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

The President offered the Prayers.

The PRESIDENT: I welcome to the gallery students who are studying for the Diploma of Development Studies, which is part of the Aboriginal community course at Tranby Aboriginal Co-operative College in Glebe. I also welcome staff from the college.

Bill received and read a first time.

Motion by the Hon. Michael Egan 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.

Motion by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile agreed to:

1. That the Clerk of the House refer Report No. 21 of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 entitled "NSW Workers Compensation Scheme: Final Report", tabled on 3 September 2002, to the Leader of the Government in the House who must by 3 December 2002, report to the House what action, if any, the Government proposes to take in relation to the recommendations of the Committee.

2. (1) That if, at the time at which the Government seeks to report to the House, the House is not sitting, a
Minister may present the response to the Clerk of the House.

(2) That a response presented to the Clerk is:

(a) on presentation, and for all purposes, deemed to have been made before the House,

(b) to be printed by authority of the Clerk,

(c) for all purposes, deemed to be a document published by order or under the authority of the House, and

(d) to be recorded in the minutes of the proceedings of the House.

3. That the President is to report to the House if the Government response has not been received within the above deadline.

Motion by the Hon. Richard Jones agreed to:

1. That, under Standing Order 18 and further to the order of the House on 26 June 2002, there be laid on the table of the House by 5.00 p.m. on Tuesday 24 September 2002 and made public without restricted access:

(a) any document or record of electronic communication created since 28 March 2001, and not previously provided to the House, in the possession, custody or power of the Cabinet Office, the Roads and Traffic Authority (referred to as RTA), the Premier's Department, the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning (referred to as PlanningNSW), the Environment Protection Authority (referred to as EPA) and NSW Health, including related ministerial offices, relating to:
(i) all accidents or incidents in the M5 East tunnel since opening, including incident analysis reports and reports of corrective action taken to prevent recurrence of such accidents,
(ii) complaints from residents, tunnel users, emergency services workers and operators and any action taken as a result, whether reported to BHEgis, different officers of the RTA, the EPA, NSW Health or other government agencies,

(iii) minutes of the meeting held on 11 April 2002 between representatives of the RTA and PlanningNSW, and further interagency meetings,

(iv) minutes, correspondence and associated papers relating to meetings held on 22 April 2002, 13 May 2002, 17 May 2002 and 17 June 2002, between the RTA, Baulderstone Hornibrook Belfinger Berger (BHBB) and BHEgis,

(v) minutes, correspondence and associated documents relating to meetings of the Emergency Management Committee and Emergency Services Liaison Committee, and Community Consultative Committee,

(vi) evaluations of the ventilation system, including performance, malfunctions, costs, maintenance requirements and monthly M5 East in-tunnel air quality reports (for months other than April and May 2002), including traffic counts, and M5 East quarterly report prepared by BHEgis for June 2002,

(vii) correspondence between P. Gallagher of the RTA and BHBB concerning proposals for portal emissions and full details of all instances to date when portal emissions have taken place,

(viii) the nature of action taken to clarify the roles, responsibilities and response protocols of the RTA, BHBB and BHEgis, and the outcomes of such actions,

(ix) compliance with approval and licence conditions for the operation of the M5 East tunnel or the M5 East stack,

(x) reports and correspondence on visits to countries including Norway and Japan and attendance at professional conferences to investigate tunnel ventilation, filtration and treatment equipment,

(xi) details of requests and offers made under the M5 East property valued guarantees dated 1 December 1997 and 13 February 2001, and relocation requests made in respect of other tunnel projects such as the Eastern Distributor or harbour tunnels, including relocation and compensation offers,

(xii) briefings, correspondence, variation orders, costings and associated documents concerning the legal agreement between the RTA and Residents Against Polluting Stacks, dated December 2001,

(xiii) tests of fire systems, results of fire systems inspections and hot smoke tests,

(b) copies of the file covers for all files created by the RTA in relation to the M5 East project since 17 November 1999,

(c) any document in the possession, custody or power of the RTA, Planning NSW, EPA, NSW Health, Premier's Department and Cabinet Office which records or refers to the production of documents as a result of this order of the House.

2. That an indexed list of documents tabled be prepared showing the date of creation of the document, a description of the document and the author.

3. That anything required to be made before the House by this resolution may be lodged with the Clerk of the House if the House is not sitting, and is deemed for all purposes to have been presented to or laid before the House and published by authority of the House.

4. Where it is considered that a document required to be tabled under this order is considered to be privileged and should not been made public or tabled:

(a) a return is to be prepared and tabled showing the date of creation of the document, a description of the document, the author of the document and reasons for the claim of privilege,

(b) the documents are to be delivered to the Clerk of the House by the date and time required in paragraph 1 and:
(i) made available only to members of the Legislative Council, and

(ii) not published or copied without an order of the House.
5. (1) Where any member of the House, by communication in writing to the Clerk, disputes the validity of a claim of privilege in relation to a particular document, the Clerk is authorised to release the disputed document to an independent legal arbiter, for evaluation and report within 5 days as to the validity of the claim.

(2) The independent legal arbiter is to be appointed by the President and must be a Queen's Counsel, a Senior Counsel or a retired Supreme Court Judge.

(3) A report from the independent arbiter is to be tabled with the Clerk of the House, and:

(i) made available only to members of the Legislative Council,

(ii) not published or copied without an order of the House.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, as Chairman, tabled Report No. 21 entitled "Budget Estimates 2002-03", dated September 2002, together with transcripts of evidence, tabled documents, and answers to questions taken on notice and relevant correspondence.

Report ordered to be printed.

The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho, as Chairman, tabled, Report No. 11 entitled "Budget Estimates 2002-03", dated September 2002, together with transcripts of evidence, tabled documents, answers to questions taken on notice and relevant correspondence.

Report ordered to be printed.

The Hon. Richard Jones, as Chairman, tabled report No. 16 entitled "Budget Estimates 2002-03", dated September 2002, together with transcripts of evidence, tabled documents, answers to questions taken on notice and relevant correspondence.

Report ordered to be printed.

Petition praying that the House reject legislative proposals that would detract from the exercise of freedom of religion, and retain the existing exemptions in the Anti-Discrimination Act applying to religious bodies, received from Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.

Petition praying that the House reverse the removal of the Governor from the historic headquarters at Government House and put the role, duties and office of the Governor to a referendum, received from Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.

Debate resumed from 29 August.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [11.12 a.m.]: The debate on the bill has now been going for some seven months. Last week it was adjourned to enable the Government to have extra time to consider a series of amendments foreshadowed by the Opposition. As I indicated last week, the purpose of the private member's bill moved by the Hon. Elaine Nile would be difficult for any member of the House to oppose: that heterosexuals should not be discriminated against on the basis of their heterosexuality. I will not go over all of the ground I traversed last week except to make three quick points. The bill as originally introduced by the Hon. Elaine Nile would create an anomaly in that it would be contrary to anti-discrimination legislation to discriminate against homosexuals and heterosexuals on the basis of their sexuality but there would be no protection under the bill for bisexuals or people with transgender status.

The Opposition's foreshadowed amendments would overcome those anomalies. The Opposition amendments also reflect Law Reform Commission recommendation No. 36 in report No. 92. The Opposition amendments also reflect, in different form, the law in South Australia, Victoria, Queensland and Tasmania and in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. The Opposition would support a second reading of the bill to allow the Opposition amendments to be considered in Committee. The Opposition would support the bill with those amendments and will decide upon whether to support the third reading of the bill following the Committee stage. I make it absolutely clear that the Opposition will vote for the second reading only to allow the Opposition amendments to be considered in Committee. This morning I was advised by the Attorney General's staff that the Government will oppose the bill outright at the second reading stage, so there may not be a Committee stage and an opportunity for the Opposition to move its amendments that would make the bill acceptable by removing the anomalies that would be created by the bill in its original form.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Peter Primrose.

Debate called on, and adjourned on motion by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.

Debate resumed from 28 August.

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE [11.19 a.m.]: I believe I have said all that I need to say on this bill.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.19 a.m.]: The bill has three objectives. The first is to ensure that copies of all government contracts and associated tendering documents and the results of any performance monitoring required under government contracts are made publicly available by all public authorities. The only exception is that disclosure of a contract provision is not required if the Auditor-General certifies that disclosure would commercially disadvantage any party to the contract. The Government opposes this proposal because the Government's current policy on contract disclosure already requires disclosure of a considerable amount of information about government contracts. Premier's memorandum 2000-11 requires public sector agencies to provide a summary of certain contract details, including price, as a matter of course for projects of $100,000 or more and on request for projects for amounts below that.

Additional contract details must be disclosed for projects of $5 million and more that involve private sector financing, land swaps, asset transfers and similar arrangements. The Government's guidelines for privately financed projects require publication and tabling in Parliament of contract summaries for privately financed projects worth more than $5 million. The extensive disclosure requirements are likely to inhibit rather than improve the bill's aim of accountability. Disclosing numerous low-value contracts will make it difficult to identify the more significant contracts and disclosing entire contracts will make it difficult to identify the significant provisions.

The bill could lead to disclosure of commercially confidential information. The exception for contract provisions certified by the Auditor-General does not make clear what criteria the Auditor-General would use in deciding whether the disclosure of a contract provision would commercially disadvantage a party. The bill applies to State-owned corporations, and that could lead to disclosure of commercially sensitive information regarding suppliers and values of contract that could disadvantage State-owned corporations in comparison to the private sector competitors. The bill applies to a range of entities that should not be subject to Government disclosure requirements; for example, non-government organisations constituted by an Act, such as Sydney Grammar School.

The second objective of the bill is to require the Ombudsman to supervise, investigate and report to Parliament on the compliance of public authorities with these disclosure obligations. This is likely to be an onerous and costly task and would divert resources from the Ombudsman's more important duties-a very important point indeed. The third objective of the bill is to ensure that the accounts of all bodies that receive government grants are subject to inspection, examination and audit by the Auditor-General and that the publicly funded activities of those bodies are investigated by the Auditor-General and reported to the Treasurer.

The Government opposes that provision because it is clearly impractical and would be prohibitively costly. Many non-public-sector agencies receive small grants and, in many cases, the compliance cost of the audit would exceed the value of the grant received. The addition of that auditing responsibility would be likely to be an onerous and costly task and would divert resources from the Auditor-General's more important duties. As a consequence, while the bill has some merit in its overall aims, the Government believes that it falls down very badly on the detail. In effect it makes it a very costly exercise for government to meet the high level of compliance required in its provisions.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [11.22 a.m.], in reply: I am extremely disappointed with the Government's position on this bill. The Premier's memorandum 2000-11 on disclosure of contracts claims to already handle this situation. If that is the case, why is the Government scared of this bill? If it is not the case, the Premier's memorandum is a farce. Dare I say, that is the real situation, as it was with Walsh Bay, the contract for the M2 that stopped the Government from building any decent rail system in the north-west sector, the harbour tunnel, and so on-we still have not seen the contracts for those projects. Basically the Government hides things that it does in Governor Macquarie Tower and expects the lower House to rubber stamp everything. As the Government has the majority of seats in the lower House it wins 100 per cent of the votes so effectively the lower House is a rubber stamp, so why bother even having it?

The Government regards this House as an inconvenience and tries to bully things through. This House spends a huge amount of time on inquiries, which are derisively referred to as mickey mouse inquiries, simply to get information which should have been available in the first place. That is appalling. I recall the fiasco when the Minister made political decisions on what were basically engineering matters to introduce large volumes of air into the M5 East tunnel through one tower. That was all done at huge cost and for political reasons, and in the end it did not work. All those contracts were hidden and had to be dragged out of the Government under the supervision of retired judges. It is a joke for the Government to talk about the cost of the Ombudsman's office enforcing the provisions of this bill. The Parliament spent hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money chasing information that should have been readily available.

All that should be balanced against the costs of the court cases in which this House has been involved, including Egan v Willis and Egan v Chadwick and anor. When I asked the Treasurer about those costs I was given a diatribe of nonsense, so I have again put that question on notice in an endeavour to get an answer on the cost of closed government. Many inquiries were held because we have a closed government. The idea that it will be costly to have an open government, as enunciated by the Hon. Ian Macdonald, is, of course, a nonsense. Infrastructure groups in the private sector are quite happy to have open competition if the rules are changed, but they do not want it to be retrospective.

Commercial confidentiality simply allows the Government to make decisions that it does not want anyone to view. The contracts for the Port Macquarie hospital, the M2 and the North Head tunnel were also fiascos. The Government was given a bad deal when those contracts were changed halfway through the projects. Those contracts were against the interests of taxpayers, but, of course, it is very difficult to know about all those things. It may be that contracts relating to statutory bodies, such as Sydney Grammar School, need some attention. However, the Government has not made any attempt to fix that.

I thank all honourable members who have spoken in this debate, many of whom made sensible contributions. Of course, open government is a highly important issue that occupies the mind of any party that is in opposition. That seems to be always forgotten by the party that is in government-in particular this arrogant Government. The bill seeks to close the debate on whether documents should be released and starts from the premise that taxpayers have a right to know how a government is spending their money. This is not a question of whether we have the right to the information; it is a question of whether the Government has the right to keep that information a secret. I believe that it does not. This bill makes it a rule that documents are publicly available and that the exception be that they are not. The bill supplants the need for a Freedom of Information Act, because freedom from information has become the practice.

Requesting freedom of information is like someone with a begging bowl asking for personal information. Many requests are made for personal information. The extrapolation of that information to the way that tenders are awarded is embarrassing. Public servants are far more frightened of the consequence of release than non-release, a matter that was dealt with thoroughly and competently by Sir Brian Elwood, the New Zealand Ombudsman, in his paper on the subject at the forum which I chaired in November 2001. I have distributed that paper in this House. The bill will save the time of this House in debating motions for the production of documents. It will save retired Supreme Court judges the trouble of declaring important documents to be Cabinet in confidence. The bill will stop the delivery of truckloads of useless documents to this House in an attempt to hide the important documents amongst them. That seems to be the Government's standard tactic. It whinges about the expense of collecting documents and bringing them here for only a few people to read. That is because so few people have access to them, and they are often hard to find without a list.

The limited number of people who look at the documents, mainly members of this House, have to fit in document searches with everything else, rather than taking the logical step of assigning a researcher to the task. The Government put forward the usual arguments and cited the Premier's memo. However, we continue to experience difficulty in accessing documents. Following discussion with the Auditor-General and the Ombudsman, both of whom are designated in the bill to examine information, I will move nine amendments to answer the reasonable criticisms of the bill. The amendments will define what should be examined. Small contracts have been criticised. The cost of releasing a contract will be very small in awarding a contract. It is unreasonable to suggest that it will cause a great deal of trouble. If the standard protocol for contracts were to list them, and that were done as one signed the contract and put it on the shelf, or perhaps stamped a letter as a routine act, the cost would be correspondingly small.

It is nonsense to suggest that the documents would be lost amongst the other documents. A simple search of the database for values greater than $100,000, or whatever the number might be, would enable people to prioritise available documents. Small businesses are at a disadvantage compared to large businesses when dealing with the Government because the Government wants to buy in bulk. If, however, smaller contracts were available then those who were able to supply competitively at the small end of the contract scale could see what was being offered and at what price and, perhaps, tender for a small contract in the local area. The bill would encourage open market competition, which is vaunted by both the Federal Government and this Government. It is the essence of giving people a good deal. The bill would give us the opportunity to improve the efficiency of government and save the time of this House by making available major items of government information and policy.

The amendments deal with the role of the Auditor-General and the Ombudsman. The bill gives the Auditor-General the task of deciding which documents should be kept in confidence for commercial reasons, but the Auditor-General preferred that the Ombudsman do it. The Ombudsman is willing to take on that responsibility if the Parliament were to give him that function. His only request is that he be funded to fulfil the obligation. The initial response by a number of government departments would be to send everything to the Ombudsman's office to seek exemptions for everything and, thus, maintain the status quo. The Ombudsman's office would have a flurry of documents. If the Ombudsman were to handle it in the same way as Sir Brian Elwood handled it in New Zealand, he would knock all of them back, take a test case to the Supreme Court and, after that, have very few documents to deal with. That was certainly the New Zealand experience.

Any extra money spent on the Ombudsman in this transitory period would be more than saved by fewer cases of Egan v. Willis, et cetera, where the Government has worked so hard and assiduously to keep documents secret. Members of this House would sit on fewer committees where public servants are running around trying to prevent documents, government policy and information about how the Government is spending taxpayers' money from becoming openly available and discussed. Contracts containing mates' rates and things that are against the public interest, which is very much the case in a number of contracts to which I have already referred, will be stopped. The result will be better governance in New South Wales, which is exactly what the Australian Democrats are trying to achieve. I ask the House for support at the second reading stage and, after I have moved my amendments in Committee, at the third reading stage. I urge all honourable members to support this bill in the interests of good governance in New South Wales.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [11.38 p.m.]: I seek leave to move amendments Nos 2 to 9 in globo.

Leave not granted.

Progress reported from Committee and leave granted to sit again.

Debate resumed from 29 August.

The Hon. PETER BREEN [11.42 p.m.]: Few people would argue with the statement that the family unit is the single most important structure in society. I support generally the thrust of this bill. However, the bill deserves some attention, in particular, as to the perceived focus on minority groups, such as single families and families without a breadwinner. I am aware also that many members are considering the bill and proposed amendments.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Peter Breen.

Debate resumed from 29 August.

The Hon. IAN COHEN [11.43 a.m.]: I support the National Parks and Wildlife Amendment (Licences) Bill, which was introduced by the Hon. Richard Jones. I commend the honourable member for his efforts and his consistency in dealing with wildlife protection and animal rights and safety issues. He has been a primary champion of the cause of the many endangered species in this State. It is extremely important to have such representation in Parliament. I am pleased to support the honourable member on this timely bill, which allows for strictly non-lethal licences to be issued in respect of fauna. The bill is designed to better preserve our native wildlife population without obstructing the ability of farmers to carry out their business. The provisions of this bill are in addition to the existing provisions in sections 120 and 121 which permit the issuing of licences to harm fauna lethally.

The bill has been developed following wide consultation with major animal rights organisations, including the RSPCA, the Humane Society International, the peak environment groups of New South Wales, the World League for the Protection of Animals, the Wildlife Information and Rescue Service-which does a fantastic job on the ground rescuing many animals that have been unnecessarily harmed-Animal-Liberation and wildlife research scientists. Currently, the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 provides for the issuing of an occupiers licence. Section 121 authorises owners or occupiers of specified lands to harm-that is, to hunt, shoot, poison, injure or kill-a specified number of animals found on their land. Section 120 of the Act allows protected fauna to be harmed. Living as I do on the Far North Coast of New South Wales, I have seen and been involved in many situations where native animals, because of the loss of their habitat and the ongoing land clearing policies of various governments, including this State Government-

The Hon. Rick Colless: You eat food, that is the problem.

The Hon. IAN COHEN: The Hon. Rick Colless says it is because we eat food. There are ways to produce food sustainably and there are adequate ways to deal with some of the major native animal problems. Many fruit growers in the north of New South Wales use netting against flying foxes.

The Hon. Rick Colless: And the flying foxes get under the nets.

The Hon. IAN COHEN: The Hon. Rick Colless claims that the flying foxes get under the nets. I have seen the comprehensive netting on many of the farms. Aware farmers, and there are many, take effective and pro-active measures to deal with the ongoing and insoluble problem of native species losing their habitat moving to the various fruit-growing areas.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: If the farmers are doing it, do we need the legislation?

The Hon. IAN COHEN: The Hon. Patricia Forsythe asks a valid question. In certain circumstances netting can be used. But netting is not an option for the massive areas needed for crops such as rice, and other options must be employed. The Hon. Richard Jones, with this bill, attempts to encourage and in some cases force those options to be used, where available. We have to get away from the perhaps traditional method of shooting, killing and otherwise maiming endangered and protected species. By using other options, farmers can carry on their agricultural pursuits, yet minimise the impact on native animals. Native animals are doing what comes naturally: searching for food. But this creates confrontation. Just as scarecrows were once used to protect crops, farmers should use methods of avoidance to protect their crops rather than kill or injure animals.

The bill also seeks to keep all licences-particularly those that confer the right to harm lethally-on a central register that is available for public inspection. The Greens strongly support a move towards that type of transparency and believe a central register is appropriate in that context. I have seen how the removal or chasing away of fauna can cause havoc and great distress. I witnessed a fauna-scaring operation at Maclean involving a flying fox colony that was situated close to a school. The Department of Education had failed to heed the warnings of local conservationists and built the school virtually on the edge of the flying fox colony. Of course, problems soon arose.

The Hon. Rick Colless: Flying foxes do not live in the same place all the time; colonies are mobile.

The Hon. IAN COHEN: We argued that preventative measures should be taken because the colony lived in that location most of the time. There was a major confrontation between Education authorities and conservationists, and a man named Tidderman was called in to scare away the native fauna. As a consequence, distressed flying foxes dispersed all over Maclean and could be found hanging on backyard clotheslines. It was ridiculous. This bill attempts to find ways of ameliorating problems such as that. The obvious answer in Maclean was not to build the school on that site.

The Hon. Rick Colless: How long had the school been there?

The Hon. IAN COHEN: It has been on that site for a relatively short period; I do not know the exact date. I understand that school extensions were built near the forest that was home to the flying foxes. I have visited the school, which should never have been located on that site-it was asking for trouble. It has created enormous problems for students that recur when the flying foxes return each season. This is what happens when proper planning does not take place, there is no awareness of the situation and the advice of the National Parks and Wildlife Service is not heeded by other agencies. It should be noted that the black flying fox and the grey-headed flying fox are listed as vulnerable under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. In addition, the grey-headed flying fox is also listed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. Legal harm to these animals may occur when licences are issued by the National Parks and Wildlife Service under sections 120 and 121 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974. Both State and Federal governments recognise the obvious need to change these policies, and I commend the Hon. Richard Jones for moving on this issue.

The competing interests of native animals and food producers will not go away, and we must address this ongoing problem intelligently and compassionately. I understand that in New South Wales alone about 1,500 orchards grow fruit that is attractive to flying foxes. Survey results indicate that an average of 30 flying foxes are shot every night in many of these orchards during problem periods, which can last for several weeks. It is estimated that as many as 100,000 flying foxes are slaughtered annually over their range, not counting the injured and the young who die orphaned. It is sad to see the animals flying overhead with buckshot holes in their wings, which look like tattered black stage cloths. It is a sad state of affairs.

In many cases flying foxes and waterfowl may be repelled by exclusion netting, agricultural methods such as the timing and method of sowing crops, visual deterrents such as good old-fashioned scarecrows and flashing lights, auditory deterrents such as shooting blanks-although the neighbours would have cause for concern if that method were chosen-or placing mechanical noise-making devices in fields that transmit animals' distress calls. These are effective ways of repelling flying foxes. Netting has the double benefit of offering extra protection to crops against hailstorms, which can cause serious damage. So it is a win-win situation. I support the Hon. Richard Jones' bill, which outlines appropriate ways of dealing with this problem. I will be interested to hear the comments of the Hon. Rick Colless, given his much-espoused views on Green issues. This legislation enjoys the strong support of various animal welfare organisations and has been developed in accordance with them. Animal-Liberation stated:

We write to support the amendment to the NPWS Act … the provision of an alternative is particularly welcome. Legal control of any species is both inhumane and self-defeating.

The Wildlife Information and Rescue Service [WIRES], which does wonderful work in the field protecting injured wildlife, concluded:

The establishment of non-lethal licences is in line with the objectives and principles of WIRES and the establishment of a central register which is available for inspection is a positive move from an administrative perspective.

The protection of our fauna is vital. In the past 200 years, more species have become extinct in Australia than in any other country on earth. We must reverse this appalling record.

The ability for the National Parks and Wildlife Service to issue non-lethal licences for the first time is a big step in the right direction. Such a move would be applauded by all environmental groups throughout Australia.

The Environment Liaison Office said:

The peak environment groups of NSW strongly support the National Parks & Wildlife Amendment (Occupiers' Licenses) Bill 2002 … The expanded scope of the occupiers licence will provide greater flexibility for finding innovative, humane and ecologically beneficial solutions to relieve the problems caused by native animals to landholders; and at the same time, ensure that an attempt is made to minimise the impacts on our native animals.

The World League for the Protection of Animals stated:

The use of non-lethal mechanisms to address problems has many advantages, especially in relation to protected and vulnerable animals, but also in relation to the environment as a whole …

There is enormous community concern at some of the methods used to address issues of animals seen as 'pests'. For these reasons and for the increased level of transparency that would result, we support the Bill.

The way animals are designated pests is interesting. Many years ago, for other reasons, I was on a farm near Alstonville, and the farmer thought he was doing the right thing by getting a shot gun and shooting the flying foxes. That is where I believe the National Party, and other representatives who have a close affiliation with the country constituency, have a responsibility. Rather than just opposing these types of moves they should be working out ways for the farming community and conservationists to work together to achieve a win-win situation. I ask the National Party representatives to keep that in mind because we want to see it and I am quite open to it. As Bob Brown, our present Federal representative, has said a number of times-and I think it is appropriate-if you scratch a farmer there is a Green underneath. We should work towards having a love of the land and a change in some attitudes. I have seen many examples of farmers creating habitat, dealing with salinity, protecting native species, all as part of a process of good conservation farming that is positive for farmers in the long-run and has a significant benefit to native species.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The New South Wales Government will be holding a summit on childhood obesity from Tuesday 10 September to Thursday 12 September 2002 at Parliament House. The summit is being co-ordinated by the Department of Health. The summit will bring together health experts, parliamentary representatives, industry, parents, teachers and children to develop practical solutions to the problem of childhood obesity. Issues to be discussed include food sales and advertising, exercising, community and school programs and education campaigns. The plenary sessions of the summit will be held in the Legislative Council Chamber. Nine working groups will also be formed and they will use various meeting rooms on all floors of the building during the summit. There will be approximately 200 delegates and registered observers. Members of the public, honourable members and parliamentary staff will be able to view the proceedings from the upper gallery of the Chamber on a first-come first-served basis. Working group meetings are not open sessions. The proceedings will also be broadcast both on the Internet site and on the in-house television channels. Information about the summit and the topic of childhood obesity is available on the web site of the Department of Health, www.health.nsw.gov.au.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: My question without notice is to the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries. Did you attend a meeting at the electorate office of the Member for Lakemba, Morris Iemma, on 7 June, along with Garry McIntyre and Arthur Coorey, to discuss the Oasis development? What matters were discussed at that meeting, and can you explain to the House how matters raised at that meeting related to your portfolio areas of mineral resources and fisheries?
The Hon. Michael Egan: Point of order: Yesterday in question time it was 45 minutes before the Opposition learned to frame a question. If the question has nothing to do with public issues with which the Minister is officially connected, then the question is out of order.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: To the point of order: The question is extremely clear. It asks what matters were discussed at the meeting related to the Minister's portfolio. The cockalorum opposite keeps getting up on its feet, having a little go, trying to protect its member, but at the end of the day it is very clear. The question clearly asks about the portfolio responsibilities of the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The question may very well be in order but only if it is answered in a certain way. However, I will allow the Minister to indicate whether the question is in order because it applies to his official business.

The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: I am very happy to answer the question. The answer is, no, no, no, no.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Police. Can the Minister advise the House about the status of recent Crime Stoppers campaigns?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I just cannot believe that the Opposition comes in here day after day asking the same questions. This is the fourth day in a row.

The Hon. Rick Colless: It is about accountability.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: It is not called accountability; it is called fishing for political gain and it is very ineffective. It has nothing to do with accountability of this Parliament. It is just absolute nonsense. Crime Stoppers plays an invaluable role in the community; it gives members of the public a toll-free, anonymous, if necessary, way to help their local police address crime. This year Crime Stoppers embarked on a new publicity campaign and it has been a massive success. It has been especially successful in targeting drug-related crime. The number of Crime Stoppers calls is up by 86 percent on the monthly average since the launch of the new campaign on 16 June. I am advised that the Crime Stoppers hotline is now averaging 1,300 calls a week, up from 550 before the new promotional campaign.

In July police reported taking 5,188 calls, a huge increase on the July 2001 figure of 2,633 calls. I am advised that as a direct result of the Crime Stoppers initiative inquiries New South Wales police this year made 74 arrests, 57 of which were drug-related; laid 204 charges, 107 of which were drug-related; and seized $2.1 million in drugs. Crime Stoppers is a partnership between police and the community. It allows the people of New South Wales to act as the eyes and ears of our officers in their own communities. Police tell me the quantity of calls has not only increased but the quality of information provided is also higher. I am advised some callers have admitted to being former drug users, tipping off police about their dealers or drug contacts.

Commissioner Ken Moroney and I have both talked about the need for community-based policing. Crime Stoppers is a toll-free, anonymous way to help our police target drugs and other crimes. In the 13 years that Crime Stoppers has been operating it has helped solve thousands of crimes which could otherwise have gone unpunished. Crime Stoppers offers rewards for information that leads to arrests. Crime Stoppers also pays up to a thousand dollars for information about illegal handguns. The Opposition should take note of this because it is under the misapprehension that no scheme is in place to deal with illegal handguns, given some of the comments made in recent times by the Leader of the Opposition, who is also known as the Pinocchio from Pittwater.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon Jan Burnswoods to order.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: Point of order: Madam President, I ask that you rule that the Minister can only refer to a member of the other House by his title or his electorate. The Minister is unparliamentary when he refers to the Leader of the Opposition in the manner he has.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Imputations against members of Parliament, either in this Chamber or in the other Chamber are unparliamentary. I would remind the Minister to remain in order.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I would not mind a ruling on whether it is an imputation to tell a lie because the honourable Leader of the Opposition tells lies. Does that make him a liar or not?

The PRESIDENT: Order! Is the Minister taking a point of order on his own speech?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Yes, I am-on the ruling.

The PRESIDENT: Has the Minister finished his answer?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: No, I have not finished my answer.

The PRESIDENT: I give the call to the Hon. Jan Burnswoods to ask a supplementary question.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: Can the Minister further elucidate his answer?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: As I was saying, Crime Stoppers also pays up to $1,000 for information about illegal hand guns.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: The Minister clearly indicated that he had not finished his answer yet a supplementary question was allowed extending his time to answer when he had not finished his answer. I request that he be directed back to his answer and the extra time be withdrawn.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister was asked to elucidate his answer. "Elucidate" means to clarify and that is what the Minister is doing. The Minister has the call.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Crime Stoppers also offers $1,000 for information about illegal hand guns. That seems to be a point that the Leader of the Opposition, often referred to as a particular person from Pittwater, does not understand. After a recent publicity stunt in New York he came back and made an announcement that the Opposition would offer a similar amount for a scheme that is already in progress. Clearly, the Leader of the Opposition does not understand how crime and crime enforcement operates in this State. He is inexperienced and has a tendency to tell untruths on every occasion.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. The Minister has been speaking for about one minute about the Leader of the Opposition and is not elucidating his answer to the question.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister was, in fact, referring to statements made by the Leader of the Opposition germane to the actual question asked. Accordingly, I rule they are in order. Has the Minister concluded his answer?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Yes.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question is to the Treasurer. Can he explain the apparent contradiction between his statements to the House last week about Crown land transfers for the Oasis development in which he stated that no transfer to Liverpool City Council was necessary and the comments from the Minister for Land and Water Conservation yesterday, who confirmed that the matter of land transfers had been the subject of protracted negotiations?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I certainly do not recall saying that no transfer of land was necessary. What I recall saying was that no transfer had taken place.

The Hon. Eddie Obeid: It hasn't.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: That is right, it has not.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: How would you know, Eddie?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Because it is a matter of public knowledge.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Greg Pearce to order.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition can show me the statement that he has attributed to me, I can see the context in which it was made.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: That is what you said.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: No, I do not recall ever saying that no transfer was necessary. Obviously, if the Oasis development were to proceed on the basis of the proposals that were public, then clearly being on Crown land there would need to be some transfer of land or some accommodation made.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Then why did you come back into the Chamber and indicate that no meeting was necessary because no transfer was necessary? You made that clarification.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has simply not done his homework. I have a little time so I will look at the Hansard of last Tuesday, see who is right and come back to the House on that.

The Hon. MALCOLM JONES: My question is directed to the Minister, representing the Minister for the Environment. The Scientific Committee has made a determination to support a proposal to list the removal of dead wood, dead trees and logs from the ground as a key threatening process under schedule 3 of the Threatened Species Conservation Act. Given that our society has so recently suffered a most devastating bushfire season, that we are currently experiencing severe drought-

The Hon. Ian Cohen: Point of order: The honourable member is raising a question on the Threatened Species Act, which is before the House at the present time. Is that not inappropriate?

The Hon. MALCOLM JONES: To the point of order: That is not correct. I was raising a point under the current Threatened Species Conservation Act not the amendment to the Threatened Species Conservation Act, which is before this Parliament. It is a current Act.

The PRESIDENT: Order! As the question asked by the honourable member relates to the current Act and not to the amendment that is before the House I rule the question in order. However, the honourable member's time for speaking has expired. Did the Minister hear enough of the question to be able to answer it?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I am sure that the Minister in the other place will be able to put together an answer in response to as much as the honourable member was able to outline in his question. I will refer it to the Minister in the other place.

The Hon. MALCOLM JONES: I ask a supplementary question. Given that our society has so recently suffered a most devastating bushfire season, that we are currently experiencing severe drought, that we are probably facing an even worse fire season this summer and that the loss of wildlife last year has been hardly mentioned, and assuming that the Scientific Committee is publicly funded, will the Minister counsel the so-called scientists about the threat posed by fire to our State?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I will refer the question to the Minister in the other place for a response. I think the Minister would see that as a level of interference in the role of the Scientific Committee that would be inappropriate, but I will obtain a formal response from the Minister.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: My question without notice is directed to the Special Minister of State. Will the Minister inform the House how nursing skills in regional and rural New South Wales are being improved?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The Motor Accidents Authority has provided funds to develop Australia's first graduate certificate in spinal nursing. This will be a boost to medical skills, particularly in regional and rural areas. The $45,000 grant will allow a graduate certificate in spinal nursing to be offered to nurses through the University of Technology, Sydney. The course will only be offered via distance education, to encourage access for regional and rural nurses. Regrettably, each year an average of 40 people suffer severe spinal injuries in car crashes across New South Wales. Approximately 30 per cent of people making a green slip claim for spinal injuries come from regional or rural areas.

To assist with the development of the graduate certificate the Motor Accidents Authority will fund four scholarships to assist registered nurses in regional, rural and remote areas to undertake the course next year. The $3,400-scholarships will be offered to registered nurses currently working in the Greater Murray Area Health Service, the Mid West Area Health Service, the New England Area Health Service and the Mid North Coast Area Health Service. Nurses must have at least five years clinical experience and have the support of their area health service to undertake the certificate. The graduate certificate will provide registered nurses with opportunities to gain a greater knowledge of spinal nursing issues, a valuable qualification for medical services in regional and rural New South Wales.

The Hon. RICHARD JONES: I direct my question to the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Health. Now that there is abundant evidence that 50 per cent of tobacco users die from the drug and that it causes serious illness in non-users breathing sidestream smoke, will the Government move to treat tobacco as the highly dangerous drug that it is and, as a first step, restrict its sale to chemist shops and outlets restricted to adults, and then move towards limiting its availability only on prescription?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: The Hon. Richard Jones raises an important question and I would not want to trifle with it in any way, and I will refer it to the Minister for Health for a considered response. But he did say that 50 per cent of tobacco smokers die. I thought that 100 per cent of people die.

The Hon. Richard Jones: They die earlier from the effects of smoking.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Okay. It is an important question and I will refer it to the Minister for Health. This is the first indication I have ever had that my personal addiction might lead to immortality. I have never heard that one before.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: My question is to the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries. Minister, how does your statement on Tuesday "if honourable members would look at my pecuniary interest statement they would see that I declared my interest in Olympia and, as far as I am concerned, Jensay" stand up to scrutiny in light of your statement to the Clerk tabled yesterday, which reads in part "I have today become aware that my 1994/95 pecuniary interest statement did not include a reference to these two companies"?

The Hon. Michael Egan: Point of order: The question is clearly designed to mislead the House. Yesterday the Minister made it clear that his 1993-94 pecuniary interest statement declared that he was a director of two companies, Jensay Pty Ltd and Olympia Group Pty Ltd. For the Opposition to suggest that the Minister was not declaring on his pecuniary interest return-

The Hon. Duncan Gay: What is your point of order?

The Hon. Michael Egan: The point of order is that the question is a lie, and the public record demonstrates that fact.

The PRESIDENT: Order! As I have ruled before in this House, there is no standing order that requires that statements made by members be correct. The Minister may answer the question.

The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: Madam President-

The Hon. Greg Pearce: What did you get for your guarantee, Eddie?

The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: Why don't you listen? Your records will be produced in time.
The Hon. Greg Pearce: How much did you get for your guarantee?

The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: You are not important enough. My pecuniary interests of 1993-94 declared quite clearly my short involvement with those two companies. When I was made aware that an extra four months or so should have been included in the following year I declared it to the Clerk-simple as that. It is on public record. I do not deny the fact that I was a director of that company. The reasons I was a director have been on the public record. It was 1994 or thereabouts-

The Hon. Duncan Gay: It was not in the parliamentary records.

The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: If you want to milk this further keep asking questions. I am happy to accommodate you.

The Hon. RON DYER: Will the Minister inform the House how the Government is ensuring that workers receive their correct wages and entitlements?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: An increased commitment from the Government has allowed Department of Industrial Relations inspectors to be more active than ever in ensuring minimum employment standards are met in New South Wales workplaces. Over the next year approximately 10,000 wage inspections will occur. We expect the number to rise again over the next two years with the addition of 13 new inspectors. That intake will help to double the number of inspectors allocated to the northern rivers, central west and southern regions. During July this year inspectors visited 113 businesses in Albury and Wagga Wagga, including shops, cafes and restaurants. These businesses employ approximately 700 workers. A second group of inspectors have visited 125 businesses in Ashfield, Burwood and Strathfield. A third group of inspectors visited 200 businesses in Dubbo, Parkes and Forbes. Inspectors will continue the campaign throughout September. Employers in the commercial centres of North Sydney, Ryde, Parramatta and Bankstown can expect a visit in the next few weeks.

Inspectors will explain employers' responsibilities and in many cases provide information kits on awards and industrial laws. Inspections will also commence in Tamworth and Armidale. Around 550 businesses, including retailers, restaurants, video hire and takeaway food stores will be visited. In the coming months inspectors will follow up these initial visits with a series of random wage audits to assess compliance. Particular focus will be on businesses that employ young people. The aim of these inspections is to ensure that employers understand their obligations. The emphasis is always on education. Most employers are ready and willing to do the right thing when they know what is required. Rather than simply responding to complaints, Department of Industrial Relations inspectors are visiting workplaces to help employers and employees work together to identify and head off disputes before they arise. The Government is promoting stronger and effective working relationships and ensuring employment laws in this State are respected by both employers and employees.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: My question is to the Special Minister of State. What positive measures will WorkCover put in place to ensure premium discount advisers are properly briefed on benchmarks and performance criteria? What punitive measures will WorkCover put in place to ensure that the premium discount advisers adhere to those benchmarks and performance criteria? Has WorkCover considered the legal ramifications with its duty of care under tort for injured workers under certified yet unsafe work environments and employers financially disadvantaged through approved yet unconscionable premium discount advisers?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I thank the honourable member for his ongoing interest in workers compensation issues, particularly his interest in the recent reform package, and for ensuring through his work in this place and on the committee that he chairs that the transition in a range of areas is as smooth as possible. The question refers particularly to the way in which the premium discount scheme is working. On a number of occasions I have indicated to the House the extent of the success of the scheme. I will not tarry with the time of the House by going through a recital of the success; I will refer honourable members to previous answers I have given indicating that it is providing benchmarks for improved occupational health and safety and, more importantly, giving employers incentives to provide safer workplaces and to escape from what we call the negative history of their previous claims experience. The specific questions that Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile asked deal with the way in which the premium discount scheme accreditation is audited. There are a couple of assumptions in his questions that I certainly would not validate within my answer. I am not sure, with all due respect, that they are valid assumptions. I will study the question carefully and provide the honourable member with an answer as soon as practicable.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: My question is to the Treasurer. Given his repeated assertions that he is not responsible for the poor performance of NSW State Super Pooled Fund, can he explain why he wrote to 51,000 eligible public servants with a conversion offer in 2000 to try to rein in problems with the fund's finances? Is this not a clear example of the Treasurer having a role in the management of the fund? Does this not put paid to his claims both in Parliament and in the media that he is not responsible for the poor performance and bad investments of the fund?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Let me first deal with the assertion that the State Super pooled fund has had a poor performance. As I pointed out sometime last week, the pooled fund for the past seven years has had an average annual rate of return of 9.9 per cent. My information is that that exceeds the average performance of other funds. Far from being an unsatisfactory performance, it has performed ahead of other funds. The reason it had a negative net return last year was largely because all the equities markets around the world have collapsed. The back page of the Economist-

The Hon. John Della Bosca: They don't read the Economist.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: No, they do not. The back page of the most recent edition of the Economist states that most equities markets around the world-

The Hon. John Ryan: Some equities markets. They have not all collapsed.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: That is an interesting point made by the Hon. John Ryan. My recollection of the last edition of the Economist that I saw stated that the Australian Stock Exchange was down some 10 per cent on its previous record level, but the Australian Stock Exchange was the superior performer of all of them. The NASDAQ is down about 76 per cent, and, on average, the other markets are down between 30 and 40 per cent, including markets in the United Kingdom and the United States of America. The question referring to the transfer offer to members of the pooled fund is a complete non sequitur as far as performance of the pooled fund is concerned. There is no connection between the two issues; and I would have thought that the honourable member would have understood that.

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: My question without notice is to the Treasurer. Does the Treasurer have anything to add to his previous answer to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition concerning the Oasis development?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I regret to say that in my previous answer I made a mistake. I said "if the Oasis development was to proceed", and I should have said "if the Oasis development were to proceed", which I am sure Hansard will have corrected. Other than that, everything I have said was entirely correct. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition asserted that I told the House that no transfer was necessary.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: That is true.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said "That is true". I will quote from Hansard. I said:

I am advised that this land is already administered by Liverpool City Council …

The Hon. Duncan Gay: They've already got it.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: No. I further said:

… and that no transfer has taken place.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You are saying that no transfer was necessary.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: No. Opposition members are masters of the non sequitur. Both my statements are 100 per cent right. The land, which is Crown land, and which Liverpool council wants transferred to its ownership, is currently, and I understand has been for a long, long time, administered by Liverpool council. So the first part of my statement was right-100 per cent right. The second part of my statement, that no transfer has taken place, was also right-100 per cent right. The statement that no transfer was necessary was an invention by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. He now has the benefit of reading Hansard, and he still cannot understand that he was wrong. No wonder the Opposition is in such a terrible position.

The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD: My question is to the Treasurer, representing the Attorney General. Given the stated mitigating factors, or outs, in the Government's recently announced Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Standard Minimum Sentencing) Bill, when this policy becomes law how will those new sentencing procedures force judges to comply with the stated objects and purposes of the bill? How do the stated mitigating factors, or outs for judges not inclined to follow the objects and purposes of such laws, differ from the mitigating factors already commonly used by judges when explaining their chosen level of penalty?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I must admit that I was so excited by my last answer that I was not listening to the question. I apologise to the Hon. David Oldfield and will take the question on notice. Obviously I have to, because I did not hear it, and I apologise.

The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD: I ask a supplementary question. For what types of offenders does the Government expect judges will not use the outs of mitigating circumstances? For example, would the lady referred to in today's Daily Telegraph get an out after pursuing her partner for 100 yards or so and stabbing him 20 times? Would she get an out on the so-called battered wife mitigating circumstance?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I think the question is out of order. The Hon. David Oldfield is seeking not only an opinion but a legal opinion from me. I am probably better equipped to give legal opinions than many of the lawyers in this place, except for the Hon. John Hatzistergos, who is a learned gentleman.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: Why don't you make him a Minister?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: That should happen, and I am one of the people who want it to happen as quickly as possible.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: It won't happen after March, because you won't have that opportunity.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I remember the Hon. Patricia Forsythe saying the same thing about four years ago, and saying something similar about eight years ago. Three strikes and you are out, and the third strike is coming up. The question is out of order.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Was the Minister taking a point of order that the question was out of order?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I was having a bit both ways, Madam President.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Hon. David Oldfield that questions cannot ask for an opinion of the Minister.

The Hon. DON HARWIN: My question is to the Minister for Police. What is the current status of investigations into car rebirthing rackets in the Sydney metropolitan area? Can the Minister give an assurance to the House that those investigations are ongoing and have not been slowed down or discontinued for any reason?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I do not understand the question; it was very vague. I am happy to take the question on notice and provide a detailed answer if the honourable member has something more specific to add. I assure the honourable member that the question that he outlined is very vague. If he wants to supplement it with additional details, I will try to answer it. It was a vague questions about car rebirthing.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: My question without notice is to the Minister for Community Services. What action has the Government taken to help people with a disability and their carers?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: It is true that one of the opportunities most valued by people with a disability is the ability to live independently in their own homes. That is often not an easy task, for instance it could require the use of adaptive equipment and skills training. At the same time people with a disability need to access a range of recreational activities to allow them to get out of the home and into the wider community and enjoy interaction that a lot of us take for granted. They also need to receive, from an early age, vital services tailored to their requirements, such as occupational therapy, physiotherapy, education, assessment and referral, parent support, and so forth. The Carr Government recognises the needs of people with a disability and we have a special commitment to people with a disability. Indeed, the last State budget saw a record $1.2 billion committed to the Department of Ageing, Disability and Homecare.

The Hon. Michael Egan: Hear! Hear!

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I thank the Treasurer for that generosity, although I know the money does not come out of his pocket.

The Hon. Michael Egan: But I treat it as though it does.

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: Yes, I am well aware of that. For that reason I am also pleased to advise the House that the Government recently provided $17.5 million throughout New South Wales to help people with a disability take the opportunity to lead as independent a life as possible. Our commitment to people with a disability goes wider and extends to the dedicated army of carers who often make it possible for people with a disability to live within their own homes. That is why a significant part of the $17.5 million will enable families and carers to take a much-needed break. The funding we have provided runs across the State from nearly three-quarters of a million dollars for the far and mid North Coast and New England to nearly half a million dollars for the Riverina-Murray and the Central West.

The funding covers a whole range of services. For instance, Cobar will receive $100,000 for the Spastic Centre to provide therapy services in Orana and the Far West in towns such as Broken Hill, Walgett, Burke, Mudgee, Wellington and Dubbo. The services are designed to improve or maintain functions such as speech and motor skills, through speech pathology, occupational therapy and physiotherapy. South-east and south-west Sydney combined will receive $6.7 million for a wide range of services such as case management and brokerage to provide specialist services for people with high or complex support needs, services to meet the needs of people with a disability with challenging behaviours, and training for independent living. The Hunter and Central Coast will receive a total of $3.6 million to provide similar services for people with a disability, and their families and carers. This latest round of funding is making a real difference to people's lives. It continues to put New South Wales in the lead when it comes to funding for services not only for people with a disability but also for programs for the ageing.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I direct my question to the Treasurer, representing the Premier. Is the Government paying for the legal costs of the honourable member for Parramatta, who is being sued by her former electoral assistant, Anne Stonham. If the Government is not paying for Ms Harrison's legal costs, is the Government providing any advice to Ms Harrison on how to conduct this case? If advice is being given, who is providing it?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I do not know the answer to the question. I will refer it to the Premier and obtain a response.

The Hon. JOHN RYAN: My question is to the Minister for Police. Why did the Government sell a prime land site adjacent to Wattle Grove shopping centre in the Menai electorate owned by the Police Force which had been designated for future police station? Why did he not investigate why the site was not used for its intended purpose, given that the current Moorebank police station, which services that area, is an inadequate former residential house that is poorly situated?
The Hon. Don Harwin: A good question.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I do not know whether it is a good question because I do not know whether the information in it is accurate. Given that those opposite have a leader who constantly tells lies, I am very cautious about questions from the Opposition. I will take it on notice and get a detailed answer.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG: My question is to the Minister for Fisheries. What action has been taken to assess the economic and social benefits of the striped marlin fishery in New South Wales?

The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: I thank my colleague the Hon. Henry Tsang for his keen interest in our recreational fishing. Striped marlin is a popular recreational species found in coastal waters of New South Wales. Recreational anglers regard them as a challenge. The recreational catch of striped marlin is steadily increasing, with most fish being tagged and released under the Government's successful game fish tagging program. In addition, each year commercial fishers licensed by the Commonwealth catch large numbers of this resource. These commercial long-line fishing operations target the species for domestic and export seafood markets. This increase in fishing pressure has led to community concerns about the depletion of this resource.

The New South Wales Government is determined to manage our fish resource in a sustainable way. We are working with the committee to ensure that future generations can continue to enjoy our diverse range of fish species. The Government is protecting marlin from commercial fishing in the waters within our jurisdiction. We were the first State to protect striped, blue and black marlin from commercial exploitation. To assess the way the striped marlin resource is used, funds from the recreational fishing fee have been allocated for research. Both the Recreational Fishing Saltwater Trust Expenditure Committee and the Advisory Council on Recreational Fishing agree that funds raised by anglers' fees should be used in this way. As a result, $75,000 will be spent on this research.

The study will review the management and jurisdictional arrangements for striped marlin fishers in both Australia and overseas. The survey will collect information that will help the New South Wales Government work with the Commonwealth to manage the striped marlin resource in a sustainable way. It will also assess the economic value of the catch to each sector and assess related social benefits. The Opposition should ensure that its colleagues in Canberra are aware of this and encourage them to co-operate with the State in the sensible steps we are taking. It is impossible for the State Government to fulfil these obligations through its own jurisdiction. The Commonwealth will have to shoulder the responsibility at the same time to manage this resource in a sustainable manner. I look forward to updating the House on the outcome of the Government's research.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: The Federal Government has its own way of doing things. The way it is worded suggests that the Federal Government is doing nothing.

The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: I did not say it was not doing anything. I said that it should co-operate.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: My question is to the Minister for Community Services. I refer to the report "Understanding Kinship Care", which was recently released by the University of Western Sydney and Association of Children's Welfare Agencies [ACWA]. Is kinship care used more frequently in New South Wales than in any other State or Territory, with 55 per cent of the 7,786 children in State care in 2001 having been placed with relatives? Given that kinship care often puts a strain on relatives providing the care, will the Minister inform the House what kind of support or assistance the Department of Community Services provides to kinship carers? If not, will the Minister ensure that they will receive some kind of support and assistance?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho referred to an important report, "Understanding Kinship Care", which was launched at the ACWA conference on Monday. The report highlights some of the issues surrounding the support of kinship carers. It is certainly my view that, although kinship care is not appropriate in all situations, it provides some advantages over other forms of care, such as the ability to maintain the child's or young person's contact with the broader family. That is always recognised as one of the benefits of kinship care. Nonetheless, kinship care is growing as a form of care. It is one of a number of issues in relation to kinship care that is receiving attention across all States and Territories. It is important to acknowledge the valuable work that kinship carers do in caring for children who are not able to live with their parents due to family crisis and risk issues.
Kinship carers, like all carers, do a wonderful job in providing for the care and support needs of children when these needs cannot be met by their parents. The department certainly acknowledges that kinship carers require support when caring for children who have been placed with them. It is probably not possible to definitively answer the question because the support provided to kinship carers will depend on individual circumstances and the needs of the child. Nonetheless, the report raises some important issues. Placement of children with families is quite different from placement with strangers, as there is an existing emotional connection. Foster families have different support needs, but the department recognises the need to support kinship carers. The report provides some important indicators on the way forward. The department will closely examine the report to determine how it can consider its recommendations.

The Hon. JOHN JOBLING: My question without notice is to the Minister for Police. Has the Minister's office informed him about the case of Mr William Moverley, a disabled war veteran, and his wife, who live at Woy Woy and who were attacked in an attempted home invasion? Has he been advised that it took general duties police approximately 30 minutes to render assistance to Mr Moverley and his wife because the police had to drive from Gosford police station? Will he tell the House what action he has taken to restore locally led and locally based general duties police to Woy Woy police station?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I am not aware of the incident referred to by the Hon. John Jobling. I will take the question on notice and obtain an answer. I will have to confirm the accuracy of the details, given the tendency of Opposition members to tell untruths, following the example set by their leader.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: My question is to the Minister for Juvenile Justice. What steps has the Department of Juvenile Justice taken to increase the number of Aboriginal staff working in Juvenile Justice Centres?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: The House is well aware that the over-representation of indigenous young people in custody is a matter of concern. The Department of Juvenile Justice has taken significant steps to address this issue. As I have said on many occasions, the strategic plan by the Department of Juvenile Justice, which was released last year, involves a commitment across government agencies. This issue will not be resolved by the Department of Juvenile Justice on its own. The plan addressed the finding that Aboriginal young people constitute more than one-third of the population of juvenile detention centres in New South Wales, while the proportion of that age group in the general population of the State is less than 2 per cent. The plan proposed a range of measures to address this over-representation. I am pleased to report that these measures are being implemented.

An important component of the plan is to increase substantially the number of Aboriginal staff working in Juvenile Justice Centres. Already, a significant number of indigenous staff work in the Department of Juvenile Justice. We are above the State recommended guidelines for individual agencies in this regard. We want more indigenous people working for the department, particularly given the department's client basis. To achieve this end, the department is conducting a comprehensive campaign to recruit Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The campaign aims to nearly double the number of Aboriginal staff employed in centres from 33 to 63 within the next twelve months. Juvenile detention centre staff not only supervise the detention of young offenders, they also work to deter them from further offending through a range of rehabilitative and behaviour management programs.

Aboriginal young offenders are given special training and counselling based on their heritage and cultural values. These measures range from mentoring programs to specialist trade training and art courses. The programs are developed in consultation with Aboriginal staff and community groups. Experience shows that this work can be done more effectively by officers from the same cultural background as the young offenders. The department, in consultation with the Public Service Association, has completed a thorough overhaul of the salary and working conditions of all staff in detention centres to further attract both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal staff to work in the centres. The overhaul will lead not only to better salaries but also to the development of more attractive career paths for these workers.

The department provides significant support to Aboriginal staff, including an extensive induction program, regular Aboriginal staff meetings and an annual two-day Aboriginal staff conference. New staff will also be given the opportunity to work with a mentor during the first few months with the department. The department has recently upgraded the position of manager of the Aboriginal Unit, and the officer employed in that position brings extensive experience in Aboriginal issues. The young people sent to our detention centres present significant management challenges. They are often deeply troubled and have a range of problems, including drug abuse and serious offending. I encourage people of Aboriginal background who are interested in helping these young people to consider a career with the Department of Juvenile Justice.

The Hon. PETER BREEN: My question without notice is to the Minister for Police. Will the Minister inform the House whether any complaints have been received about the independence of the Department of Forensic Medicine as far as the integrity of DNA evidence is concerned? Can he say what level of funding is provided to forensic medicine by NSW Police and whether any measures are in place for the independent handling and analysis of DNA evidence?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I will obtain an answer to this detailed question for the Hon. Peter Breen.

The Hon. JAMES SAMIOS: My question is to the Minister for Police. Has the Minister been informed that on 23 August an 84-year-old man was allegedly assaulted by two teenage males in Deepwater Plaza car park at Woy Woy? Did he know that the telephone number given out by police in their request for information is the switchboard number of Gosford police station and not the local police station at Woy Woy? Is this because Woy Woy police station has no general duties police and is just an administrative base for the highway patrol?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I refer to my previous answer on Woy Woy policing.

The Hon. IAN WEST: My question without notice is to the Minister for Mineral Resources. What support has the Government given to recent developments in mining safety in the New South Wales mining industry?

The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: The Government is committed to protecting the safety of those working in our State's mines and quarries. We fully support the development of ideas and practices protecting the health and safety of these workers. On Monday I had the privilege of opening the annual Mining Industry Occupational Health and Safety Conference. This is the most important event on the New South Wales mine safety calendar. This year's conference attracted over 400 delegates, including mineworkers, managers, researchers, experts and government agencies. The three-day conference discussed latest developments in legislation, hazard identification research and practical solutions to safety issues. Presentations were made by a broad range of mining industry stakeholders, from the biggest, such as BHP Billiton, to the smallest, who operate a Lightning Ridge opal claim.

Everyone attending the conference was united by a desire to improve the safety performance of mining in New South Wales. Latest innovations ranged from large corporations to small single person operations. For example, BHP Billiton discussed its introduction of a new compressed air breathing apparatus for coalmine evacuation. Two Lightning Ridge miners talked about the safety structure they designed to protect themselves from rock falls. Both examples are important and concern the prevention of injuries and fatalities. The conference is yet another example of the Carr Government's success in working with industry to better protect our mineworkers. I welcome the continuation of such developments.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: My question, which is directed to the Treasurer, relates to freedom of information in this State. When will the Government make available the details of the contracts for the M2, M5, M6, M7 and M27 motorways?

The Hon. John Della Bosca: The M27?
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: They haven't been built yet.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: That really is a stupid question. Every now and again I get tiny pangs of conscience that I might have been a little unkind to the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans, but time after time he restores my faith in my judgment.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: I ask a supplementary question. Two of the motorways I referred to have been built. I ask the Treasurer to answer my question in relation to those two motorways. If the Treasurer is going to say that he is bound to a contract he has given away for the motorways that have been built, perhaps he can express pious hope for the ones he has not built yet.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I would like to know-

The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: They are the M7, M9 and M27.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I have absolutely nothing to say.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: My question is directed to the Minister for Police. Is the Minister aware of confusion among licensed firearms owners regarding the renewal of shooting licences? Will the Minister advise the House of the procedures to be followed by the Firearms Registry as shooters' licences approach their expiry date?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: That is a detailed question-a good one-and I will return to the House with the information requested.

The Hon. IAN COHEN: My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services, representing the Minister for Forestry. Will the Minister explain why the timber supply contract for the South Coast charcoal plant clearly shows that the Government, through State Forests, has contracted to send only timber in log form to the plant? It will send up to 200,000 tonnes of whole logs every year for 20 years. Is this not directly contrary to the Government's repeated assertion that the charcoal plant would burn only forest logging residues such as stumps and branches and that no trees would be felled for the charcoal plant? Does this not also mean that the charcoal plant will burn old-growth trees, given that the contract provides that any log's diameter must be at least 15 centimetres but gives no upper limit?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: Although I think that question contained an element of argument, I will refer it to the Minister for Forestry in the other place and undertake to secure a response as soon as possible.

[The President left the chair at 1.02 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]

Consideration resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [2.34 p.m.]: I move Australian Democrats amendment No. 2:

No. 2 Page 2, clause 3, lines 13 to 22. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

public authority has the same meaning as it has in the Ombudsman Act 1974.

There has been criticism of the definition of "public authority" in the bill before the Committee. The Ombudsman Act 1974 contains a more comprehensive definition to which, for reasons of consistency and clarity, the amendment seeks to change the definition in the bill. This is a simple amendment that I trust honourable members will support.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [2.36 p.m.]: The Leader of the Australian Democrats in this place-

The Hon. Rick Colless: He cannot be the leader of one person.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Some of the great leaders in history led themselves. The new definition of public authority as proposed by this amendment will not solve the bill's problems regarding commercially sensitive information, which the Government has identified previously. The important issue of commercially sensitive information-to which I referred in my contribution during the second reading debate-will not be resolved by this amendment as the amended definition will apply to State-owned corporations and local councils. The amendment does not assist the Government in finding a solution-indeed, it exacerbates the problem. I think all honourable members who read the relevant clauses will agree with my conclusion.

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: Do you support the amendment?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: In light of my comments, it should be clear to the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti-who will get his chance to speak this afternoon on another matter-that the Government opposes the amendment.

The Hon. JAMES SAMIOS [2.38 p.m.]: The Opposition supports the amendment.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [2.38 p.m.]: I am disappointed that the Government does not support the amendment. It takes a blushing virgin approach to matters of commercial sensitivity. The Government believes any commercial information must be hidden and kept secret: It would be just too awful if such information were flushed out; the sky would fall in if commercial information were open to scrutiny. Similar views were expressed in New Zealand before its successful Act was in place. The idea that a secrecy provision should cover the whole of government if there is any private sector involvement is a backward step. It means only that as soon as we are in a market situation the Government has no accountability to the taxpayer. That is what the Government is really saying. We must reject that approach and support the amendment.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [2.40 p.m.]: The Government has taken a very considered view on this and I think that the comments by the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans were a bit extreme, to say the least. The Government takes the view that in some of these areas there is commercially sensitive information, and I am sure that the Hon James Samios might concur with us if he thought the issues through and read the amendment and its impact upon the clauses of the bill as presented to the House.

The Hon. James Samios: There are some statements about it.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Could the Hon. James Samios perhaps read them to me in reply to my comments? The comments of the leader of the Democrats were a bit over the top.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [2.42 p.m.]: As I said, the Government has taken the blushing virgin approach that it must flee from anything that in any way reveals what it is doing. The bill provides that reasonable assessments of commercial in confidence and commercial interests matters will be assessed by the Ombudsman. There is an appeal process for that. So it is a nonsense to suggest that this is wrecking any competitive spirit in the Government. The Government cannot justify that stance by taking this clause in isolation, and I do not believe it has a leg to stand on.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [2.43 p.m.]: Once again the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans is using total hyperbole on this issue. I would like to hear the views of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, who has often shone a very good light on these sorts of issues.

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: Don't verbal Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I have never verballed Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile in the 14 years and six months, or whatever it is, that I have been in this Chamber. That is a long time!

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: A gaol sentence.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: But it was not mandatory. I would like to hear the views of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile on this amendment.

The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: He can speak if he wants to. He does not have to.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I did not say that he had to.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: Mr Chairman-

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: The result has been declared. The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans should be given a lesson in how to get a bill through the Chamber.

The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: I apologise; I take the point. I should have moved the amendments in globo before lunch. Should the situation arise again the Hon. Ian Macdonald can rest assured my procedural knowledge will be better and I will take advantage of the situation.

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: Point of order: The comments of the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans are totally out of order. He should moveing his next amendment.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [2.26 p.m.]: I will concede the point of order. I move my amendment No. 3:

No. 3 Page 2, clause 4, line 28. Insert ", for at least 2 weeks from the date on which the authority entered into the contract," after "that".

The Government may indeed be distressed that I called it a blushing virgin. This is one of the few occasions on which I would be able to use that term in reference to the Government. If I were a female referring to this Government, I would certainly not use the term "blushing virgin". Perhaps in the interests of refraining from using unparliamentary language I will not repeat what I would say if I were speaking like a bully boy from a Catholic playground. But that is another story as well.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: What would you say if you were speaking in a gender neutral context?

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: In a gender neutral context I would have to simply refer to it as an incompetent government, or something like that.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: They keep blocking you because they do not have enough practice in dealing with crossbench business.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: No, they do not; they are totally out of practice. They cannot take it seriously because a new idea in this Parliament has as much chance as a snowflake in hell. Amendment No. 3 suggests that a time limit should be inserted for a public authority to make copies of a contract available. The bill has not previously contained a time limit. If the Government has to make information available it should make it available within a realistic time frame. Two weeks seems perfectly reasonable.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [2.46 p.m.]: The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans stated in his letter to all the members of the legislative Council:

This amendment inserts a time limit of two weeks for a public authority to make copies of the contract available.

The bill does not contain a time limit that may have led to unreasonable delays in the release of information, so he has included a two-week period for the release of information to be put into effect. The current approach to this issue is set out in the Premier's memorandum 2000-11, which I have referred to at some length in my contribution to the second reading debate. The Premier's memorandum 2000-11 requires public sector agencies to provide summaries of key contract terms, including price. It is a more useful and practical way to provide the public with information about government contracting.

The Hon. Richard Jones: In what time frame?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: That is a very unhelpful comment. However, this amendment is supported in principle because it improves what is currently a serious gap in the bill. The amendment will define the time period in which authorities are to make contracts public. For this reason alone the Government supports the amendment. Again, it is a small improvement to a shockingly bad bill.

The Hon. JAMES SAMIOS [2.48 p.m.]: I have listened carefully to the distinguished comments of the Hon. Ian Macdonald, who is well known for his oratory in this Chamber. The Opposition supports the amendment of the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [2.49 p.m.]: The Parliamentary Secretary said that the Premier's policy states that only sections of the contract will be made public. If only selective extracts are made public, controversial aspects of the contract may be concealed. We agree that the contract should be made public, but does the Government see any practical difficulties in it being made public at least two weeks from the date on which the authority enters into the contract? Once the contract is signed other procedures may need to be followed before it is made public, and this could affect the two-week period. To avoid breaches of the law perhaps some leeway should be given rather than "two weeks" being stated in black and white. The contract may not be able to be released within that two-week period for some practical reason, although I am not saying it could not be released at all.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [2.50 p.m.]: Yes, it is a practical matter. However, the Government supports the amendment because at the present time no time period is stipulated. This is an improvement to the bill.

Amendment agreed to.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [2.51 p.m.], by leave: I move Australian Democrats amendments Nos 4, 5 and 6 in globo:

No. 4 Page 3, clause 4, line 12. Omit "supervision". Insert instead "scrutiny".

No. 5 Page 3, clause 4, line 14. Insert "conduct a preliminary inquiry into and" after "may".

No. 6 Page 3, clause 4, line 18. Omit "an investigation". Insert instead "a preliminary inquiry, investigation".

These are procedural amendments enabling the Deputy Ombudsman to examine the confidentiality and commercial aspects of the bill and then decide whether documents should be exempt from being made public. Indeed, the Deputy Ombudsman suggested changing the word "supervision" to "scrutiny" so that it corresponds with terminology in the Ombudsman Act. This minor drafting change will promote consistency. Amendments Nos 5 and 6 were also suggested by the Deputy Ombudsman to permit the Ombudsman to conduct a preliminary investigation in the first instance rather than a full investigation, which may cause unnecessary delay. It allows for a cursory look rather than a prolonged or formal investigation. It will enable the Ombudsman to prioritise investigations in a more timely fashion, and I am sure all honourable members will agree with these sensible amendments.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [5.53 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the amendments. Supervising does not require any action because one can supervise without investigating or scrutinising. These are intelligent amendments, which extend the role of the Ombudsman to conduct, scrutinise, preliminarily inquire or inquire and investigate. The amendments will make the bill more workable.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [2.54 p.m.]: Once again Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile is accurate in his considered assessment of the bill. The proposal in amendment No. 4 to make the Ombudsman supervise, investigate and report to Parliament on the compliance of public authorities with their disclosure obligations will be onerous and costly. It will divert resources from the Ombudsman's more important duties. However, the change from the use of the terminology "supervision by the Ombudsman" to "scrutiny by the Ombudsman" is more consistent with the terminology in the Ombudsman Act 1974. For this reason only the amendment is supported. It is another small improvement to a bad bill. Even with the inclusion of amendments Nos 5 and 6, the role of the Ombudsman will be onerous and costly, and will divert resources from the Ombudsman's important duties. The Government does not believe such a process is needed and it would be counterproductive. However, the proposal is to permit the Ombudsman to conduct a preliminary inquiry at first instance rather than a full investigation. It may reduce the amount of work required of the Ombudsman by this bill, and for this reason alone the Government supports the amendments.

The Hon. JAMES SAMIOS [2.56 p.m.]: The Opposition supports the amendments moved in globo and has no further comments to make.

Amendments agreed to.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [2.57 p.m.]: I move Democrats amendment No. 7:

No. 7 Page 3, clause 4, lines 20 to 23. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(6) This section does not require a public authority to make available for public inspection any information whose disclosure the Ombudsman has certified could reasonably be expected:

(a) to prejudice significantly the competitive commercial activities of that or any other public authority, or

(b) to interfere significantly with contractual or other negotiations relating to the competitive commercial activities of that or any other public authority.

This amendment goes to the heart of the objections of Government members and my comments about them fleeing like blushing virgins when the light shines. If public authorities are disadvantaged, the Ombudsman may allow information to be withheld. The crucial confidential part of the bill is that information should be available unless there is a good reason for it not to be available. The bill contains that conceptual shift, and this amendment is a clear definition of that. This amendment appropriately addresses any objection that the Government might have that it will damage commercial confidentiality of public enterprises. Appeals regarding exemption can be made to the Ombudsman, who will make a decision on the matter. Clearly, there is no possible disadvantage to public authorities.

There is also the immense public benefit of knowing what is going on. We will be able to see whether the Government is competent and whether taxpayers are getting a fair deal. Groups wanting to tender for government contracts will be able to see what is paid. They will perhaps be encouraged and emboldened to put in tenders, and this will result in a more competitive environment. The advantage of competition, the unseen hand of the market or whatever we want to call it, will give a better deal to the taxpayer in terms of more goods and services being provided for the same money. This is the critical part of the bill. The reason for the change is that the Auditor-General, as I said previously, felt that the function should be performed by the Ombudsman rather than the Auditor-General. I have answered the point raised by the Hon. Ian Macdonald about Premier's memo No. 2000-11. Departments have been inconsistent in disclosing pertinent details of contracts. Some put the details on their web sites and others do not. So the bill is needed to achieve consistency. The aspect of commercial disadvantage to public authorities is adequately addressed and the office required to make the decision is clearly addressed. I believe that the amendment must be supported.

The Hon. JAMES SAMIOS [3.01 p.m.]: The Opposition supports the amendment.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.01 p.m.]: As usual, the Hon. Sir James Samios, is being very short-

The Hon. James Samios: Concise.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Succinct. Amendment No. 7 moved by the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans provides for replacement of the Auditor-General with the Ombudsman as the person to consider whether certain contracts should be exempt. That would not solve the problems with this provision. The requirement for the Ombudsman to certify whether the disclosure would commercially disadvantage a party does not necessarily address the identified commercial confidentiality issues. It is also not clear what criteria the Ombudsman would use in making this assessment. I am not surprised that the Auditor-General did not want to do this. He is smart enough to see this for the waste of time that it is. The current administrative obligations on agencies achieves the right balance between commercial considerations and public accountability. In addition, this new role for the Ombudsman will involve a further considerable cost burden. Over the years the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans has made a very strong defence of the Ombudsman and inquiries conducted by the Ombudsman's office. I do not think he is fully aware of the consequences of that office being burdened with the many hundreds of thousands of contracts entered into each year in this State. I do not think he is fully aware of the human and overall resources costs that would be involved in the Ombudsman's office in pursuing these objectives. Accordingly, the amendment is opposed.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [3.03 p.m.]: Government members, poor lambs, really are impervious to knowledge no matter how one tries to feed it to them. I put on a seminar on open government in, I think, November 2001. Sir Brian Elwood, the New Zealand Ombudsman, came over from New Zealand at my invitation and expense to tell us what happens in New Zealand. He said that at first there was an avalanche of people seeking exemptions-most on very poor grounds. He knocked them back. A couple of them appealed to the Supreme Court. He won and they lost. After that the number of applications for exemptions declined dramatically and is now very few and easily managed. That is the experience of an Ombudsman operating under legislation on which this amendment is based. This is not something from left field, from the fairies. It actually works in New Zealand, and has for quite a number of years-I think from the mid-1980s.

The Government referred to the immense cost of providing information. If it is routine that, as well as putting it in a filing cabinet in some office, an electronic copy of it is put on the web and a few copies are sent to the front desk for the numbers of people who are likely to want to come to read paper copies it would be a very small administrative burden for a department that is acting in the interests of the people of New South Wales. The Government continually tries to play down the cost of secrecy. Resources are misallocated. Because we do not know what the Government does, it is difficult for us to say that it could have got a better deal on a certain contract or may have been diddled in the small print on another contract. Nobody knows, nobody can judge, nobody can criticise. And there is not public discussion that would lead to improvement. That is the first way money can be saved by having open government. Because contracts are open, people who may not have tendered otherwise will see what the contract was, recognise what they could have done the job for and may be stimulated to tender. This will apply to everybody from the small contractor to the large tender contractor. Indeed, it may be noticed overseas that a little clique of companies here are doing things in a price-collusive and expensive way for large government undertakings. So there is a huge competitive benefit from open government.

There is also the cost of closed government in terms of inquiries of this Parliament. We all get together in committees and drag in the public servants and have endless hearings to find out what the Government is doing. That effort probably only discovers a tiny fraction of the information that should have been provided. So there is a cost to the Parliament as well. The cost of keeping matters secret was well expressed in the cases of Egan v Willis and Egan v Chadwick. As I said before, I have not yet been able to get from the Government, despite asking a question of the Treasurer-I now have another question on notice-the cost of those cases. A large amount of taxpayers money went to pay the costs of both the complainant and the defendant in the cases, plus the cost of the court itself. That was the cost of secrecy. When the information came out there was no great consequence. The economy of the State did not collapse into a heap. A few political points were scored and the lawyers got a lot richer. The Government never wants to consider the considerable cost of secrecy. I repudiate what the Government says and ask that the amendment be passed.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause as amended agreed to.

Clause 5

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [3.08 p.m.], by leave: I move amendments Nos 8 and 9 in globo:

No. 8 Page 3, clause 5, line 29. Omit "are". Insert instead "may be".

No. 9 Page 3, clause 5. Insert after line 35:

(3) A report given by the Auditor-General under subsection (2) in relation to a person or body that has received public money from a public authority by way of grant must indicate whether or not, in the opinion of the Auditor-General, the person or body has applied the public money, for the purposes for which it was granted, in an economic, efficient and effective manner.

The amendments relate to the auditing of government grants. The bill provides for the Auditor-General to audit all government grants made to a person or body other than a public authority. It was not the intention of the bill that the Auditor-General scrutinise all grants, and it would be an unfair burden on the Audit Office to have to do so. Amendment No. 8 gives the Auditor-General the discretion to audit any grant. It was suggested that there should be a monetary limit for such an audit but I believe that corruption or misuse of public money is not limited by the amount of money involved, hence the withdrawal of amendment No. 1. It was felt to be a better course to allow the Auditor-General to exercise his discretion as to which grants he wishes to audit.

Amendment No. 9 gives the Auditor-General guidance on how the spending of grant money should be examined. The amendment instructs the Auditor-General to examine the spending of grant money to ensure that it was spent in an economic, efficient and effective manner. It is not simply a question of making sure that the money has not been embezzled, but of making sure that it has been spent usefully and wisely. In other words, it is not merely an audit of the processes of the money; it is an audit of the outcomes-are the taxpayers getting value for their dollar? I am sure every member of this House would support the concept of an audit that does not merely relate to where the dollars went, but relates to whether they were usefully spent.

The Hon. JAMES SAMIOS [3.10 p.m.]: The Opposition supports amendments Nos 8 and 9.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.11 p.m.]: The Government congratulates the Hon. Sir James Samios on giving such a detailed account of the Opposition's support of the amendments to this important bill. I am not surprised by amendment No. 8 and I bet the Auditor-General saw the original proposal as yet another waste of time, another diversion from his core responsibilities to the Parliament and the people of New South Wales. Giving the Auditor-General the discretion to audit grants to non-government bodies could still impose a significant resourcing burden, as the Auditor-General would have to decide which grants to audit. Furthermore, the auditing discretion applies to both the accounts and the funded activities of all non-public sector persons and bodies, no matter how small. In many cases the compliance costs of any audit would exceed the value of the grant received.

I would have thought that the Opposition would have dealt with the resource problem. However, considering that the Coalition will be in Opposition for another decade, I guess it does not have to consider the resources allocation while supporting such frivolous amendments moved by the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans. It is an absolute outrage. I would have thought that the Hon. Sir James Samios would have said a little more about why the Opposition supported the amendment. Does he want an audit of Sydney Grammar School? Does he want the Auditor-General to audit individuals who have received grants? How will the Auditor-General do that? The Opposition is taking a totally frivolous and irresponsible position.

The Hon. James Samios: Point of order: Clearly my colleague is misguided. The reality is that what is involved here is taxpayers' money given by way of grant. The Government has a responsibility to ensure that it is appropriately audited.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! No point of order is involved.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The Government acknowledges that the amendment is an improvement to the bill because it removes the obligation on the Auditor-General to conduct such audits. Instead, he would have only a discretion to do so. For that reason the Government supports amendment No. 8. However, the Government opposes amendment No. 9. The Auditor-General will report on the matters that he considers necessary. There is no need to force him to cover specific issues. I apologise to the Hon. Sir James Samios for my intemperate remarks that were made in the heat of a most important argument. And I note that the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti is asleep.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [3.14 p.m.]: Although the Government supports amendment No. 8, if the Auditor-General conducted all those inquiries what would be the cost to the taxpayer? Would it mean that money may have to be taken from the Department of Community Services' work on child welfare or child abuse? Does the Auditor-General have the power to do all those things now?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.15 p.m.]: Every now and then Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile asks pertinent questions in this Chamber, and the questions he just asked were pertinent and go to the very heart of what I was saying. A moment ago I made a mistake when I said that the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti was well and truly asleep and debate was being conducted with decorum.

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: Point of order: The Hon. Ian Macdonald indicated that I was sound asleep. I was not asleep. I was listening with my eyes shut.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! No point of order is involved.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I undertake to make appropriate inquiries and reply to Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, hopefully before the next election.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [3.16 p.m.]: Amendment No. 8 acknowledges that the Auditor-General is not obliged to conduct unnecessary audits. He requested that discretion and has been given it. If he is concerned about pork-barrelling of small amounts to certain groups it may be that in some cases the costs of an audit that establishes a rort would be greater than the rort itself. However, that establishes the principle that rorting cannot continue. As such it may be of good value to the taxpayers. Of course, the Government is dedicated to finding something wrong with transparency and has clutched at this straw.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause 5 as amended agreed to.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

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

Debate called on and adjourned on motion by the Hon. Peter Primrose.

Debate called on and adjourned on motion by the Hon. Jan Burnswoods.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS [3.21 p.m.]: I move:

1. That this House condemns the Hon. Jan Burnswoods for her comments in the House on 9 April 2002 that the Opposition set up mickey mouse inquiries.

2. That this House calls on the Leader of the Government to replace Ms Burnswoods on General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods has been in this place long enough to know that a committee established by this House should be treated with the same respect with which all parliamentary processes should be treated. The Hon. Jan Burnswoods has trivialised the processes of this Parliament by her outrageous reference to a committee as a mickey mouse committee. It is an horrendous insult to those whose livelihoods are threatened by the impact of feral animals. It was the inquiry into feral animals that prompted the Hon. Jan Burnswoods to make her comments. This committee has travelled far and wide across New South Wales and interviewed many people. I understand that later today the Hon. Richard Jones will distribute the draft report-a very comprehensive document-to members of the committee. The draft report contains a tremendous amount of data and information, as well as carefully and thoughtfully developed recommendations following much consultation with people from a wide cross-section of New South Wales. The people who addressed the committee would be absolutely horrified to learn that it has been referred to as a mickey mouse committee.

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: Which committee was she referring to?

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: The committee inquiring into feral animals.

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: She is outrageous!

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: Yes, she is outrageous. It is an insult to the dedicated people throughout New South Wales who work tirelessly to conserve the native flora and fauna of this State, and to the people whose lives are affected when feral animals attack their livestock. As the Hon. Richard Jones well knows, and has spoken about many times in this House, one of the main impacts on our native fauna and flora is competition from feral animals.

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: Feral animals like cats. The Hon. Jan Burnswoods likes cats.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: As my learned colleague points out, animals like cats, foxes and feral dogs create a tremendous trauma for our native fauna and flora. Feral animals impact on the wealth-creating farmers of this nation. They impact on our native animals, plants and ecosystems in the bush. To trivialise this inquiry and such an important issue is absolutely deserving of the condemnation of this House. The Hon. Jan Burnswoods should be removed from any further participation in the activities of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5, particularly its feral animals inquiry.

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE [3.25 p.m.]: I want to treat this matter with the seriousness with which, I am sure, it has been raised, particularly the references to Mickey Mouse. The Hon. Rick Colless moved:

That this House condemns the Hon. Jan Burnswoods for her comments in the House on 9 April 2002 that the Opposition set up mickey mouse inquiries.

I will not even raise my concern that the proposal to remove one member of this House from committees has made a number of members who serve on numerous committees particularly jealous. If one member is going to be removed from the committee I would seek to be included in that motion. Who is Mickey Mouse? Oscar Wilde said:

The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.

I shall go through what some people have said about Mickey Mouse. Walt Disney-a very serious man, a right-wing McCarthyist-said-

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: Point of order: The honourable member is further trivialising the debate. It is bad enough referring to the Hon. Jan Burnswoods at all, which trivialises any debate, but for him to trivialise the debate by talking about Mickey Mouse is too much.

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: To the point of order: I began my contribution by saying that of all the serious things this House could discuss, of all the issues facing our community, if the Opposition of this State can raise a matter as trivial as this on private members' day I will treat it with the total lack of respect and disdain it deserves. If Opposition members wish to trivialise this House by attacking a member for comments relating to Mickey Mouse rather than raising issues that a serious Opposition should raise in this House I will treat the issue with the total disdain it deserves. If the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti is concerned he should not to talk to me but to his colleagues opposite and to the Leader of the Opposition, who has allowed this matter to be brought forward.

The Hon. Ron Dyer: To the point of order.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho): Order! I have heard enough. We should not waste any more time. There is no point of order. The member may continue.

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: At any time it would be appropriate for the Hon. Rick Colless to withdraw his motion. But as he does not believe that matters in rural Australia and rural and regional New South Wales are worth raising in this place, and wishes instead to discuss mickey mouse matters, I will treat it as a mickey mouse matter. Walt Disney said:

Mickey Mouse is a "little fellow trying to do the best he could".

The Nazis seriously attacked Mickey Mouse. During World War II the Nazis regarded Mickey Mouse as a serious concern. I can quote one of them, because there was a reference in the film Saving Private Ryan. The Nazis said:

He is the most miserable ideal ever created. Mice are dirty.

I do not want to be criticised by those opposite that I am implying anything; I am simply suggesting that that is what the Nazis said about Mickey Mouse. In all cartoons, as Jonathan Winters, the author, said:

Mickey has to stand up against terrible odds. But he always wins out because he is good and kind. He will go on forever as a symbol of humour and goodness.

Mickey Mouse was the pride of the Allied troops when they landed on the beaches of France on D-Day in World War II. His name was the code word for the entire Allied mission. "Mickey is a hero. He represents all the good things in people", to quote another writer. As honourable members would know, Mickey Mouse was Walt Disney's famous character. Mickey made his stage debut on 18 November 1928 as the star of Walt Disney's first sound cartoon, Steamboat Willie. Since his debut he has become an international personality whose success laid the financial foundation upon which Walt Disney built his creative organisation. Besides being the personification of everything Disney, Mickey Mouse has become one of the most universal symbols of the twenty-first century. Although, as anyone with a 16-year-old son knows, he has been supplanted somewhat by Itchy and Scratchy from another cartoon. Mickey Mouse was born in Walt Disney's imagination early in 1928 during a train ride from New York to Los Angeles. Walt was returning with his wife from a business meeting at which his cartoon creation, Oswald the Rabbit, had been wrestled from him by his financial backers. I note the Opposition is not concerned about allusions being made to Oswald the Rabbit committees in this place, only Mickey Mouse committees.

The Hon. Rick Colless: That is what the whole debate is about.

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: My argument relates to the serious point that the Opposition wishes to waste the time of this House. The Opposition believes that it is appropriate to waste the time of this House by moving a stupid motion. This motion should be treated with total disdain by all members of this House. As I have already indicated, this is a lazy Opposition.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: A policy-free zone.

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: A policy-free zone, as the Hon. Jan Burnswoods says. Mickey Mouse would be ashamed of them. To continue the history of Mickey Mouse, Walt Disney, only 26 at the time and with an active cartoon studio in Hollywood, had gone east to arrange for a new contract and more money to improve the quality of his Oswald the Rabbit pictures. The money men declined, and since the character was copyrighted under their names they took control of it. Walt recalled:

… So I was all alone and had nothing. Mrs Disney and I were coming back from New York on the train and I had to have something I could tell them. I've lost Oswald, so I had this mouse in the back of my head because a mouse is sort of a sympathetic character in spite of the fact that everybody is frightened of a mouse, including myself.

Walt Disney spent the return train ride conjuring up a little mouse in red velvet pants and named him Mortimer. By the time the train screeched into the terminal station in Los Angeles the new dream mouse had been rechristened. Walt's wife, Lillian, thought the name Mortimer was too pompous-with due deference to Opposition members-and suggested the name Mickey. A star was born! Upon returning to his studio, Walt and his head animator, Ub Iwerks, immediately began work on the first Mickey Mouse cartoon, Plane Crazy. The enthusiasm with which his small staff completed the project faded when no distributor wanted to buy the film. Refusing to give in, Walt forged into production on another silent Mickey Mouse cartoon called Gallopin' Gaucho. However, late in 1927 Warner Brothers ushered in the talkies with The Jazz Singer, starring Al Jolson. This soon signalled the end of silent films. In 1928 Walt dropped everything to begin a third Mickey Mouse cartoon, this one in sound, called Steamboat Willie.

I am sure Opposition members would have seen the film and the Hon. Rick Colless may have it in his video collection. Honourable members would be well aware that Steamboat Willie was a particularly good film and achieved marvellous results. Mickey Mouse's fame skyrocketed. The 1930s were Mickey Mouse's golden age. During that decade Walt Disney produced 87 cartoon shorts starring the multitalented mouse. I could go on and on. My point simply is that before people disparage Mickey Mouse they should be well aware of his historical background. I say in all seriousness that for the Opposition to waste the time of this House by moving such a stupid motion-

The Hon. Rick Colless: Why have you spoken for so long to the motion?

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: The Hon. Rick Colless interjects and asks why I have spoken for eight or nine minutes. I simply wanted to indicate to the honourable member that he should not trivialise the business of this House by moving short-sighted, stupid motions. Rather, he should raise matters in this House that are worthy of debate. That is what I would expect from an Opposition that was serious about trying to win government next March. Instead, we get discussions about the characteristics of Mickey Mouse. If I were less kind I would call them a mickey mouse Opposition, but I would not grace them with the great name of Mickey Mouse.

The Hon. Dr BRIAN PEZZUTTI [3.34 p.m.]: I was very pleased that the Hon. Rick Colless moved this motion. I remember the day the comment was made by the Hon. Jan Burnswoods. It was at a time when more needed to be done about feral animals to protect farmers' crops. As all honourable members know, the State Government does not have a policy to eradicate feral animals from national parks. Such a policy would protect the native flora and also farmers' livestock, as the feral animals come out of the national parks on a regular basis and attack sheep and cattle. Because it was not one of her pet social issues, the Hon. Jan Burnswoods thought the matter was beyond the pale and made disparaging remarks about it. She used the words mickey mouse in a most disparaging way. I hope she listened very carefully to the speech made by her colleague the Hon. Peter Primrose-probably the only Government member who will speak on her behalf-in particular, what he said about Mickey Mouse.

Just about everything the Hon. Jan Burnswoods says in this House is said in a disparaging way. It must be a particularly unhealthy, unkind, distorted and tortured mind that causes the words to come out. She giggles, but I know what is going on there. The Hon. Jan Burnswoods is worthy of this House taking note of the unkindness and lack of empathy that she shows-and shares with many of her colleagues-about issues affecting the land and the environment. When I talk about the environment, I do not mean the basketweavers of Balmain and their concerns about this or that street. I mean the environment that supports us all, particularly the environment in the country and in our national parks and wilderness areas. The issue of feral animals is a significant and serious one. I note that the Hon. Richard Jones nods in agreement. It is an issue not to be trivialised and is worthy of a strong inquiry by a general purpose standing committee.

I have the privilege to work on General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2 with hardworking, straightforward, honest members: the Hon. Ron Dyer, the Hon. Janelle Saffin, the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans and the Hon. Alan Corbett. The committee also had the privilege and pleasure of having the Hon. Doug Moppett as a member until he resigned from the House. This hardworking committee is dedicated to doing its job. I had the privilege also of attending General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 on behalf of one of my colleagues. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, the Chair of that committee, was conducting that inquiry with dignity, but the performance of the Hon. Jan Burnswoods as a member of that committee was nothing short of what one would expect from the wildest feral animal.

I have had the privilege of chairing General Purpose Standing Committee No 2 during the estimates hearings. One evening we had the great displeasure of the Hon. Jan Burnswoods attending on behalf of one of her colleagues. If there is one person who knows how to waste time at a deliberative or a public hearing, to cause disputation and to spread venom, it is the Hon. Jan Burnswoods. The most disgraceful performances I have seen in public have been by the Hon. Jan Burnswoods filibustering and wasting time.

She does this regularly. Yesterday during debate on proposed legislation the Government successfully changed the definition of the word "spouse" to a meaning that appears in no dictionary anywhere in the world. In her speech during that debate the Hon. Jan Burnswoods' denigrated serious attempts by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile to preserve the real meaning of "spouse".

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Its sacred meaning.

The Hon. Dr BRIAN PEZZUTTI: Its real meaning-sacred or otherwise. Alas gobbledygook is now part of the Act. "Spouse" as defined in the bill means spouses and those in all sorts of other relationships. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile attempted to change it to mean spouse or de facto-you can define "de facto" however you like. The Hon. Jan Burnswoods acted as though Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile was trying to deny the fairness-

The Hon. Ron Dyer: Point of order: The House debated only yesterday the legislation to which the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti referred. The honourable member is reflecting upon a vote of the House by criticising its decision about the definition that he has highlighted. The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti is out of order in so doing and should be directed to withdraw.

The Hon. Dr BRIAN PEZZUTTI: To the point of order: I merely mentioned the debate and the nature of it. I was about to criticise the way in which the Hon. Jan Burnswoods spoke in that debate. I am seeking to criticise not a vote of the House but the way in which the Hon. Jan Burnswoods used the debate. I did not criticise a vote of the House.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho): Order! The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti must not transgress the standing orders. Criticising a vote of the House is unparliamentary and I urge the member to be cautious. There is no point of order.

The Hon. Dr BRIAN PEZZUTTI: Thank you, Madam Deputy-President. The Hon. Jan Burnswoods tried to accuse Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile of speaking against the principles of the bill. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile made it very clear that he did not object to the bill's anti-discriminatory application, just as he did not oppose similar amendments-moved by both the Government and by me-to the parliamentary superannuation scheme.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Moved by the Hon. Ian Macdonald.

The Hon. Dr BRIAN PEZZUTTI: Indeed. The Hon. Ian Macdonald moved every one of the Government's amendments on that occasion.

The Hon. Ron Dyer: Point of order: The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti is in no way addressing the terms of the motion before the House, which refers to comments made by the Hon. Jan Burnswoods characterising certain parliamentary committees as mickey mouse inquiries. By discussing legislation recently debated in the House, the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti is referring in no way to the motion that we are supposed to be considering.

The Hon. Dr BRIAN PEZZUTTI: To the point of order: I am clearly identifying the sort of person that the Hon. Jan Burnswoods is so that honourable members may put her remarks in context and appreciate why it is particularly offensive that this particularly offensive person has made these particularly offensive comments. I am trying to demonstrate how particularly offensive the Hon. Jan Burnswoods is so that honourable members may understand why we take such offence at her comments about mickey mouse inquiries.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT: Order! No member of this House should be criticised other than by way of a formal motion. We are not here to discuss-

The Hon. Dr BRIAN PEZZUTTI: That is what this motion is.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT: Order! The motion is not about the Hon. Jan Burnswoods' character. The first part of the motion refers only to parliamentary inquiries. It is not phrased to attack the reputation of the Hon. Jan Burnswoods. The parliamentary process should not be used to attack a member's reputation.

The Hon. Dr BRIAN PEZZUTTI: Clearly, Madam Deputy-President-

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: Point of order: Madam Deputy-President, you have made your ruling and the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti is questioning that ruling.

The Hon. Dr BRIAN PEZZUTTI: No, I am continuing my speech. I have accepted your ruling, Madam Deputy-President.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: You can't do that.

The Hon. Dr BRIAN PEZZUTTI: Yes, I can. The motion states:

That this House condemns the Hon. Jan Burnswoods for her comments in the House on 9 April 2002 that the Opposition set up mickey mouse inquiries.

It refers to not just one inquiry but a number of inquiries. The Hon. Jan Burnswoods has a talent for twisting debate and implying that members are doing something illegitimate without backing her suspicions with facts. I thought her speech the other evening was particularly disingenuous. The Hon. Jan Burnswoods implied that Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile is not a fair-minded person-

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: I don't take it to heart.

The Hon. Dr BRIAN PEZZUTTI: I know. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile is able to ignore evil sometimes but I am not. It was a disgrace. By describing a committee established by a vote of this House as a mickey mouse inquiry, the Hon. Jan Burnswoods is reflecting upon Parliament. It is a shame the President did not pull her up at the time and throw her out. For the Hon. Jan Burnswoods to reflect upon a vote of the House is an absolute abomination. I was just accused of doing that but I was able to defend myself. Madam Deputy-President, if you had been in the chair when the Hon. Jan Burnswoods made that comment, I am sure you would have asked her to withdraw it. Not only are her words unparliamentary but they transgress sessional and standing orders. The Hon. Jan Burnswoods regularly criticises the workings of committees in this place, and I have pulled her up a couple of times about this. If the Hon. Jan Burnswoods does not like something, she goes out of her way to be deeply and disturbingly nasty.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: You would know about that.

The Hon. Dr BRIAN PEZZUTTI: I do: I have been watching the Hon. Jan Burnswoods for many years. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile suggests that perhaps I am being a little unchristian-

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: No, I didn't say that.

The Hon. Dr BRIAN PEZZUTTI: No, but I could be accused of being so. We should remember what Christ did to the usurers in the temple: he drove them out. Not to stand up against evil is to tolerate evil. I will not tolerate that sort of evil or nastiness. The mindset that allows a member of this place to criticise parliamentary inquiries-which are set up via a judgment of the House-as being mickey mouse inquiries is more than outrageous. The Hon. Jan Burnswoods should be condemned in the strongest possible terms-as I am attempting to do now in my contribution. This is not a trivial motion: It is a serious matter that goes to the very heart of the way in which we operate in this place. We must tell the Hon. Jan Burnswoods: "Enough, we won't have you talk about committees in that way and we won't have you refer to the House in that way". Honourable members should call on the Leader of the Government to replace Hon. Jan Burnswoods on General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5. The Hon. Richard Jones chairs that committee and I am sure he will be absolutely thrilled to join us in banishing the Hon. Jan Burnswoods. If his experiences with the Hon. Jan Burnswoods are similar to my own, he will be pleased to see her gone. I totally support the motion.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [3.48 p.m.]: This motion has proved to be quite difficult for me personally and for many of my colleagues. I confess that it has created some problems. I agree very much with the Hon. Peter Primrose: it is sickening that at a time when so many important issues are facing the New South Wales community and when we should be dealing with Government legislation and important private members' business we are wasting the time of the House by considering something as frivolous and petty as this motion.

It is probably even sadder that the time of the House is wasted on a speech as nasty as the one we have just heard from the Hon Dr Brian Pezzutti. But what has caused particular difficulty for me is, as the Hon. Peter Primrose alluded to, that I have found myself in the awkward situation of having almost all my backbench colleagues exceedingly jealous of me because they want to know why the second part of the motion calls on the Leader of the Government to replace only me on General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5, given that all of them would give their eyeteeth to be replaced as members of any one of the five standing committees. I find myself in the situation, therefore, of having to explain my good fortune to colleagues, whom I really would not wish to describe as envious or jealous but who, nevertheless, have come to me and said that they would not want me to have this honour without them having an opportunity to share in it.

I contemplated moving an amendment to the motion but I do not think that I should dignify such a pithy and frivolous motion by seeking to move an amendment to delete the second part of it. The first part of the motion also caused me some embarrassment. I was not in the House when the Hon. Rick Colless gave notice of the motion. I vividly remember that when I walked into the Chamber after notice of the motion was given, one after another of my colleagues came up to me, shook my hand, patted me on the back and congratulated me. When I asked why they were congratulating me, it was pointed out to me that it was indeed quite a rare honour for a mere backbencher to have a motion of condemnation or censure moved against her-that, in effect it was proof that I was doing something right.

So I found myself in the awkward situation of having several conversations with my colleagues to assure them that I had played no role at all in attempting to persuade the Hon. Rick Colless to move this motion. However, I really do wish that he had not moved the motion because, as Government members know, particularly backbench members, we spend so much of our lives as members of the various committees we are discussing. We all get on very well in a spirit of co-operation, and it would be most awkward to have any dissension in our ranks. I remind members of the words of that great dramatist and poet, Oscar Wilde, that were referred to by the Hon. Peter Primrose in his contribution: The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about. One could say that some members might feel slightly envious that I am the subject of this motion. Other members would not, but none of my Government colleagues would feel that way.

Both members of the Opposition who have thus far spoken in this debate have apparently laboured under the misapprehension that in making the remark they complain about I did so in the context of a particular committee and was attacking that committee for undertaking one of its current inquiries. I made the remark while taking a point of order in question time which related to a point that Government members have taken over and over again since we were landed with the new, badly drafted and ill-prepared sessional orders. The point I was making was that the Opposition cannot have it both ways. Over and over again in the past two or three years we have seen members of the Opposition and the crossbench-since the Opposition's numbers in this House are so piteously low they cannot carry anything without a great deal of help from the crossbench-continually trying to find ways to have certain matters referred to committees for inquiry. Sometimes those inquiries go on and on and on and, in the meantime, members-particularly inexperienced members like the Hon. Rick Colless-persist in asking questions about the same subject matter.

The particular point I was making in taking the point of order was that I, together with the excellent Chair of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5, the Hon. Richard Jones, spent a day in Cooma as part of our inquiry into feral animals in New South Wales listening to evidence about the very farm that was referred to in the question. It seemed to me a clear breach of the sessional orders that a question should be asked about a matter that was still before a committee. The point I was making was that in setting up inquiries and asking questions the Opposition was trying to have its cake and eat it too. However, I guess that as it has such a very small cake, one cannot blame it for trying-to mix the metaphors-to milk it for all that it is worth.

Having said that, I refer to a couple of inquiries that I believe have not done this House particularly proud. Occasionally we should reconsider some of the inquiries we refer to committees. A number of members were involved in the inquiry relating to oil spills in Sydney Harbour, which was referred by the House to General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5 in November 1999. It took quite a long time to do not very much. It finally reported in May 2001, some 18 months after the reference. By the time it reported court action had taken place and the entire issue had been dealt with. I believe the Hon. Malcolm Jones was a member of that committee and took part in those deliberations.

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: Point of order: I was waiting for the Hon Jan Burnswoods to hang herself on this one. She is reflecting on a vote of the House that decided to set up an inquiry into oil spillage in Sydney Harbour. She has referred to this inquiry as an example of, to use her words, a mickey mouse inquiry. She will go on to talk about the way in which the inquiry was conducted. It is also against the standing orders to reflect upon the conduct of a committee inquiry. The member should be called to order with regard to both matters.

The Hon. Ron Dyer: To the point of order: At this point the Hon Jan Burnswoods has not done anything other than advert to the fact that this inquiry was set up and that it investigated a particular matter, namely oil spills in Sydney Harbour. She has not had sufficient time to make any point arising out of those initial remarks. I would put it to you, Madam Deputy-President, with respect, that as usual there is no substance to the point of order raised by the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti.

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: Quite clearly the Hon. Jan Burnswoods was using this as an example of another mickey mouse committee.

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: What standing order are you referring to?

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: I have not found it yet because I was looking at the sessional orders to see whether they had been contravened also.

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: Which is it?

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: Some standing orders have been replaced by the sessional orders. This matter is not particularly covered by the sessional orders; it is covered by the standing orders.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho): Order! Standing Order 78 provides that no member shall reflect upon any vote of the House, except for the purpose of moving that such vote be rescinded. However, no point of order is involved because the member has not yet reflected on any vote of the House.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: I was not intending to reflect on the vote of the House. The report of this inquiry was tabled 18 months after the initial reference and by that time action in relation to court proceedings and inquiries by the Waterways Authority and so on had taken place. The Hon. Malcolm Jones would remember as vividly as I do that this report ended up being a very short report. In fact, I think that the Hon. John Jobling also played a major part in drafting the final report of this committee. It was a slim report, mostly because the original draft was deleted by a vote, in most cases, of six to one. The aspect on which there was rare unanimity between the Opposition, the Government and the Hon. Malcolm Jones was deleting all references to turning the whole of Sydney Harbour into a marine national park. When a committee spends 18 months conducting its business and the majority of the draft report is removed by a vote of six to one on a subject as mind-boggling as turning Sydney Harbour into a marine national park, perhaps we do need to look into some of the inquiries that we carry out.

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: Point of order: The honourable member, by speaking with such venom, is seriously criticising and reflecting negatively a vote of the House in setting up that inquiry. She said that as a result of that inquiry we now have to look carefully at the setting up of other silly inquiries. That is against the standing orders, and I ask that you pull her up.

The Hon. Ron Dyer: To the point of order: I was a member of the committee that inquired into oil spills in Sydney Harbour. The distinction that is apparently beyond the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti-and it ought not to be-is that far from reflecting on the vote or proceedings of the House, if the Hon. Jan Burnswoods is reflecting on anything, it would be on the internal proceedings of that committee. As the inquiry unfolded it led to a suggestion by the Hon. Richard Jones that Sydney Harbour ought to become a marine park; in other words, it would no longer be a working port. I regarded that idea as ridiculous. The Hon. Jan Burnswoods is referring to the internal deliberations of that committee and in no way is reflecting on the proceedings or vote of the House-although obviously that fact escapes the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT: Order! No point of order is involved.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: Everything to which I have alluded can be found in the minutes contained in the committee report. I wish to refer to two other inquiries being carried out by General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5, because that is referred to in the motion. I checked this matter with the Clerk prior to speaking. One is the slightly odd situation of an inquiry dealing with land clearing by TransGrid, which was referred to the committee by the House in June 2001. As yet the committee has not heard from any witnesses or held an inquiry into this matter, despite having been established 15 months ago. I could not quite understand the terms of reference so I checked with the Clerk. The Clerk then realised that although the committee had sought an extension of its reporting date and had been granted an extension until 30 June 2002, everyone had apparently missed the fact that nothing had been done since. That matter should be sorted out. The point should be made that the inquiry has ceased to have much relevance, and perhaps that is why little has been done.

The final inquiry to which I refer is the inquiry into feral animals. I remind the House that this, too, has quite a long history. The reference was referred to the committee in May 2001, so the inquiry has been going for quite some time. The original terms of reference involved investigation into the shooting of horses in Guy Fawkes River National Park. For a variety of reasons various members of the committee changed their minds about such a narrow reference and debate took place to broaden the terms of reference to include an inquiry into the depredations of feral animals in national parks. The final resolution, which I may have moved but certainly strongly supported, was that the committee inquire into the problem posed by feral animals on all forms of land tenure-Crown land, private property, national parks and so on in New South Wales.

The point that the Hon. Rick Colless and the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti have obviously missed is that the current terms of reference of the inquiry resulted from a motion that I moved, or strongly supported, with the support of the Government and the Hon. Richard Jones. I am strongly committed to the work of the inquiry. I understand that the final report is now being drafted. I was involved in many of these issues when I was a member of the joint select committee inquiring into the Threatened Species Act. Earlier we spent a day in Cooma and few of us would forget the albums of photographs we were shown depicting the damage and mayhem caused to sheep by wild dogs and the damage caused to property by other feral animals.

This motion is an example of how low the Opposition has sunk. The problem I face is that the motion criticising me has caused some of my colleagues to wish that a motion criticising them would be moved. Many of my colleagues would love to be taken off committees so that they have more time to devote to their other work, and would regret the fact that I was successful when they were not. That is not the problem. The problem is that the Opposition appears to believe in nothing, has nothing to do and has no policies to push. I am a member of two general purpose standing committees. Until I was overtaken by the Hon. Ron Dyer, the late lamented the Hon. Doug Moppett and I overwhelmingly had the highest attendance record on committees of any member of this House, so I do not think I can be criticised for my attendance on committees.

I emphasise the point made by the Hon. Peter Primrose that this motion has nothing to do with important issues facing our State. It is a time-wasting motion that is so trivial it shows up the Opposition. It certainly does not show me up because I am largely responsible for the terms of reference for the inquiry into feral animals as that matter is very important to me. The remark that set all this in motion was made in relation to a series of Opposition questions at a time when it is clear that the Opposition had few questions about matters of public interest. It was therefore reduced to repeating material that had already been covered in committees. With some apologies to my Government colleagues I conclude my remarks.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [4.10 p.m.]: I vigorously oppose this motion that shows not only that National Party members are a waste of space; but that they are very good at wasting time. The National Party has had many opportunities to raise issues of importance to people in rural and regional New South Wales. And what have they put on the notice paper for private members' business? A vicious and vitriolic personal attack on another member in this Chamber. That shows that they are lacking in any understanding of the issues concerning the people of country New South Wales. This is occurring elsewhere as well. On Tuesday the Legislative Assembly debated drought relief. We would imagine that someone who would have something to say about the State Government's drought relief for people in country New South Wales would have been the Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, George Souris, the member for Upper Hunter. But he is the same as the National Party members in this Chamber: he had nothing to say on it. He did not bother participating in debate that was of vital interest to people in country New South Wales. It is about time that the National Party members in this Chamber-

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: My point of order is to do with relevance. It is nothing to do with the fact that the Hon. Amanda Fazio indicated that this was a vicious personal attack and is now engaging in a vicious personal attack on the Hon. George Souris. This motion is about the Hon. Jan Burnswoods' comments; it is not about whether the Leader of the National Party of another place has asked a particular question or contributed to a debate. I suggest that you recommend that the honourable member return to the subject before the House.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: To the point of order: The issues I am raising are crucial to the issue we are discussing today; that is the National Party's waste of time in this Chamber. Therefore I would ask you to rule that there is no point of order.

The Hon. John Jobling: Point of order: With a deal of respect to the Hon. Amanda Fazio, no matter how I look at the motion before the House I can see no reference to the National Party. It deals with this House, not what might happen in another House. We are referring to comments made by a member of this House in relation to inquiries of this House. The comments of the Hon. Amanda Fazio are totally and completely outside the motion before us. I ask that you direct her to confine her comments to the motion that the Hon. Rick Colless has moved.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho): Order! I ask the member to be more relevant and direct in her contribution and not transgress from the subject of the motion.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: I have plenty of other things to say in this debate about the behaviour of members in the House. Some people obviously have a problem in dealing with women who are not prepared to take a back seat in the proceedings of this Chamber. When it suits him the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti seems to have a great deal of love for the standing and sessional orders of this Chamber. Yet he is one of the most chronic interjectors, particularly during question time. His behaviour seems two-faced. I might say the same for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who also is a chronic interjector. There are some amazingly hypocritical people sitting here carrying on. I heard snide remarks from the Opposition benches about the quote from Oscar Wilde used by both the Hon. Peter Primrose and the Hon. Jan Burnswoods. I heard members on the other side of the Chamber saying, "Oscar Wilde, wasn't he a paedophile?" This is the typical sort of reaction from these people. Most people think of Oscar Wilde as an author, poet and playwright.

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: He was a paedophile.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: He was not a paedophile.

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: Was Lord Douglas over the age of 18?

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: Alfred Lord Douglas was well and truly over the age of 18.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: He was over the age of consent. I see this motion as yet another backhanded attack on the Hon. Jan Burnswoods because of her support for the equal age of consent legislation. It is the most amazing attack I have ever seen in this Chamber. I know that Opposition members do not like the Hon. Jan Burnswoods. She has not made herself popular because she has a low tolerance for hypocrisy coming from the Opposition benches. Moving the motion as a personal and vitriolic attack on another member of the Chamber shows a lack of any intellectual depth on the Opposition benches. I refer particularly to the sort of language used.

On most occasions when points of order are raised the words directed to the Chair are along the lines of, "Would you ask the honourable member to withdraw that comment?" But the comments were along the lines, "You better pull her up on that one." What an absolute disgrace! If Opposition members do not have any decent arguments to run they should not waste our time with these trivial debates and then belittle people who participate in them. The motion moved by the Hon. Rick Colless is one of the more stupid things I have seen in my short parliamentary life. He knew very well that he was pushing the envelope when he asked the question about feral animal control in the Chamber on 9 April. He was attempting again to use the feral animal inquiry as a mechanism to prop up the ever-dwindling support base of the National Party-

The Hon. Rick Colless: Point of order: The issue involves something of very great importance to the people of the Monaro region. The Hon. Amanda Fazio is further trivialising the issue and further insulting those people whom I had in mind when I asked the question on that night.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho): Order! There is no point of order.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: I can understand why the Hon. Rick Colless would get upset about that comment. I would not like to be a member of a party with a support level of around 3 per cent. But if he wants to represent people in country New South Wales there are appropriate ways to do it in this Chamber. It is not by anticipating debate on inquiries that have not yet reported to the House. It is not by trying to grandstand in some sort of smart-alec fashion by moving absolutely stupid motions and wasting our time on a private members' day. Opposition members have asked why I am speaking in the debate if I think the issue is a waste of time. It is because I think that the people of New South Wales need to know what they are getting for their money with the National Party members in this Chamber. I would say they are being badly shortchanged. It is absolutely appalling.

The feral animal inquiry is a very important inquiry. Labor Party members have taken it very seriously. It is a very hard issue to deal with. We have to deal with competing groups of people. The land-holders want to be able to carry on with their agricultural and grazing business. The environmentalists want no introduced feral animals. Some of the people who came before the inquiry said that sheep and cattle are feral animals and should be removed from the Australian countryside. Then there are people who want to balance the conservation of native wildlife and the humane control of feral animals. We also heard from people who want to ride horses and drive four-wheel drives over everything in this State, whether it is plant or animal matter. The whole gamut of arguments has been put before us in the feral animals inquiry. All the Labor members on the inquiry have taken their responsibilities very seriously. We have read all the material and listened carefully to the submissions from the people who have attended the committee's public hearings.

The reason the Hon. Jan Burnswoods and I took objection to the question asked by the Hon. Rick Colless on 9 April was that it was asked so soon after we, as members of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5, had been to Cooma and spoken to many people about the problems they were experiencing in that area. The people we spoke to included those from the area about which the Hon. Rick Colless had asked the question. On my interpretation, that was a definite breach of paragraph 3 (b) of the sessional order rules for questions in question time, which states:

Questions must not refer to … proceedings in committee not yet reported to the House.

The President subsequently did not agree with our objection. I believe that the Hon. Rick Colless was probably indulging in a little bit of cheap politicking. He had been to Cooma and told people not to worry because he was a National Party member of the House, and that his party would not worry about the standing and sessional orders unless it suited them. He told the people that he would ask a question of the Minister in the House. During debate, when someone raised with him an issue he did not like, or told him that he should not do something, his attitude indicated that he did not really care about the proceedings. The Hon. Rick Colless does not care about the operations of the committee and was using the committee's proceedings as an opportunity to meet and greet constituents in country New South Wales. A member of a general purpose standing committee should work for the benefit of the Parliament, not use that membership in a grubby manner, as a mechanism to demean the work of the inquiry and obtain a few votes. The Hon. Rick Colless not only has shown a lack of maturity in his response to the point of order raised on 9 April but made a nasty attempt to denigrate the character of another member of this House.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: Under the standing orders a member cannot reflect upon another member of this House without moving a motion. Currently there is a motion before the House against a member, but not one against the Hon. Rick Colless. I ask you, Madam President, to remind the honourable member of that standing order.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: What a hypocrite you and the rest of the National and Liberal parties are. You sneaky, sleazy person.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: To the point of order: Madam President-

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Madam President, I also draw attention to the comments made by the Hon. Jan Burnswoods, who indicated that I was sneaky and sleazy. I ask that those words be withdrawn.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: To the point of order: I have the call. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition had left the microphone. He is a bully boy; he should sit down. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has missed his chance. He can speak after me, not over the top of me.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho): Order! The Hon. Amanda Fazio has the call.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: Further to the point of order: I did not call the Hon. Rick Colless nasty. I said that the actions he took were nasty, and there is a clear distinction in what I said. I have met the Hon. Rick Colless socially, I have met him around the traps. I would not call him nasty. However, I could say that about other people around this place. I referred to the actions of the Hon. Rick Colless in putting this item on the business paper as a nasty action. That distinction should be noted.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT: Order! Does the Deputy Leader of the Opposition wish to make a second point of order?

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: Yes, Madam President, I have two points of order before the House. First, that any comments about the Hon. Rick Colless should be made by way of motion, as in the motion we are debating at the moment. Second, I ask the Hon. Jan Burnswoods to withdraw her comments about me being sneaky and sleazy.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: I withdraw the comments.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT: Order! It is no longer necessary to rule on the points of order. The Hon. Amanda Fazio may resume her contribution.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: Government members take these inquiries very seriously. We do not regard the inquiries that we work hard on and which take up a lot of our time as trivial. The action of bringing this matter before the House today trivialises the whole committee process. This motion does not deserve to be supported. If the Hon. Rick Colless had any sensibility he would withdraw the motion. Knowing full well that he will not withdraw it, I propose an amendment to the motion. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all words after "condemns" and inserting instead "the Opposition for wasting the time of the House on frivolous matters."

I add to the contributions of the Hon. Peter Primrose and the Hon. Jan Burnswoods by saying that there are many things that the House could be discussing. At the beginning of my contribution I said I would have thought that the National Party members in this Chamber would have a lot of issues to talk about, issues of more relevance to people in rural and regional New South Wales than engaging in petty personal attacks on Government members in this Chamber. I am fully aware that it has been reported that a division will be called on this motion, and that is a further example of how the National Party members, who are supporting this motion, are out of touch.

That this motion was placed on the business paper at all is a joke. But further wasting the time of the House by calling a division on it is even more ludicrous. I suggest that members who may have personal likes and dislikes against different members of this House should put those aside. Members should concentrate on whether a comment made during a fairly heated question time that referred to the way in which Opposition members treat committees as mickey mouse operations is worthy of the amount of time that has been spent on it today. If members think seriously about that they would have to agree that this motion is not important enough to call a division on. We should recognise that most members of this Chamber, whether Government, Opposition or crossbench members, take their committee responsibilities very seriously.

As a Government member, I may well oppose the setting up of an inquiry but if it comes before a committee of which I am a member I will always work very constructively on it. I know that the Hon. Jan Burnswoods would also do that. Crossbench members who do not particularly like some aspects of the committee proceedings usually genuinely try to work through them so that a consensus can be reached and so that a range of options and outcomes are canvassed to allow them to satisfy their constituencies and allow the committee's report to be agreed to by as many members as possible. That is the correct way to deal with inquiries, not to bring a motion before the House that allows members who have personal vendettas against another member to use that motion as a vehicle to indulge in personal attacks.

It is very improper to do that. We should not have items on the agenda such as this if we want to ensure that newspapers such as the Daily Telegraph do not run articles on the theme: why re-elect new members of the upper House; the upper House is a waste of space, a waste of time and a waste of money. We should have substantive items that reflect the concerns of the constituents whom members claim to represent. This motion does not do that and my amendment puts things in a far better perspective by condemning the deliberate time wasting. We should not be putting on the business paper frivolous matters that arise in the heat of the moment when points of order are taken during question time. For that reason I urge members to support my amendment and reject the original motion put forward by the Hon. Rick Colless.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [4.29 p.m.]: I would have thought the Hon. Rick Colless would have had more to say. He spoke for only a few moments, made some light comments and left it at that. It was disgraceful in the context of the motion.

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: It was restrained.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: No, it is not a question of whether it was restrained. The motion seeks to condemn a member of this House. It is incumbent upon the person who moves a motion to condemn a member of this House to make an adequate case. The motion is far too harsh. Apparently, honourable members were upset about comments made by the Hon. Jan Burnswoods about committees. The comments were open to wide interpretation.

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: You accept that she said it.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I do not accept anything. I am relying on the words in the motion moved by the Hon. Rick Colless.

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: So you support it?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I do not support the motion.

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: You support the Hon. Jan Burnswoods criticising the committee?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I am relying on the motion. If the honourable member stopped interjecting I would be able to point out why I oppose the motion. I do not know what the Hon. Jan Burnswoods said about the committee. I have no idea what she said about the committee.

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: You don't care.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I am not saying I do not care. This is a condemnation motion. According to the dictionary it is, in effect, a censure motion. To move such a motion one should have a strong point of initiation. The first paragraph of the motion-that the Hon. Jan Burnswoods made some comments about mickey mouse inquiries-does not warrant the use of the word "condemns". If we are to condemn members of this Chamber we should base the motion on a significant transgression. The motion is excessive based on the alleged comments made by the Hon. Jan Burnswoods. The punishment does not fit the crime. The words of the Hon. Jan Burnswoods, according to the motion, are not a massive attack on the Parliament, its integrity, the good governance of this State or public policy. Consequently, it is incorrect to use the word "condemns".

The House should absolutely reject the first paragraph of the motion because it seeks punishment that does not fit the crime. No-one in this House could make a case to condemn or censure a member for holding a view about a committee or any other aspect of public policy that is debated in this House. It is normal currency. I do not treat this matter trivially. The motion uses the word "condemns", which makes it onerous within the context of this House. I never want to see members in this place condemned based upon matters that have no great relevance or that are of no great importance. All honourable members have treated this as a joke, but it is a condemnation motion. If we are to condemn a member of this House, let us base it on something substantial, meaningful and of great importance to the public policy of this State. Otherwise we could condemn people in this Chamber for any issue and thereby debase the concept of a condemnation or censure motion.

The word "condemns" should not be used in the context of the honourable member's comments. Mickey Mouse! So what? Why should we censure someone for that? Let us not turn the concept of a proper condemnation or censure motion into a triviality. The motion offends the right of members to hold views about the structures and workings of this House, and to make those views known fairly freely without censorship. The motion seeks to censure a member for holding a view, admittedly a fairly light view, about an operation of this House. We should not censure our members in this way. This motion is a deliberate attack on the rights of members to hold their views, and to hold them fairly strongly if they so desire. I do not want this House to censor its members by moving condemnation or censure motions. Whether the honourable member's view about a committee is right or wrong is immaterial. Her comments should not attract a condemnation or censure motion. If the motion is successful the House will, effectively, censor the views of the Hon. Jan Burnswoods.

The second paragraph of the motion seeks to deny the basic rights of parties and groups within this Chamber to determine who will be on a committee without any form of interference by any other party or group. Select and other committees are established under a certain time-honoured framework and committee members are generally appointed by the leaders of individual parties. For example, the Leader of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition, as well as the leaders of the minor parties, would appoint members. If we were to change that process we would trample upon a time-honoured procedure. It is the only workable way to appoint members to committees, other than to run a series of ballots. We could have great debates and battles about who is on committees. At the moment it works to a set formula, and it works well.

Leaders of individual parties should have the unfettered right to choose who they want on a committee. I do not want this House to resolve to ask the Leader of the Government to remove an individual from the committee. I do not want this House to resolve to tell the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Michael Gallacher, to remove a member from a committee. I do not want this House to resolve to call upon the Hon. Ian Cohen to remove a member of his party from a committee. The motion, perhaps inadvertently, has trampled upon a time-honoured procedure of this House. Obviously, the Hon. Rick Colless has not thought through this point. We should not set a precedent as a House to tell a leader of the Government or the Opposition that a particular member of their party should not be on the committee. The motion should be defeated.

First, the punishment does not fit the crime. This is a condemnation motion. No real case has been made that the actions, whatever they are, of the Hon. Jan Burnswoods have in any way, shape or form offended this House to the degree that they deserve a condemnation or censure motion. Second, the motion is a form of censorship to try to prevent members from holding particular views on the structure of this House, the workings of this House or the workings of Government. We should not condemn people for holding views under the guise of offended feelings about comments on a committee. Surely, we are not that sensitive. Third, it is an interference in the processes of this House. The Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the Government or the leader of any registered party represented in this House can choose who they want to serve on a committee. For those reasons, honourable members should gently consign this motion to the rubbish bin of history.

The Hon. JOHN TINGLE [4.40 p.m.]: This has been a very unusual afternoon in the House. I congratulate the Opposition on bringing forward this motion because, if nothing else, it has produced one of the most vigorous, entertaining and well-researched debates that I can recall in this House in a long time. I am concerned, as the Hon. Peter Primrose was, about the status of Mr Michael Mouse, who I thought could be seen as a feral animal himself. Maybe I am wrong. I am also very bemused by what this motion actually means. The Hon. Jan Burnswoods' statement that the Opposition brings on mickey mouse inquiries is obviously being seen to mean that they are silly little inquiries. The young people I know are likely to say, "I've got a real mickey mouse sound system here", meaning it is the best of its kind. If a tradesman comes to my place and says, "This is the mickey mouse blind you want", he means it is the best of its kind. I do not know whether the Hon. Jan Burnswoods meant that the Opposition brings on silly little inquiries or the best inquiries of their kind. Would somebody enlighten me?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [4.41 p.m.]: In answer to the Hon. John Tingle's question, one had to be there on the day to be able to appreciate the inflection on the words that were used by the Hon. Jan Burnswoods. As the Hon. John Tingle said, mickey mouse has a couple of meanings. To call something mickey mouse can mean that it is grouse or that it is ordinary. Any member who was present in the House that day, as I was, understood clearly from the inflection placed on the words that the term was not used to indicate that the inquiries were great. It was used to indicate that the inquiries were ordinary. The term was not used as a matter of praise. I am disappointed about that. To describe the Hon. Rick Colless as being compulsive on this matter ignores the evidence given at the inquiry at Cooma. As honourable members indicated, albeit belatedly, the information given to us that day came from people who were affected dramatically by feral animals. The inquiry took evidence from some people early in the day and from others later in the day. That later evidence could not be refuted. At that time a further matter was raised. The Hon. Rick Colless quite properly, as a member of this House who represents the constituents of New South Wales, asked a question in this House. The question was not out of order, which was the inference of the Government members who spoke to this motion.

The President, who is diligent in these matters, particularly in relation to questions from the National Party, after serious consideration deemed the question to be in order. The Hon. Rick Colless was not out of order on the protocols of the House. The argument that the Hon. Rick Colless, being out of order on the protocols of the House, incited an accidental comment that did not mean anything is absolute rubbish. The comment that the inquiry was a mickey mouse inquiry was a dramatic statement made with venom and meaning. The clear inference was that the Parliament should not be undertaking such an inquiry. Parliamentary Secretary the Hon. Ian Macdonald, in his response to this matter, said that the Leader of the Government should be responsible for choosing the Government members who serve on committees. That argument is met with heated agreement. If the honourable member read the motion moved by the Hon. Rick Colless, he would see that it does not say that the House orders the Leader of the Government to replace the Hon. Jan Burnswoods on the committee. The motion quite properly states:

That this House calls on the Leader of the Government to replace Ms Burnswoods on General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5.

To replace the Hon. Jan Burnswoods would not be setting a precedent. Previously, members have stepped aside as committee members of their own volition.

The Hon. John Jobling: If they have a pecuniary interest.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: And for other reasons. The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho brought great honour on the House when she quite properly stepped aside from the parliamentary privileges committee. While the circumstances are not exactly the same, the cases are not dissimilar. The reality is that the Hon. Jan Burnswoods could be replaced. Some honourable members have said that this motion and debate have been a waste of time. I do not believe that they have. The debate has allowed us to make the point that some of the comments made in this House on various occasions are inappropriate. The President and the Government on numerous occasions have indicated to the Opposition that if we wish to voice our disapproval about comments made by the Government we should do so by way of substantive motion. The one day that such a substantive motion is brought forward, the Government condemns us. It says that we are wasting time and being ridiculous. It cannot have it both ways. The Opposition wanted to raise the matter of an inappropriate comment being made by a member in this House. Interestingly, during the debate the only members who tried to transgress what had been a sensible debate, and one conducted in good humour considering the gravity of the situation, were the Hon. Jan Burnswoods and her colleague, who decided to make it personal.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: Did you hear Brian Pezzutti's speech?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I am very disappointed that they should do that.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: Do I have to call you a hypocrite again?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I did not have to hear the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti's speech. The Hon. Jan Burnswoods made comments about me and I have not interfered in this debate at all.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: You should have heard him.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The honourable member should show a little more restraint. This motion is before the House today because she cannot show restraint. If people ever needed an indication of her lack of restraint, they only have to hear the outbursts from her at the moment

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: Go and read Pezzutti's speech.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Opposition members do not need any more rhetoric to make their point. We only have to listen to the honourable member's interjections across the Chamber.

The Hon. JOHN JOBLING [4.50 p.m.]: The nub of the matter before the House is the inquiries of the House. The parliamentary committee structure was developed to allow the investigation of matters that the House considers to be important. It comprises standing, select and general purpose committees, and their roles have long been recognised as being important to the parliamentary structure. I believe that to denigrate the control, actions and resolve of committees is to denigrate the Parliament. Any adverse reflections upon committees are adverse reflections upon the people who have taken the time to appear before those committees and to make written submissions to them. I believe that is wrong and improper and must not be allowed to continue. I do not intend to address at this stage whether heroism was involved or whether members were congratulated. The oil spills inquiry took so long simply because it was deferred until a court had determined the matter. It was proper for the committee to await that information.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. John Jobling.

Motion by the Hon. Henry Tsang agreed to:

That this House at its rising today do adjourn until Tuesday 17 September 2002 at 2.30 p.m.

Bill introduced and read a first time.

The Hon. MALCOLM JONES [4.52 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Areas declared as wilderness are vast tracts of land that are effectively locked up, preventing public access except on foot. These large wilderness areas generally comprise a minimum of 25,000 hectares or more, the size of which makes penetration extremely difficult except by the super-fit, ardent bushwalker or by those with lots of time on their hands. The prevention of access by motorised transportation or on horseback prevents families, the elderly and people with disabilities from enjoying the best features of our national park estate. I have visited many wilderness areas and seen some access trails so overgrown that it can take hours to proceed only a kilometre or so through the thickets. Apart from attempts at window-dressing, neglect is sadly the management principle for wilderness-partly by design and partly because of the financial constraints on the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Overgrown trails and derelict infrastructure make management nearly impossible.

During bushfire emergencies wilderness areas have proven to be vast, unmanageable tinderboxes. Sooner or later the public will wake up to this fact-probably during the coming bushfire season if it is half as bad as it threatens to be. Why? It is because hazard reduction cannot be practised sufficiently and access is a huge problem. Even management trails often cannot be traversed with ease: Rangers simply cannot wander through in their management role. Trails become overgrown unless a degree-not necessarily a high degree-of traffic moves through them. This traffic includes walkers as well as horses and vehicles. With the best of intentions, those who created wilderness areas also created a dangerous liability that must be managed. We recently had a small example of the danger of that liability created by wilderness: overgrown trails and lack of access as identified by the bushfire inquiry. By the way, Parliament had better get used to the idea of bushfire inquiries as there will be many more until a greater level of commonsense is applied to bush management. The bush is truly a place for recreation: for recreation of the spirit and for recharging the batteries of workers from the technological, industrial and commercial world in which we live.

New South Wales has great areas for the recreational pursuits of its people. People need access to such places. Many people with whom I associate were taken to the bush by their parents and, in many instances, their love of the bush stems from this early experience. People who are indifferent to the bush and who shun the camping-out adventure invariably were not exposed to this experience by their parents. I truly believe all children should be encouraged and given the opportunity to go camping during their formative years. I also believe adolescents should be encouraged to go bush to have a spiritual rebirthing and to experience the resulting re-creation of the spirit. This is a huge benefit to the individual and his or her sense of self. The national park estate is a marvellous collection of great areas, especially in the Great Dividing Range and areas abutting the coast. For my part, one valley and one mountain in the Great Dividing Range is worth one million hectares of flat, scrubby western land. So the comparison of how much land is locked up in wilderness as a percentage of the State's area is somewhat silly: I would be happy if 33 per cent of the State's western scrub were swapped right now for the declared wilderness areas.

However, in non-wilderness areas the penny has dropped as National Parks has again started to harness the resources of volunteer recreational clubs. These clubs are eager and are waiting to help where they can. They have the manpower and the horsepower and will do the work. The memorandum of understanding is certainly working, with a definite gain for parks. To its credit, the National Parks and Wildlife Service has again decentralised authority to the regions, allowing local knowledge to benefit management. The earlier experience of centralisation at Hurstville, with the desk-bound Greenies calling all the shots, has started to make a mockery of National Parks and Wildlife Service management. To ensure that national parks continue to flourish we must spend approximately $350 million on the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Its budget last year was about $260 million and tomorrow it will be more than $400 million and rising.

I put it to Parliament that if we want conservation in the future we cannot expect those excluded from nearly half of the national park estate to want to fund this extravaganza-which is how those who do not have first-hand knowledge of remote-area national parks will view this expense, if not now then certainly in the future. If we want future generations to love and cherish the forests we must give them first-hand experience of them. Society cannot gain a true understanding of the bush and of forests from the Discovery Channel or from coffee table books. Why should our children's children's children-pity about our children-pay for wilderness if it is off limits and they cannot go there unless they are into extremely long route marches and survival camping?

The criticism of wilderness as nonsense is not confined to those who consider themselves to be locked out. Grose Valley in the Blue Mountains has always been the domain of bushwalkers and boy scout troops. Boy scouts have earned their badges there for years. When the area was declared a wilderness two staggeringly stupid things happened: first, signage was removed-how terrible that a wilderness area should have appropriate signage; the fact that it might save a life seems to have no bearing on the philosophical zealots who run the show-and, secondly, groups were restricted to five people, thereby excluding scout troops from the area or reducing the size of each group to a dangerously low number.

Why add commonsense to the wilderness? This all leads to one question: Why do we have conservation? The answer-I am sure we all agree-is to save the planet or to aid mankind. Either way people need to maintain contact with nature, especially as cities grow bigger and become more overcrowded, as work becomes more dehumanised by increasing technology and generally stress is greater. Defenders of wilderness may jump up and say there is no prohibition on people entering wilderness areas. But many families, the aged, the disabled, cannot cover the now vast distances and penetrate the overgrown thoroughfares.

There is a term wholly worthy of analysis. Biodiversity: The existence of large numbers of different kinds of animals and plants which make up a balanced environment. Darwin taught us that the balance is constantly changing. As some species survive in the wild, some species do not survive. Pantheists believe that nature has one conscience which contradicts all Darwin taught us. The Australian bush, especially forests, is often thought of by city people as some form of Walt Disney film effect with Bambi and Thumper living in perfect harmony with nature. This is a totally humanised view shaped by romance and ignorance, with people imagining what they want to imagine. The opposite is actually the reality. For animals in the bush, life is day-to-day survival and reproduction. Feral animals abound. Not only do we have the extreme Greens management philosophy, which results in feral carnivores depleting their native wildlife resources, but also in many areas they actively resist any organised attempts to reduce feral animal numbers through hunting and baiting. The lack of action against ferals in wilderness areas is one of the major issues that will prove to be a component in its own destruction.

On the basis that each feral will destroy approximately 1,000 native animals in a 12-month cycle and the ferals are multiplying, we will soon reach a point of no return. The nonsense of introducing even tighter threatened species bills when such devastation is taking place in Government-sponsored native animals slaughter zones, is typical of a philosophically blinkered administration driven by concepts and perceptions rather than by commonsense. Man is not a threat to wilderness; ferals and the National Parks and Wildlife Service management are. The process of nominating, assessing, public consultation and declaration requires special mention. Anyone can virtually nominate anywhere. There is no financial requirement by the nominator-probably the only area of government not requiring financial input by the individual or group.

It is possible-who would know-that greening groups have nominated everywhere and wasted huge sums of assessment dollars in the process. Even private land is nominated and assessed when it cannot be declared without the owner's permission. The public consultation process has always been a joke. I have attended many public meetings with National Parks and Wildlife Service staff. Invariably the meetings turn nasty, with people becoming extremely angry with National Parks and Wildlife Service staff. I have never witnessed agreement to their proposals, but down the track the announcements made by the National Parks and Wildlife Service are the same: We have had wide public consultation; we have wide public support. Yes, the National Parks and Wildlife Service has had consultation but the confrontational experiences I have witnessed have never matched the rhetoric of this Government. Public submissions are another area of grave concern. The Government will inevitably claim wide range support but when I seek access to submissions from the Minister-no way! The latest obstacle is the Privacy Act, which prevents the Minister making submissions available under freedom of information.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Malcolm Jones.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.06 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD [5.06 p.m.]: Consistent with One Nation's stand supporting appropriate access to various types of firearms for legitimate law-abiding citizens, on 27 June I gave notice to this House of a bill to amend the firearms legislation to include personal protection as a genuine reason for obtaining a firearms licence. Given the escalating violent crime, we must consider the right of law-abiding citizens to effective self-defence. For too long the actions of law-makers have resulted in safety for criminals rather than addressing the need to legally increase the capacity for victims to defend themselves. There must be a clear understanding, created in law, that when violent criminals enter a law-abiding citizen's home or place of business, they forfeit any right to a fair or even-handed response to their deadly acts.

Some morons are of the quaint, though idiotic, view that a creature entering your home and threatening your family with, for example, a knife, should only be met in response by the victims with, of all things, another knife. This nonsense of meeting a criminal's threat with equal force is misplaced fair play that leaves the victims open to serious injury and death. A crime scene is not a boxing match with Marquis of Queensbury rules. Those who are set upon by creatures of violence should have the right to the upper hand. If some lowlife breaks into my home and threatens my family with a club, I want a gun. If they have got a knife or a blood-filled syringe, I want a gun. Quite frankly, even if they just want to wrestle me to the floor, the fact they broke into my home should allow me to point a gun in their direction so they comprehensively understand my wish to discourage them.

I am not suggesting every citizen needs a firearm for self-defence, but certainly there are many who have been irresponsibly left exposed and defenceless to criminal assault by the laws that do not allow law-abiding citizens to adequately defend themselves, their families, their businesses and staff. Recent firearms legislation has simply disarmed or reduced the defensive capability of law-abiding individuals while street vermin and the gangs they congregate in have run wild, armed to the teeth. This insanity must be reversed. There are those who are afraid we will become a gun culture, but are we to tolerate a crime culture rather than allowing decent Australians the chance to help themselves when no official help is available? Some would have people believe that more guns equals more crime, but the facts are clearly to the contrary. Criminals who knowingly ply their trade amongst disarmed populations are more brazen and more active.

No law-abiding citizen in Britain owns a hand gun and the Netherlands is also lacking when it comes to private firearm ownership, and guess what? Burglary accounts for 45 per cent of the crimes committed in those countries. Whereas in the United States of America, a country considered to have a gun culture, burglary accounts for only 13 per cent of the crime because the night prowlers are unsure of what is waiting for them in the homes of Americans. I am reminded of a sign I once saw on an American's home, "This house protected by shotgun three nights a week, you guess which three". According to Professor John Lott of the University of Chicago Law School, American States that adopted firearm carry laws reduced murders by 8.5 per cent, rape by 5 per cent and aggravated assault by 7 per cent. Individual counties with populations of more than 200,000 averaged murder rate drops of over 13 per cent.

This is a complex area of debate with many details to be addressed, but we should all agree with the principle that genuine law-abiding citizens whose activities expose them to danger should not be left outgunned by outlaws. I have a great deal of respect for New South Wales police officers; they have an extremely difficult job as they cannot be on every street corner or outside every business. So I suggest there are many circumstances when a gun in the hand is more useful than a police officer on the phone.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [5.09 p.m.]: I would like to speak about the situation facing universities in New South Wales and I do so particularly from my perspective as a member of the Board of the University of Western Sydney. In recent times we have heard almost nothing from universities except regular reports of crowded lectures and tutorials, the erosion of library resources and increasing commercialisation emanating from the Australian higher education sector. Over recent years the growth in university student numbers has by no means been matched by an increase in public funding. The levels of university borrowing have increased, and last year one-quarter of Australian universities recorded deficits while staff-studio ratios have ballooned from 13:1 in 1990 to 19:1 in 2001.

Under the Higher Education Contribution Scheme [HECS] students already contribute about one-quarter of the cost of their university degree, one of the highest level of tuition fees for publicly funded universities in the world. Indeed, the average HECS debt for students already stands at $7,800. All higher education institutions have been forced to look for non-government funding alternatives, such as local full-fee paying students. I was disappointed when the system was recently reinstituted at the University of New South Wales, where students with marks up to five points below the entry score required can pay to gain a place. This effectively means that wealthy students can bypass general standards of achievement with money. Access to education should not be based on the ability of wealthy students to buy a placement, but should be based on academic merit.

Universities such as the University of New South Wales, or the other universities colloquially referred to as sandstone universities, have introduced a system of two or more tiers yet the University of Western Sydney is proud to draw upon the broader Western Sydney region, which caters for an unusually high percentage of students who are the first in their family to achieve higher education. However, it is particularly ill equipped to compete with wealthy students, who can buy their way into a university. This is a problem not only for the University of Western Sydney but for regional universities, which already find it hard to compete against the long-established sandstone universities-and these sorts of practices make it that much harder. The decline in higher education has occurred despite the fact that its total economic benefits are estimated annually at $22 billion. The average rate of return to government is estimated at 11 per cent, along with the undisputed social benefits of an educated population. Even in straight economic rationalist terms what is happening in universities is short-sighted and, I believe, foolish.

I turn now to the recent Crossroads papers released by the Federal Minister for Higher Education, Brendan Nelson. It proposes four models for financing the huge need in our universities, none of which includes any substantial increase in government funding and none has the support of the university sector. Some of the reforms suggested include fee deregulation, preferentially choosing two universities to develop as world-class, and specialising universities into lowly undergraduate teaching institutions and elite research and post-graduate centres. Robert Manne, in a recent article in the Sydney Morning Herald, described the purported diversity in Nelson's plan as merely creating a wider gap between the haves and have-nots. I endorse Manne's description of the Nelson plan as "dividing universities into high prestige research driven institutions and low prestige institutions committed almost exclusively to teaching and perfunctory research".

The Crossroads papers allegedly do not propose any preferred option but clearly point in the direction of a user-pays and elitist university system. The proposed deregulation and specialisation have profound implications for newer, more remote universities such as the University of Western Sydney. Nelson's plan amounts to an American-style, hierarchical, higher education system. The reforms proposed will further heighten the already considerable variation and inequity across the sector in age, size, location, funding and prestige. The historical financial divide will deepen while the suggested specialisation and differentiation will only be to the detriment of smaller and newer universities. Before I conclude I would like to thank my intern from the University of New South Wales, Stephanie Ng, for her efforts in preparing notes for this speech and for all the other work she has so far been able to do in that fine program run by Dr Elaine Thompson. [Time expired.]

The Hon. Dr BRIAN PEZZUTTI [5.04 p.m.]: Last Friday night I was privileged to be present at the twenty-third annual Rock Eisteddfod Challenge Premier Grand Final, which was held in front of 10,000 people at the Sydney Entertainment Centre. Two of my daughters have been involved in the Rock Eisteddfod over the years and I have attended on a number of occasions. Those who attended would have appreciated the professionalism and energy of the performers. This exciting event was the culmination of many months of hard work and commitment from students, teachers and volunteers involving a multitude of community members and considerable fundraising. The program prepared by the events manager stated:

Over the past 23 years, over a half million young Australians have been touched by the experience of participating in the Rock Eisteddfod Challenge. This 100% tobacco, alcohol and drug free lifestyle message carries over into the students' lives long after the curtain has fallen.

The new logo contains a series of stars and encapsulates the arts, youth and community relations, the community, health and education. The logistics of creating such wonderful colour and movement, together with the backstage work, were truly appreciated. The performance provided an opportunity for youth to show their perspective of current events through the arts. The Rock Eisteddfod Challenge was outstanding and certainly encourages youth leadership. Many join in year 7 and become leaders when they reach year 12. They learn about teamwork, commitment, goal-setting and life skills in make-up and costumes. These curricula links prove that learning can be fun.

The challenge aims to improve mental health through social strength and inner belief; it encourages physical health by promoting sensible activities and eating habits; and it promotes prevention and resilience in choosing to be 100 per cent tobacco, alcohol and drug free. Indeed, research shows that the program really works. The Rock Eisteddfod is not only successful in Australia. It includes the Rock Challenge, the Battle of the Bands and the Croc Festival. The winner of the Battle of the Bands has the privilege of performing in front of 10,000 people at the Sydney Entertainment Centre while the judging takes place for the premier division of the Rock Eisteddfod. The bands were outstanding.

The Global Challenge concept is exported to New Zealand, United Kingdom and the United States of America. Peter Sjoquist is the hardworking producer and chair of both the Rock Eisteddfod and the Croc Festival and is to be congratulated. Last year I saw the Croc Festival on television and it was outstanding. This year a series of performances are being held and I hope to travel to Moree to attend a three-day event of culture, dance, education and peer support on 23, 24 and 25 September. Randwick Girls and Boys High School won almost all the prizes with its professional and outstanding dramatisation through dance, music, lighting, sound and the fabulous use of stage sets, which had to be seen to be believed.

In my view Sydney Boys High School and Sydney Girls High School stole the show with their performance of "Remember it's a sin to kill a Mockingbird", based on that wonderful book To Kill a Mockingbird. The Hon. John Ryan, Joe Tripodi, Kerry Chikarovski, Peter Collins and Bronwyn Bishop attended the performance with me. I was privileged to present one of the prizes and Greg Stewart presented the major awards. The main sponsors of the event were the State and Federal health departments, although for a short time funding had been withdrawn by the State. It is pleasing that the two health departments are putting their money into something so worthwhile. Performers came from schools in the Illawarra, the Hunter, the North Coast and Wollongong, but I enjoyed most the performance of Terrigal High School. [Time expired.]

Ms LEE RHIANNON [5.20 p.m.]: On 29 July this year the Mr Ian Cohen, Dr Peter Wong, the Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans, Mr. Peter Breen, Mr. Richard Jones and I wrote to the Minister for Corrective Services, Mr Amery, about the issuing of a magazine called Framed to New South Wales gaols. Our letter said in part:

We understand that the Department of Corrective Services has banned from all NSW gaols the most recent edition of Framed...

Up until this most recent edition we understand that the Department allowed prisoners to receive copies of Framed and that many prison libraries held back copies of this magazine. We believe the Department is to be congratulated for allowing a magazine about issues relevant to prisoners to be distributed within NSW prisons.

The decision to overturn the previous position of allowing Framed to be distributed in NSW gaols is regrettable.

We then went on to say:

We would also like to say that while we recognise the right of Framed's publisher to raise issues about Commissioner Ron Woodham and Acting Senior Assistant Commissioner John Klok, we do not necessarily agree that the issues should be raised except in the context of the Report into Aspects of the Department of Corrective Services tabled in the Upper House on 11 July 2002.

We are concerned that to date we have still not received a response from the Minister and would urge him to respond to that simple request to allow the magazine to be circulated through New South Wales prisons. Another matter I wish to raise with the House relates to Women with Disabilities Australia, a national organisation for women with all types of disabilities. It represents one of the most socially and economically disadvantaged groups in our community. Barbara Wright often writes to me about health-related issues, and I would like to share with the House some issues she has recently raised with me. She sent me a copy of the keynote address by Helen Meekosha at the fourth Australian Women's Health Conference. Helen in part said:

Disabled women consistently have a low socio economic status, [they] are the poorest of the poor. In Australia 50% of disabled women earn less than $200 per week and only 16% earn more than $400 per week.

Only 16 per cent of all disabled women in Australia have been through secondary education...

Women of small stature are still experiencing the pressure to have limb lengthening and deaf women are pressured to have the cochlear implant. Our right to sexuality is under question. If we enter a relationship, it may lead to a loss of access to the Disability Support Pension and associated benefits. We know from the work in the Disability Discrimination Legal Centres that many women are denied custody of their children on the basis of their disability.

The figures on sexual abuse are just horrific. It is estimated that 90 per cent of women with intellectual impairments will be sexually assaulted and disabled women will be raped or sexually assaulted at least twice the rate of non disabled women...

Activism takes its toll and many disabled women are exhausted by trying to operate on many fronts, often in isolation. They are pushed to try to maintain contact with the women's health movement and mainstream feminism, while supporting other disabled women in more extreme situations than their own-such as those who have been forcibly sterilized.

Helen went on to make a number of suggestions:

We desperately need large scale epidemiological studies to be carried out in Australia. We have little or no data on the health experiences of disabled women...

We particularly need to question the assumptions made about disability by health professionals and information given to prospective parents...

We need the women's health movement to work alongside women's disability groups and recognise our needs and issues.

She stated in a very moving way:

It is acceptable to live with a disability, just as it is acceptable to live without one.

I congratulate Helen Meekosha on her speech and urge the Government to consider her suggestions.

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE [5.25 p.m.]: I recently had the privilege of attending a function at Liverpool with the Hon. Dr Andrew Refshauge. I think it was the first time I had been to a function where a number of people present-including me-took out pen and paper and took notes on a speech given at a function. Dr Refshauge spoke about the research of Professor Richard Florida from Carnegie Mellon University in the United States. The address related to the development of technology and tolerance and the importance of diversity to high-technology growth. Dr Refshauge referred to the various approaches that are being developed using core research such as that by Professor Florida in relation to the development of high-technology areas: what makes a particular area flourish and what makes another area not flourish. I will refer briefly to some of the research that I found particularly interesting.

Professor Florida has produced voluminous material which is readily available on the Internet. He explained that the rules of the economic development game have changed. Companies used to be the force behind the old game. Cities and suburbs gauged their status by the number of corporate headquarters within their borders. Economic developers used financial and other incentives to lure companies to their communities. Now, however, people are the centre of the action. High human capital individuals-we could simply talk about talent-are the key to success in this new era of economic growth. Their ideas and creativity are the most important ingredients in the economic success of a firm or region.

A study by Professor Florida reported in June 2001 from the Brookings Institution examined the relationship between a number of measures of diversity and tolerance and high-technology success in the 50 most populated metropolitan areas in the United States. The study found four things. First, the leading indicator of a metropolitan area's high-technology success is a large gay population. The five metropolitan areas with the highest concentration of gay residents are all among the nation's top 15 high-technology areas. Second, a high concentration of artists or bohemians is a significant indicator of a metropolitan area's high-technology success. Ten of the top 15 bohemian metropolitan areas-those with the highest concentration of artists, writers, musicians, actors and so on-also number among the nation's top 15 technology regions. The next finding was that metropolitan areas with high concentrations of foreign-born residents also rank high as technology centres. Eight out of the top 10 metropolitan areas with the highest percentage of foreign-born residents were also among the nation's top 15 high-technology regions. The final finding was that overall diversity is a strong indicator of a metropolitan area's high-technology success. Eleven metropolitan areas with the highest levels of overall diversity are amongst the top 15 high-technology areas.

The findings clearly show that the bottom line is that tolerance and diversity clearly matter to high-technology concentrations and growth. Of the various measures I have just outlined, the highest significant correlates are with high-technology-having a large gay population-and I have already cited the others. This does not imply simply that these results prove that a large gay population concentration of what Professor Florida refers to as bohemians directly causes the development of a technology industry. The theory is that people in technology businesses are drawn to places known for their diversity of thought and open-mindedness, and that their measures potentially get at a broader concept of diversity and inclusiveness. That very clearly indicates that building a vibrant technology-based region requires more than investing in research and development.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [5.31 p.m.]: By the end of the week there had been lots of questions, but not many answers, about the Government's involvement in the Oasis development. When the Liverpool Australian Labor Party council decided it needed a national sporting team, the Bulldogs-franchised Razorbacks basketball side seemed a great idea. Then along came Al Constantinidis. By all accounts, especially Gary McIntyre's, Big Al's ideas and effort were crucial to the development. And they also had a little help from former Minister John Brown and Mark Latham, who was an enthusiastic supporter. Al's Stardome development of a basketball arena and other facilities and the 1,000-pokies Bulldogs Palms Resort were approved by Liverpool City Council in August 1999.

The Bulldogs wanted to build New South Wales' second casino in the burgeoning west. Indeed, in the media and elsewhere, the Bulldogs' idea was referred to as the casino. They had assistance from the council and the Government. The site for the Bulldogs club was the old memorial pool, purchased from council; and there was a convenient rezoning by the Government. Stardome had approval from the Department of Land and Water Conservation to acquire part of Woodward Park, which is Crown land-a much needed and cherished public space-for its commercial development. Yesterday Minister Aquilina refused to answer questions about this approval for the Crown land purchase for Stardome. Perhaps he should also answer whether at that stage the Crown land, which now makes up 11 per cent of the site, was going to be sold to the developer for less than $2 million.

The council got greedy and decided to toss in its three car parks for residential development and a lavish new city hall and offices. So Big Al's Stardome was abandoned and the Bulldogs and the council saw an oasis instead. Meanwhile, concerned local residents expressed their concerns to the Department of Local Government about council's role and the lack of financial controls and commonsense. The Minister for Local Government has not answered questions about his supervising the council's commitment of $74 million worth of assets and ultimately the more than $15 million in cash that seems to have been frittered into the project so far. Recognising the need for some real development expertise and financial clout, Macquarie Bank was brought in. Macquarie has a reputation and track record of pre-eminence in developing and funding major projects such as this. But McIntyre then got greedy again.

McIntyre has convinced the council that it should stay out of the development companies because of its conflict of interest. I could not imagine much more conflict than it already had by signing up the development grant. Then McIntyre insisted on full control. Naturally, Macquarie withdrew. But Macquarie's retreat was nothing compared to the fallout when Premier Carr learned of Big Al's involvement. As Carr said in reply to a question earlier this week, he had a meeting on 7 August 2000 with McIntyre and other club representatives. What he did not say was that the majority of time at the meeting was spent with him ranting that the project would not go anywhere unless Big Al was pushed out. Later, the Premier, under great pressure from the community and the Opposition over his Government's addiction to gambling and the damage it was doing in the community, extended the cap on pokie numbers.

Just as Carr applied the pressure on pokies, the negotiations for the Crown land suddenly stalled. Yesterday Minister Aquilina, in his cagey answer when asked about the negotiations for the Crown land, acknowledged that negotiations were with the Premier's Department. No doubt there will be much more on this. And the rezoning local environment plan that is now required has taken ages as well. As the project dragged on and the Government dragged the chain, the Bulldogs became increasingly more desperate to get their own super development at the Canterbury leagues club. Enter another Minister, Sport and Recreation Minister Iemma, his Canterbury City Council staff member, Robert Furolo, and friends of the Labor Party, Arthur Coorey and Bechara Khouri, Minister Obeid's mate on Jensay and Olympia Group.

No wonder the Mayor of Canterbury, Griffin, was reduced to tears. Add to that Richo and Keating pressuring the journalists in the past couple of weeks. No doubt the ICAC will get somewhere with all of those questions in the next week. Bechara Khouri, or George Khouri as he is occasionally referred to, is Minister Obeid's fixer and go-between with the Government. One need only look at the chain of communication between-

The Hon. Peter Primrose: Point of order: The House has been extremely lenient with the Hon. Greg Pearce, who has sought to use parliamentary privilege to defame a number of members of the local community. He is now also breaching the spirit of the House and the standing orders by seeking to imply numerous matters in relation to a member of this House, other than by substantive motion. As a consequence he is out of order.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: To the point of order: I merely stated the fact that Bechara Khouri, or George Khouri, was a director with Minister Obeid on Jensay and Olympia, and is well known to be someone who in the chain of communications between McIntyre, the council, Khouri and another Khouri, lead to Minister Obeid.

The Hon. Peter Primrose: Further to the point of order: The honourable member knows we are not talking about legal defamation, we are talking about defaming an individual within the terms of the standing orders of this House.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: If you think that is defaming, I will accept your judgment.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Peter Primrose will continue his point of order.

The Hon. Peter Primrose: My point of order is that if the honourable member wishes to move a substantive motion in relation to a member of this House, and wishes to make allegations that way, that is perfectly in order. But he is not able to do that by way of an adjournment speech.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I uphold the point of order. I remind the Hon. Greg Pearce that Standing Order 81 is quite clear. It states that all imputations of improper motives, and all personal reflections on members, shall be deemed disorderly.

Motion agreed to.