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

The President offered the Prayers.

Bills received.

Leave granted for procedural matters to be dealt with on one motion without formality.

Motion by the Hon. Michael Egan agreed to:

That these bills be read a first time and printed, standing orders be suspended on contingent notice for remaining stages, and the second reading of the bills stand as orders of the day for a later hour of sitting.

Bills read a first time.

Second readings to stand as orders of the day.

Motion by the Hon. Michael Egan agreed to:

That, under section 9 of the University of Sydney Act 1989, Mr Tsang be elected as the representative of the Legislative Council on the Senate of the University of Sydney.

Motion by the Hon. Michael Egan agreed to:

That, under section 9 of the University of New South Wales Act 1989, Mr Primrose be elected as the representative of the Legislative Council on the Council of the University of New South Wales.

Motion by the Hon. Michael Egan agreed to:

That, under section 9 of the Macquarie University Act 1989, Mr West be elected as the representative of the Legislative Council on the Macquarie University Council.

Motion by the Hon. Michael Egan agreed to:

That, under section 9 and schedule 1 (2) of the University of Wollongong Act 1989, Ms Fazio be elected as the representative of the Legislative Council on the Council of the University of Wollongong.

Motion by the Hon. Michael Egan agreed to:

That, under section 9 of the University of New England Act 1993, Ms Robertson be elected as the representative of the Legislative Council on the Council of the University of New England.

Motion by the Hon. Michael Egan agreed to:

That, under section 12 of the University of Western Sydney Act 1997, Ms Burnswoods be elected as the representative of the Legislative Council on the Board of the University of Western Sydney.

Motion by the Hon. Michael Egan agreed to:

That, under section 9 and schedule 1 (2) of the Charles Sturt University Act 1989, Mr Catanzariti be elected as the representative of the Legislative Council on the Council of the Charles Sturt University.

Motion by the Hon. Michael Egan agreed to:

That, under section 10 of the Southern Cross University Act 1993, Mr Breen be elected as the representative of the Legislative Council on the Council of the Southern Cross University.

Motion by the Hon. Michael Egan agreed to:

That, under section 9 of the University of Technology, Sydney Act 1989, Mr Burke be elected as the representative of the Legislative Council on the Council of the University of Technology, Sydney.

Motion by the Hon. Michael Egan agreed to:

That, under section 9 and schedule 1 (2) of the University of Newcastle Act 1989, Ms Griffin be elected as the representative of the Legislative Council on the Council of the University of Newcastle.

Motion by the Hon. Michael Egan agreed to:

1. That, under section 27 of the Commission for Children and Young People Act 1998, a joint committee known as the Committee on Children and Young People be appointed.

2. That, under section 29 of the Commission for Children and Young People Act 1998, Ms Burnswoods, Ms Griffin, Mr Catanzariti, one member nominated by the Leader of the Opposition and one member nominated by the crossbench members be appointed to serve as members of the Legislative Council.

3. In the absence of any agreement the representation on the Committee is to be determined by the House.

4. Nominations for membership of the committee are to be in writing to the Clerk of the House within seven days.

Motion by the Hon. Michael Egan agreed to:

1. That, under section 64 of the Health Care Complaints Act 1993, a joint committee known as the Committee on the Health Care Complaints Commission be appointed.

2. That, under section 67 (1) (a) of the Health Care Complaints Act 1993, Ms Robertson, one member nominated by the Leader of the Opposition and one member nominated by the crossbench members be appointed to serve on the committee as the members of the Legislative Council.

3. In the absence of any agreement the representation on the committee is to be determined by the House.

4. Nominations for membership of the committee are to be in writing to the Clerk of the House within seven days.

Motion by the Hon. Michael Egan agreed to:

1. That, under section 31A of the Ombudsman Act 1974, a joint committee known as the Committee on the Office of the Ombudsman and the Police Integrity Commission be appointed.

2. That, under section 31C (1) (a) of the Ombudsman Act 1974, Ms Burnswoods, one member nominated by the Leader of the Opposition and one member nominated by the crossbench members be appointed to serve as the Members of the Legislative Council.

3. In the absence of any agreement the representation on the committee is to be determined by the House.

4. Nominations for membership of the committee are to be in writing to the Clerk of the House within seven days.

Motion by the Hon. Michael Egan agreed to:

1. That, under section 63 of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988, a joint committee known as the Committee on the Independent Commission Against Corruption be appointed.

2. That, under section 65 (1) (a) of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988, Mr Primrose, one member nominated by the Leader of the Opposition and one member nominated by the crossbench members be appointed to serve on the committee as the members of the Legislative Council.

3. In the absence of any agreement the representation on the committee is to be determined by the House.

4. Nominations for membership of the committee are to be in writing to the Clerk of the House within seven days.

Motion by the Hon. Michael Egan agreed to:

1. That, under section 4 of the Legislation Review Act 1987, a joint committee known as the Legislation Review Committee be appointed.

2. That, under section 5 (1) (a) of the Legislation Review Act 1987, Mr Obeid and one member nominated by the Leader of the Opposition be appointed to serve on the committee as the Members of the Legislative Council.

3. In the absence of any agreement the representation on the committee is to be determined by the House.

4. Nominations for membership of the committee are to be in writing to the Clerk of the House within seven days.

Motion by the Hon. Greg Pearce agreed to:

1. That, under Standing Order 18, there be laid on the table of the House by 5.00 p.m. on Tuesday 27 May 2003, and made public without restricted access, all documents whether recorded in written or electronic form relating to:

(a) the cost of acquisition, construction, delivery, commissioning, operating and maintaining the electric trains known as the "Millennium" trains,

(b) all tenders, tender evaluation, all variation instructions, requests and evaluations and all progress reports disclosing or relating to the cost or financing the "Millennium" trains,

(c) any defect, non-compliance or fault in the design, construction, supervision, commissioning or operation of the "Millennium" trains, including any evaluations or reports in respect of such matters and the cost and other implications of such matters,

(d) any report or other communication to the Hon. Michael Costa referring or relating to any of the matters referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) above.

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

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

4. Where a document required to be tabled under this order is considered to be privileged and should not be 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

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

5. (a) 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 five days as to the validity of the claim.

(b) 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.

(c) A report from the independent legal arbiter is to be lodged 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.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos tabled a list detailing all legislation unproclaimed 60 days after assent as at 6 May 2003.

Debated resumed from 30 April.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [11.10 a.m.]: The Opposition will not oppose the City of Sydney Amendment (Electoral Rolls) Bill, but we will move amendments to clarify some of its provisions. I note that the bill is identical to one introduced in the other place last year by the former Minister for Local Government. The objects of this bill are threefold: first, to clarify that the rolls of non-resident owners of rateable land and occupiers and rate-paying lessees prepared for an election for the City of Sydney lapse after the election for which they are prepared; second, to provide that information on the lapsed rolls is to be used to prepare a mail-out by the Electoral Commissioner to electors and corporations and firms that nominate electors, notifying them of the next election and that an application may be needed for the inclusion of an elector on the relevant roll for the next election; and, third, to require the Electoral Commissioner to send out the notification at least 60 days before the closing date for enrolment for the election.

The Minister for Local Government claimed in his second reading speech that this bill is part of the Government's ongoing commitment to a transparent and effective legislative framework for the administration of local government. Of course, we have heard all that before. However, I can attest to the fact that many New South Wales local government figures view with some suspicion the Carr Labor Government's motives in a range of areas, including transparency in local government—in fact, probably principally in that regard. Under the City of Sydney Act 1988 the task of preparing rolls for the election of councillors and the Lord Mayor is given to the State Electoral Commission. That stance was endorsed by the 1998 Fisher report—the Government selected a great conservative to do that job! The inquiry dealt with the City of Sydney council election procedures and attracted many submissions, including one from the then Lord Mayor, Frank Sartor, and a joint business submission.

The task of preparing rolls for other councils that operate under the Local Government Act 1993 is the responsibility of the each council's general manager. The differences between the preparation of rolls for the city and the preparation of rolls for other council areas recognise the unique nature of the make-up of the city's electoral roll—differences that I will outline in a moment. The purpose of the amendments to the City of Sydney Act is to clarify the procedure used by the Electoral Commission in the preparation of the roll of non-resident electors and the roll of occupiers and rate-paying lessees. Apparently the necessity for this amendment arises from an ambiguity about what data the Electoral Commissioner uses to prepare the rolls—although many of us do not accept that apparent ambiguity.

Members of the Opposition have heard that Crown Solicitor's advice has been provided to that effect, but we have not had the benefit of seeing that advice, which is no surprise to many honourable members. Instead, the former Minister made available correspondence between the Electoral Commissioner and the Director General of the Department of Local Government that contains some very interesting insights into the preparation of this legislation. It would appear that the issues that led to the introduction of this bill were raised by the Electoral Commissioner with the department as far back as November 2000. That being the case, we must ask why it has taken more than two years for this relatively small bill to be introduced into Parliament.

Under section 18A of the City of Sydney Act, the Electoral Commissioner is required to prepare the rolls for an election for the City of Sydney. The commissioner is also required to send a letter to persons on each roll at least three months before the closing date of the election informing them that they are electors. This is where the ambiguity arises. The Act is to be read as part of the principal Act, which in this case is the Local Government Act. In that Act, sections specifically state that the roll of non-resident electors and the roll of occupiers and rate-paying lessees lapse after the election for which they are prepared. The question has therefore arisen as to whether the relevant parts of the City of Sydney Act override the Local Government Act, and whether the rolls lapse or continue to exist from election to election, as the City of Sydney Act indicates. It also raises the question about what information the Electoral Commissioner is to use in preparing the rolls by way of notification.

The Government's key proposal in this bill—that of specifying that the roll of non-resident electors and the roll of occupiers and rate-paying lessees lapses after the election for which they are prepared—would bring the City of Sydney council into line with other local government councils. However, the amendment does not take into account the unique nature of the content of the rolls of the City of Sydney. I have been informed that at the 1999 local government election for the city there were 7,500 residential electors and 5,000 non-residential electors, and for the election prior to that there were 4,000 residential and 8,000 non-residential. Probably the only difference is that the Government did a bit more tinkering with the City of Sydney Act in between the two roll collation processes.

These figures highlight the historical differences between the electors in the city and those in a typical local government area. The city has traditionally had a high proportion of non-resident electors while any other local government area would have a higher proportion of resident electors and a smaller proportion of non-resident electors. I do not believe that anyone would argue about that. That will change somewhat after 8 May, when the forced boundary changes—I emphasise the word "forced"—come into effect and the city gains part of the South Sydney and Leichhardt council areas.

However, the questions remain: Why do these rolls have to lapse after the election for which they are prepared? Why do they have to be effectively wiped and kept as mailing lists in the Electoral Commissioner's drawer? A concern has been put to the Opposition that the lapse of the roll of non-resident electors and the roll of occupiers and rate-paying lessees could have the unintended consequence of creating an ever-decreasing pool of non-resident electors. I cannot believe that the Government is trying to disfranchise people. I do not know what it hopes to gain by doing that. If this is an inadvertent consequence of the amendments, I hope the new Minister will instantly see the folly of his ways.

The Opposition contends that the provisions of the bill, coupled with current arrangements for elections for the City of Sydney, make it difficult, or wellnigh impossible, for potential electors to get onto the roll. We seek the Minister's explanation as to why the electoral rolls for the city cannot be kept between elections, with periodic updates, such as those that are made to electoral rolls for electors eligible to vote in State and Federal elections. We ask the Minister: Why cannot the rolls remain current, with provisions enacted to allow the removal and addition of names within the statutory periods prior to each election for the City of Sydney?

After the recent election we had to wait for some weeks to find out the final make-up of the Legislative Council. The major reason for that delay was the lack of resources at the Electoral Commission. The Electoral Commission was not able to cope with the job it had to do. Whilst I do not disagree with the Electoral Commission maintaining the electoral rolls in the City of Sydney—we all voted for the commission to have that task—to my mind it seems patently stupid that we deliberately collapse the rolls after every election, which means the Electoral Commission has to start from scratch again and use its valuable but dwindling resources to recreate something that is already there. The Opposition's proposed amendments would enable the Electoral Commission to retain current electoral rolls.

Unless the Minister can provide a satisfactory explanation, as well as a guarantee that the amendments will not result in decreasing enrolments and difficulties in administrative processes for getting onto the rolls for the City of Sydney elections, the Opposition will move amendments in Committee to clarify that the rolls will remain open after the election for which they are prepared. Those amendments will also specify that new electors can be added to the rolls. Put simply, we are seeking firstly to make it easy for eligible electors to get onto—and, indeed, remain on—the rolls for the City of Sydney, and secondly to reduce the administrative impact of virtually throwing away a detailed roll and starting from scratch prior to each election.

It would be expensive for the Electoral Commissioner to prepare a fresh roll, and as the cost of that exercise is recoverable from the council under current legislation, that places a fairly substantial impost on the City of Sydney following each election. The Government might not believe in democracy—as most members of the Labor Party do not these days—but it should not want to shift unnecessary costs to ratepayers and local government. This bill is just another example of the Government shifting costs to local government. I would have thought that the new Minister, having travelled around the bush and championed the cause of not shifting underfunded mandates to local government, would be the first to support the Opposition's amendments, which would prevent this from happening.

The Minister tried to lay the blame for current ambiguities in the City of Sydney Act with amendments made to the Local Government Legislation Amendment (Elections) Bill 1998. The Minister should recall that bill with some caution, because it sought to introduce a virtual gerrymander into the election procedures for the City of Sydney. It was not the amendments that were the problem with that legislation; it was the legislation itself, introduced by the former Minister and the Labor Party. I repeat: the Opposition will not oppose the bill. However, we will seek to amend it along the lines I have outlined, to ensure democracy and that people stay on the electoral rolls.

The Hon. MALCOLM JONES [11.25 a.m.]: The majority of what I intended to say about the City of Sydney Amendment (Electoral Rolls) Bill was put, very expertly, by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, whose analysis was absolutely spot-on. From 8 May, parts of Leichhardt and South Sydney will become part of the City of Sydney. Some time ago at a meeting the then Lord Mayor, Frank Sartor, spoke about the difficulties of incorporating areas of Kings Cross, Glebe and Darlinghurst into the City of Sydney. He explained that the economies of scale for that number of residents would become a problem, because the revenue stream they would provide would not cover the additional expenses that their incorporation would create. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, there are only 7,618 residents and 4,922 non-residents on the electoral rolls for the City of Sydney.

As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said—I will say it more forcefully—the bill is an attempt to gerrymander the municipality of the City of Sydney for the Labor Party. Sydney is primarily a business community, and the non-residents provide a major source of revenue for the council. The passage of the bill will mean that the non-residents will generally, but not totally, be disfranchised. Compulsion to register within 90 days of an election—the bill specifies 60 days, but I understand there is an amendment to increase it to 90 days—will result in a roll that will no longer effectively represent the community, because non-residents will, perhaps for reasons of apathy or ignorance, fail to register in time, just as residents would fail to register if put in a similar position.

Assuming that the majority of residents would be inclined to vote Labor and the majority of non-residents would vote for other than Labor—otherwise, why would the Government introduce the bill—the City of Sydney would become a secure Labor council. The City of Sydney is not a typical municipal area. It has special needs, it is quite distinct from other areas, and hence it has its own active parliament, as part of the Local Government Act, governing its affairs. So, quite appropriately, provision was made under the old Act for the major providers of revenue to the council, being the non-resident business houses, to have a proportionate say on the council.

As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, this is an attempt to disfranchise those people. Whilst the Government has not attempted to explicitly disfranchise them, it will rely on their anticipated human failings to not re-enrol within the appropriate time frame. I oppose the bill. I note that the Opposition has said it will not oppose it, so it is a foregone conclusion. I look forward to the debate in the Committee stages.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [11.29 a.m.]: The voting system of the City of Sydney has been something of a political football, and that sends worrying signals to me when this subject comes up. The system seems to change before every election, which, as the Hon. Malcolm Jones pointed out, suggests that the bill is all about changing the voting rules so as to change the results. I have had a connection with some campaigns in the Sydney electorate, and from discussions I understand that the non-resident and resident voting groups sometimes voted quite differently. For example, 70 votes on the non-residents roll were received in the same handwriting and in the same envelope from major firms and that raised concern whether partnerships should have more or less votes.

Electoral rolls have been something of a political football. The voting rolls should be taken away from the council and should be given to the electoral officers, who are neutral. The Electoral Commissioner has the task, and commitment, to see that elections are based on correct rolls to enable the will of the people to be expressed. The Electoral Commissioner is less likely to be influenced by the composition of the council than a council employee would be. That is certainly a step in the right direction. The Democrat amendment will ensure that any dispute between the council and the electoral office about election costs will be arbitrated by a third party. At present any cost dispute is arbitrated by the Electoral Commissioner. One person is the arbiter. That is clearly not the best solution. I gather that a foreshadowed amendment to fix that problem has been accepted by the Government. If the Opposition amendment is passed I hope that the subsequent amendment will also be accepted.

The proposed changes to the Electoral Act will affect the residents of Leichhardt, South Sydney and perhaps Woollahra, who are incorporated in the changed boundaries. If there is a difference in the voting patterns between the non-residents roll and the residents roll, the question is how much influence should voters on the non-residents roll have. If people have a legitimate interest they should be on the rolls but they should not claim an exaggerated interest just because the roll is otherwise lacking. The maintenance of the database is critical and involves an immense amount of work. The Electoral Office in New South Wales seems to be inadequately funded to check that rolls are current and to update them if necessary. I believe that is a problem in the Australian voting system generally. The Hon. Malcolm Jones said that the Sydney central business district is primarily a business community. Cities of heartless office blocks without residents become ghost towns after six o'clock at night. That is undesirable. Integration of residents in Sydney has created a far more vibrant CBD. If it is a fact that the CBD is primarily a business community, that may affect development decisions adversely for residents. The interests of those residents must be safeguarded. We have to get the balance right.

The Opposition's amendment is fairly critical of the composition and preparation of the rolls. I believe that the Government wants to scrap the roll but to use the old list to give people the opportunity to re-enrol. If people do not wish to be re-enrolled their names will be removed. Presumably the Opposition will leave the roll open but remove people who do not reply. The Opposition is defaulting from scrapping the roll to keeping the foundation of the roll. I am not sure that will make a huge difference in practice but I am willing to be persuaded about it. Unfortunately, the Opposition has not given any information to the crossbench, even though it needs our support. That is perhaps a little naughty of the Opposition, but I look forward to hearing about that before the committee stage. The Democrats are interested in representative government and in getting the balance right.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [11.34 a.m.]: During my 22 years in the House we have heard many debates about the City of Sydney election system. Under a Coalition government there is a swing to the right and under a Labor government a swing occurs to the left. The Christian Democratic Party will support the proposed amendment by the Leader of the National Party because it is right and just to make the City of Sydney electoral system fairer. This debate is about how councils are elected, which group controls the Council of the City of Sydney, and how council policies affect both the wellbeing of residents and the development and ongoing growth of the City of Sydney of which we are all so proud. We want this city to continue as a shining light for our nation and the world not only because of its natural beauty but also through its construction and development, parks, shopping and business areas.

People who live in the city are on the residents roll and non-residential occupiers and rate-paying lessees are to be found on the non-residents roll. The Opposition amendment is seeking to provide a more democratic basis for the election of councillors and I believe the amendment is a fair approach. Non-residents and particularly occupiers and rate-paying lessees who have invested millions of dollars in the City of Sydney should also have a say through elections and through the councillors that they elect to represent their concerns. That is their democratic right and they should have some input into the future of our city. Therefore it is very important that the bill be amended.

I understand that the Government was concerned that the City of Sydney Act was to be read as part of the principal Local Government Act 1993 and that the rolls for non-residents and for occupiers and ratepayer lessees might lapse after the election for which they were prepared. The bill puts the Government's intention into effect, and the Christian Democratic Party understands the strategy behind that policy. The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans said he was not sure why it mattered. However, it does matter because, according to information and submissions gathered over the years, if the roll is scrapped many non-residents and occupier and rate-paying lessees will have to go through the procedure of re-enrolling before every election. Many of them already do that.

It could be argued that if non-residential and occupier and rate-paying lessees fail to re-enrol and through their neglect lose the right to vote, it is their problem. But there are many busy commercial enterprises in this city, and given all the correspondence and other information businesses they receive it is possible that a notice to enrol could be overlooked or passed on to a staff member, and if a problem arises the re-enrolment may not occur by the due date.

At the time of an election the non-residential occupiers and ratepayer lessees who wish to vote may find that they are not on the electoral roll and, therefore, are unable to avail themselves of their democratic right to elect their local councillors. It is in the interests of all honourable members to ensure that people take advantage of their democratic right to vote. The electoral roll should be permanent for the Council of the City of Sydney, and perhaps other larger metropolitan councils, such as Bankstown City Council. Procedures should be in place to allow people who have sold their property and moved out of the area to have their names removed from the roll and for those moving into the area to apply to have their names entered on the electoral roll. This would ensure that the electoral roll was maintained with a reliable core of voters.

We believe that at least for the City of Sydney the roll should be maintained as a permanent roll and that adjustments should be made as required during the period prior to the election. Advertisements could be placed in newspapers announcing the date of council elections, as is the case with the State election. Usually the date for council elections is a fixed date in September, although the election due this September has been postponed until March next year. The Electoral Commissioner could place a notice in the newspaper announcing the date of the election and when the roll will close. New rate-paying lessees, occupiers or non-residents will then have sufficient time to ensure that their names are placed on the electoral roll. New residents also will have the right to apply to have their names put on the electoral roll.

It is an enormous administrative task to scrap the roll and then try to reconstruct it for each election, particularly for a complicated area such as the City of Sydney. It does not make sense. Perhaps the reason is political in that large numbers of people may fail to enrol and therefore cannot vote, thereby affecting the outcome of the election. The majority of elected councillors may be Labor, left wing or Greens, the result being that other political parties are not properly represented and the Council of the City of Sydney is left with an imbalance in its membership. I understand the reasons for the Government introducing the bill. The Opposition has not indicated that it will oppose the second reading of the bill.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: No, we will not oppose the bill.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: The Christian Democratic Party will support the bill so that it can proceed to the Committee stage but will support the amendment foreshadowed to be moved by the Opposition in Committee.

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG [11.43 a.m.]: I speak on this bill with a totally open mind. I am a little confused and half convinced by both sides of the argument.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: I thought I just helped clarify the matter.

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG: You did, except the Minister interjected and told me that it was not quite true.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Did he give you an actual reason?

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG: I believe he will. He convinced me during the crossbench briefing a few days ago and then the Opposition half convinced me that the Minister was wrong. My speech was written in support of the Opposition but after speaking with the Minister I am now not so sure. I would like to hear further from Mr Ian Cohen and Ms Sylvia Hale. I believe that the City of Sydney Amendment (Electoral Rolls) Bill is totally above board.

The objects of the bill are: first, to clarify that the roll of non-resident owners of rateable land and the roll of occupiers and rate-paying lessees, prepared for an election for the City of Sydney, lapse after the election for which they are prepared; second, to provide that information on the lapsed rolls is to be used to prepare a mail-out by the Electoral Commissioner to electors, notifying them of the next election and that an application may be needed for inclusion of an elector on the relevant rolls for the next election; and to require the Electoral Commissioner to send the mail-out at least 60 days before the closing date for enrolment for the election.

When I attended recently the briefing session of the Minister the question in the back of my mind, and I am sure in the back of the minds of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile was: what is the agenda of this bill? I also understand that the political reason may be for the Labor Party to regain control of the council because Frank Sartor is no longer the lord mayor.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: And Frank Sartor is not Labor?

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG: He is no longer lord mayor. Lucy Turnbull is the acting Lord Mayor and she is probably pro-Liberal.

The Hon. Peter Primrose: She is married to one.

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG: She is married to a Liberal but that does not make her a Liberal.

The Hon. Peter Primrose: By association.

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG: Yes, definitely.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: She is her own woman.

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG: Yes, I accept both opinions. Obviously, the Labor Party will try whatever means to regain the position it has lost. I understand that but, following the briefing and on reading the Opposition's amendment, which was circulated to crossbench members, I was impressed by its argument. My staff member tried to ring the Opposition to ask for an explanation of the amendment but was unable to do so.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Did you ring my office?

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG: I do not think my researcher rang your office.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: It is a good place to start.

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG: I will ask later. Apparently, a young person dropped the amendment into my office and we could not find out the identity of that person.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: We will be happy to talk to you.

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG: Under the City of Sydney Act 1988 the Electoral Commissioner has a duty to prepare the electoral rolls of non-residential ratepayers and occupiers and rate-paying lessees. A section contained therein also stipulates that the Act be read as if a part of the Local Government Act 1993, which directs that these electoral rolls lapse following the election for which they were prepared. The attempt to clarify this point through new legislation presents several problems. If electoral rolls are permitted to lapse, the number of eligible voters in these two groups could suffer a significant decline with each consequent election. This is likely to be hastened by the high turnover associated with these two groups, particularly in the City of Sydney. The automatic lapse of the rolls invalidates the eligibility of all voters after each election. I disagree in principle with this obvious shift of responsibility onto voters to apply for inclusion on subsequent electoral rolls.

The level of notification is notably reduced in this bill, which proposes that enrolment letters be sent only to people confirmed for the previous election and to corporations and firms that nominated a person as an elector for the previous election. This manner of dispatching notification letters may lead to many potentially eligible voters being overlooked, which again hastens the decline of these two groups of voters. I believe that each and every eligible voter has the right to be properly notified of upcoming elections and to have the chance to participate. Participation in Federal and State elections is compulsory and every effort is made to ensure that voters are properly registered. How can a candidate lay claim to a democratic victory if the constituency is allowed to be so easily manipulated?

Under these considerations, I have difficulty understanding the bill in its current form. I will consider the amendment foreshadowed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in due course. However, I must agree with him that on the surface there appear to be more residential voters and fewer non-residential voters. Obviously, the result will be more favourable to the Liberal Party. As mentioned by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I do not understand why it is necessary to throw away the detailed rolls, which are expensive.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: It is silly, isn't it?

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG: It sounds silly on the surface. It diminishes the rights of non-residential voters and, as mentioned by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the cost is being shifted to local government. I believe that, by redrawing the boundary, the Labor Party has every intention of retaining control of Sydney city council. I have no problem with our democratic system. The Minister, who is an honourable person, has assured me that at the moment the electoral rolls for all council elections lapse after each election, that it is no different. If the amendment is moved and passed it will make Sydney city council consistent with the other 171 councils in New South Wales.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: If that is the case, why does he need a separate City of Sydney bill?

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG: I understand that the Minister's argument is that Sydney is very complicated and different

The Hon. Duncan Gay: It is different.

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG: I will leave it to the Minister to respond to the interjections from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I accept that the city of Sydney is different. On the other hand, if the Minister's amendment is unfair, is that not also true in principle for the other 171 councils?

The Hon. Duncan Gay: But that argument only holds up if there isn't a separate bill for the city of Sydney.

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG: I will conclude my speech at this point.

Mr IAN COHEN [11.54 a.m.]: I lead for the Greens on this legislation, which will have an impact on the Council of the City of Sydney elections. Although the elections have been put back, nevertheless they are approaching fast. In the circumstances, one can clearly see that this is a political bill. Whatever way one looks at it, it is pure politics. The Greens recognise that this bill is intended to clarify some ambiguities contained in the principal 1998 Act. Currently, three rolls of electors are used in the city of Sydney elections: one for residents in the area, whether or not they own the property where they reside—that is the normal circumstance in our democracy; one for non-residents, when a person pays rates on a property he or she owns in an area but does not live on the property; and one for occupiers and ratepaying lessees, which covers both occupiers of rateable land who are not owners and lessees who, under the terms of their lease, must pay rates.

A note regarding the electoral rolls under division 2, part 6 of the Local Government Act 1993 states that the residents roll is prepared and confirmed by the Electoral Commissioner in time for each election; the non-residents roll is prepared by the general manager of the council for the area and confirmed by the Electoral Commissioner in time for each election; and the occupier and ratepaying lessee roll is prepared for a specific election by the general manager, includes only those people who apply for inclusion on the roll, and is confirmed by the Electoral Commissioner. A rather messy and special set of circumstances seems to be intertwined with the politics of the Council of the City of Sydney. That is important to both major parties, and it is often the subject of debate both in the House and outside the House in the general community.

The Greens have some concerns about this bill, and I look forward to Ms Sylvia Hale discussing this matter later in the debate. In the meantime one must ask why, in these circumstances and in the Council of the City of Sydney, some people have two votes, and in some cases three votes, when they live in the local council area and have a business in the area? It is acknowledged that many people affected by council activities are those who have a business in the local council area. Nevertheless, if we are looking at the issue of one vote, one value, it irks many people that others who do not live in the area but who have a financial interest in the area have an extra vote. So the Greens have some concerns about that in terms of the whole process.

The approach taken by the Government in this bill will provide the ALP candidates running in the next city of Sydney elections, both officially and unofficially, with a small but significant window of opportunity. Of course, the amendments foreshadowed by the Opposition would give the Opposition a small but significant leg-up at the next elections. There are certainly a lot of cross-currents in terms of who has the right to vote. The Greens are concerned that people who have registered to vote in the city of Sydney elections—we have seen this happen in other local council areas, and I know it affects my area—must re-register to vote in subsequent local council elections. That disadvantages non-resident voters compared with other voters who are not generally on the roll, who live in one place and who do not need to re-register. Time and time again we find that people do not know that an election is approaching; if people are expected to apply to be on the electoral roll for non-resident lessees—that roll is scrapped before each election and then reinstated—it would simply mean that a significant number of people will not have the right to vote.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Transport Services. Will the Minister inform the House if Mr Tony Shepherd has resigned as a director of the New South Wales State Transit Authority following his election as chairman of the ERG board, whose subsidiary Integrated Transit Solutions has the $320 million contract to supply smartcards for use on New South Wales trains, buses and ferries?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I have not seen any resignation but I am happy to take some advice and come back to the House on that question.

The Hon. IAN WEST: My question is addressed to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Will the Minister inform the House of the outcome of the minimum wage case 2003?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I thank the honourable member for his ongoing interest in industrial relations matters. Yesterday the Australian Industrial Relations Commission handed down its decision on the minimum wage case 2003. The commission received a range of submissions and considered them carefully. It took into account the economic climate throughout the nation, the capacity to pay, the needs of low paid workers and, of course, particular factors like the drought. The commission has announced a $17 per week increase to award rates up to and including $731.80 per week and a $15 increase in award rates above $731.80 per week. This decision increases the Federal weekly minimum wage to $448.40 per week.

Honourable members will recall that the New South Wales Government intervened in this case and asked the Federal commission to grant an increase of $18 per week to the minimum wage and all award rates. The submission was in response to the Australian Council of Trade Unions' claim for $24.60 and was premised on the current state of the New South Wales and Australian economies, as well as the need to address the genuine needs of Australia's low paid workers. The commission's decision to grant $17 vindicates the balanced position adopted by the New South Wales Government and provides a genuine boost to more than 500,000 New South Wales workers, while remaining affordable for the economy.

Contrast this position with that of Tony Abbott and the Howard Federal Government. For a start, Mr Abbott submitted that low paid workers, on a minimum wage of $11.35 per hour, should only receive an increase of $12 per week or an additional 32¢ per hour. Mr Abbott proposed that any increases awarded beyond that should be capped or subjected to a phase-in period of up to 18 months. To top it off, he then introduced the deceitfully titled Workplace Relations Amendment (Protecting the Low Paid) Bill, which I told honourable members last week was a reference that could hardly be further from the truth. That bill seeks to nobble the independent umpire and drive down real increases to the minimum wage.

Yesterday's decision demonstrates that the commission already exercises its discretion responsibly by taking into consideration a wide range of matters, including economic effects and impacts on employment levels. It provides a reasonable balance between the concerns of workers and employers. Once again, I urge Tony Abbott to withdraw this bill, a bill that will benefit nobody, least of all low paid workers. The New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission has listed the State wage case for 26 and 27 May. The State Government will press the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission to flow on the increase to workers on State awards without a cap and without a phase-in period.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question is directed to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. Why is NSW Agriculture continuing to pursue legal action against Mrs Kath Day of Kyogle for the movement of tick-infested cattle, when NSW Agriculture tick inspectors had previously told the Day family that their property was tick free and that the dip yard on their property could be decommissioned? What is NSW Agriculture trying to achieve in pursuing the Day family in this way?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Various proceedings have been commenced against the State of New South Wales involving soil contamination of former cattle tick dip sites in northern New South Wales and workers compensation claims. Most of the soil contamination matters were referred to mediation in 2001. All but one was resolved with mediation. Settlement was on the basis that there was no liability on the State of New South Wales. Former cattle feed inspectors employed by NSW Agriculture have lodged several workers compensation claims. These matters are before the court and it is therefore not appropriate for me to comment on them. An additional issue regarding prosecution for offences under the Stock Diseases Act with respect to movement of tick-infected cattle is still to be heard by the Court of Appeal and it is not appropriate that I make any comment on any aspect of the case.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister address the issue of the Day family, which is about a fine that has nothing to do with contaminated dip sites.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I assure the honourable member that I will look at it, but I will not comment on matters before the court.

Mr IAN COHEN: I ask the Minister for Justice, representing the Minister for the Environment, a question without notice. Did the Kangaroo Industry Association of New South Wales vote unanimously to ask for a minimum size limit to be imposed on kangaroos killed commercially or under a damage mitigation permit, and was this conveyed to the National Parks and Wildlife Service [NPWS] on 12 February last? Did the industry express considerable concern to the NPWS on the effects of the drought on Kangaroo populations and ask for this limit to protect young animals to allow them to regenerate the population? Did the NPWS act immediately to introduce a weight limit? If not, why not? Has the NPWS undertaken population surveys this year to ensure that the year's quota will not endanger kangaroo populations? If not, why not, and will you do so immediately?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I will refer the matter to the Minister for the Environment, obtain an answer, and provide it to the honourable member in due course.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG: My question is addressed to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. Will the Minister update the House on the status of applications for full exceptional circumstances drought assistance?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I think the honourable member's question relates more appropriately to my portfolio. As I informed the House yesterday, recent rainfall has been limited to coastal areas and some areas of the north. The drought is still seen as severe in many parts of the State, particularly in the south-eastern corner—almost 25 per cent of the State. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition says, they have not had rain in Crookwell. Crookwell is normally just about the greenest part of the State. If it is not green at Crookwell, it is pretty shocking. There has not been enough rain in the south of the State to allow crops to be planted. Cooler conditions from now on mean there will be little or no pasture growth in the southern or tablelands areas. The lack of pasture and the cost of buying feed have already forced Southern Tablelands producers to sell-off large numbers of cattle.

I am concerned that the Federal Government has still not approved five applications for full exceptional circumstances assistance covering the south-east of New South Wales. A total of 69.7 per cent of the State has been declared for full exceptional circumstances assistance. The five applications lodged that have not been approved cover a further 24.8 per cent of the State. Exceptional circumstances assistance includes family income support payments and interest rate subsidies on new loans. This support is vital for farmers trying to survive this one-in-100-year drought. Minister Truss assured me in Brisbane on 13 April that the Federal Government would turn around all exceptional circumstances applications within 28 days of lodgement. These are for a full range of assistance, involving up to $100,000 in payments over two years for their current loans. As I said at the time, that was a heartening response, and I was anticipating good news on the five applications that had already been lodged.

[Interruption]

The Hon. Rick Colless failed to listen to me. I pointed out that these applications had already been lodged and that the Federal Minister had assured me in Brisbane that they would be dealt with within 28 days. Unfortunately, I still do not have any update from the Federal Government to pass on to farmers in those areas.

The five applications cover, first, the South-Western Slopes and Plains—parts of Gundagai, Wagga Wagga, Narrandera and Hume rural lands protection boards [RLPBs]. The second covered stone fruit producers in parts of the areas covered by the Young Rural Lands Protection Board. These two applications were lodged on 1 April—37 days ago. The third application covered the Central and Southern Tablelands—areas within the responsibility of Mudgee-Merriwa, Hunter, the Central Tablelands, Young, Yass, Goulburn, Braidwood, Gundagai, Hume, Cooma and Bombala rural lands protection boards, a large part of the State. The fourth application covered the Central West Slopes and Plains, parts of the areas administered by the Condobolin, Dubbo, Molong and Forbes rural lands protection boards. These were lodged on 21 March—some 47 days ago. The fifth application related to the South Coast, administered by the South Coast and Moss Vale rural lands protection boards. This application was lodged on 14 March—54 days ago. I am sure that all honourable members would agree that farmers in those areas desperately need exceptional circumstances assistance. I call on Minister Truss to process these applications as soon as possible. Farmers in the south of the State need this assistance to survive this appalling, long-term and persistent drought. These areas will continue to be drought affected because, basically, they have had very little rain since 19 February.

The Hon. MALCOLM JONES: My question is addressed to the Special Minister of State. The injecting room trial at Kings Cross has now had sufficient opportunity to prove itself as either an asset or a liability to the community. What is the current position with the Kings Cross drug injecting room? Has its effectiveness been assessed yet? If not, when will this assessment take place?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: As honourable members know, legislation was passed by this House last year to extend the medically supervised injecting room trial until 31 October this year. At the time of the debate a number of views were made clear in this Chamber. The Hon. Malcolm Jones took the opportunity then to express his views. But the Government had taken the view, based on advice from its own advisory committee consisting of a range of experts from the field, that the centre's evaluation report would not be effective without another six months for further consideration. The Government has funded a very comprehensive and independent evaluation process. It is being undertaken pursuant to an agreed, published protocol primarily developed by the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre. Evaluators have been providing regular quarterly process reports on the operational aspects of the trial, of which honourable members will be aware as they have been in the public arena and on occasions referred to in this Chamber. The final evaluation report will be a much more detailed document and cover the impact on public health, on treatment uptake, on client health, on public amenity, on drug dealing and crime and on community attitudes. An economic appraisal will also be included. I am advised that the report of the independent evaluators will be available by the end of this month. The Government will carefully consider the findings and determine a course for the medically supervised injecting centre trial following receipt of the report and appropriate public debate.

The Hon. DON HARWIN: Is the Minister for Transport Services and aware that serious industry concerns were being raised for some time with Transport NSW about the Kings Bros Bus Group prior to its collapse? Given these ongoing concerns, has the Minister investigated why the former head of Transport NSW, Michael Deegan, described King Bros to industry representatives on at least two occasions in the last 12 months as a firm that the rest of the industry should emulate?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: We are into our third day of questions and the Opposition has run out of questions, because I was asked precisely the same question yesterday.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Two of the words were the same.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: You asked the same question yesterday. You asked about the financial liability of King Bros and what the Department of Transport knew about it. Check Hansard. I indicated yesterday that I would come back to the House with an answer. My response to that question is exactly the same. I do not know what the former Director-General of Transport said. The Opposition may be able to produce what information it has. I heard media reports about this matter but I do not think the comments referred to are really relevant to the substantive question, that is, the role of the Department of Transport in regulating this part of the industry and how contracts are entered into.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: But why do you think they should be emulated?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The Leader of the Opposition again is showing his inexperience. He does not understand that corporations such as King Bros are actually regulated by a number of agencies. Its transport operations are certainly regulated in relation to contracts with the Government. But as a corporation, its operations are regulated by Federal authorities. If there are solvency issues, they are largely Federal matters. I again suggest that the Leader of the Opposition do his homework so that he understands who regulates what, because he clearly does not understand it at the moment.

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: Will the Minister for State Development inform the House of the benefits to New South Wales from hosting the CeBIT Australia information and communications technology trade show?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Australia is the second-largest market for information and communications technology [ICT] products and services in the Asia-Pacific after Japan. New South Wales accounts for more than 40 per cent of the Australian market. The ICT sector in New South Wales has a turnover of $31 billion a year and employs 90,000 people. Last year Sydney was host to the first CeBIT Australia ICT event at Darling Harbour. CeBIT Australia is based on Germany's CeBIT Hanover, which I am sure honourable members will know is the world's largest and most successful ICT trade show. Based on the success of the first Sydney event, the organisers of CeBIT worldwide, Deutsche Messe AG, have made a commitment to host CeBIT in Australia over the next five years. CeBIT Australia 2003 is being held this week, with 427 exhibitors from 15 countries filling three halls at Darling Harbour. More than 20,000 people are expected to visit over three days. This is very impressive considering the general state of the global ICT industry. CeBIT provides local ICT companies with an opportunity to demonstrate that they are up there with the best in the world in terms of innovation and quality of development.

Once again, a key component of CeBIT is the Australia Information Industry Association Software Showcase, featuring 150 of Australia's best software developers, including start-up companies. The Department of State and Regional Development is once again a principal sponsor of CeBIT Australia. The department is proud to be showcasing the innovative technologies of a number of New South Wales ICT companies supported through its business development programs. The continuing success of this event confirms Sydney's status as an international centre of ICT excellence and as an attractive location for business tourism. As members are aware, the major CeBIT trade fair is held in Hanover, Germany, each year, but Deutsche Messe AG also holds four regional trade fairs. Sydney is host to one of the four fairs and the others are held in New York, Shanghai and Istanbul.

[Interruption]

Does the Deputy Leader of the Opposition wish to say anything else? Does any of it make sense?

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Most of it.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: I direct my question to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. Is it a fact that a national emergency plan was activated on Tuesday 29 April in response to the potentially devastating wheat streak mosaic virus that was found on nine New South Wales farms over the preceding two weeks? What impact has the wheat virus had so far on the New South Wales grain industry? What action is the New South Wales Government taking to contain this virus from spreading throughout our farming community and the devastating effects that such a virus could have on the $20 billion grain industry?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I thank the honourable member for his most appropriate question. This is a difficult situation and one that we must look at very carefully. The exotic pest wheat streak mosaic virus causes the disease, and the wheat curl mite, which appears to be endemic to much of Australia, spreads it. The disease has been positively identified in cereal breeding material and/or grasses at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation's [CSIRO] Black Mountain laboratories and its field station at Ginninderra in Canberra, the Lesley Research Centre at Toowoomba, the Victorian Institute for Dryland Agriculture at Horsham, the new grain wheat breeding facility at Bendigo, and the Waite Campus of the University of Adelaide.

Prompt and decisive action is being taken in New South Wales to protect our grain industries from this pest. The only positive identification has been at the SunPrime wheat breeding facility at Tamworth. The sites at which positive identifications have been made have been placed under quarantine, which will remain in place until a decision has been made about the feasibility of eradicating the disease. NSW Agriculture has sampled wheat, barley, oat and triticale plants in glasshouse environments and in the field at Wagga Wagga, Temora and Cowra and the samples are being analysed by the CSIRO in Canberra. No positive diagnoses have been made to date.

NSW Agriculture will be sampling volunteer cereals in northern New South Wales and alternative hosts such as millet and maize and volunteer cereals in irrigation areas in southern New South Wales in the next few days. Six mixed cereal grazing trails sown by NSW Agriculture on private properties have been destroyed. Other trails that have been sown will be destroyed as the plants emerge from the ground. The honourable member can rest assured that the Government is taking every step possible to ensure that the virus does not spread.

The Hon. JOHN RYAN: I direct my question to the Minister for Justice. Has the Minister investigated why the former Minister and the Department of Corrective Services waited 2½ months before telling the family of an inmate who had died in custody 18 days after he should have been released that they had strong reasons to suspect, within 48 hours of the incident, that a bungle had been made in calculating his sentence? If so, what was the reason for the delay?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: The former Minister had been advised, as I had been, by the Chairman of the Parole Board that the circumstances relating to the person's death should not be disclosed, other than in the normal course through a Coroner's inquiry. Mr Pike confirmed that advice to me on the Wednesday after I received the investigation report. For the reasons that I indicated on the day following that advice, I rejected it. I did so because I was not prepared to allow the circumstances that led to that incarceration to continue, and because there was a need for immediate action. As I have indicated, I adopted a process whereby the sentence calculations are to be undertaken by the Sentence Administration Branch, and a process that would allow judicial members of the Parole Board to sign off on sentence calculations. I also indicated that I would take to Cabinet legislative proposals to reinforce that procedure.

The Hon. John Ryan: On what date?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I have answered that aspect of the question.

The Hon. John Ryan: No you haven't.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Just shut up!

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Just before I came into the Chamber I received a press release issued by Mr Andrew Humpherson, the shadow Minister for Justice. The Hon. Greg Pearce should not worry; if this man can make it into the shadow Cabinet there is hope for him. The unintelligible ramblings in the press release demonstrate that the shadow Minister has a lot to learn. The press release has more to say about the dead inmate's life than it does about the bungle. It states that the Government is passing the blame to the dead prisoner. I have made it clear in press conferences and on radio today that I regard the circumstances that led to this person's incarceration three weeks beyond the date on which he should have been released as a disgrace. It is unacceptable and appalling. The Government has already taken action in accordance with the recommendations in the Dalton report to ensure that the circumstances are not repeated. Two officers have already been stood aside from their duties and a preliminary inquiry is being undertaken independent of the department. The investigation undertaken by the department has been approved and has attracted laudatory comments from the inspector-general, whom the honourable member effusively praised yesterday.

The Hon. JOHN RYAN: I wish to ask a supplementary question. The Minister said in his response that he had been advised, and I understand he said the former Minister received the same advice. Who provided that advice? He said that that was a disgrace. Is he suggesting that the former Minister's action was not to produce the advice?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: The information I have about the former Minister came from a press statement he made on the same day I made my announcement, which I think was on 11 April. He indicated that he had received advice similar to mine, that the information should not be disclosed—

The Hon. John Ryan: From whom?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: The honourable member should ask him. The information he disclosed was the same information that I received, and I assume it came from the Parole Board.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Transport Services. Will the Minister advise the House about the latest initiatives to ensure the safe passage of vessels in our waterways?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I thank the honourable member for the important and topical question. The Government is considering legislative amendments to increase fines for anyone who uses vessels to block or endanger the safe passage of ships into Sydney Harbour. The amendments to the Maritime Services Act will mean that anyone who endangers people or property will face a maximum court-imposed fine of $5,500. That is an increase from the current maximum fine of $1,500. In addition, the Government intends to introduce an expanded regime for on-the-spot fines from $200 to $1,500. The Waterways Authority of New South Wales is also developing proposals to recover costs and to confiscate boat drivers licences from anyone who disrupts harbour operations or damages vessels. I do not know whether that extends to surfboards, but I will check that.

More than 2,300 commercial vessels visit the ports of Sydney every year. It is an important component of the transport infrastructure of the State and the nation. In fact, I am advised that more than $42 billion worth of cargo goes through the ports of Sydney annually. One can therefore understand the critical importance of the safe operation of vessels. The Government will take action to prevent disgraceful and dangerous behaviour—in some cases, reckless behaviour—on the harbour.

The safe movement of ships and their cargo is critical to our economy. A range of offences are currently provided for in legislation. The maximum court-imposed penalty for the offence of negligent navigation will be increased to $5,500, an increase from the current $1,500 maximum penalty. The maximum court-imposed penalty for causing annoyance, nuisance and danger to personal property will also be increased to $5,500. The maximum penalty for navigating a vessel over 10 knots or passing within 16 metres of an occupied vessel will also be increased from $1,500 to $5,500.

I hope these increases in penalties will encourage people to reflect on their behaviour on the harbour. We do not want to see incidents similar to the incidents we have seen in recent times. I will not go into the details of those incidents, as some of the matters may still be before the courts. However, the public wants to see a safe regime of navigation on our harbour, and these penalties are certainly in line with that objective.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: Further to an earlier question, I ask the Special Minister of State a question without notice. Is it a fact that 1,503 clients have used the facilities at the Kings Cross heroin injecting room in its first six months of operation? Is it also a fact that during this period 610 clients have been referred to various rehabilitation, medical and counselling services? How many of these 610 referred clients have actually enrolled in a rehabilitation program? How many of these clients are now no longer using an illegal drug, such as heroin or cocaine? How many referred clients were actually treated by a doctor or tested for sexually transmitted diseases? What follow-up procedure takes place to ensure that clients take part in follow-up treatment and act on the referrals?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I thank Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile for his important question, to which I will have a comprehensive answer at the end of this month or early next month when the scheduled evaluation is completed. With regard to the first part of his question, from my recollection the figures referred to are correct. As Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile would be aware, many of the users of the medically supervised injecting room trial service are what are commonly described as street users—people who are, unfortunately, caught up in a lifestyle of quite serious drug use and addiction. It is important that the service is able to get those people to the point of seeking medical help for the whole range of difficulties and life problems they may have, not only from a humane perspective to assist them with their life prospects but also in terms of potentially reintegrating them into the community at large.

Without trivialising the question but treating it with the seriousness it deserves, I suggest to Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile that he has probably asked the $64,000 question: Just how successful has been the element of the trial that involves the notion that people could use access to treatment at the centre as a potentially transforming experience, access to which, because of their lifestyle, they would otherwise not receive? At this stage I am only aware of the statistics I have already made publicly available. I acknowledge that in some respects those statistics are a little unsatisfactory because—and I do not mean any disrespect to the collectors of those statistics—they do not give much of a longitudinal perspective on the matter. For example, at this stage we do not know exactly how many of those people have been able to undertake follow-up treatment to the point where they are dramatically reducing, if not eliminating, their drug-taking behaviour.

I anticipate that this would be a relatively small percentage of the total number of people, simply because of the category of people using the service and their starting point. Such a service would regard itself as very successful if it had a relatively small number of people successfully going into what might be called serious, long-term treatment options. This gets back to the question asked earlier by the Hon. Malcolm Jones. The Government wanted to be very serious and certain about the outcomes of this trial, and a significant amount of the political faith of the State—as well as significant taxpayer funds—has been invested in this trial. It is extremely important that that evaluation be as objective and realistic as possible, and provide all people from the various aspects of the debate with as much information as they may need to assess the various propositions people will have about the trial, its future and the future of similar services that may or may not come out of the trial.

I have given the best answer I can to Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile's question. Without intending to be disrespectful to the honourable member, we need to be not too evangelistic about the service's prospects for success because they are limited. However, given the starting point of many of the users of the trial, even small successes may well be quite large achievements in terms of the improvement to their lives and, potentially, the facility's operation within the community.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: My question is directed to the Minister for Local Government. What action is the Government taking to investigate amalgamations of local governments, given that the Minister has indicated that the deferral of local government elections will provide the opportunity for councils to consider amalgamations? Further, what role is the Minister for Energy and Utilities taking in the Government's consideration of this issue?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: The Government has announced a delay in the local government elections of six months for two very good reasons. On 15 April the Premier announced the deferral and rescheduling of those elections. This followed a request from the Local Government Association that the local government elections be rescheduled for March next year. It did so for two reasons: firstly, to allow an incoming council to take control of its own budget shortly after being elected; and secondly, and more importantly, for the ratepayers of New South Wales, and more particularly the voters of New South Wales, to ensure that we do not have consecutive elections six months apart.

This Parliament has fixed four-year terms, and local government also has fixed four-year terms. Unless we change this system, forever and a day State and local government elections will be six months apart. I would hope that the Federal Government would look at having fixed four-year terms also. Having said that, I am of the view that this decision will also provide an opportunity to local government, members of local government, local government councils and ratepayers around the State to consider the options for boundary adjustments and voluntary amalgamations.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: My question is addressed to the Minister for Local Government. Will the Minister update the House on the performance of local councils?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Today I released the Government's twelfth annual comparative information report on local government.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: And was it good news?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: The report is a definitive resource that could be used by ratepayers, councils and my department to ascertain the effectiveness, efficiency and quality of delivery of services to ratepayers across the State. Members would be aware that the Local Government Act gives councils significant responsibility and autonomy in providing services to the community. The report I released today effectively becomes an annual report card for councils. It provides essential data on the highest and lowest rates paid across the State for all councils. It also provides key information on sources of revenue by council.

The Hon. Rick Colless: How does Wellington perform?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Reasonably well. There is also a range of other indicators including the amount spent by library services and how much recycling is collected per resident. The ratepayers of New South Wales are able to see whether their council charges more or less than other councils to provide services. It is important to remember that, while the key performance indicators are contained in this report, on their own they do not give the full picture of the performance of councils.

I bring to the attention of the House and to the ratepayers that the two councils charging the highest rates in New South Wales are Hunters Hill and Sydney, which charge, on average, $1,015 per residential assessment. In country New South Wales Orange charges its residents more than any country council, at $821. Residents in North Sydney fare much better; they are charged only $353. In country New South Wales the rates for residents of Bogan shire are just $138.

It is interesting to note the amount of recycling that is done by councils across New South Wales. I am sure that the honourable member for Bathurst in the other place would be very pleased to know that Bathurst City Council is the State's top recycler; it recycles 483.81 kilograms per person per year. Although 25 councils do not recycle any rubbish, many councils are doing well in this area. To respond to a comment made earlier by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, recycling is good news for local councils.

The report details councils that are doing well and those that are not. One major performance indicator is the time that it takes to process development applications. For example, the residents of South Sydney have to wait on average 116 days to have their applications processed, compared with 25 days for those lodged with the Council of the City of Sydney. It is clearly unacceptable for councils to take almost four months to process a development application. Byron shire on the North Coast is not much better; it takes 91 days to process development applications. This is just not on. Bogan shire takes only two days. In saying that, however, I advise that Bogan shire has only seven development applications a year.

I encourage ratepayers to take their councils to task if they believe that their performance is not up to scratch. Local government raises $2 billion in rates annually, including $1.35 billion in residential rates. This report provides key information to residents and ratepayers to scrutinise the performance of their councils. I ask that councils take a good look at this report and use it to improve their overall performance. I hope that ratepayers use this report card to make councils accountable.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I direct my question to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer inform the House whether any new developments will be announced at the Premier and Cabinet dinner this Thursday night, at which Eric Roozendaal's letter of 8 April promised there would not be a live auction? Will you explain what benefit comes to the people of New South Wales from such occasions? Do groups opposed to the interests of the big donors, such as Meriton, who attend such dinners get equal access to Mr Egan as Treasurer of New South Wales?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I do not know what is going to happen at the dinner tomorrow night. I am going along and I am looking forward to meeting and speaking with all of the people at the dinner.

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: Give us a brief after you've been.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I assume the Premier will be speaking. If honourable members would like me to, I will even take along a little tape recorder and get a recording of his speech. The Premier makes excellent speeches at these functions, as he does at other functions. Tonight he will be speaking at a function organised by the Jewish Board of Deputies to celebrate the fifty-fifth anniversary of the State of Israel, as he has done every year since he has been Premier.

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: They have had only one fifty-fifth!

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: No, they have an anniversary every year. Last year it was the fifty-fourth, the year before it was the fifty-third, the year before that it was the fifty-second, the year before that it was the fifty-first. This year it is the fifty-fifth. The Premier attends these functions every year. I have not attended one of these functions organised by the Jewish Board of Deputies since about 1980. Last night I spoke at a function organised by the Zionist Council of New South Wales. I was in the company of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the other place, Mr O'Farrell, who told the audience what an excellent speech the Premier gives annually at celebrations to commemorate the anniversary of the founding of the State of Israel. So it is not only myself who believes that the Premier will be sure to make an excellent speech tomorrow night, but indeed members of the Opposition as well. If the Hon. Charlie Lynn or the Hon. Lee Rhiannon wants to hear the Premier live rather than on the tape that I will give them later on, they can come along—provided they buy a ticket.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You should give the Hon. Lee Rhiannon a ticket. She gave you her preferences.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: She did not give them to me. In fact I think I got 1.66 million votes at last count. I am told that is the biggest vote that anyone has ever received in Australia—not just in New South Wales.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: What about the personal votes below the line?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I was not encouraging people to vote below the line. I was telling people, "You can trust all my colleagues on the ticket. Vote above the line." The Hon. Michael Gallacher was running all over the State saying, "My colleagues are not up to scratch. Just give me a No. 1 and fill in the rest as you please." I did not do that, I said, "Vote 1 above the line", and I got—

The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: Then why don't you take on Simon Crean!

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I hadn't thought of that.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Treasurer for informing the House that he will tape the proceedings. Will he give a commitment that he will tape all the proceedings, and will they be made publicly available?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I would certainly not break the law, as I suspect the Hon Lee Rhiannon is inviting me to do.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. Is it a fact that canola seed stocks produced by New South Wales Agriculture for sale have tested positive for the presence of genetically modified organisms? If so, how did this contamination occur, and what measures have been taken to ensure that genetically modified material has not been inadvertently and illegally released to farmers in New South Wales?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I thank the Hon. Rick Colless for his question on this important matter. It is asked on the eve of a debate later this month in this House relating to the Government's three-year moratorium on the commercial release of genetically modified [GM] canola. Research undertaken by Dr Mary Rieger of the Weeds Co-operative Research Centre has shown that cross pollination between paddocks of canola is very low, being less than 1 per cent, even when the paddocks were adjacent. Cross pollination rapidly fell to extremely low and frequently undetectable levels as the distance between paddocks increased, thus showing that the substantial isolation distances suggested by some were not necessary. This work, conducted in the Australian environment, indicates that commercial production of genetically modified, non-genetically modified and organic canola can coexist provided sensible crop management plans are implemented. I will take the honourable member's question on notice in order to ascertain the specifics.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: It took you a while to get there.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I am always going to get there, and I appreciate the interjection. I should point out that we have been doing trials and taking a close look at the issue, and I advise that some of the scaremongering is a little overblown. I will look at the specific example and give an answer to the honourable member fairly quickly.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: My question is to the Minister for Disability Services. What action is the Government taking to assist people with a disability to participate in communities throughout rural and regional New South Wales?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: The Carr Government has made a significant investment in services to assist people with a disability to lead active and productive lives in their local community, and I appreciate this opportunity to provide further information to the House about this investment. We are committed to increasing supports for people with a disability and their families, especially in rural and regional New South Wales, where services are not always readily available. One strategy that has been implemented by the Government to achieve this has been the introduction of eight local support co-ordinators covering the local government areas of Bega Valley, Shoalhaven, Parkes, Forbes, Port Stephens, Sutherland, Tweed, Byron and Ballina.

The Local Support Co-ordination Program aims to build informal supports and to use mainstream services to allow people to remain connected to their own communities. Local support co-ordinators assist individuals and families in identifying their needs and in managing their own supports, particularly by drawing from local available resources. They also assist individuals and families to plan ahead and focus on preventive and early intervention measures to ensure the person with a disability avoids any crisis during a time of major transition in their lives. People with a disability, their families and carers often say how difficult it is to access the disability services system or mainstream services that can support people with a disability. Local support co-ordinators aim to address this issue.

The program's approach is to provide personal and flexible support that is responsive to an individual's needs and circumstances. Each local support co-ordinator has a capacity to assist between 50 to 70 people with a disability and their families. The indications are that local support co-ordination is proving highly successful in supporting people with a disability of all ages and their families. A recent review of the Local Support Co-ordination Program reported that people who accessed the program felt they had greater control of their situation. Almost 80 per cent of these people reported involvement with the program had made them feel more hopeful about future choices. This is an excellent result as planning for the future is a key factor in enabling families to remain together and to prevent social isolation.

As a result, I am pleased to be able to advise the House that the Local Support Co-ordination Program is undergoing a $1.8 million expansion across regional New South Wales. Following a review of the existing program and a comprehensive planning process, the program will employ an extra 20 co-ordinators and expand to take in an additional 50 local government areas. When the current expansion is completed later this year, 28 local support co-ordinators will be working at the individual, family and community levels throughout the State. The current expansion of local support co-ordination is an important contribution by the Government to its ongoing support for people with a disability, their families and carers in regional and rural communities in making sure that people are able to access services that are both appropriate to their individual needs and locally available.

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG: My question without notice is addressed to the Special Minister of State, representing the Minister for Health. Can the Minister inform the House of his role and that of the Department of Health with respect to detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome [SARS] at Sydney airport? In view of the concern expressed by many about the possibility of overseas passengers with SARS arriving in New South Wales, what combined efforts have been made by the State and Federal governments to offer an effective plan to prevent that occurring? It is inevitable that during the winter months a number of passengers will arrive in New South Wales with a fever. What strategy does the Government have in place to monitor those passengers who have a fever that is probably due to influenza?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The question is directed to my colleague the Minister for Health and it involves a range of important issues dealing with the potential for SARS to become a greater problem in Australia with the coming winter. My best course of action is to obtain a response to the question, but I point out that I would have been able to provide the honourable member with more immediate detail had this important question been placed on notice.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: My question is to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Forests). What is the total volume of timber required per annum to meet the long-term wood supply agreements in the north-east forests? Where will this timber come from following the Government's decision to transfer massive parts of the north-east forests into the National Park Estate?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I did make the point yesterday, when a similar question was asked, that the House will debate these matters. However, I will answer the question that seems to perplex the honourable member, that is, where does wood come from? It comes from the ground, water is used to wet it, as I understand it, and trees then grow.

The Hon. Rick Colless: You are trivialising the matter.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: If the Opposition cannot frame a question properly, it should not be surprised to get an answer that reflects the question. To ask where wood comes from is an absurd question. The Government has made its position very clear on this matter. Legislation is before the House. The Government's announcement on north-east forests contains a number of measures that I do not want to go into now, but they include changes to buffers on buffers and a range of other measures, all aimed at securing long-term wood supply agreements. I have also had discussions with industry representatives about the matter. The Opposition will have an opportunity to debate these matters in full when the House deals with the legislation.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: I ask a supplementary question. What will be the cost of compensating timber millers who will lose quota sawlogs as result of the Government's new national parks plans for the north-east forests, and has provision been made in the budget for this compensation?

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Point of order: According to the sessional orders that is not a supplementary question as it introduced a topic that was not contained in either the first question or the Minister's answer.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind honourable members, especially new members, that supplementary questions may seek only to elucidate information given in response to the original question. I rule the question out of order.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG: My question is directed to the Minister for Justice. Can the Minister update the House on the progress of the transfer of 109 Corrective Services jobs from the Sydney metropolitan area to Goulburn as announced by the Premier on 7 February?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Last Thursday I visited Goulburn and met with a number of civic and community leaders, as well as with the administration of the Goulburn correctional complex. I take this opportunity to thank all those who attended and welcomed me. I was a bit disappointed that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was not there, but I was pleased to see those who did attend.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: The Minister is misleading the House. He forgot to invite me.

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

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I did not invite anyone. People just read the newspapers and flocked to it, but the honourable member did not. A relocation committee has already been set up and it has organised orientation visits to Goulburn for Sydney-based administrative staff and their families who wish to continue to work with the department in the positions that they currently occupy. The relocation of 109 administrative staff positions will inject $5 million into the local community in salaries and wages and an extra $1 million will be spent on operating costs.

The jobs include positions in human resources, finance, audit, sentence administration, budget and asset management. Staff reaction to the relocation has been enthusiastic. No staff member will be compelled to move to Goulburn, and those who choose to stay will be allocated other positions in the department in Sydney. The positions that we are unable to fill from existing staff will be offered to the local community.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Goulburn is a lovely city.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: It is a lovely city, and I am enthusiastic that people from Goulburn will gain some of the 109 positions that will be offered, because Goulburn and the Department of Corrective Services have had a very good relationship. The Goulburn community has provided a very professional work force for the department, and that is reflected in the fact that Goulburn has honoured the Department of Corrective Services by giving it the freedom of the city, which is a big compliment. The new facility will inject an estimated $7.5 million into the region for building and construction, and for office fit-outs. Of course, that is an estimate; it depends on whether we can find an existing building or whether we have to construct a new building. It is expected that the project will start next year and be completed by mid-2005. Staff will be relocated to Goulburn in December 2005.

When I was in Goulburn I had the opportunity to see the new visitor complex, which will be opened towards the end of this year. That facility cost $6.4 million. A number of sub-trades based in Goulburn have been working on that site. So the Goulburn community has benefited from providing some of the trades necessary to construct the new centre. This is a major relocation on the part of the State Government. It is consistent with its decentralisation program, and it is proof of its commitment to regional New South Wales.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: If honourable members have any further questions, they may place them on notice or ask them during question time tomorrow.

Questions without notice concluded.

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

Bill received and read a first time.

Motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly 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.

Second reading to stand as an order of the day.

The PRESIDENT: I welcome to the public gallery Senator Kerry Nettle.

The President tabled, pursuant to the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, a performance audit report entitled "Protecting Our Rivers", dated May 2003.

Ordered to be printed.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Lands)) [2.32 p.m.]: I seek the leave of the House to suspend standing orders to allow the appointment of six Temporary Chairmen of Committees.

Leave granted, and standing orders suspended.

The PRESIDENT: According to the standing orders and with the leave of the House, I nominate the Hon. Tony Burke, the Hon. Patricia Forsythe, the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner, the Hon. Kayee Griffin, Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and the Hon. Christine Robertson to act as Temporary Chairmen of Committees during the present session of Parliament.

Motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly, by leave, agreed to:

That, under section 14 of the Parliamentary Contributions Superannuation Act 1971, Mr Kelly and Mr Harwin be appointed as trustees of the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Fund.

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The PRESIDENT: I give the call to Ms Sylvia Hale. I remind honourable members that as this is the honourable member's inaugural speech, the usual courtesies should be extended to her.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [2.34 p.m.] (Inaugural speech): I commend you, Madam President, for affirming that a reference to a "maiden" speech is both archaic and anachronistic. It is equally inappropriate to confer on members of this House the honorific "Honourable". The term is an unwarranted remnant of our colonial past whose usage should be dispensed with. I am delighted that Ian Cohen, Lee Rhiannon and I have chosen not to adopt it.

I start by paying my respects to the Eora people, the original inhabitants of this land, who have suffered so calamitously at the hands of their white dispossessors. My dismay at their ongoing maltreatment is, however, tempered by the knowledge that three years ago this month a quarter of a million Sydneysiders walked across the Sydney Harbour Bridge to demonstrate their support for reconciliation and an end to the injustices inflicted on the traditional owners of this land. As Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Commissioner Pat Thompson said soon after, "When people march in such numbers, I know which side of history I want to be on."

Six weeks ago the same determination to acknowledge and protest the suffering that was about to be inflicted on innocent people saw up to half a million people take to the streets of Sydney to condemn the United States-led aggression against Iraq. The obsequiousness of the Australian Government has brought shame and dishonour upon us all. Despite this I am inspired that so many Australians have been prepared to declare so forthrightly that what is being perpetrated is "not in our name".

The Greens are as determined in our principled opposition to the invasion of Iraq as we are in our defence of the rights of refugees and in our commitment to the aspirations of the Palestinian people. The clarity and forthrightness of Greens Senators Kerry Nettle and Bob Brown on these issues formed the backdrop against which the State election was fought. Their stand—the Greens stand—is based upon recognition that social justice, environmental sustainability and grassroots democracy are but different aspects of the one whole. All are inextricably interconnected; none can be achieved in the absence of the others.

In the current political climate, it is not only these issues that are under attack. Increasingly, those who advocate for change are faced with vicious assaults upon our very right to object and to organise. On every front, from oppressive so-called anti-terrorist legislation to the government-driven media campaign against peaceful protest and unions, the right of Australians to stand up for their convictions and to demand that the powerful be accountable is under attack. The Greens are determined to protect the fundamental right to protest.

Indeed, the Greens are the inheritors of a long tradition of radical dissent within the Australian community. The very name "Greens" stems from the green bans of the 1970s. The bans were an initiative by a coalition of unionised working people and community activists to prevent the sell-off of public space and the destruction of the built environment. It is fitting that Jack Mundey, one of the initiators of the green bans, should now have joined the Greens. We welcome him, as we do all people who are prepared to campaign for social justice, environmental sustainability, and grassroots democracy.

In the 30 years that have elapsed since those first green bans, the Greens have continued to build and grow to the point where we are now the acknowledged third force in Australian politics. In this unbalanced Parliament we are in many senses effectively the Opposition. We are committed to making the Executive Government more accountable. Across Australia and around the world, the Greens continue to grow as the new voice for a just and sustainable society. I join a total of 17 Greens members of Parliament in the Australian Capital Territory, Tasmania, South Australia, Western Australia, New South Wales and both Houses of the Federal Parliament.

Recent elections have seen our numbers grow dramatically, with the election of five members of Parliament in Western Australia, four in Tasmania and, in 2001, Kerry Nettle joining Bob Brown in the Senate. In October 2002 came the stunning success of the Cunningham by-election when the Greens broke through to become the first genuine minor party since the second world war to be elected to the Federal lower House. In January 2003 we welcomed South Australian member of Parliament Kris Hanna, who left the Australian Labor Party, denouncing it for having "lost its heart and soul".

The rise of the Greens as a political force is not a purely Australian phenomenon; we are a truly global movement, with about 100 countries having Greens parties. Among the most recent is Kenya, where Wangari Maathai was recently elected to the legislature. One week ago, on May Day, the Greens returned seven members to the Scottish Parliament. Now Ian Cohen has been re-elected and I have been elected. We acknowledge the work of thousands of Greens members and supporters who laboured tirelessly in the lead-up to the election and the more than 300,000 voters who made it possible for us to be here. Our vote almost tripled and we are now the largest non-major party in this Parliament.

My own path to the Greens has been long and sometimes winding. In the early 1960s I participated intensely in university political life, where the burning issues of the day were the Sharpeville massacre and apartheid in South Africa, racial segregation in the United States of America, missiles in Cuba, and increasing United States involvement in Vietnam. In this atmosphere I joined the Australian Labor Party [ALP] on my eighteenth birthday. It is somewhat ironic that I enter Parliament at the time when many of my contemporaries, although not allies, have left or are leaving it—Johno Johnson, Ron Dyer, Deirdre Grusovin, Laurie Brereton and Peter Nagle. They pursued parliamentary careers; I got a life.

I have worked as a spot welder, a shop assistant and a clerk, and for four years I taught in the State's public high schools. But for the most part I have pursued a business career as well as being a mother, grandmother and wife. In 1977, in the aftermath of the defeat of the Whitlam Government, Roger Barnes, John Iremonger and I established Hale and Iremonger book publishers. The company last year celebrated its twenty-fifth anniversary and it is, I believe, along with Currency Press, the longest-surviving independently-owned Australian publishing company. Our aims were to publish, among other things, in the areas of Australian history, politics, women's studies and urban studies. I am proud of its publishing record and of the contribution it has made to the cultural life of the Australian community.

Some years earlier, in 1965, my husband, Roger Barnes, and I established Southwood Press, now one of the country's larger specialist book printers. Ironically, in 1972, 10 days before the election of the Whitlam Government, Southwood was attacked by the then member for Northcott in this Parliament because the company had "won the patronage of the Australia Party, the DOGS—Defence of Government Schools—the Australian Labor Party, the Teachers Federation and a limitless host of radical organisations dedicated to the overthrow of the existing order".

It is irrelevant today to remark that at the time we also numbered the former Leader of the Opposition, Peter Collins, among our clients. But what is relevant is that the issues espoused by the groups for which we printed are still as pertinent today as they were then. The war in Vietnam has been replaced by the war in Iraq—both indefensible and tragic follies. The Teachers Federation is still battling to defend public education and the working conditions of its members. State aid to private schools not only continues but flourishes as both State and Federal governments shamelessly abandon their commitment to public education in favour of public subsidies to privileged private schools.

At the end of my time at university I left the ALP after head office—the infamous room 32—intervened to prevent the Left democratically gaining control of what was then known as the ALP Youth Council. Some things never change! Business and family commitments made further involvement in party politics difficult, but it was the proposed construction of the third runway at Sydney Airport that reactivated my party political involvement. If ever there was a planning fiasco it is Sydney Airport. It is patently irrational that 970 hectares of inner-city waterfront land should be used to house aeroplanes. And to knowingly and deliberately subject the surrounding, densely populated communities of Sydney to the risks of air crash, pollution and massive loss of amenity when alternative sites for an airport are readily available is to abdicate all pretence at planning.

The lack of space is the major constraint on the airport's growth. That the Deputy Premier, the former Minister for Planning and member for Marrickville, Andrew Refshauge, should have actively connived in the airport's expansion is contemptible. Despite his pious protestations that what was known as St Peters Park would never be handed over, the Deputy Premier did just that. In the late 1990s he granted the airport a 99-year lease on the land. That Marrickville's Labor-dominated council now proposes to effectively extend the reach of the airport by rezoning the former Tempe tip site for "airport related uses" is yet another example of the rank hypocrisy and betrayal of the community that so distinguishes Labor administrations today.

My election to Marrickville Council in 1995 as a member of the No Aircraft Noise Party was a direct reflection of the community's outrage at the construction of the third runway at Sydney Airport. The policies of the No Aircraft Noise Party and of the Greens in relation to the airport are identical, as they are on many other issues. My decision to join the Greens was met with the best wishes of many No Aircraft Noise Party members and activists, with whom I continue to enjoy a strong ongoing relationship. The No Aircraft Noise Party was yet another manifestation of the Australian tradition of radicalism, activism and protest of which I am proud to be a part.

I have already referred to the green bans of the 1970s, which were a response to a developer-driven push to remake the face of Sydney. Today when people look at Woolloomooloo, The Rocks, and Kellys Bush they pay tribute to the residents and unionists who were prepared to sit in, stand up and fight off Sid Londish, his developer cronies, and the police. At the time the activists were criticised and attacked on all sides. Today there can be few people who do not rejoice in the protesters' success. It is an object lesson for us all. Those advocating social change are so often vilified and reviled at the time, only to be lauded later on. The right to protest, to say that there are alternatives, to assert that this is not the best of all possible worlds, must be encouraged and supported, not denigrated and disparaged.

Unfortunately, over the last three decades pressure from developers has not lessened but intensified, as I can testify from my experience as a local government councillor. I am only too conscious of the acute dissatisfaction within the community with the planning policies purchased by developer donations to the big political parties. The State Government has imposed medium density on councils but the same State Government has failed to provide the adequate public transport, the mechanisms to ensure high-quality internal and public amenity, and the social infrastructure that are essential if medium density policies are to work for the community and not just for developers.

State environmental planning policy [SEPP] 1 has been used to undermine council codes limiting height, density and open space requirements. Genuine community consultation into the planning process has been denied. Who can name one environmental impact assessment in this State that has recommended that a development not go ahead? And behind the entire planning debacle looms the malign influence of developers and their political donations. Perhaps the newly elected member for Rockdale and former Sydney City Lord Mayor, Frank Sartor, will draw the Government's attention to the shonky building practices, the incomplete walls, and the non-existing fire insulation that have followed in the wake of private certification of building work—that "recipe for corruption and homeowner nightmares", as Margo Kingston so aptly put it.

The new member might show some consistency and remind the Government of the deficiencies of the Land and Environment Court which, in the words of his publication, Unwanted Legacies, approved a development in 1993 "that breached the city's density controls by 50 per cent and height guidelines by 15 per cent, and which in 1999 granted substantial commencements on the basis of the construction of a column and a footing which were never approved and which were subsequently removed". Regardless of what the member for Rockdale does, the Greens will move to reform the court to permit third party appeals, to remove merit assessments and to oblige the court to comply with council planning policies. We will also seek to repeal SEPP 1 and to modify SEPP 5.

My years on council have also alerted me to the problems of councillors' pecuniary and non-pecuniary interests. I am familiar with and support the workings of the Pecuniary Interests Tribunal having inadvertently failed during my first year on council to declare a pecuniary interest on the second occasion on which a particular matter came before council. I have always been amazed that, as in the case of Marrickville, a mayor can debate and vote on a development application lodged by his architect business partner and never once declare an interest. I will therefore move at the earliest opportunity a local government amendment anticorruption bill that will broaden section 443 of the Local Government Act to require councillors to avoid situations in which a private or personal interest could prejudicially influence the performance of their public duties.

That is but one issue that I will pursue. Another is securing a strong and dynamic future for the technical and further education [TAFE] system as the dominant provider of vocational education and training. Australian society has been well served by its TAFE system, which has not only stood at the heart of wealth creation but also provided opportunities for working-class people to participate in the economic and cultural life of our society. However, these massive benefits are under threat from the failure of State and Federal governments to provide adequate funding. The Greens will move to secure pro rata working conditions for part-time casual teachers, and to ensure that full-time permanency is restored as the normal employment mode.

The Greens are also committed to a fairer and more effective public health system. We will speak out against the Howard Government's attempts to destroy Medicare. We will focus on those changes that will genuinely deliver healthier outcomes for all members of our society. In this Parliament, we will argue for health promotion and illness prevention, a redirection of resources away from luxury services for the wealthy, and improved pay and conditions for nurses.

During the election campaign I encountered many things that disturbed but did not surprise me, and I will detail a few. The natural environment of far western New South Wales remains under threat, with exploitation of the brigalow belt forests and the goldmine at Lake Cowal posing threats to the ecosystem without delivering sustainable growth and employment opportunities. Aboriginal sacred sites are also being wantonly destroyed in the process. Many hundreds of non-government community organisations face closure at the end of this year because they are still unable to afford public liability insurance. The notorious TICA default tenancy database still operates. It is maintained by real estate agents and effectively blacklists tenants and prevents them from obtaining private rental accommodation. TICA's victims often lack the resources to appeal against their inclusion or to check the accuracy of the information contained in the database.

The women's refuge at Mittagong closed in November 2002 with little prospect of reopening. There is still no other source of crisis accommodation in the area and there was a crisis even before the refuge closed. In 2001, of the 343 women and children seeking assistance from the refuge only 81 were able to be accommodated, and that is one of the wealthiest areas of the State.

State and Federal governments have consistently failed to provide adequate public transport and open space for the people of Western Sydney. Nowhere is this made more obvious than by the proposed redevelopment of the Australian Defence Industries site at St Marys, where an opportunity for a centennial park for outer Western Sydney has been passed over. Most depressing of all, I learnt that homelessness is, in itself, not a qualification for any form of crisis accommodation. If the measure of a civilised society is how it treats its most vulnerable members, the presence on our streets of the homeless, the disturbed, the alcoholic and the destitute is surely the most damning of indictments.

If there is one thing our society should cherish, it is the right to protest and speak out against such injustices. In the past week, the police and the magistracy have fulminated against the supposedly inadequate fines imposed upon Greenpeace anti-war activists who attempted to delay the departure of HMAS Sydney for Iraq. The Government, in keeping with its entrenched conservatism, is proposing to increase penalties for public protests on water. The Sydney Morning Herald of 16 September 2002 noted that the rate of phone taps in Australia in 2001 was 20 times greater than the rate in the United States of America, and that figure does not include Australian Security Intelligence Organisation taps.

This federally facilitated attack on the right to privacy is consistent with this State's disregard for its citizens' civil liberties. Only the State Government is worse. In its shameless pursuit of electoral success, this Government enacted late last year the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act, which allows children as young as 10 to be strip searched without a warrant and with no requirement that a parent be present. Under the Act, police can act on the merest suspicion, and they are effectively immune from legal challenge or review.

Defending the human and civil rights of people is a central concern of the Greens, as is the promotion and preservation of the rights of working people and unions. The last Parliament witnessed the disgraceful so-called reforms to workers compensation legislation. I pay tribute to Lee Rhiannon and Ian Cohen for their consistent opposition to the legislation and their refusal to cross the picket lines.

In that context, I wish to draw attention to the picket line that has for the past eight weeks surrounded the Arncliffe factory of drum manufacturer Morris McMahon and Company. The company has refused to pay award penalty rates or allowances and has rebuffed attempts to negotiate a certified agreement with its workers, most of whom are paid less than $12 an hour. On my visits to the picket line, I have spoken to the striking employees, many of whom are process workers of non-English speaking background. I wish to publicly acknowledge their determination, solidarity and commitment in the face of major financial and physical hardship. These people represent all that I admire in the Australian character: a refusal to be browbeaten, intimidated or coerced in the face of daunting odds.

I am proud that my family has had a long association with such traditions. My great grandfather's opposition to the Boer War is reputed to have cost him his living as an Anglican minister. My grandmother, in the midst of the Great Depression when work was hard to find, quit as housekeeper to a Catholic priest in Oberon when she heard the priest berate his flock for not contributing more to the collection plate. She knew that parishioners went without while the priest was kept well fed by donations of chickens, peas and other produce. In the 1930s my mother, Jean Heathcote, worked in the offices of the Unemployed Workers Movement. A fine public speaker, she would regularly draw larger crowds than Labor member of Parliament Eddie Ward, the "firebrand of East Sydney", when she spoke at Friday night meetings outside the Darlinghurst Fire Station.

When a sign proclaiming "Hales are communists" was daubed on a wall near the small cake shop my parents ran in Newtown, my father resolutely refused to paint it out. He believed it was important not to yield to intimidation. Neither of my parents was ever a member of the Communist Party, although they were both proud to call friends those who were members as well as those, such as Jack Kavanagh, Guido Barrachi or Jack Henry, who had been expelled from the Communist Party. They were tolerant, radical, sceptical people who actively supported those who fell foul of the establishment or established dogma.

My father is dead but my mother's activism has continued unabated. Long before the oppression of the people of East Timor became well known, she campaigned, wrote letters, and attended vigils and meetings in support of East Timorese independence. When I look at my daughter Alison, my son Chris and their friends and comrades, I am proud to see that the tradition of activism and commitment to building a fairer and more just society is alive and well. There is cause to believe that the inequities and injustices of this age will continue to be opposed. I have been labelled a radical and a troublemaker. I make no apologies for my opinions, nor do I resile from my admiration for such people as Nick Origlass and Issy Wyner, who for many years so determinedly and successfully converted words and principles into deeds. I am proud to locate myself firmly in a tradition of activism, independence and dissent from received orthodoxy, whether it be of the Right or the Left.

I find it somewhat incongruous today to be a member of Parliament, an institution that many see to be a bastion of the existing order. In my youth I would have agreed with Paul Keating that upper Houses were composed of "unrepresentative swill". But such is not the case today. I am here because members of this House are elected on the basis of proportional representation. Were a similar system and multi-member electorates introduced into the Assembly, the true strength of popular support for progressive politics would be immediately apparent.

The planet is in the midst of an ecological and social crisis. Climate change, depletion of natural resources, species extinction, growing social and economic inequality, the prevalence of war, brutal military dictatorships and the rise of corporate power challenge the values and assumptions of our society. The Greens are part of a growing voice that calls for community-based empowering solutions that redistribute wealth equitably. We recognise the important role of government intervention in the economy and public ownership of resources and institutions. We recognise that global challenges require both local and global solutions. This Parliament has an important role to play in creating a just and sustainable world. This Parliament has the opportunity to create laws that could locate this State at the forefront of respect for human rights and diversity, ecological sustainability and community empowerment. Yet, as a Green, I am reminded that although laws are made by Parliament, history is made on the streets. I know which side of history I want to be on.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Lands)) [3.04 p.m.], in reply: I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Malcolm Jones, the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans, Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, the Hon. Dr Peter Wong, Mr Ian Cohen and Ms Sylvia Hale, for their contributions to debate on this bill. I note that the contribution of Ms Sylvia Hale was her inaugural speech to this Parliament. The Government does not propose substantial changes to the City of Sydney Act. Rather, the amendments contained in this bill will clarify the intent of the Act. The Government is committed to ensuring that the legislation governing local government is clear and workable. The amendments contained in the bill will ensure that clarity is given to an essential democratic process in this important level of government in the State's premier city. It will also afford greater consistency across all local government elections in New South Wales. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

Schedule 1

The CHAIRMAN: With regard to schedule 1 a number of conflicting amendments have been circulated. The Committee will consider all the amendments at the one time and I will put questions in relation to each of them at the end of that consideration.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.08 p.m.], by leave: I move National Party amendments Nos 1 and 2 in globo:

No. 1 Pages 3 to 5, schedule 1 [2], line 5 on page 3 to line 17 on page 5. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

[2] Sections 18A-18C

Omit section 18A. Insert instead:

18A Electoral Commissioner to keep and confirm roll of non-resident owners and roll of occupiers and ratepaying lessees

(1) The Electoral Commissioner is to keep the following rolls:

(a) the roll of non-resident owners of rateable land, being a roll of persons who are entitled to be enrolled as electors as owners of rateable land in the City of Sydney and have applied for the inclusion of their names on the roll for the election,

(b) the roll of occupiers and ratepaying lessees, being a roll of persons who are entitled to be enrolled as electors as ratepaying lessees or occupiers of rateable land in the City of Sydney and have applied for the inclusion of their names on the roll for the election.

(2) Not later than the closing date for an election, the Electoral Commissioner is to confirm the following rolls:

(a) as the roll of non-resident owners of rateable land for the election - the roll referred to in subsection (1) (a) if, in the Commissioner’s opinion, the roll contains the names of persons who, on that closing date, are entitled to be enrolled as electors as owners of rateable land in the City of Sydney, and

(b) as the roll of occupiers and ratepaying lessees for the election - the roll referred to in subsection (1) (b) if, in the Commissioner’s opinion, the roll contains the names of persons who, on that closing date, are entitled to be enrolled as electors as ratepaying lessees or occupiers of rateable land in the City of Sydney.

(3) The Electoral Commissioner is to remove the name of a person from a roll referred to in subsection (1) if:

(a) the person, or the corporation or firm that nominated the person as an elector, has applied to the Commissioner for removal of the person’s name, or

(b) an enrolment letter has been sent under section 18B to the person, or to the corporation or firm that nominated the person as an elector, and the Commissioner has not, before the date prescribed for the closing of the roll of electors for the election in connection with which the enrolment letter was sent, received a declaration referred to in section 18B (2) (d) made by the person or by the corporation or firm.

(4) Sections 299 and 300 of the Principal Act do not apply to any election for the City of Sydney.

(5) References in section 301 of the Principal Act to the non-residential roll prepared and confirmed under section 299 for the area and the roll of occupiers and ratepaying lessees prepared and confirmed under section 300 for the area are in the operation of that section in respect of the City of Sydney to be read as references to, respectively, the roll of non-resident owners of rateable land kept and confirmed under this section and the roll of occupiers and ratepaying lessees kept and confirmed under this section.

(6) References in Division 2 of Part 6 of Chapter 10 of the Principal Act to the general manager are in the operation of that Division in respect of the City of Sydney to be read as references to the Electoral Commissioner.

18B Enrolment letter and eligibility letter

(1) The Electoral Commissioner must, at least 60 days before the closing date for an election (the proposed election) for the City of Sydney, send an enrolment letter addressed:

(a) to each person whose name appeared on the non-residential roll as confirmed for the previous election, at the address of the person appearing on the roll, and

(b) to each corporation or firm that nominated a person whose name appeared on the non-residential roll as confirmed for the previous election, at the address of the corporation or firm appearing on the form of nomination.

(2) An enrolment letter is a letter:

(a) stating that an election for the City of Sydney is to be held, and

(b) stating the date the election is to be held, and

(c) stating that the person the enrolment letter is addressed to may be entitled to be enrolled as an elector on the roll of non-resident owners of rateable land or the roll of occupiers and ratepaying lessees, or to nominate a person to be so enrolled, for the election, and

(d) making provision for the person to whom the enrolment letter is addressed to make, sign and date a declaration that:

(i) the person is entitled to be enrolled on the roll of non-resident owners of rateable land or the roll of occupiers and ratepaying lessees, or

(ii) the corporation or firm that nominated the person is entitled to be enrolled on the roll of non-resident owners of rateable land or the roll of occupiers and ratepaying lessees and nominates the person as an elector, and

(e) stating that if the declaration is not received by the Electoral Commissioner before the date prescribed for the closing of the roll of electors for the election the Electoral Commissioner must remove the name of the person from the roll of non-resident owners of rateable land or the roll of occupiers and ratepaying lessees, as the case may be, and

(f) stating the date prescribed for the closing of the roll of electors for the election.

(3) The Electoral Commissioner must, at least 60 days before the closing date for the proposed election, send an eligibility letter to each person who appears, from information provided to the Commissioner by the City Council for the purpose, to be a person entitled to be enrolled as an elector on a non-residential roll or to nominate a person to be so enrolled.

(4) An eligibility letter is to be sent to a person addressed to the address of the person shown in the records of the City Council.

(5) An eligibility letter is not to be sent to a person to whom an enrolment letter has been sent under this section in respect of the election concerned.

(6) An eligibility letter is a letter:

(a) stating that an election for the City of Sydney is to be held, and

(b) stating the date the election is to be held, and

(c) stating that the person the eligibility letter is addressed to may be entitled to be enrolled as an elector on the roll of non-resident owners of rateable land or the roll of occupiers and ratepaying lessees, or to nominate a person to be so enrolled, for the election, and

(d) stating that a person not already enrolled on such a roll will not be enrolled unless inclusion is applied for before the date prescribed for the closing of the roll of electors for the election, and

(e) stating the date prescribed for the closing of the roll of electors for the election.
(7) In this section:

closing date for an election has the same meaning as it has in the Principal Act.

non-residential roll means the roll of non-resident owners of rateable land or the roll of occupiers and ratepaying lessees.

previous election in relation to a proposed election means the last election for the City of Sydney held before the proposed election, whether the last election was an ordinary election, a by-election or other kind of election.

18C Costs in relation to electoral rolls

The costs of the Electoral Commissioner with respect to the keeping and confirming of rolls under section 18A, including the costs with respect to the sending of letters under section 18B, are to be met by the City Council and are recoverable from the Council as a debt. Any dispute as to the amount of those costs is to be determined by the Electoral Commissioner.

No. 2 Page 5, schedule 1 [3], lines 23-29. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

31 Continuation of non-residential rolls

The rolls confirmed under sections 299 and 300 of the Principal Act for the last election for the City of Sydney held before the commencement of section 18A as substituted by the City of Sydney Amendment (Electoral Rolls) Act 2003 (whether the election was an ordinary election, a by-election or other kind of election) are taken to be the rolls kept by the Electoral Commissioner under section 18A on that commencement.

I am aware of the amendments to be moved by the Australian Democrats and the Government, and the Opposition supports them. The Government amendment simply tidies up the bill, and the Australian Democrats amendment makes a lot of sense. It is not often that I have indicated in this Parliament that Australian Democrats amendments make a huge amount of sense. However, it is regrettable that on this occasion we did not pick up on a matter that has been picked up by the Australian Democrats.

The Hon. Peter Wong and other members said that the Government had argued that there was no need for these Opposition amendments because they would make the Council of the City of Sydney the same as other councils. A very simple argument that kills that prophecy is that this bill amends the City of Sydney Act, and that fact separates the Council of the City of Sydney from every other council in New South Wales. If a spurious argument were successfully mounted that the bill would make the Council of the City of Sydney like every other council in New South Wales, it would follow logically that the bill would not be entitled the City of Sydney Amendment (Electoral Rolls) Bill. Honourable members did not raise a logical argument as to why these amendments should not be supported to allow democracy within the city of Sydney. On many occasions I have said that the only reason I would be tempted to support the amalgamation of the City of Sydney and South Sydney councils is that I am a South Sydney ratepayer and amalgamation would have given me the opportunity to vote against Frank Sartor.

The Hon. Michael Egan: You and I both wanted to.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The Treasurer and I both cherished the thought of being able to vote against Frank Sartor. Nothing in this world would have encouraged me to vote for Frank Sartor. There has been a lot of politics about the bill when it has come before this House. Most of those politics were to do with the style of a particular person in the other place. I do not believe that the politics that would have affected this bill in the last Parliament could be ascribed to the politics that would affect the bill in this Parliament. It cannot be said that these amendments are being moved due to politics against Frank Sartor, because Frank Sartor has gone from the equation. That argument could also have been used against our amendments.

Amendment No. 1 seeks to omit section 18A from the City of Sydney Act and insert new sections 18A, 18B and 18C. The amendment will require the Electoral Commissioner, instead of lapsing the rolls after each election, to keep open the rolls of non-resident owners of rateable land and occupiers and rate-paying lessees. The amendment also sets out the procedures to be followed in order to verify the validity of those rolls. Proposed section 18A (2) (a) and (b) relates to the role of the Electoral Commissioner in confirming that people on the rolls of the non-resident owners of rateable land and the rolls of occupiers and rate-paying lessees are eligible to vote in an election for the Council of the City of Sydney.

Proposed section 18A (3) sets out the procedures for the Electoral Commissioner to follow prior to removing a name from the roll. A name can be removed from the roll if the person or corporation that nominated the person for inclusion on the roll has applied for the removal of that name, or if the Electoral Commissioner has not received, prior to the closing date for enrolments, a declaration claiming entitlement to be included in the roll. The provisions of this amendment therefore keep the rolls open, with a clear ability in the Electoral Commission to maintain the rolls and to add and remove names from the rolls as the need arises. Rather than just destroying the rolls and starting again, a continuing process will allow the rolls to be corrected.

I would have thought that the Treasurer would applaud the amendments we are moving. I indicated in my second reading speech that, given the scarcity of resources, it seems patently stupid to destroy a perfectly sensible roll after every election. One should think outside the box and come up with a solution to allow the roll to stay in place. The Opposition has spent a considerable amount of time with the Parliamentary Counsel to formulate a process that would work. When we first went to the Parliamentary Counsel we were told that could not happen. But the Parliamentary Counsel is non-partisan and acts in good faith, and we talked through the problem to find some other way than destroying the rolls. We discussed various processes until we finally found one that would work and stop this stupidity. I had hoped that especially as we have a new Minister—

The Hon. Michael Egan: He's a good one!

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: He is a good Minister. He is a decent bloke. I have applauded him for a long time. I would have thought he would have come in here and said, "That's not a bad idea. They have actually got something right. That is sensible."

The Hon. Michael Egan: Then it would have cost twice as much.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: It would not cost twice as much, and he knows that. Surely keeping a roll open rather than destroying it and recreating it every year is not going to cost twice as much. The Treasurer believes the same people who advised his predecessors. I thought he would have more sense. This important amendment will prevent the rolls simply lapsing after each election for which they are prepared. The Coalition puts forward this amendment because it firmly believes that it is a waste of time to lapse rolls containing large amounts of information and then rebuild them from scratch prior to each election. The Coalition contends that it should be as easy as possible for people to remain on these rolls rather than to have them go through the lengthy process of applying to be on rolls prior to each election. Such a process is anti-democratic. Rather than leaving people on the rolls the Government is deliberately taking them off and making it hard for them to get back on. How democratic is that? The Government is deliberately trying to remove people from the rolls.

Under the bill the cost of preparing the rolls is payable to the Electoral Commissioner by the council. The Opposition's amendment will ensure that the cost of preparing the rolls is minimised, and it will remove a potential cost input by the council. As I indicated in my second reading speech, this is another unfunded mandate that the Government is passing to local government. There are former councillors in this House from the Australian Labor Party [ALP], and I am sure they are aware of the problems of unfunded local government mandates. The Minister himself is a former council general manager. How soon they forget.

The Hon. Tony Kelly: Ours is the cheapest option.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Come on! You would have me joining the Labor Party if I believed that. Proposed section 18B sets out the requirements for the distribution and content of an enrolment and eligibility letters. Under proposed section 18B (1) (a) and (b) the Electoral Commissioner will be required, at least 60 days before the closing date for an election, to send out an enrolment letter to each person whose name appeared on a non-residential roll, as confirmed for the previous election, at the address of the person appearing on the roll, and to each corporation or firm that nominated a person whose name appeared on a non-residential roll, as confirmed for the previous election, at the address of the corporation. That is similar to the practice in State or Federal electorates of letting a person know that they should be on the roll.

That is democracy, but the Government does not like it. Proposed section 18B (2) sets out what must be included in enrolment letters. This section differs from that contained in the bill in that it proposes that the enrolment letter contains a provision allowing a person to make, sign and date a declaration that the person or nominee of the corporation or firm is entitled to be enrolled. The enrolment letter defined by this section will also state that if the declaration I have just referred to is not received by the Electoral Commissioner before the date prescribed for the closing of the roll, the Electoral Commissioner must remove that name from the respective roll. That is a simple and sensible measure.

Proposed section 18B (3) provides that the Electoral Commissioner must, at least 60 days before the closing date for a proposed election, send an eligibility letter to each person who appears to be a person entitled to be enrolled as an elector on a non-residential roll or to nominate a person to be enrolled. Although this may seem similar to subsection (1) of that same section, it has a significant difference. The information for addressing the letter must be provided to the Electoral Commissioner by the Council of the City of Sydney. In other words, the names and details are to be extracted from the council's records and provided to the Electoral Commissioner. This amendment covers new persons eligible for inclusion on the roll and allows the roll to be updated and maintained, instead of simply lapsing and remaining in a drawer to be used as a mailing list for the next election.

Proposed section 18C remains the same as that proposed in the bill. This is an important measure designed to ensure that the number of electors for the city of Sydney elections is maximised. I highlighted in my contribution to the second reading debate the declining numbers on the roll for the last two elections for the Council of the City of Sydney. I also referred to the unique nature of the make-up of the roll, namely, the high number of non-residential and ratepaying lessees compared to residential electors. That is why it is necessary to have a separate bill—a fact acknowledged by the Opposition's amendment, but not by the Government. I commend Opposition amendment No. 1 to the Committee.

The second amendment will insert into part 9 a new section 31 that refers to the continuation of the non-resident roll for the Council of the City of Sydney in line with the broad intent of the previous amendment. By moving these amendments, the Coalition has sought to consider practical ways of maintaining the content and integrity of the electoral roll of the Council of the City of Sydney. The Opposition seeks to include as many people as possible whereas the Government seeks to disfranchise them. Previous bills introduced into the Parliament by the Government have sought to protect Frank Sartor but, given his elevation to the role of Minister, the Government should accept the Opposition's sensible amendments. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Lands)) [3.23 p.m.]: I move:

Page 4, schedule 1 [2] (proposed section 18B (1)), line 6. Omit "60 days". Insert instead "90 days".

The amendment seeks to clarify that at least 90 days before the closing date for an election the Electoral Commissioner must send a letter containing enrolment information to persons who may again wish to seek inclusion on the roll of non-residents, occupiers and ratepaying lessees. As I foreshadowed in my second reading speech, the Government is committed to ensuring that those people eligible to enrol have sufficient time to claim enrolment. That is why it is proposed to extend the time from 60 days to at least 90 days. The deferral of local government elections means that the Electoral Commissioner's duties in finalising the State election result will now not interfere with his or her ability to send notices to eligible electors for the election to the Council of the City of Sydney at least 90 days before the closing date for an election. This amendment was not included in the bill because of a drafting oversight.

The Hon. MALCOLM JONES [3.24 p.m.]: I speak in support of the Opposition's amendments. The preparation that has gone into drafting the amendments is exemplary and I commend them to the Committee. I disagree with the comments of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that politics have been taken out of this. The entire bill is about politics. It may not be about politics of the day but it is certainly about politics relating to the future control of the Council of the City of Sydney. It is a scandal to suggest that all names should be removed and that the roll administered by the Electoral Commissioner should then lapse. In a democracy it is ridiculous that everybody must reapply at least 90 days before an election. Those who pay the vast majority of rates to the Council of the City of Sydney are non-resident electors and to remove them from the roll would be a scandal. I commend the Opposition's amendments to the Committee.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [3.26 p.m.]: I did not intend to participate in the debate but as this bill has been introduced so soon after the State election the opportunity to say something is too tantalising to ignore. The Government said that local government elections will be held at either the beginning or the end of March. Therefore, 60 days before the beginning of March would result in letters being sent out at the beginning of January or, if it were 90 days, letters would be sent at the beginning of December. If the election is held at the end of March, the relevant dates would be the end of January or the end of December.

People will be on holidays when the letters are sent and their minds will be on other issues than reapplying to be put on the roll. Perhaps the relevant time frame should be 120 days. The Government should accept the Opposition's amendments. The Government's proposal is shonky and is designed to ensure that people either do not receive the letter or give it high priority. It is designed to ensure that the city of Sydney does not have reflected on its council those very people who contribute the vast majority of money, that is, the business core of the city. After every election the Government introduces another variation to the City of Sydney Act, seeking to disfranchise the very people that are needed to ensure the Council of the City of Sydney represents all users of the city.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [3.28 p.m.]: I move:

Page 5, schedule 1 [2], proposed section 18C, lines 16 and 17. Omit "Electoral Commissioner". Insert instead "Director-General of the "Electoral Commissioner". Insert instead "Director-General of the Department of Local Government".

This amendment deals with a small conflict of interest, namely, the Electoral Commissioner being the arbiter of any dispute between a council and the Electoral Office as to the cost of an election that is to be met by the council. That would be a clear conflict of interest. If my amendment is accepted, the neutral arbitrator will be the Director-General of the Department of Local Government, who has some knowledge of the cost of elections and reasonable fees. I am pleased that the Opposition and the Government have seen fit to accept my amendment. If the Opposition's amendment is accepted, I ask that my amendment be agreed to also and incorporated in the appropriate place in the Opposition's amendment.

As for the Government's amendment, I am pleased that the period will be extended to 90 days. However, I take the Opposition's point that, if the elections are to be held in March, people will receive notification about registering to vote either just before Christmas or in early December—and obviously that is a bad time for most people. It is true that 90 days is a very long silly season, but when rolls have to be put together it is a difficult time of year to get things done. People are either preparing for the silly season or are away on holiday. That is a worry. Certainly, the Australian Democrats are concerned that the voting system for Council of the City of Sydney elections changes every time there is an election. One cannot help but reflect that changes to the voting system are always accompanied by great lofty rhetoric but often the motives are different.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: At least we had an inquiry before we made changes.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: Oh yes, the legitimising-by-inquiry process! Often the point is the difference between residents and people who pay a lot of money. Great deference is paid to people who pay a lot of money, but I think the issues of the residents of the city of Sydney must be dealt with. Until relatively recently people who did not live in the area of the Council of the City of Sydney had far more power than the residents of that area and, as I said in my contribution to the second reading debate, that led to the city becoming a great canyon of glass after 5 o'clock in the afternoon with no-one around. It was very inhuman indeed. The power of the residents and, indeed, the much-criticised vision of Frank Sartor for the city have improved the situation considerably.

If we do not agree that, technically, people have a franchise because they are non-resident ratepayers, we should change the eligibility for the franchise, rather than try to make the Electoral Commissioner's database not reflect the composition of those who are entitled to vote. In other words, those who are entitled to vote should not simply fall off the roll simply because of the way the database is maintained by the Electoral Commission. Having maintained various membership databases over the years, I know about the difficulties of maintaining a database. I know a database technical developer who said that there had been great problems with the database of the Council of the City of Sydney; that the database did not in fact correspond with what happened on the ground. Council staff found this out by leafleting residents. I am aware that maintaining a membership database is difficult.

Allegations of improper voting have been made. I believe that the State Electoral Office has inadequate funding to maintain the electoral rolls to the required standard. That is a concern. To start with a new roll will simply disfranchise a number of people. A reasonable proposition would be to test the city of Sydney ratepayer roll by sending a letter to people on the roll to find out whether they are still at the same address and paying their rates, and thus are still eligible to vote. I think that is the National Party's intention in paragraph (b) of its amendment. The Government is saying that the residents roll exists and if we want to test the non-residents roll that is fine. The important point is that the roll is kept current by the council's enthusiasm to maintain its rate base and, indeed, because of the necessity for people to get electricity and services. So there is an incentive to keep the roll up-to-date; thus the council's roll is likely to be more up-to-date than the roll the State Electoral Office must maintain de novo.

In the submission I made to the committee of inquiry conducted by Barry Jones in 1991—Australia as an Information Society—I pointed out that the sharing of databases in a systematic and sensible way had the potential to give us a better quality of life and to reduce our administrative costs, although no-one took much notice of that at the time. This is another example that simply maintaining a separate database without help from an organisation that has a financial incentive to keep the database maintained is the wrong thing to do. As such, I think the National Party's amendment is reasonable.

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG [3.34 p.m.]: I am a little puzzled. First, can the Minister inform me whether he believes that the Council of the City of Sydney is different from any other council and, therefore, needs a separate city of Sydney bill? Or does the Government now believe that all councils should have similar legislation? Second, I still do not understand the Government's argument for not supporting the National Party's amendment. Third, and lastly, does the Government believe that the votes of non-resident ratepayers are important? If so, how will it ensure that their voices are heard?

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [3.35 p.m.]: In the second reading debate I stated the support of the Christian Democratic Party for the amendments proposed by the National Party. I reinforce our support for the amendments for the reasons I gave on that occasion. The amendments will make the process more democratic. If the Government thought more about the matter, it would see that it would be in its interests to accept this amendment, because it would provide a much more stable Council of the City of Sydney. Whichever party is in government, whether it be Labor or the Coalition, would prefer to have a stable Council of the City of Sydney than perhaps have minority groups influencing the council and working against the best interests of the city of Sydney and its future.

Other speakers have referred to the change of date for the local government elections. Originally, the elections were to be held in September; the Government has announced that they will now be held in March next year. If I were in government, I would prefer it if the local government elections were held in March, because I believe, from our experiences with State elections, that the March date favours the party in power. There are many other practical reasons for holding the elections in September. With a March election date, candidates have limited time to campaign because of the holiday season. If the election is held in the middle of March, it is difficult for minor parties and Independents to get mobilised and to gather local support. This may apply to the Coalition, but I think it advantages the party in power.

I urge both sides of Parliament to seriously consider legislating so that local government elections are not held in March. If this becomes a precedent and local government elections are always held in March, my theory will be confirmed that someone in the Labor Party has worked out that a March election date is politically advantageous to the Labor Party. For that reason, we should push to have the local government elections in September to allow a greater lead-in time. We support the amendments, but we are concerned about the change of date for the elections from September to March.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Lands)) [3.38 p.m.]: The Government accepts the Democrats amendment. It is commonsense that the arbiter of any dispute between two parties should be independent of the dispute. The Director-General of the Department of Local Government is an appropriate arbiter of any dispute between the State Electoral Office and the Council of the City of Sydney arising over payment for the conduct of elections. The Government does not support the Opposition's amendment. The Opposition wants to ensure that as many eligible voters as possible are able to claim enrolment.

The Government agrees with that, but it does not believe that this amendment will achieve that end. It believes that non-residential rolls should lapse after each election. There is a high turnover in owner-occupiers and ratepaying lessees on the rolls, and consequently the accuracy of the rolls is short-lived. It is likely that in the time between elections a number of people could gain and then lose eligibility to vote without ever having voted. In addition, many electors on the non-residential rolls are nominated by companies or firms to enrol to vote on their behalf. It is foreseeable that a company may not wish the same person who enrolled four years ago to remain enrolled to vote on its behalf. Furthermore, company nominees may be disqualified from remaining on the electoral roll simply by changes in personal circumstances—for example, by moving interstate or by changing their place of residence in the city's local government area, which would result in them having two votes.

Updating non-residential rolls imposes an unreasonable burden on the State Electoral Office. It had previously been a provision that the council's general manager keep a list of those who, in his opinion, were entitled to vote. The system was found to be unworkable, and there is no reason that it would be any easier for the State Electoral Commissioner. As qualification to vote in the Council of the City of Sydney election comes from a variety of sources—from owner-occupiers to ratepaying lessees—updating the rolls is a resource-intensive exercise. The need to have non-residential rolls lapse was recommended by the independent Fisher inquiry in 1998. Commissioner W. K. Fisher recommended:

The evidence is that council's experience with rolls is that when the time comes to prepare a role a quite significant proportion of the entries on the list are out of date, inaccurate and can no longer be verified. This suggests that the more efficient course would be to create a new roll on the occasion of each election.

The Government agrees with Commissioner Fisher in that we believe that a non-residential roll should lapse as provided for in the Local Government Act. As far as possible the provisions of the City of Sydney Act should be consistent with the Local Government Act. Sections 229 (2) and 300 (2) of the Local Government Act provide for the lapsing of the roll of non-resident owners of rateable land and the lapsing of rolls of occupiers and rateable lessees. There is no reason that the Council of the City of Sydney election should not follow the same provisions. The Government believes there is no valid public policy reason for keeping electoral rolls open. Provisions already exist to enrol eligible non-residential electors prior to the four-yearly council elections or by-elections, the date of which is well-known in advance. The State Electoral Office has expressed concern with the Opposition's amendment. That office wrote to the previous Minister for Local Government in the following terms:

Given the Electoral Commissioner does not have the details of ownership, lease or occupier details or verified eligibility for enrolment, it would not be possible to confirm the rolls based on opinion regarding entitlement.

The Opposition's amendment requires an eligibility letter to be based on information provided by the Council of the City of Sydney. The State Electoral Office contends that it does not know what information the council has or what information it would entail. The State Electoral Office also believes that the Opposition's amendment would undoubtedly incur significant costs and require increased resources, possibly including the development of software to enable the structure of a database. The State Electoral Office estimates the cost of running the election would possibly be double the $73,000 it spent on preparation of a roll for the 1999 election. This would equate to a significant extra expense for the council, the city of Sydney and ratepayers.

The Government has put in place a number of provisions in this bill to ensure there is every opportunity for eligible voters to enrol. Firstly, we have extended the time for the State Electoral Office to write to people who were previously on the roll from a minimum of 60 days to a minimum of 90 days. I note that 60 days is referred to in the Opposition's amendment for a similar purpose. There is also provision for the State Electoral Office to advertise in major metropolitan and local newspapers and to advise people of the enrolment process. It is compulsory to vote, and ultimately it is the responsibility of every individual to make sure they are enrolled correctly. Allowing the roll of non-residential owners and the roll of occupiers and ratepaying lessees to lapse after the election for the Council of the City of Sydney for which they are prepared is consistent with other council elections administered under the Local Government Act. The compulsory nature of enrolment and the date of local government elections are public knowledge. It is simply not tenable for the Opposition to claim that maintaining permanent rolls of non-residential ratepayers, occupiers and ratepaying lessees is the only way to ensure that eligible voters are franchised for elections for the Council of the City of Sydney.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.43 p.m.]: I wish to make just three brief points in response to the Minister's comments. First of all, the Minister indicated that there would be a cost in the Opposition's proposal because of the high turnover in businesses in Sydney. The only way that the proposal would cost more than that of the Government's is if there is a 110 per cent turnover, because the proposal the Government is putting up incurs a 100 per cent turnover. If the Government lapses the roll, everyone will have to be put back on the roll. I doubt whether the turnover in Sydney exceeds 20 per cent at the most, so my proposal has an 80 per cent advantage.

The Government indicated that our proposal needs more resources because the State Electoral Office will have to create a new database. It has to do that anyway. Under the Government's proposal it will have to do that every time. With our proposal it will have to be done only once. I was disappointed to hear that the Electoral Commissioner, according to the Minister, wrote in the terms referred to. I would have thought that if the Electoral Commissioner had written in such detailed terms, he would have done so in a public letter. I am surprised that such comments came from the Electoral Commissioner, and I am disappointed that they were not made public to the Opposition and members on the crossbenches. Finally, how dare anyone suggest that we are making these changes just for electoral advantage! The point I made originally was that the next election for the city of Sydney will be on the increased boundaries. The areas of Leichhardt and South Sydney will then be included in the greater city of Sydney.

The Hon. Tony Kelly: From midnight tonight.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: It is a pedantic point, Minister, but granted. We have to let you win something. If we are democratic and allow people who are paying rates a chance to exercise their democratic right, they will not be in the ascendancy. The residents will have the greatest numbers because of the amalgamated council. It will be a different Council of the City of Sydney. Frank Sartor and the politics that surrounded him as mayor are no longer on the scene. His great deputy, the Hon. Dr Henry Tsang, is now a member of this Chamber; indeed, he is one of our favourite sons. I hope he was appointed a Parliamentary Secretary today.

The Hon. Henry Tsang: I was.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: That is excellent, so you should have been. I commend our amendments to the Committee.

Question—That Opposition amendments 1 and 2 be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

Mr Breen Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Clarke Ms Cusack Mrs Forsythe Mr Gallacher Miss Gardiner

Mr Gay Mr Jones Mr Lynn Reverend Dr Moyes Reverend Nile Ms Parker Mrs Pavey

Mr Pearce Mr Ryan Mr Tingle Dr Wong Tellers, Mr Colless Mr Harwin

Dr Burgmann Mr Burke Ms Burnswoods Mr Catanzariti Mr Cohen Mr Costa Mr Egan

Mr Hatzistergos Mr Kelly Mr Macdonald Mr Obeid Mr Oldfield Ms Griffin Ms Hale

Ms Rhiannon Ms Robertson Ms Tebbutt Mr Tsang Tellers, Mr Primrose Mr West

The CHAIRMAN: There being 20 ayes and 20 noes, I cast my vote with the noes and declare the amendments of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition lost.

Amendments negatived.

Question—That the Government amendment be agreed to—put.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Question—That the Australian Democrat amendment be agreed to–put.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with amendments, and report adopted.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Lands)) [3.58 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The Hon. TONY BURKE [3.58 p.m.] (Inaugural speech): Madam President, honourable members, it is not lost on me what a significant opportunity it is for me to speak as a member of this House. I also note from the outset how much I appreciate two courtesies extended to me. The first is that I can say I support this bill and not refer to it again. The second is the courtesy of your presence in the Chamber, Madam President, the presence of other honourable members, and the presence of my friends and family in the gallery. I also have to thank the staff of the Parliament not only for the welcome they have given me since March this year but going back over the last 15 years since I started visiting Parliament as a student.

I very reluctantly acknowledge that I am not here because the people of New South Wales were overcome with a burning desire to elect Tony Burke, except for 244 primary votes from people who I think were all on a first name basis with mum and dad. I suspect that a fair few may be in the gallery today, but most of them are members of the party and I know they would never break the ticket! I am here only because the Labor Party trusted me to take the position on the upper House ticket that became available when Ron Dyer decided not to recontest. Ron has already been recognised here as both a great bloke and a fine parliamentarian who took his work seriously. He replaced John Ducker, who had replaced Reg Downing.

While I know I am meant to say a bit about myself in this speech to let you know about aspects of my life and my principles that might not already be on record, I want to spend as much time as I can talking about the people to whom this position actually belongs, the people who rely on representation from the Labor Party, the people who need us to fight for them, the people who gave me the motivation to become politically active in the first place.

My life today is defined by the young family that my wife, Cathy, and I are raising in Roselands. We live in a wonderfully diverse community in which it is as commonplace to greet people with "Iasoo", "MarHaba", "Chao", "Buona sera" and "Lei hau" as it is to say "G'day." I am involved in my local area with a range of sporting clubs, with my parish, and as president of both a local benevolent foundation and the Bankstown Community College, a leading provider of adult education in my community. My daughters, Liana, Caitlyn and Helena, know how proud I am of them, and I will never find words that go far enough to express the thanks I owe to Cathy. It means the world to see you here in the Chamber today. If I could find better words I would use them, but I am sure you know how grateful I am.

A friend told me last week at a function that I would not be able to give a good first speech because I had not had a tough enough upbringing. I thought about claiming that there were 150 of us living in a shoebox in the middle of road, but the reality is that, while we have all had tough times, I have lived what A. B. Facey described as "a fortunate life". I grew up in a small business family. Dad ran a small chemist shop in Riverwood. He bought it when he was 27 and stayed there until he retired. Mum left the Commonwealth Bank when she married, back when married women automatically lost permanent status. She worked full-time raising my sisters, Rosemary and Sharon, my brother, Michael, and myself.

When, as the youngest, I started kindergarten, Mum went to what is now the University of Western Sydney and studied to be a primary schoolteacher. She taught in the government system for 17 years full time and still works as a casual from time to time. I extend my gratitude to all those family members, now extended to include Peter and Junette as well as Cathy's family, Peter, Colleen, Maree and Trent, and a wonderful collection of nieces and a nephew. They have all helped to shape me and challenge me, and my appreciation could not be more sincere.

I am lucky to have always had employment since I was 12. My first job was delivering the Sunday papers for Beverly Hills Newsagency. I held the job for six years—which remains the longest period I have held down a job. The paper boys at Beverly Hills were receiving only 10 per cent commission, but other shops were paying 12.5 per cent. So I got the other paper boys together and we agreed to form a union. When I took our demands to the boss he would not listen at first because he said we could not be a union if we had not paid union fees. So, to make it official, everyone threw in a copper coin and I went back to the boss to negotiate.

The log of claims was substantial: 12.5 per cent commission, an extra $1 extra every time it rained, and free food for a Christmas party. He came back with the typical response: "Why should I give you lot that?" I can still hear my 12-year-old voice answering, "Cause if you don't, we'll have a paper boy picket line outside the shop. The TV cameras will turn up because they'll think it's really funny, we'll be on TV, so we'll feel really important, and your customers will know it's your shop and you'll look really bad." He gave in to all three demands, and to celebrate we spent the union fees on mixed lollies.

When I was 15, I started to pick up some extra work at Grace Bros at Roselands and joined the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association [SDA], the shop assistants union. One of the great privileges of working for the SDA over the past five and a half years has been to be the local organiser for the people I worked side by side with for so many years at Roselands. The SDA is the largest union in Australia and has consistently had one of the highest membership satisfaction ratings of any trade union. The membership is largely female and more than 60 per cent of the members are under 25. In the last year alone, membership in New South Wales grew by 8.6 per cent.

I extend my thanks to Greg Donnelly, the Secretary of the New South Wales Branch. Greg has one of the most extraordinary work ethics I have ever encountered. His commitment to deliver for his members and his fundamental decency help to explain the success of the New South Wales Branch. To Gerard Dwyer, the industrial officers, my fellow organisers, all the clerical staff and friends at the SDA, I say thanks.

The SDA is a national union and I also acknowledge the support over many years of Joe DeBruyn, the National Secretary, Don Farrell, the National President, and Geoff Williams, the Secretary of the Newcastle Branch. Thanks for the friendship, the commitment, the example. I want to especially thank the members and delegates whom I worked side by side with each day. There is nothing that an organiser can achieve without the active support and loyalty of the members and delegates on the shop floor. I hope I can continue to help deliver results for those same people through my contributions in Parliament.

A lot has been said in the last few years, particularly in the Federal Parliament, about trade unionists entering Parliament. My work history since I left Grace Bros of working first for Senators Graham Richardson and then Michael Forshaw, a lobbyist and campaigner in the debates on euthanasia and the Republic, and then as a trade union official for nearly six years is seen by some as not being experience of the "real world". Those who think that working for a union somehow places people outside the real world just do not understand the work that unions do.

It is bizarre that some in the Federal Government would argue that I would have had more real-world experience if I had utilised my law degree to represent the same people on the same issues, but charged them a few hundred dollars an hour to meet with me in some solicitor's office with dodgy wood panelling and terminally ill goldfish. The critics of trade unionists entering Parliament speak as though unionism was an industry and as though we spend our days in the same sorts of union offices doing the same sort of job and bringing the same life experiences to Parliament.

As an organiser I did not have an office; I did not even have a desk! My workplace was wherever my members worked; my meeting rooms would be at Coles at Earlwood, or Big W at Campsie; my lunch room would be the food courts at Roselands or at Hurstville; my desk would be whatever box I might have to lean on in Woollies, Target or KFC. I am happy to compare the day-to-day experience of the real world between a union official and a Minister in the current Federal Government any day.

I am proud to be among the five new Labor members who have just entered Parliament with an immediate union background. However, no-one should think that what Tanya Gadiel, Angela D'Amore, Paul McLeay, Kayee Griffin and I bring to Parliament is some common shared experience in a trade union industry. What we bring is experience from the frontline of the concerns and aspirations of nurses, postal workers, council workers, public servants, fastfood workers, and shop assistants. There are 700,000 people in New South Wales working in those jobs. Their workplaces have been our workplace.

Trade unions are not an industry. Unionism is a movement; a movement that provides a gateway into every industry. That frontline experience brings a perspective that is available only through experience on the shop floor. I have seen work practices, some great and some that I never would have believed if I had not seen them for myself, such as managers telling staff to work in an area covered by two inches of water with electric cables running through it on the basis that their shoes would have thick enough soles to protect them; and part-time nightfillers being systematically underpaid to the extent that they had backpay claims—which were ultimately paid—amounting to $20,000 each. I will never forget the fastfood manager who tried to save money by no longer stocking band-aids and telling the 15-year-old employees to use serviettes and sticky tape.

My understanding of some of the issues affecting casuals changed radically at a midnight union meeting in a Franklins store for the nightfillers who fill supermarket shelves while most of us sleep. After the meeting, one of the members started telling me where I had had a coffee that afternoon and at which club I had attended a Labor Party meeting the night before. She knew because she had served me the coffee and seen me while she was working as a cleaner at the club. I realised that many casuals do not have to deal only with underemployment; some have a different set of problems that have largely passed under the radar in the public debate.

I refer to the problems faced by people with multiple jobs. This worker told me she would usually work overtime hours but, because they were across multiple jobs, she never received overtime rates. Her total income reached the superannuation threshold, but she fell below the threshold in two of her jobs. The health and safety principle of a 10-hour break between shifts had become meaningless. Any roster change not only caused havoc for family responsibilities but also jeopardised the other jobs. When annual leave required simultaneous approval from three employers, it was easy to see why she never enjoyed a real holiday.

Whether it be issues as specific as this or just the general understanding of how meaningless employment conditions become unless they are enforced, trade unionists bring an essential perspective to this place. Those who have sarcastically remarked, "Just what Labor needs, another union official", do not realise how true the words they utter are.

As I said, my election is entirely due to my being selected to be on the Labor ticket, and there are a few people from within the Labor Party to whom I extend special thanks. The first thank you is to the Premier, not only for the election result which allows me to be here but also for the kind of Government Bob Carr runs. Those of you who know me well know I can be pretty passionate in pursuing my beliefs. No-one will ever lay awake at night wondering, "What does Tony Burke think?" Some years ago I was honoured when Bob Carr invited me to address the other House as one of two private citizens invited onto the floor of the Parliament for the first time.

That speech gave me the opportunity to put on the record a number of my strongly held opinions. I finished that speech with a principle which I believe holds true on a range of issues, and I will refer to one of them. The principle was this: A law that fails to protect people who are vulnerable will always be a bad law. The same can be said of Government policy. Government policy is at its best when it protects and provides for our most vulnerable citizens.

Some years ago I was a volunteer with a public speaking club for young inmates within maximum security at Goulburn correctional centre. It was a great project, and it caused many members to receive applause for the first time in their lives. I will never forget when we started with a standard training exercise for building confidence. We divided into small groups, one person wrote down the names of everyone in the group, and someone else was to introduce the small group to the rest of the room. My group had me write down the names. I then asked, "Who is going to read them?" The pause went on for so long it hurt. None of the others within my small group could read. The education system had not protected them; it had not served them well at all.

Maximum security might seem an unlikely place to find vulnerable people—and a few of them did not look all that vulnerable. But the vulnerability had occurred years earlier, when they needed the education system and it had not been there for them. I do not pretend for a minute that if each person in that group had been literate, none of them would have ever committed a crime. But I do believe that literacy would have provided an advantage that would have given these blokes options which simply had never presented themselves.

I cannot begin to say how proud I am of the focus the Carr Government has put on literacy. Programs like Reading Recovery will provide a positive legacy that young students will carry with them for their whole lives. I wonder how many of those young blokes at Goulburn would have been there had programs like Reading Recovery existed in the early seventies.

I joined the Labor Party knowing no-one. Having been a member of lobby groups such as the Wilderness Society for some years, I was impressed when I saw areas such as the Daintree actually being saved by a Labor politician by the name of Graham Richardson. I felt it was time to stop being a spectator. I joined the party believing this could be the place to make a difference. I still remember at the age of 16 walking back up King Georges Road after attending my first meeting at the Beverly Hills Baby Health Centre and being chased by Morris Iemma. He shouted out, "Tony, wait, it's not usually like that." Incidentally, meetings were usually like that, and I came to love them and to see them as a newspaper of the local community. Morris kept me involved and never stopped encouraging me. His mind for policy and skills as a campaigner are second to none, and I extend my thanks for his friendship over the past 17 years.

Nobody has done more to encourage young people throughout the New South Wales branch of the Labor Party than Johno Johnson. I am one of the many who has always enjoyed his friendship, and one of the few who has actually won his raffles. I hope to be able to emulate the support he has always shown for each new generation of Labor Party activists. The New South Wales branch of the Labor Party runs quality, professional campaigns. I thank everyone at the party office, particularly the Secretary, Eric Roozendaal, and my good friends from Young Labor days, Mark Arbib and Karl Bitar. I became National President of Young Labor shortly after Reba Meagher and Joe Tripodi took over New South Wales Young Labor. We had been told we could never get there. None of us will ever forget the conference at Eastlakes which I attended after a twenty-first the night before and had no shoes. By the end of the day the president, Carmel Tebbutt, had excluded from the conference every member of our group except me. I was grateful for not being excluded, but it would have been nice to have a seconder for my amendments.

All politics is local, and I am no different. My involvement has centred on my local branches of Beverly Hills and now Roselands, together with a strong involvement with the Watson Federal Electoral Council [FEC]. I have been Secretary of the Watson FEC since the creation of the seat more than 10 years ago, and I have enjoyed working with the local member, Leo McLeay. Watson is now the most strongly represented Labor Party area. It is Labor heartland. It is the only Federal landlocked-Labor seat, having Labor seats on every boundary. Every State seat within it is held by Labor, and I am grateful for the good working relationships I enjoy with all those members: Morris Iemma, Kevin Greene, Cherie Burton, Tony Stewart, Linda Burney and Frank Sartor.

I also acknowledge the support of two former members for Canterbury, Kevin Stewart, and Kevin Moss, who is in the Chamber today. My friends and colleagues John Hatzistergos and Kayee Griffin have both served as presidents of Watson FEC, a position Kayee still holds, and I look forward to working with them here. I also thank Young Labor, the FEC, and all the branch members—many of whom are here and many who could not make it—who have helped and supported me in local branches. There are too many of you to name. I can only say that you know how much I value your friendship. Thank you for continuing to be my newspaper, telling me what is really going on, and keeping me on track.

I neglected to mention earlier that I have spoken in this room once before. When I say "neglected", I deliberately did not mention it in case someone took that to mean they could interject. It was the grand final of the Australasian Debating Championships and I was standing there, on the opposite side of this table. The topic was "Independents hinder the Parliamentary Process". I found myself on the negative side, whose job was to argue how terrible the major parties were and how minor parties and Independents provided the way forward.

I am very proud and pleased to say that we lost that grand final—the arguments just did not hold up. I am very proud to be here as a Labor representative, but I do look forward to a positive working relationship with members on all sides. This is not debating for its own sake; now it is real. Debate here is on real legislation that affects the real lives of the real people we represent. Madam President, I thank you and the House for the opportunity to introduce myself in this way this afternoon. But enough of introductions: as the Premier has told us at every opportunity, it is time for work.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Lands)) [4.22 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY [4.22 p.m.]: I speak on an environmental issue that is having very serious repercussions on the State's North Coast and, to a slower extent, on great sections of New South Wales: the proliferation of the camphor laurel tree. The Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology—Australia's key research centre for environmental toxicology—has stated that the camphor laurel tree is the most toxic plant species in Australia's history, is an environmental scourge that threatens the environmental sustainability of the region, and deserves far greater attention by this Government.

I thank the Camphor Laurel Research Centre and the convener, the very dedicated and passionate Jo Friend, for bringing their research to my attention and making it public. The research centre and Jo Friend are lone crusaders in bringing to the public's attention the potential threats and dangers of the camphor laurel. They raise many questions that need better answers from the Government and relevant departments, research that is not done because of lack of resources and commitment to get to the truth. In recent months four koalas have been found dead under camphors or have been seen eating camphor laurels within 48 hours of falling from known Rosebank camphors. A veterinary dissection of one koala from Goonengerry revealed a definite camphor smell and camphor laurel's more toxic yellow-green leaf colour throughout the stomach. This colour is far from the normal masticated colour of green eucalypt and the other browse species leaves.

It is the first occasion on which a dead Koala has been presented for detailed examination of its gut contents, especially the 15 known camphor laurel toxins. The Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology is carrying out the research and the autopsy into this dead koala. We are still waiting for those toxicology results. But why are we waiting for a Victorian institution to look into the death of this koala? Also in question are the autopsies of 20 koalas from New South Wales Agriculture from 1998 to 2000. Those autopsies had no blood sampling or scrutiny for toxins despite the identification of odd stomach contents for three of the koalas.

The greatest concern of the Camphor Laurel Research Centre is that not one of the 20 autopsies recorded the daytime weather conditions at the time of death of the koalas. That is important because the toxicity of camphor laurel trees can increase during a change in the seasons. Camphors remain largely unstressed in moderate climates and have lower levels of toxicity during cooler periods. During hotter conditions camphor laurels are believed to be more toxic. No record was made of the presence or absence of vomiting or frothing at the mouth, classic symptoms of camphor laurel toxification. Worse still, the Camphor Laurel Research Centre has been denied autopsy results for the past three years as the autopsies have never been written down or recorded. No doubt that is another victim of departmental cost-cutting.

It is not only the cute, cuddly koala but the local platypus that is under threat. Why are platypuses safely inhabiting farm dams when there is evidence of a declining population in streams where the camphor laurel is invading? The community demands more surveys by the National Parks and Wildlife Service of streams in the north-east regions to properly assess the impact of camphor laurels. So often the farmer is the archenemy, yet why are platypuses living in the dams and not in the streams invaded by camphor laurel?

There are probably a lot of issues but I believe the camphor laurel should be investigated. I do not think we have the answers so let us look forward and not just blame the farmer. Let us look at a whole range of issues, including the toxicity of the camphor laurel tree and the potential damage of this tree, not only on species such as koala and platypus but even on the human species. Some very serious questions need to be investigated and we need to investigate them before camphor laurel grabs hold of other areas further south. It has already started to appear in Gippsland in Victoria, which is a very serious consequence, and it is appearing on the Dorrigo plateau on that beautiful red volcanic soil. We need action to stop its spread. I look forward to working with the Camphor Laurel Research Centre and Jo Friend to bring the attention of the public to this massive problem.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [4.26 p.m.]: I bring to the attention of the House a very serious matter that deeply concerns me and I am sure every member of the House—the growing evidence of the exploitation of Asian women in brothels in Sydney. I am referring particularly to young women who are tricked into coming to Australia by people who promise them they will get employment in a restaurant or similar business. The young women come to Australia in good faith—they may only be in their teenage years. One girl from Thailand was only 14 years of age and thought she was coming to Australia to work in a Thai restaurant. Instead, she found that she had been contracted to provide sex to $100 clients. She was told she would need to have sex with 650 men before her debt was repaid. This report was published in detail in the Australian on 12 April.

It is also of concern that the Department of Immigration, and to some extent some of our New South Wales government departments, seem to be acting as if this type of exploitation is not occurring in Sydney or in other parts of Australia—yet there is conclusive evidence that it is happening. Another tragic aspect of this exploitation of Asian women is the lack of action by various departments. For example, the Australian Federal Police were advised of a case by a Sydney solicitor, Chris Joyce, who gave them details of the trafficking operation. He said in the report in the Australian on 12 April that nothing happened. He said that the Department of Immigration unit was only interested in deporting the girls, not catching the pimps. He went on to say:

The tax office didn't do anything. WorkCover didn't do anything. The New South Wales Department of Health didn't do anything.

Apparently I could add that NSW Police did not do anything either. Mr Joyce said he was so disgusted by the lack of action by the Australian Federal Police that he rang local authorities himself to try to encourage some action. He said:

One woman, "Wing", who knew crucial details about the traffickers and their contacts in Australia, gave enough information to enable the rescue of five women from brothels in Perth, Canberra and Sydney.

They arranged for State police to conduct raids and get the women out under the pretence of arresting them as illegal immigrants.

Apparently, again, nothing happened to the people running this shocking, sordid, modern white slavery industry that is exploiting young women, especially those from Asia. Exploitation of Australian-born young women also occurs. The other tragic case that we are all aware of concerned another young woman from Thailand, Phuongtong Simaplee. She was trafficked to Australia as a 12 year old and forced into prostitution. The New South Wales Deputy Coroner was called in to conduct an inquiry because of the death of that young girl in a detention centre. The Deputy Coroner said that the detention centre's records of her care were woefully inadequate, the directions from doctors were passed on in an ad hoc manner and too much reliance had been placed on detention centre officers who lacked medical training.

Again the emphasis was on how to deal with this young woman and how to send her back to where she came from, not on action against the people who directly and indirectly exploited her and who I believe caused her death. The Deputy Coroner acknowledged that her death occurred as a consequence of heroin withdrawal complicated by malnutrition and pneumonia. The blame rests entirely upon the evil people—I assume most of them are men—who have exploited and abused these young women and have led them to Australia by deceit and trickery. I call on NSW Police and the New South Wales police Minister to fully investigate these activities and take action against the exploiters in our city.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [4.30 p.m.]: Prior to the election when the House was not sitting I had the opportunity to help raise funds on behalf of a very special company known as the Child Labour Schools Company under the auspices of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [CFMEU]. Indeed, I was pleased to hear the inaugural speech of my colleague the Hon. Anthony Burke in which he referred to the importance of trade unions in the community. I wish to also highlight the vital role that unions play in helping many good causes in the community.

I shall outline briefly the history of the Child Labour Schools project. In 1995 the International Labour Organisation [ILO] established six schools in a one-year pilot project to determine whether an education program to teach illiterate and semi-illiterate children from disadvantaged families basic literacy and numeracy to enable them to enter the mainstream education system in India could be an effective means of combating child labour exploitation. The pilot program was deemed successful in that this type of education proved very useful in breaking the child labour cycle in the area tested. As a consequence, the ILO called upon international trade unions to provide support for a longer term project at the six schools established in the pilot project.

In 1996 the CFMEU in Australia responded to the call and contracts were entered into with the International Federation of Building and Wood Workers to provide recurrent funding for the continued operation of three of the schools established by the ILO for a six-year period. A Danish non-government organisation has committed financial support for the other schools. The project in India has continued, with funding from unions and those sponsors organised by unions in Australia. I do not have time now to detail the project or the fundraising. An interesting video was shown at the function I attended depicting the way in which the program works.

In 2001 the Child Labour Schools Company, with Australian People for Health, Education and Development Abroad—another valuable union organisation of which the Hon. Ian West is a longstanding supporter and which is the subject of a notice of motion—agreed to mutually support activities that provide relief and development activities for child labour in India. The Child Labour Schools Company raised funds to build the first school building in Uttar Pradesh at one of the schools supported by the company and the CFMEU. The primary and middle school, with 14 rooms fully furnished within a brick boundary wall, cost in the order of $100,000. The school was occupied in late 2001 comprising seven teachers and 312 pupils—not a class size ratio that would be supported by the New South Wales Teachers Federation, but it is better than nothing.

Since then the Child Labour Schools Company has decided to raise funds for a second school in Bihar and consultation is currently taking place with the relevant stakeholders in India about the design for a residential primary school for 100 children. This project is estimated to cost $250,000. It is expected that by the end of this year the unions, building companies and other supporters enlisted by the CFMEU will have raised the necessary funding for this project, which will be advantageous for the children, their families and their communities. This project demonstrates a practical and successful way of helping children in India. This also helps to rid the scourge that exists in so many countries, including unfortunately our own, of child labour—a hidden problem involving savage exploitation. [Time expired.]

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN [4.35 p.m.]: I wish to bring to the attention of the House the achievements of a small Australian company known as MicroFresh Filters. The company has developed a filter that minimises the exposure of workers in underground coalmines to diesel particulate emissions. I understand that the serious health risks associated with exposure to high concentrations of diesel particulate emissions are recognised worldwide. Diesel particulate emission is a very small particle of diesel exhaust and I understand that underground miners are exposed to far greater concentrations of this fine particle than other workers. I have been advised that the best available evidence indicates that such high exposures put these miners at excessive risk of a variety of adverse health effects, including lung cancer.

The United States Government has recognised the health risks of this exposure and has passed legislation requiring all diesel engines operating in underground coalmines to commence fitting exhaust filters by 12 July 2002 and for all vehicles to be fitted with the filters by 19 January 2005. This legislation is specified in the "Federal Registrar, United States Department of Labour, Mine Safety and Health Administration, 30 CFR Part 72, Diesel Particulate Matter Exposure of Underground Coal Miners, Final Rule". A full text of the reference containing 182 pages is available on the Internet.

I have been advised that no such legislation exists in Australia. Therefore, I call on the Minister for Mineral Resources to investigate the matter as a priority. I understand that health risks associated with diesel particulate emissions have been recognised in Australia for many years by the Joint Coal Board, the CFMEU, BHP Billiton Coal and the New South Wales Minerals Council and internationally by the United States Department of Labour, Mine Safety and Health Administration, the magazine New Scientist, the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Natural Resources in Canada. This subject has also been a topic at the many international conferences, such as the Canadian Mining Diesel Conference in 1998 and 2002.

The Managing Director of MicroFresh Filters, Mr Ray De Jersey, became aware of the problem early in 1992 when he was an employee with the 3M Corporation. In order to give the research the priority he thought it deserved, he established MicroFresh Filters. He has since worked in close co-operation with the BHP Diesel Research Group and 3M Corporation to develop a unique diesel exhaust filter, the MicroFresh DA 100 diesel exhaust filter. This filter exceeds the standards set by the United States regulations. BHP Billiton Coal, in line with its responsible and proactive work safety and health practices, now requires all its diesel powered underground machinery in New South Wales to be fitted with the MicroFresh DA 100 exhaust filter. Other New South Wales coal producers, such as PowerCoal Pty Ltd, also utilise that filter on some of its equipment. MicroFresh filters have also been exported to the United States of America for use on diesel machinery in underground coalmines.

On 18 March the United States Department of Labour, Mine Safety and Health Administration issued advice on its web site www.msha.gov regarding the danger of combustible filters on permissible equipment. It advised that these filters increased the likelihood of fires and subsequent catastrophic consequences. The Mine Safe and Health Administration evaluates the design and safety systems during the approval process to ensure that the safety system is well designed and meets the applicable regulations. Reports of filter fires on equipment using paper and ceramic diesel particulate matter filters caused that body to re-evaluate its advice. As part of this re-evaluation it advised that combustible filters were not to be used and suggested that operators use fire-resistant filters, recommending MicroFresh Filters and EIMCO LLC.

This is a wonderful testimonial to the vision of Mr Ray De Jersey and to his commitment to developing a filter that will minimise the health risks to workers employed in underground coalmines around the world. I also congratulate his fellow director, Mr Vic Perry, who brought the achievements of MicroFresh Filters to my attention. Vic is an old schoolmate of mine from Orbost in Victoria and I am proud of his achievement in this field. I wish him well in his future developments with this small, successful Australian company. I call on the Federal Government and all State governments to examine the legislation that has been developed in the United States with a view to introducing similar measures here.

The Hon. MALCOLM JONES [4.39 p.m.]: The 2002-03 summer season signified the second consecutive worst year on record of fires across the whole of New South Wales. Australia is experiencing hotter summers, whether caused by global warming or not, and that is becoming a reality. Weather conditions, while extreme, are cyclical and become quite predictable. Anomalies in weather conditions can no longer be used as an excuse by the Government to be ill-prepared for bushfire management. Sadly, fire preparation is undermined by government agencies being extremely reluctant to allow hazard reduction practices. This was recently witnessed in the lack of fire preparedness across the State. A philosophical reluctance to hazard reduce exists within the National Parks and Wildlife Service, hence the reduction in levels of hazard reduction undertaken.

Only a slight improvement in the hazard reduction program was undertaken in the 2001-02 summer, compared to what has been the case in recent years, following the devastating fire season of the previous summer months. Prior to 2002 obtaining permission for a private landowner to hazard reduce private property was unnecessarily difficult due to red tape. Since 2002 regulatory reforms have not improved the situation. The Carr Labor Government has also embarked upon a program of declaring vast areas of the national park estate as "wilderness" under the Wilderness Act, which are total no-go areas for motor vehicles. Naturally, this will include fire tankers, either intentionally or unintentionally. A philosophy of locking up tracks, either permanently or for management only access purposes, frequently results in the same tracks not being maintained appropriately, becoming overgrown and impassable.

Following the horror firestorms in 2001 to 2003 inclusive, while the forests may rejuvenate, the massive loss of wildlife in the most hideous manner makes a mockery of the so-called environmental management or conservation areas. I implore the Government to reconsider its whole attitude and approach towards hazard reduction and access to national parks. Although the compensation of providing new equipment, aircraft et cetera is appreciated by the community, volunteers are still asked to drive petrol vehicles into fire hazard areas and personal equipment for brigade members is still difficult to obtain. Notwithstanding the provision of new equipment, all this has again resulted in the worst catastrophes in living memory. This has a demoralising effect on recruitment and retention of volunteers and, therefore, affects the preparedness of brigades.

During the 2001-02 and 2002-03 fire emergencies the record for safety and protection of volunteer lives in New South Wales was commendable. The use of sophisticated equipment, heavy lift helicopters, fixed-wing aircraft, new fire appliances and other gear appear to have worked well. However, the deployment of volunteers is frequently reported to us as chaotic. Volunteers are treated as amateurs while paid officers of government agencies, often with little experience, risk assessment skills or knowledge of local terrain, fail to acknowledge commonsense suggestions and act in an unwarranted authoritarian manner. Having visited many brigades in Wollombi and other areas throughout the State, I know that the post emergency morale problems are severe and will result in problems with retaining volunteers who have much knowledge, experience, bravery and ability.

While politicians and senior agency management like to pour adulation on volunteers, generally they are reluctant to address their concerns, and the spin doctoring that massages their actions is frequently deeply resented by volunteers. Australia cannot afford, and will not tolerate, more repeats of the catastrophic 2001-02 and 2002-03 fire seasons. Meaningful preparation is essential to prepare for such catastrophes. Excuses for 2001-02 were made by government agencies that were further embarrassed by repeat disasters the following year. I trust that the lesson from the events of the past summers has been learnt, that it will go a long way to helping the preparedness for future events, and that we will not have a repeat of the dreadful catastrophes that have taken place.

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE [4.44 p.m.]: Morris McMahon and Company Pty Ltd is located at 34 Arncliffe Road, Arncliffe. The company has been a family business for 100 years. The company manufactures cans, such as paint tins, and employs about 100 workers, many of whom are from non-English speaking backgrounds and who arrived in Australia as refugees from oppressive regimes after wars. In fact, many of these employees have worked for the company for more than 20 or 30 years. The current owner of the company is Judith Beswick. She inherited the company from her father who, from all reports, was a fine man. Mrs Beswick also has her own legal firm, Beswick Solicitors, in Clarence Street, Sydney. Her husband is the company accountant.

Company employees who are members of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union [AMWU] have been on strike since 10 March. There has been a 24-hours-a-day, seven-days-a-week picket in place since the beginning of the dispute. The reasons behind the dispute are simple. Mrs Beswick is refusing to negotiate a registered agreement with the employees. The employees are paid less than award entitlements. Many are being paid less than $12 an hour. There is systematic intimidation of employees, especially those who are involved with the AMWU. The company has threatened to terminate the union delegates' employment. Workers are being forced to accept a roster of hours that they were not employed to work. Mrs Beswick wants them to work an additional day per week for no extra money.

The employer has not told employees the truth about the security of their entitlements. The company has been bussing in scabs on a daily basis. Mrs Beswick has appeared in the State's Industrial Relations Commission on several occasions during this dispute. Her behaviour there has been extraordinary. When His Honour Commissioner Monro advised Mrs Beswick and the Australian Industry Group [AIG], which has been advising her of its responsibilities under the Act, Mrs Beswick told His Honour that she employed the workers and she would do what she liked with them. When the AIG advocate attempted to give advice to her on the matter, she gave loud and colourful advice to him along the same lines, even while His Honour was attempting to address her.

Since that time there have been other appearances in the Industrial Relations Commission, during which Mr and Mrs Beswick have been warned about their behaviour. While the union has offered to meet with the company at any time to negotiate, Mrs Beswick has refused point blank to speak with the union's representatives. The company has now written to the union saying that it intends to forcibly remove the picket. Shades of Patrick's balaclavas and attack dogs here! Hired muscle will be used to remove the tents and other protection being used by sleeping women who are on the picket throughout the night. These women are standing up for the right to belong to a union and to bargain collectively over a decent living wage so that they can support themselves and their children.

This would no doubt make Judith Beswick a model employer in the eyes of Tony Abbott. However, in any civilised industrial relations system she must be regarded as a pariah. This is what the Federal Government's Workplace Relations Act means in real life—an Industrial Relations Commission that has its hands tied in terms of assisting in resolving industrial disputes, and employers who are being encouraged to relive the days of the Master Servant Act, which was overturned in the High Court of Australia in the 1930s. What is extraordinary is that Mrs Beswick is herself a solicitor—in 2003. She is paid well by her clients to defend their rights and to advocate on their behalf. Yet she sees no inconsistency in the way she treats her employees and the way she advocates for her paying clients.

Judith Beswick obviously yearns for a return to the 1930s industrial relations system and believes that she can pay her employees at 1930s rates. The AMWU and its members will never accept workers being treated in this way—without justice and dignity. I congratulate these workers and their union on their sheer guts and determination. Against the greatest of odds they have demonstrated extraordinary solidarity with each other. They have behaved with dignity and commitment. That is why they will win this dispute. While Tony Abbott might regard Judith Beswick as a model employer, I understand that the Labor Council has nominated her for a worst employer award. Perhaps she could hang this on the wall in her office next to her legal degree. It could make an interesting conversation piece in future years.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [4.48 p.m.]: I hope that Anzac Day means a great deal to all members of the House. Today I want to talk a little about the way we commemorate Anzac Day in the small South Coast town of Huskisson, where I have lived for the past three years. I congratulate the Huskisson sub-branch of the RSL on putting on a tremendous ceremony in Voyager Park, which is named after the Voyager disaster that took place off the Jervis Bay heads. Voyager Park is a treeless park by the bay that almost evokes images of Gallipoli peninsula. Sailors from HMAS Creswell, HMAS Albatross and the Australian Army parachute school, now at HMAS Albatross, took part in the march through the town and along the foreshore of Currambene Creek to the Voyager memorial. It was a tremendous ceremony.

The captain of HMAS Creswell gave a moving occasional address. Indeed, it was more poignant because of current events in the Middle East. Local schools took part in the march and presented wreaths. More than 1,000 locals were present, which is impressive for the small town. They were supplemented by a large number of tourists, because it was a holiday weekend, including international tourists. It was good that they got to hear a little about the message of Anzac and what it means to Australians to be present at such ceremonies. I pay tribute to the President of the Huskisson RSL sub-branch, Mr Rod Simpson, who does a magnificent job. The sub-branch does the town and our forces proud in the way it remembers Anzac Day each year in Huskisson.

[Time for debate expired.]

Motion agreed to.