of people with disabilities, their families and carers about the rights of people with disabilities; to improve communications between people with disabilities and other members of the community; and to recognise, value and include families and carers, wherever possible and appropriate, in the support system for people with disabilities.

In line with these objectives, the New South Wales Government is committed to improvements that will deliver: more individual advocacy to assist people with disabilities to achieve access to public and private sector services; funding for systemic advocacy projects and an equitable spread of service provision across New South Wales; improved, transparent and financial accountability for allocated funds; and a better network of relationships and referral mechanisms between service providers. The identification of improvements in disability advocacy and information services will be achieved through an expressions of interest process whereby service providers can indicate their interest in improving outcomes in disability advocacy and information services. All existing service providers will be encouraged to present information to the ADD about the service outcomes and outputs they aim to achieve; the type, focus, range and combination of services they are interested in delivering and how they might be measured against the government funds that may be allocated. New community-based and not-for-profit service providers will also have the opportunity to participate in this process.

The ADD will also work with the Disability Council to develop a discussion paper that identifies options for supporting systemic advocacy projects. Responses to this discussion paper, together with the information gathered as part of the EOI process, will help inform decisions on the funding of these types of services. Expressions of interest will be invited in late March, when a detailed information package will also be available. Information sessions will then be conducted in metropolitan and regional areas to assist existing and possible new service providers to participate in the expression of interest process. As a consequence, the Government believes this motion is feeding on paranoia and overreaction. There is not a skerrick of evidence that any of the organisations would receive one red cent less in funding. In fact, the expression of interest process is a proper and adequate form for ensuring that there is accountability for the $4.7 million in funding that will be allocated to this area—an increase of $1.1 million in one year.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [12.55 p.m.]: I oppose the motion and express my regret that the Opposition has had to resort to exploiting the fears of a vulnerable group in the community in order to score some cheap political points. I want to refute some of the issues raised, in particular the comment by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe that the current funding system is to cease. That is not correct. As my colleague the Hon. I. M. Macdonald has stated, the Government will allocate an additional $1.1 million to these sorts of services and will introduce a new system of funding that is used by governments everywhere. The reason for change is to ensure that the Government knows that the funding it provides is covering all people with a disability in the community. I point out the particular problems faced by people with acquired brain injury. For a long time people with acquired brain injury or head injury have been ignored. There has been an almost institutional bias in disability groups against people with acquired brain injury as opposed to people who were born with a disability. The Government's move to a new form of funding will ensure that people with acquired brain injury will be adequately funded.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: That one is gone!

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: No. I must say that the expression of interest concept that the Government is moving toward will provide performance indicators. It will allow organisations to identify the client group that they wish to advocate on behalf of, to indicate where the client resides and whether the client comes from a particular non-English speaking or Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander background. It will make those organisations more accountable. At the moment organisations have been providing a very good service to Government, but we do not know if there are newer organisations or client groups that are not adequately represented who should be given advocacy funding by the State Government.

That is why the Government is moving to an expression of interest process to allocate the additional funding. No-one is threatened under this proposal. Important agencies have not been put at risk. If they are confident that the level of advice they have provided has been professional and impartial, they should have no concerns about funding when the new system is implemented. The proposal does not in any way impugn the reputation of any of the existing advocacy groups and peak groups in New South Wales. In fact, this funding proposal will allow those groups to accurately identify what they intend to do with their Government funding. It will allow those organisations to better monitor their own performance.

Almost every other organisation, whether it be in the community welfare sector or another sector, is required to indicate what it will do and what it will achieve with Government funding. I do not see why disability groups should be different to any other group in the community. The organisations that have been funded to date for systemic advocacy will have no problems with the new system if they are prepared to identify what they propose to do with the money. It is inherent that any peak groups will criticise policies of the Government and policies of the Opposition, but those groups receive government funding and the Government expects them to do their best to represent the client group that they serve. If the client group that they serve is not clearly defined, how does the Government know exactly what that group is doing?

The Hon. J. F. Ryan asked which groups would be unfunded. The simple answer is that it depends on which organisations lodge expressions of interest. I note that an additional $1.1 million has been allocated, so it is not a matter of who will be unfunded but which new groups will be funded. The members on the Opposition benches dared to question the credentials of members on this side of the House, and dared to question the credentials of the Government to look after people with a disability. The greatest difficulties faced by people with a disability these days—

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: You are going to blame the Commonwealth now, are you?

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: Yes, I am, because the Commonwealth has been short-funding all the organisations that receive Commonwealth funding. State governments, including New South Wales, have had to make up the shortfall. One example is the Post-school Options Scheme, which has had to exist—

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: The Coalition commenced Post-school Options, and you ceased it.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: It has not ceased. This Government provided funding because the Commonwealth Government refused to provide adequate funding for employment services. Post-school options have developed to fill that gap, because so many school leavers who are ready for employment are leaving special schools and there is no Commonwealth funding to assist them. I refer now to the credentials of people on this side of the House and those of the Government. I will point out some of the achievements of the New South Wales Government, the Carr Labor Government, for people with a disability. The achievements were not just scaremongering, or trying to exploit vulnerable groups, but providing services and making them more accountable.

Ultimately it is not up to governments to pander to peak groups. Governments should make sure that the clients, those in the community with a disability, are given the services that they require at an adequate level. Services may be provided by an individual advocacy service, a peak group that provides systemic advocacy on their behalf, a residential service, a transport service, or other service. The ultimate aim of the Government is to make sure that all services are accountable to their clients; that is, individuals within the community who have a disability. It is not up to the Government to say, "We have been funding a few peak organisations for 20 years without any accountability, without looking for any gaps in services, and without looking for client groups that have not been adequately represented." The Government has focused on ensuring that quality services are provided to the end users.

I will now list the achievements of the Carr Labor Government. The Productivity Commission's most recent report on government services advised that New South Wales has had the fastest growth in expenditure on disabilities of all States and Territories over the period 1995-96 to 1999-2000—a 60 per cent increase. Additional funds of just over $65 million in the current budget will push New South Wales leadership in commitments to people with disabilities and their families even further in front. The 2000-01 budget allocated an additional $20 million to give more help to 200 people with disabilities who had been identified as being in need of support jointly through the Department of Community Services and the Ageing and Disability Department.

Part of that money is being used to help people who have been living in respite care services to be moved to permit support arrangements, freeing up respite services for their real purpose. Last year 14 new respite services were commissioned to deal with respite demand across the State. The majority are being established in rural and regional New South Wales and will assist hundreds of families who are supporting a person with a disability at home. The Government is proceeding with its commitment to close all large institutions and relocate residents to smaller, more appropriate community accommodation. This involves all children currently in such facilities. About 400 children and adults are involved in the first four-year stage of the program, which will conclude in 2003-04. To improve the lives of many people with disabilities the Government is ensuring that all new railway stations provide access for wheelchairs and existing stations provide access as they are refurbished.

[The Deputy-President (The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho) left the chair at 1.06 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [2.30 p.m.]: The Ageing and Disability Department has established a single point of contact through its service access system for people and families seeking support to avoid crisis and to continue to live independently in the community. This will remove the multiplicity of organisations that handle these requests. No-one could argue that the Carr Labor Government is not committed to people with disabilities and their families in New South Wales. Our record has been evaluated by others not associated with the State Labor Government and those findings are impressive. In the same spirit of providing extra funds and new services, the Government is committed to improving advocacy services across the State. The Government wants to empower people to argue for what they need from public and private services. I urge all honourable members to wait to see this commitment honoured rather than run a scare campaign at this point in time.

As I mentioned earlier, and as the Hon. I. M. Macdonald outlined, much has been made of the Government announcing this new method of funding for peak advocacy groups. It is completely erroneous to allege that these organisations were called into a meeting with department representatives behind closed doors to be told that their funding was going to be removed. Out of courtesy the Minister and the department arranged a briefing for organisations that currently receive from the State Government some of the $3.6 million funding allocated to those types of services. They were invited to a briefing to learn of the proposed changes in funding arrangements. It was not a question of these organisations being called in behind closed doors to be told their funding was to be axed.

It is a matter of common procedure by governments of all persuasions across Australia that when funding arrangements are to be changed seminars, information sessions, closed-door briefings, or whatever tag one wants to put on them, are held to let these organisations know what will be expected of them. As the Hon. I. M. Macdonald advised the House, an information package is being prepared and will be made available for organisations seeking funding under the expanded advocacy funding program. Expressions of interest will be called for shortly. I anticipate, as does the Minister and the Government, that all of the peak organisations that currently receive advocacy funding will want to apply for funding under the new arrangements.

The Government does not anticipate that only existing organisations will seek funding and has allocated an additional $1.1 million to allow new services to seek funding. If there are not adequate expressions of interest by new services, this additional funding will allow some of the existing peak bodies to expand their roles to identify a broader client group than they previously served and, if they can argue their merits, they could receive increased funding under this proposal. There are no givens at the moment because we are proceeding through an expressions of interest process. The organisations will have to identify their client groups and the areas in the State in which they want to operate, and identify the amount of funds required to effectively service that client group.

It is envisaged that some larger organisations, like the Council of Social Service of New South Wales [NCOSS], People With Disabilities and the Council for Intellectual Disability, will probably want to continue to service the whole of New South Wales. However, there may be other peak advocacy groups that will want to service particular client groups within the community. Under the expressions of interest process those groups will have to identify their service, their client group and their areas of operation; indicate some outcomes for their client group for the service they want to provide; and tell us how much money they will need to provide that service. If they can do that and show that they are meeting those outcomes, they will not have any difficulty receiving continued funding.

Honourable members have to agree that in this day and age funds cannot be thrown away willy-nilly. Organisations that provide other services in the disability sector must provide outcomes for their clients, so there should be no complaint from these groups meeting the same conditions. We are not saying that they cannot receive funding; we are saying to them, "Tell us what you want to do with the funding." They will receive the money. They will have objectives to meet and they will have a client group to service, and those matters will all be considered when they apply to renew their funding. If there are deficiencies in any of the major organisations, they will be treated the same as in any other government program. In the community welfare sector virtually no organisation is defunded.

If projected outcomes and client needs are not met, department representatives sit down with the organisation and discuss what went wrong. It may be that Federal changes in funding caused the organisation to divert its resources or an additional problem may have arisen which affected the client group. The funding program that the Government is putting in place allows for those sorts of contingencies. In this age of accountability even though these organisations have provided excellent service in this State, impartially and professionally representing the needs of their client group, they must agree to be accountable if they want to receive ongoing funding. All they are being asked to do is to be accountable and identify what they are doing.

For decades all other organisations have had their funding changed so that they have to identify their client group and the outcomes they will achieve with government funding. Though these organisations are peak bodies, they should meet the same criteria as direct service providers. That is what they are being asked to do in this arrangement. Expressions of interest will be invited later this month. A detailed information package will be provided. Information sessions will be conducted in metropolitan and regional areas to assist existing and possible new service providers at which the expressions of interest process will be explained further.

This measure should not be used as a scare tactic to upset the vulnerable within the community. This is not a change in funding that is a cloak to axe the amount of money made available to advocacy organisations. The Government is committed to a more transparent process, one by which we know why organisations are given money—that it is not given out simply on some historical basis; that organisations are more accountable for their money; that we can identify gaps in client groups that are not adequately served by existing advocacy groups; and so that the public can be sure that their money is well spent to represent the needs of people with a disability. As previously mentioned in the debate, people with a disability often need a great deal more assistance than others in the community. Their families are placed under far greater pressure than most other families whose family members are clients of community welfare services.

The Opposition is doing a great disservice to families who do such a great job in supporting their family members with a disability by raising this as a scare issue and rumour mongering, by saying that the Government will cut out funding for peak organisations which, through their information dissemination services, provided a degree of confidence for families and advocates of individuals with disabilities. In reality, if the Opposition were to say that it had the best interests of people with a disability at heart it would not place additional pressure on their families; it would not cause additional concern to service providers; and it would not participate in these low-level politics, which are designed for cheap political point scoring. If the basis for the actions of the Opposition in this portfolio area is a general commitment to people with disabilities then it should congratulate the Government on increasing the available funding.

The Opposition should be pleased that transparency and accountability are being brought into the process. If the Opposition has any grievances about the people and the organisations that receive funding after the expression of interest process, then it should raise those concerns. But at this stage their screaming is unfounded and unwarranted. It will only cause more distress and consternation within the community. I urge all members in this House to recognise that the Government is not attempting to cut back funding for peak groups and advocacy services. It is trying to replace an antiquated and unaccountable system with one that is far more transparent and far more accountable, one that guarantees a coverage of peak groups and advocacy services for people from all ethnic backgrounds, for Aboriginal people and for people with disabilities in remote and isolated areas. At the moment we have no such guarantee. We should not continue with such a funding situation. I urge members of the House to reject the motion moved by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe and to support the Government's very important and innovative initiatives in this area.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [2.42 p.m.]: I support the motion and congratulate the Hon. Patricia Forsythe on moving it. It is laudable for the Government to make groups cost effective. It is interesting to note that the Government is careful about the tiny amounts of money it gives to peak groups, but if it is giving huge amounts of money to Visy, for example, it is totally unaccountable and not under the scope of the Auditor-General. It appears that Visy has not been successful in planting enough trees to meet its targets. Apparently, money for state development is fine but funding for a peak group is not guaranteed. It is true, and it is not disputed, that if the Government gives money to the non-government sector it must ensure that some bloated bureaucracy is not inefficiently managing the money. But if we are to have systemic advocacy, that is a group that has sufficient resources, sufficient corporate memory and sufficient political savvy to lobby on behalf of constituents—in this case the disability sector—it must have reasonable continuity.

Groups that do a very good job may be a thorn in the side of the Government at times, but they do a necessary job. In the absence of systemic advocacy a few people on the northern train line might lobby about the appalling services on that line for disabled people, but no-one will lobby for the southern or western train line. If the calls were made to a government department a few of them would be lost, a few would go somewhere else, and a few would not be directed, but eventually someone would realise that there was a problem on the northern line, and perhaps it would be fixed. However, a systemic advocacy group might say, "We have surveyed our members. There is no service on any of the lines. Why don't we put them at this, this and this station for starters, then introduce a priority program for other stations along the train lines?" In other words, someone needs to take the complaints, process them for sector-wide requirements and make recommendations. An advocacy group at a systemic level would attend to such a task.

Earlier the Hon. Amanda Fazio stated that the Minister has put more money into the system, and well she might. The key finding of the group homes inquiry and the inquiry into services for the disabled is that advocacy services at a personal level are very poor. People who are disabled, particularly those who are intellectually disabled, have great difficulty finding advocates to look after their interests through the maze of available services. A report of the social issues committee recommended more individual advocacy, and I have no doubt that such a recommendation will be amplified in future reports. Nevertheless, individual advocacy is not a substitute for systemic advocacy. Individual advocates look at things from the perspective of the person for whom they are advocating, and they may co-operate with other advocates in the same institution, group home or geographical area, or with advocates who act for people with the same type of disability as their clients. But they cannot necessarily make a proper systemic assessment of things, nor is it their job to do so.

Peak groups have informed me that they were asked to attend a seminar on 6 February, at which they were told that all grants would be taken away from 3 March and, although $1 billion will be added to the $3.7 million, all the grants would be renewed and redistributed. I gather that none of the 36 peak-type groups—which include advocacy groups, self-help groups and information groups—were guaranteed that they would retain funding. Some of them will have funding up to 2004. There was no mention of whether existing funding agreements would be honoured, but I would have thought it would be a breach of contract to take money away if leasing or staffing arrangements had guaranteed that people or buildings would be funded for a number of years. It would be the Government's absolute minimum duty to meet such contracts. When systemic advocacy was eventually introduced it was called project systemic advocacy, which suggests that projects will have systemic funding, and it further suggests that funding will be very short term. The key element of systemic advocacy is an understanding of how the whole system works. The key element in understanding how the whole system works is a corporate memory and a corporate understanding.

When a crossbencher—I can speak only from that perspective, but I am sure that this is true for the Opposition, the Government and the department—offers an alternative view, we must understand how the system works. Our constituents come to us with their problems but there is no way that we can prioritise them. Are they most concerned about transport access, education, health or welfare payments? What sorts of facilities are needed? It is extremely difficult to get a statewide perspective. No individual or departmental official could hope to have all the information; we must gather it from a vast number of people. If we are to make intelligent funding decisions, groups with an overall concept are absolutely vital. I understand that Gary Moore has written to the Minister about the future of the sector. I have not seen that letter, but I believe it is apposite to this situation and that peak groups supported the concept that it outlines.

I recognise that it is difficult to achieve general cost effectiveness and to have one rule for everyone. The Minister has said that, for reasons of cost effectiveness, she will evaluate all the tenders honestly and fund them according to their merits. Therefore, anyone running a meritorious organisation will have nothing to fear. I would like to believe that means that groups such as People With Disabilities—which has provided a good picture of the sector overall and made well-targeted, well-founded criticisms of the Department of Community Services and how it works—will be safe. I would suggest that the peak advocacy groups have been extremely successful in drawing attention to issues in the disability sector. That has led to the group homes inquiry and to continuing work on disability services through the Standing Committee on Social Issues. That committee's report has changed the emphasis of the group homes proposal and has led to funding for devolution and possibly increased advocacy and to an overall increase in State money for the disability sector. That is a pretty successful track record.

Perhaps someone using some criteria that he or she has dreamt up could show that these groups are not cost effective. Let us consider the cost effectiveness of health promotion projects—I am interested in that area. It is a question of how easy it is to measure the worth of such initiatives. For example, a health promotion project may involve putting up a sign in a surgery waiting room telling people to ask their general practitioner about pap smear procedures. If more patients have pap smears, we could say, "Gosh, that was a cost-effective sign; isn't that clever?" We could easily measure how many people had the procedure and calculate the difference as a percentage: the results are quantifiable. In the case of billboard advertising, we might respond to the prevailing public mood and make Australia the first country in the world to ban tobacco advertising. However, if we were then to ask about the cost benefits of such an initiative, we might be told, "Oh, it is not very scientific; you cannot really come to any conclusion. It might not have been cause and effect."

The danger is that a group that has achieved a wonderful political result that would not have been reached otherwise may be defunded on the basis of some bean-counting analysis of what it supposedly has or has not done. From an accountability point of view, it may be claimed that such groups are not necessary and that someone else who has written an excellent tender could have done just as well. It is important to acknowledge the excellence and political effectiveness of these groups and the fact that they must retain funding. The Minister must state publicly that well-informed groups that give an overall view of the sector and provide systemic advocacy will be funded in the long term, regardless of whether they embarrass her from time to time. That is a characteristic of open government: it must fund diverse opinion and advocacy on critical social policy issues.

We are not asking that all inefficient groups be propped up with Government money—far from it. We are asking that effective groups that might embarrass the Minister receive guaranteed funding. At times, embarrassing the Minister and asking hard questions is what the sector—and, for that matter, the Minister—requires. It would be helpful if Government processes were more transparent. If we knew the amount of unmet demand, how many people are in the queues and at what level, we could discuss the issue sensibly. However, this Government does not work like that. There is almost a conspiracy not to know the level of unmet demand because, if it is identified, the Government will have an obligation to fund it. Therefore, we need systemic advocacy and groups with an understanding of the sector overall. I am concerned about making bland assumptions.

I was visited by the Minister's minder, who made bland assumptions about quality control, accountability and so on. Apparently the money is in a pot and is being evaluated far better than ever before. If two or three groups happen to fall off the edge and—gosh—they were the ones that criticised the Government the most, it is simply a coincidence. But by then it will be too late: The horse will have bolted. Presumably Parliament will not be sitting and the issue will be buried. We cannot let that happen. We want a real commitment from the Minister to confirm whether she will fund these groups. Funding is particularly important for systemic groups with a corporate memory. If the Minister says that she will fund them as well as other groups whose advocacy emphases may change—and who are perhaps not so critical of the Government—that is fair enough. The extra money might go to new organisations or existing groups might receive additional funding. Any evaluation process must be transparent and have a long time frame so that, if there is any change in funding, the expertise may be passed on. I support this motion as I believe the Minister has not been up-front about this issue. The system is not transparent.

I must confess that my experiences on the committee equate to what I call the "two planets syndrome". On one planet everything is going beautifully—there are a few minor management glitches, but the philosophy is clear and it is plain sailing. However, on the other planet the department does not have a clue what it is doing—there are endless muck-ups, huge unmet demand, and people are completely dissatisfied and are never consulted in any meaningful way. Funnily enough, people on both planets are talking from different perspectives about the disability sector. Government representatives have argued in committee that black is white. I do not know whether they are simply telling porkies or whether they are so out of touch that they do not understand what is happening. This situation is not satisfactory and the input of intelligent systemic advocates is absolutely necessary. I support this motion, as should all right-thinking people in this Chamber.

The Hon. I. COHEN [2.59 p.m.]: I have great sympathy with the Hon. Patricia Forsythe on this issue. Her condemnation of the Government has been supported by many other members in this House. I have spoken to Wendy Potter, president of the People with Disabilities group, who is extremely concerned about this issue. I was involved in some meetings with people with disabilities before the last election, and it is a real concern that organisations in this area have had such a poor relationship and poor communication with the current Minister for Disability Services and her predecessor. I am appalled by the Government's attitude to dealing with people with disabilities and I have been moved by the behaviour and the great sacrifices of those caring for such people in their charge.

One hears many saddening stories about people with disabilities and their carers. Potentially, 36 bodies in this State could be defunded. Some have already been told by the Ageing and Disability Department that funding is secured but the present situation is insecure and confusing. The Government has attempted to explain the situation. The Hon. I. M. Macdonald referred to the briefing session by the Ageing and Disability Department on 8 February. The Government called it a consultation but many of the people affected felt that rather than consultation it was a form of notification. The meeting was very tightly run. People from the organisations went away without explanations and feeling insecure. They already face problems with the overall lack of funding. The Government has said that it is increasing funding by between $1 million and $1.1 million, a significant amount. However, an article in "CID News" of February 2001, under the heading "Government's New Advocacy Direction Some Unanswered Questions", states:

A short, poorly worded survey form was sent to advocacy and information services in mid-January (a month when community sector organisations traditionally wind down their operations to allow staff to take holidays). As the deadline for return of the forms was a week before the announcement was made, the responses of affected organisations could not possibly have formed part of the decision-making process.

At a seminar on February 6, Megan Mitchell, the Director of Strategic Policy and Planning for ADD, sought to explain why changes were to be made. She indicated that the government wants a system that delivers a better spread of service provision across the State, improved accountability, more clients to receive services and more individual advocacy.

They are reasonable assertions from the Government. There should be communication, trust and respect between the disability advocacy groups and the Government. That is what I think is sadly lacking. In this climate of fear there is a possibility that, whilst funding may be increased, there is no guarantee of funding for any specific peak organisations. This leaves them in a situation of great insecurity. The article continued:

Questions and debate were strictly controlled during the seminar, so services were unable to obtain a clear picture of what the new system for advocacy provision would look like. No policy documents were provided, or even referred to, and it does not appear that a formal State plan has been prepared. Some of the questions that were not able to be asked or answered include:

• On what basis will advocacy be funded to provide an equitable spread of organisations across the State? How many regions will be funded, and how large will those regions be?

• Will funding be provided on the basis of disability grouping, regional location or both?

• People with disability need advocacy in many spheres of their lives. Will ADD fund advocacy that addresses needs other than those concerned with disability services?

• When providing advocacy and information, some problems require more time and resources than others. ADD has made no indication as to how it will address this issue when funding and evaluating advocacy bodies. How will it address the funding of organisations who handle a large number of easy problems for people, as compared with those organisations who handle a small number of much harder problems?

• How will ADD deal with the complexity of disadvantage that occurs when advocacy is needed for a person who has disadvantages additional to their disability, such as indigenous Australians, people who suffer economic disadvantage or who have multiple disabilities? Will services be funded in a way that reflects the needs of their clients?

• What recognition will be given in funding terms to the additional resources required to assist people who have special communication needs?

• How will conflict of interest be addressed?

• Will funding be given to bodies who have little or even no representation on their boards by people with disability?

• How often will organisations be required to face the tender process in order to receive funding?

• If the organisations are funded, what assistance will be given to them for start-up costs such as office furniture and equipment?

• Will service development costs be included in this funding process, or will ADD provide service development assistance by other means?

• Will a code of conduct be developed for providers of advocacy? If so, will it be developed by advocacy organisations or by the Department?

• All of the services now being funded, large and small, have been restricted in the extent of advocacy and information they can provide due to restricted funding. They will now be judged on their capacity to provide advocacy on the basis of what they are currently providing, not on what they would be willing or able to do should they receive adequate funding. How can this be a fair, or even an effective way of deciding who is able to provide a quality service?

The Government has a responsibility to properly answer huge numbers of questions. With expressions of interest at the end of March, all funding will stop in June and then be month by month. How will the peak bodies organise their funding? What about their lease agreements and employment arrangements? They may have leased office equipment. They may be without premises. These people are undertaking the valuable social role of looking after people with disabilities. They will not be able to negotiate with landlords. Members and constituents will not receive advocacy services. This has the potential to create significant problems in rural areas. I understand that the Minister proposes to increase funding by $1.1 million on top of the $4.7 million and is keen to fund more agencies. But funding for the peak agencies should continue. We acknowledge that many smaller agencies should be given an opportunity.

The Minister has suggested that the agencies do not have accurate accounting. The organisations have been funded for the past seven years and all of a sudden it has become a major issue. Why has it not been a major issue for the past seven years? The lack of guaranteed funding means that workers will not know whether they have continuing jobs, adding to their insecurity. I understand that all the affected groups are banding together to campaign about this. There is strong agreement among the disability organisations. I ask the Government to refute this if it is not correct, but I have heard that the Minister has refused to meet with peak bodies, and has not met with them for more than 18 months, that there is no reasonable discussion between the peak disability bodies and the Minister. This is completely untenable.

I understand further that the compromise proposal by the Council of Social Service of New South Wales to the Minister has been refused. So there is a low level of communication and a lot of insecurity in the community. The Government has claimed that it is not threatening advocacy groups; it is increasing funding. There should be guarantees so that these organisations can continue and seamlessly take on a new role after June of this year. They should not be left hanging without the certainty necessary. When the name of the Ethnic Affairs Commission was changed many valuable members of the commission left, and problems occurred under the rhetoric that the Government was transforming the body to be more efficient. If the Government can guarantee that the small organisations will be looked after and there will be continued funding for the major groups, it would be a step in the right direction. But at present I am unhappy to say the least with the relationship between those fine organisations with many dedicated people and the Government. It is incumbent on the Government to improve the situation so that there is better communication between the organisations and the Government.

The Hon. R. D. DYER [3.10 p.m.]: I speak in opposition to the motion moved by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe. By way of general background I indicate that the Carr Government has a substantial commitment to the adequate funding of disability services. The Government, in its current budget for the year 2000-01, has committed an additional $65.2 million for disability and related community support programs. That figure of an additional $65.2 million almost trebles the commitment the Carr Government made at the time of the State election in 1999 to people with disabilities. In fact, it is the largest increase in funding at any one time ever made by a New South Wales government to people with disabilities. That massive additional funding of $65.2 million is $44.9 million over and above the pledge that was made at the time of the last State election.

A report of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare last year indicated that New South Wales has had the fastest rate of disability funding growth over the last five years of any State or Territory. I well remember that when I was responsible, as Minister for Disability Services, we had a battle extending over a period of years to get a better deal from the Commonwealth out of the Commonwealth-State Disability Agreement. That battle was eventually resolved, as it happens, after I had left office as Minister for Disability Services. However, in a personal sense I am pleased to see an authoritative body such as the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare state that New South Wales has the fastest rate of disability funding growth over the last five years of any jurisdiction in Australia. The total budget for the Ageing and Disability Department jumped to an enormous sum of $890.5 million for the financial year 2000-01.

Having made those preliminary remarks, I turn to advocacy funding and make brief remarks regarding the actual subject of the motion. I can say without doubt that the Government wants to improve advocacy and information services for people with disabilities. Those improvements are part of a bigger picture of disability reform being undertaken by the Government, backed by the extra $65.2 million in 2000-01 to which I have already made reference. The need for improvement in the provision of advocacy and information services has been highlighted by a number of sources, in particular, the Auditor-General, the Community Services Commission and the Commonwealth Government's review of the National Disability Advocacy program. Those pointers towards the need for improvement in the provision of advocacy services have been reinforced by consultations that the Ageing and Disability Department has had with the disability sector.

The vehicle for delivering the improvements the Government has in mind involves a new funding process, supported by industry development and backed by an extra 25 per cent increase in resources. In a press release to which I have had access the Hon. Faye Lo Po' indicated that the Government is increasing funding for disability advocacy services from $3.7 million to $4.7 million per year. Apart from the general increases in disability funding, there is a distinct and major increase of approximately 25 per cent in extra resources and funding for disability advocacy services. In late March—that is, later this month—service providers will be invited to submit an expression of interest in which they will indicate how they can deliver improved outcomes in advocacy and information services. There is nothing wrong with that. They will then be consulted and invited to say what they need and what they want.

A detailed information package will be made available to interested organisations. In addition, information sessions will also be held across the State to help existing and potential future providers prepare their expressions of interest. At the same time, the Ageing and Disability Department will work with the Disability Council to develop a discussion paper that identifies options for supporting systemic advocacy projects. Responses to the discussion paper to which I have just referred, along with the information gathered as part of the expression of interest process, will help the Government make informed decisions on the best mix of these advocacy services. I assure the House that the Government seeks to ensure a smooth transition to the new funding system. That is why the Government will support disability organisations through any change that occurs as a result of the expression of interest process in connection with advocacy funding.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [3.17 p.m.]: I wish only to read a letter onto the record which I think explains all the angst that honourable members have felt. It is a letter addressed to me from the President of Handital. It states:

Dear Hon. Dr Pezzutti,

I write to you seeking your support in a matter that greatly concerns Handital. I refer to the proposal by the Ageing and Disability Department to increase individual advocacy services across the state to people with disabilities by de-funding all of the current organisations of funds and then placing these funds to tender.

Increased individual advocacy is to be applauded but not at the cost of eliminating organisations such as Handital, where the Management Committee are all volunteers, with a disabled family member working at the grass roots level because we all understand only too well the day to day problems faced by our service users, because we experience them as well.

I cannot understand how a decision like this can have been reached without any consultation whatsoever with the organisations that it will affect and more importantly the clients. What Handital supporters have achieved and built up over the last eighteen years now suddenly is in jeopardy.

It would appear that the intention is to eliminate peak bodies and strip people with disabilities of their voice for collective representation.

Handital has always complied with ADD requirements. I speak primarily of the Transition Planning Handital underwent some years ago, which saw the introduction of its Policies and Procedures Manual.

At no time has there ever been any indication from the ADD that there were concerns in Handital's performance or function that would warrant such an action.

If there were grounds for concern surely the ADD should have informed us and allowed us to initiate the relevant changes required. All we want is a better future for our loved ones and for all people with disabilities.

Handital was funded and maintained for the last 18 years by volunteers. In this "International Year of Volunteers" how ironical that we are faced with such a decision.

As our longstanding Patron I know you believe in what Handital stands for. Please make representations on our behalf when Parliament reconvenes.

I have done so. My co-patron, the Hon. R. D. Dyer, is well aware of what is going on. I have in fact written to the Minister seeking to have this matter clarified and asking that the ADD have urgent discussions with Handital. I believe that this very elegant but meaningful letter outlines all the concerns in the community. It is up to the Government to respond and to make sure that we achieve the aims of individual advocacy without destroying what is there already.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [3.20 p.m.]: One of the concepts that defines our society is that of freedom of speech.

The Hon. R. D. Dyer: Does that apply to the Hon. Paul Whelan?

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: I will confine its application to the business in hand and acknowledge that, of course, it is a concept that goes a long way back in history. It is one of the priceless heritages of all English-speaking societies that subscribe to the system of democratic government. It has been adapted as time has gone on. I would have to acknowledge that great French philosopher who talked about the right of individuals to hold an opinion contrary to his own, but his determination to fight to the death to ensure that that opinion could be expressed. I believe that interpretation of freedom of speech is very apposite.

The Hon. I. M. Macdonald: Who was the philosopher?

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: Rousseau, I understand.

The Hon. I. M. Macdonald: I thought it was Edmund Burke?

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: It was certainly not Burke—it was Rousseau. As time has gone on that concept has been adapted in our own experiences. I think it has gone beyond the concept of people simply having the right to say what they think and has been interpreted as placing an obligation on society to assist those who are otherwise disempowered in being heard. It is the only way that we can really achieve any degree of equality and egalitarianism in our society. I believe this has been seriously challenged with this initiative taken by the ADD and the Department of Community Services—the ADD principally—who have announced a policy whereby their existing commitments to the peak disability groups is going to come under review.

During the course of this debate—and I do not believe I am being harsh or unjust to the two individuals who had the task—we have heard the considered opinion of the ADD read onto the record by two Government members, the Hon. I. M. Macdonald and the Hon. Amanda Fazio. They, of course, added some of their own personal comments, but assiduously read onto the record the line that has been developed by the ADD to justify this far-reaching review of the funding of disability groups.

The Hon. R. D. Dyer: There is nothing wrong with reviews as such.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: There is nothing wrong with reviews, but the Hon. R. D. Dyer would be familiar with the wonderful way in which in professional groups one notes the development of an argot. You have to be able to understand the code words that are used. In some areas people talk about downsizing, disengagement and rationalism. But when you are in the ADD the code words to remember are "expressions of interest". That was the phrase we heard so much of when we talked about the tendering out of group homes and associated accommodation services: "Don't worry. There are going to be expressions of interest. Expressions of interest will be called for." Most people who have had any experience of the practical implementation of these polices are scared stiff when they hear those words. They are scared stiff because it is not really appropriate when you talk about advocacy as practised by a peak group.

Imagine saying to the Trades and Labor Council or to the ACTU, "We are going to ask for expressions of interest for advocacy on behalf of various trade union members." They would tell you where to stick it. They would express their displeasure in very plain terms. In this case it comes as a very serious challenge to those who have worked in such a dedicated way. The names of some of them have been quoted—Wendy Potter and John Jacobsen. For anyone to doubt the sincerity and effectiveness of their advocacy would be to deny their argument immediately. These people are recognised for the work they do and, certainly in my experience on the Standing Committee on Social Issues, I have never struck a group more down to earth or more instinctively able to detect someone who is just simply trying to score points or use them in advancing some debate. They have been at it for years, working in a very difficult scene. They know where their friends are and they know when people are patronising them.

This is a group of people who have taken on systemic advocacy. I believe that distinction has been drawn during the course of the debate—the difference between advocacy on behalf of an individual and advocacy on behalf of a group, which inevitably will impinge on the political process. They would not be doing their job if they did not know that. If they were not expressing a view that was contrary to that of the Government at times—it does not matter whether it is a Coalition Government or a Labor Government—they would not be doing their job. They certainly would not be doing their job on behalf of people in disability services. Much has been made of the money that has been allocated for advocacy. I acknowledge that there has been in total an increase in the allocation for advocacy.

But all that does is to recognise that over the last decade the delivery of services, the various packages, if you could call them that, that have been offered to people with disabilities have grown; and the complexity of dealing in the procurement of those services is immensely more difficult than it was 10 or 15 years ago. I would suggest to the House that it is impossible today for anyone who has anything other than the mildest disability to negotiate his or her way through those services without the assistance of an advocate. That has been recognised, and I congratulate the Government on recognising that there is a need to ensure that beside every client there is someone who can explain what the options are, explain what is being offered to them and the proposals that are being put for providing their services. Simply to say that there is more money being provided and that that should satisfy the peak advocacy groups as to the security of their funding, would be entirely misleading.

Those groups have been left with no doubt in their minds that they are being reviewed with a view to funding cuts in the area of their overall advocacy, which has really been their bread and butter. There is no doubt that they have on occasions—not just on occasions; they are always taking up individual cases but their real role is to take the broader perspective and speak on behalf of the entire disability sector. If that role were to be in some way stifled, were criticism to be smothered, simply because the funding was being threatened, it would be a breach of the very fundamental principles on which this great democracy has been founded.

I urge the Government to take stock of the situation and to heed the motion, which may not be voted on this afternoon. I ask the Government to repair the situation and assure peak groups that if their funding is to be reviewed the outcome is likely to be increased funding and that they can rely on their base funding. Many organisations serve a useful purpose in our society and receive support for their infrastructure. Their service is recognised in the funding which is regularly made available to them. I would hate to think that this group has been singled out for review simply because of the embarrassment it has caused the Government in two areas over recent years.

I refer to the decision about the tendering out process for group homes and associated services. That process is the subject of another motion and may be debated on another occasion. In that area there has been enormous agitation and advocacy has been involved. Honourable members would recognise that there is an unmet need for accommodation services. It is a blight on our society that there has been glacial progress in the process of the devolution of institutions, which at one time were the only alternative offered to families who were caring for a person with a disability in their home.

Decades ago society came to the conclusion that that was an inappropriate way to accommodate people with disabilities and provide them with services. However, the majority of people receiving accommodation services resided in the major institutions. One of the laconic comments often encountered when speaking to people familiar with disability services is that clients will be moved out of institutions only when they pass away; they will reside there until they die. There is no urgency in planning, no urgency in the provision of funds, and one would have to question whether the Government is committed to rectifying that. Advocacy organisations have operated against that backdrop.

The principal organisations have been named. One area in which their resources have been stretched to almost breaking point is in reaching out to people in country areas. The incidence of disability is not restricted to metropolitan areas. People with disabilities who reside in country areas experience much more difficulty, because of their remoteness from services and the tyranny of distance. Generally there is a scarcity of necessary resources in country areas and, therefore, the organisations assist the families in scattered areas who are enduring difficulties. I attended a meeting in Orange that had been convened by the Council for Intellectual Disabilities; it was certainly a fiery meeting. Criticism was levelled not only at the Labor Government but also at successive governments. The strength of their advocacy could be felt by all at that meeting.

The thought that they would be muzzled or in any way restricted in carrying out their functions leaves me absolutely aghast. The motion is to be commended, and the Hon. Patricia Forsythe has done the people of New South Wales a great service in bringing this matter to their attention. It befits the Legislative Council of New South Wales to devote time today to consider this matter. If we are to bring this matter to a vote, the House will send a very strong message to the Minister to place a moratorium on this policy and to ensure that organisations have security and stability. Funding can be allocated to new and significant consumer representatives which are doing individual advocacy. I commend the motion to the House.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [3.35 p.m.]: I firstly comment on the fact that this matter was raised today at all; I was not consulted and I know other members who were not consulted. The Government certainly was not consulted. Members were not ready to speak on this motion. The Hon. Patricia Forsythe used contingency to bring on her motion without asking other members whether it was okay for her to go ahead. Apparently, because the Government thought it had the numbers to pass the motion, the Government agreed that the motion could be debated today. What is the point of having a proverbial chook raffle to determine priority if the decision is overturned by members jumping up and taking contingency?

If I had had more time I would have been able to prepare a reasonable speech. In the past hour or so my staff and I have worked as fast as we can to go through all the matters concerning this motion. It is very difficult to address a motion such as this without being well prepared. Therefore, I ask honourable members to be more courteous when they request contingency and give sufficient time to allow people to prepare their speeches. Perhaps honourable members seeking contingency should ask other honourable members whether their request will be supported. More courtesy should be shown in this House.

I have been considering both sides of the argument, that of the Council of Social Service of New South Wales [NCOSS] and other groups. I have received some information from Gary Moore, from the Minister and her advisers. I am not sure whether the information I had is adequate to enable me to make a well-informed decision on the motion. It appears that the funding has not been cut, but lifted by $1 million—from $3.7 million to $4.7 million. That means that the basis for the motion was wrong in the first place. Undoubtably expressions of interest will be called, and that has been canvassed in correspondence between Marianne Hammerton, the Director General of the Ageing and Disability Department, and Gary Moore. On 14 February Gary Moore wrote to Ms Hammerton expressing his serious concerns about the decision to call for expressions of interest for disability advocacy and information services. He wrote:

NCOSS is disappointed that our proposal to negotiate a new program framework, service specifications, performance measures and changes to advocacy practice, with peak disability consumer and service provider bodies, was declined, in favour of the competitive tendering model announced last week.

That model was announced by the Minister the previous week. The question of competitive tendering flows from the Federal Government and other governments and is part of the globalisation and rationalisation process. One of the reasons that One Nation is becoming so popular is because its members are concerned about the process of economic rationalisation and globalisation—and that has now crept into the provision of advocacy services, which is a major problem.

The Hon. R. H. Colless: They are not even popular in Queensland.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: One Nation is too popular for the comfort of the Hon. R. H. Colless and for the National Party in this State, as it will probably find out at the next election. One Nation is extremely popular because of the failure of the National Party to differentiate itself from the Liberal Party and because it follows the same economic rationalist policy. If the National Party had gone its own way and listened to country people One Nation would never have got a foot in the door. The Nationals can blame themselves for that. The letter to Marianne Hammerton put forward a number of very good proposals from the Council of Social Service of New South Wales. It wants to defer the tender date to the end of March 2001 to allow the process to occur and to enable all currently funded disability and advocacy organisations to discuss the proposed expression of interest [EOI] content and form prior to calling for tenders. That has not happened because of the lack of time available.

NCOSS wants to discuss the level of funding and ensure that the EOI is about requesting currently funded organisations to better specify what activities they undertake and intend to undertake, outline what performance measures they either use or intend to use, suggest what data systems to measure outputs-outcomes they could viably put into place and provide an appropriate line-item budget. It wants to convene a departmental-disability sector roundtable to help manage the implementation of the process and wants to provide funding assistance to services to meet the requirements of the end of March EOI, from 1 July 2001 for a further 12-month period. Marianne Hammerton reveals in her letter that some current service providers will be unsuccessful. Some current service providers who employ people will lose funding. We do not know whether it will be in country towns or in the city, where or who they are, but many small organisations will lose funding. In her letter to Gary Moore dated 23 February, just a few days ago, she said:

In terms of funding arrangements, those service providers who have a one year Funding Agreement with the Department will be offered funding continuation at their current level for the quarter 1 July 2001 to 30 September 2001.

Some organisations may come to a grinding halt in just a few months time. What will happen to the employees and the organisations? That is why NCOSS and others express concern about the nervousness caused in this sector by the decision to call for expressions of interest in advocacy services. Gary Moore says the concern centred on the low priority given to systemic advocacy and the broadly held view that the Minister and her department were keen that existing peak disability and consumer bodies be funded or severely restricted because of the effectiveness of their recent lobbying efforts to secure better State Government outcomes for people with disabilities. Is this fear real? We have no idea. We do not know whether the Minister intends to cripple peak disability consumer bodies, some of which are extremely important to the community.

The annual report of the Ageing and Disability Department Living in the Community lists among the many organisations the Disability Council of New South Wales, which does not receive a large amount of funding but does an extraordinary amount of good work in the community. The report states that funding from the Ageing and Disability Department for the council's operation totals $575,000 and that it will receive $120,000 from the Commonwealth Minister for Family and Community Services through the Disability Services Program of the Department of Health and Family Services for its Disability Advisory Body [DAB] role. At page 67 of the report the department outlines the work the council carries out with low-level funding. The council provides a range of input to a large variety of government departments and other bodies. The report lists 17 of those bodies. Looking down the list one can see how important some of the work is to the community.

The Disability Council is involved with the Access and Equity Committee of the Department of Education and Training; the Boarding House Reference Group through the Minister for Disability Services, which is another important area; the Purpose Built Taxi Committee through the Department of Transport—we have seen the new taxis that allow people in wheelchairs to finally obtain taxi transport, even though they are few and far between at the moment; the City of Sydney Access Committee through the City of Sydney Council; the Accessible Transport Forum and the Public Transport Advisory Council with the Department of Transport; and the Peak Women's Organisations Forum. Many of the organisations with which the council works ensure that people with disabilities are able to participate fully in the community, whether that be in remote or rural areas or in the city.

According to the Minister's office, some people in rural or remote areas are not receiving the advocacy services, or services generally, that they deserve. Some complaints have been received that services are being provided in the city to the detriment of some country areas. If that is true, some adjustment of the provision of those services needs to be made. However, we do not have any facts on which to base this complaint. We have only allegations that country areas are not receiving this support. We have not had the chance in the last hour or two to find out the true story. If we had a week's notice, or at least two or three days, we could have undertaken much more investigation and carried out more research to find out the facts.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: Like much of what is contained in the report of the Standing Committee on Social Issues.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: Which I have not had a chance to read in the last two hours. I should have been able to read it to provide an informed speech. Fairly limited information has been forthcoming, none of which has been provided by the mover of the motion. The Hon. Patricia Forsythe has provided no rationale for why we should support the motion, apart from her speech. We are being asked to make a judgment on a serious matter based on insufficient information. Even the Government was caught on the hop and had to talk to the Minister and others to find out the status of the advocacy centres and whether the information contained in the motion was true. I understand some information in the motion is not accurate. Information provided to me by Gary Moore, that hard-working Director of the Council of Social Service of New South Wales, states:

Two weeks ago the 36 the non profit community based organisations, which currently provide disability information and advocacy services in NSW, were informed, without warning, in a closed door meeting with the Ageing and Disability Department (ADD), that the Department would be tendering all disability information and advocacy services through expression of interest (EOI) process, commencing in the first week of March 2001.

This process has been rushed through. No wonder organisations are panicking about whether they will receive funding. He continued:

The rationale provided for this move was:

• the Minister for Disability Services needed to accurately know what activities and what outcomes she was getting for public expenditure in this area; and

• the Government was interested in giving more emphasis to individual advocacy for people with disabilities, and using growth funds, approved in the 2000-2001 State Budget, along with the existing funding commitments, to better distribute, geographically, the funds for these types of activities.

It is obvious the Government wants to get the best value possible for the dollar, which is understandable when dealing with public money. The department claims it has been handing out this $3.7 million and other amounts in the last few years, which has gone into a big black hole. It does not know the effectiveness of that money—neither do the members of this House. Most members do not know how well that money was spent. We assume it was well spent because we know the organisations involved are good, but we do not actually know whether we are getting the best value for our taxpayer dollars. It is reasonable for the Government to want to get the best value for its money and to ensure also that people with disabilities and those who need assistance receive the best value for money to help them as much as possible. But is it reasonable to put at risk some of these organisations by saying, "OK, you will be funded until September, but then you may be on your own"? What happens to those with wives and children and mortgages, and who are usually underpaid?

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: That is why dealing with this motion is important.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: I agree it is important, but we need more information. We needed information from the Hon. Patricia Forsythe so that we could talk about it. All we have is her speech at the last minute. Now we are trying to put together a rational argument on whether to support it or amendments to it. It is a fairly tight balance between what the Government is telling us and what the Council of Social Service of New South Wales [NCOSS] is telling us. We have to sort out the chaff from the wheat to determine whether the motion is worth supporting, whether it should be amended or what the situation is. We do not know yet.

That is why we are trying to find out whether the allegations contained in the motion are correct. We need to know that taxpayers' dollars are spent in the best possible way. But we also need to know that these very valuable organisations are able to continue their work. We do not want these organisations threatened with defunding if they are successful at disturbing government bureaucrats, Ministers and the Government generally. If they are playing a worthwhile role they may well say things in the media that would disturb the Minister and make things uncomfortable for the Minister and the Government. We do not want them threatened with defunding because of that.

We want to ensure that these organisations are funded regardless. A system must be put in place to ensure that funding decisions are not made based on the whim of the Minister or on a political basis, but rather on their work and their role in the community. Rather than ask for expressions of interest for future work, judgment should be passed on the work they have done in the past few years. If the organisations have done good work surely there is a case to continue their funding, not cease it at the end of September because they made comments that upset the Minister or the Government. Perhaps people in the Cabinet Office are advising the Minister that some of these organisations should be defunded and that this is the way to go about it. I do not know if that is the basis on which their funding will cease, and I may never find out.

I am concerned that organisations such as NCOSS are properly funded and that they are not threatened with defunding simply because they are making noises in the media and upsetting the Government. I agree that we must ensure that money is spent properly. This whole issue needs to be looked at more carefully. We are rushing this process through. The Minister should allow NCOSS and other organisations more time to discuss whether the process could be spread out to enable them to decide whether they will be funded and whether they are doing the right thing. The Minister should listen to their concerns because they are worth listening to.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [3.52 p.m.], in reply: I thank the nine members who spoke in this debate. I particularly commend the Hon. I. Cohen for his compassionate contribution, which summed up the comments of many of the peak groups and highlighted their concerns. I am sorry that we had to bring this motion before the House today, but the clock is ticking. This process is to be finalised by the end of June, with new funding arrangements implemented from the beginning of July. We already know that expressions of interest commenced from the first week in March. It is important that we deal with the issue in the time that is available to us. The Hon. Amanda Fazio referred to proposed cuts as if they were unusual. They are proposed because the new system will begin on 1 July. The announcement was made to the groups in February.

NCOSS tried to develop a compromise on behalf of the groups and stated that the groups would work with the Ageing and Disability Department to achieve new service specifications and outcome measures. But we know from NCOSS that the Minister has rejected any compromise proposal. The Hon. Amanda Fazio also referred to the Brain Injury Association. I have a memo from Kevin Moran, the Executive Officer of the Brain Injury Association, to our disability peak bodies, in which he said that the price for individual advocacy service is being expanded. He said that all existing funding contracts with disability, peak advocacy and information services shall be vacated or not renewed come 1 July, and the money shall be placed to open tender for the specific services activities of individual advocacy, some information activities and perhaps some small amount of systemic advocacy activity.

Kevin Moran said also that such services will be contracted only at a local and regional level. That is the point: the peak bodies, statewide organisations about which we have come to know so much, will be defunded. The Government has those bodies in its sights, which is why, at beginning of February, it brought together the 36 organisations. We want to send a very clear message to the Government in early March so that it can rethink this proposal and provide these organisations with certainty and an opportunity to act as they have in the past. There is absolutely no doubt that these organisations are best placed to provide advocacy. There is no doubt that if we lose out on the statewide organisations we will lose out on some of the most important and influential advocacy groups. I commend the motion to the House and I urge all honourable members to support it.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Cohen Mr Colless Mrs Forsythe Miss Gardiner

Mr Gay Mr Harwin Mr Lynn Mr Pearce Ms Rhiannon

Mr Samios Mrs Sham-Ho Tellers, Mr Moppett Mr Ryan

Mr Corbett Mr Della Bosca Mr Dyer Mr Egan Ms Fazio Mr Hatzistergos Mr Johnson

Mr M. I. Jones Mr R. S. L. Jones Mr Kelly Mr Macdonald Mrs Nile Reverend Nile Mr Obeid

Mr Oldfield Mr Tingle Mr Tsang Mr West Tellers, Mr Primrose Dr Wong

Mr Gallacher	Ms Burnswoods
Mr Jobling	Ms Saffin
Dr Pezzutti	Ms Tebbutt

Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: My question is directed to the Special Minister of State. I refer again to the Minister's involvement with the consultancy firm Polmark. Is the Minister aware that Polmark is listed in the annual return of the Australian Labor Party, which is lodged with the Australian Electoral Commission, as having made a $7,000 contribution to the Labor Party? Does this $7,000 contribution to the ALP allow Polmark to distribute the promotional material referred to previously that guarantees "direct access to the relevant people in Government"; or does this $7,000 contribution help to provide the "direct access to the relevant people in Government"?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: Until the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked that question I was not aware of Polmark's contribution to the Australian Labor Party. No, it does not mean that there is a connection in any way, shape or form between that contribution and any publication produced by that organisation. As to the third part of the question, of course not.

The Hon. I. W. WEST: My question is directed to the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries. Will the Minister detail what the Government is doing to address the problems associated with derelict mines in New South Wales?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I thank my colleague for that very important question.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: You answered that question the other day.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: What is your contribution today? You are not interested; you do not want to hear about the record amounts that this Government is spending on derelict mines in the regions.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: You said that last time.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: The Hon. D. F. Moppett is not interested in hearing how this $1.6 million is being spent. He is dumber than he thinks; he does not want to learn. While mining provides enormous benefits to the New South Wales community, it is the Carr Government that has imposed the strictest environmental guidelines on our mines. We are also imposing stringent requirements on mine securities so that taxpayers of the future do not continue to pay to rehabilitate mines that are operating today. However, we have inherited a legacy of derelict mines that were abandoned when their productive lives were exhausted. This Government has clearly demonstrated its commitment to rehabilitating these mines.

This financial year the Government allocated $1.6 million—a record amount—to restoring the State's derelict mines. In addition, my colleague in the other place the Minister for the Environment recently announced that the Environmental Trust is spending an extra $3 million on the rehabilitation of abandoned mines program. Expenditure on those two programs totals $4.6 million. That is a big change from the Coalition's yearly expenditure of $150,000 on derelict mines. The Derelict Mined Lands Rehabilitation program is managed by the Department of Mineral Resources. Funding for derelict sites has been allocated by a committee that comprises members from the Department of Mineral Resources, the Environment Protection Authority, the Department of Land and Water Conservation and the New South Wales Minerals Council. This committee works closely with regional communities and local councils to prioritise rehabilitation work. I am pleased to advise the House that funding for this year's new projects—

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: Do you know who set up the Environmental Trust? Tim Moore, the Coalition environment Minister.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: Is the Hon. J. F. Ryan asking a question or making a statement? He has to occupy the seat in which the Hon. J. M. Samios is sitting before he can ask questions. This committee works closely with regional communities and local councils to prioritise rehabilitation work. I am pleased to advise the House that funding for this year's new projects includes $95,000 for safety work at the former South Bellambi coalmine near Wollongong, $90,000 for revegetation at the former Broula King mine near Orange, and $50,000 for an environmental assessment of the Tallebung mine near Condobolin. The committee has also allocated funding for the next stage of a number of ongoing projects. These include a further $80,000 for rehabilitation of the Drake mine field near Tenterfield, bringing this restoration project to $460,000; and $30,000 for earthworks at the former Frogmore copper mine near Crookwell. To date, $100,000 has been spent on this rehabilitation program. An extra $25,000 has been allocated for more work on the Aberdare East mine near Cessnock, bringing the total for work on this project to more than $213,000.

In the Tenterfield area $50,000 has been allocated to the Mole River mine site, which means that the Government has provided more than $200,000 for this site. In the Maitland area a further $53,000 has been provided for the Dagworth Greta mine near East Maitland. A total of $171,000 has been spent at the site. Other projects include $30,000 for the Wolumla goldfield near Merimbula on the South Coast. There will be $46,000 to rehabilitate the former Baerami, Newnes and Ruby Creek mines, which are located within the Wollemi and Blue Mountains national parks. I am pleased to say that the final year of work has been reached at the Baryugil mine near Grafton, where $20,000 will be spent completing the $2 million restoration project there. The New South Wales Government's derelict mines program is vitally important in protecting our environment. I will be pleased to update the House as environmental restoration work progresses.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS: I ask the Treasurer a question without notice. In December 1998 the Premier announced a $7 million feasibility study into the proposed Lithgow aluminium smelter—prior to the loss of this $3 billion project to Queensland. What proportion of this allocation was actually spent? How much, if any, of the expended amount was funded by the Government?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am not aware of the details but I will certainly get them for the honourable member and provide them to the House when I can.

The Hon. D. E. OLDFIELD: My question is to the Minister for Mineral Resources, representing the Minister for Transport. Is the Minister aware that current New South Wales drivers licences do not allow for the voluntary inclusion of the licence holder's blood group? Does the Minister agree that such information may be very useful in an emergency? Will the Minister undertake to consider including, on a voluntary basis, such information on drivers licences in the future?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: That is a very important question. I agree that it would be very wise to have the driver's blood group shown on the licence voluntarily. I certainly will raise the matter with my colleague the Hon. Carl Scully—

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Say no.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I will not say no. It is a good idea in case of emergency.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: Will the Treasurer inform the House what effect the current national economic downturn will have on this year's State budget? Will current spending levels in health, education and community services be maintained? Will the promised tax cuts also proceed?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am pleased to advise the House that, notwithstanding the contraction of economic growth in the December quarter and the continuing weakness in the current quarter, the State's financial position has never been stronger. That is because over the last six years, unlike any other government in the State's history, we have taken advantage of the good times to pay down the State's mortgage. In the whole of our State's recorded financial history there have been only six surplus budgets, and this Government has produced four of them. That is why we are in good shape to financially weather a slowdown if and when it occurs. The State's net financial liabilities have been reduced by $7 billion since we took office—from 26.5 per cent of the State gross domestic product [GDP] to 16.1 per cent now.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: We are being softened up for this year's budget.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Let me put the Hon. J. F. Ryan at ease. Our fifth surplus budget is coming up. In the general government sector similar reductions have been achieved—with a $7 billion reduction in net financial liabilities, reducing the ratio from 18.1 per cent of State GDP to around 11 per cent now. It is that hard work, that success, that now stands us in great stead. I can advise the House that there is absolutely no need to fear a reduction in the level of expenditure in this year's budget. Although the budget is far from complete, at this stage I anticipate some modest but well-targeted increases in key priority areas. This is obviously causing embarrassment to the Opposition.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: With a billion dollars more than you expected last year, why wouldn't you?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The Hon. J. F. Ryan is already 18 months out of date. The figures he is referring to are for the 1999-2000 budget. It is a good principle to put money aside in good times for the tough times. If the tough times are coming, as many commentators are predicting, we are in a strong position because when times were good we put some money aside. We are the only government in the history of this State to have done so. When times were good we built up the surpluses, we ran down the debts and we repaid the mortgage. If we do suffer an economic slowdown the State is in a position to benefit from our good financial management over the last six years. This year's budget will be the fourth consecutive budget to reduce tax rates. In fact, the tax cuts from 1 July will provide a fiscal stimulus in New South Wales alone of more than a billion dollars a year. This also seems to be embarrassing the Opposition.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Will there be a petrol rebate?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Opposition members will not have long to wait. The budget is just over two months away. The tax cuts will include the abolition of taxes under the intergovernmental agreement, comprising the abolition of financial institutions duty at a cost to revenue of $634 million per year and the abolition of stamp duties on marketable securities at a cost to revenue of $425 million a year. In addition, there will be further tax cuts of $150 million per annum in the coming budget. In summary, there will be a substantial fiscal stimulus in this year's State budget, substantial tax cuts and a responsible increase in spending—all made possible by a strong financial base and six years of preparing for a rainy day.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: Is the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries concerned that the New South Wales Aquaculture Association has surveyed its members and ascertained that 25 per cent of those involved in land-based aquaculture are considering leaving the industry due to the Carr Government's fee regime? Is he also concerned that such organisations are completely frustrated by what they believe is a lack of transparency by the Advisory Council on Aquaculture? For example, industry groups have no knowledge of the council's meeting dates, issues that are to be discussed or have been discussed, or its recommendations to the Minister or follow-up on such recommendations. Will the Minister act to end the confusion in the industry and lack of coherent communication flowing to the industry from the Government?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I am not sure where the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner gets her information. Last week I met with the oyster-growing arm of the New South Wales Farmers Federation. Oyster growing is the main aquaculture industry in this State. The people I met were very pleased with what the Government is doing in aquaculture and the progress we are making in aquaculture.

The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: I referred to land-based aquaculture.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: Fine, but you are talking about an assumed 25 per cent of a large proportion of the aquaculture industry. I remind honourable members that we have attempted at every stage to soften the blow on the aquaculture industry. As the honourable knows, we are required to recover costs and the cost involved from consolidated revenue is about $3.6 million. In accordance with independent assessors, we were supposed to recover that cost from the aquaculture industry. On the contrary, the Government decided not to do that and will only recover 14 per cent of that $3.6 million, which amounts to about $350 per year for each aquaculture permit holder. That amount is frozen for five years. Therefore, the Government is collecting 14 per cent for five years and will review the matter at the end of that five-year period. By not recovering the total amount to which it is entitled, the Government is helping the aquaculture industry, and the aquaculturists who have visited me are happy with that arrangement. Obviously, there are small permit holders for which this may be a sideline, who do not want to pay the $350, and that is up to them.

The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: You don't care about them?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I care very much. I care about every member of the industry. At the same time, one cannot keep subsidising industry because that is not the way the Government should operate. The Government is creating an aquaculture industry that is dynamic. A couple of days ago I indicated to the House that the growth in aquaculture this year it is 10 per cent, which is phenomenal, and the Government is hoping for more growth next year. The Government is turning aquaculture from a cottage industry into a dynamic industry that is funded by real money from larger sections of our economy. That is the way the Government is heading. It has a $300 million enhancement and world-best research that can grow more than 100 species throughout the State. From my knowledge, involvement and consultation with the industry, the aquaculture industry is ecstatic about the progress the Government is making in supporting it as a regional industry. Strategies have been put in place on the North Coast that identify appropriate aquaculture sites and encourage participation from all stakeholders. The Government has three further strategies along the coast and one inland that will identify every possible site that can be utilised for aquaculture. It is about the long-term plan.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Have you got one at Crookwell?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I have said that if you nominate areas that can be restocked, we are more than happy to give the Crookwell people a chance to restock their lakes and estuaries to enable better fishing. However, you have not done your job for the people of Crookwell. You have not nominated even one area that the Government can look at restocking. That is because you do not even go down to Crookwell; they do not even know you down there. Only one restaurant owner knew you.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: At the time I was there nobody had ever heard of him.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I walked up and down the street and asked people if they knew the Hon. D. J. Gay. They had not seen him in years. Even the editor of the local newspaper had never met the Hon. D. J. Gay—and we were only three months out of an election. That is the problem with National Party members—they take their constituents for granted; they are very arrogant. The Hon. D. J. Gay has not visited Crookwell. This restaurant owner had been there for 14 months and three months out of an election she did not even know him. The Hon. D. J. Gay had not visited Crookwell and takes the community of Crookwell for granted. I suggest that the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner should extend her knowledge and contacts in the industry instead of speaking to a few people who have sore heads about not getting all of their policies included in the legislation of last year. For starters, she should speak to the New South Wales Farmers Federation, which will tell her how impressed it is with this Government and its attempts to ensure that aquaculture is a dynamic and thriving regional industry that will bring jobs to the regions.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I address my question to the Minister for Fisheries. Will the Minister give this House his unqualified undertaking that fish in the Barwon and Darling rivers are currently safe to eat, despite the large number of dead and dying fish that have been found in these rivers over the past few days? In particular, will he affirm that these fish are not dying as a result of contaminated run-off from cotton farms in the Namoi Valley? If the Minister is unable to give this undertaking, will he now move to protect the health of the people of western New South Wales by issuing warnings that fish in these rivers should not be eaten until declared fit for human consumption? Will the Minister issue this information in languages that are accessible to all potential consumers and, in particular, languages that effectively communicate with the indigenous communities?

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Was there a plentiful supply of fish in the Soviet Union?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I thought the Treasurer had actually learned that he was under orders not to be so abusive. I have been hearing that the orders have come from his higher authorities. One thing I noted with his interjection was this time he did not bring my daughter and my mother into it, as he has done too often. How would he like it if his family, his partner or his friends were abused in this House as he has done to my family?

The Hon. M. R. Egan: They are political players.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Yes, but they are not political players in this place. How would you like it if your partner was discussed in this House as you have done too me? It is not appropriate.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister will answer the question.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: For the benefit of the House, on 14 February a fish kill was reported in the Barwon River upstream of Brewarrina, in the far north-west of the State. This happened during flood conditions that were the result of heavy rain upstream in the previous weeks. The main fish killed were golden perch, bony bream and European carp. I am advised that some of the fish species would have been swimming upstream through the floodwater to spawn behind the flood peak. Officers from the Department of Land and Water Conservation and the Environment Protection Authority attended the site quickly and efficiently, taking water samples to test for oxygen levels. Turbidity and temperature were also tested. The Brewarrina Shire Council also collected samples to test for pollutants.

Results showed that the water was very turbid and the oxygen level had dropped to as low as 3.3 parts per million when it would normally be more than six parts per million. Testing of the water did not show any contaminants. I am advised that this poorly oxygenated water is likely to have resulted when water from billabongs on the flood plain re-entered the main river. Flooding of the Barwon River may also have stalled the flow of water from the Namoi River near where the rivers meet at Walgett. The water in the Namoi River became stagnant and lost oxygen as it lay for days over rotting vegetation on the flood plain. It is unfortunate that a kill of this size has occurred in our precious waterways.

After the flooding that has occurred in the west and up north I do not think that it would be possible to guarantee that fish taken from those river would be safe for eating. It is unfair to apportion blame to cotton growers in that area because officers from the Department of Land and Water Conservation were on the spot and took tests. It was caused by the low oxygen levels following the flood. Today I received a delegation from the local indigenous community, which made the same assertion. They were of the impression that cotton farmers and their methods of fertilisation caused the problem, but that is not correct. Three authorities—the local council, the Environment Protection Authority and the Department of Land and Water Conservation—took tests, and those tests showed that it was due to lack of oxygen.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Nonsense!

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I did a tour of the Richmond River when I got back a couple of weeks ago and the fisheries officers were conducting a number of tests and all the way the oxygen levels were so low there could not be any living species in those waters. Whilst I acknowledge that land use is an important factor, in this particular instance it was the lack of oxygen that was the problem. I urge anyone concerned about—

The Hon. C. J. S. Lynn: We know all about the lack of oxygen over there.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: Are you back, Charlie? Have you done the job yet? I would not be uttering too much at the moment if I were you because you are on the verge of being put on the backbench once Chikarovski goes. As I said, it was a very important question and I am more than happy to seek further clarification from the Minister for Health. I am not aware of any complaints about fish that were not capable of being eaten by humans.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister tell the House what tests were carried out on the fish? Were tests carried out on the sores that were found on the fish? With regard to the argument about lack of oxygen, how does the Minister explain that many of the fish found dead weighed approximately 100 pounds, which indicates that they are approximately 75 years old or more and therefore have lived through many floods when there has apparently been a lack of oxygen?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I cannot comment on the state of the fish but I will inquire into what tests have been done. I can only relate to the tests that were done on the water, which showed that oxygen levels were the problem. I will seek more information as to whether the tests were done on the fish and I will get back to the honourable member.

The Hon. J. HATZISTERGOS: My question is directed to the Special Minister of State. Will the Minister provide the House with details of the premium discount scheme for workers compensation insurance announced this morning?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I thank the honourable member for his ongoing interest in this issue.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Is this good news?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I think it is. Big business, small business and rural employers will benefit from the Government's new workers compensation premium discount scheme, which comes into effect at the end of June. The scheme introduces new incentives for employers to have safer workplaces and better return-to-work strategies for injured workers. Those incentives include a discount of up to $75,000, or 15 per cent, off their workers compensation premium in the first year. There are discounts of up to $50,000, or 10 per cent, in the second year and a maximum of $25,000, or 5 per cent, in the third year.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: That is good news.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: It is indeed good news for businesses. The premium discount scheme will be available to those employers who demonstrate measurable improvement in their occupational health and safety, injury management and return to work processes. Employers, unions and insurers were consulted and we have addressed their concerns to ensure that small business and rural employers can participate in the scheme. As a result of those consultations, special arrangements have been made for businesses with fewer than 20 workers. Small employers, including those in regional areas, will be able to access premium discounts by participating in occupational health and safety, and injury management programs.

These programs will be administered by sponsors approved by WorkCover, and will be tailored to suit the special needs and circumstances of small and regional employers. Industry representatives, who have been involved in the development of the small employers' strategy, have already indicated their interest in participating as sponsors. Employers with a work force of more than 20 will access the premium discount scheme by improving their occupational health and safety and injury management systems.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: What if they have a nil accident record?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: The Hon. J. F. Ryan interjects, as the Hon. D. F. Moppett did earlier. From the point of view of a premium risk situation, undertaking these exercises will reduce the risk and therefore reduce the potential premium. A call for expressions of interest for advisers for the premium discount scheme will be advertised statewide from 10 March. The premium discount scheme is part of a drive to change the culture of workers compensation. We need to give workers and employers greater incentive to improve workplace safety and to help employees recover from their injury and return to work.

Our approach to reducing premiums is endorsed by none other than the National Party member for Barwon, Ian Slack-Smith. Mr Slack-Smith told radio 2DU in Dubbo on 10 January, "The reason why WorkCover premiums for farming are so expensive is because of the high accident rate." The National Party member went on to outline his solution, which I suggest is a good solution. He said, "The only way we can get our WorkCover costs down, of course, is to start looking at making agriculture a much safer industry than what it has been in the past. It can be done."

The Hon. D. J. Gay: What would you do for policy without the National Party?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: He has stolen my idea. It is not often I quote members of the National Party because they do not often speak with such good sense as Mr Slack-Smith did. The premium discount scheme will be voluntary. It will offer discounts of up to 15 per cent and it will require employers to demonstrate improvements in their occupational health and safety, injury management and return to work processes. The implementation of effective occupational health and safety by an employer is a vital step in achieving savings through prevention of injuries or by managing them better when they do occur. A comprehensive education and information campaign will be conducted prior to implementation. The premium discount scheme is a practical initiative to make sure there is real progress towards achieving world's best practice in New South Wales in workplace health and safety, and injury management.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: My question without notice is directed to the Special Minister of State, and Minister for Industrial Relations. I refer the Minister to a publication, published last year by Mission Australia, entitled "No Use By Date", an advocacy statement on mature-aged workers and the unemployed. Is it a fact that the over-45 age group is the most disadvantaged group in terms of long-term unemployment? If so, will the Minister advise the House what special training programs are targeting the over-45s to assist them to find jobs quickly?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I appreciate the honourable member's question and note that during her question she passed to me a document obviously circulated by Mission Australia. It is apparent that the honourable member has a great interest in the specific issue of older workers. Given that the question is of a fairly general nature—and I say that in a most respectful way—it would probably assist the House and the honourable member if I were to prepare a detailed answer for her and provide it to her as soon as practicable.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: My question without notice is to the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and the Acting Minister for Juvenile Justice. Is it a fact that the office of the Department of Juvenile Justice located in Chatswood is to close on 31 March? Is the closure the direct result of budget cuts? Does that mean that any young person who has to report to an office of the Department of Juvenile Justice or is seeking help from the officers, and who lives in Sydney's north, will now have to travel to Surry Hills? Will the Government guarantee that Youth Justice Conferencing, which is co-located with the juvenile justice office, will not be left without accommodation in the area due to the office closure?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am not aware of the Chatswood office of the Department of Juvenile Justice. I do recall, however, that at the time of the last State budget—which was in May 2000—there was a substantial increase in funding for the Department of Juvenile Justice.

[Interruption]

The honourable member asked whether there had been a cut in funding to the Department of Juvenile Justice. The fact of the matter is that there was a budget enhancement for that department last year.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: Not necessarily for Chatswood.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Not necessarily for Chatswood? That might well be so, but there was an increase in the department's funding of around $10 million. That is a substantial increase in funding. So there has not been a cut in funding to the department, but an increase.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: They overran every year, so—

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: That is not a cut in funding. I will find out what is proposed for Chatswood and I assure the House that there has been no cut in funding.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: It indicates a degree of meanness, as detected before.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: A 10 per cent increase in funding is not mean.

The Hon. R. D. Dyer: Very generous.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: It was very generous, as the Hon. R. D. Dyer pointed out.

The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans: Depends what your overrun was.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: You, sir, and your colleagues serve the man who imposed the GST on the rest of us. For ever and a day we will remind you of it.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: My question is to the Special Minister of State, and Minister for Industrial Relations. Will the Minister inform the House how many people have received compensation from the Dust Diseases Tribunal?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I am advised that in the past 11 years, 906 New South Wales workers, or former workers, have died of the asbestos-related disease, mesothelioma. Of that 906, 23 were from the New South Wales power industry, about which questions were asked yesterday. Prompted by the ABC television report on the Victorian power industry, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition wrote to me suggesting that an inquiry be held into former State-owned power stations in New South Wales. In his letter he referred to some unresolved matters but at this stage just what they are is unclear. I will discuss this matter with him in more detail. The New South Wales Government has been at the fore in recognising the problems of dust-related illnesses in workers. In 1920 the Storey Labor Government introduced the Workers Compensation (Silicosis) Act. That was the State's first recognition and probably one of the first formal recognitions of an Act to compensate workers affected by dust-related industries.

Since then successive governments have amended and updated the legislation. New South Wales has led the way in taking a direct interest in the welfare of workers and work-health related concerns. In 1967 the Coalition Government established the Dust Diseases Board to handle compensation claims. The government of the day believed that special provision should be made to cover workers suffering from dust diseases. Workers suffering from asbestos-related diseases was an emerging issue at that time. In 1989 the Coalition Government created the Dust Diseases Tribunal to help facilitate common law claims by workers. Governments recognised that delay between exposure and development of the disease caused serious difficulties in establishing claims at law. Events involved time lapses, as this House discussed yesterday, of 30 to 40 years in some cases. This created some difficulty in accessing records, witnesses and the like.

The Dust Diseases Board provides a unique system of no-fault compensation to workers who have been exposed to mineral dust in their employment. No legal representation is required and there is no fee. To be eligible for compensation, workers have to demonstrate that they have a dust disease resulting from employment as a worker in New South Wales. Between 1990 and 2000 the Dust Diseases Board paid more than $267 million in compensation to workers and their dependants. In the same period the board paid a total of $12.1 million to workers employed in the power industry and their dependants. The board and the tribunal are unique in Australia; they deal with a terrible legacy of the past. Under the dust diseases scheme workers eligible for benefits may receive weekly compensation payments, medical expenses, home nursing, oxygen in the home, pharmaceutical expenses and, of course, funeral benefits.

A major reform took place under the Carr Government in 1998. That year an important package of reforms was made to the Dust Diseases Act 1942. Previously the Act dealt with only how victims of asbestos and other diseases were to be compensated. The changes went beyond compensation in a strict financial sense. The 1998 changes to the Act enabled the Dust Diseases Board to issue grants for the purposes of providing assistance to organisations supporting victims of dust diseases. The reforms enabled the board to make grants for medical research. The Government strongly supports the work of the board in providing benefits to workers. Moreover, the Government appreciates the need for research. Yesterday I was able to present a grant of $198,000 to a project at Royal North Shore Hospital as part of a $1.1 million research package.

The 1998 changes were important also because they allowed payment of claims for pain and suffering, often a major part of the settlement to be paid after the victim's death. In the past such a claim was not payable once the victim had died. In many cases the effects of asbestos-related illness are not manifest until decades after exposure. Along with other employers, the power industry began to realise the problem with asbestos during the 1950s and 1960s. Employers, employees and governments now recognise the problem that asbestos causes. In New South Wales occupational health and safety measures are essentially in place in industry to prevent the problems once caused by asbestos.

Just as importantly, the Government is providing compensation and research funding. Suggestions for an inquiry into working conditions and practices 30 or more years ago in the power industry would, regrettably, achieve very little. Occupational health and safety measures are now in place to ensure that the removal or disposal of asbestos products is carried out only by licensed operators under very strict conditions. Both Labor and Coalition governments in New South Wales have tackled the problems created by asbestos products; this is especially true in regard to the compensation and care of victims. The Government has assisted victims seeking common law claims and in a manner not equalled in any other State or Territory. While it is not possible to turn back the clock and undo the damage that has been done, we can assist people who now suffer as a result.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries. Is the Minister aware of proposals by Aquasonic Pty Ltd, possibly Australia's largest aquaculture supplier, to relocate its business from Sydney to Port Macquarie? Is it a fact that this business will offer 30 jobs immediately, at least 50 jobs in the next 12 months, and that its manufacturing and live seafood export businesses will make a vital contribution to the economy of the Hastings area? Has the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning now called for an environmental study, although environmental issues associated with this project are already covered in the development application that is being dealt with by Hastings council? Could this requirement for another study mean a major delay for this important aquaculture project, even to the extent of stopping its relocation? What can the Minister do, including negotiations with the Minister for Urgent Affairs and Planning, to avoid this duplication of the environmental study and expedite this project?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I am aware of the company, Aquasonic Pty Ltd. Its managing director visited me last year. The company is the largest producer of aquaculture equipment and aquarium products, and is presently located in the Campbelltown area. He wanted to expand his company and nominated a move to the Port Macquarie district. I understand that the Hastings council was responsive and welcoming and has located some land for him. I am not sure of the problem with the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning. That company is vital for the expanding aquaculture industry and is the major provider of equipment.

I am prepared to look into the matter and make representations to my colleague the Hon. Andrew Refshauge to ensure that unnecessary delays in approvals do not occur. The company is not an aquaculture venture, but suppliers of equipment. I am sure that the Hastings council would look at all the environmental aspects before approval. I cannot see any reason why the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning would want to be involved in this situation, or demand an environmental impact study. However, I will make representations on the company's behalf and try to facilitate the fast-tracking of the approval.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: My question is to the Special Minister of State. Will the Minister give an undertaking to provide continued funding for the paediatric-adolescent spinal cord injury outreach team, which is apparently funded by the Motor Accidents Authority, after March 2001 if recurrent funding is not picked up by the Department of Health?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I am not clear on the last part of the question relating to the Department of Health. Would the honourable member repeat it?

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: As I understand it, the paediatric-adolescent spinal cord injury outreach team is at risk of having its funding dropped by the Motor Accidents Authority [MAA] because of a brawl between it and the Department of Health. If the Department of Health does not pick up the funding, will the Minister undertake to make sure that vital service continues?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: The program of grants for assistance to various organisations involved in clinical work in connection with the consequences of motor accidents of course is made by the Motor Accidents Authority Board. That is one of the reasons the legislation envisages the establishment of a board. The board has been trying to rationalise some of its commitments to concentrate on areas that would give the most benefit to the victims of motor accidents and also be most consistent with accident prevention. The recommendation is that the MAA reconsider its previous decisions not to provide recurrent funding to the brain injury rehabilitation program under its rehabilitation grants program.

The Motor Accidents Authority places particular emphasis on supporting initiatives aimed at assisting people with serious injuries, such as spinal cord injury and brain injury. The authority has been particularly supportive of programs including the brain injury rehabilitation program and the statewide network of acute rehabilitation services, which is operated by the New South Wales Department of Health. The Motor Accidents Authority provided $26 million towards the cost of re-establishing the program and continues to provide funding with a significant number of initiatives aimed at improving treatment and service delivery.

The Motor Accidents Authority has supported the establishment of a number of community support services throughout New South Wales, such as community access programs and respite services for people with brain injury. Other government agencies charge that the ongoing service of particular groups in the community are considered a more appropriate source of recurrent funding than the Motor Accidents Authority. They are responsible for the funding of welfare disability services in New South Wales and issue the necessary resources and infrastructure to maintain the standard of delivery of service. As I said, essentially the board makes these decisions. I undertake to the Hon. J. F. Ryan to review the current status of the program and advise him of any details that come to hand.

The Hon. A. B. KELLY: My question is to the Special Minister of State. Will the Minister inform the House what changes have occurred to the best price green slip premiums for seniors over the last two years?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: The facts on green slip premiums are clear. In 1999, before the Government's reforms, people aged 55 paid a best price of $378 in metropolitan Sydney.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: You have been telling fibs in this area.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: No, I have not. Today that best price premium has dropped to $268. For country motorists the premium has dropped from $298 to as low as $209. Given these facts, it was interesting to note the Hansard record of comments made by the Hon. G. S. Pearce during yesterday's adjournment debate. Sometimes one expects the Opposition to twist words, or maybe just simply get it wrong. Either way, yesterday the Hon. G. S. Pearce, a lawyer by trade, did himself a disservice. The honourable member said—

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Point of order: It is an extraordinary use of the parliamentary standing orders to allow a member to make an attack on an individual except by way of substantive motion or personal explanation. The Minister has two options, to do this by way of personal explanation or substantive motion. He cannot proceed in this way.

The PRESIDENT: Order! It is not in order for members to cast imputations against other members except by way of substantive motion. The Minister has not strayed into that territory. If he does so I will repeat my warning.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I was not making any imputations about motive. I was basing my comments on the recorded comments of the honourable member last night. The Hon. G. S. Pearce seems to be confused with the difference between non-aged pensioners and aged pensioners. On Tuesday I explained to the House how the Government had moved to protect non-aged pensioners from insurance companies unfairly loading malice onto their green slip premium. I repeat, it is non-aged pensioners, not aged pensioners, or seniors or, in the preferred terminology of the Hon. G. S. Pearce, the elderly. In fact, as I explained to the House, the creation of a seniors category ensures a discount of 25 per cent for seniors. I take this opportunity also to correct the impression that I described the actions of the member for Gosford in relation to green slips as "very effective". In fact, that comment was in the context of the capacity of the member for Gosford to raise his public profile in the latest round of leadership speculation. The Hon. G. S. Pearce referred also to the Standing Committee on Law and Justice. The recent report of that committee states:

It is clear that the annual cost of obtaining a green slip has reduced markedly.

That committee has one Coalition member and I note there was no dissent from the report and no minority report was published. Last year, 70 per cent of motorists paid a premium of $330 or less. This year I have informed the House that the Motor Accidents Authority estimates the majority of motorists will pay $318 or less. At the time the reforms proceeded through the House the average green slip premium was $440. If on Tuesday the Hon. G. S. Pearce had been listening, if he had read my answer with some care and if he had researched the details of his speech, he would know the issue related to the unfair loading of risk onto pensioners who are not aged pensioners, that is, pensioners who are under 55 years. Seniors, old-aged pensioners or the elderly, whatever terminology is preferred, have had significant cuts to the best price premium green slip premium with it reducing from $378 to $268 in the Sydney metropolitan area. For a lawyer, one would wonder what the Hon. G. S. Pearce's clients would think of his adjournment speech last night.

The Hon. Dr P. WONG: My question without notice is to the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Health. Is the Government still committed to providing bridging courses for overseas doctors to assist them to qualify to practise medicine in Australia? When will these bridging courses start? How much funding will the Government commit to these bridging courses? Does the Government recognise that there is a shortage of doctors in rural New South Wales and that overseas-trained doctors could improve health services in the bush?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I will refer the honourable member's question to my colleague the Minister for Health and obtain a response.

The Hon. D. T. HARWIN: My question is directed to the Leader of the Government, representing the Minister for Health. Why is the Illawarra Area Health Service using the upgrading of the Shoalhaven district hospital as an excuse to reduce facilities available at that hospital? Why is a post-mortem facility being closed in August 2001 with that function being transferred to Wollongong Hospital? Is it a fact that already there are delays in post-mortems being carried out at Wollongong Hospital averaging three to five days whereas the turnaround at the existing post-mortem facility rarely exceeds 36 hours? Will the Minister maintain post-mortem facilities at Shoalhaven hospital without trade-offs such as the proposal to shut one accident and emergency bed and one intensive care bed to fund a post-mortem facility as suggested by the Illawarra Area Health Service?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I will refer the question to my colleague the Minister for Health.

The Hon. P. T. PRIMROSE: My question without notice is to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. What is the New South Wales Government doing in the Illawarra region to help small to medium enterprises develop new markets in South-East Asia?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I advise the House that over recent years the Illawarra has shown a great deal of drive and initiative in promoting itself as a region with many strategic advantages. For decades the Illawarra was regarded as an economy totally reliant on the fortunes of the steel industry. But over recent years much hard work has been done to ensure that the region has grown as a modern, sophisticated economy. The recent establishment and expansion of world-renowned information technology companies Nortel and Stellar are evidence of this transformation, as the Hon. J. M. Samios well knows. The Illawarra is looking not only at business opportunities within the region, it is also focused on accessing potential export markets. On 22 March the Department of State and Regional Development, and Austrade, will hold a seminar on trade opportunities in South-East Asia. Two senior Austrade officers will give presentations to local companies.

Mike Moignard, Executive General Manager of South-East Asia based in Singapore and responsible for nine countries encompassing the South-East Asia region, will cover trade opportunities for Australian exporters to South-East Asia. Cameron Macmillan, Senior Trade Commissioner in Bangkok, will address the seminar on trade opportunities in the information technology and communications sector. The seminar will provide an opportunity for local companies to get direct and up-to-date information on the exciting neighbouring market of South-East Asia for a minimal cost. The Department of State and Regional Development, and Austrade, will also provide participants with a detailed briefing of the region, and outline joint activities of Austrade and the Department of State and Regional Development in promoting exports.

It is pleasing to see that the seminar will have the support and participation of two local Illawarra members of Parliament: Stephen Martin, the Federal member for Cunningham, and Colin Markham, the State Member for Wollongong. Securing seminars such as this one to promote trade opportunities for local companies presents yet another step forward in the development of the Illawarra region. Through these seminars the Government will continue to support innovative companies to develop their potential in overseas markets, expand their enterprises and generate new jobs in New South Wales.

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

Questions without notice concluded.

Pursuant to resolution business interrupted.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [5.05 p.m.]: I move:

That this House at its rising today do adjourn until Tuesday 27 March 2001 at 2.30 p.m.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [5.05 p.m.]: I move:

That the motion be amended by inserting at the end "and the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti be permitted to give a notice of motion prior to the House adjourning this day".

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti's amendment should be in writing.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I am prepared to put it in writing.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Unless the honourable member's amendment is in writing I cannot accept it. I will put the motion of the Minister.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: Point of order: I am unaware of any standing order that requires an amendment to be in writing. On many occasions honourable members have moved amendments, particularly simple ones like the one sought to be moved by the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti. I do not think it requires a great deal of understanding. On many occasions I have heard honourable members move amendments verbally and they have been accepted by the House.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: To the point of order: I am not aware whether the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti can write, and even if he can I am not sure that anyone could understand it. We should indulge him and allow him to move his amendment verbally and vote on it.

The PRESIDENT: Order! First, I would like to rule on the point of order for the edification of members. Standing Order No. 49 states:

A Member, on giving Notice of a Motion, shall read it aloud and deliver to one of the Clerks at the Table a copy of such Notice …

In future I would like to receive notices of motion in writing. However, I now have it in writing.

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: Point of order: The amendment to the motion sought to be moved by the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti does not designate a time.

The Hon. A. B. Kelly: He must put a time on it.

The PRESIDENT: I cannot read the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti's writing. I have no idea what it is. I will take the amendment of the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti if he will give us a time limit on it.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Forthwith.

The PRESIDENT: The question is, That the amendment of the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti be agreed to.

The Hon. P. J. Breen: Point of clarification: At least five members of the House do not know what the amendment is. I have not heard anyone read out the amendment.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I will clarify my ruling under Standing Order No. 49. Standing Order No. 116 says:

An Amendment to any motion before the House must, if required by the Chair, be in writing.

I required the amendment in writing. However, I still cannot read it. If the Hon. P. J. Breen wants clarification of the amendment I will ask the Clerk to read it.

The Clerk: The amendment is that the question be amended to allow the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti to give notice of motion prior to the adjournment.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Forthwith.

The PRESIDENT: I will put that question again, as there was some confusion. The question is, That the amendment of the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti be agreed to.

Amendment negatived.

The PRESIDENT: The question is, That the motion of the Minister be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Bill received and read a first time.

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

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would preclude the passing of the bill through all its remaining stages during the present or any one sitting of the House.

The Hon. E. M. Obeid tabled, pursuant to the Ethnic Affairs Commission Act 1979, the report entitled "Ethnic Affairs Report 1999-2000".

Ordered to be printed.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [5.14 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

The Hon. I. COHEN [5.14 p.m.]: The western region assessment begun by the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning in November 1999 has been a completely unsatisfactory process from day one according to a number of people, including the Chair of the Central West Environment Council, Colin McDonald, and its secretary, Bev Smiles. The assessment began in the South Brigalow bioregion, which stretches from the Queensland border to Dubbo and east into the Hunter Valley. The dominant vegetation type in the region is western woodland communities: ironbark, box and cypress pine interspersed with native shrubs and grasses. These vegetation communities are among the least protected in the State. Only 2.5 per cent of the bioregion is in conservation reserves, while 61 per cent has been cleared. The largest remnants of woodland vegetation in the South Brigalow bioregion are in Pilliga and Goonoo State forests.

The Carr Government started the assessment process when trying to find a supply of ironbark timber to feed a charcoal plant for 40 years. A broad cross-section of the community conducted a successful campaign—to which I have referred in the House—against the charcoal plant. I was present for a number of campaign events. People living in the region were fully aware that the supply of ironbark had been significantly depleted by the cutting of railway sleepers. A very fast and totally inadequate flora and fauna survey was conducted in December 1999 as part of what has been labelled stage one of the assessment. Enough information was collected in this survey to show that a significant number of endangered species depend on these remnant areas. The only other biodiversity survey in the region was carried out in the Pilliga in 1993-94. Most areas of the bioregion have never been surveyed.

The Government has now launched stage two of the South Brigalow assessment through the Resource and Conservation Assessment Council. However, no conservation criteria have been established for the assessment outcomes and the process is restricted to a period of two years. At the same time, the assessment includes all land tenures in the region not just State forests. A budget of $4 million has been allocated to this assessment, while some other processes on the east coast ran for three to four years with budgets of up to $9 million. A further $40 million to $50 million was allocated to industry restructure and compensation in coastal regions. No such funding is forthcoming for the western region assessment. Many people in western communities are concerned that once again city-based planners and policy makers are discriminating against them.

I ask Country Labor members in the House why the assessment of these important landscapes, which are showing signs of major disturbance, is being given a cheap, rushed treatment. The vertebrae fauna survey project developed by the National Parks and Wildlife Service and State Forests for stage two of the assessment had its budget slashed to 60 per cent at the December Resource and Conservation Assessment Council meeting. This will make it a meaningless exercise. The survey will be conducted only in autumn, which means that all the important springtime information will not be collected. Dry land salinity, biodiversity loss, a crash in the population of woodland birds and poor river health all point to a landscape that needs attention. The western region of New South Wales needs a full assessment of its capacity to support existing development and current land management practices.

People in the west are very concerned about this process and the way that it is being managed. The Western Conservation Alliance was formed by 11 local western environment groups in partnership with the peak State bodies. Their initial aim is to save western woodlands from further exploitation and mismanagement. Long-term aims include addressing the significant environmental problems west of the Great Dividing Range. A strong message has been sent to the major parties in Western Australia and Queensland that green issues, especially forestry management, are high on the voters' priority list. The Carr Government is paying lip-service to ecologically sustainable development principles, biodiversity strategies and threatened species legislation in its conduct of the western region assessment.

The people of western New South Wales are calling for immediate identification of conservation criteria; a longer time frame in which to conduct adequate environmental survey work; and a budget that is indicative of the scale of the project work needed, including an industry restructure package, to ensure that the western region assessment provides adequate protection for the important environmental assets of western New South Wales. This area of great significance to people throughout New South Wales—and indeed the world—has been neglected for too long. While I appreciate that the Minister for the Environment has focused attention on this area, support from all government agencies will be required if we are to conserve icon areas of Australian bushland and their native species.

The Hon. J. HATZISTERGOS [5.19 p.m.]: I draw the attention of the House to the concerns that have been expressed in the New South Wales Law Reform Commission paper No. 96, entitled "Sentencing: Aboriginal Offenders". Honourable members will be aware that, although indigenous people constitute only 2.1 per cent of the total Australian population, 18.8 per cent of all prisoners are indigenous. In addition, the imprisonment rate for indigenous males is 12 times higher than the rate for all males, and the corresponding figure for indigenous females is 14 times higher than the average female rate. New South Wales has the highest number of indigenous prisoners of all the States and Territories. Indigenous offenders are also more likely to be sentenced to a term of imprisonment and they are more likely than non-indigenous people to be charged with minor offences such as offensive language and conduct.

Against this background, the paper considered the approach that we should take to adopting Aboriginal customary law as part of this State's domestic law considerations. There are several difficulties associated with doing that, and they are recognised in the commission's paper. In previous court cases, particularly Walker v New South Wales, it was argued that, like in Mabo v Queensland, it was possible to apply Aboriginal indigenous law to the domestic law of the State and allow it to exist alongside State law. However, that suggestion was rejected on the grounds that there were difficulties with plurality in criminal law. Nevertheless, it should be acknowledged that there are benefits in recognising Aboriginal customary law as outlined in the commission's paper.

First, it is argued that customary law influences the lives of traditionally oriented Aboriginal people, and that fact in itself calls for recognition—not to recognise customary law is effectively to deny the existence of a large part of Aboriginal culture. Secondly, non-recognition can lead to injustice. For example, an Aboriginal person may be punished under the criminal justice system for an action performed for the purposes of customary law; or an Aboriginal person may be punished under both the criminal justice system and customary law for the same act, which is effectively a system of double jeopardy. Thirdly, the recognition of Aboriginal customary law may also provide a way to compensate Aboriginal people for past wrongs, and could therefore be an important step in the reconciliation process.

Fourthly, Australia's international standing and reputation would benefit from giving recognition to the laws and traditions of indigenous people. Fifthly, recognition would implement a key recommendation of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, and therefore hopefully contribute to a decline in the number of indigenous people who die in prisons and police cells. Finally, it was recognised that possibly the most persuasive argument in favour of recognising Aboriginal customary law is that it may play a role in maintaining law and order, while reducing the incidence of Aboriginal people coming into contact with the criminal justice system. I have already referred to the disproportionate imprisonment rate among Aboriginal people, and the recognition of Aboriginal customary law may assist in reducing that rate.

Nevertheless, we must recognise some important arguments in this complex debate. First, there is the difficulty of recognising aspects of Aboriginal customary laws and informing the court about them. Unlike domestic State law, Aboriginal law can vary from tribe to tribe, is passed down over time and is not the subject of codification. Another way of putting the argument is that in some cases those laws have ceased to exist in a meaningful form, and therefore it would be difficult to ascertain what the precise law may be at any particular time.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS [5.22 p.m.]: On Monday morning I attended the Lakemba Mosque for the celebration of the Islamic Hajj. Together with the Ramadan celebration, it is probably the greatest annual celebration for members of the Islamic faith. Occasions such as this reflect the richness of our multicultural and multireligious society. The Eid-Al-Adha is known as the Festival of Personal Sacrifice. It commemorates God's testing of Abraham's faith and devotion in his willingness to sacrifice his son Ismail. It is celebrated during the month of the Hajj. Many people of the Islamic faith travel to Mecca for the Hajj. One travel agent stated to me that he had organised for five planes to carry 1,000 people on the pilgrimage. Muslims are expected to go to the holy city of Mecca at least once in their life.

I represented the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Kerry Chikarovski, at the celebrations at the Lakemba Mosque. Among those present were the Lebanese Ambassador to Australia, Michel Bitar; the Lebanese Community Council President, Dr Mustapha Alameddin; Justice John Dowd; and the Imam of the Mosque, Yahyah Safi; international Muslim scholar Dr Roteb Nebul; Sheikh Shadi Suleiman; the Acting President of the Lebanese Muslim Association, Keysar Trad; and Councillor Michael Hawatt. Australians of Islamic faith have played an important role in pioneering and opening up the nation since settlement 200 years ago. Their rich heritage has made a positive contribution to the social, economic and cultural development of our multicultural society. Important festivals such as the Eid-Al-Adha and Ramadan draw thousands of people to Sydney and allow all Australians to experience the benefits of living in a culturally diverse society.

The Hon. D. E. OLDFIELD [5.25 p.m.]: Like many citizens of New South Wales, particularly members of the New South Wales Police Service, I was appalled at the news that Murray Hearne, the convicted murderer of Constable Peter Forsyth, was to have his sentence reduced. According to reports, a major factor in this decision was a ridiculous notion that Hearne's act of murder was not premeditated. Whilst Hearne's murder of Constable Forsyth was not judged as premeditated, Hearne was undertaking criminal activity and carrying a weapon. When confronted, Hearne used that weapon to murder Constable Forsyth and maliciously wound Constable Semple. It might be argued that Hearne did not specifically set out to murder Constable Forsyth in particular, but the fact is that he carried a weapon and proved that he was prepared to use that weapon. Hearne's actions showed beyond doubt that he was prepared to murder whomever got in his way and in that respect his act of murder was premeditated, regardless of his lack of selection of a particular victim.

In response to this most inappropriate reduction in sentence, which in essence was a disgraceful act of devaluing the life of Constable Forsyth and his contribution to the community, I decided to give the Government a nudge in the hope that it would appeal against the decision and toughen penalties for future perpetrators. As is well understood, it is the police who are in the front line on our streets but in recent times there have been violent attacks on ambulance officers and firemen as well. With that in mind, last week I gave notice of the following motion:

That this House:

(a) views with concern attacks on emergency services personnel carrying out their duty to protect the public,

(b) notes the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal of 28 February 2001 to reduce the sentence imposed on the convicted murderer of Constable Peter Forsyth,

(c) calls upon the Government to immediately introduce legislation imposing life sentences on the murderers of emergency services personnel carrying out their duty,

(d) calls upon the Government to immediately introduce legislation imposing mandatory gaol terms on those who assault emergency services personnel carrying out their duty.

All people working in emergency services are entitled to know that risking their lives to save others is greatly appreciated, and if they are attacked during the carrying out of their duties the perpetrators will be dealt with severely. Unfortunately, the people of New South Wales do not feel any safer as a result of any Government action; rather, they are more concerned about the ongoing disclosures of just how bad things are on the streets. In the last week there have been allegations of senior police ignoring the warnings of their officers. And today in this House the police Minister was censured as a result of that issue. In today's Daily Telegraph David Penberthy pointed out the Premier's inability to heed his own warnings against complacency. He wrote of the Premier:

Despite his warnings against complacency, he is acting like a man who enjoys a 50% lead over his political rival.

The issue once again is law and order. Penberthy also wrote:

Community fears over crime are probably the highest they have been since Bob Carr became Premier.

Penberthy added:

The sum total of the Carr Government's actions on Cabramatta this year has been to vilify a senior detective who raised serious allegations before a parliamentary committee.

Given the Carr Government's softly, softly approach to law and order and a growing recognition of such by sections of the media, I should not be surprised that no-one has taken a moment to consider my law and order related notice of motion. This is especially clear when it is understood that the Government is so complacent and comfortable that today, even as the Minister for Police faced a censure motion, like others on the crossbench I was not approached for support. My vote was not locked in. Failing to approach me was a mistake. Clearly, the Government must do more than just talk tough on crime; it must take action. If this is not seen to occur with some haste I expect that the stand taken by David Penberthy will be adopted by countless others in his profession. At this time I take the view that the Government has no interest in supporting appropriately increased penalties for those who attack emergency services personnel and as a consequence I will consider pursuing the matter through a private member's bill as, despite the unfortunately lengthiness of that process, there are no other options.

The Hon. R. D. DYER [5.30 p.m.]: I take this opportunity to pay a brief but sincere tribute to the memory of the late Senator James Anthony Mulvihill, who passed away late last year aged 83 years. Tony Mulvihill served as a Labor senator for New South Wales from 1965 until his retirement in 1983. He also served as Assistant General Secretary of the New South Wales branch of the Australian Labor Party between 1956 and 1965. I acknowledge that one source for my tribute today is an obituary by Cynthia Banham which appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald on 19 December last, although my contact with Tony Mulvihill extended over a very lengthy period. Tony Mulvihill could be described as a colourful character who contributed much to the Senate, the Australian Labor Party and the many causes with which he was associated during his lifetime.

The Hon. J. M. Samios: Including multiculturalism.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: Yes, I will say something about that in a moment. He began his working life in the New South Wales railways. He became chief shop steward in the Chullora railway yards. He was at various times a hose fireman, machinist, boilermaker's help and crane driver. It is noteworthy that Tony befriended many migrants and migrant groups and became a member of the Yugoslav, Italian, Greek and Polish clubs. He took a particular interest in political and social developments in the former Yugoslavia and I think it would be true to say that he had some sympathy for the attempts of the then Yugoslav President Tito to forge a political course independent of the then Soviet Union. Tony Mulvihill was always regarded as a member of the right wing of the ALP, now known as Centre Unity, but he described himself as a progressive centre liner. He played an important role in the turbulent events that occurred during the Labor split in the 1950s. Tony was appointed as a member of the provisional caretaker New South Wales ALP Executive in 1956. Graham Freudenberg, in his official history of the New South Wales ALP, "Cause for Power", writes about Tony Mulvihill:

Kane's intransigence resulted in his dismissal as assistant secretary. His replacement was Tony Mulvihill. The change had a symbolic significance: Kane had come to represent, for both sides, The Movement at its most militant; Mulvihill was representative of those Catholics who were suspicious of the aims of The Movement and resented its methods and attitudes. It was the steadiness of men like Mulvihill and later John Armitage which provided the ballast for the Labor Party administration in the tough years ahead.

I would add to those sentiments the statement that evidence of the success of the efforts of loyal Labor stalwarts such as Tony Mulvihill and John Armitage is furnished by the fact that Labor continued to hold office in New South Wales, unlike in Victoria and Queensland, where the split destroyed Labor governments. Tony was also a keen environmentalist and among his campaigns were those to protect Cape Barren geese in Bass Strait and the hairy-nosed wombat and to clean up the Parramatta River.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: He helped with whales too.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I certainly acknowledge that he had many environmental interests. He was also interested in saving public parkland from encroachment by swimming pools, bowling clubs and scout halls. I came into close contact with Tony Mulvihill during the years in which I chaired the disputes committee of the New South Wales branch of the ALP. I can assure the House that some spirited, and even hilarious, exchanges occurred on various occasions between Tony Mulvihill and those who might have been on the other side of the dispute. The late Tony Mulvihill made a substantial contribution to his party and to public life, and I very much regret his passing.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [5.34 p.m.]: I was very much taken aback when the House was advised on Tuesday morning of the passing of the late Bill Kennedy. Over recent years I was saddened to hear of the encroachment of infirmity on Bill's health. Therefore, I do not say that I was shocked to hear of his death but I was certainly saddened by the news. As my leader pointed out yesterday, Bill Kennedy served in this House between 1971 and 1984. I had the privilege of joining Bill Kennedy, Sir John Fuller and other members of the then National Country Party Leaders Council. I came to know Bill and his wife, Shirley, very well. At that time Bill was introduced as the mayor of Taree—a very popular mayor. He had served as deputy mayor and was the proprietor of a successful small business in Taree.

I tended to remember Bill in his early days as a farmer in the mallee area of Victoria. I used to pull his leg by calling him "the man from Manangatang". Anyone who knows that area of Victoria and understands the lot of the settlers would know that it was a pretty difficult row to hoe. Bill always maintained a cheerful disposition. He was a purposeful man; a steadfast fellow. The Hon. D. J. Gay said last night that he had been a student at the University of New England. He may not have realised that Bill's scholarship at that august university only commenced while he was a member here. He studied political science, the better to perform his duties in the House. His favourite subject was local government and he complemented our colleague at that time the Hon. Leo Connellan in long debates about local government and the virtues of that area of service in our community.

Bill Kennedy was a delightful fellow: short of stature but big in terms of his robust qualities and character. He is remembered fondly by the National Party for the contribution he made in the area around Taree and along the coast. He was not a man who confined his experience and interests simply to coastal New South Wales. He was a great devotee of the policies that John Fuller had introduced as the first Minister for Decentralisation. In latter years that made him something of a rebel because he still believed that the concessions in payroll tax which brought many industries to Taree were a policy that should not have been abandoned and that we should have reconsidered that decision. When we gathered for annual luncheons he always took the opportunity to advocate reconsideration of those policies because they had been effective in attracting industry and making Taree the thriving city that it is today.

The Hon. I. M. Macdonald: When was he mayor?

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: It must have been just prior to his election. He was not the mayor while he was a member of the Legislative Council. It would be prior to 1971—the late 1960s and early 1970s. That fits in with the age profile of someone who served in the Royal Australian Air Force during the war, came to local government and then served in the Parliament, as people did in those days in the Legislative Council, in his more mature years. I say with confidence that I speak on behalf of members of the National Party and on behalf of his former colleagues in extending our deepest sympathy to Shirley and their two children. In view of infirmity we trust that, although he will be mourned, the shock of his death will pass with the understanding that he has gone from suffering to a much deserved peace.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [5.38 p.m.]: I wish to inform the House of the sad consequences of taming wild elephants, in particular an elephant called Arna, which has been held captive in Stardust Circus for many years, on her own since her lifelong companion died four years ago. This is a shocking lack of respect for the elephant's welfare and also for the law, as the Exhibited Animals Protection Act and Circus Standards expressly forbid the keeping of a solitary animal. That has been blatantly ignored. I have received a letter addressed to Animal Liberation from Dr Bill Jordan, Vice-President of the RSPCA in the United Kingdom and a long-term advocate for animals, in particular elephants. The letter states:

Thank you for your letter and videotapes. It is important to remember that elephants, both Indian and African are wild animals. They are not domesticated. They are tamed.

Many people do not know and understand the essential difference between domestication and taming. Clearly horses, which are often seen in circuses, are domesticated. The elephant, however, is not domesticated, even though it has been used for several thousand years as a work animal in India. The reason for this is that it has not been bred selectively by man. Even today the females have to be turned loose into the jungle to be mated by wild males. When they are pregnant they are then brought back and they give birth in captivity. This means that all their wild instincts remain intact, whereas in truly domesticated animals the unwelcome instincts are selectively bred out by man [or woman].

Domestication is a process whereby man has structurally, physiologically and behaviourally modified certain species of animals by maintaining them in or near human habitation and by breeding from those animals who seem best suited for various human objectives. These objectives typically include a variety which relate to economic performance such as efficient paternal care, high fertility, longevity, maximum production of products such as wool, milk, accelerated growth rates and so on.

Taming is simply a process whereby a wild animal is subdued into adapting and submitting to human control. Taming of wild animals can be accomplished by various methods, but wildness is still there and can be triggered off by undue stress. There have been many incidents of trainers being attacked, killed or injured by circus animals, particularly elephants. When these animals, and even domestic animals, breed in the wild they are wild in the true sense of that word. Therefore, elephants seen in circuses retain all of their wild instincts, and to confine them in a circus and dominate them by making them obey the trainer's commands frustrates these instincts and causes unacceptable stress.

Elephants in the wild wander at least 20 miles per day and will bathe at least once a day. This is recognised by elephant keepers in India, for the animals get enough exercise during work and are bathed and scrubbed every day. Wild animals can be divided very roughly into neophilic and neophobic animals. Bears are neophilic animals, which means that they are very inquisitive and are always investigating and looking for something new, unlike lions which will sleep most of the day. Bears need a stimulating environment. In captivity bears become psychotic and there are many examples of this. Bears are not social and are usually found alone. When kept together in close confinement they often fight, which causes unnecessary stress.

Lions, on the other hand, tend to be neophobic and, provided they are well fed, will spend a lot of their time lying about, sleeping. In other words, it is not quite so stressful for lions as it is for bears and other neophilic animals. The amount of exercise and variety of environment provided for circus animals is almost negligible. Most wild animals cover considerable distances every day. In the wild, for example, an elephant will wander 20 or 30 miles browsing, which it does for at least 18 out of the 24 hours. Even bears and tigers will cover a large range, as will lions, if food is not plentiful. Nearly all circus animals show some behavioural signs of psychosis such as stereotypic movements, excessive inactivity, aberrant sexual behaviour, abnormal paternal care et cetera.

The psychological stress thus produced has knock-on physiological effects, in that it is well known that stress adversely affects the immune response, lowering the animal's resistance to disease. In my opinion, keeping wild animals in circuses, confined to travel in cages and released only into performing rings two or three times a day, causes unnecessary suffering which equates to cruelty. The suffering is produced mainly by frustrating the animal's biological needs and the stress caused in travelling, which has knock-on physiological effects. I would ask the Minister to look at the question of Arna being on her own and ensure that the law is obeyed and that Arna is united with another elephant of her species.

The Hon. D. T. HARWIN [5.42 p.m.]: A new date has been released by the Department of Local Government for its relocation to Nowra. In an answer to a question from Opposition local government spokesman, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the Minister for Local Government has advised that the department will not relocate to Nowra until January 2003—the fourth date that the people of the area have been given. When the relocation was announced in the May 1999 Budget Speech we were told it would be complete by August 2000. Documents obtained by the Opposition under freedom of information legislation revealed that the date would in fact be March 2001.

Just three weeks ago Wayne Smith, the member for South Coast, told the South Coast Register it would be February 2001 but, in his answer this week to the Opposition the Minister has contradicted Wayne Smith and told Parliament that the relocation is scheduled to occur before the commencement of the school year in 2003. That is a full 12 months later than the date given by the local member only three weeks ago. He clearly does not even know what his own Government is doing. Even the answer from the Minister has an "at this stage" phrase so that the Government can wriggle out of it in the future. The saga of how many jobs are coming to Nowra is as much a shambles as that on relocation—

[Time for debate expired.]

Motion agreed to.