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

The President offered the Prayers.

The PRESIDENT: Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition gave a notice of a motion requiring the production of certain documents under Standing Order 18. At that time the Leader of the Government took a point of order inquiring whether the notice of motion was a breach of Standing Order 19. Standing Order 19 states:

The production of Papers concerning the Royal Prerogative, or of Despatches or other correspondence addressed to or emanating from His Excellency the Governor, or having reference to the Administration of Justice, shall be asked for only by Address to the Governor.

Given the importance of this matter, I have directed the Clerk to seek legal advice from the Crown Solicitor. When that advice is available I will hear argument from members in relation to the point of order. Until that time I will reserve my ruling in respect of this matter.

The Hon. Michael Costa tabled the following paper:

State Emergency and Rescue Management Act 1989—Report of State Emergency Management Committee for year ended 30 June 2001

Ordered to be printed.

Petition praying that the House conduct a public inquiry into the proposed local government boundary changes and ensure that a plebiscite takes place before any boundary changes are made, received from the Hon. Duncan Gay.

Petition praying that the House ask the Government to locate a suitable property as soon as possible for lease or purchase by the Noor Al Houda Islamic College, received from the Hon. Dr Peter Wong.

Petition affirming the right to life of every unborn baby in accordance with the declaration of Geneva and praying that members vote in favour of the Unborn Child Protection Bill which will allow unborn babies legal protection and freedom to be born, received from Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.

Petition asking that above rail community service obligations on branch lines be reinstated until branch line infrastructure is upgraded to a standard to ensure competitiveness with main lines, received from the Hon. Doug Moppett.

Petition praying that the House reject proposals to reform the Anti-Discrimination Act that would detract from the exercise of freedom of religion, received from the Hon. Duncan Gay.

Petition stating that there is an urgent need to protect the grounds of Rozelle Hospital, known locally as Callan Park, and praying that the House pass the Callan Park Trust Bill, received from Ms. Lee Rhiannon.

The Hon. MALCOLM JONES [11.15 p.m.]: I move:

That, during the present session and notwithstanding anything contained in the standing or sessional orders, and unless otherwise ordered, the following procedures apply to the passage of Government bills:

1. Where a bill is introduced by a Minister, or is received from the Legislative Assembly:

(a) after 18 June 2002 (Budget Session), debate on the motion for the second reading is to be adjourned at the conclusion of the speech of the Minister moving the motion, and the resumption of the debate is to be made an Order of the Day for the first sitting day in September 2002,

(b) after 12 November 2002 (Spring Session) debate on the motion for the second reading is to be adjourned at the conclusion of the speech of the Minister moving the motion, and the resumption of the debate is to be made an Order of the Day for the first sitting day in 2003.

2. However, if after the first reading, a Minister declares a bill to be an urgent bill and copies have been circulated to members, the question "That the bill be considered an urgent bill" is to be decided without amendment or debate, except a statement not exceeding 10 minutes each by a Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, or a member nominated by the Leader of the Opposition, and two crossbench members. If that question is agreed to, the second reading debate and subsequent stages may proceed forthwith or at any time during any sitting of the House.

My motion attempts to copy a standing order of the Senate. It is designed to prevent the Government, throughout this year only, from introducing legislation towards the end of a parliamentary session and attempting to have that legislation voted on within the same session without adequate debate. I have moved this motion in order to prevent the usual end-of-session cramming, a problem created by the Government. I draw the attention of honourable members to what happened at the end of last year's parliamentary session, given the number of bills that had to be processed in a short period of time. I was particularly angered by events of the afternoon of 12 December and cite the National Parks and Wildlife Amendment Bill as an example.

That bill was introduced in the Legislative Council on 29 November and debated on the second last day of session. A few days prior to debate on the bill, advisers to the Minister for the Environment approached me seeking notice of any amendments I wished to put forward. I immediately smelled a rat as it is not, nor has it ever been, the practice of the National Parks and Wildlife Service to seek my views on any issue. During the Committee stage of the bill, the Hon. Richard Jones moved a substantial number of amendments in globo. The excuse of urgency before the end of session was used. The bill was not adequately debated and major amendments were moved without debate or an opportunity for members to scrutinise the bill prior to debate on it.

I objected and my objection was ruled out of order by the Temporary Chairman of Committees. However, the amendments moved by the Hon. Richard Jones were then considered seriatim. All of those amendments were pre-approved in collusion with the Government. Honourable members might consider the comments made by the Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment when referring to the amendments moved by the Hon. Richard Jones. The Minister stated in effect that most of the amendments were trivial. She said:

The Hon. Richard Jones moved a significant number of amendments, but I do not intend to speak to every one of them, because that would take a long time. A number of his amendments are either minor clarifications or wording changes. If any honourable member wants further clarification of why the Government is supporting them, I would be happy to outline that. The Government is supporting all of the amendments moved by the Hon. Richard Jones.

Minister Tebbutt further added:

The Hon. Richard Jones has moved a significant number of amendments in globo. I want to clarify that the Government did not have a great deal more notice than other honourable members.

Contrary to the comments made by the Minister, what the Hon. Richard Jones had sought to set up was an audit and compliance committee to ensure that the National Parks and Wildlife Service is run in accordance with the other amendments that the honourable member moved in this clandestine manner. The Minister was either not adequately briefed or misled the House, or she did not understand what she was doing. I personally doubt the latter proposition, but the comments she made were contradictory. Contrary to her comments, the amendments moved by the Hon. Richard Jones did have a significant effect on the outcome of the new Act. If the Minister was not properly briefed, the bill should have been held over to the next session of Parliament because it did not have to be implemented urgently. There was nothing at all urgent about the bill; it was simply crammed in at the end of the parliamentary session.

I do not blame the Hon. Richard Jones for doing what he did. I believe the Government wanted the contentious parts of the bill put through by amendment under the excuse of urgency before the end of the session. Passage of this motion will end the ability of the Government to cram legislation through without adequate debate. As I said, what the Hon. Richard Jones did is within the "whatever it takes" ethos of New South Wales politics. However, I am critical of the Minister. I repeat that the Minister either was not adequately briefed or misled the House. As her statements constitute components of law, we cannot let them go unnoticed. Contrary to the Minister's statements, significant amendments were made in a contrived way, designed to thwart debate. I reiterate that there was no urgency to the bill: it should have been treated in a conventional way allowing full scrutiny and debate. I have laboured the point over the National Parks and Wildlife Amendment Bill. However, it is a stark example of why the motion before the House is needed. That bill is now passed and is law. The process is what the amendment addresses, not my opposition to the content of the Act itself. I commend the motion to the House.

The Hon. JOHN JOBLING [11.21 a.m.]: The Opposition has considered at length and discussed the motion moved by the Hon. Malcolm Jones relating to the way in which this House deals with business and the handling of legislation introduced by Ministers in this House or received from the other House. I make clear at the outset that the Coalition does not oppose the intent of the motion. We understand what it means and we equally understand how it would affect the Opposition when the Coalition comes back into government in 2003. There has been a trend by the Government to introduce a large number of bills into the Legislative Council just prior to the end of the parliamentary session. This is not new; it has happened regularly in this House.

We have considered the options available and have looked at the way the Senate has handled the problem. The same situation confronted it over many years. The motion is broadly based on what has become standard Senate practice since approximately 1994. Senate Standing Order 111 sets out a procedure developed by the Senate to manage the outrageous situation that occurs regularly in parliaments, the end-of-sitting rush of legislation, the logjam. From the 1970s to the early 1990s, up to 60 per cent of the bills dealt with by the Senate were considered in the last two weeks of the session. That is a totally unsatisfactory situation.

Senate brief No. 8 sets out an explanation of the deadline imposed on the receipt of bills from the House of Representatives. It states that in recent years the Senate has been concerned about the end-of-year rush of legislation from the House of Representatives which has resulted in the possibility of bills being passed without adequate time for proper consideration. That sounds familiar: it describes what has happened in this House in the last few years. Starting in about 1986, several attempts were made in the Senate to remedy the situation. In November 1994 an order of the Senate ensured that consideration in the Senate of a bill introduced in either House in any period of sittings would be automatically adjourned until the following period of settings unless the Senate made a deliberate decision to exempt the bill from this requirement. So a deadline was imposed for the receipt of bills by the Senate.

The motion reflects exactly that proposition. At paragraph 1 (a) it states that after 18 June 2002, in the budget session, resumption of the debate is to be made an order of the day for the first sitting day in September 2002. In relation to the second half of the session, taking us into December, the motion provides that after 12 November 2002, in the spring session, the second reading debate is to be adjourned at the conclusion of the second reading speech, the Minister moving that resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the first sitting day in 2003. So the Government will know that if it wishes its legislation to be dealt with in a sensible, timely and considered way it will have to be introduced in this House or received from the other House by a certain time. We will not have contingent notice given of 24 bills on one day and be expected to debate them the next day, which is unfair to all members concerned. It is equally unfair in relation to the development of amendments to the legislation.

I have referred to Senate Standing Order 111. I also refer to pages 255 to 258 of Odgers' Australian Senate Practice and "Brief Guides to Senate Procedure No. 9: Consideration of Legislation". I do not intend to read lengthy documents that are available to members and all people to consider. If the motion is passed it will be applied as a sessional order during the current parliamentary session. I believe that it will be successful. The Government will adapt its business practice without difficulty and the motion can then be incorporated into a standing order, requiring no further discussions or problems relating to this matter. I fully expect—I will be surprised if it does not happen—that the Government will oppose the motion and, perhaps with crocodile tears, will say that if the motion is passed the Government will increase the number of sitting weeks at the end of the session. So what! The House might have to come back two weeks early at the beginning of the next session in August. However, honourable members will be on notice, they will know about it and business will be dealt with in a much more orderly and considered manner.

Honourable members should not be frightened off by the threat of the House sitting an extra two weeks. That is fair and reasonable and members will have a chance to consider the probabilities. I have no problems in agreeing to the motion of the Hon. Malcolm Jones to address the usual pre-election rush of legislation. If previous years are anything to go by, legislation will land on the table of the Legislative Council for members to consider just before the last part of the current budget session, which commences on 29 May. The same will happen in the spring session. The Legislative Council is known as a House of review. If we want to be recognised as a House of review it is imperative that members have a fair and reasonable opportunity to consider bills in a reasonable time frame. Members considering four or five bills need time to ensure that they get it right, for the people of New South Wales have every right and reason to expect that members of this House will do precisely that.

Members need time to consult with affected groups and stakeholders to determine whether the claims in a bill and claims before this House are fair and reasonable. They need time to express their opinion on the Government's proposed changes. That process has happened with many bills, but it cannot be achieved when only a short time is allowed by the Government before a bill is debated. The Government may also choose to argue that a bill is urgent. The motion determines a mechanism for that, as happens in the Senate, and clearly allows a Minister to introduce a bill and then seek to have it considered as an urgent bill. The matter would then come before the House for its decision, and there is provision for the House to consider an urgent bill. That process would certainly control the logjam which occurs in the last two weeks of every session. No reasonable Opposition or crossbench would be petty minded and oppose a bill being declared urgent, and that is also dealt with in the motion. However, the Opposition does not concur with paragraph (2) of the motion. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting in paragraph (2) the words "and two crossbench members", and inserting instead the words "one crossbench member".

That would allow, on the balance of probability, a reasonable number of members to speak. I do not suggest how the crossbench should choose that member, that is a matter for them. Equally, it may be a matter for the President as to who seeks to take the call. The Opposition believes that in equity and fairness only one crossbench member should be able to speak. With that minor amendment, the Opposition does not oppose the intent of the motion. It has merit and will lead to better debate. The motion seeks to adapt the Senate practice, which has been trialled and tested, in this House. The Opposition believes that it will lead to better and more considered debate. If the House is required to sit extra weeks, that is probably good. I commend the motion, as amended, to the House.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [11.32 a.m.]: I congratulate the Hon. Malcolm Jones on bringing this matter to the House for debate. The proposed amendment to sessional orders intends to stop the practice of stacking legislation towards the end of sessions, which has been a common practice of Labor and Coalition governments. Workers compensation, medical liability and civil juries amending bills are more recent examples of the Government leaving controversial and complex legislation to be shoved through at the last minute. Other options exist: the House could sit more days or the Opposition could be more vigilant in not letting the Government pass some legislation.

The Government threatens us with having longer sittings and then publicly criticises us for having short sittings, as if members do nothing when the House is not sitting! Members would not object to having more sittings; certainly I would prefer to do that rather than not know what is happening and going home exhausted at night. The House should also consider establishing a standing committee on the scrutiny of bills, similar to that of the Senate, which has worked quite well since 1981. In its report on the bill of rights the Standing Committee on Law and Justice recommended:

… that the NSW Parliament establish a scrutiny of legislation committee similar to the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee. This committee membership should be separate from the Joint Regulation Review Committee to ensure it can give sufficient attention to its task.

The report further recommended:

… at least in its first term, the committee be provided with a budget to contract an academic legal adviser or advisers to assist the committee with expert advice when required, in addition to the secretariat support necessary for the committee to meet legislative deadlines.

Such a committee would investigate all bills with the assistance of a legal adviser, provide a digest of bills and make recommendations. In the "Scrutiny of National Schemes of Legislation" report by the Working Party of Representatives of Scrutiny of Legislation Committees throughout Australia in October 1996, Senator Cooney summarise the role of a scrutiny committee as:

… one of technical scrutiny in which it examines the justice, the fairness or the propriety of the way in which regulatory measures are determined and imposed. Properly limited by its narrow remit, it does not look for the political acceptability of the policy being pursued. That is the province of the Parliament itself. Rather the Committee looks for wisdom, fairness, justice and restraint in the regulatory procedures to be followed in achieving that policy.

A lot of groups want more input into bills. Often bills are processed so quickly that lobby groups and interest groups are not aware of what is happening. For example, local government wants to know the effect that bills have on them and they feel that bills that impose costs on them are often pushed through. And because their budgets are capped, they are not able to budget for the impact of the bill. In the other place Richard Torbay has introduced a bill to consider the impact of legislation on local government. I have introduced a similar bill in this House. It is interesting that the financial impact statement of a bill goes to Cabinet. I believe that that statement should be freely available to all of us—it is our money, not Cabinet's money, after all.

A number of people would like to know more about various aspects of bills, and they would like the time to discuss them. They usually do not get that chance, particularly when bills are rushed through the House. In New South Wales we need more open government, and I will introduce a bill to partially address that. More work is needed to be done on that, and I may introduce a second bill later in the year. We need better legislation, not faster legislation, so the motion should be supported. I would have to be persuaded that bills are urgent because the Government often puts groups in awkward positions and then says that a certain bill has to go through quickly or else those groups will be disadvantaged. The Government uses that argument as an excuse for its tardiness.

I do not like being pushed like that. If the Government assumes that it can declare things urgent and that we will all agree, it can count me out. I am not completely happy with the Opposition's amendment, which provides that only one member of the crossbench may speak to the urgency of a bill. The crossbench members often have quite different perspectives on matters. The idea is to avoid logjams at the end of the session and not waste a couple of hours with everyone having their 10 minutes worth in determining the urgency of a bill. I can understand the reasons for reducing the number of speakers, although I do not like it. If such a situation occurs and I do not have an opportunity to speak, that will not mean I will vote for the so-called urgency if the Government has not been prudent in its planning of its legislative program. I support the motion.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [11.38 a.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the motion. It is an experiment and should be allowed to proceed for a trial period. If the proposed procedure prevents good government in a way not anticipated, I am sure all honourable members would be happy to review and amend it. As other honourable members have said, this proposal is based on Senate practice that is working. In the Senate, as in this House, the Government does not control the numbers and the Senate has been able to adopt procedures for its more efficient operation, which Coalition and Labor governments may not be happy with. They like to retain maximum power in their own hands, and that is understandable.

This Government and any future Coalition Government must acknowledge that the upper House comprises a representative group of people that may not serve the Government in every decision that is made but does seek to serve the community. However, in the long run this may help the Government to introduce better legislation. Even if the Government opposes the motion it could say to the bureaucrats who prepare the legislation and the various government departments that they are partly to blame.

I do not believe it is a deliberate Government strategy to have a logjam of 30 to 40 bills in the last two weeks of Parliament. Often Ministers are at the mercy of their departments. They request a bill, which finally turns up in December. Under this motion the Government will be able to say to the bureaucrats that if the bill is not prepared in time, there is a strong possibility that it will not be passed by the Parliament prior to Christmas.

The new procedure could assist the Government to generate more efficiency in government departments so that they produce legislation in a more timely fashion. The present system must place pressure on Parliamentary Counsel, who has to draft so many bills at the last minute, for the Government as well as for crossbench members. The better system would be for bills to be prepared, discussed and introduced over the entire parliamentary year rather than being rammed through Parliament in the last two weeks of the session.

I have been a member of this House for 21 years and this practice has been in place under Labor and Coalition governments. One might question who is to blame for the logjams, the politicians or the bureaucrats, but this practice has been followed by governments of both persuasions. I have called this practice "legislation by exhaustion" because honourable members are physically exhausted and cannot focus their attention on the legislation. Sometimes this happens with important bills that should have received lengthy review, considered opinion and amendment if they were not rushed through the Parliament. Sometimes honourable members who have reservations can physically do no more because of exhaustion. The Government can elect certain members to speak on individual legislation, whereas crossbench members must focus their minds on every bill that is introduced into the House.

The Hon. John Jobling spoke about the role of the Legislative Council as a House of review. Therefore, the House must have time to consider legislation, particularly as bills are often rammed through the lower House with literally only minutes being devoted to them. This House should not be pressured into doing the same. In this Chamber the Minister's second reading speech is often incorporated in Hansard and honourable members do not have the advantage of an explanation of the bill because it is not read aloud. When there is a large volume of bills the Minister's second reading speech maybe the only opportunity for crossbench members to be given an explanation of the bill, yet it is incorporated. Bills have also gone through this House in minutes.

The motion provides for urgent bills such as those linked with Federal Government uniform legislation, deadlines with insurance and so on, and where no legislation is in place and there is therefore a legislative gap. The Government must present an argument in support of what it asserts to be urgent bills. The motion will be agreed to, so I suggest that the Government set out a procedure to explain to honourable members now, not just before a vote is to be taken, what constitutes an urgent bill. Briefing papers, with adequate warning, should explain to crossbench members why a bill is urgent, so that we can advise the House that it has the support of crossbench members.

This motion is not designed to obstruct legislation. I would not be party to any procedure that has a hidden agenda to prevent the Government from governing or to delay legislation. Urgent bills are covered under this motion. Reference has been made to contributions by two members of the crossbench. Even with 13 crossbench members, there can only be two views, that is, whether the bill is urgent or not urgent. Those two opinions may prevail within the crossbench and that is why we support having the two views presented. It is difficult for the person speaking in the debate on behalf of crossbench members to represent both views. It must be made clear that the view expressed is that of the individual. I gather from discussions with the mover of the motion that he is prepared to accept the amendment to the motion. I would rather that two crossbench members be allowed to speak, but if it assists the motion to be passed, I am prepared to accept that only one crossbench member will speak.

However, the spokesperson must present the views on behalf of all crossbench members and put aside his or her personal views on whether the bill is urgent. It may be necessary for the spokesman to say that the crossbench is divided on the matter or that the crossbench, in the main, believes that a bill is or is not urgent. The spokesperson has the responsibility to reflect the views of the crossbench—and, if time permits, for members to even express their views in a meeting. Normally we meet on Tuesday morning but if a matter were urgent, we could meet on another occasion. I believe this should be introduced as a trial. If a problem arises, no doubt the Government will bring it to the attention of the House. This motion is not revolutionary; it will not be the undoing of the Government. It works in the Senate, so it should be trialled in this House. I support the motion.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.48 a.m.]: I listened with interest to the contributions to the debate. If honourable members suggest that the elaborate arrangements of the Senate, which have been in place over the past 15 or so years, are working, they should look at what is happening in the Senate. I know a number of senators quite well. If honourable members are of the view that the Senate logjam has been alleviated, they should check the record. If they think passing this motion will alleviate the end-of-session problems we have encountered for 20, 30 or 50 years in this Chamber and in other Chambers, they should examine the measures proposed by the Hon. Malcolm Jones in an endeavour to alleviate the logjam.

This motion will not achieve anything like the results that the Hon. Malcolm Jones seeks, and the Opposition knows it. The Coalition had governance of this State from 1988 to 1995, during which time there were a record number of late sittings and legislation logjams.

I recall one occasion when Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile agreed with the Government's proposal regarding south-east forests, which provoked a debate at 1.00 a.m. that did not conclude until 9 o'clock that morning. The Hon. Richard Jones and I fought that change vigorously—and I had a few words to say about it too. I am trying to illustrate my point: Honourable members are having themselves on if they believe that a motion that sets arbitrary legislative deadlines will end logjams when the practice of this and every other parliament reveals that this is a vexed question that is difficult to resolve.

There is a proper procedure for considering this motion. Instead of dealing with it now in the House it should be forwarded to the Standing Orders Committee. The President, the Hon. John Della Bosca, the Hon. Michael Egan, the Hon. Michael Gallacher, the Hon. Duncan Gay, the Hon. Eddie Obeid, Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho and the Hon. Carmel Tebbutt serve on that committee and other members could attend hearings to consider legislation logjams.

I shall examine the motion in detail and highlight some problems that I think have not been thought through fully. I believe that the motion will have unanticipated consequences for the business of the House. In many cases bills are declared urgent because the Government needs to deal expeditiously with a particular matter. There will probably be a lot of urgent legislation in future.

The Federal Government seeks to exempt bills, which, by and large, are allowed to pass. Such legislation contributes to the logjam in Federal Parliament, despite the fact that there are legislative deadlines in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. We do not have that system in this place, and the Government does not propose to introduce it. Nor do we have the type of scrutiny that the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans advocated. This arrangement would come into operation without the steps that Federal Parliament has in place to deal with such matters, and consequently the system would be extremely arbitrary.

The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: You'll have to get organised.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: It is not a question of being organised. The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans must recognise that a government faced with these deadlines could introduce a stack of legislation, and the debate on them would cause the same old problem of late parliamentary sittings. The deadlines proposed in this motion will not prevent that from happening; they will simply result in an increased number of debates about whether a bill is urgent.

If the Opposition's amendment fails, four members will be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes each. So there will be a 40-minute debate on whether to have the debate before that debate actually proceeds. Even if these provisions apply to only four or five bills, an extra parliamentary sitting day will be devoted to debating the Government's declaration of urgent legislation. Rather than achieving the objectives that the Hon. Malcolm Jones has outlined, this motion will, in the absence of the other checks and balances that form part of the Senate system—but which do not stop the logjam in any case—

The Hon. John Jobling: Are you filibustering?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: No, I am certainly not; I am addressing this motion, which I believe was prepared in haste. It has not been scrutinised by the Standing Orders Committee—which is what should happen when we seek to change sessional orders—and it has not been discussed.

Ms Lee Rhiannon: If you were in the Senate would you oppose it? That is how they operate.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Ms Lee Rhiannon has not been listening. I have explained that this arrangement does not work in the Senate. The Senate still has late-night sittings and a legislation logjam, even though there are similar deadlines in the House of Representatives. Ms Lee Rhiannon has obviously not been listening to my speech so she can read it in Hansard tomorrow. If she continues to interject I shall extend my contribution to deal with each of her interjections.

The Government believes that the noble objectives that inspired the Hon. Malcolm Jones' motion will not be achieved, because there will still be a logjam. None of the various systems discussed and implemented across Australia has overcome the essential problem of extended parliamentary sittings. I do not think that problem has been resolved anywhere in the world, except in countries with very limited legislatures.

Paragraph 1 (b) of the motion states that after 12 November 2002 we will have to declare bills urgent in order to deal with them. If honourable members refer to last year's parliamentary sittings they will see that, although the last scheduled sitting day was 13 December, the House rose on 14 December. Therefore, under the sessional orders, this motion would come into effect one month before Parliament rises. There would be about 16 to 20 sitting days on which debate on Government bills would have to be declared urgent, for which the agreement of the House would be necessary. That is a quite extensive period.

Paragraph 1 (a) of the motion states that the new arrangement will come into operation on 18 June, or around two weeks before the end of the session. The House usually recesses just before the school holidays and Parliament does not sit in the first week of July. That would leave two weeks in which to debate legislation. If the arrangement were implemented on 12 November, there would effectively be a four-week ban on Government legislation. According to this year's sitting pattern, the spring session of Parliament is scheduled to conclude on 12 December. Therefore, this arrangement could apply to more than three sitting weeks. I suggest that that is a much longer period than the Hon. Malcolm Jones envisaged when he moved the motion.

Today at the appropriate time we will move that the question be amended by omitting from paragraph 1 (b) "12 November 2002" and inserting instead "19 November 2002". That would prevent a four-week sitting period in which we would have to declare legislation urgent. It should probably be set for two weeks instead of the three-week or four-week period the Hon. Malcolm Jones has moved. Even the Opposition would think that the later date of 19 November is more sensible than 12 November, which would result in an inordinate sitting period during which probably five or six motions would be moved.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: My question without notice is to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Does the Minister recall informing the House on 14 March that 210 businesses had taken up the WorkCover premium discount scheme saving premiums totalling $3.4 million, with the average discount per employer being $16,000? Did the Minister also urge employers to participate in the premium discount scheme? Has the Minister therefore budgeted for what could be a $4.8 billion negative impact on the tail of the scheme if more than 300,000 small businesses in New South Wales took up the offer to qualify for premium discounts?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question as it allows me to focus on a number of issues relating to the premium discount scheme and to provide him with a satisfactory answer to the general thrust of his question. As this House knows, we have been committed to significant improvements in occupational health and safety and injury management in this State. We see those two operational issues as the best way to deliver on a better workers compensation system and a healthier and safer working environment for workers. We also see those improvements as eventually resolving many issues regarding the financial capacity of the workers compensation scheme.

On 30 June 2001 WorkCover introduced an innovative program that included a premium discount scheme. Premium discount advisers approved by WorkCover currently are auditing the occupational health and safety injury management performances of various businesses as they apply to qualify for the discount. As I advised the House, a number of employers already have taken up the premium discount scheme. The conceptual mistake made by the Leader of the Opposition when he refers to the simplistic equation about the amounts of money this will cost the scheme is that he does not take into account the amounts of money it will save the scheme in claims going forward. The dollar value can only be calculated over a trend in the scheme. Obviously, that trend needs to continue for 12 months or so before it can be clearly established. The obvious point is to have a program that will prevent injuries in the first place and which is based on the average length of time injuries take to be resolved.

I have mentioned to the House and to the Leader of the Opposition the various studies of serious injury rates that have been conducted by insurers. Those studies found that of 100 serious claims—under the New South Wales workers compensation scheme the definition of "serious" is when more than five working days are lost—only two involved serious injuries that actually involved someone being away from the workplace that length of time. These disputes often went for more than six months. Getting better injury management and occupational health and safety parameters will decrease the cost to the scheme quite radically over time. I cannot give the Leader of the Opposition a precise number on that. I can and am prepared to provide him with updates in respect to that.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: I'm sure the Treasurer would like to know.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The Treasurer has already indicated, based on the last Standard and Poor's assessment of New South Wales finances, concerns about liabilities, including workers compensation, which have been dealt with publicly by both of us on a number of occasions. Progress is generally satisfactory. I am prepared to provide the House with regular updates on the premium discount scheme's outcomes, on the number of employers taking it up and the likely outcomes for the scheme. I will close by remarking on something I have reported previously to the House. By 31 December 2001 a total 210 discount verifications had been completed for employers. The combined total discount for those 210 policies is $3.4 million. Most employers will have their first discount deducted from their February 2002 premium instalment.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I ask a supplementary question. How many small businesses has the Minister calculated will be eligible for the premium discount scheme?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: There is no prohibition on eligibility for the premium discount scheme. As the Leader of the Opposition understands, it is available to employers who put in place and carry out audited injury management programs and occupational health and safety programs. The simple reality is that once employers put in place those sorts of programs their real liability decreases. The impact on premiums payable clearly is a benefit to the scheme. The Leader of the Opposition should acknowledge, which he seems not to do by the tone of his question, that the employers of this State wanted a way of escaping their claims history. They wanted a way of saying, "How can I go forward? How can I get a better premium performance for my business? Why am I stuck in this situation where I have to go on paying higher premiums?"

We have given them a way to go forward to improve their occupational health and safety, improve their injury management performance and improve the lot of the workers they employ. Obviously, that will impact on the scheme's health since it lowers the likelihood of accidents and those accidents resulting in lengthy and costly dispute. I do not know what the Leader of the Opposition wants. Does he not want a premium discount scheme? Does he want employers to keep on paying higher premiums? He is not worried about making sure there are better injury management results for injured workers. He is not worried about making sure that the optimum occupational health and safety principles are applied in the workplace. He is not worried about those things because the Opposition does not have any policies about workers compensation or occupational health and safety. The Opposition voted against all the improvements we have made to the scheme. [Time expired.]

The Hon. TONY KELLY: My question without notice is to the Special Minister of State, and Minister for Industrial Relations. Can the Minister inform the House of specific initiatives aimed at assisting regional and rural communities to tackle the drug problem?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I thank the Hon. Tony Kelly for his ongoing interest in the important issue of drug abuse, particularly as it affects regional cities and towns. Today's report in the Daily Telegraph highlights that drug abuse is not confined to cities. The drug problem can be found in various sectors of our community, within families and in different geographical areas. In small close-knit communities in rural areas the impact of an individual's drug problem can be all the more devastating. Honourable members will recall that the New South Wales Drug Summit recognised the particular problems faced by rural and regional communities with a working group dedicated to the issue.

The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: They brought back policies that have done nothing.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans says that our policies have done nothing. I beg to differ. For example, an additional $30 million was committed for rural enhancements in treatment and support through area health services.

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: Where are the treatment centres? Where are the treatment beds?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The Hon. Dr. Brian Pezzutti asks where are the treatment beds. Some 30 new rehabilitation beds will treat 264 extra patients annually. Lismore has a 16-bed detoxification unit, and Wyong hospital will shortly open a new 15-bed drug detoxification unit that will provide treatment for up to 900 patients a year. Eight new drug and alcohol counsellors have been appointed, logging 6,500 occasions of service and currently seeing 2,789 clients. Home detoxification programs have been established in three rural areas and operate from expanded multipurpose services in New England and the mid North Coast. Half of the 2,600 extra methadone places created since the Drug Summit across the State are in country New South Wales. Two new rehabilitation facilities for young people have been established in Dubbo and Coffs Harbour.

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: That is not even catching up with what is available in Sydney.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The Coalition did not care about the drug problem in regional areas. We are trying to rectify it.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti to order.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: We are increasing our efforts to boost our drug programs in schools by providing new resources on cannabis and specialist drug education advisers in five regional locations. This year a rural front-line service training project will assist approximately 500 workers improve their drug and alcohol assessment and referral skills. Police have been given new powers to fight drug crime and close down drug houses. Many of these activities are necessarily in regional and country New South Wales. Drug offenders are diverted from the criminal justice system through programs such as the magistrates early referral into treatment [MERIT] scheme, most of which have been rolled out in regional and rural New South Wales rather than in Sydney. In many parts of the population drug addiction fuels the need to commit crime, and the best way to break the drug-crime cycle is to address the cause of offending behaviour.

The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: Why don't you put all of them in gaol.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Under the MERIT scheme we do not put them in gaol. The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans reminds the House of his ignorance about the progress made through the MERIT scheme, supported by the national illicit drug strategy of the Commonwealth Government. The MERIT scheme now operates in Lismore, Casino, Kyogle, Ballina, Byron Bay, Mullumbimby, Wollongong, Cabramatta, Orange and the Hunter. Extra funding has been provided to non-government organisations that run residential rehabilitation programs in those areas. Later this year the MERIT scheme will also be established in the mid North Coast, Macquarie, the Far West, the southern region and New England areas. [Time expired.]

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question is to the Treasurer. Is the Treasurer aware that the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal is currently conducting a review of the form of economic regulation for New South Wales electricity network charges? Is he further aware that the Managing Director of EnergyAustralia, Paul Broad, stated in a submission to that review that EnergyAustralia is facing negative cash flows because of increased pressure to increase capital expenditure on its network? To allow EnergyAustralia to resolve its negative cash flows will the Treasurer stop treating State-owned electricity companies as hollow logs, and allow them to spend their revenue where it is most needed?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: The answer to the honourable member's questions are, first, yes; second, no; and, third, non-applicable. I should add that the policy of State-owned corporations and State-owned utilities paying dividends was one of the sensible reforms introduced by the Unsworth Government and taken up with alacrity by the subsequent Greiner Government. In fact, the Greiner Government adopted a far more commercially rigorous approach to dividends from statutory authorities. I do not know whether the Deputy Leader of the Opposition thinks dividends and taxes from statutory authorities go into my back pocket, but I can assure the House that they do not. They go into funding our hospitals, schools, police, community services and transport—all the services and facilities the Government provides for its citizens.

We get approximately $1 billion a year from that source. If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is suggesting that we should not get dividends then he has an obligation to release the Opposition's policy explaining how $1 billion can be cut off the budget appropriations for all of these services. I have not yet seen a fiscal policy from the Opposition, but I am very much looking forward to it. One day the Opposition says that we should spend more, the next it says that we should spend less. One day the Opposition suggests we should be in deficit, the next it suggests we should be in surplus. The Opposition does not know whether it is coming or going. The Opposition, like the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans, does not know whether it is Arthur or Martha.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: Is the Treasurer aware of an article in the Age of 16 March that states that EdgeCap left the electricity trading market because of delays in implementing retail contestability, retail price caps and arrangements between generators and retailers, particularly the New South Wales Electricity Tariff Equalisation Fund? Does not the exit of the last trader for those reasons suggest that the trading scheme—as proposed in the December 2001 Treasury paper with the function of generators and retailers virtually untouched—has a very small chance of success?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I do not know who writes questions for the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans, but whoever writes them is as boofheaded as the honourable member.

[Interruption]

The honourable member's adviser, whom we see around this place, is probably a very intelligent fellow. I think some idiot out there somewhere drafts these questions and sends them to the honourable member. I can assure the House that since the discussion paper on electricity trading was released towards the end of last year a very large number of trading companies have expressed to me their interest in the proposal. I do not know where the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans gets his information. I missed the name of the company—what was it?

The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: EdgeCap.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I have never heard of EdgeCap, but I have heard of AGL, which is a trader. I have also heard of a number of other major companies that are traders.

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: Name them!

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I would not want to embarrass the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans. If the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans thinks that EdgeCap is some sort of major player within the electricity industry, all I can say is that I have never heard of it.

The Hon. IAN COHEN: My question is to the Special Minister of State, representing the Minister for Planning. Will the Minister inform the House why the Government did not ensure that an environmental impact statement was carried out for the controversial Condong Cogeneration Plant in the Tweed? Will the Government investigate the project and consider a redetermination of the approval by Tweed Shire Council for this proposal, given that the proposal should, rightly, have been determined as a designated development requiring an environmental impact study, as it is clearly under the definition of a waste disposal facility? Will the Minister agree that there is a major inconsistency in that a waste disposal facility has been at the appropriate classification given to the similar Broadwater cogeneration facility, and the Broadwater environmental impact statement has been prepared on that basis?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The honourable member's question is detailed and relates to a planning matter. I will refer it to the Deputy Premier, and Minister for Planning and ask him to respond to the honourable member as soon as practicable.

The Hon. JANELLE SAFFIN: My question without notice is addressed to the Acting Minister for Ageing. Will the Minister please inform the House what the New South Wales Government is doing to help celebrate Seniors Week?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I thank the Hon. Janelle Saffin for her question, which provides an opportunity for me to inform the House about what is happening this week. It is Seniors Week, which is an important week for seniors. The New South Wales Government is keen to ensure that seniors across New South Wales are encouraged to participate in a range of activities that are taking place. Seniors Week is important for older people in New South Wales, and it is an opportunity for all of us to acknowledge the contribution by so many seniors to making our community strong and to also acknowledge those contributions in an ongoing sense. As honourable members would be aware, seniors are involved in numerous voluntary activities. Many voluntary organisations would not be able to do the work they do if it were not for the involvement of seniors in New South Wales.

I am pleased to advise the House that the Government has provided $135,000 in grants for more than 360 local events for seniors. These events will allow seniors to share in, and explore, the theme of this year's Seniors Week—"Imagine, Interact, Inspire". The grants support a range of activities from the Premier's concerts in Sydney to seminars, expos and excursions throughout the State. The programs that are being supported include the "Keeping in Touch" event in Dubbo, aimed at introducing seniors to information technology; a technology and Internet hobby workshop at Valla Beach on the mid North Coast; and an introductory Internet seminar and week's free Internet access at Wellington. This is in keeping with the Techno-Seniors event that takes place in Sydney.

Honourable members opposite might laugh, but it does help to dispel some of the stereotyping that older people are not interested in technology. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. The reality is that older people are taking to new technology with great gusto. One reason is that some frail older people may have difficulty accessing transport and the Internet is a way for them to keep in touch. Many honourable members will acknowledge that older people have taken to new technology with a great deal of enthusiasm. In Orange the "Training the Brain" seminar is taking place, giving seniors an opportunity to learn about the importance of keeping the mind active, as well as the body. Aboriginal Elders' days will be held in Parramatta, Moree and Nowra. Bourke is holding a week of activities aimed at collecting memorabilia for the new "Back o' Bourke" historical Museum. In Newcastle, students from the Conservatorium will present a multicultural music concert, and Lithgow will host a Seniors Expo. In Crookwell seniors will experience a wine tasting, river cruise and barbecue.

The Hon. Michael Egan: There's no river in Crookwell!

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I can only assume they will be travelling to a river. As I am sure honourable members will gather from that short but indicative list, there is something for everyone. The ageing of our population is one of the great challenges of the next century. Currently, 17 per cent of people in New South Wales are over the age of 60. [Time expired.]

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Police. Given that yesterday he did not mention the Police Integrity Commission during his comments on police promotion tests, is it the case that the Police Integrity Commission was not consulted about the decision to conduct an open book examination, despite having been consulted about the new system in its original form in December last year?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: As I indicated yesterday, if any member of the Opposition or any member of the community has any evidence of any impropriety or criminal activity in relation—

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Hang on. That's not an answer.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Let me answer the question. If the members of the Opposition have any evidence, they can, as can any member of the community, approach the Police Integrity Commission, and I ask them to do that. What I find quite amazing about the position of the Opposition on this is the view that, somehow, open book examinations are a practice that dilutes the integrity of the process of assessment.

The Hon. Michael Egan: Most universities do it.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Not only most universities, but most of the members opposite who have a law degree have done it. I know that the University of Sydney does, because the issue has been raised with me on previous occasions. Kerry Chikarovski, Sydney University, open book examinations. Andrew Tink, Australian National University, open book examinations. Chris Hartcher, Sydney University, open book examinations. Brad Hazzard, University of New South Wales, open book examinations. Jim Samios, University of Queensland, open book examinations. And that great lawyer, Greg Pearce, Sydney University, open book examinations. There is nothing wrong with open book examinations. The members opposite are hypocrites!

The Hon. Greg Pearce: Point of order: The Minister has just misled the House about me and Sydney University. I'd like him to substantiate his statement.

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

The Hon. Michael Egan: To the point of order: If the Hon. Greg Pearce went to Sydney University and if he is younger than me, as I suspect, then he certainly did an open book examination at the Sydney Law School. He lies! He might be a lot older, in which case—

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no standing order that requires members to tell the truth.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I acknowledge there is probably no standing order, but I am telling the truth. All those members of the Opposition went to universities that do open book examinations. What hypocrisy for these people to come into this Chamber and attack police officers.

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: Point of order: I went to university and in medicine there are no open book examinations. The Minister has misled the House and I ask you to draw his attention to the need for Ministers to be responsible and tell the truth.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I have warned the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti previously about making a debating point in the form of a point of order. There is no point of order.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: As I was saying, members of the Opposition have been to universities that currently undertake open book examinations for law courses, yet they are completely hypocritical. They come into this Chamber and attack our police officers for having the same right on the same types of subjects. It is gross hypocrisy! If they have any evidence justifying their allegations in relation to the prequalifying examinations, they should present it to the Police Integrity Commission. If they do not, they stand condemned as hypocrites. [Time expired.]

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: My question is addressed to the Minister Fisheries. What action has been taken to ensure that funds from the recreational fishing fee are allocated to regional areas?

The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: I thank the Hon. Peter Primrose for his keen interest in New South Wales country regions. The New South Wales recreational fishing licence has been an outstanding success and regional communities across the State are already benefiting from the licence. Latest figures indicate that more than 418,000 licences have been sold since they first went on sale 12 months ago. More than $8.4 million has been placed in trusts and can only be spent on better recreational fishing. If we want to improve recreational fishing we need more education, and that is where Fishcare volunteers play a vital role. Last September I announced funding of $800,000 for the statewide expansion of the highly successful Fishcare Volunteer program. This has been made possible thanks to funds provided by the recreational fishing fee.

Half a million dollars has been allocated to expand this program along our coastline. An amount of $300,000 will be spent expanding the work of Fishcare volunteers to new freshwater areas. In support of this program the New South Wales Government is creating five new jobs in our regional areas. Yesterday three of these new jobs were filled in Tamworth, Nowra and in the Sydney Basin from Port Hacking to the Central Coast. Two of the new fisheries education officers are funded from the saltwater trust. The Tamworth position, which covers an area stretching from the Queensland border to Cowra, is funded from the freshwater trust. New South Wales Fisheries is currently recruiting staff to fill two other positions in Albury and Maclean. Not only is this Government creating new jobs, it is putting them where they are meant to be, in country areas. The new co-ordinators will support and recruit local volunteers and run community education programs such as fishing clinics and schools programs. The new staff bring a wealth of experience to their new roles, and I look forward to updating the House about further developments with this important program.

I extend my thanks to the hard-working anglers on the two trust committees who oversee the allocation of funds for recreational fishing. Contrary to the view of the Opposition, this Government does believe in education programs. We have a policy to have the community participate in and share management decisions and also to educate others in learning how to fish sustainably and harvest our very important resource. All along, the Opposition spokesman and the Opposition have been anti-consultation. They do not believe that this very important community-owned resource should be managed in partnership with the local community. This Government is making sure that everyone in the community is aware of what is going on with this resource. We are educating the young and making sure that they are participating through school clinics and educational processes all over the State. I congratulate the people who are participating. More importantly, we are bringing jobs to the regions. This is what the Government is about: trying to help the regions with jobs.

The Hon. ALAN CORBETT: My question is addressed to the Special Minister of State, representing the Minister for Planning. Is it a fact that Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation scientists have indicated that low-ash carbon is required to fuel the smelters for high-purity silicon production? Is it also a fact that this low-ash carbon can be produced from two sources: charcoal derived from so-called red woods or ultraclean coal, UCC? If so, and given that the production of ultraclean coal from the Cessnock facility is expected to be in full commercial production by 2004, what objections, if any, has the Government to the use of ultraclean coal as a source of fuel for the proposed silicon smelter at Lithgow, due to come on line in 2004?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I will refer the question to the Deputy Premier, the Minister for Planning, for an answer as soon as practicable.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: Is the Minister for Fisheries aware that the Cooma-Monaro Shire Council, as a result of the council forum on 11 March last, has expressed its stunned disbelief that trout stocking is banned in 10 streams in the region, three of which are designated trout waters? What does he say to the trout fishing fraternity and community leaders worried about the tourism, economic and recreational implications of a threat to the trout fishing in the area arising from threatened species legislation? Why has the Minister not consulted with local bodies such as the local councils on such an important matter? What does he say to the trout fishing fraternity and community leaders worried about the implications of any threat to trout fishing in the Snowy Mountains and the south-east of the State?

The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: That is an important question. This Government, more than any previous Government, is restocking our freshwater rivers with trout.

The Hon. Michael Egan: Are they good trout?

The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: Yes, excellent trout. I have praised the communities around the Snowy Mountains not only for their participation in the management of our trout fisheries but also for the economic development that it has created. I recall mentioning in this House that the economic benefit to the local community from fishing, predominantly trout, has been more than $70 million a year.

The Hon. Michael Egan: Prince Charles buys his smoked trout from Adaminaby.

The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: No doubt. It is a great fishing spot. On 2 November 2001 the Fisheries Scientific Committee listed introduction of fish into fresh waters outside their natural range as a "key threatening process". This is a scientific decision made by an independent group of experts. This decision does not mean that trout stocking in New South Wales will be banned. The Government recognises the excellence of the trout fishery in New South Wales and its importance to tourism and regional economies. A recent study has shown that trout stocking and the tourism it generates bring over $46 million and up to 700 jobs to the Snowy Mountains region. Overall, the Snowy Mountains trout fishery alone is worth up to $70 million to the New South Wales economy.

This Government put in place comprehensive laws to protect threatened species in the aquatic environment. The importance of maintaining the highest environmental standards for introduction of fish into areas outside their natural range has been recognised for many years. For this reason the Government has carefully controlled the introduction of non-native species into our fresh waters. New South Wales Fisheries approves stocking only in areas that have historically been stocked, and all stocking proposals undergo an environmental review by New South Wales Fisheries. The Government supports an ongoing, well-regulated trout stocking program, which it is already managing effectively to protect our natural environment. The Government is also preparing a draft management strategy for fish stocking, which will then be subject to an environmental impact statement. The documents will be publicly exhibited for community comment. This will provide an opportunity for the environmental controls currently in place on trout stocking to be carefully reviewed. The Government always consults widely on issues such as this, and anyone who has a view will be encouraged to make a submission at the appropriate time.

I am very much aware that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition does not really care about community consultation, does not propose that marine biodiversity be protected, does not believe in the independence of the scientific community, and thinks that politicians should make decisions on the run. I assure the House that we care about threatened ecosystems. Scientists are there to give independent advice. Stocking in the traditional areas continues.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: It is not continuing.

The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: The Opposition has been going on about environmental impact assessments. Stocking will have an environmental impact assessment at the appropriate time, and that is on the drawing board. We are doing more—[Time expired.]

The Hon. RON DYER: Is the Minister for Police able to furnish the House with the latest information on the Government's plan to recognise police with a long, distinguished work record?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The Government is finalising a special tribute to long-serving members of the New South Wales police force. Currently, police can been nominated for special commendation through their senior officers and the police hierarchy but this new initiative will come direct from the community. This is a chance for the people of the State to thank our police, who put their lives at risk every day of the year protecting the community. The new award will be called the New South Wales Police Medal and police will be eligible for the special award after completing 10 years on the job. The medal will be awarded for continuous, ethical and diligent service.

The New South Wales Police Medal will be awarded at a time in an officer's career when he or she has notched up a decade of visible policing under this Government's policy, when they have had the hands-on experience that those hard yards provide. The design of the New South Wales Police Medal is being finalised by members of the force and the New South Wales Police Association, representing more than 13,000 police men and women. I am advised that 7,700 police have already served 10 years or more and are eligible for this decoration immediately.

The Police Association has campaigned for many years, and I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition, a former Police Association delegate, would know how important this medal is for our police officers. The association's president, Ian Ball, told me that this initiative will be welcomed by serving police officers. The police will receive a ceremonial medal after 10 years service and a light blue ribbon bar to be worn on their uniform. They will be awarded a ceremonial clasp and dark blue ribbon for every five years service thereafter. I expect the New South Wales police to wear this medal with pride.

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: Point of order: Madam President, yesterday you ruled that the relevant sessional order states that the question must not ask for a statement or announcement of Government policy. You reminded the Minister on that occasion of that sessional order. Towards the end of that contribution yesterday you again reminded the Minister of that sessional order. Again he is offending that sessional order.

The PRESIDENT: Order! As I ruled yesterday, a question may well be out of order but the answer to it may not. No sessional order provides that answers to questions should not contain an announcement of Government policy. Sessional orders provide, however, that questions may not ask for such an announcement. The Minister may continue.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Policy on the run.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I had concluded my answer, but I shall continue because the matter of policy has been raised. I heard the Leader of the House interject that we make policy on the run. Well. all I can say is that policy on the run is better than no policy at all, which is what the Opposition has.

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: Point of order: If the question did not offend the standing orders I am sure the answer did, and the answer is delayed to allow a determination to be made whether the question was in order. At what stage would such an intervention be acceptable? I contend that the question was out of order.

The PRESIDENT: Order! A question is in order unless a point of order is taken against it and I rule in favour of the point of order. Did the Hon. John Ryan wish to take a point of order?

The Hon. John Ryan: It related to relevance. I will not take it.

[Time expired.]

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Police. Last Sunday in the Cronulla Plaza did hundreds of residents protest over increasing crime and violence in the Cronulla area and demand more police and a mobile police station at Cronulla beach? Despite the record budget and police numbers, have criminal activities, especially assault and burglary offences around the seaside suburb of Cronulla, increased while police numbers have decreased in the shire over the past two years? What action is the Minister taking to increase the police presence in the Sutherland shire in order to curb this growing trend of criminal behaviour? Will the Minister give an assurance to the residents of Sutherland shire that no shire police station will be closed and that a mobile police station will be established at Cronulla beach?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: That is a good and timely question. Last night I met with representatives of the Sutherland shire on precisely those issues. Rather than pre-empting the outcomes of those discussions, I will allow the representatives to make a statement, which they intend to do at a rally to be held in the Miranda area this coming weekend. It is important that I make honourable members aware of some comments that were made. The first is from the Mayor of Sutherland, Tracie Sonda. Last weekend on ABC radio she said that there is no crime wave in the shire. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile may not have been aware of that comment, but that is certainly the view of Mayor Sonda. The Sutherland shire is actually overstrength with regard to police numbers at the moment. Some officers will be transferred on loan to Bankstown to deal with problems in that area, but they will be replaced.

I am pleased that the question was asked, because it enables me to report again that we have record numbers of police across the State. The record police budget allows some locations to have an overstrength complement of police. Yesterday I had a very productive meeting with community representatives. They said that they are keen to see more of the Government's policy initiatives in policing come to fruition. I look forward to the opportunity of bringing legislation to this House to ensure that we have not only record police numbers but also tough laws. I refer particularly to bail laws. Based on research and discussion with police, it is clear that repeat offenders are responsible for 80 per cent to 90 per cent of crime. The Government has a plan to remedy that and will introduce legislation—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: Madam President, earlier you said that a question may well be out of order but the answer is not. I suggest this answer is not relevant to the question. The question had nothing to do with bail legislation, which the Minister was announcing. While you will not rule on the validity of the answer, will you rule on relevance?

The Hon. John Jobling: To the point of order: I support my colleague. The Minister also made an announcement about his intention to introduce legislation. Therefore, my point of order refers to the rule of anticipation.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Sessional orders certainly provide that answers to questions must be relevant. The question referred to crime in the Cronulla area. An answer that refers to solutions to crime is quite clearly relevant to the question. However, I remind the Minister that his answer must be relevant to the question.

[Time expired.]

The Hon. DON HARWIN: My question without notice is to the Minister for Police. If the Minister's assertion yesterday during question time that an agreement had been reached on 18 February to release prequalifying assessments is correct, why were the trials of the process going on as late as 8 March?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I thought I answered this question yesterday. However, I will restate the position. As I indicated yesterday, as a consequence of a discussion following contact between a journalist and my office about the police qualifying assessment process inquiries were made as stated by police on Tuesday 12 March. Honourable members opposite should understand clearly the importance of putting this particular issue into perspective because there is nothing about it that requires further investigation. If Opposition members have further evidence they should take it to the Police Integrity Commission [PIC]. That is the challenge for them. If they cannot do that, they should not malign an important process that many police officers are currently engaged in, that is, studying for prequalifying assessment.

Following those inquiries from the journalist, police informed the public that they had investigated all the claims in relation to prequalifying assessment and that the investigations had concluded that nothing untoward had occurred. As part of the preparation of the prequalifying assessment, sample questions were developed and used in a pilot for the assessment—a statement I have repeated on two successive days. The sample questions were distributed to a select group of officers for the purpose of trialling the prequalifying assessment process. These questions are not being used in the current bank of questions for examination. That is pretty clear.

The dates of the three qualifying trials were 21, 22 and 25 February, and 1 and 8 March this year. Given the dates in question, the provision of the sample questions may well have been the mistaken source of the allegation. This is the fourth or fifth occasion that I have been asked this question in the House. I am happy to continue to give the same response because it is the only information I have. However, if Opposition members have evidence of difficulties in this area they should refer them to the PIC so they can be dealt with. They should not continue to come into the House, having been faced with a thorough answer in relation to the allegations, and repeat the allegations. If they have other material, they should present that material to the PIC.

The real issue is that which I have referred to on other occasions: the hypocrisy of the Opposition in attacking police officers who are currently studying for promotion. Opposition members are attacking police officers for having the option that many of them had, that is, open-book examinations. I repeat: Kerry Chikarovski, Andrew Tink, Chris Hartcher, Brad Hazzard, Jim Samios and that great lawyer Greg Pearce went to institutions that have open-book examinations. What is wrong with police having open book examinations? There are 500 questions—

The Hon. Greg Pearce: Point of order: The Minister continues to mislead the House. Yesterday he said that an in-principle agreement was made on 18 February to release the information. Police issued a statement on 12 March stating that the decision was made on 5 March. The Minister should answer the question in a straightforward manner: Was a decision made on 18 February or 5 March?

The PRESIDENT: Order! I have warned honourable members about taking points of order simply to make debating points. There is no point of order.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: My question without notice is addressed to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. Can the Treasurer advise the House on the latest attempt by organisers of the annual Sydney to Hobart yacht race to obtain sponsorship of this event?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: This issue has attracted some public attention and, indeed, controversy. I am pleased to inform the House that Rolex has become the naming right sponsor for the Sydney to Hobart yacht race. I am delighted that the Cruising Yacht Club [CYC] has been able to negotiate a four-year sponsorship deal with the prominent international company Rolex. It is a very prestigious company and the race is a prestigious event. I congratulate the CYC. At one stage last year I was berated because the CYC was seeking taxpayer-funded sponsorship, in other words, a grant from the New South Wales Government. Of course, honourable members may recall that I refused the request. However, I did offer to help the yacht club run a raffle to raise money.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: You had Johno, did you.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I did have Johno in mind. I was actually going to put the CYC on to Hon. Johno Johnson but, fortunately, the club has not had to resort to such measures. I was always confident that an organisation such as the CYC would find a sponsor. After all, it is a truly great event that is known around the world; it is a high-profile showcase event that I was always confident major corporations would love to sponsor. Alas, I have to say that my confidence in the CYC and the future of the Sydney to Hobart race was not shared by the Opposition because on 31 October last year someone by the name of John Turner, who I understand is the member for Myall Lakes and a National Party frontbencher, demanded that the taxpayers of New South Wales, through the New South Wales Government, become the race sponsor. He wanted the Government to spend $750,000 of taxpayers' money on a yacht race for some of the richest people afloat. He wanted the Government to give the CYC $750,000, which could have been spent on country and regional New South Wales.

What a ridiculous suggestion! Can honourable members imagine the National Party under the leadership of people like Black Jack McEwen or Wal Murray making such a demand and wanting to sponsor a prestigious yacht race? What would the National Party have called this race? Would it be an agrarian socialist collective sail-off, bachelors and spinsters afloat, or simply a subsidy to the Hobart yacht race? No wonder the voters and even their own members are deserting this once great party, which used to be called the Country Party. It now has nowhere to go, having deserted the country people of New South Wales and people who live in the great regions of New South Wales. They are nothing but Pitt Street frauds—

The Hon. John Ryan: Point of order: I do remember the question having something to do with the Sydney to Hobart yacht race. The Minister has now been speaking about the National Party for nearly a minute and it is fair to say that his answer is no longer relevant to the question.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Minister of the sessional order that relates to relevance.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I thank you, Madam President, for reminding me of that sessional order. [Time expired.]

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Madam President, I indicate to the House that I will not be at question time tomorrow. I will be in the national capital, where I will be preparing to do battle with the mendicant States—

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Point of order: Surely the Treasurer can make this announcement in a couple of minutes time when question time has finished, thereby allowing further questions.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the House will resume his seat.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I direct my question to the Treasurer, representing the Premier. In light of the statements by the new Labor Premier of South Australia, Mr Mike Rann, that his Government is strongly opposed to hosting a national nuclear waste dump and will legislate accordingly, will the New South Wales Government now fall into line with its South Australian colleague and act to prevent a national nuclear waste dump being established in western New South Wales?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Only the Liberal and National parties would establish a national nuclear waste dump in western New South Wales. The Australian Labor Party would never put a nuclear waste dump anywhere in New South Wales.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: My question is directed to the Minister for Police. Were the police officers selected to take part in the trial of test questions for prequalifying assessment for promotion, to which the Minister referred yesterday, potential candidates for promotion? Are those officers now more advantaged than others in terms of their ability to complete the trial tests? If they were not potential candidates for promotion, what was the point of the trial tests?

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: This will test him.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: It will not test me at all—it is the fifth or sixth time that I have answered this question. Opposition members should understand that the test questions are randomly selected from more than 400 questions. Nobody has an advantage as candidates do not know which of the 400 questions will be asked. There are 50 questions on the test for sergeant, 60 for inspector and 70 for superintendent. All questions are drawn randomly from the bank of 400 questions, with eight questions in each test drawn from a pool of mandatory questions.

It makes sense to trial the system, which represents a significant change. It will give police the opportunity to study in depth for these examinations and will ensure that they are not disadvantaged. The Opposition has a problem with the fact that a privilege enjoyed by the elite in our educational institutions has been extended to police officers, who will now sit for open-book examinations. It is all right for Opposition members to take open-book examinations but they believe our police officers cannot sit for them. Opposition members believe that police officers should not be allowed to access the questions in order to study and ensure that they are well prepared for their examinations. The Opposition says that the elite lawyers from the University of Sydney, the Australian National University, the University of New South Wales and even the University of Queensland have the privilege of studying law in that way, but our police officers do not.

Why is there a double standard? Is the old elitism of the Liberal Party coming through? What is good for the elite and for the Liberal Party is not deemed good enough for our hard-working rank-and-file police officers. I am very proud to be associated with an initiative that gives police an opportunity to study and gain the knowledge that they require in order to perform their duties in the manner that the community expects. I take this opportunity to confirm when the in-principle agreement was reached. I was asked that question the third or fifth time that this issue was raised. The in-principle agreement was reached on 18 February, before any of these allegations were made. They are just allegations: not one skerrick of evidence has been produced. The Opposition is doing a Heffernan. I invite those opposite to produce the evidence and then we will see whether it is forged, like everything else they produce. The only evidence they deal in is forgeries. Why do Opposition members not produce that evidence?

The Hon. Greg Pearce: There it is!

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: That is a police media press release; it is not evidence. That is the New South Wales equivalent of a Comcar docket—a Bill Heffernan exercise. It is a complete rort.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: If honourable members have further questions, I suggest they put them on notice.

Questions without notice concluded.

[The President left the chair at 1.04 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]

Debate resumed from 13 March.

The Hon. RON DYER [2.30 p.m.]: I had almost completed my remarks on the last occasion of this take-note debate. I was dealing with the long-term care of people with serious injuries such as brain injury and spinal cord injury. I said that the committee notes that while the Motor Accidents Authority [MAA] has not reconvened its working party, the Cabinet office has established a working party. The MAA has indicated that once the present process is completed it will contract an actuary to cost the proposals that have been developed. The MAA indicated also to the committee that there is an estimated $169 million shortfall between the estimated amount spent on long-term care in the current scheme and that required under a no-fault scheme—not an insignificant sum of money.

The committee intends to seek the MAA's conclusions once the costing to which I have referred has been completed and the other studies currently under way also have been completed. I understand that the Hon. Peter Breen, who is a committee member, is taking a close interest in long-term care of people with serious injuries and will make some remarks during this debate. That does not mean that the Hon. John Ryan, other committee members and I do not share a concern regarding proper care of the seriously injured.

A further matter discussed in the hearing conducted by the committee was the provisional liquidation of the HIH insurance group. The committee heard that as a consequence of that liquidation two compulsory third party [CTP] insurers under the scheme owned by HIH were also placed in liquidation—CIC and FAI. I commend the Motor Accidents Authority for acting promptly to exercise its statutory responsibilities and also to have the nominal defendant take over liability for claims under policies issued by CIC and FAI prior to January 2001. Policies issued after that date become the responsibility of Allianz, which had been in the process of entering into a joint venture arrangement with CIC and FAI. Importantly, Allianz has re-employed many CIC and FAI claims staff to continue handling those claims.

Finally, I thank the individuals and organisations that nominated issues or questions that were raised with the MAA either on notice or at the hearing. I thank particularly the Chair of the Motor Accidents Council, Mr Richard Grellman, and the General Manager of the Motor Accidents Authority, Mr David Bowen, and their staff for their co-operation and assistance with the hearing and the detailed written responses to the committee's and stakeholders' questions. I thank also my fellow committee members for their participation in the hearing and the committee staff, especially on this occasion Mr Bayne McKissock, for the preparation of the committee's report, which I commend to the House.

The Hon. JOHN RYAN [2.36 p.m.]: In participating in this take-note debate regarding the report by the Standing Committee on Law and Justice on its annual review of the Motor Accidents Authority I shall focus on the report's single recommendation, which is:

That the Motor Accidents Authority should give further consideration as to how parents who lose children as a result of a motor vehicle accident might be compensated, particularly parents who would not qualify for non-economic loss according to current medical and psychological guidelines. The further consideration of this matter should include public consultation with interested stakeholders.

That recommendation seeks to address a matter that was brought to the committee nearly three years ago by the Law Society and the Australian Plaintiff Lawyers Association because circumstances faced by parents who lose a child in a motor vehicle accident have substantially changed between what occurred under the old scheme and what occurs now. Under the old scheme a parent who lost a child in a motor vehicle accident that was not their fault received monetary compensation because they were able to pass the test of having suffered a percentage of the worst possible case of injury. It is not hard to imagine that the loss of a child in a motor vehicle accident would be the worst possible case of injury a parent could endure.

Most parents who either had observed the death of their child or had been affected by the death of their child were able to pass the test easily and be compensated monetarily as a result. Under the current scheme it is necessary for a parent who loses a child to demonstrate that they have been impaired by more than 10 per cent before they will pass the threshold that enables them to make a claim for non-economic loss. To translate, non-economic loss payments are normally those payments that we usually accord to pain and suffering. Any parent who loses a child endures enormous pain and suffering, but it is very difficult to quantify the level of that pain and suffering. The issue of measuring that loss as an impairment becomes incredibly problematic for parents.

For example, a parent with other children to care for and other family responsibilities knows that life has to go on. Invariably they restore themselves. They acknowledge their continuing parental duties and responsibilities and live in a manner that suggests they have not been impaired. It is very difficult for parents in those circumstances to demonstrate they have suffered 10 per cent impairment. A parent who loses a child suffers at least 10 cent impairment of the natural function that people are put on earth to perform, which for many of us is to reproduce and have children.

The loss of a child would cause devastating trauma, and the level of impairment suffered as a result would be difficult to measure. The impairment test under the old scheme has been changed. Under the new scheme, parents who lose a child miss out altogether. This matter has been the subject of consultation between the committee and the Motor Accidents Authority for some years. When it was first raised we were reassured by the General Manager of the Motor Accidents Authority, Mr David Bowen, that the matter was under active consideration. We were told that it would be resolved by a statutory benefit similar to the one provided in Victoria. The benefit would immediately compensate parents who would be deemed to have crossed the threshold of 10 per cent impairment and who would therefore qualify immediately for a $100,000 financial payment. On 8 May 2000 Mr Bowen told the committee:

The loss of a foetus is included in the Victorian guides as a stand-alone, although it is in the context of a statutory scheme there where they provide a statutory death benefit. If you lose a child, a born child, you get a statutory death benefit, which we do not have—

A statutory payment for these circumstances—

So it was included in earlier versions of guides and it was then taken out and it is currently under continued review. It occupied quite a bit of discussion at the Council as well. We recognised that there was a prospect of creating an anomaly if you put in loss of a foetus as an impairment to the woman, which automatically meant the mother was compensated for non-economic loss, whereas loss of a child would not attract any automatic compensation unless it had an effect that got you over 10 per cent or a mental behavioural disorder.

He went on to explain:

There will be other cases where parents do get on with their lives, often because they have no option if there are other children and family members to look after, and on that sort of test they would not necessarily get over 10 per cent mental and behavioural impairment. So it is an issue that needs to be looked at.

I certainly agree with that. He continued:

It probably needs to be more broadly looked at in the context of a statutory change to see whether a death benefit should be introduced rather than trying to fiddle with the impairment levels as a means of achieving that end in a roundabout sort of way.

From what Mr Bowen told us in May 2000, I assumed that the matter was being actively considered. Initially it was considered as part of the original scheme to be introduced to the Parliament. We agreed it was a problem, and Mr Bowen could not have described it better. He suggested that consideration would be given to the introduction of a statutory scheme when the matter was reviewed. Some time later the committee met again and Mr Bowen was asked for a progress report. We were then told:

… where impairment guidelines are used in statutory scheme is in other States they are then accompanied by a form of death benefits …

We are really only coming to the conclusion of some of those discussions now.

He was referring to discussion about this matter. He continued:

We are finding that the feedback to the MAA is generally positive but that these guidelines will need some tinkering. In answer to one of the questions we have indicated that, even though the guidelines are yet to be applied in any cases, we would propose to do a further review in March next year.

We were told that the matter was to be addressed at a later time. We were advised that it would be better done by a statutory scheme rather than by changing the guidelines. I agree that that would be the better way to deal with it. In December last year we asked for progress, and the advice the committee received was significantly different from the advice provided by the Motor Accidents Authority. This time the advice was:

Most jurisdictions do not provide for a death benefit. In Victoria, the TAC has a death benefit available to a surviving spouse and dependent children where it can be shown that the death was the result of a transport accident. In NSW such people can make application for compensation under the Compensation to Relatives Act. This requires the claimant to demonstrate dependency.

There are no jurisdictions which make a payment per se, to grieving parents or relatives of children killed in motor vehicle accidents (where those people cannot otherwise make a claim on their own behalf).

The payment of a lump sum, which assigns a dollar value to the child's life is considered problematic, and may well be offensive to most parents, and it is clear that any payment would be ineffective in relieving their grief and loss.

The MAA has moved on to assess more responsible and constructive options such as providing support services to grieving parents.

I am all for providing support services to grieving parents, but it is difficult to financially quantify the loss they have suffered. My experience is that many parents in these circumstances usually change their lives in some way to get away from the scene of their tragedy: they move house, they change jobs, and, sadly, some of them separate. Under the old scheme financial resources were made available for them to manage those problems. The scheme provides no financial resources. Apparently, there will be counselling only. This circumstance does not occur very often. The best advice the committee has been given is that it would happen less than 10 times a year. We are talking about a circumstance that is likely to cost the whole scheme, which is now remarkably more profitable, less than $1 million. To some extent I am surprised and shocked that insurance companies have not offered a gesture of goodwill to ensure that the scheme works.

However, what concerns me most is that the MAA consulted with people who are unknown to us. We do not know what advice was given or what opportunities were given to other members of the community to comment on the various schemes the MAA was considering. The committee recommended—and I thank other committee members for their support—that the matter be considered further and in a much more public way. I had in mind the publication of a discussion paper and providing an opportunity for people to formally respond, followed by a formal response to the Parliament next year. Parents enduring a loss are in a special category. They are clearly deserving of a financial payment. I agree with the MAA that it would be offensive to suggest that such payment is compensation for the loss of the child; of course it is not.

I am not suggesting that a payment is a means of quantifying in monetary terms the loss of a child. I am suggesting that the payment is reasonably modest financial assistance to allow parents to continue their lives, provide for physical needs, and allow them to cope with their loss, without a bean counter behind them counting what they spend and asking for receipts. It was explained to me that this measure may not have been part of the old scheme and that I was seeking to introduce something new. I sought advice from the Law Society, and I am told that may not be so because under the old scheme the threshold for meeting the test of non-economic loss was significantly lower, and a parent who had witnessed or experience the death of a child would have easily satisfied the requirement to receive the worst possible case percentage.

Consequently, the court would routinely have awarded around $100,000 or even greater amounts. Parents who suffered loss would also have been compensated for out-of-pocket expenses, such as funeral costs. In any event, those parents were looked after and had the opportunity to seek other resources. I am suggesting that the changes to the scheme, although commendable and already in place, have left a tiny majority of people high and dry. I am concerned for them. As a group they are unlikely to successfully lobby the Government. They would have enough difficulty coping with their loss without having to lobby for additional resources. This reasonable and not wildly expensive request would demonstrate goodwill in the insurance industry and support in the community.

It cannot possibly be something that is going to be extremely expensive, but it certainly would meet what I think all honourable members would agree is a significant human need, and at least put these people in a position commensurate with that under the old scheme. I commend that recommendation to the Motor Accidents Authority [MAA] and to the Government. I sincerely hope that they can see a way forward to implementing the Committee's recommendation.

I thank the chairman of the committee for the open manner in which the committee proceeded. I thank the various stakeholders and other groups for the advice they freely provided to the committee to assist us to assess the scheme to date. There are other important issues that would be useful to bring to the attention of the House, but honourable members can read the report for themselves. I suppose the questions most frequently asked are whether the new scheme is more profitable than the previous scheme, and whether the premiums being charged for motor accident insurance for third party injury appropriate.

The simple answer is that the scheme is not old enough to enable a full assessment to be made. It appears that the amount of profits is modest, but we are not going to be able to tell for some time into the future. That is an issue that the committee will have to rigorously examine, but by any stretch of the imagination this one issue that I have brought to the attention of the House is in my view worthy of a compassionate and sensitive response from the insurance industry and the Motor Accidents Authority. I would imagine it is also likely to receive that sort of attention from the Government.

The Hon. PETER BREEN [2.51 p.m.]: I am grateful for this opportunity to speak to the third report of the Standing Committee on Law and Justice in relation to its supervisory role with regard to the functions of the Motor Accidents Authority [MAA]. As was the case with earlier reports, the activities of the MAA have been monitored and this latest report provides a useful overview of the work of the authority. The report covers questions on notice to the authority, questions arising from certain economic aspects of the work of the authority, and questions arising from the authority's annual report.

The last chapter deals with the evidence arising from the hearing before the committee on 17 December 2001. I will focus for a moment on one aspect of the report that has not received much attention but raises some very interesting, perhaps radical, ideas currently under consideration by the MAA. I refer to the section in chapter 1 of the report relating to the long-term care of people who are catastrophically injured in motor vehicle accidents. These people have always been the primary focus of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999, and that is entirely appropriate.

Significantly, any consideration of the care of people who are catastrophically injured includes the question of no-fault insurance, and I am pleased to see in the report that the MAA will reconvene the long-term care working party, possibly in the next few weeks. The no-fault, long-term care proposal developed by the working party indicates that a no-fault scheme covering people who are catastrophically injured would cost the MAA an extra $168 million per annum on current figures. This translates to an additional $45 for each green slip premium. I would like to see a further analysis of these figures. One advantage of a no-fault scheme for people suffering catastrophic injuries is that substantial legal costs relating to the question of fault are a constant drain on the MAA scheme, and these cost savings may not be included in the figures.

Another concern I have relates to the number of cases in which large verdicts appear to have been frittered away or otherwise poorly invested. The cost of long-term care in these cases falls on the general community and I am not certain that the MAA has allowed for these cases in its calculations. At present, structured settlements—or periodic payments, as they are sometimes called—to people suffering long-term injuries are taxable as income and most verdicts are therefore paid as a lump sum. The MAA has advised the committee that it expects Federal and State legislation to permit structured settlements later this year. On that aspect of structured settlements, I commend to the House the work of the Hon. Ron Dyer and his persistence in maintaining structured settlements as a high priority on the various committees dealing with motor vehicle accidents over the years.

Here is an ideal opportunity to extend proper care and support to people suffering catastrophic injuries in motor vehicle accidents, irrespective of fault. It seems to me that the long-term care of all people injured on the road ought to be a function of the MAA, and that the responsibility for the cost of road injuries should rest with motorists, not with the general community.

I note that Mr Richard Torbay, the Independent member for Northern Tablelands in the other place, proposes to introduce a no-fault insurance bill covering personal injuries. Although I have not seen his private member's bill, I applaud Mr Torbay's initiative, particularly to the extent that it covers the victims of catastrophic injuries received in motor vehicle accidents, irrespective of fault. The argument that the MAA ought to take full responsibility for all people in long-term care as a result of motor vehicle accidents is compelling.

It would be a great pity to lose the expertise that the Motor Accidents Authority has developed and will continue to develop. While on the subject of personal injuries, I would like to mention very briefly an article by Bret Walker, SC, entitled, "Personal Injuries: The New Fallacies", which appeared in the February issue of "Bar Brief", a publication of the New South Wales Bar Association.

In that article Mr Walker expresses his concern about the steady erosion of the common law rights of people suffering personal injuries. He directs his not insignificant criticisms to politicians promoting the virtues of the Motor Accidents Authority when he refers to "election time boasts that insurance premiums have not increased in line with the need for compensation". The establishment of the Motor Accidents Authority has resulted in a reduction in compensation for non-economic loss and that is regrettable. Otherwise, full compensation remains in place.

It could not be said of the Motor Accidents Authority, for example, that it oversees a pension scheme of the kind contemplated by the WorkCover legislation, where there is real cause for concern. Whatever else might be said of the MAA, it has successfully capped the cost of green slips in an environment where insurance premiums have skyrocketed.

Just on the question of the work of the Motor Accidents Authority, the Hon. Ron Dyer mentioned the take-over by Allianz of the policies held by CIC and FAI. The nominal defendant has assumed responsibility for all claims since 16 March 2001. I pay tribute to the work of David Bowen in particular in ensuring a smooth transition to the Motor Accidents Authority of a significant number of claims that appeared on their face to be out on a limb, the processing of those claims, and the proper care and attention to people affected by the collapse of HIH. It cannot be overstated just how effective that transfer was.

As a solicitor who had some involvement in personal injury work prior to the collapse of HIH, I must say that I expected that there would be a disaster because of the number of people involved. But the MAA has ensured a smooth transition, and it is to be applauded for that. I cannot imagine that the transition—or, indeed, the solution—would have been as comprehensive as it has been if the MAA had not been in place. Having said that, my own observations of the MAA would suggest, and I think fairly, that it is on its best behaviour in these early days. There is potential for a sting or two in a few tails, to use a favourite expression of the insurance industry.

In response to a question I asked at the hearing, the general manager of the Motor Accidents Authority acknowledged that the new scheme may never appear in a more favourable light than it does at the moment. The reason for that is the lead time for serious injuries involving payments for non-economic loss. Within a period of, say, five years from the scheme's inception it is expected that 10 per cent of claimants will get over the non-economic threshold and receive payment. There will be a tail from the early years when there were only a small number of payments for non-economic loss.

I conclude by again congratulating the MAA on its work. The establishment of a completely new compensation scheme for assessing and paying the victims of motor vehicle accidents is no mean feat. I single out in particular, as I did earlier, the general manager, David Bowen, who was always approachable and helpful, even if members of the committee dropped in for a chat, as I have been known to do on occasions. Mr Bowen's grasp of the nuts and bolts of the scheme is extraordinary in my experience and I compliment him on the job he is doing. I also congratulate the committee staff on their work on the report and my fellow committee members. It is a privilege and a pleasure to be working with them.

The Hon. RON DYER [3.01 p.m.], in reply: I thank both the Deputy Chair of the Standing Committee on Law and Justice, the Hon. John Ryan, and the Hon. Peter Breen for their contributions to this take-note debate. The House will have noted that the Hon. John Ryan in particular has a close interest in the problem of parents who have lost a child in a motor vehicle accident and their interest in being appropriately compensated.

The committee agreed to include passages in its report drawing attention to this matter at the instance of the Hon. John Ryan. The committee saw fit to recommend that the Motor Accidents Authority [MAA] should give further consideration to how parents who lose children as a result of motor vehicle accidents might be compensated, particularly parents who do not qualify for non-economic loss according to current medical and psychological guidelines. We also stressed that it would be appropriate for that further consideration to be the subject of public consultation with interested stakeholders. That is the only recommendation we have seen fit to make in this report on the annual review of the Motor Accidents Authority.

It could well be that in connection with the next review we will have more to say in general terms about the scheme because at that time the new scheme, if I may use that expression, will have been operating for some three years. It seems to be commonly supposed and generally accepted that the scheme will have matured after that initial three-year period. To date we have been conducting annual hearings on the basis of what could be described, I suppose, as an immature scheme. So to that extent we have not been able to express concluded views as to how the scheme is operating in practice, because it simply has not had sufficient time to settle down, as it were.

The Hon. Peter Breen raised a matter of close concern to him and indeed to other members of the committee: the long-term care of the seriously injured. He raised the concept of no-fault insurance and mentioned in passing that the MAA had estimated that if this cover were to be extended there might be an additional premium of $45 for each third party insurance policy. If that is a correct estimate—and I am not sure whether it is at this stage—I am sure that the responsible Minister, the Hon. John Della Bosca, would reel back in horror, because it is a very proud achievement of his to have reduced the premium to in the order of $200 per annum, which is some $100 less than it was prior to the new scheme for which he is responsible and for which he can take credit for its coming into effect. As I said earlier, continuing attention is being given to the question of the due compensation of people who have been catastrophically or seriously injured: a working party has been established by the Cabinet Office. Once that consideration has concluded, the Government intends to contract an actuary to cost the proposals that might then have been developed by the Cabinet Office. So the matter is receiving continuing attention.

The whole issue was considered earlier in Australia's history under the Whitlam Government. It involved a more far-reaching proposal, quite a radical proposal. Mr Justice Woodhouse, a judge from New Zealand, was brought over here to conduct an inquiry into the proposal. The Hon. Gough Whitlam and his Government at that stage had in contemplation the setting up of a no-fault scheme for accidents generally. It would be obvious to everyone that that is a very costly exercise. It is costly in New Zealand. The Hon. John Ryan and the Hon. Peter Breen are not suggesting—and nor am I—that a generalised scheme along those lines should be contemplated. If for no other reason, we are worried about the big price ticket that would attach to it. However, we focus on the question of long-term care of the seriously injured because those people deserve to have their needs properly considered and catered for.

I thank the Hon. Peter Breen for his kind comments concerning my persistence about structured settlements. Obstinacy has sometimes been said to be one of my personal characteristics. In this case my determination is being rewarded because last year the Assistant Federal Treasurer, Senator Rod Kemp, announced that the Federal Government had adopted the principle of structured settlements. As I understand it, it now remains for the Federal Government, in concert with the States, to legislate to give effect to this concept. At the Federal level it will involve appropriate amendments to the tax legislation to ensure that structured settlements receive sympathetic and tax-effective treatment so that structured settlements become attractive in the hands of those who are intended to benefit, namely, the injured persons.

According to my understanding on the basis of what the committee was told at our most recent hearing, complementary State legislation might be needed, or at the very least court rules might have to be amended to fit in with the regime contemplated by the Federal Government to give effect to structured settlements. I am very glad that my persistence and the collective efforts of my fellow committee members and my predecessor as chair of the law and justice committee, the Hon. Bryan Vaughan, have been rewarded. I hope that during this calendar year further measures will be brought in to ensure that structured settlements can be made a reality for the benefit of injured parties. With those few words I commend the report to the House. I foreshadow that when the committee next carries out a review it may be more wide-ranging than the first three reviews, given that the scheme is approaching maturity.

Report noted.

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.11 p.m.]: I move:

That the question be amended by omitting from paragraph (1) (b) "12 November 2002" and inserting instead "19 November 2002".

Earlier I pointed out that all that glitters is not gold in the Senate structure. I seemed to have reached accord with a couple of members and over the lunch break I obtained the figures on the Senate's sitting hours, which are far more stringent than those proposed by the Hon. Malcolm Jones. The Senate has pre-committees and a double-deadline, which means that both Federal Houses have a deadline for legislation and a way of proceeding once legislation reaches a House. That procedure has not affected the Senate's massive logjams.

That system, with all its checks, balances and processes, does not stop the logjam that the Hon. Malcolm Jones continues to talk about and for which he blames government legislation. Last Thursday the Senate's scheduled finishing time was 8.40 p.m. at the latest, but it sat until 1.20 a.m. Last night the Senate's scheduled finishing time was 9.50 p.m. at the latest, but it sat until 11.45 p.m. Tonight its scheduled finishing time is 8.00 p.m., and it expects to sit past midnight.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Are they debating bills or the High Court?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The Senate is debating bills and a whole range of things. I listened to some Senate proceedings yesterday afternoon and last night. The Senate sitting hours for February, March and April of 2001 would horrify the Hon. Malcolm Jones; it adjourned well past its scheduled ceasing time every night it sat. On 26 February 2001 the Senate sat until 11.30 p.m., on 5 March it adjourned at 10.41 p.m., and on 26 March it adjourned at 10.53 p.m. No matter how many sitting days are scheduled, the Senate's schedule is shockingly crammed; it sits late virtually every night. On 27 June 2001 the Senate adjourned at 10.07 p.m.; on 26 June it adjourned at 11.08 p.m.

On 29 August sittings ceased at 2.07 a.m., on 24 September sittings ceased at 12.16 a.m., on 25 September sittings ceased at 12.30 a.m., and on 26 September sittings ceased at 12.35 a.m. Despite an elaborate procedure for dealing with bills, which the Hon. Malcolm Jones has not looked at, and sitting times that are meant to finish at the reasonable hour of 7.30 p.m. or 8.00 p.m. the Senate does not adjourn until five, six or seven hours later.

The motion is not a solution to the problem, and the Hon. Malcolm Jones needs to do a lot more thinking about it. Most bills that were dealt with at the end of last year were introduced before the cut-off point but had sat on the notice paper for weeks, because the problem is not just with Government bills. Government business is not always just government business, there are urgent matters and matters of public importance to be dealt with.

Honourable members use a numerous range of instruments, as is their democratic right, that cuts dramatically into government business time. It is not a one-way street that would be solved by saying, for example, that on 18 June no further business will be dealt with unless it is declared to be urgent, so that there can be a parade of speakers on each urgent bill. It is suggested that that happen on 12 November, although I understand that there is general agreement that 19 November is a far preferable date. I urge the Hon. Malcolm Jones to be cautious about this instrument to deal with a logjam, because I have seen a lot of other factors involved in logjams in the past 14 years. It is not restricted specifically to bills that are introduced late; most items on the list last year had been introduced well before the cut-off dates.

The Hon. John Ryan: Listed but not introduced.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: It is a very simple procedure to introduce them and let them sit. The Hon. Malcolm Jones gave the example of the passage of the National Parks and Wildlife Amendment Bill at the end of last year as a reason for supporting his motion. Honourable members might recall that there were a significant number of amendments from crossbenchers and more than 200 amendments to the bill. Many amendments were provided to the Government and the House with very little notice. The bill was around for quite a while. In fact, debate on the Committee stage of the bill was delayed a number of times.

If the concern of the Hon. Malcolm Jones is to ensure that more time is available to consider amendments, that would require the submission of amendments within a certain time for proper consideration. However, nothing in the motion addresses that or will do anything to ensure that amendments are submitted in a timely way to allow for appropriate consideration. Further, contrary to the implication of the Hon. Malcolm Jones, Hansard shows that the Government outlined in the Committee stage of the debate its reasons for supporting substantive amendments such as the amendment establishing the Audit and Compliance Committee. It is, of course, the responsibility of any individual member moving amendments to provide to the House supporting arguments. The Hon. Malcolm Jones mentioned WorkCover. From memory, the WorkCover bill was introduced in March.

The Hon. Malcolm Jones: I never mentioned WorkCover.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Yes, you referred to WorkCover in your speech. The original bill was introduced in March but due to community concerns there was a long consultative period. After the panels had met in August and after various consultations, the bill was introduced later in the year. But, in essence, the bill stood on the public record in this Chamber for eight or nine months. For a whole lot of other reasons it was dealt with towards the end of the year, after dealing with community concerns. To suggest that it has anything to do with the motion moved by the Hon. Malcolm Jones is misleading. The Senate has not sat along the lines suggested by the Hon. Malcolm Jones. Odgers' Australian Senate Practice, Seventh Edition, states at page 254:

In 1986 an attempt was made to solve this problem [of logjams] by the adoption of a deadline for legislation to be received from the House of Representatives. On 14 April 1986 and in each subsequent period of sittings, with the exception of the budget sittings of 1992, a resolution was passed whereby any legislation received after the specified deadline was automatically adjourned till the next period of sittings.

This was intended to alleviate the end-of-sittings rush by ensuring that no new bills were received from the House of Representatives in the last two or three weeks of sittings.

Odgers continued:

Subsequently, however, the procedure was criticised as aggravating the evil which it was intended to remedy. Its effect was that legislation was pushed through the House of Representatives before the deadline.

There was still a concentration of bills in the Senate at the end of the sitting periods, and the consideration of legislation in the House was even more attenuated than before the procedure was adopted.

The Hon. Malcolm Jones: This is a red herring.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The motion suggests that there is no deadline. However, paragraph 1 (a) of the motion states:

After 18 June 2002 (Budget Session), debate on the motion for the second reading is to be adjourned at the conclusion of the speech of the Minister moving the motion, and the resumption of the debate is to be made an Order of the Day for the first sitting day in September 2002.

If that is not a deadline to get legislation up, I do not know what is. The procedure is that if the House concurs, a matter can proceed. It is a deadline; there is no other word for it. The legislation must be before the House by that date and then urgency must be sought. The process seeking urgency allows for a number of speakers, and that number can vary by amendment. Indeed, the Opposition seeks to reduce the crossbench input from two speakers to one speaker and a foreshadowed amendment of Ms Lee Rhiannon will seek to increase the number of crossbench speakers.

The Government has to run the gauntlet of getting the Opposition to sanction the process and obtain agreement for the bill to be dealt with in this session, otherwise it is automatically adjourned until the following session. If that is not a deadline, then I do not understand the concept of a deadline. The bill must be introduced and the second reading given before that date otherwise it cannot be dealt with, unless the Opposition or a sufficient number of crossbench members agree to declare the bill an urgent bill. That is a deadline. If a problem exists in the administration of the State at the end of this year, especially with an election looming, it will be easy for some members to play politics to prevent proposed legislation being dealt with. Under this motion urgent matters may not be dealt with for a period of more than a month.

Sometimes it is necessary to legislate quickly, rather than introduce proposed legislation much earlier in the session. Crossbench members should be careful about agreeing to this motion because if it is agreed to the Opposition may seek to frustrate the Government's administration of the State in the last month of sittings This issue is far more complex and deserves more consideration than is being afforded it today. It deserves significant discussion to enable honourable members to reach a satisfactory conclusion.

I have no difficulty with the overall concept of trying to deal with logjams. I have been a member in this Chamber for 14 years and we always have a problem with logjams at the end of both the spring and autumn sessions. The motion should be considered further. We do not want the situation to arise whereby a bill receives broad support in the lower House but its passage is frustrated in this Chamber because the bill is not considered urgent. The Government would be in some difficulty if it were necessary, for the proper running of the State, to deal with 10 or 15 bills at the end of a session, particularly prior to an election. Under the provisions of this motion the Government would have to seek to declare each bill an urgent bill, and there would be debate on that, although it has been implied there would be no debate. I would, however, regard 30 of 40 minutes discussion as a debate, albeit a limited debate because not all honourable members would be able to participate.

As a consequence, 12 or 15 hours could be taken up with an "urgency debate" and this could compound the logjam problem. If the Government were to claim that a number of bills were urgent, I would not be surprised if the Opposition suggested they were not urgent and should be postponed until the next session. This would entail a 30-minute or 40-minute debate on each bill. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile knows full well that if time is made available to consider a matter, members tend to fully utilise that time—and that is often the very reason that business is not dealt with. I remember late last year when the House was dealing with a large number of bills Ms Lee Rhiannon and the Hon. Ian Cohen spoke at great length to each bill.

I agree that they have every right to do so, but I suggest that if an additional 12 or 13 hours is made available to accommodate an urgency debate, given the record of this Chamber, the entire time would be taken up each and every occasion. This would add, in effect, another couple of days to the sitting schedule of the House and might lead to more late-night sittings. The Hon. Malcolm Jones would then be even more annoyed than he currently is with the usual cramming at the end of a session. It is similar situation to what happens with those sitting university examinations, open book or otherwise; one tends to do a bit of cramming towards the end. There is no other way of denoting it. At the beginning of each sitting there are often urgency motions and other motions that take up a considerable portion of the time of the House.

The Hon. John Jobling: Like your 2000-01 and 2001-02 budget take-note debates. Weren't you grateful for prorogation?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I do not think I have spoken in a take-note debate for a long time. Most of my lengthy contributions were when the Greiner Government was endeavouring to sell off New South Wales or do something outrageous to the people of New South Wales, like ruin our south-east forests. I spoke in those debates because that was my right. I do not object to people exercising their right to utilise whatever time they consider necessary to make a point. I do not mind if Ms Lee Rhiannon or the Hon. Ian Cohen speak for hours on a particular topic. However, this motion seeks to deal with something that cannot be dealt with in this form and which needs further consideration and amendment. I urge honourable members to support the amendment moved by the Government.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [3.30 p.m.]: The Greens have considered the motion carefully and we are pleased to support it. We have been concerned for some time about the Government's management of business in this House. Our concerns increase as the year passes. In the final two weeks of sitting bills are rammed through Parliament at such a rate that it is impossible to scrutinise them satisfactorily. As a consequence, members of Parliament—with the possible exception of Government members—are not able to do their jobs effectively. For that reason we are very pleased to support this motion. I listened with interest to the member Mr Macdonald's contribution to the debate. I am surprised that the Government does not acknowledge the often repeated comment that, the more the member Mr Macdonald speaks, the more certain of their convictions those on the opposite side of the argument become.

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: I don't think so. I won a few votes yesterday; it went well.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: The member is quite happy with his performance; that is how he operates. It is clear from the lengths to which he has gone that the Government does not want this motion to pass. The Greens understand that the Senate has introduced a similar measure. No Parliament has perfect processes, but this arrangement has gone some way to preventing the terrible logjam of legislation. The conduct of parliamentary business in the last few weeks of the session is unseemly. Unsavoury legislation is often allowed to pass, which puts many of us in an impossible position. We cannot do our work effectively in the last few weeks of the parliamentary session.

Many Government members oppose the motion and are angry that it was moved. It is ridiculous to argue—I presume this argument was formulated in the hope of winning members over to the Government's side—that this new arrangement will increase the number of sitting days. That lets the cat out of the bag. It is the role of members to sit in Parliament and consider bills thoroughly. We must do our work to the best of our ability, but that is not possible under the current arrangements. The business of the House must be handled responsibly, and sufficient time must be provided to members to consider legislation. The Greens congratulate the member Mr Jones on moving this motion, which we believe will tidy up the processes of the House considerably. However, we propose the following amendment:

That the question be amended by omitting from paragraph 2 all words after "exceeding" and inserting instead:

(a) 10 minutes by a Minister,
(b) 10 minutes by the Leader of the Opposition or a Member nominated by the Leader of the Opposition,
(c) 2 minutes by any crossbench member, but not exceeding 10 minutes in total.

If that question is agreed to, the second reading debate and subsequent stages may proceed forthwith or at any time during any sitting of the House.

The amendment is designed to clarify the situation for crossbench members. The crossbench is not like the Opposition and Government benches: it comprises members from many different parties. We are not seeking additional debating time. We appeal to members to consider our amendment carefully and to support it. It will not add time to the declaration of urgency debate but it will allow several crossbench members—who clearly have differing views—to state their positions. The Greens support the motion, and we urge members to consider and support our amendment.

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE [3.34 p.m.]: I shall be brief. I have examined the logjam legislation issue from a different perspective. The motion allegedly seeks to deal with what occurs in the last month of parliamentary sittings, and arguments for and against it have gone back and forth across the Chamber. The weekly parliamentary cycle comprises two days of government business and one day of private members' business. In the short time available I have had the chance to examine only one year in the current four-year term: 1999. I have looked at what happened on government business days in November 1999 in an effort to identify the cause of the logjam because this motion is about creating sufficient opportunities to consider legislation on the two government business days.

My research has revealed that the following private members' business was considered on government business days in November 1999: Order for Papers—M2 Motorway; General Purpose Standing Committee [GPSC] No. 5—Reference; GPSC Olympic Ticketing; Return to Order—Northside Tunnel; Motor Accident Compensation, debate on which lasted an hour and 10 minutes; GPSC—Reporting Date Seaforth TAFE; Select Committee on Increase in Prisoner Population, debate on which took two hours and 55 minutes; Teachers Award Offer, which took two hours and 35 minutes; Return to Order—M2 Motorway; Disallowance of Statutory Rule, which took one hour and 12 minutes; Order for Papers—Walsh Bay; Disallowance of Operating Licence; Order for Papers—Landfill; Social Issues Inquiry; GPSC No.1—Seaforth TAFE; Disallowance of Operating Licence, which took 40 minutes; GPSC Olympic Ticketing; GPSC Reference—Oil Spills; Inquiry into Gaming; Race to Qualify; and Publication of Papers—Sydney Water. Consideration of such business was perfectly in order, but when we talk about logjams we should look at those who are throwing the logs into the water.

The Hon. MALCOLM JONES [3.37 p.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members who have participated in this debate, particularly the Hon J. H. Jobling, who clarified the points of the motion extremely well and who moved an amendment seeking to reduce by one the number of crossbench members able to speak on the declaration of urgency motion. I shall return to that issue later. The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans and Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile referred to Government threats of legislation by exhaustion. That is a pertinent point in this debate. I agree with Ms Lee Rhiannon, who said that the Hon. Ian Macdonald talked at such great length that he persuaded people to support the motion who might otherwise not have done so.

There were calls to refer the motion to the Standing Orders Committee. That committee comprises five Government members—the President, the Treasurer, the Hon. John Della Bosca, the Hon. Eddie Obeid and the Hon. Carmel Tebbutt—which is a clear majority, together with the Hon. Michael Gallacher, the Hon. Duncan Gay, Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho. There is a clear advantage to the Government's sending the motion to that committee—whose members include some ministerial heavyweights—to do with it what it will. That standing committee can self-refer: there is no point moving an amendment to refer the motion to the committee because it can make that reference if it wishes. If the motion were passed, it would be to the Government's advantage to consider and comment on how it works in the course of 2002. Referring such a matter to that committee would be a little like complaining to your mother-in-law about your wife. Let us be clear, it would go nowhere.

When the Opposition moved to amend the standing orders to effect changes to question time the Government opposed the move. However, it appears from the comments of the Treasurer that the Government now welcomes those changes. The Government may consider that it would be in its best interests to embrace change rather than opposing it merely because it is change. The Hon. Peter Primrose and the Hon. Ian Macdonald have completely missed the point about the intention of the motion. I am sure I can speak for members on the crossbench and Opposition members when I say that we are not particularly concerned about the number of days that the House sits. We do not have to cram matters into the hours allocated by a limited number of sitting days. We can increase the number of days that we sit. I do not know of any member of this Chamber who does not like coming to work or who is not prepared to do more work, but adequate time is needed in which to do that work.

This motion is not about the issues raised by the Hon. Peter Primrose. It is about ensuring that we have time to consider bills and their amendments, not to pass them when there is no urgency merely because that must be done before the end of the session. Often debate on a bill is not urgent. If any bill were urgent, the Government could argue that fact to the House. Drafting this motion presented me with a problem because the crossbench is not a united entity; it covers a diverse political spectrum, it is difficult for crossbench members to have adequate opportunity in which to point out what was urgent and what was not. Representation in this Chamber is fairly equally divided: one third of the members are from the Government, one third from the Opposition and one third from the crossbench. I quite like the Greens amendment, which suggests that each group be allocated 10 minutes for debate with a limit of two minutes per member. However, without their support of the Opposition that amendment will not be agreed to.

I do not object to the amendment of the Hon. John Jobling, which seeks to limit debate to one member and a vote being taken to decide whether a matter is urgent. That proposal may encounter problems but the Standing Orders Committee could examine it once it has been trialled and come up with some positive suggestions for the running of this House. At the commencement of this debate I referred to debate on proposed national parks and wildlife legislation as an example of debate being rushed through the House. The Hon. Ian Macdonald also referred to this matter. On that occasion the Parliament was placed in an impossible situation to consider that bill and its many conflicting amendments. It was technically impossible for members to give the bill due consideration. As it was not an urgent bill it could have been held over to the next session. Under the terms of my motion, that bill would have been adjourned automatically to the next session so that adequate time was provided for debate. Consequently, the National Parks and Wildlife Service would not have fallen in a heap and life would have gone on. I thank honourable members for their contributions to this debate and seek the support for my amendment.

Amendment of the Hon. Ian Macdonald agreed to.

Question—That the amendment of Ms Lee Rhiannon be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Cohen Mr M. I. Jones

Mr Oldfield Ms Rhiannon Dr Wong

Tellers, Mr Breen Mr R. S. L. Jones

Ms Burnswoods Mr Colless Mr Corbett Mr Costa Mr Della Bosca Mr Dyer Mr Egan Ms Fazio Mrs Forsythe Miss Gardiner Mr Gay

Mr Harwin Mr Hatzistergos Mr Kelly Mr Lynn Mr Macdonald Mr Moppett Reverend Nile Mr Obeid Mr Pearce Dr Pezzutti Mr Ryan

Ms Saffin Mr Samios Mrs Sham-Ho Ms Tebbutt Mr Tingle Mr Tsang Mr West Tellers, Mr Jobling Mr Primrose

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment of the Hon. Jon Jobling agreed to.

Motion as amended agreed to.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [3.55 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of the bill is to authorise the trustees of the Bethel Union to extend their operations beyond the Port of Sydney so that they can assist seafarers visiting any port in New South Wales, to remove the restriction on the type of facilities the trustees can provide to seafarers, and to provide the trustees with an investment power in accordance with the Trustee Act 1925. At the beginning of the nineteenth century a number of Bethel organisations were established in different parts of the world as a lay initiative dedicated to addressing the spiritual welfare of seafarers. Each organisation is independent and has no connection with any other Bethel organisation. The Sydney Bethel Union is a charitable organisation that since 1822 has provided religious and secular instruction and social recreation for seafarers of all nations visiting the Port of Sydney.

In the mid nineteenth century the trustees were given a grant of land upon which to build a chapel and other necessary buildings. The Sydney Bethel Union Extension Act 1908 extended the powers of the trustees and authorised them to erect a Mariner's Church and other related buildings, reading rooms, a lecture hall, a gymnasium, lavatories and such other accommodation as the trustees may think in their discretion is advisable. The 1908 Act also appointed new trustees and vested additional land in the trustees in exchange for some of their land that had been resumed by the Government. The Sydney Bethel Union currently operates a hostel for seamen visiting Sydney. Seamen pay a nominal sum to stay at the hostel.

Shipping movements have altered over the years as more shipping goes in and out of other New South Wales ports. There is reduced demand for the Bethel Union's facilities in Sydney, but it is necessary to provide facilities in other New South Wales ports. The bill will enable the Bethel Union to provide facilities for the religious and secular instruction and social recreation of seafarers throughout New South Wales. In the course of its operations the Bethel Union has received donations and bequests that have been used to finance its operations. The Act does not give the trustees a specific power to invest money and to apply that income for the purposes of the Bethel Union, nor a power to employ people to assist in the running of Bethel Union facilities. The bill provides the trustees with an investment power in accordance with the Trustee Act 1985 and the power to employ people to assist in the running of the facilities.

I turn now to the bill. Items [1], [5], [6], and [8] of schedule 1 amend the Sydney Bethel Union Extension Act 1908 to enable the trustees to extend their operations beyond the Port of Sydney to any port in New South Wales. Items [2] and [3] of schedule 1 amend the Act to enable the trustees to extend the types of facilities they can provide to seafarers. Items [4] and [7] of schedule 1 amend the Act to update outdated language by removing references to "seaman" and replacing them with references to "seafarers". That is not a provision with which I am especially enamoured. Item [5] of schedule 1 inserts sections 8A, 8B and 8C into the Act. Section 8A will give trustees the power to invest money in accordance with the Trustee Act 1925. Section 8B will give trustees the power to employ or otherwise engage people to assist in the operations of the Bethel Union. Section 8C will give trustees the power to make grants to associations, institutions, or bodies of persons engaged in mission work among seafarers. The bill is designed to enable the Bethel Union to better assist seafarers who visit New South Wales ports. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [3.59 p.m.]: On behalf of the Opposition I have pleasure in supporting the Sydney Bethel Union Extension Amendment Bill. The Sydney Bethel Union Act passed through this Parliament as a private Act in 1856. The Sydney Bethel Union Extension Act was passed in 1908, and it was amended in 1934. The bill will bring the operations of that legislation up to date. The bill provides for the Sydney Bethel Union, a charitable institution that has, since 1822 if not before, provided religious and secular instruction and social recreation for seafarers from around the world who have visited the Port of Sydney.

The objects of this bill are to update the 1908 legislation to authorise this charity's trustees to extend its operations beyond the Port of Sydney so that they can assist seafarers visiting any port in New South Wales. I understand that the trustees have a particular interest in expanding the operations at the Port of Newcastle; to remove restriction on the type of facilities the trustees can provide to seafarers; and also to provide the trustees with a power of investment in accordance with the Trustee Act 1925. It will also enable the trustees to employ or otherwise engage people to assist in the operations of the Bethel Union. Upon the passage of this legislation the trustees will be able to extend their operations beyond the Port of Sydney to any other port, extend the types of facilities that the trustees can provide, and amend the Act to update outdated language.

The Leader of the Government said he is not particularly enamoured of the change of language from "seamen" to "seafarers". Obviously, I would disagree with the Leader of the Government on that point and support wholeheartedly that change in the language contained in the bill. The current legislation makes particular reference to the operations of the union and specifically refers to the present building, so as to provide reading rooms, a lecture hall, gymnasium, lavatories and such other accommodation. This bill is needed to allow the trustees of the Bethel Union to be more flexible in the provision of various facilities according to what is required at particular ports. In the amended legislation, those provisions will read "any buildings on those lands to provide such facilities". On behalf of the Opposition I urge the House to support the Sydney Bethel Union Extension Amendment Bill.

The Hon. IAN COHEN [4.03 p.m.]: On behalf of the Greens I support the Sydney Bethel Union Extension Amendment Bill. The Bethel Union was constituted under a 1908 Act to hold land in Sydney in trust for the benefit of seafarers. The Union provides assistance to seafarers visiting the Port of Sydney. There is a real need for the assistance provided by the Bethel Union. Many of the people employed on ships that pass through Sydney Harbour work under terrible conditions. International shipping companies are notorious for exploiting seafarers. The working conditions of seafarers was addressed by a Federal parliamentary committee inquiry which produced a report entitled, "Ships of Shame". The bill recognises that Port Jackson is no longer the focus of most shipping New South Wales. Many of the wharves that are necessary for a working port have been replaced by luxury apartments.

A very different culture has emerged in places such as Walsh Bay, where luxury apartments replaced a working wharf. This trend led one former waterside worker to conclude that "nothing much happens on the waterfront any more except people driving around in their BMWs". Nevertheless, it is important that seafarers are able to seek and be given support. This amending bill will allow the Bethel Union to upgrade outside the Port of Sydney and provide facilities for seafarers in other New South Wales ports. The Greens support the work of the Bethel Union and hope that the bill will improve the services that are available to seafarers.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [4.05 p.m.]: I fully support the remarks of the Treasurer in introducing the bill. I also concur with his reservations about changing the organisation's name that appears on its street frontage from "Mission to Seamen" to "Mission to Seafarers". The bill seeks to be politically correct by acknowledging female seafarers.

The Hon. Michael Egan: You are not opposing this bill, I hope?

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I will be enthusiastically supporting it.

The Hon. Michael Egan: I put my heart and soul into this legislation. I will resign. If it is not carried, I will resign!

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: Point of order: I understand that the Leader of the Government has just misled the House. He indicated that he has a heart.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti): Order! There is no point of order.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: The Sydney Bethel Union Extension Amendment Bill is fully supported by the Christian Democratic Party. The bill will amend the charter of the Sydney Bethel Union to authorise the trustees of the Bethel Union to extend their operations beyond the Port of Sydney so that they can assist seafarers visiting airport in New South Wales; remove the restriction on the type of facilities the trustees can provide to seafarers; provide the trustees with a power of investment in accordance with the Trustee Act 1925; and enable the trustees to employ or otherwise engage people to assist in the operations of the Bethel Union.

The Sydney Bethel Union had its beginning in Sydney in 1822. In 1865 the Bethel Union operated under the name "Mission to Seamen". The Sydney Bethel Union became the charitable organisation that funded, and continues to fund, this outreach to seamen. The name "Sydney Bethel Union" would not convey much to a sailor arriving from South America or from Asia, hence the organisation operating under the title "Mission to Seamen", which has now become "Mission to Seafarers". That organisation has always sought to provide spiritual instruction and social recreation for seafarers visiting Sydney since its inception. I am reminded of what the psalmist David wrote in the Psalm 107:

Some went off in ships, plying the trade routes of the world. They, too, observed the Lord's power in action, His impressive works on the deepest seas. He spoke, and the winds rose, stirring up the waves. Their ships were tossed to the heavens and sank again to the depths; the sailor's cringed in terror they reeled and staggered like drunkards and were at their wits' end. "Lord, help!" they cried in the trouble, and He saved them from their distress. He calmed the storm to a whisper and stilled the waves. What a blessing was that stillness as He brought them safely into harbour!

According to the information I have, each day, somewhere in the world, a ship is sunk with the loss of many lives. Back in 1822 the sailors would have lived in spartan conditions on frail wooden vessels that often fell foul of wind and storm. We know from our own history the number of ships that sank off Sydney Heads. Some vessels sank when they missed Sydney Heads and came in at places such as the Gap, thinking that was the entrance to Sydney Harbour.

The Hon. Doug Moppett: The Dunbar.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: Yes. I think that only one young boy was saved from the Dunbar. The rest of the passengers and crew were drowned. The chaplains who founded the Bethel Union were William Cowper and Richard Mill. They conducted services on many ships as well as in their own centre, offering comfort to those in distress and encouragement to those heading back into the unknown elements of the sea. In 1844, after lobbying and fundraising, the Sydney Bethel Union built a chapel on land granted by the Government on the shores of Darling Harbour near Erskine Street. In 1859 the mission opened a larger chapel facility with room for lodging, quiet areas, a lecture hall and other things on George Street in The Rocks, land currently occupied by the Billich Gallery. In 1908, through the passage of the Sydney Bethel Union Extension Act, the Government resumed the land at The Rocks and vested additional land in its place to allow the trustees authority to build a new mariners church, other related buildings, reading rooms, a lecture hall, a gymnasium, toilet facilities and "such other accommodation as the trustees may think in their discretion is advisable".

The Sydney Bethel Union, through its funding under the name of the Mission to Seamen and now Mission to Seafarers, continues to offer religious and secular education and social recreation for seafarers of all nations visiting Port Jackson, without any discrimination on the basis of race, age, nationality, language or religion—or lack of religion. It offers a hostel for seamen, a place away from their vessels to relax and recover from their journey. The Bethel Union operates under the Bethel Union Extension Act 1908 and the Sydney Bethel Union Enabling Act 1934, which place a number of limitations on the operations of the Bethel Union. Specifically, the Act restricts the union to providing specific facilities for seamen visiting the port of Sydney. The shipping industry has undergone major changes over the years, with more shipping now working out of other New South Wales ports. The legislation will the Bethel Union to extend its operations beyond Sydney Harbour to these other ports. As well, the bill broadens the scope of the union's operations and clarifies the powers of the trustees, and allows the Bethel Union to employ people to assist in the running of Bethel Union facilities.

When I spoke to the minister in charge of the centre I asked for information on what is happening right now. He said that the mission maintains its charter "To care for the moral, spiritual and physical welfare of all seafarers visiting the Port of Sydney regardless of race, creed or faith". About 20,000 seafarers annually are transported from their ships to and from the centre in Sussex Street. Buses collect the sailors and bring them to the centre. The chaplains and staff visit ships and hospitals and prisons to see seafarers who are injured or imprisoned for some reason. No matter the reason for their incarceration, they receive comfort and help from the chaplains and staff of the Mission to Seafarers.

The Hon. Michael Egan: In other words they continue to do a very good job.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: They do. I am very pleased that the Government has co-operated in the passage of this bill. It is greatly appreciated by the staff who run the mission.

The Hon. DOUG MOPPETT [4.13 p.m.]: Honourable members would know that I have a great empathy with sailors. I was interested to read early details on the significance of the bill. I am greatly indebted to Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile for filling in the picture that the Minister gave us, and also to my colleague the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner, who spoke so clearly and concisely about the virtues of the bill. Both she and I recall going to meetings at Flying Angel House. I was familiar with the Mission to Seamen. I have to confess to the trustees of the Bethel Union that I was a little confused to start off with because I did not recognise the name Bethel Union. My biblical scholarship is so inadequate that I could have offered little in the way of illumination about the appropriateness of the term Bethel. I know it only for its inclusion in a rather obscure verse of the famous hymn Nearer My God to Thee. People may not sing it often but they would know of it as having been sung, or if not sung at least played, on the afterdeck of the Titanic as it sank.

The Hon. Michael Egan: I think it was sung.

The Hon. DOUG MOPPETT: I am not sure whether they got around to the verse which includes the words "Bethel I'll raise". I was aware of the important role played by the Mission to Seamen through the activities at Flying Angel House, in Macquarie Place. The mission had a substantial building there with a meeting hall, and our presence was not as a result of any contact with visiting sailors or with the mission itself but rather that the mission hired out the meeting hall. I have a clear memory of the pulpit used for preaching to gathered sailors during the observation of religious services. It was in the form of the prow of a ship with a female figurehead.

The mission wants to extend its services to other ports, and that is highly commendable. Shipping movements into the port of Sydney have changed enormously. The economic forces on shipping companies mean that ships rarely stay for any length of time in any port other than their home port or at some place where they are being refurbished, refitted or maintained. Fortunately, crew from Australia and more advanced countries are flown home at the end of voyages. The conditions that applied in the nineteenth century to people on sailing vessels were totally different. None of us would regret that. Sailors had to spend years away. People essential to Australian history such as Captain Cook spent years away from their homeland, family and wife. The privations experienced by sailors in those days are unimaginable today.

The Hon. Michael Egan: If you have seen his house you will know that it is no wonder that he stayed away for a long time.

The Hon. DOUG MOPPETT: Yes. On the other hand, the cabin on the Endeavour was not much more hospitable. Nevertheless, everyone in the House this afternoon recognises the good intentions of the Bethel Union. We wish it well in its efforts to accommodate the needs of sailors away from their homes and countries. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile said that the mission mostly caters to crews from other nations who are in a foreign country. Whatever their difficulty is, they are looking for a sympathetic organisation that can help them when they are stranded in an Australian port. There is a continuing role for the mission. I am sure that members will want to ensure that the bill is passed not only for the welfare of the matelots around the world who call in to our ports but also so that the Treasurer is not required to resign as he has promised.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [4.18 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. I was looking forward to the contribution of the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans but he probably thought better than to make it. I commend the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment) [4.21 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill amends the Children (Detention Centres) Act 1987 to extend the sentence of juveniles who have escaped or failed to return from leave by the number of days they are unlawfully absent from custody. The colloquial term "street time" is used to refer to the time an offender is unlawfully absent from custody. The bill also amends the juvenile justice legislation to clearly state the delegation of functions by the Minister for Juvenile Justice in the Children (Detention Centres) Act 1987.

Juvenile detainees who escape from lawful custody, when apprehended, are charged either under section 33 of the Children (Detention Centres) Act or with the common law offence of escaping from lawful custody. Juvenile detainees who fail to return from leave are charged under section 37A of the Children (Detention Centres) Act. If juveniles are charged and found guilty of escape or failure to return from leave they can be given an additional term of up to three months, but currently cannot be made to serve the time they were unlawfully absent from custody.

In the past the now repealed section 447A of the Crimes Act 1900 operated to add street time to escapees' sentences, but not to those of juvenile detainees who failed to return from leave. Section 447A of the Crimes Act was repealed when the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 became law in 2000. Section 254 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act, which largely replaces section 447A of the Crimes Act, does not apply to juvenile offenders who are sentenced under the Act. Amending the Act to include street time in the sentence of a detainee found guilty of escape under section 33 of the Act would mean a return to the status quo prior to the changes to the Crimes Act that occurred when the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act was proclaimed.

In addition, for the first time juvenile detainees who are charged with failure to return from leave will be required to serve street time. Amending the Act to include street time in the sentence of a detainee found guilty of failing to return from leave under section 37A (1) removes inconsistency and confusion that exists in detention centres. For example, experienced detention centre staff have advised that it is not uncommon for clients who fail to return from leave to be charged with "escape", rather than "fail to return from leave" when the detainee has made a deliberate and planned effort to escape while on leave. As the offences of escaping and failing to return from leave are separate offences from the original offence for which the offenders are serving a control order, the punishment should be separate and not concurrent with any other order.

The Department of Juvenile Justice has been advised by the Crown Solicitor that the Community Welfare Act 1987 does not provide a power to the Minister for Juvenile Justice to delegate the Minister's functions under juvenile justice legislation because no order has been made under the Public Sector Management Act 1988 to construe references to "Minister" in section 5 (1) of the Community Welfare Act to include references to the Minister for Juvenile Justice.

It appears that the definition of "community welfare legislation" in the Community Welfare Act does not include juvenile justice legislation, and that the powers of delegation available to the Director-General of the Department of Juvenile Justice under section 5 (2) of the Community Welfare Act accordingly do not extend to the director-general's functions under the juvenile justice legislation. Parliamentary Counsel has recommended that this matter be rectified by amending the Children (Detention Centres) Act 1987 to clearly state the delegation of functions by the Minister for Juvenile Justice.

The Children (Detention Centres) Act and the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act take differing approaches to the custodial status of detainees and inmates. Whilst this poses no difficulty to the operation of these Acts, it can create anomalies in other legislation. The Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 is one such piece of legislation. Detainees should be treated in the same manner as adult inmates for the purposes of the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000. Schedule 3.1 to the bill makes the necessary definitional changes to achieve that. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [4.24 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition on this bill. The Opposition will not oppose the bill and we accept that there certainly is an important interplay between adult and juvenile sentencing. I note that when discussing the bill the Minister in the other House identified the anomaly to which the Minister for Juvenile Justice referred in relation to adding street time to sentences. The Opposition accepts that the amendment is appropriate. In the other House this matter was handled by the honourable member for Gosford, and I share with him the view that young people and young offenders are very important in this State.

Young people have needs, goals and dreams, and they sometimes make mistakes. The way we, as a society, respond will help to determine their future. Our youth deserve every chance to succeed in life, and when they slip up they should be given a second chance. Often political rhetoric focuses on punishment rather than prevention. Clearly, prevention is an important part of our approach to youth, particularly youth who slip up. However, it is important to teach our young people how to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

One of the major problems facing the justice system in New South Wales today is the perception, which is often the reality, that juveniles are getting away with criminal behaviour and that they continue to commit crime just because they can. The Coalition intends to address the problem by providing opportunities for juvenile offenders to choose not to continue to climb the ladder of criminal behaviour. The Opposition also accepts that this bill should deal with delegation. The Opposition will not oppose the bill.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [4.26 p.m.]: The Children (Detention Centres) Amendment Bill is a machinery measure to correct amendments to section 447A of the Crimes Act 1900 that automatically increased a sentence of a non-parole period for a detainee who escaped for the number of days that the young person was absent following an escape. That section was deleted and replaced by section 245 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999, but it did not apply to juveniles. A provision of the Crimes Act was inadvertently omitted; it was not a policy decision. Therefore, this legislation returns the status quo, and street time is added to a detainee's sentence.

This amendment will apply automatically. For example, if a detainee escapes and is not recaptured or does not return voluntarily for three days, three days is added to the original sentence. Street time is additional to any sentence that may be imposed by a magistrate for the offence of escape or fail to return from leave. Obviously, if a detainee fails to return because of circumstances beyond his or her control, such as serious illness or natural disaster, street time would not be added. Hopefully this is one further encouragement or deterrent for juveniles not to escape from detention centres and to always return from leave. We support the bill.

The Hon. IAN COHEN [4.28 p.m.]: I speak on behalf of the Greens to the Children (Detention Centres) Amendment Bill. The bill seeks to ensure that a juvenile detainee who escapes from lawful custody or fails to return from leave for a certain time will have that time added to his or her original sentence. That unauthorised time away from a detention centre is known as street time. The problem with the bill is that it penalises a detainee twice; a detainee who clocks up street time is likely to be charged with escape lawful custody or fail to return from leave. As the Minister said, that creates two separate situations to be dealt with by a judicial officer.

The judicial officer is likely to impose an additional custodial sentence for the breach. Therefore, the detainee ends up being penalised twice. The bill is punitive and unnecessary. Judicial officers have a discretion to add a further sentence to the original sentence when the detainee appears before the court for street time if they consider it necessary. This can be a cumulative imposition on young children, who need more positive reinforcement than the negative and punitive reinforcement presented by the Government in this bill. The Greens oppose the bill.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [4.30 p.m.]: The Children (Detention Centres) Amendment Bill serves two purposes. First, it will enable the extension of a person's detention order or non-parole period if that person has been found guilty of being unlawfully absent from a juvenile detention centre while in custody. The extension will correspond to the time the subject spent out of detention—so-called street time. Second, the bill will enable the Minister for Juvenile Justice and the director-general to delegate certain functions. Under proposed section 38A (3) detainees can also be charged for any offence committed in connection with their absence. So on top of serving extra time for unlawful absence, they can also be charged and sentenced for another offence if found guilty.

However, proposed section 38A (4) does not apply to a detainee who committed the offence of unlawful absence if it has been extended by another offence under the Act, which I think answers the point made by the Hon. Ian Cohen. Under proposed section 38A (7) the detention centre manager is to issue a written notice and explanation of the effect of the extension on the detainees' sentence upon their return. However, a failure to comply with the subsection will not affect the validity of the extension. This appears to contravene the United Nations Rule No. 70 for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty, which states:

No juvenile should be sanctioned unless he or she has been informed of the alleged infraction in a manner appropriate to the full understanding of the juvenile, and given a proper opportunity of representing his or her defence, including the right of appeal to a competent impartial authority.

Section 38A (8) has a retrospective component in which provisions under this section will apply to detainees who are unlawfully absent before the Act has even commenced. Does this mean that if a detainee returns eight hours late from being let out to enrol in a TAFE course, eight hours will be added to his or her sentence? Brett Collins from Justice Action expressed several concerns about the bill in an email to me. A significant concern was that proposed section 38A (3) allows for the penalty to be applied to an unlawful absence from custody regardless of whether the person has been charged with or found guilty of an offence in connection with the absence.

Mr Collins said that prisoners are often subject to disciplinary proceedings on the basis of having escaped or attempted to escape without any charges that might be answered being laid. Often there is no real evidence that an escape was attempted or achieved. Sometimes prisoners in minimum security prison farms are accused of escape when they inadvertently cross an unmarked perimeter while going from one section to another. In one case last year a person was left behind when a work detail returned to the prison and he hitchhiked back to Berrima prison, only to be disciplined for escaping after he missed roll call. A forensic, or psychiatric, prisoner in Brisbane was recently considered to have escaped for almost a month but was found to be living in a garden shed on the grounds and eating rubbish. Brett Collins commented:

My big concern would be that without charges there is no possibility for a detainee to answer accusations that s/he had escaped and it would open the gate for further penalty without due process.

Another concern relates to the fact that the penalty is added to the non-parole period. If the person was really at fault in escaping, that would be considered at the parole hearing—indeed, the person would be likely to get another sentence for escaping. Any addition to the non-parole period is a second punishment for a single breach, although I am not sure that is actually the case.

Overall, this seems to be an attempt to reduce the work of the courts in processing charges for escapees by explicitly allowing extra judicial penalties. This removes much of the due process rights from prisoners and allows for oversight-free abuse by detention centre staff. Jane Sanders from the Shop Front Youth Legal Centre has expressed concern at the lack of a clear reference to an appeal or review process. I foreshadow an amendment that I believe corrects the anomaly that sentences may be extended without the juvenile being informed. That solves the problem of possible breach of the United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty.

If juveniles have stencilled on their calendar how many days they have to go, they are wedded to that date. If that is changed without being clearly explained to them, whatever faith they have in the justice system will be further undermined. One must remember that in many cases these are very damaged kids and some are illiterate. Therefore, it is important that any changes to their situation are properly explained to them. Even if the explanation is not properly made and the sentence still stands, this leaves them in an indefinite position, which is unfortunate. I hope the House will accept my foreshadowed amendment. In 2001 there were 43 escapes or fail to return from leave in juvenile detention centres, according to the Attorney General's reply in Hansard on 13 March. Although the Democrats believe that the bill does not allow people to benefit from deliberate escapes, it has flaws that should be addressed.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [4.36 p.m.]: My colleague Ian Cohen has outlined strongly our opposition to the bill. I wish to add my voice to his comments because the Greens feel strongly about this issue. I put on record that this mean-spirited bill is offensive and unnecessary. Already we have in place the raft of law and order legislation for the next election. If detainees escape or are away for periods when they should not be, under the existing legislation they can be charged and that time will be added to their sentence. The bill is unnecessary, punitive and mean-spirited, and it should be thrown out. This lame Opposition simply limps behind the Government on these sorts of issues, so this legislation will clearly pass. With only 12 months to the next election and nine months of parliamentary sitting time we can expect these weak excuses for legislation, which the Government regards as assisting its election campaign. The Greens most definitely oppose the bill.

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment) [4.38 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate: the Hon. Greg Pearce, who led for the Opposition and indicated its support, Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, the Hon. Ian Cohen, the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans and Ms Lee Rhiannon. I emphasise that this is a technical or administrative amendment that restores equity to all detainees. I particularly reject the comments made by some speakers that it is in some way punitive or mean-spirited. Those comments demonstrate a lack of understanding about what this amendment is seeking to achieve. It also demonstrates a lack of understanding about the aim to build community support for a juvenile justice system that is fair and has at its core the rehabilitation of young offenders. It is necessary to have a juvenile justice system that is equitable. The claim that the bill is punitive and mean-spirited reveals a lack of understanding about this legislation and about what the Government is trying to achieve through the juvenile justice system.

I make it clear that the legislation will not extend a young offender's sentence by one day. I reiterate—particularly for the benefit of the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans and the Hon. Ian Cohen, who seem to have misunderstood this point—that the legislation does not penalise a detainee twice. A young person who is charged with an offence and sentenced by the court to serve a period in custody and who subsequently escapes from detention and spends some time in the community before returning to detention will not have served his or her full sentence. This bill seeks to add the time spent in the community to the original sentence. For example, if a young offender receives a sentence of three months in detention but then escapes and spends a week in the community, the bill will ensure that that person serves the full three-month sentence. I spend quite a bit of time in detention centres.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: Visiting.

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: Yes, obviously. The Department of Juvenile Justice aims to rehabilitate young offenders and imbue them with a sense of responsibility. It is simply not fair for detainees who do not escape and who serve their full sentence to watch other detainees escape, spend time at large and not serve their full sentence. That is not equitable and it is not fair for the majority of detainees, who do not escape. I do not understand how honourable members can claim that this measure is punitive and penalises detainees twice. A detainee who escapes, is charged with escape lawful custody and who appears before the court may receive a subsequent penalty for that escape. Street time is not a consideration. People must understand that the bill will restore the original sentence and guarantee that every day of that sentence is served in a detention centre.

The Government has gone to considerable lengths and great expense to minimise the number of escapes from detention centres, and we have been particularly successful. The number of escapes in the past three calendar years is the lowest on record. All new centres have perimeter fences with rolltop drum state-of-the-art electronic security and enhanced closed-circuit television.

The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans said that young people may be unaware that they have strayed outside the boundaries of a detention centre. I suggest that that is pretty unlikely. Young people in juvenile justice centres suffer many disadvantages, about which I have spoken on the record. However, the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans is suggesting that they are stupid, and that is not the case. I reject the suggestion that young detainees do not realise when they have strayed beyond the boundaries of a centre.

The legislation refers clearly to a person failing without reasonable excuse to return to a detention centre. For instance, if a young person is late returning to a centre from leave because family problems prevent his or her timely return, that would be considered a reasonable excuse. That provision is in the bill. No detention centres are escape proof but they are much better now than they were in the past.

In addition to the Government's commitment to improve security—the real issue regarding escapes is not necessarily physical security but what happens inside centres—the staff training regime has improved dramatically. The staff-to-detainee ratio has improved, there is better centre programming, and a wider range of courses are available to detainees. These advances are critical to improving security in juvenile justice centres and helping to reduce the number of escapes. The legislation simply restores the base sentences of those who manage to escape detention and ensures that every young offender serves his or her entire sentence in a detention centre. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

Schedule 1

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [4.45 p.m.]: I move:

Page 4, schedule 1 [1], lines 26 and 27. Omit all words on those lines.

This amendment, to which I referred in my speech during the second reading debate, would ensure that, if a sentence is to be extended, the juvenile receives an explanation of the reason for that extension. I submit to the Committee that the rights of the child in this respect are mandated by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. As the Minister for Juvenile Justice said, some degree of discretion may be exercised in the case of late returns to detention. The matter may not go to court and charges may not be laid, but the sentence may be extended on the basis of time spent in the community rather than in detention.

Many young offenders are very smart and tricky: they know how to maximise the lurks and they know what they are doing. However, there may be problems with dual diagnosis. For example, young detainees who are developmentally delayed or illiterate may be fixated on a certain release date. They may have little faith in adults generally and the system in particular. It must be made absolutely clear to them that they have transgressed and that their sentence has been extended as a result of their behaviour. They must be kept fully informed.

I do not believe that young offenders should have the time they spend whilst absconding, rather than in detention, deducted from their sentence—if that were the case, they would escape detention for as long as possible. However, according to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the State has an obligation to inform young detainees why their sentence is to be extended.

Some may say that justice will be served even if the State does not accept that obligation and act on it. However, those charged with that responsibility have total control of the child 24 hours a day, so the argument that they cannot fulfil their duty is not valid. I do not believe that the amendment's provisions will be particularly onerous for those entrusted with the care of children 24 hours a day for weeks, months or years. Under the amendment, if the detention centre does not comply and provide written notice of the extension of a sentence and explain the effect of the notice to the child, that extension may not be valid. In other words, the person running the detention centre is under a strong obligation to give written notice of the sentence extension, together with an explanation of that notice.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: You said that the young offender might be illiterate.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: And it states, "(b) an explanation of the effect of the notice to overcome the problem that they may be illiterate." Yes.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: So if you are going to give them a written notice, how will they read it?

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: Of course, a written notice is not helpful to those who are illiterate. That is why we need an explanation of the effect of the notice and, to her credit, the Minister has included that in the Act.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (The Hon. Janelle Saffin): Order! If members wish to join the debate, they should seek the call and contribute from the table and not from their seats.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: The Minister suggested that I had said detainees would be caught under double jeopardy. My understanding is that if a court extends a sentence relating to a charge from the time the detainee was not in custody, that extension of time is additional to any other sentence of the court. That was the issue that the Hon. Ian Cohen was concerned about, as was Justice Action in its email to me. I believe they both have misread the situation. I do not believe that is a problem, and the Minister will confirm that.

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment) [4.50 p.m.]: The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans is misunderstanding the situation. A further sentence imposed for the offence of escaping from lawful custody is a separate process. Street time, which is what this bill refers to, simply restores the original sentence. Therefore, it is added to the sentence, not served concurrently. The further sentence for street time is served consecutively. When prisoners escape, they are not serving their full sentences. They may have broken into a car and received a three-month sentence. If they escape for a week of their sentence, they are not serving the full sentence.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Or a month.

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: Or a month. They are not serving the full three-month sentence. Street time restores the original sentence, which had been subjected to every appeal process. It is not a sentencing issue. I will not go into any further detail as to do so would probably confuse the matter further. The Government does not support the amendment moved by the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans. However, whilst understanding the sentiment behind what he seeks to achieve, clearly the bill provides that a written notice is to be given to a person whose detention order is to be extended under this section together with an explanation, as the honourable member indicated, of the effect of the notice. The intention is to communicate clearly to the detainee should street time be applicable. However, to delete the words the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans suggests be deleted would mean that if written notice were not given for any reason, administrative oversight or whatever, street time could potentially be in jeopardy.

I do not believe an administrative oversight or error should undermine the purpose of this bill to add street time to a detainee's period of time in custody should he or she escape. The words the honourable member seeks to omit were included on the advice of Parliamentary Counsel. While understanding that the honourable member is trying to ensure that written notices are provided in all instances—clearly that is the intention of the bill—the Government cannot support the amendment of the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans. I indicate also that upon the passage of the bill detainees will be advised also in the induction process, when they first enter a juvenile justice centre, of the effect on them should they escape from custody or fail to return from leave so that they will be aware of the imposition of street time.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [4.53 p.m.]: Opposition members were handed this amendment just after delivering their speeches in the second reading debate. It is quite outrageous for crossbenchers to behave in a fashion that allows no time for other members to consider their amendments.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Refer to the member's name.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: With due apologies to Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, it was the Australian Democrats representative. It was said in another place in relation to senators that represent the Democrats that they are a triumph of style over substance. I believe here we have seen a triumph of stupor over substance. Unfortunately, this amendment really makes no sense at all. It would not achieve what the Democrats representative is trying to achieve. In fact, if it were to be adopted, it would leave the bill with another gap, which no doubt the Government would have to correct at some future time. The Opposition will not support the amendment.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [4.54 p.m.]: I agree with the Hon. Greg Pearce. If this amendment were passed, it would lead to a subjective situation where the detainee could argue at a later time, "I did not get told." The officer would say, "Well, I did tell him." The detainee would say, "He didn't tell me." And so it would continue. It raises a grey area and that would be why Parliamentary Counsel recommended it be included.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedules 2 and 3 agreed to.

Preamble agreed to.

Title agreed to.

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

Bill received and read a first time.

Motion by the Hon. Carmel Tebbutt agreed to:

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

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment) [5.00 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

In 1979, this Parliament passed the Real Property (Computer Register) Amendment Act. That Act enabled New South Wales to introduce the first computerised land title registration system in Australia on 31 October 1983.

Whilst title creation has been automated since 1983, the lodgment of subdivision and other plans in Land and Property Information New South Wales has remained a largely manual process. It requires a lodging party, who may be a private person but more often a solicitor or professional lodging agent, to attend the Sydney office of Land and Property Information and produce the plan and the associated documents.

The Conveyancing Legislation Amendment (e-plan) Bill 2002 will formally establish the first Internet facility in Australia for the remote electronic lodgment of plans and associated instruments, for registration by the Registrar General.

I must point out that electronic lodgment will not be compulsory. People will still be able to lodge their plans manually, if they so choose.

To provide an understanding of electronic lodgment I will first outline the principal features of the proposed legislation. Then, I will explain how the e-plan system is to operate in practice.

The e-plan bill will amend the plan registration provisions of the Conveyancing Act 1919, the Real Property Act 1900, the Strata Schemes (Freehold Development) Act 1973, the Strata Schemes (Leasehold Development) Act 1986 and the Community Land Development Act 1989.

The amendment of the Conveyancing Act sets the pattern for the amendments that are to be made to the other Acts I mentioned.

The Bill inserts a new section 6A in the Conveyancing Act. This section authorises plans and accompanying instruments, such as section 88B instruments creating easements and covenants, to be lodged electronically.

Whilst documents accompanying an electronically lodged plan will normally be lodged electronically, there will be exceptions in the case of certificates of title or old system deeds, which are generally lodged by mortgagees. On occasions, court orders, statutory declarations and other prescribed documents will also be produced manually.

The new section 6A also provides for a special approved form for signatures which is to be used for both electronic and manual lodgments. This form must be signed by the surveyor, the local council representative, the landowner, the landowner's mortgagee or lessee and others to indicate their consent to the purpose of the plan.

A further section to be included in the Conveyancing Act is section 195AA. This provision sets up the e-plan system. Under this system, a person can lodge plans and accompanying instruments electronically only if he or she is authorised to do so by the Registrar General. Approvals will be subject to conditions, and may be cancelled by the Registrar General.

The Bill amends section 195H of the Conveyancing Act to allow the Registrar General to require the electronic lodging of a replacement plan, if a plan that was lodged electronically is to be amended after being registered.

The Bill includes a new section 196AB in the Conveyancing Act to allow the Registrar General to require production of a copy of an electronically lodged plan, or the originals of any electronically lodged documents, or the original approved form for signatures. The production may be required either before, or for a period after, a plan is registered. It is envisaged that this power will be used to ensure that the plan and instruments which are lodged are of the highest quality, and to check on any alleged irregularity in a plan or document.

The second last amendment to the Conveyancing Act is the inclusion of section 203A. This deals with the evidential value of an electronic plan or document. The section provides that a hard copy version of any plan or other document that is registered in electronic form has the same validity and effect as an original plan or document if the copy is issued by the Registrar General.

The final amendment to the Conveyancing Act involves the insertion of a validation clause in Schedule 9 of the Act. The purpose of this amendment is to validate retrospectively the registration of certain proposed road acquisition plans, which were lodged with the Registrar General by the Roads and Traffic Authority, in order to test and develop the electronic plan lodgment system.

The amendments to the Real Property Act parallel those made to the Conveyancing Act which I have just outlined. They are particularly concerned with authorising the electronic lodgment of "delimitation plans". These are survey plans that are registered to establish the true boundaries of parcels in limited folios of the Torrens Register.

The amendments proposed for the Strata Schemes (Freehold Development) Act 1973 and the Strata Schemes (Leasehold Development) Act 1986 also parallel those of the Conveyancing Act. However, there are two additional changes to the strata schemes legislation that I should mention.

The first of these repeals obsolete provisions which require the Registrar General to send copies of registered strata plans to various rating, taxing and valuing authorities. Since this information is now made available automatically under administrative arrangements, the legislative requirement is unnecessary.

The second amendment to the strata legislation allows the Registrar General to apply the same presumptions of regularity to strata plans, as he applies to deposited plans registered under the Conveyancing Act. Those presumptions are, firstly, that a signature or consent given under a power of attorney has been authorised; and, secondly, that a subdivision certificate that has been given by the local council has been duly endorsed.

The last group of amendments to be made by the Bill are to the Community Land Development Act 1989. Again, these changes simply parallel those in the Conveyancing Act.

In the operation of the e-plan system, surveyors and solicitors will each have an important role to play, as they do now under the present land development and plan registration process.

Because surveyors are responsible for their plans, and have the capacity to prepare subdivision and other plans in electronic format, they are best placed to lodge plans electronically. However, before a surveyor or other person can lodge a plan electronically, he or she must be approved by the Registrar General and obtain a user-id and password from him.

As is mostly the case now, solicitors will be responsible for obtaining the signatures and consents required on the approved form for signatures. They will also continue to have the task of preparing the instruments to accompany a plan, such as instruments creating easements, covenants and strata or community title by-laws.

The surveyor (or other authorised person) will scan the completed approved form for signatures and any accompanying instrument in a Tagged Image File Format (called a TIFF file), and transmit them and the plan electronically to the Registrar General, using a secure Internet facility.

An on-line lodgment form is to be completed by the surveyor or other authorised person. When a plan is lodged, notice of the successful lodgment and the plan number, together with an invoice for the fees payable, will be forwarded by electronic means to the lodging party. The fees are to be paid within seven days by traditional means or Electronic Funds Transfer.

The certificate of title or old system deeds and any statutory declarations (eg, establishing adverse possession) must be lodged manually for connection to the plan. A plan cannot be registered without the production of these documents.

At lodgment, councils will be sent an electronic copy of a plan affecting land in their areas. This will enable councils to ensure that there have been no unauthorised changes to a plan after they approved it.

As has been the case since 1993, when a plan is examined and registered by the Registrar General, an image of the plan and the accompanying instruments will be stored in the Plan Imaging System of Land and Property Information New South Wales. As well, an electronic copy of the newly registered plan will be sent to the council for the area affected, and to other rating or taxing authorities.

The procedures I have outlined were formulated, as I said earlier, with the benefit of experience gained in pilot projects undertaken with the Roads and Traffic Authority and with private surveyors.

There has been wide consultation with user groups on the proposed e-plan system. I am pleased to say that the proposals have the support of the Law Society of New South Wales, the Institution of Surveyors, the Association of Consulting Surveyors, Law Stationers, the Major Banks and Licensed Conveyancers.

In excess of 12,000 plans are registered each year in Land and Property Information, New South Wales, by the Registrar General.

When implemented, the proposed legislation will deliver savings to Land and Property Information, New South Wales in processing plans and recording data. It will facilitate the direct lodgment of plans by councils and public authorities. And it will benefit landowners by reducing the time taken to lodge plans and have them registered.

The e-plan is yet another example of this Government's commitment to excellence in electronic Government.

I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [5.02 p.m.]: The Opposition supports the bill. This State is very fortunate to have a system of registration of land titles that makes it very easy for the Government to collect stamp duty revenue. Not only do we have a buoyant property market but we also have a system that allows a great deal of flexibility in the types of title that can be utilised and the pace at which and certainty with which registration and ownership of land in all its forms takes place. The bill provides for further amendments to electronic registration of documents and to various different types of titles, including strata schemes and community title. It will be very useful in ensuring that we continue to have an efficient and certain land titles system in this State.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [5.02 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the bill, which will update the procedures of the Office of the Registrar General with modern technology. More than 12,000 plans are lodged each year, which, previously, had to be lodged in person at the Sydney office. The bill provides the legal basis for remote electronic lodgment of plans and accompanying documents. Even though the bill states that such lodgment can be done by individuals, I imagine that in most cases it would be handled by solicitors and those with the appropriate technological skills so that there could be no question of an amateur creating havoc within the system.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [5.03 p.m.]: The Greens support the bill, which enables electronic lodgment of plans and associated instruments for registration by the Registrar General. Clearly, the bill will provide a sensible way to overcome not only the tyranny of distance by making it easier for non-Sydney people to lodge plans but also the considerable costs associated with such work. We emphasise that the bill will reduce the inconvenience faced by rural communities undertaking this work. However, as part of the Government's e-business agenda, the bill raises many perennial challenges of the technological age. Change is galloping along apace and, unfortunately, it is not unusual for the downside of these developments to receive insufficient attention. I refer to the impact on employment and the divide it can create between those who have the technological know-how and those who do not.

I emphasise that the Greens in no way oppose technology. Obviously, it has been a great boon to our work. The advantages are many: it creates opportunities for greater learning, community development, general power-sharing through the joys of email and the net, et cetera, and breaking down cultural barriers. Technology has many positives for employment, such as removing unsafe jobs, lowering costs of some services and providing opportunities for people in remote areas. However, new technology has many disadvantages. Every time we move forward our community should consider what it is losing. Jobs can be removed from the economy, and this is especially evident at the lower skill end of the scale. I am not sure whether the Government has considered the impact and the consequences of e-business on employment.

The Greens believe we should strive for an equitable sharing of the benefit of technological change. Port Kembla steelworks—I concede an example not in the immediate area addressed, however, relevant nonetheless—is indicative of the dilemma we face with technological change. Just 20 years ago the Port Kembla steelworks employed 23,000 workers. Today it employs only 7,000. That constitutes a huge drop in employment. If you were the owner of the steelworks, you would think that was a great plus, but the figures mask massive human suffering as a result of the considerable unemployment they represent. A cultural divide is created between those who have the skills and resources to join the e-society and those who do not. We must carefully weigh up these things when we move ahead.

We can redistribute skills to ensure that we do not experience an overall loss of jobs and ensure that retraining goes hand in hand with many of the changes we are witnessing in different areas. If we do not have an active program of redistribution of skills and wealth, we will create a social and economic divide that will place at risk the cohesion of our society. Some honourable members may dismiss that and wonder why I would raise this matter when we are talking about the Government's e-business. But these are fundamental issues for our society. We are in the very early stages of e-methods of conducting business, so we must think well into the future about how this will impact on our society.

One way to deal with unemployment is to introduce a shorter working week. I urge all honourable members to acquaint themselves with the experience in France that successfully reduced the hours in a working week without reducing the overall pay. As a result productivity in many areas has increased. We must actively develop public and community enterprises to very carefully examine these issues and ensure that the benefits of e-business are enjoyed not only by the business world but by all sections of our society. Technological change must be conducted in a way that benefits all. Although the bill contains many sensible measures, it also raises problems that require urgent attention that should not be left for future generations.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [5.09 p.m.]: I support the bill. It seems that technology has reached a level at which such things are now possible. The opportunity for forgery is low but, clearly, many people will look out for any hitches along those lines. As I said, I think the stage has been reached when this can be done. Information that is conveniently available by means of technology is welcomed. Perhaps some job losses may be involved, but the Australian Democrats do not believe that jobs that are technologically inefficient or obsolete should be retained. There is no shortage of work, although there may be a shortage of money or misapplication of the money that is available. It is to be hoped that the financial gains made in one area will be spent wisely improving the human condition in another area, or creating a job that otherwise would not have been created. I do not believe we want technological obsolescence to be what maintains jobs in New South Wales. If all conveyancing and plans can be transmitted into electronic form and disseminated, why is the Government's Register of Land not yet available on the Internet?

We believe it should be, so that we can see what assets the State has, and the public can keep track of them, particularly in regard to development applications. The maximum amount of information should be available to the public so that people can see at a glance the assets they hold, and so that land deals are not done quietly and unnoticed. People want to know the progress of development. An extension of the principle is that that information about the Government should be available to the people of New South Wales. We want a far more open government process and are concerned that, at the moment, government processes are becoming more closed. There is more Cabinet confidentiality and so on, whereas technology makes possible a far more participative approach to government. This technology should be used for the benefit of New South Wales. Open government is the foundation of better government. We support what can be done with this bill, but ask that the same be done in many more areas of government in New South Wales.

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment) [5.11 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate—the Hon. Greg Pearce, Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, Ms Lee Rhiannon and the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans. This is an important bill, for a number of reasons. I shall refer briefly to some of the issues that were raised during the course of the debate. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile asked who would gain approval to lodge plans. I can inform the honourable member that access to the e-plan facility will be available to New South Wales registered surveyors, or a nominated representative of a surveyor's company, and to an authorised representative of a government agency. I think that will address any concern the honourable member may have had.

The Greens have indicated they will support the bill. Ms Lee Rhiannon made some wide-ranging comments about the impact of technology. Any response by me to the matters referred to by the honourable member would probably be beyond the scope of this debate. However, electronic plan lodgment will deliver significant savings in processing. The benefits will accrue over an extended take-up period. There will be no immediate effect on staffing levels. Any staff that are no longer employed on plan processing will be retrained where necessary and diverted to other initiatives. I think that addresses her concern about whether the Government considered this issue in the development of e-plan.

Beyond that, e-plan will be the first Internet facility in Australia for the remote electronic lodgment of plans and associated instruments for registration with the Registrar General. It is a tried and tested system that protects information security and privacy, and enhances data quality. E-plan offers considerable benefits to land and property information in New South Wales in terms of cost savings and improved data management. E-plan will also benefit public authorities and local councils, who will be able to use the proposed system for the remote electronic lodgment of plans with the Registrar General.

This proposed legislation will especially benefit surveyors in rural and regional areas, who will be able to lodge plans direct, rather than having to employ a city agent to do so. For landowners who are subdividing land, particularly in regional and rural New South Wales, there will be savings in interest on loans because the lodgment of their plans will take minutes instead of days or weeks, as it does now. Finally, e-plan exemplifies the Government's commitment to electronic service delivery using the Internet to make government more efficient and to make people's lives easier. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

Debate resumed from 19 March.

The Hon. IAN WEST [5.15 p.m.]: I too congratulate Her Excellency Governor Marie Bashir on the magnificent work she has performed and continues to perform on behalf of the New South Wales citizenry. Her Excellency' historic appointment as the first woman Governor of New South Wales in March last year was another important step in our development towards an inclusive, cohesive and civilised society. Our culturally diverse State is reflected more and more in our public representatives. Her Excellency's appointment to this high office demonstrates the New South Wales Government's commitment to bring a united and vibrant energy to our public institutions. To begin with, I would like to go back a little to 1 March 2001 during the Governor's swearing-in oration. On that day Her Excellency said:

Today we live in a time of market pressures, with unfortunate consequences, in some cases, for our sense of community … I am heartened and encouraged by some signs that the limitations of materialism are better understood, and that more and more people are searching for a fuller and truly richer life that goes beyond acquisitions, and which extends to more intangible ethical and spiritual considerations, such as serving others, especially the more vulnerable. In this, we can learn from our indigenous brothers and sisters, who for thousands of years lived in real community as well as in harmony with the environment. In turn, as we are beginning to do, we can contribute more to those whose living conditions, health status and level of opportunity are often in need of improvement and the fair treatment that [Governor Arthur] Phillip directed so long ago.

Those comments from Her Excellency provide a rough outline of the emphasis being placed on helping the people of New South Wales to become more understanding of issues that we have yet to fully deal with. They also provide a good framework for helping people to become more critical in their approach to many social, political and economic issues that we so often see distilled to a tabloid form, and which, in so doing, lend themselves to oversimplification and political convenience. The Governor's Address to this House on 26 February outlined many steps that the Carr Government will be taking to further assist those people and their communities who are indeed most in need in New South Wales.

Substantial tasks face parliamentary representatives over the coming 12 months in modernising the State's infrastructure: promoting investment in employment, making our communities more liveable, delivering high-quality schools and hospitals, and taking steps to undo the immeasurable damage done to our environment through two centuries of unsustainable and mindless farming and development practices. I might say that if a group of people were told they had 200 hundred years to wreck an island, and were given axes and cattle to help them achieve that goal, in my mind they could not have done a better job than has been done here in Australia.

In New South Wales we are taking steps to address those past mistakes. I am pleased that the Government is continuing to commit itself to this massive task. I note also Her Excellency's comments in relation to the Christmas-New Year's Eve bushfires and reiterate the sentiments of thanks to the firefighters and sympathy to those who lost cherished and irreplaceable belongings. Her Excellency referred to this year being the centenary of white women's suffrage in both the Commonwealth and State parliaments. I make that important distinction so that we may honestly appreciate the historical perspective of this so-called milestone of equality and democracy. My comments are in no way reflective on Her Excellency's point in regard to women's suffrage; rather they arise from an amazement at the slow pace of parliaments around Australia throughout our history in reflecting simple truths and facts.

The ability of parliaments and parliamentarians to frustrate, delay and distort morally indefensible things such as not giving women the vote, or not giving Aborigines the vote, or a multitude of other social and political issues, must be soul destroying for so many groups in our society, in particular those who are personally affected. Yet we are confronted with the present situation. I take the opportunity to comment on some issues relating to suffrage in Australia because it is important to appreciate the relatively short period in which major sections of our community have enjoyed such basic, simple rights as the right to vote. We take these things for granted yet a closer look shows that the process was long, frustrating and, in large part, removed from the vast majority of the people of New South Wales. Much of it is little understood by a great majority of Australians.

The 1967 referendum empowered but did not require the Commonwealth to enact special laws for members of the Aboriginal race, as well as providing for Aboriginal people to be counted in the national census. The Australian Constitution of 1901 did not provide for citizenship nor for the vote; legislation provided for those things. When self-government was granted to Australian colonies in the 1850s the right of manhood suffrage was established. Male Aborigines, being British subjects, were given the right to vote. There is some evidence that in New South Wales on some major reserves—not the minor ones—some Aboriginal men did actually enrol and vote in the 1850s. Following Federation the first Commonwealth Parliament passed the Franchise Act, which provided that:

No Aboriginal native of Australia, Asia, Africa or the islands of the Pacific, except New Zealand, shall be entitled to have his name placed on the electoral roll, unless so entitled under section 41 of the Constitution.

Section 41 provided:

No adult person who has or acquires a right to vote at elections for the more numerous House of the Parliament of a State shall, while the right [to vote] continues, be prevented by any law of the Commonwealth from voting at elections for either House of Parliament of the Commonwealth.

So those who had the right to vote in the 1850s were not to have it taken off them. Section 41 was about guaranteeing South Australian women the right to vote in their State elections. The Constitutional Convention having been held in 1897, it should have also included the Federal franchise of Aboriginal people in all States except Queensland and Western Australia but—surprise, surprise—it just left that little bit out. The Solicitor-General advised that section 41 applied only to those who had acquired the vote prior to the Commonwealth Electoral Act being passed in 1902. The advice from the Solicitor-General was challenged by Mitta Bullosh, an Indian resident of Melbourne, some 23 years after 1902. The magistrate ruled that the interpretation was incorrect. The Commonwealth lodged an appeal with the High Court of Australia but withdrew the appeal for obvious reasons of international diplomacy. In its place legislation was enacted enfranchising Indian residents whilst still ignoring the legal rights of Aboriginal people. But the legislation enacted the franchising of Indian residents in Australia.

The Solicitor-General advised that the matter was one of government policy and that Aboriginal women in particular should not vote but that Indian residents coming from overseas countries would have the right to vote. On the basis of the court ruling, Aboriginal people should have had the right to vote. Throughout the 1920s and 1930s Aborigines who had been enrolled prior to 1902 lost their voting rights when the Commonwealth and States took up a joint electoral roll. A further 25 years later the 1949 Commonwealth Electoral Act was passed. It stated:

An Aboriginal native of Australia... is entitled under the law of the State in which he resides to be enrolled as an electoral that State and, upon enrolment, to vote at elections for the more numerous Houses of Parliament of that State.

Ten years later, in 1959, a select committee inquired into voting rights for Aborigines and recommended the extension of all voting rights. Three years later legislation was passed giving all Aborigines the right to vote in Commonwealth elections. Importantly, this legislation required that Aborigines, unlike the rest of the population, did not have to put their names on the electoral roll and therefore did not have to vote. The period from 1960 to 1965 removed more discrimination: in 1966 the Commonwealth finally deleted a clause relating to pensions, unemployment and maternity entitlements for Aborigines, including those deemed nomadic or primitive. New South Wales removed its last discriminatory laws in that regard in 1963. That is all well and good, but the presumption of the removal of discrimination was not based on an acceptance of and respect for the Aboriginal culture; rather it was about providing a path to white culture for those willing to abandon their previous way of life. A good example of this can be found in the Western Australian Natives (Citizenship) Rights Act of 1944, which allowed an adult Aboriginal person to apply to a magistrate for citizenship if, among other things:

For two years prior to the date of application he has dissolved tribal and native associations except for lineal descendants or native relations to the first degree [and] for the two years immediately prior the applicant has adopted the manner and habits of civilised life.

If they did those two things they could go on the roll. During the passage of the Commonwealth Electoral Bill in 1962 Government member Peter Howson said:

No person is excluded from the Commonwealth franchise on the ground of race. These people have been excluded in the past because the concept has been irrelevant to them. It is obvious that persons of the Aboriginal race now realise—not because we have forced them to it but because they have come voluntarily—that they must adopt the sort of European civilisation that exists in Australia.

The 1967 referendum campaign therefore had much to overcome in the deep-seated prejudice that ruled our thinking at that time. Voting and citizenship are better understood in terms of symbolism; they are achievements we may point to and say we have made some progress. On the centenary of women's suffrage sadly true equality still does not exist. The pace of political, economic and social reform is frustratingly slow. The suffrage milestone is like the Aboriginal question—we achieve symbolic goals, and the rest is supposed to follow, but in some cases the reality of prejudice continues. Her Excellency's remarks leave it to all of us, not only in Australia but in the world, to get serious about world's best practice in human and working rights, social and political reform, environmental outcomes and reconciliation, and in making the economy a tool of the citizenry, rather than the opposite.

Therefore, I am very pleased that the Governor, in outlining the legislative and budgetary program of the Carr Government for the coming year, elaborated on the Aboriginal Communities Development program, now in its fourth year. This year the Government's program will link 10 communities to clean water, build or buy 67 houses, fix 15 sewerage systems and train 240 Aboriginal apprentices in landscaping, carpentry and construction. Further programs to address existing disadvantages include improving the public sector's engagement with Aboriginal communities, lifting living standards, offering strategies to grow Aboriginal businesses, releasing an Aboriginal languages policy to assist in the revival and preservation of indigenous languages, and creating partnerships to address sexual assault in some communities.

Those important new steps will address more than 200 years of malevolent and benevolent abuse of the first people of our island continent, but we still have some way to go towards reconciliation. I turn now to regional and rural communities and the 2002 Year of the Outback. I will comment briefly on the opportunity for rural communities to further develop and showcase their achievements and natural beauty. The further decentralisation of public sector jobs and relocation of jobs to rural and regional areas is a further important step in nurturing towns and providing opportunities for community, personal and career development.

The Carr Government has an impressive record on that front, having already created or relocated approximately 3,100 jobs in rural and regional areas, with another 1,500 coming up in the next three years. These are real jobs, not junk jobs like the three part-time jobs that one has when one does not have a real job. These are full-time, proper jobs that provide some dignity and future for people. Fairer access to public sector services is a vital part of the Carr Government's program. The development of one-stop shops to deliver natural resource programs and the opening of 45 access centres in small towns throughout New South Wales to improve services such as car registration, boating licence renewal and birth certificate applications, are excellent initiatives.

The continuing roll-out of 96 community technology centres giving information technology training and Internet access to rural and regional areas is very promising. I turn now to the environment. I am pleased that the Government will introduce legislation in response to the Kerin western lands review and will finalise key regional natural resource management plans involving catchment management, water sharing and regional vegetation management. Salinity is one of the biggest environmental issues facing Australia. The agreed strategy of the Salinity Summit, held in Dubbo two years ago, continues to be implemented with 50 major projects completed or under way and involving more than 600 land managers.

The development of market-based solutions to tackle salinity, such as salinity and carbon credits, also sounds extremely promising. A co-ordinated approach is required and I am hopeful that the Federal Government will at last come to the party and properly fund approaches to this important issue. The abuse and frittering away of the Federation Fund and funds from the sale of Telstra leaves a lot to be desired when one considers the state of the environment. A further Government initiative mentioned by Her Excellency is the Families First program. Each year that $82 million integrated early intervention plan supports 50,000 families with young children through antenatal care, home-based care, supported playgroups and family centres.

The Families First program is helping to bring about improved child and maternal health, better functioning families and reduction of conditions that lead to child abuse, juvenile crime and substance abuse. As a member of the Standing Committee on Social Issues, which is currently looking at early intervention into learning difficulties among other things, I was pleased to be part of the launch of the issues paper "Foundations for Learning: A New Vision for New South Wales?" Education is accepted as a very potent means of overcoming economic disadvantage and I have confidence that this important issue will be addressed by the Carr Government in a fully integrated program to assist better learning in New South Wales.

The improved co-ordination of early childhood services, specific programs to address learning difficulties in children who are not identified as having a disability, better transition programs, improved means of identifying children with difficulties, better reading recovery support and therapy and increased availability of more efficiently used resources, will help to overcome a problem which previously has slipped between the cracks. Although between 2 per cent and 4 per cent of children are estimated to have specific learning difficulties, who knows how many lifetimes of poverty could be avoided through addressing those important issues at the early stages of a child's development, that is, between birth and eight years?

I turn now to the State economy. I note the Governor's comments that New South Wales continues to drag the Australian economy along. The New South Wales economy has outgrown the national economy in five of the past six years. We have had six healthy budget surpluses and are on track to do the same with the budget this coming May. However, unlike the Federal Government, the Carr Government does not need to twist or be loose with the truth on its way to a third term.

Labor governments throughout history have done the hard yards in reforming the economy. The Federal Coalition has put itself up as the great economic manager, yet it is unable to deliver a surplus budget. Its undertakings come at the expense of our public infrastructure. Members of the Federal Coalition are a bunch of vacuous miscreants. They have brought shame upon this nation for refusing to say sorry to our indigenous nation, for rorting, for pursuing conflicting interests whilst in power, and for seeking to apportion blame to and foster hatred for those least able to defend themselves in the public arena.

One hideous example of the Federal Government's dishonest attack on the institutions that have served to build up our fragile, civilised society is that of the Royal Commission into the Building Industry. The intention of this royal commission is to destroy one of Australia's leading employee organisations. The Federal Government's clear intention is to deregister the union. It is a classic Alice in Wonderland, in which the Queen said to Alice, "First the verdict then the trial." One wonders, if the events of September 11 and the Tampa had not occurred, just how political this union witch-hunt would have become during the election campaign last year. The last royal commission undertaken into the building industry in New South Wales by the Greiner-Fahey governments cost more than $40 million. The Federal royal commission will cost an estimated $80 million. That is $120 million just to try to kill off one innocent employee organisation.

I will conclude on a positive note, so I will talk about the work of the Carr Government with regard to education and health. The Carr Labor Government is committed to the practical and real use of resources to improve access of New South Wales citizens to high-quality programs and services. This year $7.6 billion—yet another record amount—will be spent maintaining and improving the highest standards of achievement in our schools and technical colleges. The inclusion and extension of numeracy and literacy programs, specialist attention to disruptive students, a package to address teacher shortages, the continuing placement of 115,000 computers in schools and the continuation of the $50 back-to-school allowance all speak volumes of the Carr Government's second to none commitment to education. A Coalition government would get rid of that allowance because the Coalition does not appear to understand the hardships faced by families in paying for the many expenses associated with the start of the new school year.

Recurrent funding for health stands at $8 billion. That is another record and speaks volumes for the Carr Government's commitment to ensuring high-quality care for all people in New South Wales. New hospitals, new strategies to attract former nurses back to the profession, new mental health services and acute care are all an indication of the Government's continuing commitment to health. I have not been able to mention all of the Government's achievements and plans for the coming year because there is insufficient time. However, I will conclude by congratulating Her Excellency the Governor on an excellent description of this upcoming session of Parliament. I commend the motion.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [5.44 p.m.]: The Speech of Her Excellency the Governor on 26 February was, unfortunately, yet another example of the smoke and mirrors act of this Government. It confirmed that Labor has no record, no plan and no vision for the State of New South Wales. In fact, it would appear to be trying to make itself as small a target as possible in the lead-up to the next election, which is now only 12 months away. What we see from this tired and stale Government is a rehash of announcements, some of which are now a few years old and have still not been delivered. However, that demonstrates the Government's real motive for opening the new session of Parliament. By proroguing the Parliament the Government, with a stroke of the pen, wiped the slate clean of potential legislation. All sorts of embarrassing little relics were wiped from the slate with the proroguing of Parliament. Who can forget the original workers compensation bill of last March? I intend to follow on from the comments of the Hon. Ian West, who will not forget the original workers compensation bill of last March—indeed, he nods in agreement with me—that led to a union picket line around this Parliament.

The Hon. Ian West: Point of order: I take exception to the Leader of the Opposition describing my actions in the Chamber. I do not think he is in a position to verbal me. My point of order is that it is not appropriate to verbal me in this House.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Janelle Saffin): Order! There is no point of order.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: The Hon. Ian West must have been nodding off. If that is the case, I apologise. I took his nodding to be agreement with what I was saying. Who could forget the workers compensation bill of last March; it led to a union picket line outside the Parliament. Government Ministers were forced to cross the picket line by a Premier too afraid to face angry workers and who scurried into the House via the State Library like a tunnel rat. The Hon. Peter Primrose might have been one of the members to cross the picket line back in those halcyon days of last March, although I may be wrong. If I am not wrong, it should be acknowledged that he was prepared to cross the picket line to enter the Parliament. On that occasion the Minister for Industrial Relations was too afraid to cross the picket line so he bunked down on his sofa upstairs and slept there overnight, all warm and fuzzy in his flannel pyjamas, leaving his colleagues to face the wrath that he had created. Both the Premier and the Minister ratted on the very unions who once supported them.

We then had the independent contractors bill, which was introduced way back in June 2000. It hung like a millstone on the notice paper until the Governor's opening freed the Minister from it. I will now turn to the substance, and more rather lack thereof, of specific aspects of the Governor's Speech. After all the trouble the Government experienced last year with the industrial relations portfolio, particularly in the workers compensation debacle, it is obvious that the Government wants things to be nice and quiet in the lead-up to the election. In fact, only two items are mentioned in the Governor's Speech: amending section 106 of the Industrial Relations Act relating to unfair contracts, and that old chestnut, the relocation of WorkCover to Gosford.

I note that unfair contracts made their way into the Governor's Speech. Last year there were two draft bills in circulation before the Government decided to pull the pin on bringing them before the House. One can tell there is an election in the air because, unlike workers compensation, this legislation is unlikely to get the trade union movement offside. Although we do not know the final content of the proposed legislation, I hope that the Government will consider valid issues and not simply issue a bash-the-executive sop to appease its union mates. For example, the Industrial Relations Commission has required the chief executive officers of companies to be present during conciliation hearings of unfair contract matters otherwise it will not proceed. Does this mean that the chief executive officer of companies such as BHP or Coca-Cola Amatil Ltd would have to attend a conciliation hearing because a staff member was sacked? What is wrong with having the relevant human resources manager or some other suitable person attend?

The Government might consider this issue. In addition, jurisdictional arguments are not being addressed before hearings commence, with the result that some named parties who should not even be present spend time and money appearing in court or at conciliation hearings explaining their case. The WorkCover relocation to Gosford was neglected in the Governor's Speech. It rated a short mention on page 4, where it is stated that 440 WorkCover jobs are going to Gosford. However, we must ask: How much longer will we have to hear re-announcement after re-announcement of this relocation? The relocation of WorkCover has been going on for many years. It was outlined in the previous Governor's Speech and it has still not occurred.

The Hon. Doug Moppett: We will hear about it again in the budget.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: The Hon. Doug Moppett is right. WorkCover is still trying to recruit staff—a process that began more than two years ago. We have heard nothing from the Government about the increasing propensity of WorkCover to take a commercial approach to occupational health and safety breaches, treating them as a form of revenue raising rather than as criminal matters.

We have heard nothing from the Government about how WorkCover now serves employers with notices for alleged occupational health and safety breaches. Employers are warned that if they do not pay up immediately they will incur high penalties until the matter is resolved. Under the statute of limitations, a breach notice could arrive up to two years after the alleged incident occurred and the employer would have to decide immediately whether to defend the matter. If the employer chose to do that, his or her costs would rise until the case was resolved. Even if they are right, employers will face the likelihood of increased costs before they have a chance to defend themselves. This seems to be a ploy on the part of WorkCover to be a bovver boy to employers.

The most glaring omission from the Governor's Speech is the proposed third tranche of reforms to the workers compensation scheme. It is a shame that the Hon. Ian West is not in the Chamber to encourage me as I explore the Government's failure yet again to deliver on its promises. The third tranche of workers compensation reforms have disappeared off the radar screen. The Governor's Speech contained not a single word about controlling the scheme's deficit. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister for Industrial Relations will say about this in the next few months—if he says anything at all. Future workers compensation inquiries will indicate what the Minister might say.

I remind the House that last Friday honourable members participated in the workers compensation forum that was organised by General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 and discussed scheme design. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile asked me to take part in the debate but I thought it would be better if the Minister told us in which direction he thought the third tranche of reforms should head in the next couple of months. However, the Minister did not even attend the forum. He did not believe it was important that he—the great architect of the third tranche of reforms—

The Hon. Michael Egan: He's a very busy man.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: You are obviously talking about someone else.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Janelle Saffin): Order! The Leader of the Opposition will direct his comments through the Chair.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: He wasn't even there for the first part.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile points out that the Minister was not present for the most important part of the forum when the key stakeholders—whom he invited to participate—gave verbal presentations. They made written submissions to the committee, but they also spoke to them.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: I invited them.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: That is true, but the Minister floated the idea of the forum and indicated his preparedness to assist in arranging it. The Minister also failed to explain to the committee what he means by "scheme design" or the "third tranche of reforms". It was pretty obvious to all Opposition members who attended the forum that the Minister intended to use it as a policy guide dog because he has no idea where to go from here.

It is not a matter of his setting out the direction in which he wishes to move; he has absolutely no idea, and he hoped that the forum would remove his blindfold. However, the Minister did not even bother to attend the morning session to hear stakeholders' contributions, and he failed to spell out the direction that he believes the third tranche of reforms should take in the next 12 months.

It is also interesting to note that shortly before the forum the Minister wrote to all committee members indicating that he believes there will be no further reforms to the scheme for at least 12 to 18 months. So I think we can assume that the scheme will not be reformed for a couple of years. It is also worth mentioning that almost a year ago, on 27 March 2001, the Minister waxed lyrical in a ministerial statement about the 2001 workers compensation reforms—which caused Labor members of Parliament to cross a picket line.

In that speech the Minister referred to what has come to be regarded as the mythical third tranche of reforms to workers compensation. The first tranche of reforms was introduced in 2000 and the second tranche led to last year's great debacle. However, there is apparently to be a third tranche as well. On 27 March last year the Minister for Industrial Relations said:

To complete the Government's overhaul of workers compensation legislation, stage three will be brought forward in the spring session and will focus on the simplification of the legislation.

We failed to understand that the Minister was referring to the spring session of 2003 or 2004; we automatically assumed that he was talking about the spring session this year. We apologise for any misunderstanding on our part and ask that, when the Minister signals his intention to make quick reforms to workers compensation in future, he clarify that his considered time frame is a couple of years rather than the next few sitting weeks or months.

As I noted earlier, the Governor's Speech contained nothing about independent contractors. Let me refresh honourable members' memories: In 2000 the then Minister for Industrial Relations, Jeff Shaw, attempted to introduce legislation in this area in the dead of night and was met with a wall of opposition. This stalled legislation, which had been sitting on the notice paper for more than 18 months, is now gone. Perhaps the Minister has shown some commonsense for once and learned his lesson. The Government's contractor legislation was a disaster, and the House was right to reject it. The Minister may be assured that Opposition members will keep their eye on him in the next 12 months to make sure that he does not reintroduce this unfair legislation.

The Governor's Speech contained nothing about unfair dismissal laws, which are a major burden on the business community of this State. The Government has never bothered to listen to legitimate concerns about the operation of the State's unfair dismissal laws. In contrast, the New South Wales Coalition issued a discussion paper entitled "A Fair Go For All"—a concept for which this Government has little time. The high number of responses received from all over the State clearly points to the need for reform. We require an effective system that both protects employees and allows employers to manage their businesses effectively. The New South Wales Coalition is listening to those concerns but the Carr Government has no record, no plan and no vision when it comes to unfair dismissal laws.

I was not surprised that employee entitlements were omitted from the Governor's Speech. All last year the Minister spruiked about variations to five-point plans and about getting together with his Labor mates from other States—all of whom were critical of the Federal Coalition Government's funded scheme that provided assistance to workers abandoned so callously by the Carr Labor Government—to fix the problems. The Federal Government has now expanded its scheme to assist workers who have lost their entitlements after Labor State governments—including the New South Wales Government—proved to be full of nothing but hot air while crying crocodile tears for workers.

The Hon. Michael Egan: Point of order: As the Leader of the Opposition is speaking in the Address-in-Reply debate, I would have thought it would be appropriate for Opposition members to be in the Chamber to listen to his speech.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I am sure that Coalition members are listening attentively to my speech as they work busily in their offices.

The Hon. Michael Egan: Further to the point of order: If Coalition members are listening attentively, they will now come to the Chamber—as they should—to listen to the Leader of the Opposition's speech during the Address-in-Reply debate.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT: Order! The Treasurer will resume his seat.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Minister Della Bosca made many bold statements of principle in this House about how schemes to fund employee entitlements should not be taxation funded. The atmosphere here was pleasant before the Treasurer turned up. The only saving grace is that he is sitting on this side of the Chamber. His rightful place is exactly where he is sitting now. It will only be a matter of months before he returns there. We look forward to seeing him sitting there with the light from the hospital as a backdrop. It is good to see also that the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries is in the Chamber. I look forward to his support, like that which I received from the Hon. Ian West earlier. On 15 December the special Minister of State said:

But the principles are clear: it should not be a taxpayer-funded scheme but an employer funded scheme.

Of course, he was talking about workers entitlements. Then on 24 October he said:

The Premier has outlined on a number of occasions, as have I, that New South Wales requires and will insist upon a scheme that is employer funded.

How things have changed! Or should I say: How things have not changed. The New South Wales Government allegedly is working through its five-point plan with its ministerial and Labor colleagues from the other States, but has come up with no alternative. They were all working on this and on the Beazley plan—the House might remember he was the failed leader of the Federal Labor Party who was resoundingly thrashed at the last Federal election by a Howard Government that focused on the message to deliver a better economy and better standard of living for every Australian. Of course, Kim Beazley had his plan and people thought very little of it. The exact same thing can be said of the Australian Labor Party in New South Wales: it has the rhetoric but it has no plan and absolutely no idea of how to fix workers entitlements.

It is with great pleasure that I refer now to the Hunter and Central Coast region, in my new role as the shadow minister for that area, which is an extremely important part of New South Wales. I was pleased to attend a Newcastle and Hunter Business Chamber lunch earlier this month with the guest speaker, of course, being the Minister for Industrial Relations. I am sure the Minister would know what I mean when I say I will not speak about the architecture, the paintwork or the artisans who created the building. The Minister did just that when he had the opportunity to speak to the business community of the Hunter: he spoke about the architecture of the building. He had absolutely no plans to divulge to this industry group about where he wanted to go with industrial relations.

I remained for some time after the luncheon and spoke to a number of employers. They were very disappointed with the Minister's contribution. The Minister is probably upstairs listening, so I say to him that when he goes back to the Hunter—if he is ever invited back—and gives a speech to the business community about industrial relations he should actually speak about that topic as it pertains to the Hunter and not waste time by speaking about the architecture of the town hall to those who paid money to hear him. He waxed lyrical about the architecture and did not speak at all about the unemployment rate of 11 per cent in an area that has a work force of 465,000 and the even more frightening rate of youth unemployment of 19 per cent.

State Government support is needed urgently for employment projects such as the $2.8 billion Austeel development and other steel production proposals, the reconstruction of Marathon Stadium, and the multipurpose terminal in the port of Hunter. The Labor mates of the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries can expect to see more Coalition members in the Hunter. I am absolutely overwhelmed, as is the Hon. Patricia Forsythe, who is a daughter of the Hunter, with the response we have received in the Newcastle electorate. Those people want a change. The current member for Newcastle, or should I say the outgoing member for Newcastle, is doing an outstanding job of ensuring that the people of Newcastle swap to the Coalition, and we will see more of that significant move in the ensuing months and years.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe draws to my attention a newspaper headline "Labor calls crisis talks to heal the rift". This sort of thing is happening each day in Newcastle, so rather than barking behind me, the Treasurer would be far better off, as would his colleagues, doing something about the Austeel project. As time ticks away and he assures the House that there are no problems with that project and everything is going well, he would be far better off driving up the F3 and talking to the people. They are very concerned about the future likelihood of that project. I expect that the Austeel project will disappear and that a new project will emerge. The multipurpose terminal will become the new vision for the Hunter as Labor tries to claw back its ever diminishing support in the area.

Law and order is as big an issue in the Hunter and Central Coast regions as it is throughout the rest of the State. Honourable members would not be surprised at the impact of law and order issues on their constituents or, indeed, on the Labor Party's constituency in particular throughout these regions. The Governor's Speech did not mention the suburb of Stockton, where the local police station was closed. The local business community called on me to attend and listen to their concerns. A petition about the problem was circulated in the area and at least as a result of work we have done, local residents now have a police officer for a few hours during the week. However, the crooks in the area found out fairly quickly when the police station was closed and simply changed their hours of operation.

One local Stockton shopkeeper resident told me that it was common knowledge in the local hotel that as the patrons of the pubs or clubs were about to leave, someone would ring the police radio network and report a furphy incident. They would be informed that it would be 15 to 20 minutes or half an hour before a car could attend, thereby giving the intoxicated patrons of pubs and clubs the clear opportunity to drive home. This shopkeeper said the same thing happened when people planned to commit break and enters. It was only a matter of making a phone call and the police would tell the caller how long it would be before somebody could attend, thereby giving the would-be offender the opportunity to commit the offence.

Woy Woy Peninsula residents also know what it is like to have a Clayton's police station. Unfortunately for these people they have two such police stations: Woy Woy and Umina. Some very insignificant signs of life can be found at Woy Woy police station, but, like a scene in a spaghetti western, it is nothing more than a facade with no interior substance and certainly no permanent general duties police. Umina simply had a shopfront until the Minister and his department decided to not even pretend the police were there and simply failed to renew the lease. Morisset received a shiny new police station when Commissioner Ryan first arrived on Australian soil. The first significant announcement he made was that money had been invested in Morisset police station.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Do you think he'll get his 10-year badge?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: No, I do not think there is much chance of his getting his 10-year badge. What is of more concern is that he arrived in 1996 and that police station is now infested with white ants. The white ants were found after an arson attack upon the police station. The police did not learn of the arson attack for about three days. When they did, they discovered that one part of the building had been set alight and that the smoke alarms had not gone off because no-one had bothered to connect them. Fortunately the fire extinguished itself, but had it really taken hold, the entire Morisset police station and the white-ant infestation would have been well and truly gone.

The Hon. Rick Colless: Whose electorate is that, anyway?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Jeff Hunter's.

The Hon. Rick Colless: Jeff Hunter?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: You have probably never heard of him.

The Hon. Rick Colless: No.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: No. Then, of course, there is Raymond Terrace police station, Kincumber, The Entrance and the multitude of other stations throughout the Central Coast and the Hunter that are either closed or unmanned, or have officers working in substandard conditions. I turn now to the bridge toll and the F3. It is only a matter of time before we see the management capabilities of this Government. Thank goodness for Jim Lloyd, the Liberal Member for the seat of Robertson.

The Hon. Don Harwin: A very good member.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: He is an outstanding member. He really is a role model to all marginal seat members. He was very successful in getting money from the Howard Government to ensure that the F3 had three lanes from Kariong down to the Hawkesbury River.

The Hon. Don Harwin: Frank Walker never did anything about it.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: He did absolutely nothing. I think most members of the Australian Labor Party would agree with that. Jim Lloyd got the money, but that has now been transferred to the State Government to administer. How it administers roadworks on the F3 over the next couple of years will be very interesting. We will look at that very closely. It goes without saying that the bridge toll is a very unfair impost on the workers of the Central Coast who travel to the southern part of Sydney every day.

A good friend of mine, Don—he will be in the Chamber later this evening—lives at Kariong on the Central Coast and travels to Matraville every day. He has the pleasure of paying the $3 toll on the Sydney Harbour Bridge as well as $3.60 on the Eastern Distributor. He works unusual hours of an evening. I think I would be right in saying that he would not take his life in his hands by travelling on the State Government train system at night-time. He would not have the confidence in the system to do it day after day. He elects to drive, knowing that it will cost him $6.60 in addition to his petrol to get to and from work every day.

I refer now to the seat of Peats and its recurring problems. One thing we certainly will not read about in the Governor's Speech is that some members of the Australian Labor Party, indeed in this Chamber, are busy trying to find themselves a seat in the other place. As a result the constituents of the Central Coast seat of Peats are getting even less representation than normal from their local member, as she busily tries to ward off a challenge from the Minister Assisting the Premier for the Central Coast. An article in the Central Coast Express Advocate of 27 February, just one day after the Governor's Speech, reports that Marie Andrews would not be surprised to get a tap on the shoulder from John Della Bosca. But she hopes he will be happy to stay with us in this House. She said she is hopeful he will stay in this House, but she does not believe she will avoid his tap on the shoulder.

It is a shame the Minister Assisting the Premier for the Central Coast is not here to express his view. If he were to take over from the honourable member for Peats, I am sure he would make a good absentee landlord. Surely, if he were to take over the seat of Peats it would be only a matter of time before the people of Peats would look forward to a Liberal member of Parliament representing them. It was interesting to note in the article that the honourable member for Peats referred to herself as just plodding along. She said she would be happy just to plod along, a comment that reminds me of the giant dinosaur outside the Australian Reptile Park at Somersby in the electorate of Peats. Some honourable members may be aware that the dinosaur situated outside reptile park is aptly called Ploddy. Perhaps the honourable member for Peats is trying to tell us on whom she has styled herself in her representation of the seat of Peats.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: Is she on any list?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I think she is on the Minister's list, but I do not know if she is on any other list.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Janelle Saffin): Order! I interrupt the honourable member to remind honourable members that it is highly irregular to make personal reflections on members in the other place.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: It is important that we keep a watchful eye on what is occurring in Cessnock. It will be a very interesting move if the Minister for Police, who now has a home in Kurri Kurri and has located himself there—

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: Wollombi.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Thank you, I thought it was Kurri Kurri. I am sure honourable members could imagine him mixing it with the locals in Cessnock on a Friday and Saturday night, rubbing shoulders with the locals. It is only a matter of time before we see what is evolving in the seat of Cessnock. There is some suggestion from the locals that the honourable member for Cessnock in the other place may be offered a job in the upper House. There is talk among the locals that they might play swaps.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: He is going to be promoted!

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: He may well be promoted, and the Minister for Police may take his place in the seat of Cessnock. It is worthwhile putting that on the record. Some of the local residents in Cessnock to whom I have spoken are watching that very closely. In the next couple of months we and the people of Cessnock will have a better understanding and clearer picture of who their representative will be for the next couple of years. I am sure the Minister for Police will spend more and more time in the Hunter, particularly in Cessnock. We wish him well because there is one thing that the people of Cessnock will not like: a carpetbagger. He will have great problems convincing the people of Cessnock that he is in any way interested in their concerns.

The Hon. Michael Egan: Who are you talking about?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: The Minister for Police.

The Hon. Michael Egan: He is going to take over from me in this place in 2016.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I am sure the Treasurer knows that what I am saying is the truth.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [6.17 p.m.]: It is with great pleasure that I support the motion that this House adopt the Speech delivered by Her Excellency the Governor, Professor Marie Bashir, on 26 February at the opening of the third session of the Fifty-second Parliament. Fourteen years ago I stood in this Chamber and made my first speech in the Address-in-Reply debate, which, incidentally, was also my inaugural speech. I opened my address in Chinese, my mother tongue, and in doing so I became the first member of Parliament to address the House in the Chinese language. If one reads Hansard, one will see the words written in Chinese: "A journey of a thousand miles must start with the first step." Those words are from the famous Chinese philosopher Lao Tse. I was reminded of these words and of my ethnicity during the Governor's Address at the opening last month.

When I was elected to the upper House in 1988 I became the first woman parliamentarian of Chinese descent in Australia. Back then not many women, let alone ethnic women, were in Parliament. The Hon. Franca Arena became the first woman migrant to enter an Australian Parliament when she was elected in 1981. Now we have Professor Marie Bashir, who not only is the first woman Governor of New South Wales but is of ethnic background. That certainly reflects the acceptance of the multicultural nature of our contemporary Australia. It was even more pleasing to see our first ethnic woman Governor flanked by our female President, the Hon. Meredith Burgmann. Fourteen years ago the Governor of New South Wales was Sir David Martin and our President was the Hon. Johno Johnson.

It was fitting that two women chaired the opening of Parliament last month. As Her Excellency the Governor noted during her Address, 2002 is a significant anniversary in the political history of our nation and our State. It is the centenary of women's suffrage in both the Commonwealth and New South Wales parliaments. We have certainly come a long way since those first steps taken by the suffragettes in the nineteenth century and by women like Franca and me in the 1980s. But the journey is not yet complete. There is still quite a long way to go towards achieving political equality for women in this country, and the world generally.

Australian women were well ahead of other nations in gaining the right to vote and to be elected to political office. But, despite making up just over half of this State's population, women hold only 20 per cent of seats in this Parliament. As I see it, the task before us now is to fill seats in this Chamber with more women, particularly ethnic, immigrant and Aboriginal women. It is only through the participation of both men and women from all backgrounds and all walks of life that we can have truly democratic governance. Women in this country must also continue to fight for social and economic equality. One area that demands improvement is that of women and work.

Despite the advances we have seen in recent years, and despite antidiscrimination legislation, women who are pregnant continue to be routinely discriminated against in the workplace. In August 1999, after a 10-month inquiry, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission released its report on pregnancy discrimination entitled "Pregnant and Productive". The report found that women in this country are routinely denied employment or career advancement because of pregnancy or potential pregnancy. Women are harassed and victimised because of pregnancy, have had their working hours reduced and have been denied training. The report tells of one woman who was sacked immediately after telling her superior she was pregnant.

It is a sad indictment of women's status in contemporary society that pregnancy is still considered to be a job liability. As recently as last December, Anna Burke, Federal Member for Chisholm in Victoria, revealed that she had been pregnant with her second child during the November election campaign. It was reported that she had deliberately kept this a secret for fear that she would be denied preselection if she told anyone. Another major inequity confronting pregnant women in the workplace is the lack of a uniform paid maternity leave scheme. Women in Australia are currently entitled to 12 months unpaid maternity leave. Only 23 per cent of women employed in the private sector and 59 per cent of women employed in the public sector currently have access to paid maternity leave.

Without the right to maternity leave benefits, many women in this State are being denied the freedom to pursue both work and family. This is simply unacceptable. I acknowledge that many employers are moving on this issue, which is pleasing. In August 2001, the Australian Catholic University set the benchmark on paid maternity leave by granting women employees with more than two years service the right to 12 weeks leave on full pay and then 40 weeks on 60 per cent pay. In November 2001 local councils granted women staff nine weeks paid maternity leave. In December 2001 the clothing retail chain Esprit granted its workers up to 12 weeks paid maternity leave. Later that month Wollongong University granted its women employees 12 months paid maternity leave, made up of 13 weeks on full salary and 39 weeks on 60 per cent of their full pay. I commend those employers for their progressive approach to work and family. It is alarming that many women in this State seemed to accept pregnancy discrimination as a form of unfair treatment that is just a part of life. The freedom for a woman to pursue a career and family is not a privilege; it is a human right.

Returning to the Governor's Address, I found it extremely gratifying that Her Excellency the Governor specifically acknowledged the inquiry into Cabramatta policing by General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3, of which I was the Chair. That committee's report, which was tabled last July, contains 25 unanimous recommendations directed at achieving real and constructive solutions to the policing challenges and drug crime problems that were found to exist in Cabramatta. I am pleased to inform the House that both the Premier and the New South Wales Police Service have assured me that the committee's recommendations will be implemented.

While the response to the committee's report has been overwhelmingly positive, honourable members may remember that it was at times a highly charged and often controversial inquiry. Right from the start the committee was subject to intense media scrutiny and unjustified political attacks. Its members were accused of all sorts of things, such as being in the pocket of the police, denying the voice of the Cabramatta people and deliberately attempting to undermine the community's confidence in the New South Wales Police Service. Those accusations were never justified or proved. In fairness, they were often caused by confusion and ignorance about the parliamentary inquiry process and the upper House committee system. But, sometimes they were not that. There were other people who tried to politicise the inquiry and use it for their own gain.

One very vocal opponent of the inquiry at the initial stage was Councillor Thang Ngo of Fairfield City Council. I am pleased to say that Councillor Ngo changed his stance and became a very vocal proponent of the inquiry. He even wrote to the committee at one stage to flag the community support of the committee's work in Cabramatta following a series of community consultations he had had. I take this opportunity to thank Councillor Ngo for his support of the inquiry. Somewhat surprisingly, the local member for Cabramatta, Ms Reba Meagher, was also very critical of the inquiry. To give just one example, in a private member's statement in the other place on 23 November 2000 Ms Meagher stated that the inquiry "smacks of a whitewash". Honourable members will also recall that the former Minister for Police, the Hon. Paul Whelan, attacked the inquiry in the media and demanded that it be "shut down". He was subsequently censured by this House for his comments. It was a very historic occasion because it was the first time the Legislative Council had censured a Minister in the Legislative Assembly.

Nevertheless, support for the inquiry was always strong within the Cabramatta community. During the course of the inquiry I received many telephone calls, letters and emails from local residents and police officers expressing their support for the committee's work. I still receive them, although not as many as I received during the inquiry. Another measure of the committee's success is the fact that a member of this House, who was not even a member of the committee, has attempted to claim credit for initiating the inquiry. That is a disgrace! The credit for this inquiry must go to the members of the committee, to the Cabramatta community and to the front-line police officers.

Local residents contacted me on many occasions in desperation about the situation in Cabramatta. That is how it all started. The inquiry was established in response to calls from the people of Cabramatta for assistance in dealing with policing and drug crime problems. They were the ones who championed the inquiry and fought for the right to live and work without fear. I am sure the success of the inquiry belongs to them. It is not appropriate for me to discuss the findings of the Cabramatta police inquiry today. There is a motion on the business paper to take note of the report of the committee, and honourable members can debate the findings when the matter comes before the House. I was also very pleased to hear the Governor note in her Address to Parliament the importance of local community involvement in crime prevention. I believe that that is crucial if we are to improve relations between the police and the public, particularly ethnic communities.

As someone who has an ongoing involvement with cross-cultural community members and groups, I know that many people from non-English-speaking backgrounds have immense difficulty communicating with police. On 13 March the new Minister for Police, the Hon. Michael Costa, announced in answer to a question without notice that 15 police officers from the Cabramatta local area command have become the first police officers in Sydney to be awarded a TAFE certificate in Vietnamese policing. Each of those officers is now able to conduct a basic conversation in Vietnamese. More importantly, they will be able to take down the information necessary to allow people from non-English-speaking backgrounds to report a crime—information such as names, addresses and telephone numbers. I commend the Minister for Police for this new initiative.

Currently, the New South Wales Police Service seeks to provide support for people of non-English-speaking backgrounds who may come into contact with police through the Ethnic Community Liaison Officer [ECLO] program. The role of ECLOs, who I note are civilian officers and not police, is to enhance communication and understanding between police and ethnic communities. Unfortunately, to my disappointment, it has become clear to others and to me that the ECLO program is not working very well. The main problem is that while ECLOs are required to speak a language other than English, they are not placed in communities that reflect their ethnic backgrounds or appropriate language skills. The result is that in a suburb such as Cabramatta, where 27 per cent of the population speak Chinese, there is no Chinese-speaking ECLO. It is hardly surprising that there are continuous complaints from the Chinese community about the difficulties they experience in communicating with police.

In response to a question without notice that I asked in September last year about the ECLO program, the Minister for Police stated, "The linguistic background of an ECLO cannot be the sole criterion upon which recruitment is based." I do not suggest for a moment that this should be the sole criterion, but I firmly believe that the linguistic skills of ECLOs should reflect the language and cultural needs of the community in which they are based. In my view, the role of ECLOs is not clear to the community and their work needs to be more accountable. It may surprise many members of this House to hear me say this as I was a strong supporter of the program when it was introduced, in about 1987, but it is clear that the program is not very effective and is a waste of resources. I suggest that ECLOs be replaced with sworn police officers who possess a language skill that reflects the needs of the community. I made some recommendations in my Cabramatta policing report about sworn police officers of ethnic background.

At the official opening of Parliament the Governor acknowledged the presence of the Consul-General for China, Mr Liao Zhihong, who attended in recognition of the fact that this year, 2002, is the thirtieth anniversary of Australia's formal recognition of the People's Republic of China. Australia and China have developed a mutually beneficial relationship over the last 30 years. Australia now has diplomatic ties and extensive trade and cultural links with the People's Republic of China. China, one of four key partners that Australia has recognised, has an important impact on our economy and political sphere now and, I believe, will continue to have in the future. In March 1997 Prime Minister John Howard visited China and in 1999 President Jiang Zemin made history by being the first Chinese head of state to visit Australia.

China's importance to Australia's economic stability and growth should not be underestimated. In 1973 two-way trade between China and Australia was worth $113 million. In 2001 it had grown to $17.9 billion. In June 2000 Australian investments in China were at $1.57 billion, making China our fifteenth largest destination for overseas investments. Chinese investments in Australia at this date were at $3.4 billion, making China our twelfth largest investor, with a focus on real estate and resources. We export mainly primary resources to China, including iron ore, wool, copper ores and petroleum. China's recent entry into the World Trade Organisation has on-flowing benefits for Australian companies in China. It is likely that Australian investment in China will grow as a result, as China will be required to remove certain restrictions towards Australian companies wishing to work or invest in China.

Australia has developed strong trade and cultural links with China over the last 30 years. In 1978 the Australia-China Council was established by the Federal Government. The council has an important role to play in developing networks and contacts between Chinese and Australians, and increasing the knowledge of Australia in China and vice versa. The current chairman of the council is Dr John Yu, Chancellor of the University of New South Wales. In 1996 he was Australian of the year. He is a friend of mine and has done a great job as chairman of the council. Honourable members will be aware that China will be the host of the 2008 Olympic Games, the largest international sporting event. I was very proud when I heard it announced last year, as were many other Australians of Chinese background. Of course, New South Wales has a lot of experience and expertise from our hosting of the Olympics in 2000. It would be beneficial to both Beijing and New South Wales if the New South Wales Government shared some of its expertise and experience with Beijing. I am sure this would help develop our strong relationship in business and tourism with China. New South Wales already has a sister relationship with Guangdong Province. This year is a significant year for the establishment of that relationship.

Economic and cultural delegations between China and Australia play an important part in the development of our bilateral relationship. Delegations from China to Australia and vice versa invigorate trade and joint ventures, educational exchanges and investment in real estate property and industry. I have received and hosted a number of delegations from different parts of China in my capacity as a member of New South Wales Parliament. Many members of delegations have come to New South Wales as tourists but some come to make economic links in a particular industry, to learn about new technology or how we structure our parliamentary, legal or education systems. Today I received a delegation from Zhejiang, which members might have seen in the Chamber. Delegations from China are a great boost to the economy of New South Wales not only in tourism dollars but also in investment and business.

To give an example, a few years ago I received a visit from an economic and trade delegation from Jining city in Shandong Province. This delegation went on to invest in a wool processing plant worth $20 million and in a canola oil plant worth $15 million. More recently, in July 2000, I received an agricultural delegation from Nanping in Fujian Province. Many of the businessmen in the delegation expressed an interest in sourcing cows in large numbers from New South Wales for export. Obviously this sort of economic activity will greatly assist dairy farmers who were forced to exit the industry following deregulation. I have been fortunate to visit China many times, often as a delegation participant. Most recently, in February this year I led a business delegation to Lanzhou in Gansu Province in the north-west of China. I was invited to Lanzhou by the Vice-Governor of the province, Mr Yang Zhiming, who visited Australia last April at my invitation.

My visit to Gansu was a fascinating educational experience. China's west only just recently opened up and is still behind in its development compared with the coastal provinces. It was very interesting to see this region of China, which is so unlike the big cities of Guangzhou, Shanghai and Beijing. Gansu is an area where secondary industries such as clothes manufacturing and metal processing are very dominant. My visit to Lanzhou had positive outcomes for both Gansu Province and New South Wales; a nine-person, high-level delegation from the government of Gansu Province visited Sydney shortly after my return from Gansu. A week later another delegation from Gansu visited New South Wales.

The nine-person Gansu delegation came to Sydney to attend the 2002 World Congress on the Peaceful Reunification of China and World Peace, which I also attended. This congress was organised by the Australian Council for the Promotion of Peaceful Reunification of China, ACPPRC. Close to 1,000 people from places as far afield as Russia, the United States and England and as close as the Solomon Islands, Hong Kong and Taiwan attended the Sydney Convention and Exhibition Centre at Darling Harbour for three days in February to hear high-profile speakers discuss the important issues of world peace and the peaceful reunification of China and Taiwan.

The congress was honoured to have former President of the United States Bill Clinton as the keynote speaker. Unfortunately, the Rt Hon. Malcolm Fraser, former Prime Minister of Australia and honorary patron of ACPPRC, was unable to attend because of his recent knee surgery, but he provided a significant speech for the congress, which I was privileged to present on his behalf. Mr Fraser's speech was supportive of the peaceful reunification of China. He stated that Australia needs to assert itself in dealing with the United States on this issue and Australia should continue to adopt the one-China policy for the future security of our region. This policy has been in place since the joint communique of 21 December 1972 in which Australia recognised China and acknowledged that Taiwan is a province of China.

I turn to the nature of our multicultural society. Her Excellency the Governor mentioned that the Government this year will be implementing stage two of its youth partnership with Arab speaking communities. This is to be applauded. It is important that members of ethnic communities are included and can fully participate in our society. That is why the Community Relations Commission for a Multicultural New South Wales is so essential. The commission plays a necessary role in breaking down language barriers through providing vital interpreter and language translation services. These services are used by government and community organisations every day.

Honourable numbers will recall that in the year 2000 the commission's name changed from the Ethnic Affairs Commission to the Community Relations Commission for a Multicultural New South Wales with the enactment of the Community Relations Commission and Principles of Multiculturalism Act. I believe that this name more accurately reflects the diverse religious, linguistic, ethnic and racial make-up of the population of New South Wales. The term "ethnic" was certainly outdated. When the bill was debated in this House I moved a successful amendment to include the words "for a Multicultural New South Wales" in the name of the Community Relations Commission.

Late last year the commission played an important role in bringing together many communities in a Unity in Adversity Forum held at Government House. The forum called for harmony and understanding in troubled times and it condemned terrorism. Religious leaders, leaders of political parties and consular corps came together under the banner of the commission to call for unity and to reaffirm Australia's tolerance and goodwill. That forum was organised in the wake of the terrorist attacks on the United States of America and the senseless attacks on Australia's Muslim community. That community was intimidated and their places of worship were attacked.

The commission's forum had important symbolism; it was a strong statement for tolerance and calm in New South Wales. It came at the end of a year of intense debate on racial matters, which had been aired on talkback radio, television and in newspapers. The past 14 years have certainly been a journey for me as a member of this House. As I said earlier, that journey began with my very first contribution to the Address-in-Reply debate and inaugural speech in 1988. Since then I have made an array of speeches in this Chamber on a variety of topics. In preparing for this speech I spent some time looking back over my previous contributions to the Address-in-Reply debate. I am pleased to say that I have spoken in every single Address-in-Reply debate for the past 14 years; an achievement of which I am very proud.

The issues I covered during those speeches were immensely diverse and wide ranging. In my first contribution, in 1988, I stated that while my special interests were ethnic affairs, racism and women's rights issues—which I have spoken about today also—I hoped to take an interest in all matters raised in this Chamber. Over the subsequent 14 years I did exactly that. While I have remained passionately committed to ethnic affairs and women's rights issues I have also become deeply involved in many other issues and causes such as Aboriginal affairs, State development, tourism, youth, fair trading, policing and industrial relations.

My interest in those areas is reflected in my contributions to the Address-in-Reply debates. If nothing else, becoming a parliamentarian certainly broadens one's mind and experiences. Now, 14 years on, I know many more things than I ever would have thought about as a social worker or a solicitor. Looking back over the past 14 years I can say that Parliament has certainly changed, and not necessarily for the better in some ways. When I first became a member, decorum in this House was paramount. Unfortunately, I feel that this Chamber has lost the level of respect and discipline that it once had. I could only speculate why that is so, but perhaps it is due to the greater number of Independents and minor parties.

Those members do not seem to be as disciplined as they could be, or as the major parties are. It is only fair that I make that statement. I have observed also that members do not seem to make as many speeches as they once did. The budget debate is a case in point. I was very disappointed that I did not have an opportunity to speak on the budget last year. The budget is the one piece of government policy that affects all people in this State in one way or another. As elected members of Parliament we have a duty to debate the budget. I hope that I will have an opportunity to express my views about the 2002-03 budget later this year.

On a more positive note, this House seems to have become more family friendly over the years. In my early days as a member, we would sit for 14 hours almost every sitting day. Thankfully, we do not tend to sit that late nowadays. I commend the Treasurer, the Hon. Michael Egan, for this change for the better. Because of that change, Parliament has a more human face than it had before. Another plus is the increased number of Independents and minor parties from a diverse range of backgrounds and experiences. I think diversity has broadened and enhanced our debates. It is pleasing that voters in this State have consistently demonstrated that they see a significant role for Independent members and minor parties in Parliament. This is representative democracy in action.

I look forward to another challenging year. I am as committed today as I was 14 years ago to serving the people of New South Wales to the best of my ability. Once again I congratulate the Governor on the gracious and dedicated way in which she has carried out her office. I wish her all the best and I support the motion.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay.

[The Deputy-President (The Hon. Janelle Saffin) left the chair at 6.49 p.m. The House resumed at 8.30 p.m.]

Bill received and read a first time.

Motion by the Hon. John Della Bosca agreed to:

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

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Schedule 1

The Hon. IAN COHEN [8.33 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 1:

No. 1 Page 3, schedule 1, proposed section 49PA, lines 8-13. Omit all the words on those lines. Insert instead:

(2) Nothing in those provisions renders unlawful discrimination against a person on the ground of disability if the discrimination is on the ground of the person's actual and current addictive use of a prohibited drug.

The amendment clarifies the operation of the bill. It ensures that the bill does not discriminate against people who have used prohibited drugs in the past. The Anti-Discrimination Act was one of the great achievements of the Wran Government, and it is appalling that a Labor Government would amend it to take away protection for people who are subjected to this type of unfair discrimination.

The Government claims it is not the intention of the bill to affect the rights of people who are successfully rehabilitated. If so, this should be clearly spelt out in the bill. The amendment limits the bill to current and addictive use of a prohibited drug. Without the amendment the bill could apply to anyone with a history of using prohibited drugs. This very important amendment will provide employers and employees with a clear statement of their rights and responsibilities. This amendment should receive the support of the Committee, and I commend it.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [8.34 p.m.]: The Government does not support the amendment, because it would create too much uncertainty as to what is "actual and current addictive use" of a prohibited drug. In particular, by focusing on issues rather than on addiction it risks narrowing the bill to the point where an employer could act only if the person is actually using the prohibited drug at the time. The bill already makes it clear that the exception it creates will apply only when the person is actually addicted to a prohibited drug at the time of the discrimination. This aspect of the bill was noted in the second reading speech and no further amendment or clarification is required. The Government opposes the amendment.

The Hon. JAMES SAMIOS [8.34 p.m.]: The Coalition also opposes the amendment.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [8.35 p.m.]: I spoke to this point during the second reading debate. Some members who opposed the bill spoke about those who were drug addicts 20 or 30 years ago and who are now reformed drug addicts, but who could be discriminated against under the provisions in the bill. So far as I can understand the wording, the bill is quite clear: a person must be actually addicted to a prohibited drug at the time of the discrimination. That is perfectly clear.

The Hon. IAN COHEN [8.36 p.m.]: There is a great deal of dispute about when a person is no longer considered to be addicted. Some say that those who have been addicted to a particular drug, such as heroin, and have undergone a regime to kick the habit, are still addicted, just as many people consider that rehabilitated alcoholics are still alcoholics. That is where the problem lies. People could be caught by that provision of the bill, and that would be very unfair for people who left active drug use behind them many years ago. Yet the provisions of the bill could see them discriminated against. They are vulnerable and they need the support of the community, rather than vilification.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [8.37 p.m.]: Sometimes we must behave as a Parliament. I am somewhat dismayed to hear the Hon. Ian Cohen talk as if he had not read his amendment. He spoke about circumstances in which a person left behind an addiction many years ago, but his amendment is in terms of a person's actual and current addictive use of a prohibited drug. As a Parliament we cannot support this type of provision. The Hon. Ian Cohen should be consistent in what he says, and read his amendment. I certainly will not support it.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. IAN COHEN [8.38 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 2:

No. 2 Page 3, schedule 1. Insert after line 13:

(3) However, nothing in this section makes it lawful to discriminate against a person on the ground of the person having hepatitis C, HIV infection or any medical condition other than addiction to a prohibited drug.

This amendment is essential to protect people with medical conditions such as HIV and hepatitis C, and it addresses the concerns of the Anti-Discrimination Board. It is of great concern to the Greens that the bill opens the way for discrimination against people with these conditions. Without the amendment, workers with these conditions could lose their rights to protection under the Anti-Discrimination Act. I commend Greens amendment No. 2.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [8.39 p.m.]: The Government supports the amendment. The amendment that the Greens initially foreshadowed was not acceptable. It would have undermined the entire bill. It would have excluded from the protection of the bill any discrimination on the ground of disability if the disability related to, among other things, any medical condition or impairment relating to drug use.

If disabilities relating to impairment were excluded, there would be nothing that the bill would apply to. However, the amendment has now been modified so that it applies to discrimination on the ground of medical conditions other than addiction to a prohibited drug. The Government will support the modified amendment, which shows, once again, the Hon. Ian Cohen's courage, on behalf of the Greens, to negotiate and introduce very necessary changes. I congratulate the honourable member on his endeavours in relation to this amendment.

The Hon. JAMES SAMIOS [8.40 p.m.]: The Opposition also supports the amendment moved by the Greens.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with an amendment and passed through remaining stages.

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [8.42 p.m.]: I am pleased the Treasurer is in the Chamber to hear my contribution to the Address-in-Reply debate.

The Hon. Michael Egan: That is why I am here.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I was saddened to hear that you might be leaving the Chamber.

The Hon. Michael Egan: At 9 o'clock. You will be finished by then.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I doubt it. So many bad things have happened as a result of the actions of this Government that I could not possibly finish in 15 minutes if I am to do justice to pointing them out. I am pleased to be able to respond to Her Excellency the Governor's Speech on the occasion of the opening of the third session of the Fifty-second Parliament of New South Wales. I take this opportunity to join with other members of this House in congratulating Governor Marie Bashir on her work in this important position. I know that her commitment to country communities is strong and I know that country towns across New South Wales have appreciated the time she has taken to visit them in company with her husband. They show their country roots and they are received warmly wherever they go.

The Hon. Tony Kelly: You can take the girl out of the country but you can never take country out of the girl!

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: That is true. Equally, you can take the country out of the Country Party, but you cannot put the country into the Labor Party. As is the convention, on the occasion of the opening of Parliament the Governor delivered an address that was prepared for her by the Government. It purported to deliver an overview of the Government's achievements and its legislative program for the coming parliamentary session. The Leader of the Opposition in the other place, Kerry Chikarovski, hit the nail on the head when she said that there was nothing particularly new or exciting about the content of the Governor's Speech. I listened with interest to Governor Bashir's Speech—certainly with more interest than the member for Tweed, who dozed off.

The Hon. Michael Egan: Point of order: The member who dozed off was a member of the Opposition benches. I was sitting where the Government Whip is sitting now and I noticed one of the Opposition members nodding off. I think there was only one member in the House who nodded during the Governor's Speech, and that was clearly an Opposition member, not a Government member. I did not want to name that member.

The Hon. Rick Colless: To the point of order: It was clearly obvious to me and to a number of my colleagues that it was a member of the Labor Party who dozed off for a substantial proportion of the Governor's Speech.

The Hon. Michael Egan: Further to the point of order: It was, in fact, an Opposition member who not only dozed off but snored loudly. I do not want to mention his name.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: To the point of order: I was seated in the benches towards the end and I could see that, although I am sure the Treasurer is very genuine in his comments tonight, he could not possibly have seen the member for Tweed from where he was seated. From where the Treasurer was seated he certainly could not have observed the member for Tweed as he smiled and enjoyed himself having a snooze during the Governor's Speech. That angle is obviously not one from which you get a very good view of the other members.

The Hon. Tony Kelly: To the point of order: It is contrary to the standing orders to cast aspersions or reflections on a member of either House of Parliament. I would suggest that all members who have spoken to the point of order should withdraw their comments.

The Hon. Michael Egan: Further to the point of order: I have not named anyone. I merely said it was an Opposition member. I will tell the Hon. Tony Kelly privately who that member was. It was not the Hon. Don Harwin. Does anyone else want to be eliminated?

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

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Before I was interrupted by the Leader of the Government I was going to say that I have a certain sympathy for the member who dozed off during the Governor's Speech, because the content supplied to the Governor by the Government indicated how lazy and tired it has become. It is little wonder that honourable members who were listening to that Speech became lazy and tired as well.

I would like to concentrate tonight on some particular aspects of the Governor's Speech. I would also like to highlight for the benefit of the House some aspects that the Government has completely abandoned. Her Excellency mentioned the Government's plans to decentralise the Department of Local Government from Bankstown to Nowra, on the South Coast. This plan to move the department was first announced shortly before the last State election. The Hon. Don Harwin was here. Was it before the last State election or shortly after?

The Hon. Don Harwin: It was May 1999.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Thank you. Straight after the State election. It has taken nearly three years for the first sod to be turned on the building site in central Nowra.

The Hon. Tony Kelly: Name him!

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I acknowledge the interjection from the Hon. Tony Kelly. I am sure he will be pleased to have it on the record. At the time the move was announced, the Department of Local Government had a total of 130 staff—130 in May 1999. Then the Government began a slash and burn campaign within the department, abolishing specialist functions and outsourcing financial functions. As a result, staff numbers have dwindled to 58, which is less than half the number of staff at the time of the announcement.

The Hon. Michael Egan: Are you committing the Opposition to increase the number of staff? If so, by how many?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The Treasurer asked whether I am committing the Opposition to increase the number of staff in the Department of Local Government. I am detailing what his Government promised and what it is going to deliver. It promised 130 jobs to Nowra. What is the Government going to deliver? What is it going to deliver at the end of the day?

The Hon. Don Harwin: Fifty-eight!

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: No, fewer than that. About 30 people will ultimately move to Nowra—fewer than a quarter of the number promised. So much for the promise of a whole department being moved to Nowra in May 1999! Three years later not one job has moved there. We do not know what will happen before the next election.

The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: It will be too little, too late.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: How often do we hear that as we travel around New South Wales? That is what this Government delivers: too little, too late. It is like the promise on police numbers. The Government promised an increase in police numbers. Before the last State election Commissioner Ryan supported the Government in power, saying that the Opposition could not deliver the numbers. Yet it is 12 months to the next election and the Minister for Police is saying that the Government will have increased numbers by December 2003.

Mr Deputy-President, you are an astute man. You have represented your constituency for a long time. You would know that a promise to deliver numbers that should have been delivered before the election but will now be delivered nine months after the election is not worth the paper it is not written on. It is not worth one iota. What is it? Too little, too late. That is the story of this Government. The Government announced the move of a work force in excess of 120 people, but the move scheduled to be completed before the end of this year will involve about a quarter of the number of staff mentioned at the time of the original announcement. In addition, the move is almost 18 months behind schedule.

Staying with local government, I noted with concern that Governor Bashir's Speech contained absolutely no reference to what measures the Carr Labor Government will implement to address the outstanding issue of unfunded mandates to local government. By unfunded mandates I mean the extra duties and responsibilities the State Government passes down to local councils, expecting them to deal with a grab bag of issues without giving them additional funding or resources. Examples include transferring parking patrol officers to councils from the Police Service and expecting councils to pick up the tab.

The Hon. Michael Egan: No, councils will pick up the revenue.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: You cannot comment on this because you have been as mean as you have a reputation for being on this issue. If you had not been so mean, local government would have signed off with you by now. They are a pretty decent mob of people. They are pretty understanding. But you are the bloke that has not signed off on it. So I would keep quiet on this if I were you, Treasurer.

The Hon. Michael Egan: They are cutting their own throats because they are depriving themselves of revenue.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Local government is a pretty astute mob. I have never seen them avoid getting revenue. Accusing me of leading them away from getting revenue is damning me with faint praise.

The Hon. Michael Egan: They are all coming individually to see me now to do a deal.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: You are trying to divide and conquer.

The Hon. Michael Egan: You are in cahoots with your great mate Peter Woods. It does neither of you any credit.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: That is unparliamentary language. That is an unnecessary slur.

The Hon. Michael Egan: But it is true, isn't it?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Sometimes, for the good of local government, Peter Woods and I have to work together. This is one of our proudest moments, working to protect local government from the fiscal fiend.

The Hon. Michael Egan: Depriving local councils of money. What a stupid, stupid thing! I cannot believe what you have done.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The Treasurer is out of his tree again. He is fast and loose. Once again he is damning himself with his own words. He would be better to stay out of this debate because this is one area where his credentials do not add up. It is widely accepted that local councils are evolving to provide more than just the three Rs of roads, rates and rubbish collection for their communities.

The Hon. Michael Egan: Peter Woods wants to rejoin the Labor Party. I am not going to let him. Tell him to go and join the National Party.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: We have to draw the line somewhere. Many of the functions that councils are taking on are appropriate for them to conduct, but the bottom line here is that it is simply not fair for the Government to continue to foist these responsibilities onto councils without providing additional funding and resources. I was hoping for an indication in Her Excellency's Speech of when Treasurer Michael Egan will release the purse strings and begin to offer a share of the National Competition Policy payments to local government. This would ease the financial burden on councils immensely. Consider this—are you listening, Treasurer?

The Hon. Michael Egan: Yes.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Good. The New South Wales Government has been a major beneficiary of National Competition Policy payments from the Commonwealth, not to mention the GST revenue that is coming. The State Government received $148.6 million from the Commonwealth in 1999-2000. That rose to $155.9 million in 2000-01, and it rose again to $241 million in 2001-02. They are not small sums of money, especially for councils that are struggling at the moment.

If the New South Wales Labor Government were to follow the lead of its Labor counterparts in Victoria and release just 9 per cent—a miserable 9 per cent, Treasurer—of the State's total National Competition Policy funding allocation for 2001-02 of $241 million, some $21.7 million would be available for allocation to councils across the State. Why would you not follow the lead of the Labor Government in Victoria? This has cost local government a lot of money.

The Hon. Michael Egan: I reckon they would do a lot better than that if they accepted my offer to take over parking police revenue.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: They are going to get that money as well.

The Hon. Michael Egan: Are they?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: They should. You have to remember that your Government is giving them all the work, all the jobs you should be doing, and you are taking all the money. You are one of the meanest men in this country. The people on your back bench do not disagree with me. I can see that the people in the gallery agree. Unfortunately, when Labor members and Opposition members call him a mean man he likes it. He deems it to be praise, and he thrives on the praise.

The Hon. Michael Egan: It is my job to protect the taxpayers from thieves like you. That is my job.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Treasurer, if you were more benevolent it would make financial life easier for councils. They would not have to go cap in hand to the Minister for Local Government seeking rate increases above the annual limit. I also heard nothing in the Governor's Speech about the impending change in the Government's policy towards local government amalgamations and boundary changes. The Government's response to the Sproats inquiry, which will jeopardise at least two inner-city councils, goes against its election commitment not to force structural reform on local government. We all know about its election commitments. It went to the people against privatisation and now it is going to go ahead with it.

The same with local government: it had a commitment not to force amalgamations and now it is doing it. The Government is not willing to accept public submissions on the proposed changes. It is not willing to allow the residents and ratepayers of the affected areas to have a vote on the issue. The bottom line is that the Government is not willing to listen. For that reason I was expecting—and continue to expect—an announcement that this Government has now embraced a new policy of forced structural reform, because whether the Government announced it or not, that is what the people of New South Wales believe it is doing. They are into a process of forced amalgamations. The Minister is on record as stating that he would like a result of just 50 councils.

The Hon. Michael Egan: You are not still criticising me, are you?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: No, I am talking about Harry Woods; he is more inept than the Treasurer.

The Hon. Michael Egan: He is a good man.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Did the Treasurer force him to stay after he threatened to resign?

The Hon. Michael Egan: What a lot of National Party codswallop.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: No, I do not think that I am far wrong. I am talking about the bloke who does not like Bob Carr and who is on record as saying that he wants just 50 councils across New South Wales. That could be achieved only by forcing the will of the State Government on the 172 councils statewide. With regard to energy, in the past 12 months we have seen a quantum shift in the Australian Labor Party's [ALP] stance towards electricity privatisation.

In the past four months policy has been driven by Treasury and the Market Implementation Group, which has advocated the sale of two key units of the former Pacific Power entity. The six State-owned coalmines, operated by Powercoal, will be up for sale. Just last week the Treasurer announced that the engineering and consultancy business, Pacific Power International [PPI], would be offered for sale to the private sector. The Labor Party's policy in relation to Powercoal states:

Labor will maintain public ownership of the corporatised State owned coal mines, utilising their synergies as a group to maximise their economic performance.

That was Labor Party policy at the last election. The Labor Party's policy in relation to Pacific Power International states:

The ALP will ensure that Pacific Power International is fully resourced and has the technical, commercial and operational capability so as to maintain its role in Pacific Power's strategic plan to develop business in Australia and Asia …

The policy further states that PPI:

… retains the credibility of having Government support.

How does the announcement of a sale to the private sector adhere to those policies? Two members of Country Labor are in the Chamber: the convener of Country Labor, the Hon. Tony Kelly, and another so-called member of Country Labor from Camden. It is claimed that the Hon. Peter Primrose is a member of Country Labor.

The Hon. Peter Primrose: I wish they would.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Is the Hon. Peter Primrose a member of Country Labor or not? The Hon. Tony Kelly—the top dog; the kingpin of Country Labor—says that the Hon. Peter Primrose is not a Country Labor member. The Labor Party went to the election with that policy. Last week in this House I moved a motion condemning the Labor Party for breaking a promise to the people. What did the Hon. Tony Kelly do? He voted against my motion; he voted the Labor Party line. How has he voted on every occasion a matter relevant to people in country New South Wales has been debated in this House? He has voted against them and voted with the ALP. On not one occasion has this charlatan stood up for his country roots. Listen to the bleating from the other side. The Hon. Tony Kelly claims that on those occasions he was in the chair. There are other Deputy-Presidents who would willingly occupy the chair to let him vote against the Government's policy if that is what he wanted to do. But that has not happened. This Leader of Country Labor votes against motions that seek to condemn the Labor Party for breaking a pledge to the people in the Labor areas of Cessnock, the Hunter Valley and Bathurst—where the Pacific Power International and Powercoal jobs are located.

The Hon. Rick Colless: Shame.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Shame on him, exactly. Some 300 jobs are at stake with the impending sale of PPI, and a similar number, or more, with the sale of Powercoal mines. Over the past few days I have received many emails and faxes from employees of PPI and the Advanced Technology Centre at the University of Newcastle expressing concern at the sale process. Those concerns relate to job security, loss of intellectual property and the ability of the New South Wales power industry to access expert consultancy services once PPI is sold off. Frankly, this is a short-sighted move by the Government. Last week the New South Wales Labor Council newsletter, Workers Online, carried the headline "Egan Sells His Brains". I will not comment on that!

The Government is planning to do away with a group of highly skilled and motivated engineers on the pretence that there is no work for them in New South Wales. Frankly, that just does not add up. It is time for the Carr Government to take a reality check. The time will come when existing generation capacity needs to be overhauled or replaced. Ageing infrastructure will not last for ever, and when the time comes to start work on design and construction of new power stations where will the government of the day turn? Not to its own group of engineers who have the expertise to do the job, but to an expensive private sector consultancy. That is a disgraceful betrayal of the Carr Labor Government's 1999 election policy.

When the Government faces the people again in about 12 months time the Coalition will remind the people that they voted in the Labor Party overwhelmingly on a policy of non-privatisation. And the Government broke that policy. This so-called Country Labor faction adhered to the missive from the Sussex Street push, and not once did it cross the floor against it. On one hand the Governor told us less than two weeks ago that this is a Government committed to creating employment in country areas and decentralising jobs to regional towns.

On the other hand, however, we have an announcement that jeopardises coalminers' jobs in Lithgow and on the Central Coast, and an announcement that threatens the future of some 300 positions in Newcastle and Lake Macquarie. I wonder what will happen when the police Minister moves to Cessnock, and the Coalition tells the people of Cessnock that he voted against the Coalition's motion of condemnation and that he is in favour of people employed in the Cessnock power industry losing their jobs. We will tell them.

The Hon. Eddie Obeid: How come you have a place in Darling Point?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The Minister for Fisheries wants to remove trout from the Snowy River. He will not allow seeding of trout into fishing streams. He has the hide to come into the House and tell the Coalition what to do. Well, we have news for him. Is this the fulfilment of the Treasurer's long-held and treasured ambition: to privatise the industry? Only time will tell. Everyone on the Labor side knows that I am right. The Treasurer is winning his own battle to privatise the electricity industry and he has rolled his Labor colleagues. The Governor made reference to the current studies into the feasibility of undergrounding power lines. As the Opposition pointed out last year when the Premier announced the plans, just two days prior to the announcement the Minister for Energy, Kim Yeadon, ruled out the plan as too expensive.

The Hon. Eddie Obeid: No-one said we were going to do it from the Government's coffers.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The Ministers said "No-one said we are going to do it".

The Hon. Eddie Obeid: I said, "From the Government's coffers." Quote me correctly.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: On one day, Kim Yeadon, the Minister for Energy, said that the plan was too expensive, and two days later Captain Wacko, the Premier, said that the Government was going to undertake the task. What is the Government doing? Does the Minister know what the Government is doing?

The Hon. Eddie Obeid: No-one ever said that the money was coming from Treasury funds.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: This matter is of great interest to many suburban communities. I will be interested to hear of the results of the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal [IPART] study into the cost of undergrounding. Figures I have heard bandied about are wide ranging. The bottom line is that obviously the cost of such a proposal will have to be carefully examined. The Opposition will reserve judgment on this issue until such time as the IPART report is released. If the cost per household is such that it is not an unreasonable impost on electricity bills, it may have some merit. However, if the report concludes that the cost per household is exorbitant and that the benefits may be only minimal, obviously there will be a need to carefully examine the point of introducing such a policy.

Mention was made by Her Excellency of plans announced by the Premier to introduce compulsory greenhouse gas emission reduction targets to the electricity industry in an effort to achieve a 5 per cent reduction in 1990 emission levels by the end of 2006-07. That is a laudable goal. However, it is worth pointing out at this stage that there is absolutely nothing new in this announcement. Many of the Premier's so-called announcements are rehashed announcements. This one merely extends by five years the deadline to achieve the 5 per cent reduction. The Minister announced the intention the year before; all the Premier did was to reannounce it and add another year.

The Hon. Doug Moppett: Like a roneo machine.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Exactly. It is an admission by the Government that the voluntary reduction targets have not been achieved to date. However, I am not sure that a compulsory benchmark will be the answer either—and neither is the Minister the Energy. He was quoted, through a spokesman, in the Sydney Morning Herald last year as stating that there were doubts that a compulsory scheme would work. We agree that something needs to be done in this regard, and the Government should look carefully at extending existing schemes to consider alternative energy sources. It should also look at the cause of greenhouse gas emissions. Currently, it is the electricity retailers who are expected to meet reduction benchmarks and it is the retailers who will be fined should they fail to reach the compulsory reduction targets. However, as was pointed out to me recently, it is not the retailers who produce the emissions; it is the generators.

I would hope that some consideration is given to parity in this area so that any compulsory fines for failing to meet the benchmarks are not levied on a single part of the industry. As I have said in this Chamber on numerous occasions, the Government is in cloud-cuckoo-land talking about plans for greenhouse emission reduction on a one-off State basis. Greenhouse emissions have to be measured at a Federal level. The Government has rocks in its head talking about reducing the amount of electricity generated by New South Wales coal, which is basically a clean product. The New South Wales industry is at a disadvantage compared to the Victorian industry, which spews out dirty brown coal in Yallourn. The result is job losses in this State for something that is not achievable and it will actually have an adverse effect on the environment. The Government should forget these stupid ideas and use commonsense to achieve more for this State.

In conclusion, I thank Governor Marie Bashir for her attendance at the opening of the Third Session of the Fifty-second Parliament. Unfortunately, the Government prepared the address that Her Excellency read at the opening ceremony. I would much prefer to have listened to an address written by Her Excellency, which I am sure would have been much more insightful than the Government's document.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [9.13 p.m.]: I say at the outset how fortunate New South Wales is to have Her Excellency the Governor and Sir Nicholas Shehadie as our vice-regal couple. A number of colleagues have commented to me over the past few months about the exemplary manner in which they carry out their duties. Indeed, I witnessed that at a major anniversary function last year. Her Excellency is to be praised for her approachability, her sincerity and her warmth.

The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: And her sense of humour.

The Hon. DON HARWIN: My colleague the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner added "her sense of humour". I certainly endorse that comment. Sir Nicholas' handling of the role of first gentleman is everything we would expect from an outstanding public figure, as he has been over the years. Her Excellency's Government, however, needs to do a little better and that is plain from the Address the House is debating. Her Excellency said that students from Vincentia High School viewed her Speech live in an historic webcast, and that is very much to be welcomed. In fact, I hope that soon both Houses of the State Parliament can be viewed via webcast, as is the case with Federal Parliament. Her Excellency touched on several matters that would have been of interest to those students and other residents of the Shoalhaven, and I shall refer to a few of them in my remarks.

First, I would like to refer to a subject that was canvassed by my colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in his contribution to this debate. Her Excellency referred to the relocation to Nowra of 58 officers of the Department of Local Government. However, as my colleague pointed out, there is even considerable doubt about that figure.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: We hope it is 50.

The Hon. DON HARWIN: We certainly do. I would like to make two points. The Government promised this relocation to the people of Shoalhaven. In the 1999-2000 budget announcement the Government and the sitting member for South Coast promised with great fanfare that there would be an extra 130 wage packets being spent locally, a boost to the Shoalhaven economy. In fact, the gap between what was promised and what is being delivered is quite substantial. Shortly after the announcement, the Government announced a restructure of the department. The number of officers from the department was to be 58, but there is some doubt about whether all 58 officers will be relocated to Nowra.

As the director-general admitted in answer to a question I asked during the estimates committee hearing the year before last, staff involved with the Pecuniary Interest Tribunal and ministerial liaison and administrative support staff will remain in Sydney. In addition, a suite of offices is being kept in Sydney for senior executive staff of the department. Therefore, there are grave doubts that the Government will deliver on the 58 positions referred to in Her Excellency's Speech. I call on the Government to meet its original commitment and announce an additional number so that at least the number of departmental officers specified at the time of the May 1999 announcement will relocate to Nowra, not the 58 referred to in Her Excellency's Speech, or the lesser figure the Opposition suspects will be the case at the end of the day.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: As with everything else, we will believe it when we see it.

The Hon. DON HARWIN: The Hon. Patricia Forsythe hits the nail well and truly on the head: we will believe it when we see it. In so many respects this Government talks about doing things, but it will be a Coalition Government that actually delivers. Second, the way in which this relocation has been handled by the Government has been an absolute shambles. Four different dates have been given to the people of Shoalhaven as the completion date for the relocation. In the Budget Speech the Treasurer gave in May 1999, and the accompanying papers, we were told that the relocation would occur by August 2000. That time has well and truly been and gone. As result of a freedom of information [FOI] request my colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, as shadow Minister for Local Government, made to that department—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: And Treasury. We got different results from each of them.

The Hon. DON HARWIN: That is exactly my point. The Treasury FOI revealed that the Government was working on the date of March 2001. In February 2001—the March deadline was looming but there had been no action—the honourable member for South Coast claimed that the work would be finished by the end of 2001. However, that deadline has now been and gone as well. Less than a month after the honourable member for South Coast made his confident prediction of the end of 2001, he was contradicted by the Minister in an answer the Minister gave to a question on notice—illustrating the fact that the honourable member does not know what his Government is doing in his electorate. Minister Woods' answer to the Opposition's question on notice revealed that the Government is working on the date of January 2003—the fourth date that we have been given. What a surprise: that is just two months before the State election! This week we learnt that the building that it is proposed will accommodate the offices of the Department of Local Government does not meet Shoalhaven council's requirements for car parking.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: So the Department of Local Government building is having trouble with the local government, so to speak.

The Hon. DON HARWIN: I could not put it better than that. It just shows what a shambles this relocation is. The building—located in one of the busiest precincts of Nowra, across the road from the Coles and Aldi supermarkets—that will also house Department of Land and Water Conservation staff, who are currently accommodated elsewhere in Nowra, will have a considerable number of visitations, yet only seven parking spots are provided inside a security parking area that can be accessed by members of the public via an intercom. It is feared that this will not make the building user friendly and will worsen considerably the parking problem in O'Keefe Avenue, Nowra. It is an incredible shambles and certainly not what the people of the Shoalhaven had hoped for.

According to Her Excellency's Speech, major work will commence at Shoalhaven hospital in 2002. The Shoalhaven hospital upgrade began under the Greiner Government in 1992 and the new work is the second stage of that program. The new facilities that form part of stage two are very welcome but I am concerned about whether recurrent funding will be provided to the Illawarra Area Health Service to allow the redeveloped hospital to operate properly. My colleague in another place the honourable member for North Shore has had extensive discussions with local health professionals that have revealed informed concern that the recurrent funding will not be adequate.

Current funding does not permit Shoalhaven hospital to meet all Health Department benchmarks, so the concern is understandable. The department's figures revealed that in July last year 115 patients had not been seen within triage benchmarks in Shoalhaven hospital's emergency department. In November last year the Illawarra Area Health Service's Chief Executive Officer, Dr Sherbon, could not guarantee that the recurrent funding would be adequate. He commented in the South Coast Register of 5 November that recurrent funding for the hospital beyond 30 June was "up to the State Government". Dr Sherbon is a good officer and his answer was technically correct. I am sure that he will push strongly for the supplementation, but community concern about this issue is understandable.

The stage two works at Shoalhaven hospital have been described as a panacea for all health problems in the Shoalhaven. However, the reality is that current waiting lists for elective surgery are rising horrendously. It is not acceptable for the Government to do nothing about growing waiting lists and to allow people to languish in pain. Alternative arrangements must be made to deal with the waiting list problem prior to the completion of stage two. The number of people awaiting elective surgery at Shoalhaven hospital has increased by 60 per cent since Labor was elected.

Hon. Rick Colless: Didn't Bob Carr promise to halve waiting lists?

The Hon. DON HARWIN: The Hon. Rick Colless is right: this Government promised—it was allegedly written in blood—

The Hon. Rick Colless: Signed in blood.

The Hon. DON HARWIN: Indeed. The Government promised that waiting lists would halve. However, the experience is very different at Shoalhaven hospital, where waiting lists have increased by 60 per cent in the past seven years. According to the department's figures, 1,325 people were on the waiting list at the end of February. This Government's record on waiting lists is one of deceit. I am sure that some miraculous pot of money will appear in this year's budget in an attempt to fool the electorate with the appearance of action. That is what this Government is all about: a spin-led recovery. The Carr Government talks about solutions but it will take a Coalition Government to get it done.

I am glad that the Minister for Fisheries is in the Chamber because I now wish to refer to the Jervis Bay Marine Park. Her Excellency's Speech referred to the expanding national park estate. The amount of land in the Shoalhaven protected under the national parks Act has expanded substantially in the past year. This includes protection of the unique marine ecosystem of Jervis Bay—admittedly, that did not occur in the past year but it is certainly part of the national park estate expansion. That expansion is generally welcomed in the Shoalhaven—we just wish that the resources allocated for management would match the growing amount of land and sea that is in our national park and marine park systems.

A problem with marine parks is that there is no protection of their unique aquatic features until the Government promulgates a zoning and operation plan. It took some time, but we were pleased when the draft zoning and operation plan for the Jervis Bay Marine Park was released in October 2001. The three-month consultation period ended on 31 January. It is regrettable that at least a third of that consultation period overlapped with an incredibly traumatic time in the Shoalhaven when many areas with an interest in the marine park which were consumed by bushfires. That affected the consultation period, and that is a great pity. Therefore, I question whether there is full awareness of the implications of the draft zoning and operation plan.

There is plenty of awareness of the plan in the town of Currarong, where there is considerable concern about its implications for recreational fishing and, consequently, tourism in the surrounding area. There has been considerable feedback to the Marine Park Authority—which I am sure the Minister welcomes—from people in Currarong. I trust the Minister will respond to those concerns and balance the need to protect the area's unique environment with the worries of Currarong people about the future.

In the Huskisson area where I live—which was the first town in the Shoalhaven to be affected by the recent bushfires—there is little awareness of the key impacts of the draft zoning and operation plan. I spent most of my time at home over Christmas walking around the rocks at Tapalla Point and Shark Net Beach—which is where the Huskisson sanctuary zone will be—asking local residents and visitors to the area whether they knew what was about to happen to the town.

Almost universally none of them was aware of the impacts from this proposed authority plan. There will be no fishing of any sort off Shark Net Beach or the surrounding rock platforms, including Tapalla Point, off Greenfields or Blenheim beaches or the surrounding rock platforms at Vincentia, off Hyams Beach or the surrounding rock platforms, or off the mud flats of Currambene Creek between Huskisson and Woollamia. There will be no exercising of pets off the mud flats of Currambene Creek between Huskisson and Woollamia or on the sand spit at the southern end of Callala Beach and there will be no jet skiing around the entrance to Currambene Creek at Huskisson.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: What about the Minister's consultation process?

The Hon. DON HARWIN: That is a very good question. What about the consultation process? Over the Christmas period I found that still there was a very low level of community awareness in the Huskisson-Vincentia area. Marine parks have a multi-user philosophy, therefore commercial activities will continue in the bay. The economic benefits of any ecotourism are touted frequently in support of restrictions on economic activity that has accompanied the declaration of marine parks. The Regulation Review Committee, of which I am a member, explored this matter and also issued a report on the marine parks regulation. The Marine Parks Authority prepared an economic impact statement before the Solitary Islands Marine Park was declared. That report, entitled "The economic value and regional economic impact of the Solitary Islands Marine Park," was released in December 2001. It is a very good report and I congratulate the authority and the author of the report, Dr Derrin Davis.

The report contains a detailed input-output analysis that models the economic impact on local business, fishing, recreation and tourism. The benefits and costs for Coffs Harbour, Woolgoolga, Sawtell and other areas on the North Coast directly or indirectly affected by the declaration were fully outlined so that locals could consider them during the consultation process. This has not been the case with the Jervis Bay Marine Park. I shall return to that issue shortly. Shoalhaven City Council has raised a number of important changes that need to be made to the draft plan. Twenty three of them certainly need to be closely studied by the Marine Parks Authority before the zoning and operation plan draft is finalised.

Some of those concerns include, firstly, the threat to the Huskisson sea pool as the draft zoning and operational plan takes no account of the flushing of seawater from the bay in the Huskisson sanctuary zone, and, secondly, the need to ensure that the final plan does not preclude a second crossing of Currambene Creek downstream of the current bridge. Surely the need for that should have been obvious during the bushfires. No-one from Huskisson, Vincentia, Hyams Beach, Sanctuary Point or St Georges Basin could get from their homes to Nowra or, if they were out of the area, from Nowra to their homes. At least 10,000 people live in that area but Currambene Creek has only one crossing. For two days those who were out of the area on Christmas Day when the fires hit were not able to get home.

A third concern is about the need for special purpose zones around existing boat launching ramps in the bay and Currambene Creek. Fourthly, the need to recognise that a jetty may be necessary in the Upper Currambene Creek sanctuary zone to service the Comberton Grange area, where there is the possibility of tourism development. Finally, there is a need to develop a refuelling management strategy for boats using Currambene Creek and Jervis Bay. These are just five of the 23 concerns raised by the council that deserve close examination. I return briefly to the need for a regional economic impact statement on the proposal for the Shoalhaven. Certainly I do not question the findings of Dr Davis's study on Solitary Islands Marine Park that there was a net economic benefit for that region, but I fundamentally reject the assumption that what holds true for Solitary Islands Marine Park equally applies to the Jervis Bay proposal.

This ought to be apparent after considering just one issue that has emerged. The whole assumption of economic benefit is based on an extension of ecotourism in the Jervis Bay area, yet ecotourism in the marine park requires accessibility, generally speaking, by boat. Proper boating facilities are critical for ecotourism. The boats used for dolphin and whale watching in Jervis Bay as well as other cruise boats that leave from Huskisson require wharves. Dolphin and whale watching cruises are a very important tourist business for the town. The final zoning and operation plan must recognise also the important role of boat ramps and adequate refuelling facilities. Current refuelling arrangements at the Huskisson wharf are grossly inadequate. There exists the potential for an environmental hazard to the marine ecosystem causing damage to the sensitive seagrass beds at Currambene Creek if nothing is done about improving the refuelling facilities.

We all hope that ecotourism will expand but this draft zoning and operation plan does not provide for any such expansion. The lack of a proper boat harbour in Jervis Bay is a clear point of departure from the Solitary Islands Marine Park, which is serviced by an excellent port facility at Coffs Harbour. So there is a capacity for ecotourism to expand with the Solitary Islands Marine Park. I would have thought this alone would have demonstrated why the Solitary Islands study by Dr Davis has extremely limited relevance to the Jervis Bay Marine Park. Therefore, I call on the Minister and the Government to defer any promulgation of the zoning and operation plan until a full economic impact statement can be conducted on the plan's proposals for the Jervis Bay Marine Park.

I find it absolutely extraordinary that the member for South Coast has not supported local concerns about the lack of an economic impact statement. But I suppose I should not be surprised. On other issues on which he has failed to deliver, local residents have drawn the conclusion that he simply does not have the clout to prevail over this Sydney-Newcastle-Wollongong dominated Government. However, on the marine parks issue he has not even insisted that the Shoalhaven area receive equal treatment to that which the North Coast received with Solitary Islands Marine Park: it is a very poor performance from Wayne Smith. On this and too many other issues the member for South Coast has talked about fixing problems, but the electorate is waiting for someone who will get things done, like their Federal member Joanna Gash. They will get that opportunity next March when they can elect a State Liberal member for South Coast.

I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of members of the Potts Point and Elizabeth Bay branch of the Liberal Party. I was a former officer-bearer of that branch, and I certainly welcome them to the gallery. However, I am no longer an office-bearer in that branch. Under our new party constitution, parliamentarians have been neutered and we can no longer be branch office-bearers. I thank Her Excellency for her Address.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [9.40 p.m.]: It was pleasing to see Her Excellency, the first woman Governor of New South Wales, presiding over the opening of Parliament almost 12 months to the day since she was sworn in. The choice of Her Excellency, Professor Marie Bashir, was a most inspired choice. I recall a former colleague in this place noting that her name had been considered when the Coalition was last in government. I am only sorry that we could not have claimed the credit for appointing the first woman Governor. I look forward to the day when all barriers have been broken down and it will be unnecessary to comment on a woman achieving the first of anything, that we should take these things as a given.

This Government has rarely used the Governor's opening of Parliament to articulate its vision for New South Wales. Therefore, it was with some anticipation that I awaited the formal opening and Governor's Speech to hear the vision that would set the scene for New South Wales in the coming election year. I assumed that the Government would seize the opportunity to place its credentials for re-election on the table. How wrong I was! Nothing we were told was in any way visionary. Indeed, in its rehash of old deeds and past announcements it was in every sense reactionary. The word among the bureaucrats is that the Premier has closed down the Government: he wants no controversy and no fresh initiatives. He wants no new Ministers. Rather, he wants to coast on his record, especially to live off the achievements of the Olympics. The Governor's Speech certainly made that clear.

New South Wales cannot afford the luxury of a government in neutral. As we move into the twenty-first century, these beginning years should be used to lay the foundations for a strong and prosperous period. Whether it is building on the Olympics or forging the next dream, now is the time for action. This was never more so than in the education foundation laid in these first years of this new century. When Bob Carr was in opposition and when he became Premier, he was fond of calling himself the education Premier. I suspect this was meant to intimidate, and it would certainly have impacted on our party strategy for the 1995 election. But if there was any intimidation in 1995, I can assure the Premier that is not how I face either the next election or my portfolio. Nor is it how my colleagues see the months ahead.

I know that in our policy development the Opposition has not only a vision, but policies that are the measure of this tired and jaded Government. Some months ago the Premier dished it up to me in a Carr question time mauling. I was meant to be belittled and generally humiliated. I was not. The Premier missed his mark. Sadly, I was neither the author of the document he lampooned nor had I claimed to be. His attack served no purpose except to embarrass and offend a number of people whose interest in helping the Opposition was born out of their strong commitment to education, and public education in particular. Far from offending me, he offended some fine and outstanding Australians. It is well known that when events are not going as the Premier wishes, his tactic is to resort to personal attack.

If the Premier wants a debate about education I am prepared, anywhere and any time, because when I stack the Coalition's record in government against this Government's record I can say that it stacks up very well. When I stack up my vision against that which has been articulated by Her Excellency the Governor on behalf of the Government I can say that our policies are about the future and exciting opportunities for our students, teachers and schools. The view among many in the public education system is that education flourished under the Coalition, making schools the centre of learning with schools that could direct policies and which gave a voice to their local communities. Schools were at the centre of learning, and at the centre of the public education system was each child. The Coalition's school renewal reforms ensure that schools were responsive and flexible. The 1991 report on the progress of schools renewal noted:

Schools renewal and consequently devolution is focusing schools' thinking on planned school improvements and is helping to develop a more enterprising and pro-active approach to school management.

Under the Coalition, schools established management structures that allowed priority setting, financial allocations and staff development to be integrated in ways that supported school and teaching improvements. In the eyes of the Coalition the co-operation and collaboration of schools, their principals, teachers and parents counted when setting and achieving educational priorities. We believe that parents count and should be involved in schools. Principals and parents, as well as many teachers, look back to those years as years of growth for education. Indeed they were. In the three years from 1993 to 1995 the increase in enrolments in non-government schools was 6,000 compared with the 26,000 that have enrolled in the past three years.

Parents showed their confidence in the public education system under the Coalition. In fact, New South Wales had the lowest growth in non-government school enrolments of any State, and only 0.3 percentage loss in public school numbers. This was also the smallest decline of any State. Compare those figures with the exodus that has been the hallmark of this Government. More particularly, ask the Government what it is doing to develop strategies to give parents a reason to stay in public education. A strong public education system is fundamental to our society. The solution does not lie in a multimillion dollar advertising campaign, but in giving parents and local communities, working with teachers and principles, a real voice in the running of schools.

Under the Coalition, spending increased every year. Despite inheriting a capital works and maintenance backlog of $217 million, capital works spending rose by 46 per cent and school building maintenance rose by almost 75 per cent. We had no need for a panicked $70 million announcement, as this Government had when it realised that its spending on capital works has been too little and too late. The community will not forget years like 1999 when almost the entire increase in the department's capital works budget was absorbed by the Conservatorium of Music project, or 2000 when the capital works increase was barely at the level of the consumer price index. The community expects a real commitment to education.

When the Coalition left office in 1995 teachers in New South Wales were the highest paid in Australia. Contrast that enterprise agreement to the anger and heartbreak that characterised the teachers' salary dispute of 1999 and 2000. The Carr Government took 329 days to resolve the issue and, in the process, did almost irreparable damage to the status of teachers all because the Government could not fund an increase in the budget. In the years from 1988 to 1994, four-year trained teachers received a salary increase of more than 26 per cent, grade one primary principals received an increase of 46.5 per cent and secondary principals received an increase of almost 40 per cent. On almost every indicator educationally, New South Wales was in the superior position during the Coalition years. As is clear from the recent report of the Productivity Commission, New South Wales, unlike most States, has gone backwards in its year 12 retention rate since 1995. Today the retention rate is 65 per cent, whereas in 1995 it was 71 per cent.

Where are the strategies to promote the benefits to all our students of staying to year 12? Where in particular is the strategy to appeal to boys from low socioeconomic status families? The future for young Aboriginal males in particular is as problematic today as at any time. In the Coalition's last full year in office the total government expenditure per full-time student in government schools had New South Wales above the national average. In 1998-99 New South Wales was the second lowest funding State and was below the national average. Since then there has been no real increase in funding.

New South Wales needs a vision for education. Where is the vision in the announcement in the Governor's Speech that New South Wales schools will benefit from the provision of 25,000 additional computers? Teachers are saying that in some schools the electrical wiring is so inadequate that the computers can be run if the lights or fans are not turned on but they all cannot be on at once. The Government is well aware that the integrated services digital network capacity into schools is so inadequate that schools may have classrooms of computers but at best three or four will be able to access the Internet. Where is the injection of funds to resolve this problem?

It was pleasing to hear that a few students have had the benefit of attending an e-summer school but where is the professional development programs to improve the skills of our teachers? Indeed, where are the computers for our teachers? New South Wales is now the only State that has not provided teachers with access to their own computers. The Government is correct when it says that "our society rightly values teachers". Despite a line in the Speech in which the Government claims to be enhancing the standing of the profession, in fact nothing was announced. Provision of scholarships is about addressing the problem of supply, not of status. Under the Coalition in government in 1994, $20 million was available to schools for professional development—a high-water mark not since matched by this Government.

In 1999 the Government took a step in the right direction when it established the review of teacher education by Dr Gregor Ramsay. The review was thorough and visionary, and it offered well-researched ideas that would have enabled teachers to genuinely claim to be a profession. More than 12 months after the release of the report and an implementation and consultation process by Dr Jim McMorrow nothing has been announced by the Carr Government—no initiatives, no commitments and no strategies. Dr Ramsay warned in his report that without a commitment to action his report could languish on a shelf like the 20 reports produced on the subject in the previous 20 years.

The time for action is now. I can give a commitment that if the Government does not introduce measures that will better prepare our teachers for the enormous challenges they face then the Coalition in government most certainly will. I want our best and brightest students to want to be teachers and then, having trained, have reasons to stay. Teaching is one of the most rewarding of careers but it is also hard and often stressful. There is an obligation on governments to arm our young teachers with strategies to cope in the most complex of circumstances. Ramsay called for the introduction of standards referencing. This is happening in other countries and should be happening here.

New South Wales needs a new paradigm that supports and nurtures our bright young teachers to be the future education leaders. Good teachers need to be given opportunities to grow as educationalists and be rewarded for their professional progress. Better induction support for beginning teachers and a strong process of mentoring are two key strategies identified by Ramsay as essential to better support our new teachers. Sadly, Her Excellency's Speech was silent on these effective strategies. Professional development as rigorous as that expected of other professions has to be an element of our education system. Changes in technology alone make it imperative that teachers' skills are updated. The importance of a teacher to the outcome of students is now beyond question. The research is compelling that the single factor that most influences students is the quality of the their teacher. Supporting and rewarding our good teachers has to be an element of our future system.

Helping teachers retrain and offering scholarships are positive initiatives, but Ramsay proposed so much more. Not to act is to squander a rich opportunity for positive progress. Teachers as graduates have a right to see themselves as members of a profession yet they have little ownership of it. Ramsay proposed ideas. The Government must say whether the report has fallen into a black hole or whether there is a commitment to working to enhance the status of teachers. One cannot, of course, expect every element of government to be highlighted in a speech such as that given by the Governor, but I was struck by the complete omission of any reference to TAFE or other training initiatives.

Ensuring that New South Wales has a well-trained and flexible work force is a vital element in ensuring that New South Wales is competitive in all areas of business. TAFE New South Wales is an important element in the training regime and offers in particular important second-chance opportunities for people who, for whatever reason, did not achieve at school. Despite this, students, I am told, can enrol only if they can pay all their course fees up front. This is absurd, especially as the reason given is the way that the computer is programmed. Where is the vision in that? Where are the policies to promote aggressively to those people who would benefit most from the opportunities afforded by further education? New South Wales has not had a review of the education system since Dr Wyndham undertook his review in the 1950s and 1960s. I congratulate the New South Wales Teachers Federation and the parents and citizens association for taking up the challenge of such a review.

The Coalition will take seriously the findings of the review being undertaken by Dr Tony Vinson. I was on the record in 2000 as indicating that such a review was overdue. Perhaps the catchcry will be "Vinson’s vision" but whatever it is it will leave behind this tired Government. Having a vision for education in New South Wales and acting on it is one of the most vital legacies of any government. New South Wales has the capacity to be world's best in any sphere of enterprise. This is as true of education as of anything else. New South Wales cannot afford a government intent on climbing into its shell and waiting for the next 12 months to pass.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Peter Primrose.

Bill received and read a first time.

Motion by the Hon. Eddie Obeid agreed to:

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

The Hon. EDDIE OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [9.58 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN [9.58 p.m.]: In 1999 the New South Wales Government, with the support of the New South Wales Liberal-National Coalition, passed the subcontractor security of payment legislation. I understand that the Queensland Government is developing similar legislation based on the New South Wales model.

The Hon. Eddie Obeid: Great legislation, Charlie.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: Good legislation. It is important that the Queensland Government proceed with some priority to cover Queensland and New South Wales based construction companies operating in northern New South Wales and south-east Queensland. Currently, subcontractors based in New South Wales have protection against unscrupulous construction companies whilst those based in Queensland are vulnerable. Tonight I will expose the practices of a Queensland-based construction company, Covecorp Constructions Pty Ltd. Many of this company's construction contracts are with government departments, and I understand it has previously successfully tendered for work at the Southern Cross University in Lismore. I ask that the Minister for Public Works and Services look critically at the modus operandi of this company before approving any future contract work.

Covecorp came to my attention as the result of its work at the Keperra Great Western Shopping centre in Brisbane. One of the subcontractors who completed civil engineering works for the construction of the car park is Lynn Civil, which is owned by my brother, Peter Lynn. In my endeavours to assist him to be paid for the job he completed 16 months ago I have been made aware of the methods that this unscrupulous company uses to avoid paying its subcontractors or to reduce the amounts they eventually pay to a fraction of the original amount agreed upon as part of the contract.

Smaller subcontractors have to accept the loss and walk away from the job. Others, whose jobs range between $100,000 and $1 million, have the amounts owing whittled down over a long time. This causes great stress to the families of these subbies, because they do not have the protection of legislation or the resources to pursue their claims through the courts. I am aware of one large subcontractor who is owed about $200,000 and, with his wife and family, is suffering severe stress as a result of this long-outstanding debt. He and his family are at the mercy of the managing director of Covecorp, Paul Ferris, who is well aware that the subcontractor does not have the resources or the time to pursue his claim through the courts. Therefore the subcontractor has to accept dubious counterclaims of back-charging which Ferris uses as a tactic to reduce his financial obligations.

With Lynn Civil, Covecorp waited until the work was completed and then had its solicitor advise Lynn Civil that it would not pay Lynn Civil because it was not a licensed subcontractor. When my brother went to the Queensland Building Services Association [QBSA] for advice he was unable to obtain it because the lawyer advising the QBSA was the same lawyer acting for Covecorp! My brother eventually enlisted the support of his own civil contractors' association, which advised that there is no need for subcontractors to be licensed for civil works. That tactic gained them a few months.

My brother sought legal advice and placed a subcontractor's charge against Covecorp. Unfortunately, he was incorrectly advised that the charge would not contain variations. Covecorp advised him that it would go to mediation if he withdrew the subcontractor's charge. He did this, but Covecorp would not return his calls. He sought my help and I contacted Covecorp. Its first advice to me was to be very careful in what I said, otherwise it would sue me. We had a quick discussion about privilege and Covecorp agreed to attend a meeting with my brother and his credit manager to agree on an amount and a payment schedule.

The amount owing to Lynn Civil for the works it completed on the project is $446,000. Covecorp gave my brother a cheque for $13,000 as payment in full. After more discussions, Covecorp estimated that it owed him a maximum $40,000. When my brother asked why it would not pay that amount, Paul Ferris replied that he would use that for a solicitor to fight for the rest. After the meetings at which each item in the contract was examined, Paul Ferris arbitrarily reduced each item. Each time an objection was raised he threatened to wind up the meeting. At the end of the process he whittled the claim from $446,000 to $175,000. That was in October. Since then Covecorp has paid $50,000; however, it is apparent that it does not intend to honour its agreement to pay the balance and that my brother will have to pursue it through the courts.

The modus operandi of the directors of Covecorp, David Robertson and Paul Ferris, is reminiscent of the old Queensland white-shoe brigade. They are ruthless operators and have no values when it comes to meeting their financial obligations. I have been advised that they are in major dispute with four large Queensland corporations and I believe that the only way they can continue to operate is at the expense of their subcontractors. I now believe that Covecorp is insolvent and that Ferris and Robertson may be in breach of their legal of obligations as company directors.

I call on the Queensland Government and the QBSA to launch an immediate investigation into the company and its ability to meet its financial obligations. I urge the Queensland Government to introduce legislation to protect the security of payments for subcontractors along the lines of the legislation we have in New South Wales as a matter of urgency to protect honest, hard-working subbies in the construction industry from unethical predators such as David Robertson and Paul Ferris.

The Hon. Eddie Obeid: That is good legislation.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: Yes, Minister, you are right, that is good legislation that passed through this House and we supported it. It is working and it ought to be adopted in Queensland. I also request that the New South Wales Government thoroughly examine any tender document received from the company to ensure that any payment schedules it commits to are closely monitored.

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG [10.03 p.m.]: Tonight I put forward what seems to be a politically unpopular view, that is, to highlight the positive contribution of refugee Australians to our community. Apparently, refugee bashing is a vote winner, as we clearly saw during last November's Federal election. Last year was generally a black year, because there was a dramatic increase in refugee and migrant bashing, both verbally and, unfortunately, literally. As a response to the alleged Arabic rape crisis, fuelled by the media combined with the September 11 events, honourable members would remember reports of vandalism on Muslim mosques and other places of worship, attacks on Muslim schools and incidental physical attacks on Muslim women.

We cannot ignore the shameful children overboard claim by the Federal Government during the final stages of the Federal election. It is not an exaggeration to say that that act was an immoral twisting of the truth, one which only served to vilify refugees. As occurs when anything goes wrong with a group or community, it hits the headlines; but when they do something good, no-one seems to want to talk about it. Tonight that is just what I intend to do: I will highlight the remarkable achievements of a remarkable Vietnamese-Australian refugee family, the Luong family. They are the founders of Quality For Less Photographics, trading as QFL Photographics Pty Ltd, a 100 per cent Australian-owned company that has taken on the might of the multinational icon, Kodak.

Whenever I say "QFL Photographics" the first thing that springs to mind is the small, one-hour photo lab, which is seen in many places. In fact, it is much more than that. The Luong family comprise nine Vietnamese who escaped from the Vietnam War by boat. The eldest, Mr Divang Luong, was just 19 years of age when he came to Australia in 1981, with no money and even less English, to settle in Melbourne. He and his family spent four months in a migrant hostel, which provided the opportunity for him to learn English.

Divang's first job in Australia was as a seasonal fruit-picker, before he took on a second job in 1982 as a process worker, building Aussie Holdens at GMH in Port Melbourne. At the same time he was studying English as well as electrical engineering at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology. Divang was able to assist his brother, 18-year-old Van Luong, to escape by boat from Vietnam in 1982 and his 17-year-old brother, Le Luong, in 1983. The rest of the nine-strong family escaped Vietnam and joined them in 1985. In 1987, after a brief period as an engineer at Siemens, Divang decided to set up a small, one-hour Kodak Express minilab with his brother Van and cousin Tung Ma and employing two other retail assistants.

At that time, one-hour photo laboratories were starting to spring up. Many people were still taking film to a chemist for developing; in the trade that market is referred to as the photofinishing wholesale developing and printing market. In the photofinishing wholesale market there was, in effect, only one supplier: Kodak. As a result, the Luong's believed that if there were a competitor, quality could be improved, the price lowered, and a better level of service offered. And that is exactly what they did. In 1987, some seven years after Divang came to Australia, QFL tackled the might of Kodak head on by getting into the photofinishing wholesale market by servicing pharmacies.

QFL is not just national; it expanded to New Zealand under the QFL trading name in 1997. This remarkable 100 per cent Australian-owned company is now a multinational. From just two employees in 1987, today QFL employs 250 workers from a variety of backgrounds including Australians, Vietnamese, Greek, and Sri Lankan, to name just a few. Last week QFL beat Kodak in officially launching in Australia the latest multimillion Agfa Dimax photographic printer, which prints up to 22,000 prints an hour with dramatically better quality. In the Australian wholesale photoprocessing business, QFL is the only company with that technology.

This is truly a success story against all odds. Anyone can dream, but only a few can make it a reality. The Luong family, through QFL Photographics, have clearly turned a dream into a reality. Their experience, while traumatic, is typical of refugees making a success in this country. I hope in a small way, by highlighting the success of QFL Photographics and the Luongs, to have redressed some of the unfair refugee and Vietnamese community bashing that is, unfortunately, so fashionable today.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [10.08 p.m.]: Although I do not live in the Leichhardt Municipal Council area, my children go to school in Leichhardt, so I have a good chance to see what goes on there. I have long heard about Leichhardt council's parlous financial state, even though the previous Mayor, Councillor Kris Cruden, worked hard to improve that situation. I have been absolutely amazed over past months to see the expensive political campaigns the council is running on issues that have no relation to the core functions that it is elected to carry out. The latest campaign, on the proposed local government boundary changes, led me to look into this subject; and I do not like what I found. The horrible truth is that that council has spent $313,000 so far on those campaigns.

This is at a time when any casual visitor to the area can see potholes that go unrepaired, cracked and weedy footpaths, and neglected parks. But it goes further than that. Harbourside council's own any seawalls in their areas and any wharves used by Sydney Ferries. Sydney Ferries are responsible for repairing any actual damage caused by ferries, but the councils are responsible for maintaining the wharves in good order.

A couple of years ago Sydney Ferries suspended services to Yuralbin Point wharf at Birchgrove, because its parlous state made it unsafe. And what was the response of Leichhardt council, the council that can afford to spend $313,000 on political campaigns? The Mayor, Marie Sheehan, said that the council was just too poor to fulfil its obligations. Local commuters looked like losing the wharf until the local member, Sandra Nori, managed to get the Carr Government to pay the money that Leichhardt council should have paid.

And again, I noticed that the Friends of Balmain Library are holding a fundraising dinner to pay for the refurbishment of the library. Is this some private library they are supporting? No, it is Leichhardt Municipal Council's local library that is being refurbished—not with ratepayers' dollars being used for political ends; it is being funded by the users. So much for the free library system our forebears fought for.

What about the draconian parking meter regime that is a major legacy of the current council and, Mayor Sheehan, who, rather strangely, allowed herself to be photographed cuddling a parking meter? Local businesses and residents might not be so unhappy about this if they suddenly saw the potholes and footpaths being repaired, along with those other things councils are meant to do. However, how do they feel when they know that so much of this revenue is going towards politicking? I know how I would feel.

I turn now to an issue that has really got under my skin. Anyone who has been around Glebe lately will know that a vigorous and, I believe, vicious campaign is being targeted at the Government and the local member over a development application that has been lodged with South Sydney Council for the old Children's Hospital site at Camperdown. This development application goes well beyond the terms of the approved master plan and results from a complicated land swap deal that Leichhardt Municipal Council is attempting to put in place. That is not a bad objective but the purported cost of remediation of the proposed land swap site has led to the developer asking for double the number of floors. I asked Sandra Nori what this is all about from her perspective as her name is being blackened on this issue. I hasten to add that I do not blame protesters for being upset about this development proposal.

Sandra Nori said that her attitude has always been that it is the right of local communities to decide what is acceptable for this site. When the original development application was lodged she co-ordinated a community consultation process, gathered the results and put them in a community-based submission to South Sydney Council. The outcome was approval for a 12-storey building, pretty much in line with community sentiment and the same height as the nearby Joanna O'Dea Court. She said she was shocked to receive a letter from Mayor Sheehan five days after the developers, Sterling Estates, had lodged a new development application for an increase to 25 storeys. Mayor Sheehan said:

The proposal between Leichhardt Municipal Council, South Sydney Council, the New Children's Hospital and Sterling will deliver clear benefits to the residents of Glebe and Camperdown, and I urge you to throw your support behind the initiative.

In reply Sandra Nori expressed general support for land swaps that gained open space for the community but said:

…your letter does not mention that this land swap is part of the package that will increase the height of the proposed building A on this site from 12 storeys to 25 storeys high. This is a significant change from the Master Plan.

She continued:

Whilst I appreciate that the open space proposal represents a net increase to local residents of open space, it will need to be balanced against the more than doubling in height proposed for building A.

Despite the development application being submitted last November, Sandra Nori, not Mayor Sheehan, is the only person to have held community consultation prior to the matter first being considered by South Sydney Council. She has consistently reiterated her belief that local residents need to be fully informed about the application and to make a decision as to what, if anything, they are prepared to trade off for the extra open space. Sandra Nori, not Mayor Sheehan, has now ensured that Sterling Estates reveals its costings and the reason it believes it is entitled to double the number of floors. Because of her intervention Sterling Estates will be holding a number of briefings for residents. Sandra Nori, not Mayor Sheehan, will then hold yet another meeting to bring together and synthesise community views for a submission to South Sydney Council on this development application.

The attempt to lay the blame for this issue at the local member's feet is the height of hypocrisy. Sandra Nori has carried out, and continues to carry out, an impeccable process to gather and convey community views. Maybe I am too much of a cynic but it seems to me that there are personal agendas and ambitions here that go well beyond the rights and wrongs of the issues at stake. If only ratepayer dollars were not funding it. I call on Leichhardt Municipal Council to fulfil the functions it has been elected to carry out and to direct ratepayers' funds to a more appropriate and beneficial end. I am pleased to support Sandra Nori in her campaign as she has long been a companion of mine since our days in Young Labor. [Time expired.]

The Hon. RICK COLLESS [10.13 p.m.]: Tonight I bring to the attention of the House the inherent inequities in the current suite of environmental policies being implemented by the Carr Government and, in particular, the impact of these policies on the lives of individual businesses and local communities. The vast majority of rural business people are in tune with the environment. They live on the land in rural and regional areas, and they can live through good times and bad times, through drought, flood, fire, locust plagues and a whole range of natural difficulties that the more urbane urban business people may never encounter. Farming families are rural businesses. They are the businesses that are responsible for the sustainable creation of wealth by utilising the energy of the sun, the minerals in the soil, air, water and their human creativity to create a product that has a value and can be sold for a profit.

All other sections of the community take that wealth, add to it, employ people and accumulate wealth in the system, as they should, but the wealth is always created by rural businesses. These business people are very aware of their environmental responsibilities and are constantly seeking new information and management techniques in order to improve environmental management. They are aware of the connection between their own aspirations, the capacity of natural resources to deliver those aspirations and the responsibility they hold in their hands to ensure that these natural resources are maintained in such a way that those aspirations will continue to be delivered for the benefit of the whole community for many generations to come. The natural resource policies of this Government do not recognise the aspirations of farming families and local rural communities, or the importance of these aspirations to the welfare of all the people of New South Wales.

One of the most obvious manifestations in this regard is the financial impact of the implementation of the Water Management Bill in irrigation areas of New South Wales, and, in particular, the complete absence of water property rights. The Deputy Prime Minister and National Party member for Gwydir, John Anderson, is very concerned about this. He said in his address to the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics conference that a new approach to environmental management is required based on four key principles: information, property rights, incentives and partnerships. The President of the New South Wales Farmers Association, Mal Peters, and the President of the New South Wales Irrigators Council, Col Thomson, have come out and strongly supported the Deputy Prime Minister's proposal for agreement at a national level on the definition of property rights.

I wish to bring to the attention of the House the individual case of a water user and irrigator at Forbes, Mr Robert Caldwell, who has already suffered a reduction of 50 per cent in his water allocation without any compensation being paid. He has recently been advised by the Water Management Committee that he will lose a further 15 per cent of his allocation, again without any compensation being paid. The financial impact of these decisions on Mr Caldwell's financial viability and long-term sustainability is dramatic and serious.

The long-term impact of these decisions on the people of the rural community of Forbes is more dramatic and more serious by a factor of five, as the multiplier effect well recognises that wealth created by a farmer is multiplied five times in terms of economic activity for the community in which the wealth is created. There are many other similar cases throughout other irrigation areas in New South Wales. I have here a number of letters to the Daily Telegraph dated 13 March from farmers in Breeza, Narrabri and Gunnedah talking about similar cutbacks in their water allocations. Perhaps the most pertinent point made in those letters comes from Gary and Lurlene Campbell from Gunnedah, who said:

We employ four full time positions on our properties at Gunnedah. If the water is cut off, these jobs will no longer be available and our costs will be almost down to zero—no fuel, no labour, no chemical, no seed, no aerial work, no earthworks, no purchasing of new machinery, no asset sale value—not a lot left for us to keep the Gunnedah community striving to get back on its feet after the mines shutting down.

We might be only "farmers" in the north west, but we want the Government to know we play a major role in the survival of these rural communities, and we need help for our survival on the land.

There can be no clearer enunciation of the impact on rural communities of the removal of water property rights than that statement.

The Hon. IAN COHEN [10.18 p.m.]: In March 1999 four New South Wales Government Ministers signed the now infamous upper north-east and lower north-east forest agreements. That makes this month the third anniversary of the so-called agreements and it warrants a review of what they have delivered for forests and the community in north-east New South Wales. For a start, it is worth noting that these so-called forest agreements were never agreed to by either the environment movement or the Greens. They were agreements between the loggers, the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, and the Government. It is extremely disappointing that the historic opportunity to get agreement from all parties was passed up by the Government in favour of dirty backroom deals.

The forests' report card is abysmal. Massive areas of old-growth forests and poorly reserved ecosystems have been logged since March 1999. According to government data, 5,600 hectares of old-growth forests have been logged in the north-east since March 1999. This includes at least 500 hectares of the New South Wales Government's own so-called high conservation value, old-growth forests. This is an abject betrayal of the 1995 promise to protect old-growth forests.

While Queensland and Western Australia have taken historic steps forward to protect all old-growth forests, this Government has been logging them as fast as it can. The results are equally grim for ecosystems in the region, with more than 40,000 hectares of poorly reserved forest ecosystems having been logged in that period. This includes some 2,500 hectares of rare, endangered and vulnerable ecosystems. Under the National Forest Policy Statement, these ecosystems require urgent protection to meet the minimum national reserve criteria. Under the New South Wales Government, they have been logged and their unique values degraded and destroyed.

In 1998 the third party rights of citizens to take State Forests of New South Wales to court over illegal logging were removed. It was left to the National Parks and Wildlife Service [NPWS] to prosecute for breaches of the licence conditions. NPWS has failed miserably to detect or penalise State Forests of New South Wales for obvious breaches that have been brought to its attention repeatedly by the conservation movement. Some of the breaches that have gone unpunished include the logging of habitat trees at Olney, Heaton and Myall River; the logging of a rare, non-commercial forest type at Myall River; rainforest logging at Chichester; and the logging of high conservation-value old growth at Kangaroo River and Ellis State forests. NPWS has consistently allowed the two-year statute of limitations to expire without taking any action. This is further evidence that third party rights were removed under false pretences and that there is absolutely no political will to police threatened species licences.

Numerous milestones set in the forest agreements have not been met. This includes World Heritage assessments, wilderness assessments, ecologically sustainable forest management research and monitoring strategies, working plan preparation for informal reserves, and several requirements to address indigenous heritage and rights in land. State Forests of New South Wales continues to flout its own forest management zoning guidelines and the National Forest Policy Statement by refusing to upgrade informal reserves to flora reserves. The timber industry has now spent a large proportion of the $23 million that it was given on purchasing private land to log and on subsidising transport. Some of this money has been spent on purchasing and logging old-growth forest, as was the case at Stroud Mountain in north-east New South Wales. In addition, Boral has received a further $22 million in "restructuring money" from the Commonwealth. However, there has still not been a red cent allocated to purchase voluntarily high conservation value private property in the region, as required by section 2.9.1 of the forest agreement.

The community report card is no better. Areas were ostensibly left unreserved in 1999 because they would cost jobs. However, major job losses are now imminent in the region because of increased mechanisation in the industry. This means that an estimated 50 loggers will lose their jobs later in the year because they are being replaced by "mechanised harvesters". Under the forest agreement these workers are not entitled to any compensation whatsoever and their "security" has been shown to be a farce. They have been hung out to dry—so much for all the jobs propaganda of 1998 and 1999! There is growing community support for the reservation of areas that were not protected by the forest agreement but which require reservation—

The Hon. Rick Colless: Is Pilliga an old-growth forest?

The Hon. IAN COHEN: Parts of it are. They require reservation under the National Forest Policy Statement. This has seen a resurgence of forest conflict in regional areas, with ongoing disputes over critical high conservation value areas such as Whian Whian and Wollumbin, Bungawalbin, Chaelundi, Pine Creek, Queens Lake, Sherwood Forest, Sheas Nob, Copeland Tops, Jilliby and many others. There is increasing awareness in the community that north-east New South Wales has the second highest diversity of any forested region in Australia and the worst forest reserve outcome.

The rights of peaceful protesters under this Government have been impinged as never before as civil liberties become a thing of the past. Draconian forestry regulations are being used with a vengeance to fine and arrest protesters and leave them isolated in "closed" forest areas. This is leaving protesters vulnerable to violence and intimidation, which has resulted in at least four assaults by loggers in the last year, including one logger attempting to cut down an occupied tripod, loggers punching and abusing protesters, trees being felled deliberately near protesters, and trees being felled onto cables holding protesters in a tree platform. No action has been taken by any government authority to investigate these incidents. For risking their lives to protect our unique forests, these protesters are now subject to penalties of at least $1,000.

The forest agreements of March 1999 have institutionalised unsustainable logging by committing to supply levels for the next 20 years, which would result in a massive shortfall thereafter. The industry has not restructured and is still based on an old-growth log size, with smaller log sizes still not contributing to quota. In summary, massive areas of old-growth forests and poorly reserved forest ecosystems have been logged and threatened species laws have not been enforced. [Time expired.]

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE [10.23 p.m.]: I raised in this House last week the plight of firefighters in the United States of America who risked, and in many cases lost, their lives as part of the rescue efforts after the September 11 tragedy. I said then that in America, as in Australia, the right to bargain collectively is always under attack. Tonight I raise a local case that has an uncanny connection to those American firefighters. Within weeks of the events of September 11, another sinister attack was launched in the form of an anthrax scare. Anthrax was found at sites around the world, affecting hundreds of innocent workers. The effectiveness of this campaign was not so much in the relatively small numbers of people infected but in the level of terror that it engendered.

This morning's Daily Telegraph quotes Dr Raymond of the Police Forensic Services Group as reporting that there were more than 3,000 anthrax scares in Australia. More than half of these occurred in New South Wales, although thankfully most instances were hoaxes or misunderstandings. Dr Raymond said that the number of incidents grew dramatically following media coverage of the anthrax cases in the United States from September 11 onwards.

On 17 October last year the Electoral Commission in Gosford was evacuated after the discovery of an unidentified white substance. Understandably, this generated enormous media coverage on the Central Coast. On the same day an unidentified white powder was found in the Weet-Bix production area at Sanitarium Health Foods, which is at Gosford. Sanitarium might well be a manufacturer of health foods, but its industrial relations practices are not so healthy. Given the circumstances, the Sanitarium workers were understandably very sensitive to the discovery of this suspicious white powder in their workplace. Yet as a result of refusing to carry on production until the substance had been identified and removed, the workers involved have been punished by management. Some workers have received official warnings and have been suspended from duty. All employees have received letters advising them that the company code of conduct requires of them:

… a duty of faithful service to the Company, inclusive that we do not do anything which is contrary to the interests of the Company.

Workers are asked to sign a contract of employment to the same effect. This is not the first time that workers at Sanitarium have been harassed for taking up issues that they believe to be important. Last year when the workers believed they were being underpaid they tried to join a trade union, as is their right. Management refused to allow an official from the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union [AMWU] even to speak with the workers in their lunch room. The company then circulated to all workers a leaflet that described unions as the work of Satan and, in brief, the likely cause of the downfall of civilisation as we know it.

The company was so committed to ensuring that the AMWU did not organise its plant at Berkeley Vale that it made an offer to the employees that it would pay for an "independent" industrial broker to negotiate on their behalf if the workers would not join the union. Management said that it would negotiate with anyone but the union. Significantly, the workers decided to stick with their union. Despite being the devil incarnate, officials of the AMWU persisted, as did the workers at Sanitarium—the majority of whom wanted to join the union.

It will interest the House to learn that, since the arrival of the AMWU, Sanitarium has agreed to pay in excess of $3.2 million in back pay that it owes its workers in underpaid wages, accrued over the past six years. The company has also agreed, after being issued with fines and other penalties by WorkCover, to remedy some very significant breaches of occupational health and safety regulations at the same plant at which the earlier anthrax scare occurred. There is further action before the Industrial Relations Commission that I will not pursue as these matters will be determined by Her Honour Commissioner Cargill.

The Federal Secretary of the AMWU Food Division is Jennie Dowell, who has been leading the campaign on behalf of workers at Sanitarium. She is not a person who will be intimidated or harassed into backing off when she believes her members' rights are at stake. Jennie Dowell knows that, despite what management at Sanitarium might think, Australian workers will never accept the Americanisation of our industrial relations system. Neither Jennie Dowell nor her members will accept nineteenth century style master-servant relationships for workers at Sanitarium.

Sanitarium has a history of anti-worker, anti-union activities in the United States. Like many other multinationals, those practices have made huge profits for the company, based upon the skill and work of its employees. Sanitarium management might believe that unions are the work of Satan but, fortunately for Australian workers, unions in this country are still allowed to bargain collectively and defend the rights of their members. I commend Jennie Dowell and her members and wish them continuing success.

The Hon. DOUG MOPPETT [10.27 p.m.]: This year marks the thirtieth anniversary of the establishment of the Isolated Children's Parents Association. This highly significant event was celebrated in Armidale on Monday and Tuesday at the annual conference of this organisation, which adopted the theme "From Mail Box to Megabytes" to mark the occasion. I know that you, Madam President, will appreciate the significance of the mailbox, as 30 years ago many New South Wales children received their education, particularly their primary school education, through correspondence—colloquially known as "corro"—that arrived in their mailbox from Blackfriars school. I note that Madam President is indicating that she was educated via corro. There is a lot more to be said about this subject, and I shall reserve those comments for a future contribution.

Motion agreed to.