The Acting-President (The Hon. Amanda Fazio) took the chair at 2.30 p.m.

The Acting-President offered the Prayers.
Assent to the following bills reported:

Gene Technology (New South Wales) Bill
Gene Technology (GM Crop Moratorium) Bill
Australian Crime Commission (New South Wales) Bill
Cancer Institute (NSW) Bill
Consumer Credit Administration Amendment (Finance Brokers) Bill
Gaming Machines Amendment (Shutdown Periods) Bill
Pacific Power (Dissolution) Bill

The Acting-President tabled, pursuant to section 103 (2) of the Police Integrity Commission Act 1996, the report entitled "Special Report of Parliament: Project Dresden II—The Second Audit of the Quality of NSW Police Internal Investigations", dated June 2003.

The Acting-President announced that, pursuant to the Act, she had authorised that the report be made public.

Motion by the Hon. Michael Gallacher agreed to:

That the sessional order on Questions without Notice, agreed to by the House on 30 April 2003, be amended by inserting, at the end of paragraph 4 under the heading "Rules for questions", the words ", or an Order of the Day relating to the budget estimates."

Motion by the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans agreed to:

1. That, under Standing Order 18, there be laid on the table of the House by 5.00 p.m. on Thursday 3 July 2003, and made public without restricted access:

(a) all documents dated after 4 December 2002 in the possession, custody and power of any Minister, government department or agency in relation to Development Application No. 189-6-2002 – Demolition of the Paddington Pavilion (Building 36) and three sheds (Buildings 40, 41 and 42) and the erection of a craft shop in the Working Studio Precinct at Fox Studios Australia,

(b) any document which records or refers to the production of documents as a result of this order of the House.

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 5 days as to the validity of the claim.

(b) A dispute may relate to the whole or part of a document.

(c) 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.

(d) 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
Petition praying that Berowra Valley Regional Park be reserved as a national park, received from Mr Ian Cohen.
Petition praying that alcoholic beverage sales be restricted to existing outlets, that opening hours be reduced, and that warning labels be placed on all alcoholic beverage containers, received from Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.
Petition opposing any reopening of the Hastings River to commercial fishing, received from the Hon. John Tingle.
Petition praying that the House reject legislative proposals that would detract from the exercise of freedom of religion, and retain the existing exemptions applying to religious bodies in the Anti-Discrimination Act, received from Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.

General Business Notice of Motion No. 3 withdrawn by the Hon. Greg Pearce.

Private Members' Business item No. 35 outside the Order of Precedence withdrawn by Ms Lee Rhiannon.
The ACTING-PRESIDENT: I inform the House that on 26 June 2003 the Leader of the Government nominated Ms Fazio as a member of the Standing Committee on Law and Justice in place of Mr Obeid. The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I inform for House that on 24 June 2003 the Premier approved the amendment of the Parliamentary Secretary duties of Mr Joe Tripodi, MP, from Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport Services to Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport Services, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Forests).

Government Business Notices of Motions Nos 1 and 2 and Government Business Orders of the Day Nos 1 to 6 postponed on motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly.

Debate resumed from 25 June.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [2.49 p.m.]: The Greens support this bill in general and in outline, but we have reservations about proposed section 45U, which provides for confidentiality of information.
The section provides:

A Team-related person must not make a record of, or directly or indirectly disclose to any person, any information (including the contents of any document) that was acquired by the person by reason of being a Team-related person, unless:

(a) the record or disclosure is made in good faith for the purpose of exercising a function under this Part …

Members may recall a "Four Corners" program approximately 18 months or two years ago about the Department of Community Services [DOCS], in which considerable reservation was expressed about the transparency of the department's processes. It seems to me that this bill leaves considerable doubt as to what a team member may say to another team member. Accordingly, the processes and the methodologies to be adopted within the team may well be affected.

I believe that under all the circumstances it is critical that there be absolute transparency in the processes that DOCS undertakes. The confidentiality of information restrictions in the bill, particularly as they apply to team members, may inhibit any inquiries that a team may undertake, particularly as to the methodologies of reviews that are instituted. The Greens have considerable reservations about this provision, nevertheless, we support the bill.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [2.52 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports this bill. Even though it is a machinery bill that makes relatively minor amendments, it deals with a very important issue. We know there have been too many child deaths in our State, for various reasons: sometimes the result of child abuse and sometimes through sudden infant death syndrome. It is important that the Child Death Review Team monitor this problem. I acknowledge that the team does not investigate individual child deaths, but the Minister can refer for further investigation any matter he considers appropriate and can also approve of the team consulting with the Ombudsman about any death.

The bill also extends the requirement to provide records about child deaths on request to private health agencies and practitioners, non-government schools, and people or agencies providing services such as family support, child care and education, residential out-of-home care, disability services, or foster care. All the relevant bodies support the provision. As has already been said, there must be strict confidentiality provisions and they must be maintained, with the exception of reporting possible criminal matters to the police, reporting a child in danger to the Department of Community Services, or reporting to the State Coroner or the New South Wales Ombudsman information about deaths relevant to their functions. We support the bill.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [2.54 p.m.]: I have a great deal of respect for Dr John Yu, and I understand that this legislation is informed by and largely implements the recommendations he made. That being the case, the bill is important. In considering child deaths, confidentiality is very important. An article by Adele Horan in the Sydney Morning Herald on 23 May this year reported that there were suspicions about the deaths of the first three Folbigg children, that the New South Wales Child Death Review Team entertained suspicions prior to the death of the fourth child but was unable to communicate those suspicions, and that, of course, potentially the result of that non-communication was the death of the fourth child—the fourth child's death was not prevented when it may have been.

The question of confidentiality is important, as illustrated in the case of a woman who was concerned that her partner may be HIV-positive. She went to a doctor, the doctor did not tell her that her partner was HIV-positive—in fact, quite the converse—and she was infected. That has been a highly publicised case that attracted a large amount of compensation. That being so, I am happy with the implementation of Dr John Yu's report, although I am concerned that the Government is collecting all the authorities under the auspices of the Ombudsman, and that the Community Services Commission was included last year, much to the concern of those lobbying on the part of the disabled in our community.

Now the Child Death Review Team is coming under the Ombudsman's umbrella, and the Inspector-General of Prisons is under pressure to come under the Ombudsman, although Justice Action has commented that it is concerned that the Ombudsman does not take the same sort of brief nor entirely understand the culture of prisons, which might be better understood by the inspector-general. The Government previously tried to combine the Independent Commission Against Corruption and the Ombudsman under the one umbrella. I am concerned that if there is only one agency and its funding or perhaps its personnel is changed, there may be a danger that the generic investigation procedures that are appropriate for each case are not followed. That is a matter for concern. So while we do not oppose the bill, we want to keep a watching brief to see how things pan out.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. John Ryan.

Debate resumed from 25 June.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [2.58 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition on this bill, which makes a number of miscellaneous amendments to the criminal law, as are required from time to time. The majority of the amendments appear to be sensible and uncontroversial and the Opposition will not oppose them, although I will move one amendment in Committee to which I will refer later. The bill amends a considerable number of criminal Acts and procedures. I will outline a number of the amendments because the bill was introduced into the Parliament only last week and there has not been a great deal of time for the Opposition or the public to thoroughly consider its many amendments.

It is a lengthy bill, and the Minister's second reading speech did not provide a ready overview It is in a different order to the provisions set out in the bill, which makes it a little difficult to understand all the amendments. Nevertheless, the bill amends the Bail Act to clarify that the principles and rules of law governing the admission of evidence do not apply to bail applications unless the court directs. This will resolve an apparent inconsistency with the Evidence Act. The second amendment amends the Crimes (Sentencing Procedures) Act 1999 to provide that a person who is convicted of sexual offences against a child under 16 years or sexual assault against any person cannot serve the sentence by way of periodic detention. This reflects the seriousness of such offences, especially those involving child victims.

The bill amends also the Child Protection (Prohibited Employment) Act to provide consistent penalties of two years imprisonment and/or 100 penalty units where a convicted child sexual offender loiters near a school or public place, or has child-related employment. The bill also amends the Criminal Procedure Act to exempt child complainants in sexual assault proceedings from giving evidence in committal proceedings. This provision and the following provision arise from the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Law and Justice in its November 2002 report. This is a sensible measure to reduce the trauma that may occur from multiple court appearances by child complainants. The amendment to the Evidence (Children) Act 1997 provides for the recording of a child complainant's initial investigative interview with police to be admitted as that child's evidence in chief. The proposal is for the child not to be present or visible to the court by closed-circuit television while he or she is viewing or hearing the recording. This is an attempt to reduce the stress of a complainant and eliminate potential distractions or misinterpretations by the jury.

The bill then amends the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act to allow police to exclude an interview friend who is not a solicitor of a suspect to be tested if the police believe that the interview friend may be a co-offender. These powers already exist in other parts of the Act. The bill also enables New South Wales to participate in the national DNA database scheme by way of the CrimTrac Agency and will facilitate the interjurisdictional exchange of information by allowing New South Wales to disclose DNA database information by way of CrimTrac, thus facilitating a process for exchange of information.

The bill includes an amendment to the Crimes (Local Courts Appeal and Review) Act—which replaces the provisions in the Justices Act with respect to the definition of "sentence"—to make it clear that appeals may be made in respect of association and non-restriction orders. The Minister stated in his second reading speech that the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act will be amended so that a court cannot partially suspend a sentence because to do so would cause hardship to an offender and difficulties to the Department of Corrective Services. The Opposition will move an amendment in Committee in relation to this measure because insufficient reasons have been advanced for removal of that sentencing option. The Opposition believes that the court should retain that option.

The bill amends the Criminal Appeal Act to give the Court of Criminal Appeal the power to quash or vary consecutive or concurrent sentences handed down at trial. The amendment is necessary to overcome a difficulty that arose in the case of Regina v O'Donohue and the Opposition does not oppose it. The bill amends the Drug Court Act to give that court the same range of sentencing options with respect to breach of bond matters as with other matters. At present the Drug Court is limited to periodic detention, home detention or full-time imprisonment for breaches of a bond. This measure will give the Drug Court the same power as other courts. It will avoid the necessity of referring offenders to the original sentencing court and it will eliminate delay.

Finally, I shall refer to amendments to the Mental Health Act that give police the power to arrest people and take them to hospital for assessment for mental illness or mental disorder where they have attempted serious harm to themselves or other persons. The bill also gives the court an alternative to detention within a hospital or institution for mentally ill and disabled people. It allows them to make orders in the same terms as bail conditions. Other provisions deal with out-of-hours applications and the power of a court to order detention or release. The Opposition does not oppose the bill other than to foreshadow an amendment to item [1] of schedule 6. From time to time it is necessary for the Government to review the administration of justice and the law, particularly in the light of experience and procedure and, accordingly, the Opposition does not oppose the bill. However, it would have been useful if the Government had prepared the bill a little earlier to enable members to consider it in more detail.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [3.08 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill. This bill is similar to statute law miscellaneous amendments legislation. It makes a number of minor, almost technical, amendments to a number of Acts, including the Child Protection (Prohibited Employment) Act, the Crimes Act, the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act, the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, the Criminal Appeal Act, the Evidence (Children) Act, the Criminal Procedure Act, the Drug Court Act, the Mental Health Act, the Police Powers (Internally Concealed Drugs) Act and others.

The bill corrects an anomaly in child protection offences to prevent a protected person—that is, someone who has been convicted of an offence against children—from applying for, undertaking or remaining in child-related employment. The offence will carry the same penalty of two years imprisonment and/or 100 penalty units. Evidence has shown that these people are skilful in seeking employment where they have contact with vulnerable children. The Christian Democratic Party supports the provision that gives police officers the power to apprehend a person for the purpose of taking that person for an assessment to a hospital where the person has recently attempted or may attempt to cause serious bodily harm to another person. I stated during the Government briefing that it is appropriate that bail applicants who are mentally ill should be taken to hospital for assessment. The question is: Are there adequate mental hospital facilities to which these people can be taken? I gather that there is a question mark over that. In having good legislation, the Government must also provide the service facilities so that the legislation can be carried out.

The Police Powers (Internally Concealed Drugs) Act excludes persons of the opposite sex from conducting certain internal searches such as X-ray examinations of suspects. Obviously, if an X-ray examination is undertaken there is no need for a police officer to bodily or physically search the suspect. However, I still believe that it is preferable, for example, to have female police officers or female staff conduct X-rays on female suspects to avoid any embarrassment to the female suspects. I urge the Government to consider that, although the legislation will allow males to conduct the X-ray examinations. We support the bill.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [3.10 p.m.]: The Greens will not oppose this bill. However, we look forward to the day when the Government makes a similar thorough update of legislation that will improve people's lives, rather than lock them up.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [3.11 p.m.]: I do not presume to be familiar with all the Acts that this bill amends. I must confess that I do not understand why the opposite sex must be involved in X-ray examinations, because X-rays do not generally involve disrobing. But be that as it may. I wish the Government would give as much consideration to restorative justice programs or alternatives to sentences. We seem to hear all about sentences but the Government does not seem to question in any way what it can do to keep people out of gaol. We wish the Government would consider alternatives, because we believe it would be money much better spent. It might be noted that in California the number of prisoners continued to rise and eventually that became a large drain on resources. The prison budget became greater than the education budget so they decided to educate all the prisoners. When they started to educate all the prisoners the budget for prisoner education became so huge that it blew out even further, and eventually they started to release people in large numbers. Perhaps we have to go the full cycle, but it would be clever if we learnt something from other people's experience.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Assistant Treasurer, and Minister for the Central Coast) [3.14 p.m.], in reply: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to respond to the debate. I thank honourable members for their contributions, and I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

Schedules 1 to 5 agreed to.

Schedule 6

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [3.15 p.m.]: I move:

Page 13, schedule 6 [1], lines 4 and 5. Omit all words on those lines.

As I said during the second reading debate, the Opposition sees the need to review the law and procedure from time to time and, in particular, to update the law when cases and procedure indicate that change is necessary or when reform processes indicate the need for change. In this case it seems that the Government has not made out the case for the amendment that is proposed. Indeed, making this change will remove a sentencing option that may be important in a small number of cases. Section 12 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 currently permits suspension of a sentence and imposition of a good behaviour bond in its place. In the case of Regina v Gamgee the Court of Criminal Appeal ruled that the suspension of part of a term of imprisonment is permitted and that such suspension may be allowed to commence at a future date.

The Government is concerned about that matter. Its view, as expressed by the Minister in his second reading speech, is simply that this should not be permitted, for two reasons. First, an order that an offender go into custody to serve a sentence after an initial period of suspension of the sentence can cause considerable hardship to the offender. The offender is being sentenced to custody. I am not sure what sort of excuse that would be to remove this sentencing option. Secondy, it causes difficulties for the Department of Corrective Services in administering the sentence. I would have thought that the Department of Corrective Services was there to administer appropriate sentences. The sentencing option we are discussing was discussed by the New South Wales Law Reform Commission in discussion paper 33. The commission supported the sentencing option and recommended maximum flexibility. In the judgement to which I referred earlier, President Mason and Justice Dowd quoted from the Law Reform Commission report as follows:

There are situations, conceivably limited in number and scope, where a suspended sentence of imprisonment would be the preferred sentencing option. A precondition of its use would be that the offence is so serious that it requires a custodial sentence to be imposed, particularly for the reasons of denunciation. It would also have to be clear that the threat of imprisonment would be a sufficient specific deterrent for the individual offender, and that considerations of general deterrence are not paramount. Further, a suspended sentence would be appropriate when rehabilitation would thereby be promoted and there was not question of need to incapacitate the offender.

The judges noted that this sentencing option appears to be available in other jurisdictions. The Minister has not established why this provision in the bill to remove it should remain. As I mentioned, the Court of Criminal Appeal seemed to approve of the wider use of this flexible sentencing option. It dealt with the reasons the Minister has given. President Mason and Justice Dowd said in paragraph 14 of their judgment:

The interpretation which we favour would allow appropriate denunciation of a serious offence, but with partial suspension of an initial portion of the term of imprisonment to enable some event to take place (eg completion of a pregnancy or of a course of study).

That is what the judges thought was appropriate, and in the Minister's mind that turned into inconvenience for the prisoner. The judgment went on:

Conversely, it would allow the moulding of a sentence where the conditional partial suspension thereof occurs at the latter end of the term imposed, as occurred in the present case.

The judges went on to say that the Crown had not suggested any policy reasons why such options should be spurned. In this case the accused pleaded guilty to the offence of kidnapping and was sentenced to two years imprisonment. The judge at first instance, relying on section 12 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, directed that the prisoner be released from custody after six months and that he be placed on a good behaviour bond for the remaining 18 months and to appear for sentence if called upon at any time for any breach occurring during that period. The bond was subject to conditions, including notification of changes in residential address, and so on. In this case the judge used this provision to put an offender into prison and then to ensure that the offender, whilst released on a bond, could be returned to prison if that bond was breached. That seems to the Opposition to be a useful option and it seems to be supported by the Law Reform Commission. The court seems to be happy with that flexibility. The Government has not made out any good reason to take out this option. It applies only where offenders are judged to require custodial penalties. I commend the Opposition's amendment.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Assistant Treasurer, and Minister for the Central Coast) [3.23 p.m.]: The Government does not support the Opposition's amendment. There is no reason to remove these provisions from the bill. The impetus for the amendment is misconceived. The amendment simply closes a loophole drawn to the attention of the Court of Criminal Appeal in the case of Gamgee. The original intention of section 12 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act was that a court should only be able to suspend the whole sentence, as opposed to part of a sentence. The ability to suspend part of a sentence raises practical difficulties in the administration of sentences, particularly if the court determines that the initial period of the sentence be suspended and the offender fails to attend the Corrective Services centre to commence the period of imprisonment on the nominated date. Having a partially suspended sentence provides no incentive for an offender to comply with the bond before going into custody and also causes difficulty in apprehending offenders when the time comes for them to enter custody. The provision in the bill simply clarifies the scope of section 12. For these reasons, the Opposition's amendment is not supported.

Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

Mr Clarke Mr Cohen Ms Cusack Mrs Forsythe Mr Gallacher Mr Gay

Ms Hale Mr Jones Mr Lynn Mr Oldfield Ms Parker Mr Pearce

Ms Rhiannon Mr Ryan Mr Tingle Tellers, Mr Harwin Mrs Pavey

Mr Breen Mr Burke Ms Burnswoods Mr Catanzariti Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Costa Mr Della Bosca

Mr Egan Ms Fazio Mr Kelly Mr Macdonald Reverend Dr Moyes Reverend Nile Mr Obeid

Ms Robertson Ms Tebbutt Mr Tsang Dr Wong Tellers, Mr Primrose Mr West

Mr Colless	Dr Burgmann
Miss Gardiner	Mr Hatzistergos

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule 6 agreed to.

Schedules 7 to 15 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

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

Government Business Order of the Day No. 9 postponed on motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly.

Debate resumed from 25 June.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.38 p.m.]: The Opposition will not oppose this bill, which provides employment protection to local government workers affected by amalgamation and structural reforms. While we do not oppose the bill, it is worth pointing out the Government's hypocrisy in introducing it. On 4 June this year the Minister for Local Government issued a press release endorsing the comments of Premier Bob Carr that the State Government will speed up the reform process for local government if necessary. The Minister's press release stated:

It is time for local government to do something about their efficiency and delivering better services for ratepayers.

The press release further stated:

The case for voluntary mergers was clear based on financial savings and better services.

The Minister says one thing on the day of the Shires Association Conference and less than a month later introduces legislation to Parliament the effect of which will be that councils can do nothing with amalgamated staff structures for a period of three years. The Minister wants the savings yet he has introduced a bill that will prevent councils from realising the savings. It is an unbelievably massive contradiction. Perhaps the Minister will explain how an amalgamated council is expected to achieve greater efficiencies when it is burdened with three years of no change without any extra resources.

As I stated at the outset, the Coalition will not oppose this bill. The local council is often the major employer in small country communities. As a result, amalgamation can reduce employment opportunities and services. The council in my home town is the second largest employer in the area; tragically, it is behind the aged care sector. The loss of jobs that will result from the amalgamation of the Crookwell Shire Council and the surrounding councils could have a dramatic effect on our town. Every effort must be made to ensure that the amalgamations this Government is telling us we must have do not destroy employment bases, particularly in country communities.

Employment protection has been addressed previously in the proclamations of newly constituted council areas. The first amalgamation in this round involved the Casino and Richmond River shires creating the Richmond Valley Council. It appalled me that the Government, in its haste to implement the amalgamation, did not properly consider what would happen to the conditions and entitlements of the merged work force. The most appalling aspect was that the new council's first item of business was to conduct a popular vote for the general manager with the two general managers of the amalgamated councils as the candidates. Sadly, it became little more than a popularity contest between two fine men who had done excellent jobs in their community.

After the Richmond Valley experience it became the norm to include employee protection measures in proclamations, and that has worked reasonably well until now. The primary reason for this legislation is the perfectly reasonable desire on the part of the United Services Union to have employment protection enshrined in the legislation. Prior to the introduction of the Local Government Act in 1993, employment protection measures were included in legislation. I note the snide remarks from the Minister for Local Government in his media release of 25 June, which stated:

These amendments put back the protection for workers that the Coalition removed in 1993.

I remind the Minister that the 1993 bill was drafted with the assistance of a parliamentary committee, the membership of which included Labor members, one of whom was a subsequent Minister for Local Government, the Hon. Ernie Page. It is a bit rich for this Minister to try to paint the Coalition as being anti-council employees given that we did not need any of these measures until the current bout of amalgamations. As I have indicated to this Minister on more than one occasion, local government representatives, despite going through the campaign hoping that they would not get Frank Sartor as Minister, are now privately saying that they would have been better off with him.

I have two interesting media releases from the United Services Union General Secretary, Brian Harris. The first is dated 6 June and calls for the Government to include job protection measures in legislation in light of its decision to proceed with the second wave of amalgamations. I wonder how long it will be before I find myself on the back of a truck beside Brian Harris—a position I found myself in on a couple of occasions during the term of the last Government. Interestingly, only the Coalition was willing to stand up for workers rights with regard to compulsory competitive tendering and other measures introduced by the Labor Government.

The second media release is dated 25 June and refers to the union fighting government policy. It lists ways in which the Carr Government has betrayed the union by failing to include key provisions in this legislation. The union's concerns include the fact that the proposed legislation enables councils to vary terms and conditions of transferred employees subject to a no-net-detriment test. This is apparently a concern because it places too much power in the hands of council management. The union claims that the no-net-detriment test was strongly opposed by the Council of the City of Sydney during last year's negotiations about the transfer of employees from Leichhardt and South Sydney to the city. That was another black day for the Labor Party and it was another broken promise.

I note that the employment protection provisions of this legislation apply only to non-senior staff of a council. Separate provisions of the legislation apply to general managers or directors under contract, and specifically relate to the so-called golden parachutes that can be provided when a general manager or senior staff member resigns early in a contract period. The new provisions of this legislation mean that councils must seek ministerial permission to make such a payment; that is, a redundancy or ex gratia payment cannot be made without ministerial approval. The Minister claimed in his second reading speech that employment protection is one of the Carr Government's commitments to rural communities. Another commitment was that rural impact statements would be prepared for legislation affecting regional areas. That commitment was a mainstay of former Minister Harry Woods' television commercials for the 1999 state election. To date the implementation of those statements has not been widely adopted by the Government; in fact, the reverse is true.

Has an impact statement been produced for this process? If so, will the Minister table it? If not, it would be fair to say that this is little more than policy on the run. It was a firm commitment that a rural impact statement would be produced before any major legislation affecting rural communities went to Cabinet. Was a rural impact study undertaken in accordance with Country Labor's pledge to the people of country New South Wales before the election? If so, will the Minister table the resulting statement in the House?

The Hon. Christine Robertson: The improved services have balanced that.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Is that an inaugural speech I hear?

The Hon. Christine Robertson: I have made my inaugural speech.

The ACTING-PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Duncan Gay will direct his comments to the Chair.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: There must also be public inquiries into any proposals for major boundary changes or amalgamations. I note that the Minister's proposal referred to the Boundaries Commission in regard to the forced dissolution of the Yarrowlumla Council. He stated clearly that the commission may not conduct a public inquiry. Given the importance of these major changes to local communities, it is absolutely appalling that the Government has decided not to hold a public inquiry. It is appropriate that the issue of public consultation be raised in the context of a bill that effectively sets the path for further forced dissolutions, boundary changes and amalgamations.

In conclusion, I state again that the Coalition will not oppose this bill, which is the second piece of legislation to come before the Parliament in the last month designed to facilitate the Government's agenda of local government reform. Last week the Minister supported a Christian Democratic Party amendment that clearly exposed the Government's true reasons for delaying local government elections until March next year, and this bill is the next plank in the forced reform agenda. The Opposition will not oppose the bill, because the Coalition recognises the importance of maintaining strong employment levels in local communities and surety of employment in an environment where everything is becoming less certain under a Carr Labor Government.

I ask the Minister to explain how newly constituted councils are expected to achieve any form of savings when they are being forced to carry the work forces of two councils. Will the Government help newly constituted councils to achieve efficiencies in other areas, or will it make this legislation yet another unfunded mandate? I believe they are fair questions. The Government speaks about efficiencies and protecting the jobs of council workers in the two workplaces, but it cannot have it both ways. How can local councils achieve efficiencies when they are forced to pay for a duplicate work force?

There is no indication in the Minister's second reading speech, nor is there any indication in the budget, that the Government will provide extra money to councils to help them out. Not only has the Government breached its policy of no forced amalgamations, announced less than three months ago, it also has breached an act of faith to local communities in giving them the unfunded mandates. Clearly, the Government is hypocritically forcing the cost of this structural reform onto the communities that can least afford it. The communities that will go through this process, either of their own volition or after having been forced by the Government, will pay for it. Once again, this is an indication of policy on the run. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile's amendment of last week was the first indication of policy on the run.

The Government's indication to the Parliament was that it needed the legislation to change the date of local government elections because September was the wrong time to hold them. Yet, at the first opportunity the Minister for Local Government agreed with Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile's quite appropriate amendment, which sought to change the date for council elections to September—thereby removing the false plank on which the Government based its spurious argument. The Opposition will support the bill because it protects council workers and the community. Unfortunately, once again it is a hypocritical act on the part of the Minister for Local Government and the Government. I emphasise that there is a growing call in the community to say, "We were dudded. We would have been better off with Frank Sartor."

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [3.54 p.m.]: The Australian Democrats support the guarantee of employee entitlements. Very often employees are the first to be hit by managerial machinations but the last to be considered. We believe that employees who are doing a good job should be entitled to job security or, alternatively, a decent redundancy package. The Government suggested that the inefficiencies of local councils were responsible for the introduction of the bill. However, the Government should acknowledge that the actions of councils are based on a managerial perspective, and involve rationalisation of services and staff changes.

Clearly, if the Government had intended introducing this bill at the time that it was trying to change the local government system, it was not going to save money by reason of any changes created by amalgamations or "dismemberment"—which seems to be the way the Government is getting around its promise not to amalgamate—and this bill would have come up at the same time as the elections bill. The Government waxes lyrical about saving money on the pathetic allowances of councillors, some of whom work in their communities for 20 to 30 hours a week for allowances of about $12,000 per year. An extremely conscientious councillor who is trying to stop inappropriate land development and have proper analyses of the ecological impact of development proposals on the North Coast, where councils are literally being bought by developers—

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Name them.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: I acknowledge the interjection. They will be named next week. The council I am talking about will be a household word next week.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: We're not sitting next week.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: This is not the only place in which bodies can be named.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Oh, this is a conspiracy.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: No—

The ACTING-PRESIDENT: Order! Are you speaking to the legislation?

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: I am speaking to the legislation. Thank you, Madam Acting-President. I would much prefer to speak to the legislation than to be scandalously interrupted. Local government officers have put to me that a reasonable incentive for a person who does not wish to represent his or her own interests becoming a council member would be a remuneration of something like 40 per cent of the parliamentary salary. I believe that it is better to have good government than cheap government. The Government said that the savings in allowances to councillors was a reason for the amalgamations. However, leaving in place huge numbers of staff at vastly greater salaries suggests that reform is not about saving money.

The Government's proposed reforms contain no benchmarks of quality or accountability, and no financial statements that the citizens or even this Parliament may consider. The Government gave us a ream of reasons why March was a much better time to hold council elections, for the State electoral office and the convenience of everyone, suggesting that they would all have a nice holiday beforehand. However, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition pointed out, the Government immediately surrendered to Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile's amendment, which put elections back to September after the election held in 2004, because all it really wants is to delay council elections for its electoral purposes.

Under the legislation employee entitlements will have to be dealt with by newly amalgamated councils accepting the dismembered parts of other councils, and the whole thing may well be unfunded. The State Government has kept local government funding constrained to the consumer price index, but it has done nothing much to constrain local government costs. Indeed, local government continually complains to me that the policies of the Government simply shift costs to local government. In response to that complaint I seek to establish, through item No. 16 outside the order of precedence on the notice paper, a Local Government Legislative Review Committee to facilitate Parliament's consideration of the potential impacts of bills on local government. Such a committee is needed because of the Government's lack of consideration of the economic impacts of its decisions on local government. This bill is yet another example of that genre of behaviour.

The suggestion that the Government is making the changes to the local government system for the purpose of saving money, improving management or improving the timing of elections is complete nonsense. It has been revealed that this is about control and power in local governments. That is what the Government is about. All it does is make grabs for power with little consideration for excellence in the governance of this State. We will not oppose the bill, because we believe that employees are entitled to decent wages and decent redundancies, which would be brought about by changes to the legislation. However, we just want to put on record the absolute humbug of this Government in trying to pretend that this is improving governance in New South Wales.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer. Why has the Government failed to apologise to Mr Martin Sedger, to whom the State Debt Recovery Office incorrectly issued with two infringement notices totalling almost $2,000? These notices, despite being incorrectly issued, led to Mr Sedger's drivers licence being cancelled on two occasions because of his failure to pay them. Mr Sedger is seated in the public gallery this afternoon. Will the Treasurer now, on behalf of the Government, apologise to Mr Sedger, who has been fighting for over three years to clear his name because of the continued incompetence by the State Debt Recovery Office? What steps will the Treasurer take to ensure that the two cancellations of his licence are permanently expunged from his record? Further, will the Treasurer review the practice by the State Debt Recovery Office of permanently recording on drivers licences matters that are proved to be false, particularly given the large number of false fines that have been publicly highlighted in recent days?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I am not aware of the circumstances of the case that the Leader of the Opposition has raised in his question. I will ascertain whether there has been a mistake on the part of the State Debt Recovery Office and, if there has been, certainly an apology will be forthcoming to the gentleman. I am quite amazed at the campaign that the Opposition has been waging on this issue. It is just over 12 months ago that then Opposition Treasury spokesman Mr Souris was condemning the Government for what he claimed was the writing off of hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money. On 6 April 2002 he said:

The Carr Labor Government is writing off hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers money. This means the Carr Government is taking the easy path by slugging the honest taxpayer to subsidise wrongdoers.

In more recent days the Opposition has been saying that we should simply write off fines. It might come as a surprise to members opposite that about two million fines are issued every year. That is a lot of fines. Of the number of people who are issued with fines, three-quarters do the right thing and pay them; about a quarter do not. I believe it is appropriate that the people who do not pay should be pursued; otherwise the people who pay their fines are disadvantaged over the people who do not.

Out of two million fines issued each year there will be occasions when the police, the local council who refer these matters to the State Debt Recovery Office, or the State Debt Recovery Office will make a mistake. If people feel that a mistake has been made in their case they should contact the State Debt Recovery Office Fine Enforcement Order Enquiries hotline on 1300 655 805—it is a local call cost—and try to sort it out. If they are still not satisfied I would advise them to do what I would advise anybody who believes they have been unfairly treated to do, that is, to request their local member of Parliament to make representations on their behalf. Members know that as Ministers we receive many representations each year and we make many representations—that is our job. Very often it turns out that the person on whose behalf a member is acting has a genuine grievance with some element of the bureaucracy. I would think that out of two million fines issued every year there would be mistakes. I cannot guarantee that mistakes will never be made. However, if they are made and they come to my attention, I would want them rectified as quickly as possible.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Treasurer give an undertaking to the House that if a mistake is proved he will ensure that the individual upon whom the mistake has been perpetrated will have his or her name and record cleared?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I will certainly give a guarantee that whenever I am aware that a mistake has been made I will ensure that the matter is fully rectified.

The Hon. IAN WEST: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Transport Services. Will the Minister please advise the House of the latest information about rail security?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The Government's priority is delivering a safe, clean and reliable public transport system. Commuters and rail workers have told me that one of their concerns is antisocial behaviour on our rail network. That is why on-the-spot fines for these offences and fare evasion fines have been substantially increased. The increases come into effect from 1 September 2003. They include increases in fines for offensive behaviour, from $200 to $400; for drunkenness causing intimidation, from $100 to $400; for fare evasion, from $100 to $200; for blocking or interfering with train doors, from $200 to $400; and for tampering with onboard equipment, from $200 to $400. I suggest the honourable Leader of the Opposition listen to this. Fines for trespass on railway property will increase from $200 to $400; and fines for unauthorised crossing of rail lines will increase from $200 to $400. These increases coincide with greater numbers of transit officers patrolling trains and stations.

The ACTING-PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Yesterday I attended a graduation ceremony for 207 transit officers. It included 100 officers who had completed their training in May, and 107 who are on the rail system from yesterday. The graduation means that there are now a total of 300 transit officers on the network, and CityRail is on track to meet its target of 500 transit officers by December 2004. transit officers perform a vital role in making the rail system safer. They also have training and powers under the Rail Safety Act that enable them to do their jobs. They will be backed up by these tougher penalties to target the offences of most concern to passengers and rail workers.

Transit officers have already made an impact. Since their introduction last November they have issued more than 50,000 infringement notices for offences ranging from fare evasion and vandalism to the crossing of railway lines and being on railway property in an unauthorised manner. Again, the Leader of the Opposition ought to pay attention to this. The increase in transit officers is part of an overhaul of railway security currently being conducted by State Rail chief executive officer Vince Graham, in consultation with NSW Police. The new security plans will be in place by the end of the year. In the interim, current contract security arrangements will remain.

Passengers want security personnel in the right places at the right times. We need to get the best mix of transit officers, NSW Police and contract security guards on the network. Greater numbers of transit officers will allow CityRail to better target these areas. Yesterday at the graduation ceremony I congratulated the new transit officers and thanked their families for their support. They have undertaken a rigorous course and clearly will be in the front line of providing ongoing safety to the public. On behalf of the Government, and I hope the Opposition, we congratulate our new transit officers.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question is directed to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. Is the Minister aware that under his signature in today's Government Gazette 92 separate fees and charges for a range of fisheries-related activities have increased? Can the Minister indicate where in Labor's fishing policy it was indicated that fees and charges would be raised three months after the election? What can commercial and recreational fishers expect will be better under the new fees and charges structure?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: My understanding is that these charges relate to the ordinary consumer price index increases that have been levied in many other areas and, accordingly, have been applied to our fees and charges.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: I ask the Minister for Transport Services a question without notice. Is the Minister aware that the special commission of inquiry into the Waterfall train disaster has been told that a psychological screening process commissioned by the State Rail Authority [SRA] has revealed that 20 per cent of train drivers have a mental disorder and approximately 4 per cent are so severely mentally impaired that they should not be driving trains, as determined by an experienced occupational physician and psychiatrist? Is the Minister aware that this screening program was conducted nearly three years ago with the full endorsement and participation of the Australian Federated Union of Locomotive Enginemen, which subsequently endorsed the screening process for all medical examinations of its members? Finally, is the Minister aware that the SRA management committed to immediately implement this program into all medical examinations and that nothing subsequently has been done to implement this process? [Time expired.]

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I am certainly aware of newspaper reports to the effect outlined by the honourable member. It is appropriate government policy not to comment on matters before the inquiry into the Waterfall train disaster. It is appropriate that we allow the commission to have its deliberations and consider all expert evidence. In relation to psychometric testing, State Rail currently requires employees to undertake pre-employment assessments for functional, medical and psychological ability to perform work safely. I am advised that the psychometric tests are specifically designed for the rail industry and are common to railways around the world. In addition to that being undertaken, recruitment testing and counselling are also undertaken post-incident for any affected crew or when a supervisor is concerned about somebody's behaviour.

Drivers are routinely assessed by supervisors, both on and off driving duties. In addition, every 16 weeks drivers are taken off driving duties for structured training assessment. Staff are also required to undergo medical assessments at specified intervals unless the doctor recommends a more frequent assessment due to the presence of a medical condition. State Rail is also working with the Victorian Department of Infrastructure to develop a new medical assessment procedure for all of the rail industry. This matter was discussed at the recent transport Ministers conference and a testing regime is being put in place. It is my understanding that the report relates to a number of years ago and changes have been made subsequently. However, I do not want to make it a policy to comment on matters before the Waterfall inquiry. We will allow the inquiry to go forward and recommendations to be made in due course.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: I ask a supplementary question. Is the Minister aware that as a consequence of non-activity because of the inquiry, currently 1 in every 25 trains is being driven by a driver with a mental disorder?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: As I have already indicated, that report is a number of years old. My advice is that procedures are in place for pre-employment assessments of all new drivers. Certainly, State Rail is in the process of discussing with the Victorian Department of Infrastructure a new regime for medical assessment of all our drivers.

The Hon. KAYEE GRIFFIN: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Rural Affairs. What is the latest information on the Regional Communities Consultative Council?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I thank the Hon. Kayee Griffin for her interest in rural and regional affairs. I am pleased to inform the House that as of today the Regional Communities Consultative Council [RCCC] will report to me as Minister for Rural Affairs. The Carr Government set up the RCCC in 1996. Its primary role is to work with the Government to make sure that we are best informed on issues and concerns facing country communities. It has, until now, reported to the Premier. The RCCC provides the Government with advice on the impact of government initiatives on country communities, how to improve access of country communities to government services, and opportunities for the Government to work with country communities across a range of issues, including regional development and environment.

The council comprises 13 representatives from 13 different rural and regional interest groups—from farming and education through to social services and youth. The Office of Rural Affairs in Orange will continue to work with the RCCC, particularly servicing its administration needs. This move strengthens and consolidates the position and reputation of the RCCC. I will meet with the RCCC regularly and it will continue to meet with the Premier twice a year. The RCCC has a challenging schedule over the next two years. It has already begun to address issues such as drought and natural resource management. I am told that the council will be looking at a broad range of issues including rural unemployment, aged care, mental health and gambling. As Minister for Rural Affairs it is my role to keep the Government informed about issues facing country families, even if the National Party is not interested. I look forward to working in partnership with the RCCC to that end.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I ask the Special Minister of State, representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice. Have the long-awaited smoking around bars restrictions come into effect today and have employees of pubs and clubs, who work in bar areas, welcomed those restrictions? Have the major media sources reported today that "No one expects police to enforce the new rules" with regard to smoking bans around bars? What assurance will the Government give that the smoking ban around bars will, in fact, be enforced in order to protect employees health? Will the Government give an assurance that a total ban on smoking in pubs and clubs will be introduced by December 2003?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: This specific question comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister for Health. I will refer the question to him and obtain a full answer for the House and the honourable member.

The Hon. JOHN RYAN: My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services. Is it a fact that the reason New South Wales has not yet signed the Commonwealth-State and Territory Disability Agreement [CSTDA] is because New South Wales has refused to match the Commonwealth offer to increase funding for services provided to people with disabilities funded under the CSTDA?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: This question provides me with an opportunity to give some information to the House and to the honourable member about the nature of the Commonwealth-State and Territory Disability Agreement. The New South Wales Government has attempted to reach agreement with the Commonwealth for the funding of the third Commonwealth-State and Territory Disability Agreement for the period 2002-03 to 2006-07. The Hon. John Ryan has raised a significant issue when he indicates the problem is that the State Government will not match the contribution of the Commonwealth Government. I point out that under the CSTDA the State Government provides roughly about 80 per cent of the funding for disability services that are funded under that agreement while the Commonwealth provides only 20 per cent.

The Hon. Michael Egan: Why don't they match our funding?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: The Treasurer is exactly right. The State Government has some difficulty with the concept of matching when we are talking about an agreement that is 80 per cent State funded and 20 per cent Commonwealth funded. Despite that, one needs only to look at the record of funding of disability services in this State to see that this Government has contributed significantly to improved funding for disability services in New South Wales. Indeed, over the life of the second CSTDA there was a significant increase in State funding.

In many ways, one could say that we are being penalised for that significant increase, because the Commonwealth Minister refuses to take that into account when she looks at the figures with regard to moving forward on CSTDA3. If a State government invests significantly over the life of an agreement, one would expect that would be taken into account when a Commonwealth government is looking at a State government's commitment to funding improvements. I am finding the whole process of renegotiating the CSTDA incredibly frustrating because in my view the Commonwealth has absolutely shirked its responsibility with regard to funding disability services in New South Wales.

The Hon. Michael Egan: What about the SACS award?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: The Treasurer correctly points out that the Social and Community Services Award is just one example of how the Commonwealth has failed to meet its responsibilities. We all know the SACS award story: Workers are paid some of the lowest wages in Australia for doing some of the most important work. Did the Commonwealth agree to meet its responsibilities and put its share of the funding into that agreement when the Industrial Relations Commission handed down the award? No, it did not. Despite significant pressure by disability groups across New South Wales, the Commonwealth Government refused to meet its responsibilities and in the end, after much anxiety in the sector, New South Wales had to step in and fund that on behalf of the Commonwealth.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: It was your job anyway. You are trying to shift it again.

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: Members opposite cannot have it both ways. They cannot argue that we should match the Commonwealth's component, but argue that the Commonwealth has no responsibility when it comes to paying wage increases. It is completely hypocritical. Nonetheless, our proposal under the CSTDA for 2203-04 to 2006-07 includes additional expenditure of some $433 million for disability services, along with an additional $11 million over four years for extended respite. [Time expired.]

The Hon. TONY BURKE: My question is addressed to the Special Minister of State, and Minister for Commerce. Will the Minister inform the House of WorkCover's initiatives to improve rural safety in New South Wales?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The Government has implemented major initiatives to improve safety for rural workers, employers and families. Tractor rollover is the single most common fatal farm accident. Apart from the pain and suffering from the loss of loved ones or friends, rollover accidents can leave family businesses in financial ruin. Between 1990 and 2000 there were 45 tractor fatalities in New South Wales, with 17 resulting from tractors rolling over or backflipping. A number of these people might still be alive had the tractors involved been equipped with proper rollover protective structures, or ROPS. To protect the safety of the State's workers, tractors are legally required to have rollover protective structures.

The State Government has implemented a highly successful initiative to assist farmers to comply, and to prevent death and serious injury from tractor rollover. Since commencement, nearly 8,000 applications for the rebate have been received, and more than $1.5 million has been distributed to farmers in New South Wales. In the north of the State more than that 1,200 farmers have received ROPS checks totalling nearly $250,000. In the central west 1,100 checks have been received, totalling $223,000. In Murrumbidgee more than 1,000 tractors have new lifesaving ROPS, with the assistance of more than $200,000 from this scheme.

Most significantly, within the first year of the ROPS rebate there was a 29 per cent drop in serious tractor-related incidents from the preceding nine-year average. The 2000-01 figure represents the lowest number of incidents in the past decade. I am pleased to advise that in recognition of the outstanding success of the ROPS scheme the Government has extended it until 31 December 2003. Another way the Government is helping safety in rural areas is through the ShearSafety project launched in June last year. The ShearSafety project encourages safe shearing practices and has the full support of key industry stakeholders, including New South Wales Farmers, the Australian Workers Union and the Shearing Contractors Association of Australia.

The first stage of the ShearSafety program was to provide $60 rebates to farmers for replacing dangerous pin drive shearing handpieces with the safer worm drive style mechanism. The second stage of the project includes the Government matching dollar for dollar spending on woolshed improvements. In addition to the hugely successful ROPS and ShearSafety rebate scheme, the Government has been working to change the workplace culture in the rural sector. WorkCover has also introduced the popular rural safety hotline, which enables rural employers, workers and others to access information about safety initiatives.

The hotline was supported by the introduction of the rural safety web site, which can be accessed through the WorkCover home page. The rural safety web site contains links to a range of information, including rural specific safety alerts, upcoming information sessions, safety incentive programs and relevant legislative changes. I was pleased to note that this year's rural safety week, running from 21 to 25 July, has adopted the theme "Farm safety is good business". I am sure honourable members will agree that raising awareness of farm safety providing incentives to promote safer farming practices is good for farm workers, families and businesses.

The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD: My question is addressed to the Treasurer in the absence of the Minister representing the Minister for Police. In 1996 the Federal Government initiated a firearms prohibition and buyback agenda, the continuation of which is soon to target legitimate law-abiding pistol shooters. Has the Minister considered the effect of this agenda on legitimate law-abiding firearms dealers who, like individual licensed shooters, are not in any way responsible for crime or any real contribution to crime? Given the ongoing destruction of the firearms market, and hence the legal business conducted by legitimate firearms dealers, is the Government willing to look at a total buyback for licensed gun dealers wishing to completely exit the industry? If the State and Federal governments were truly interested in reducing the number of firearms in circulation, would the assisted exit of professionals from the industry naturally complement the Government's agenda? Is the Minister willing to meet with representatives of the Firearms Dealers Association to discuss such proposals?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I thank the Hon. David Oldfield for his question, which I will refer to the Minister for Police for his response.

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Lands). Has the former Speaker, John Murray, been engaged by the Government to assist with the formulation of inter-city council boundaries? If so, what remuneration is Mr Murray receiving and where is this money coming from?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: No.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for State development. Will the Minister advise the House how the New South Wales Government is engaging with the Asian business community to promote two-way trade between New South Wales and Asia?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I congratulate the Hon. Henry Tsang on a much more intelligent question than the one asked by the Hon. David Clarke. What a stupid question that was! The Hon. David Clarke is a new member but I will give him some advice.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Point of order: We do not need pearls of wisdom from the Minister. He would be best advised to stay out of this for the time being because his own words will come back to haunt him.

The ACTING-PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: My advice to the Hon. David Clarke is never to ask a question that has been dumped on him. He assumes that the people who give it to him are on his side, but very often they are not.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: My point of order is one of relevance. The Minister's answer has no relevance to this question. It might have been relevant to the previous question, but it bears no relevance to the current question.

The ACTING-PRESIDENT: Order! I advise the Minister to ensure that his answer to the question remains relevant.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Nevertheless, it remains that the question asked by the Hon. Henry Tsang is much more intelligent than the previous one. Our diverse multicultural community is a fact of life but it is also a significant economic asset for New South Wales. The Government is working with ethnic business communities, particularly those from Asia, to promote trade and create more jobs for the people of New South Wales. Asia is one of our most important trading regions. In 2001-02, New South Wales exported almost $15 billion worth of goods to our 16 major markets in Asia. That represented some 65 per cent of total New South Wales merchandise exports worldwide.

I am sure honourable members will be aware that in May this year the Premier announced an expansion of the role of Australia's most senior Asian member of Parliament, the Hon. Henry Tsang, and appointed him as Secretary to the Premier on Trade and Investment and Assisting the Minister for State Development, who happens to be me. The Hon. Henry Tsang is also the Chair of the New South Wales-Asia Business Advisory Council, which brings together a group of senior business people from the Asian community to advise the Government on how best to promote our trade and investment interests with Asia. The Government will soon appoint members to the council for a new two-year term.

Another key strategy to engage more closely with Asian business communities is to work more co-operatively with bilateral business associations to promote two-way trade. The efficacy of this approach has already been demonstrated by the success of the New South Wales trade mission to India in November-December 2002, which was jointly led by the Director-General of the Department of State and Regional Development, Loftus Harris, and the National President of the Australia-India Business Council, Neville Roach, AO. This collective leadership was able to make many influential people in India, particularly the media, more aware of the significance of New South Wales as Australia's leading State in virtually every business sector. It demonstrated how government and business can work together effectively. We are working to strengthen such partnerships. Later this year the Government will host a forum with all Asian bilateral business associations active in New South Wales to identify how we can work more closely together to create exporting opportunities for New South Wales businesses.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I ask my question without notice of the Minister for the Hunter. Is the Minister aware that while crime rates are stable across most of New South Wales, crime rates in the Hunter—including assault, break and enter and stealing from the person—have risen significantly in the past year? Does the Minister agree that his Government has neglected community services and unemployment problems in the region, and that this has contributed to rising crime rates in the Hunter?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The honourable member will be aware that in a previous Parliament I was Minister for Police and made a full statement about this when those crime figures came out. It is not for me to go into the details of that, it is for the new Minister for Police. However, if the honourable member asks the question properly, the new Minister for Police will be able to outline a range of strategies that the Hunter police local area command will implement. On her second proposition, which purports to link crime with unemployment and social services, there may be an argument that those things are linked, but there is also an argument that crime is much more complex than that. It is not for me to debate the causality of crime; that is up to somebody in another place.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I ask the Minister a supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate on his Government's plans to tackle the social problems that crime is causing in the Hunter, if such plans exist?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I suggest that the honourable member put that question on notice and the relevant Minister will answer it.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You are the relevant Minister.

The ACTING-PRESIDENT: I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Transport Services, and Minister for the Hunter. What action has been taken by his department to meet a request by transit officers for more comprehensive self-defence training?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I am aware of no such request other than media reports about some proposition about capsicum spray. I assume that is what the honourable member is referring to, but, given that she did not write the question, she probably does not know what it refers to. Given her performance about armed police, that is probably a fair assumption. Some issues have been raised in relation to capsicum spray. The advice I have been given is that it would be inappropriate to use capsicum spray within confined spaces because it would put passengers at risk. Therefore, we will do the most prudent thing and ensure that we take expert advice on any request for additional protection for transit officers.

I assure the honourable member, if she is genuinely concerned about transit officers, that they all acknowledge that they undergo a very rigorous training program, part of which involves self-defence. More importantly, they undergo a training program that focuses on—this is a horrible term, which I hate to use—verbal de-escalation, which is about defusing situations before they necessitate the use of physical measures. I am happy to provide those details to the honourable member if she contacts my office.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: I ask a supplementary question. I draw the Minister's attention to a meeting of a transit officers' sub-branch on 13 June requesting management to provide more comprehensive self-defence training. Is the Minister aware of the minute of that motion? If not, will he undertake—

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: Point of order: That has to be the furthest removed from a supplementary question that I have heard.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: To the point of order: The opposite is the fact. The first question asked about comprehensive self-defence training, and the supplementary question also asked about a minute from the transit officers sub-branch requesting self-defence training. That is exactly a follow-up of the first question. The Hon. Jan Burnswoods should stay awake during question time.

The Hon. Michael Egan: To the point of order: The fact that a subsequent question might be on the same subject matter as the original question does not make it a supplementary question. There are strict rules about what constitutes a supplementary question.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: To the point of order: The Minister said in his answer that the member asking the question may not have known all the facts. I would have thought the honourable member's supplementary question indicated she does know the facts, and the Minister should answer the question.

The Hon. Michael Costa: The question was whether something came to me.

The ACTING-PRESIDENT: Order! Is the Minister speaking to the point of order?

The Hon. Don Harwin: To the point of order: The original question clearly asked about a request made by transit officers. The supplementary question referred to that question and sought more information by way of elucidation of the request made by transit officers. Therefore it is clearly in order.

The ACTING-PRESIDENT: Order! Having considered the issues raised and the wording of the question, I rule it out of order. It raises a matter that was not raised in the original question and was not referred to in the Minister's answer.
The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: Will the Minister for Community Services outline to the House recent activities promoting the Domestic Violence Line?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I commend the Hon. Peter Primrose for his interest in this issue. As I have previously outlined to the House, domestic violence is of concern to all of us. It is of particular concern to the Department of Community Services [DOCS], not least because of the significant impact it can have on children who are present in homes where domestic violence takes place. I am pleased to tell the House that the department recently embarked on a major statewide campaign to promote the existence of the Domestic Violence Line with the aim of encouraging more domestic violence victims, especially women, to seek help. Although people in a domestic violence situation may not be willing to seek help at the time of an occurrence, they may think about it and later want information about seeking information. That is why the initiative is particularly important. A wallet card titled "You can live without it" was designed with the aim of encouraging people to call the Domestic Violence Line if they are experiencing abuse in a relationship.

The business card-size resource, designed to be discreet, contains information on what domestic violence is, what support services can be accessed, and, of course, the Domestic Violence Line phone number. In a bid to support and promote early intervention strategies the Department of Community Services joined with NSW Police to advertise the Domestic Violence Line. As police are normally the first point of contact for most families experiencing domestic violence, it was anticipated that front-line police staff would find the card a valuable resource. The department negotiated for 3,500 domestic violence information cards to be attached to the 28 April edition of the Police Weekly. That issue had a four-page article on domestic violence. Approximately 30,000 information cards have been distributed to police across New South Wales. This unique opportunity has strengthened the interagency working relationship between DOCS and police, promoted a valuable resource to clients in need at a minimal cost, and encouraged police to carry information cards with them when attending domestic violence incidents.

The overall success of this campaign is currently being evaluated, with case workers on the Domestic Violence Line asking callers where they heard about the service. The results of this evaluation will provide valuable information to support further communication activity. The DOCS Domestic Violence Line began operating in September 1993, offering for the first time a statewide crisis counselling and referral service 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It is staffed by fully trained and experienced female caseworkers from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Encouraging calls to the Domestic Violence Line is vital, particularly because of the isolation experienced by many domestic violence victims.

DOCS is particularly vigilant in encouraging women with children in domestic violence situations to seek help because of the many studies showing how great the impact of domestic violence is on the development of a child. Last year the number of calls to the Department of Community Services Domestic Violence Line involving children increased by 21 per cent on the previous year. In 2001-02 the Domestic Violence Line received 18,444 reports compared with 14,422 in 2000-01, and almost one third of these calls involved children. I remind honourable members that people experiencing domestic violence who need help, support, information or advice can contact the Domestic Violence Line seven days a week, 24 hours a day.

The Hon. JOHN TINGLE: My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government, in the absence of the Minister for Justice, who represents the Minister for Police. What security arrangements will be made to protect the two mobile pistol buyback vans that will tour New South Wales confiscating illegal pistols from 1 October onwards? Is it a fact that only one sworn officer will be the total security for each of those vans? Is the Minister concerned that the vans, visiting all the State's 250 pistol clubs, often in remote areas and at the end of bush tracks, could be vulnerable to ambush by criminals while processing pistols submitted by licensees, resulting in the theft of a great many guns, both legal and illegal?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I will refer that important question to the Minister for Police for his consideration and response.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: What action has the Minister for Rural Affairs taken to address the concerns of rural teachers, including those in his home town of Wellington, who claim there are no incentives to becoming a teacher in country areas? Has the Minister made representations to the Minister for Education and Training highlighting these concerns, and what is he planning to do as Minister for Rural Affairs to ensure that teachers stay in our regional areas?

The Hon. Michael Egan: Point of order: The Hon. Melinda Pavey is trifling with the House. She knows as well as most other members that questions may be directed to Ministers in respect of the public affairs with which their portfolios are connected.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: He is responsible for rural affairs.

The Hon. Michael Egan: It is drawing a longbow. A question should always be directed to the most appropriate Minister, and the most appropriate Minister to this question is the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Training, who no doubt will refer it to the education Minister for a very considered and proper response.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: To the point of order: If it did not go to the Minister for Rural Affairs, one would have to ask where it should go. Surely the Minister for Rural Affairs has the affairs of people in rural New South Wales at heart. And I would have thought that the education, or lack of education, of people in regional New South Wales, particularly in the Minister's home town, would be of interest to him. I would have thought that the Minister would have been the appropriate Minister to direct this question to, and one who would have been aware of what was happening.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I will refer the question to the Minister for Education and Training.

The ACTING-PRESIDENT: Order! As the Leader of the Government has advised that he will refer the question to the Minister for Education and Training, the matter is resolved.

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: Will the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries update the House on the status of the New South Wales coffee industry?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Coffee is obviously important to almost every member in this Chamber. The coffee industry is one of a number of emerging industries, and its benefits are obvious for farmers, for the New South Wales economy, and for those living overseas who are fortunate enough to sample our fresh produce. The unique frost-free climate of the North Coast means quality coffee can be produced without the use of insecticides. Connoisseurs have tested samples of North Coast coffee overseas and in Australia.

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: Nimbin.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: There is nothing wrong with Nimbin. It is a good place for a coffee. I recommend it.

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: You are supposed to drink it, not smoke it.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: If you could work out the difference. Connoisseurs describe it as a mild to medium bodied coffee with a very distinctive flavour, having—

The ACTING-PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: New South Wales has the land and climatic conditions to produce up to 10 per cent of Australia's total demand for coffee. Currently coffee lovers around Australia consume around 34,000 tonnes of green beans—which, for the information of the House, are the raw product prior to roasting. The export potential is also attracting interest, although present production is insufficient to seriously explore markets at this stage. In 2000 the North Coast coffee industry had a farm gate value of around $1 million. New South Wales agricultural and horticultural experts predict that by 2010 this farm gate value might rise to around $20 million.

This successful use of the Austoft Industries Ltd commercial coffee harvester has also attracted more interest in coffee growing in Australia. The harvester was designed in Australia and removes the high labour cost constraint of hand-harvesting crops. Major advances have also been made in the processing of mechanically harvested Australian coffee. Research has identified a sample of varieties that perform best in the different microclimates of the North Coast. Yields and prices are attractive for small quantities of product, but harvesting costs are the most important factor influencing the overall viability of the industry.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Do you have a fishing licence?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Yes, I do. Hand-harvesting can be viable for those in speciality niche markets, such as organic coffee and chocolate-coated coffee bean producers and those involved in tourism. The New South Wales coffee industry has come a long way since the first plantations were established in the 1980s. Substantial amounts have been invested in the product in recent years and a couple of large players have emerged. They include Mountain Top Coffee Australia, which is situated north of Lismore. It has planted about 200 hectares or 63 per cent of the total coffee crop in the past four to five years. Coffee Marketing Australia, which is situated west of Casino, is a syndicated farming group with a large number of shareholders. The group has planted about 80 hectares of coffee, or 25 per cent, of the total crop. Individual coffee growers—there are about 150—have a total of 40 hectares of plantings. That includes the Zenvelt Coffee group and Sub Tropical Coffee Growers Association members. I encourage members to help the New South Wales coffee industry reach its potential by drinking more North Coast coffee.

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG: I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. As a practising doctor I hear community concerns about the shortage of medical specialists. According to an article in the Daily Telegraph today, an elitist specialist and surgeons club has created a closed-shop situation that is restricting access to practices and ensuring that the community suffers a chronic shortage of specialists. The few specialists who are practising stand to earn a great deal of money. Furthermore, many prominent qualified specialists from overseas are not able to practice their speciality here, often because of prejudices and fear of competition. Will the Government reform this practice so that the selection process and decisions about the number of doctors allowed to specialise is taken out of the hands of doctors? The process should be transparent and in the hands of a group that fairly represents all parties. Decisions should be based on community needs and not on a closed-shop mentality.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The member's question canvasses some important and momentous issues. I will refer it to the Minister for Health and ask for a prompt response.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: I direct my question to the Minister for Transport Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Forests) Can he inform the House whether the Coordinator General of Rail has provided a final report on the Independent Review of the Stanmore Park Viaduct, a draft of which was to be supplied to the Coordinator General by 23 May 2003? If a report has been received, will the Minister undertake to release it immediately? If not, will he release it when it is received?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I do not have the details of that, but, from memory, when we released the reports on the other bridges I indicated that an extension had been sought. I will check the status of that report. As I have already indicated, I am happy to make it public.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: I direct my question to the Minister for State Development. Can the Minister inform the House about recent developments in the digital media industry in New South Wales?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I thank the member for a very important question. Many honourable members already know about the strength of the State's film and digital media industries. It was highlighted most recently in the film Matrix Reloaded. The digital media elements of our film, broadcasting, Internet, and games industries have recently benefited from three related events that focused on innovation and commercialisation. Held in conjunction with the Sydney Film Festival, the inaugural X Media events were held in Sydney from 5 to 11 June at Potts Point and the Museum of Contemporary Art. The three X Media events, including the Streaming Media Workshop, the X Media Lab and the X Media Conference, attracted the participation of international experts from the United Kingdom, the European Union—
The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: Did you go?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: No, I did not. I probably would have but I am busy at that time of the year preparing the budget. World-class mentors gave keynote speeches and worked with promising Australian digital media projects, taking them closer to commercial realisation. Eight Australian project teams were selected to work with mentors.

The Hon. John Ryan: What is streaming media?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: What is the honourable member whingeing about?

The Hon. John Ryan: You don't know what it is.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: The honourable member should listen, because he is making an ass of himself. The X Media Conference attracted more than 200 participants, who learned about business opportunities in the digital media industries. The benefits for New South Wales are clear: industry growth, business investment, job creation, and increased connection to international networks in these important emerging media industries. One of the projects dealt with at the X Media Lab has already been selected for representation by a Hollywood agent.

The ACTING-PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Hon. Ms Rhiannon that the use of mobile telephones is prohibited in the Chamber.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Alongside Sun Microsystems, Apple Computers and Rexel Video, New South Wales Government agencies sponsoring the events included the Department of State and Regional Development, the Department of Commerce, and the New South Wales Film and Television Office. Digital media is a growing sector and the Government is working to ensure that New South Wales is at the leading edge of this important industry. I do not like the word "sector". It makes me think of the "Russian sector" or the "Stalin sector". It is a silly word. I want my staff to ensure that it is never used in any of my documents. We can find a better word. Honourable members will agree that "sector" is jargon. We should declare ourselves jargon-free.

The Hon. PETER BREEN: In the absence of the Minister for Justice I direct my question to the Treasurer. Is the Minister aware that security concerns at Lithgow Prison in relation to the prisoner Phung Ngo have resulted in privileges being withdrawn from other prisoners throughout New South Wales? How many prisoners in New South Wales lost their biannual family day visit last weekend as a result of security fears about Phuong Ngo? How many families travelled across New South Wales and interstate to visit inmates last weekend only to be turned away at the prison gates? How many prisoners had money deducted from their accounts last week to pay for family day visits, and will that money be refunded?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Of course the Minister for Justice could provide an answer to the House.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: We are not sure.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I know that I cannot; I do not know the answer. I appreciate that it is an important matter. I will advise the Minister for Justice that the Hon. Peter Breen wishes to ask him a question. I am sure he will have a good answer.

Mr LYNN: I direct my question to the Minister for Transport Services, and Minister for the Hunter. Can the Minister outline to the House what action is being taken to address the serious health issues raised by the discharge of effluent onto rail tracks from trains that occurs when storage tanks reach capacity? Between February 2002 and April 2003, 18 effluent spills were recorded, including two rail infrastructure maintenance employees being sprayed with effluent as an interurban train was travelling past West Ryde station. I am sure they preferred that to the verbal sprays they get from the Minister.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I am not able to answer the Hon. Charlie Lynn's question. If he provides me with the details, I undertake to seek a report from the State Rail Authority. I believe that it is an important issue. If it involves occupational health and safety issues, I am happy to further report to the House.

The Hon. IAN WEST: My question without notice is addressed to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. Will the Minister report on the success of the Mercedes Australian Fashion Week held recently at Circular Quay?

[Interruption]

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I thank the honourable member for his question. If members are not interested in hearing the answer, I will give it to the Hon. Ian West privately.

If members have further questions, I suggest they ask them tomorrow.

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: On 27 May the Hon. John Tingle asked a question without notice concerning the number of handgun licences restored following suspension and revocation as a result of apprehended violence orders and telephone interim orders being granted. The Minister for Police has now provided the following response:

NSW Police has advised me that the number of licences restored in relation to this revocation ground is not available in an automated format, and would require a manual check of all records which would take many weeks to complete. Given the current licence renewal period, this would represent an unwarranted diversion of Registry resources.

The following answers to questions without notice were received by the Clerk during the adjournment of the House:

On 22 May Mr Ian Cohen asked the Minister for Transport Services, representing the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning a question without notice about emissions from the Redbank Power Plant. The following responses were provided:

1. The Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources is currently undertaking a comprehensive, independent and transparent assessment of the proposed Redbank 2 Power Plant. The Minister for Infrastructure and Planning will fully consider the Departments findings and recommendations as well as public concerns raised in relation to the greenhouse gas emissions, before determining the development application.

2. Refer to Question 1

3. The Minister will consider greenhouse gas emissions from the proposed development, within the context of relevant Government programs, schemes and policies, when determining the proposal.

4. The development application, including the additional information (which was received from the Applicant upon request from the Department and the integrated approval bodies) was placed on public exhibition on Friday 6 June 2003. The exhibition period, including the opportunity for public comment, will continue until Wednesday 9 July.

On 29 May Mr Ian Cohen asked a question without notice and a supplementary question of the Minister for Transport Services, representing the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning, relating to native vegetation clearing. The following responses were provided:

Answer
Statistics on clearing applications lodged under the Native Vegetation Conservation Act are currently available for the first quarter of 2003 (Jan-Mar 2003).

For the Central West region, 68 hectares were approved for clearing in January 2003, 7,723 hectares in February 2003 and 192 hectares in March 2003.

For the Hunter region, 1,983 hectares were approved for clearing in January 2003, 2,235 hectares in February 2003 and 1,100 hectares in March 2003.

No government agencies lodged clearing applications in these regions during the above period.
Supplementary Answer
The Native Vegetation Conservation Act 1997 remains the statutory regime for native vegetation management in New South Wales. While the native vegetation reforms are progressing, all proponents of land clearing are required to abide by the provisions of the Act.

The Department is continuing to discharge its obligations under the Act in the appropriate manner, including the use of a range of enforcement measures offered by the Act, to ensure the maximum level of compliance.

On 27 May the Hon. Malcolm Jones asked the Minister for Transport Services, representing the Minister for Roads, a question without notice relating to the Great Western Highway. The following response was provided:

The upgrade of the Great Western Highway between Blackheath and Mt Victoria was principally aimed at realigning the two-lane section to highway standards, including the provision of overtaking opportunities, and to address the accident “blackspot” at Soldiers Pinch.

I am advised the traffic volumes carried by this section of the Highway do not call for the provision of four lanes at this time.

Questions without notice concluded.

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [5.02 p.m.]: The Local Government Amendment (Employment Protection) Bill represents another example of the Government's broken promises. When we commenced debate on this bill it took us into the murky world of Labor politics, and even suggestions of Cabinet stand-over tactics. In 1999, when the Local Government Amendment Act was passed, the then local government Minister in his second reading speech gave his word that he would protect the jobs of council workers. The Minister said that when council workers are moved to another council after a boundary change or merger, their rights, entitlements and conditions would be protected for three years. There were no ifs or buts; it was a clear promise. Since then Premier Carr has added his personal backing to that promise. Like Minister Woods, the Premier gave his word that these jobs would be protected, and that that protection would be backed by the force of law.

The Greens understand that the present Minister for Local Government acted on these promises, and devised a bill that reflected these commitments from Premier Carr. Yet this is not the bill we see before us. What happened? Here we need to consider the role of the Minister for Science, Mr Frank Sartor. I understand that the Minister—who has nothing to do with local government but likes to have his fingers in many pies and thinks he did an excellent job when he was in local government—was given admission to the Labor Party on the understanding that he would keep his grubby little hands off local government.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: I've heard that too.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: It is interesting, isn't it? A lot of people tell us that. One would imagine that that is the way the Labor Party works. It says, "Do this; don't do that," and that is what Sartor was told. Clearly, he did not come into the Labor Party with a blank cheque. However, it looks as though Frank Sartor has not been able to resist the temptation of meddling in this legislation. Sydney City Council, under his mayorship, made a systematic attack on collective bargaining and the role of the union in the workplace.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: That's why the MEU got the undertaking from the Government that if he came in he wouldn't get local government.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Yes, absolutely. That is what I understand too.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: As long as it's a National Party-Greens unity ticket. It's just crazy.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I acknowledge the interjection. I think people will be very interested—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Did you acknowledge the support of Jan Burnswoods?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Yes. I am pleased that she interjected at that point. Her colleagues will be very interested to read that she is defending this legislation. I thought she had enough wisdom to keep quiet, not to speak out. This is the perfect legislation for backbenchers on the Labor side to speak out. Because this is not what many of them understood would happen. They would not be expelled; they would only be expelled if they crossed the floor. However, sadly, all we are getting at the moment from a Left backbencher is interjections apparently in support of this bill.

Now Mr Sartor wants to take his anti-union, right-wing agenda and spread it to every council in New South Wales—which is not a healthy situation, particularly given that he has the ear of the Premier. The Greens have no doubt that Mr Sartor took the lead role in demolishing the local government Minister's package when it went to Cabinet. The Labor Party should beware of the rising influence of Minister Sartor. I am not talking about the Labor Party; I am talking about all those good people who slogged it out for the Labor Party. One wonders whether Mr Sartor takes a leaf out of Mr Costa's book and never bothers with his local branch, because that is when the rot really starts to set in.

Labor prides itself on its relationship with the unions, but this may come unstuck if the economic rationalist agenda of Minister Sartor continues to dominate Cabinet. The Greens will take the side of the union movement and council workers in this matter. We believe that that should be the starting point for every member of this place, irrespective of the party to which they belong. Many council workers do it hard, and their rights need to be acknowledged. The Greens will move amendments to keep the Government to its word, to keep its promise alive. Unfortunately, Premier Carr has welched on his promise and sold out local government workers. We are starting to move into double figures for broken promises when it comes to Bob Carr.

Minister Kelly's package has been ripped to shreds and replaced with other right-wing agenda, couched in the language of enterprise bargaining. It is certainly not a system that will work for the majority of council workers. I understand that at least 50 councils are looking to amalgamate or alter their boundaries, so it is vital that proper protections are in place. The Greens amendments will restore the promised protections. One would expect the Labor Party to come to its senses and support its original promise. We hope that the Government will reconsider its stance and act in the interests of workers, not anti-union mayors and general managers, and simply do the right thing. This legislation is certainly not revolutionary; it is barely reformist.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [5.09 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Local Government Amendment (Employment Protection) Bill. It is obvious from discussions and publicity about councils that there will be amalgamations and boundary changes in the future. It is therefore important that this bill be in place, because it will protect the entitlements and employment of local government employees.

Certainly in country areas, where possibly some of the amalgamations will take place, sudden forced staff redundancy would be critical to the well-being of a town or community. So we support these amendments, which will apply to non-senior councillors who have been transferred to a new council area, and which will provide no forced redundancy during a restructure proposal and for three years following proclamation. The amendments will also provide for preservation of entitlements of transferred staff members to ensure that no detriment is experienced, that there are no lateral transfers within the first 12 months after transfer, and that there is a 12 months ban on external advertising of positions where one or more transferred staff members are suitably qualified for the position.

To ensure that senior council staff—in particular general managers—do not negotiate inappropriate termination payments for themselves, the amendments seek that termination payments must be approved by the Minister. Obviously he would not approve inappropriate payments. I asked what would be the legal status of the payment if staff were paid without the application being sent to the Minister. I understand—the Minister might confirm it in his response—that if it did happen then the person would be ordered to refund the payment. That raises the question whether a general manager who is in charge of administration may organise his own generous redundancy payment and have it activated, given that it would be up to him to make sure that the Minister is advised, and that he knows the Minister is going to cancel the payment. I would hope that would not happen but some general managers may be tempted to proceed within their own area of responsibility and not seek the approval of the Minister. There needs to be a clear directive to all councils advising them of the wording of the legislation so that it has the anticipated effects in those council areas. We support the bill.

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)) [5.12 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to this debate. As honourable members know, I am very concerned about the issues facing rural and regional communities. Indeed, no-one cares more about country New South Wales than this Government. The Government recognises that councils are often the largest employers in country towns, and we are committed to supporting these workers. That is what the bill does. I am glad that the Opposition has recognised the importance of these provisions for local government workers in rural and regional New South Wales.

Despite what the Opposition said, the bill does not impede councils in carrying out a reform agenda to provide greater efficiencies in the communities that they serve. In fact, the bill provides a balance between the opportunity for councils to restructure and become more efficient and accountable, and the rights of local government employees. This ensures that the best possible outcome is reached for the community. The bill also introduces tough new measures to deal with inappropriate golden parachute termination payments for senior staff in councils. These provisions will help to provide the sort of accountability and transparency in the local government sector that the community expects.

As I said in my second reading speech, it is the Government's intention to ensure that the terms and conditions of staff will be the same as if they had continued employment with the same council. I was effectively foreshadowing the Government amendments that I will move in Committee to address the issues of the "no net detriment" clause and the employment conditions of transferred staff. These amendments have arisen out of consultation with key stakeholders and I am confident that they will address some of the concerns raised by honourable members. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Schedule 1

Ms LEE RHIANNON [5.17 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 1:

No. 1 Page 3, schedule 1. Insert after line 14:

[3] Section 348 Advertising of staff positions

Insert after section 348 (2):

(2A) A position must not be externally advertised if the position has been created or changed as a result of a re-determination of the organisation structure of the council.

This amendment extends the protection of this bill to other situations besides boundary changes and amalgamations. It is designed to cover cases in which council management opts for a spill and fill, as they have become known, using a restructure of their organisation to undermine workers rights and entitlements. If this motion is not passed workers will be forced to reapply for their positions, or other positions, perhaps under different conditions from those they presently enjoy. That, effectively, is very anti-worker. It makes it much more difficult for the union to work, and it really is not doing the right thing by the people who work hard in our local councils. The Greens want to ensure that council workers are protected during restructures, and that the protection is complete. That is essentially the theme of the amendment. I urge members to consider this motion carefully and to support it.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [5.18 p.m.]: The Coalition does not support the amendment. The legislation sets in place employment protection for council workers for a period of three years. In an amalgamated council there may be a need to advertise externally for specialist positions in order to secure applicants with appropriate skills or expertise that may not exist within the amalgamated council structure. It would be illogical to restrict councils from advertising externally in order to secure the best possible applicants for specialist positions, for example in planning or environmental control areas. It is possible that with an amalgamation a new position may be created that involves an amalgamation of two other areas with a slightly different role. In that case it would be essential to advertise externally because there would be no employee suitable within the current internal structure. The combined work force will be protected under the current legislation and for that reason the Coalition does not regard the amendment as necessary.

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)) [5.20 p.m.]: The Government opposes the amendment because it guarantees that any job vacancy—not just those that follow an amalgamation or a boundary change because section 348 does not refer to those—on any council in the future will be filled by an internal applicant. Clearly, this is impractical and is not in the best interests of local government, which would mean that all future jobs would need to be advertised internally. This amendment does not apply merely to boundary changes, amalgamations or a three-year time period. It does not relate to employment protection. It seeks to limit the ability of councils to select appropriate staff. I sincerely doubt that such a proposal would garner support from local government.

Amendment negatived.

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)) [5.21 p.m.], by leave: I move Government amendments Nos 1 and 2 in globo:

No. 1 Page 5, schedule 1 [4]. Omit all words on lines 31-36. Insert instead:

(1) A transferred staff member's employment (other than that of a senior staff member) continues on the same terms and conditions as the terms and conditions that applied to the staff member immediately before the transfer day, subject to section 354E.

No. 2 Page 6, schedule 1 [4]. Omit all words on lines 27-31. Insert instead:

(b) any such determination is to be disregarded for the purposes of section 354D (1),

These two amendments are related. As foreshadowed in my address in reply, the Government moves the amendments to address concerns of some stakeholders. The Government has consulted with representatives of the United Services Union, formerly the Municipal Employees Union, and proposes to remove the clause dealing with no net detriment to the terms and conditions of employment of transfer of council workers. Further, advice has been received that this clause may disadvantage transferred employees and goes against the Government's intention to provide security of employment for council workers. The Government is happy to consult with the union movement and other stakeholders. I am confident that we will continue to work together to ensure that the rights of council workers are protected in New South Wales. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [5.23 p.m.]: The Coalition does not oppose the amendments. One of the major concerns that I raised in my contribution to the second reading speech and with the United Services Union was the inclusion of the no net detriment test. That was a key factor in the negotiations between the City of Sydney, Leichhardt and South Sydney councils over the transfer of workers affected by the forced boundary changes put in place last year. The primary concern with the no net detriment test is that it would have placed too much power with council management. Obviously, the Government has listened to the concerns of the United Services Union and may have realised that it was facing some sort of industrial revolt if the no net detriment test remained in the bill. The Government has acted on the union's concerns and the Coalition supports the amendments.

Coincidentally, the amendments are exactly the same as Greens amendments Nos 2 and 3, which have been on the record for some time. I would be interested to see the way some members of Parliament will vote because they have indicated to me privately on occasions that they will not join with me and vote on the same side as the Greens. The Government has picked up two of the Greens amendments, which the Opposition was going to support. No-one has more of a fundamental problem with the Greens than I do, but on occasions when they get it right—

The Hon. Tony Kelly: There is competition.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: There probably is competition, but when the Greens get it right, that should not prevent honourable members from voting with them. After all, we are here to represent the people of this State, not to have petty grievances.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [5.25 p.m.]: I support the amendments. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may or may not be aware that if, for example, a union moves to point out a problem with legislation and a number of people pick up on that problem and send the same instructions to Parliamentary Counsel, the same amendment comes back from Parliamentary Counsel to all those who expressed similar concerns. If the concern is expressed identically in that a lobby group sent the same letter to a number of people—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: I am about to learn something new, am I?

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: I was surprised that you did not appear to know, so I was trying to be helpful. If you already knew, then there is some redundancy built into the Parliament, as I suspected. These amendments are reasonable. We need not be paranoid if the Greens and the Government happen to have the same amendments. I did not support Greens amendment number No. 1, but I do support these amendments.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [5.26 p.m.]: I am pleased that the Minister has moved the same amendments as the Greens. It is useful to acknowledge that these amendments are a setback for the Sartor faction in the Labor Party because they were not in the original proposal. It is also worth revisiting the history on this matter. In 1999 the second reading speech by the then Minister on the Local Government Amendment Act offered blanket protection for the transfer of employees' rights, entitlements and conditions. The protection was to last until employees negotiated a new agreement with their employer during that time. This bill replaces that protection with a no net detriment test. This will enable the general managers of councils to decide whether the new conditions and entitlements of employees are as good as their old ones.

That is getting into dangerous territory because it is a blatant gift to council management. It strips workers of any security offered by legislation and hands the power of workers' entitlements over to management, which has a bad track record in this respect. Labor's original proposal, the Sartor model, short-changed a large and important work force. Fortunately, the Sartor faction has been defeated on this one. It has yet to be defeated on others and I look forward to that. The Greens amendments, which mirror the Government amendments, restore the original proposal and protections those workers need and deserve. We look forward to co-operating with the Government on more amendments. Thank you, Minister.

Amendments agreed to.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [5.29 p.m.], by leave: I move Greens amendments Nos 4 and 5 in globo:

No. 4 Page 7, schedule 1 [4], line 20. Omit "12 months". Insert instead "3 years".

No. 5 Page 8, schedule 1 [4], line 18. Omit "12 months". Insert instead "3 years".

These amendments cover workers who have transferred to new councils. The Greens believe they should have adequate opportunities to apply for new jobs within the new council. After an amalgamation or boundary change, jobs will often arise within the bigger council that could be fulfilled by those transferred workers. In those circumstances the bill offers newly transferred workers the opportunity to apply for these jobs before any external advertisements are placed. However, this provision lasts for only 12 months. The Greens believe that it should be longer. It can take a while to bed down a merger or a big change; 12 months is quite short in that context. It can take a while for some jobs to arise. To help new workers settle into their new council, it is essential that they get the chance to apply for these jobs. The Greens are suggesting three years as a much more reasonable time frame for these provisions to apply. I urge members to consider and support the Greens amendments.

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)) [5.30 p.m.]: The Government opposes Greens amendments Nos 4 and 5. It was considered that 12 months should be long enough for the proposals to bed down and for the protection to exist. However, I have advised the union I will closely monitor that.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [5.30 p.m.]: The Coalition also does not support Greens amendments Nos 4 and 5. We believe that the effect of these amendments would be to place an unreasonable burden on the newly reconstructed councils.

Amendments negatived.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [5.31 p.m.]: I move Greens amendments No. 6:
No. 6 Page 8, schedule 1 [4]. Insert after line 35:

354I Transferred staff member not to be relocated for 3 years after transfer

A transferred staff member must not be required, within 3 years after the transfer day, to be based outside the locality in which the staff member was based immediately before the transfer day unless the staff member agrees to the change.

Some members would be aware that this morning in Yarrowlumla shire there was a mass meeting at which local government workers voiced their concerns about this bill. This amendment addresses the concerns of those workers and workers in rural and regional councils across the State. Yarrowlumla has been split in two: half is going to Yass council and half is going to Queanbeyan council. Yarrowlumla workers are worried that they may be shifted to a workplace that is a long way from home. At present the council borders two sides of the Australian Capital Territory so some workers are nearer to Yass and others are nearer to Queanbeyan. Will some workers have to travel across the Australian Capital Territory and back every day just to go to work?

Surely the bill should offer some protection from this. The Greens say that it is a basic right of workers that their boss should not force them to uproot their homes or travel long distances every day just to continue in their job. New-style individual contracts often scrap that right. Individual workplace agreements tend to make workers the pawns of management. These agreements often include clauses that state that workers should be prepared to move anywhere at any time simply at the say so of their boss. As we know, this is the style of Minister Sartor, and the deletion of this protection has his fingerprints all over it. It is unfortunate that on this provision he appears to have had his way.

No true supporter of unions, of workers rights and of the right to bargain collectively could object to the kind of protection the Greens are outlining. The Government through Premier Carr promised rural and regional council workers that they would get this protection. It was a clear promise, and now it is a broken promise. Therefore, I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say with regard to why the Government is no longer supporting this measure as outlined in the Greens amendment, which I urge members to support.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [5.33 p.m.]: I am reasonably persuaded by this amendment because I think it addresses some of the concerns that exist in the communities I represent. I advise the Committee, however, that we have had these amendments for only a short period of time within which to consider them. They were only drafted at 3.00 p.m. today and we received them shortly afterwards. I know that that is probably not the fault of honourable members, who must go through Parliamentary Counsel, but it is very difficult for us to address them in such a short time. In the break afforded by question time I was able to talk to the Minister about this amendment. I indicated to him that the Coalition was supportive of the Greens amendment. The Minister indicated that he may have some matters that which he would be putting to the Committee that may address the issue.

I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say because, frankly, newly constituted councils in country areas may bring together work forces from several geographic locations, such as neighbouring towns some distance apart. It is important that the work force, especially the transferred workers, is not forced to relocate to another work location, which may well be a neighbouring town, without agreement. Relocating workers to other localities without their agreement can have a knock-on effect in a town. For instance, the pay packet is removed. But that is only the start of it. Children are removed from schools, and the basis of the community may have already been hurt.

Another inadvertent effect is that roads are used more often by workers commuting to areas they do not normally travel to. This raises safety issues. It may well be the case that a worker will eventually relocate his or her family to avoid travelling long distances to and from work each day, but it should not have to be the case. There is a slight difference in the problem facing city and country local governments. The impact on a city worker being required to move one suburb away to work is not quite the same as the impact on a country worker who is required to travel to another township to get to work. If the Minister has an answer to that problem and he is willing to put it on the record with an obligation, the Coalition will look seriously at it. If he does not have an answer, I indicate that the Coalition will support this amendment.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [5.37 p.m.]: I seek clarification of the amendment. First, the amendment contains the words "based outside the locality". Does that mean the council locality or the street in which the person lives? Does it mean the Blue Mountains locality or western New South Wales? Second, if a council amalgamation or change means that a job is now in another town and a worker does not agree to move to that town, does that mean that the worker stays in the town where he or she lives and continues to be employed without any work to do? Is that a possibility?

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)) [5.37 p.m.]: The Government does not support this amendment. While we agree with the thrust of the comments made by all honourable members, some practical difficulties have already been alluded to by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile. First, in relation to Yass and Queanbeyan councils, no decision has yet been made to divide them. All that has happened is that a proposal has gone forward in that regard, and that must be dealt with by the Boundaries Commission. So what happens in Yass and Queanbeyan will not be known perhaps until December. I simply make that point clear.

The Premier and I agree with the points made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The Premier has given a commitment to the union that will address the issues raised by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. For example, if there is a voluntary amalgamation—some voluntary amalgamations have been proposed—in a council area that is, say, 200 kilometres long from top to bottom, and if 20 people leave one town and go to another town, the matters alluded to by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would follow necessarily.

Towns would eventually lose teachers, doctors, police and nurses. The Government is committed to ensure that does not occur. Following discussions last week I have written to the Secretary of the Federated Municipal and Shire Council Employees Union, Brian Harris, to inform him that prior to any legislative amendments, the Government is committed to ensuring that transferred regional workers are not disadvantaged by being required to be based too far from the localities in which they are based immediately before the transfer day.

I am concerned also about the matters alluded to by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The amendment does not refer to a boundary adjustment that might have added a few hundred yards to a council area, nor does it refer to a council worker having to travel a further 500 metres to work than he did before. I have discussed the matter with the union and I have given an undertaking that later in the year I will bring in an amendment—hopefully prior to any amalgamation; but if it is not before, then I will do it by proclamation—to address the difference circumstances facing town and country workers. We will work out a formula, and it may be designed having regard to a certain number of kilometres—I do not know at this stage. I have given that undertaking in writing to the union and I give it here.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [5.41 p.m.]: I ask the Minister to expand on his understanding of the words "too far". That is crucial to any understanding. I ask him to confirm clearly that he has made a commitment to bring in legislation to address this problem before any amalgamations are gazetted. I understand that a Minister's comments in connection with the passing of a bill have definite constitutional significance. Some people have difficulty believing the Government, particularly given its election promises, so the Minister will understand why I ask for that clarification.

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)) [5.42 p.m.]: The reason we have not introduced legislation at this stage is that we have yet to discuss how to do it. The union suggested the County of Cumberland, but there were some impracticalities there, including what one does with Newcastle and Wollongong. We have agreed that we will work out a reasonable distance, and I am sure the honourable member will agree with the figure we come up with. I said I would try to bring in legislation before any amalgamations were gazetted. But if for some reason there was a hold-up—and it might not be a delay caused by me; it might be because honourable members in this place do not agree with me—I will do it by proclamation.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [5.43 p.m.]: Will the Minister explain how he will do this by proclamation?

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)) [5.43 p.m.]: The same way as I would by legislation. To clarify the matter: There can be a proclamation at every boundary adjustment. That is the point at which it is done.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [5.43 p.m.]: I thank the Minister for that explanation, but I would still like to hear a little more from him on this issue. The Greens are concerned that this had not already been worked out. I presume the reason for that is a disagreement in Cabinet and, therefore, the Minister has not had time to work it out. The Minister needs to give us a time frame. It is all too vague as it is, and that is a worry given the apparent differences within the Government. Will the Minister give us a time frame to give honourable members confidence and to assist them in determining their position on the amendment? I acknowledge the incredible differences between local government areas in New South Wales, but the Government has many advisers and presumably the Government would have grappled with this matter by now. Will the Minister tell us how and when we will hear?

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)) [5.44 p.m.]: I reconfirm that I have given a commitment to the union that it agrees with and is happy about. Prior to any amalgamation or boundary changes I will attempt to bring in legislation to address this issue in a way that is suitable to us. If for some reason, which I cannot think of now, there is some delay in the introduction of that legislation—for example, if this Chamber did not agree with what I was putting up—I will address the issue by proclamation. This bill is about issues that have been dealt with for many years by proclamation. I am trying to make sure that they are fixed in legislation and cannot be changed in the future.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [5.45 p.m.]: I thank the Minister for that undertaking. I assume in making that undertaking the Minister intends to consult with the union, the communities and—dare I say it—the Opposition. The Minister nodded his head in agreement to my assumption. I appreciate that undertaking. Given that very important undertaking, we accept the Minister's word on this. It is a step in the right direction and we will be monitoring the situation. That undertaking is a further indication of policy on the run—an indication that nothing has been thought out. The Government is merely addressing concerns that have been raised, in this instance, by the Greens on behalf of the union—concerns that very much affect country areas in particular. I have been critical, but on the positive side when a Minister does something good he should be applauded. In the darkness that is about to descend on New South Wales, this commitment represents a little bit of light.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

Title agreed to.

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

Consideration resumed from 26 June.

Schedule 1 and Long Title

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [5.52 p.m.]: I move National Party amendment No. 1:

No. 1 Page 5, schedule 1 [15]. Insert after line 29:

Reduction in number of councillors—Hornsby Shire Council

(1) Hornsby Shire Council may, at any time before 31 December 2003, resolve to make an application to the Minister for approval to decrease the number of councillors who would otherwise be required to be elected at the next ordinary election from 11 to 10.

(2) Hornsby Shire Council must give not less than 21 days public notice of its proposed resolution.

(3) After passing the resolution, Hornsby Shire Council must forward to the Minister a copy of the resolution, a summary of any submissions received by it and its comments concerning those submissions.

(4) The Minister may approve the application without amendment or reject the application.
(5) If the Minister approves the application, the number of councillors of the Hornsby Shire Council is reduced to 10 with effect on and from the day appointed for the next ordinary election of councillors after the application is approved.

(6) This clause has effect despite sections 16 and 224.

Hornsby Shire Council seeks an amendment of the bill to allow the council to apply to the Minister for a reduction in the number of councillors prior to the local government ordinary elections without the need for a constitutional referendum. I make clear that the amendment is specifically limited to Hornsby Shire Council. By way of background: Hornsby council currently has nine councilors, and at the 1999 ordinary elections for the council it presented a constitutional referendum to its selectors seeking that from the next scheduled ordinary elections, in September 2003, council numbers would increase from 9 to 11. That constitutional referendum was successful and Hornsby is bound by the result unless this bill is amended. Following a period of public consultation Hornsby now seeks to settle its council numbers at 10, including a popularly elected mayor. Without this amendment Hornsby would be unable to achieve its intention until ordinary elections in 2008 following the holding of yet another constitutional referendum at significant cost to its residents and ratepayers. I commend the amendment to the Chamber. It is supported by Hornsby council and, I understand, the community.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [5.55 p.m.]: The Greens support the amendment. The residents and ratepayers of Hornsby have had an opportunity to express their opinion on the makeup of the council. When there is a clear indication of the feeling of the electorate we should be bound by it and should do everything to facilitate its passing into law. The deferral of the introduction of these changes to Hornsby council until March 2008 would effectively frustrate the will of the electors of the Hornsby shire. So in the interest of making sure that that public expression of opinion is brought into effect the Greens support the amendment.

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)) [5.55 p.m.]: The Government does not oppose the amendment.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [5.55 p.m.]: The Australian Democrats support the amendment as it is clearly in accord with the will of the people, and the State ought to be governed in accord with the will of the people.

Amendment agreed to.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [5.56 p.m.], by leave: I move Christian Democratic Party amendments Nos 1 and 2 in globo:

No. 1 Pages 5 and 6, schedule 1 [15], line 30 on page 5 to line 14 on page 6. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 2 Long title, page 1. Omit "to facilitate a decrease in the number of councillors of a council;".

The bill allows a council, at any time before 31 December 2003, to apply to the Minister for Local Government for approval to decrease the number of councillors in accordance with the limits under section 224 of the Local Government Act. The second amendment is consequential to passage of the first, requiring a change in the long title. I have had many phone calls and emails, as other members have, on this issue. One from Councillor Charles Matthews of Randwick City Council sums it up. He stated:

As a councillor on Randwick City Council for the past 26 years I wish to voice my opposition to the provisions of the Local Government Elections Bill, which has reached its first reading in the Legislative Council.

Specifically, I oppose the amendments which allow the Minister for Local Government to approve a reduction in the number of councillors if the Council publicly exhibits a proposal for 21 days and submits a resolution to the Minister by 31 December 2003, together with public submissions received and considered.

This process avoids the need for a proper constitutional referendum to be held to effect the reduction in the number of councillors. I do not consider this to be an appropriate course of action as councillors not aligned with the major political parties may encounter difficulties in being elected or re-elected.

I do not think this assists in the democratic process.

I seek your personal support in voting against this aspect of the bill.

We received similar emails from other council members who are Independents or members of minor parties. This may not be the intention when the Government proposed it—

The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: May not?

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: May not. The councillors fear that it could lead to the elimination of those Independent or minor party representatives on local councils. It is for those reasons I have moved the two amendments.

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)) [5.59 p.m.]: The Government supports the amendments. I understand that this provision has caused some concern amongst honourable members and I would like to clarify the Government's position on the matter. The intent of the provision was to allow councils to apply to the Minister before 31 December 2003 for a reduction in the number of councillors rather than reduce council numbers through a constitutional referendum.

This proposal would have saved councils the cost of holding a referendum. In addition, such referendums are usually held in conjunction with local government elections to minimise costs, and the reduction in the councillor numbers that would result from a referendum held in that round of local government elections would not take effect until the following elections. This proposal was intended to assist councils that cannot bear of the cost of a referendum. Any proposal of the Minister to reduce councillor numbers required a resolution of councils and a 21-day public exhibition before being sent to the Minister. It is important for honourable members to realise that simply because councils apply does not mean their applications will be automatically accepted. However, I understand that some honourable members are still concerned about these provisions. To allay their fears and any concerns that may exist within the local government sector, the Government will support these amendments.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [6.01 p.m.]: The Greens are delighted that the amendment moved by the Christian Democrats is in identical terms to that moved by the Greens, and that apparently the Government supports it. It is a considerable victory for local democracy because, regardless of the Minister's or the Government's stated intentions, the enactment of the provision would have allowed a majority on any council to apply to reduce its numbers. Inevitably the victims of such a move would have been the minority councillors, who are usually Independents.

Requiring a 21-day public exhibition during which comments can be made before applying for ministerial approval pays lip service to listening to the community and taking its concerns into account. As any council will tell honourable members, it is perfectly within the Minister's power to ignore a public submission. He must simply receive and formally acknowledge them; he certainly does not have to be persuaded by them. The deletion of this clause goes a long way to ensuring that majorities on councils will not abuse their powers and set in train a series of motions to ensure that one party holds all the power. The Greens are delighted that the Government, the Christian Democrats, and the Greens are in agreement on this provision.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [6.03 p.m.]: I make it unanimous: the Opposition also supports this amendment. This clause was a serious concern. It was stated in the second reading debate that it was another sneaky Labor ploy to reinforce its numbers in local government.

[Interruption]

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: It is not my idea to upset them. It is the amendment of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile that is upsetting them more than anything else. Given that exactly the same amendment was lodged by the Greens, I am surprised that we are debating it as a Christian Democratic Party amendment. It is a vexed situation for the Clerk and the Chairman. The Greens amendment was received first, and the protocol is that it be dealt with first. The amendment of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile-

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: They agreed for me to move it.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The amendment was received later. The Clerk tells me that the Greens then redrafted their amendment, which technically made The amendment of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile is the oldest. The Greens allowed him to move his amendment, which means that the Government has supported the Greens amendment, as has the Opposition.

Amendments agreed to.

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)) [6.05 p.m.]: I move Government amendment No. 2:

No. 2 Page 6, schedule 1 [15]. Insert after line 14:

Amalgamation of areas

Nothing in this Part affects Division 2C of Part 1 of Chapter 9.

This amendment clarifies that the Minister is still able to postpone the election requirements of the Act in relation to two or more councils affected by an amalgamation proposal. The amendment simply makes it clear that the provision stands despite changes to any other electoral matters proposed in the bill. No councils are affected.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [6.06 p.m.]: Will the passage of this amendment in any way rule out the passage of the Greens amendment on sheet C-066C, which also applies to the operation of division 2A of part 1 of chapter 9 of the Act? The purpose of that amendment is to suspend the operation of that division of the Act.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [6.06 p.m.]: It is our understanding that this clarifies the position of the amendment of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile in conjunction with the amendment I moved about Hornsby council to ensure that there are no contradictions.

The Hon. Tony Kelly: That is my understanding.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: That being the case, the Opposition supports it.

Amendment agreed to.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [6.09 p.m.]: I will not move my amendment No. 5. I move Greens amendment No. 1:

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

No. 1 Page 6, schedule 1 [5]. Insert after line 14:

Application of Division 2A, Part 1, Chapter 9

Division 2A of Part 1 of Chapter 9 ceases to operate between the date of assent to the Local Government Amendment (Elections) Act 2003 and the date of the ordinary election to be held in 2004.

The purpose of this amendment is to suspend the operation of division 2A, which provides for the amalgamation of council areas and the alteration of council boundaries, until the elections in March 2004 have been conducted. I am sure that all members of this House are conscious that the non-articulated agenda of what is embodied in the bill—

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: The hidden agenda.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: The hidden agenda—is the amalgamation of councils. Obviously, this is a matter of great concern. For example, as we have seen with the changes to the Council of the City of Sydney brought about by the operation of the Boundaries Commission—which does not amount to a formal amalgamation but merely to an adjustment of boundaries—one council can make an enormous gain of population and assets, to the considerable detriment of other affected councils. If unsupported and unpopular amalgamations or boundary adjustments were to proceed, some councils would be left in the unviable situation of being stripped of a rate base and council assets and be unable to function. Therefore, that council would be forced into a position of having to seek amalgamation, supposedly voluntarily but in fact under duress.

The Greens believe that councils should amalgamate only after a decision by their ratepayers. What better opportunity for that decision to be made than in conjunction with the March 2004 election? It is extraordinarily important that these changes, if they are to go through, be done in the full knowledge of the ratepayers. After all, the ratepayers will have to pick up the tab; they pay the rates, taxes and charges that councils impose.

It is highly likely that local government elections will take place in March 2004. That gives the Government and affected councils, those that support amalgamations, ample opportunity to argue the case to their ratepayers. After all, the Government has absolutely no mandate in this area. The alteration of the date of the local government elections was not raised prior to the March State election, and presumably any boundary changes that go through prior to the March 2004 council elections will not be sanctioned by the electorate.

If we have any concept of democracy and community involvement in the running of councils, it is imperative that ratepayers have the final say. I anticipate that at the March 2004 elections, parties, groups or individuals who strongly support council amalgamations will argue their case, as will parties, groups or individuals who oppose them. Depending upon the outcome of those elections, it will be up to councils to apply, or otherwise, for boundary changes. This is a perfectly rational decision. It is inherently democratic, and it seeks the opinion of the electorate rather than foisting a decision upon the electorate.

It is interesting that section 210 of the Local Government Act, which provides for changes to ward boundaries and the abolition of wards, stipulates that if changes within a local council are considered to be significant, a referendum must be held. Indeed, it requires that nothing be done until the opinion of the voters and the affected residents has been obtained. Therefore, it is extraordinary to suggest that affected residents should not have a say—not just on what happens within a particular council area, but on whether an entire council should disappear, whether it should be dismembered, whether it should be, in effect, wiped off the face of the earth and incorporated into another council area.

In my opinion, deferring such a momentous decision for nine months would not cause a major delay. It would certainly allow the community, who have expressed extraordinary unease and unhappiness with what the Government is proposing, to have a say. I wish to read to members one of the many letters and emails my office has received about what is proposed in the Hume shire, which faces the very unwilling prospect of being absorbed by Albury Council. Mrs E. Crawford of Albury wrote:

I am most vehemently opposed to, and must protest against, the proposed extension of the boundary between the City of Albury and the Shire of Hume. This would seem to be a forced amalgamation even though at the last State Election there was the promise of no forced amalgamations.

There is a fundamental difference between the two councils—Albury being urban and Hume being rural. If the takeover were to go ahead—

I think the Minister suggested that it might all be home and hosed and ready to go in November or December this year—

the population of the rural area, being significantly less than the urban population would be virtually disenfranchised.

The ratepayers of Hume when recently polled voted against any amalgamation with Albury. It would seem that the democratic rights of the voters of Hume are to be ignored.

It is a well-known fact that the Shire of Hume is financially sound. Could it be that the City of Albury is looking to boost its coffers with this proposed takeover?

One of the Ten Commandments is not to covet. It would seem that the Council of the City of Albury is doing just that in regard to its push for the change of boundary.

That letter is typical of the sentiments expressed in the many letters, emails and telephone calls my office has received. The Greens do not argue for one minute that there is no reason for some amalgamations. It could well be that they are warranted. But if they are warranted, and if they are defensible, and it can be shown that they will result in cost savings, the Government should try to persuade residents of the virtues of what it proposes, and allow residents to vote on the issue.

The crucial feature about local government is that councillors are closely attuned to the people they represent. They live, work and mix with their constituents every day. If there are councillors who are capable of arguing the case one way or another, residents should be given the opportunity to listen to them and vote accordingly, rather than being deprived of that opportunity because the decision has been made in advance of the election. Essentially, we are asking for transparency. If the Government is not afraid of what it is proposing, it should be prepared to argue its case and justify its actions. If it is not prepared to do so, it does not deserve to be the Government—but that is another matter.

Numerous rumours and allegations are going around that very senior staff in the Minister's office are phoning Labor mayors and councillors and pressuring them to apply to the Minister for boundary adjustments. Preselection is at stake for those people when they are subject to such undue pressure.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Are they telling you they want Frank Sartor as well?

Ms SYLVIA HALE: I think there is a common sentiment that people do not want Frank Sartor. What Labor mayors and councillors want is preselection for the forthcoming council elections. If they fail to comply with what is being asked of them, they could find themselves missing from the ticket for the council elections. If amalgamation is such a good idea, one that will reap such enormous financial benefits for residents, then councillors, mayors and the Minister should not be afraid to argue the merits of the case. As I said, everybody is aware of the great unease at the prospect of forced amalgamations. The upshot of the Greens amendment is to merely suspend, until after the March elections, the process whereby boundary amalgamations and changes can be set in train, to allow a proper, open and transparent community debate on whether amalgamations and boundary changes should occur, rather than these ad hoc, hasty, ill-considered private agreements being forced upon them.

The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: They have plenty of time to put their case.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: Indeed they have. They have nine months. As the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans points out, they have plenty of time to put their case, plenty of time to persuade the community, and plenty of time to be democratic and to appear to be democratic. Many things need to be discussed about local government, not the least of which is the whole question of one vote one value. Obviously, the vastly different sizes of councils mean that the vote of a resident in one area may have very significantly different weight to the vote of a resident in another area. As the number of ratepayers can vary from less than 5,000 in one council area to more than 200,000 in another, the notion of one vote one value goes out the door.

These are some of the very significant questions that need to be dealt with, and they should be dealt with by a proper inquiry rather than by these forced amalgamations that basically ignore all the significant issues that should be considered. The Greens urge the Chamber to support the amendment.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [6.22 p.m.]: I loved the rhetoric, I just loved it. I agree with just about every word of it.

The Hon. Tony Burke: That's in Hansard now.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: That is in Hansard and I am happy for it to be in Hansard. When we initially looked at the amendment and the reasoning given for it, I was attracted to support it. However, when I carefully read the amendment I saw that, unfortunately, it goes beyond the rhetoric that I just agreed with. For instance, because the rhetoric is so definitive, it removes any boundary changes at all in that period.

Honourable members may remember that about a week ago I spoke on the plight of Chuck Cresswell in Broken Hill, and I asked the Minister to reconsider his problem. I have not heard back from him yet. I hope that by raising Chuck's matter again tonight I might at least get some reaction. I believe it is important to note that if I get a favourable result on the Chuck Cresswell situation, if this amendment is passed, we would not be able to act on it. To my mind, that is going beyond where we want to go.

The other ramification of this amendment is that it would rule out voluntary amalgamations. In the lower House the Opposition has introduced the Local Government (No Forced Amalgamations) Bill, which picks up the Government's election policy but does not go beyond it, and I will have conduct of that bill in this House. Although I absolutely support keeping this Government to its election promises, this amendment goes beyond what it promised. Certainly, Ms Sylvia Hale's comments on the amendment were laudable and, as the Hon. Tony Burke interjected, I said that I agreed with virtually every word of it. And why not? What she said was totally appropriate. But the problem is that the amendment will not allow any boundary changes.

Unfortunately, if the Opposition does not support the amendment, the Government can proceed with its forced amalgamations. I indicate once again that my conscience is appeased by the fact that an Opposition bill has been introduced into the lower House. That bill will do what the Government said it wanted to do without going the extra step and doing things that none of us has promised we would do, which would have unforeseen ramifications.

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)) [6.25 p.m.]: The Government does not support this amendment, to a large degree for the same reasons put forward by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. If this amendment is passed, councils will be robbed of the opportunity to make community-driven structural reforms. Many communities have worked very hard to support greater efficiency in local government. If this amendment is passed, the reform will come to a grinding halt, and all the good work that councils and their communities are doing will be in vain.

I am led to believe by many councils that there will be a number of voluntary changes—not necessarily all amalgamations; some will be boundary changes. I believe that the Greens would support many of the boundary changes. The councils are trying to realign their boundaries to suit catchment areas. I did read the adjournment speech of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition the other night about the Cresswells.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: It was a marvellous speech.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: All his contributions are very good. I have asked my department to give me a report on that specific case. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is right: this amendment would prevent any rectification of the Cresswell's problem.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [6.27 p.m.]: I have been assured by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that the Opposition bill will come into this House this week and presumably will be debated after the winter break. However, I point out that the Greens amendment merely suspends the process until March 2004. After that, if councils wish to amalgamate voluntarily, they can proceed to do so by applying to the Minister, and the Minister can then follow the procedures that require taking a poll and referring the matter to the Boundaries Commission. It does not stop the process dead in its tracks, it merely suspends activity for the critical nine months. For that reason, given the fundamental principle that is at stake in this bill, namely, the right of the electorate to participate in decisions about amalgamations or boundary changes, delaying it for nine months would be a small sacrifice in favour of upholding the important principle of consulting the electorate and being bound by its decision.

In the case of genuinely voluntary amalgamations one presumes that all affected councils would be in agreement. If there is a referendum and all parties argue very strongly in favour of an amalgamation, particularly in circumstances involving very small councils where there may be very obvious financial benefits to the residents, I am sure the parties would not be deaf to the proposals. I am not aware of the specific instance that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to. There is no reason to not pass the amendment because it will merely delay the amalgamation or boundary change process until after March 2004.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [6.30 p.m.]: I am not sure whether this issue has been raised, and, if not, it should have been. I ask whether there will be any council amalgamations before the bill is dealt with by the Parliament. It is my understanding from widespread consultation and a public announcement that none of the amalgamations will be through before December, which means that the bill will be addressed before Parliament rises. That is a proper question that should have been raised, and if it was not, I am giving the answer anyway.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [6.31 p.m.]: Given the significance of the bill proposed by the Opposition and that it is a private member's bill, there is no guarantee that it will be dealt with. Therefore, I wonder whether the Minister would agree to give an undertaking to facilitate the bill being called on prior to December 2003.

The Hon. Tony Kelly: It is private members' business.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: Presumably, the Government has control of the order of business in this Chamber.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [6.31 p.m.]: The Minister should say whether he will not do that so we all know exactly where we stand.

The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: There is Buckley's chance of it appearing.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [6.32 p.m.]: In the absence of the Minister's undertaking—and as the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans said, there is Buckley's chance of it appearing—I suggest it is highly desirable to go with the amendment before the Committee rather than be reliant upon the extraordinary illusory undertakings or non-undertakings of the Minister.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [6.32 p.m.]: I indicate to the honourable member that I have been informed by my Whip that given there is virtually nothing on the Opposition side in the order of precedence, this bill will move into the order of precedence. Therefore, despite a lack of confirmation from the Minister, the bill will be discussed this term.

The Hon. Tony Kelly: That is what I said. It is private members' business.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [6.33 p.m.]: The Committee is considering the Local Government Amendment (Elections) Bill, which focuses on the election date but with a background that allows boundary changes and amalgamations. Prior to this bill the Chamber debated the Local Government (Employment Protection) Bill, which specifically deals with reconstitutional amalgamation of local government areas. By preventing that, the amendment is against the aims and objects of the two bills.

The Hon. Tony Kelly: It is outside the leave of the bill.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I make the point that it is outside the leave of the bill.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [6.33 p.m.]: The amendment postpones matters for nine months. Presumably, if a referendum in March 2004 favoured amalgamation of certain councils, it might be necessary to hold new elections in those council areas. However, that would not involve many council areas, so the holding of a referendum would not be unreasonable. The Government has made it extremely difficult for honourable members to vote against the bill because of the comment that the State Electoral Office is not now capable of holding an election in September. The Government has almost held a gun to the head of Parliament, making it difficult for members to vote against the bill. Basically, it is blackmail by the Government to create an administrative fiat on the assumption that it will be passed and Parliament will bow to that fact.

Any delay caused by the necessity of holding two elections would be entirely the fault of the Government, and it knows that. The Opposition has said that the bill will fossilise until 2008 but that is not necessarily so. Given the stakes, there must be some other way to deal with the difficulties experienced by the gentleman in Broken Hill other than giving the Government its way entirely on council amalgamations, which is the practical consequence. The Australian Democrats are all for looking after individuals but, by the same token, the administrative inconvenience to this gentleman surely can be addressed without changing the rules for the whole State. The Government should not be anecdotal but seek to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number. That appears to be the reason for the non-support of the amendment, which is very disappointing.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (The Hon. Kayee Griffin): Order! Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile contends that the amendment is outside the leave of the bill, which seeks to amend the Local Government Act 1993 with respect to the ordinary election of councillors and other persons to civic office, to facilitate a decrease in the number of councillors of a council, and for other purposes, and would have the effect of making division 2A, part 1, chapter 9 of the Act inoperable. Accordingly, I rule the amendment out of order.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

Title agreed to.

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

[The Deputy-President (The Hon. Tony Burke) left the chair at 6.44 p.m. The House resumed at 8.15 p.m.]

The Clerk Assistant tabled, in accordance with the resolution of the House of Thursday 29 May 2003, documents relating to Dr Shailendra Sinha received today from the Director-General of the Premier's Department and referred to in paragraph 1 of the resolution of the House, together with an indexed list of documents.

The Clerk Assistant also tabled a letter from the Director-General of the Premier's Department concerning difficulties in relation to the production of the documents together with advice from the Crown Solicitor's office.

The Clerk Assistant advised the House that, according to the resolution, the documents were available only to members of the Legislative Council and those members of the Legislative Assembly appointed to serve on the parliamentary joint Committee on the Health Care Complaints Commission.

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. JOHN RYAN [8.16 p.m.]: The Opposition does not oppose the Commission for Children and Young People Amendment (Child Death Review Team) Bill. We recognise that the bulk of the issues encompassed by the legislation have been published in an earlier report by a team consisting of two distinguished individuals in New South Wales: the Children's Commissioner, Ms Gillian Calvert, and Dr John Yu from the University of New South Wales. Obviously, the community and the Parliament are wise to place an enormous amount of faith in their judgment. They have carried out the statutory review of the Child Death Review Team, and made a number of recommendations for its operation in the future. By and large, the Opposition does not have any reservations about accepting their recommendations.

However, the Opposition has a couple of concerns. Given the history of the Child Death Review Team and the general history of reviewing child deaths, it is necessary for me to make a few comments about our hopes for the future in terms of the operation of the legislation. The Child Death Review Team, which was established in 1995, has provided an important window of scrutiny on the operations of a number of government instrumentalities, most importantly the Department of Community Services. It has reported to the Parliament, the Government and the community at large on the effectiveness of the measures that we all rely on to prevent child deaths from occurring, particularly when they arise as a result of abuse, mistreatment or societal issues. Indeed, one report has been done on deaths on driveways, for example. Other fruitful areas of research might include deaths within specific communities and young people who die in particular types of families, for example, Aborigines. Sadly, we all know that the death rate in Aboriginal families is much higher than for the rest of the community.

The largest decision we have faced has already been taken, that is, to move the review of individual incidence of death from the Child Death Review Team to the Ombudsman's office. That decision was taken at the end of last year, and arrangements are already under way to resource the Ombudsman's Office to take over that specific function. The intent is for the Child Death Review Team to continue to carry out research—and, I guess, advocacy—about child deaths, maintain the register of statistics and report those issues regularly to the people and perhaps the Minister through the Parliament. It has also been decided to move the legislation relating to the Child Death Review Team from where it currently resides, in the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act, to reflect the fact that the Child Death Review Team will be largely chaired and resourced by the Children's Commissioner, and to transfer it to the Children and Young People Act 1998. The Opposition would welcome clarification of that.

Except for one legendary event, the Opposition has largely respected the independence with which the Child Death Review Team has reported. Our concern relates to the 1999-2000 report, which deleted in its statistics references to children who had become known to the Department of Community Services. That caused great controversy, as is well documented in the media clippings and Hansard. That issue was pursued by my predecessor as shadow Minister for Community Services, the member for Wakehurst in another place. I largely agree with his concerns. I note that the reference to "known to DOCS" has returned to subsequent reports of the Child Death Review Team, although the definition has been slightly altered. Nevertheless, we get important feedback about how many deaths of children have occurred after those children have come to the notice of public authorities. The public should know about that important matter. The thought that ministerial influence might have been exerted on the Child Death Review Team, as it formerly operated, not to report on that issue would have been a matter of enormous concern had it continued.

How this new regime will work rests largely on the role of the Ombudsman to review individual deaths. The Opposition is concerned that giving the Ombudsman this responsibility and making sure that except in special circumstances the Child Death Review Team would not have that review function cuts off the Child Death Review Team from an important area of information that has energised some of its reports in the past. The mere analysis of statistics may not necessarily provide the committee with the information it needs to determine what issues require its additional research and work, given that it is not involved in the normal day-to-day review that is carried out by the Ombudsman's office.

The Opposition is also concerned that the Ombudsman's office has not been without blemish in its willingness to review important issues associated with child deaths. In this new regime the Ombudsman becomes a key player in the review of child deaths. I do not want to make this point so sharply that I give people the impression that I do not have confidence in the Ombudsman—far from it. I recognise that the Ombudsman is an independent office, not subject to ministerial direction. I have also taken the trouble to investigate the level of resources the Ombudsman will have to carry out its new function. They appear to be better than those previously made available to the Child Death Review Team.

I understand that the Ombudsman's office will have five officers dedicated to that function and that the deaths of children with a disability while in care fall within the ambit of the complaints and monitoring legislation. They have better resources than the old Child Death Review Team had available to it, notwithstanding that as it was chaired by the Children's Commissioner it was largely resourced by the Children's Commission. We acknowledge that in some respects the Ombudsman's powers to require information from individual government departments are better and more clearly defined than the powers of the Child Death Review Team. That is an improvement. However, the Child Death Review Team reported in its 2001 annual report on the specific instance of Jessica Gallagher, who was referred to by the nom de plume Ainsley. The report stated:

Ainsley, a 4 year old girl, and an only child, died from multiple injuries. The mother's boyfriend was tried for murder but found not guilty by reason of mental illness.

Ainsley's mother was 31 years old. She met her boyfriend several months before Ainsley's death and within 2 to 3 weeks, he had moved into the family home. Her mother stated that she was lonely when she met him. The girl's father had died of cancer.

The boyfriend suffered from a mental illness and had absconded from a mental health facility [while receiving treatment] before moving into the family home. He was abusive towards Ainsley and her mother. He had a criminal history that included convictions for theft and property offences.

Police attended the home to investigate a possible domestic disturbance. During their investigation, police found Ainsley lying on a double bed in the main bedroom. She was clothed but had burns to most of her body and gaffer tape around her neck. She was taken to a local hospital where she was pronounced dead on arrival.

The Child Death Review Team further reported that:

Members of Ainsley's extended family had reported their concerns about her safety and well-being to DoCS on five different occasions in the 4 to 6 weeks prior to her death. DoCS failed to investigate the family's reports and failed to visit the home.

Police and mental health professionals visited the family home three days before her death—but the child was not seen and the perpetrator was deemed to be not in need of treatment. No at risk of harm reports had been made by professionals.

My purpose in reading that extended portion of chapter 7 of the Child Death Review Team's 2001 report is not to embarrass individual government departments but to illustrate how this specific death was one example of a multiple, systemic failing on the part of a number of government departments—for example, the Department of Health in failing to follow up on this individual's treatment when he escaped from its facility, as well as the police, the Department of Community Services and other government agencies. Any person reading this report would understand the vital need for an independent agency like the Child Death Review Team to report in these frank and albeit disturbing terms about an individual child death. The importance of its work is well illustrated in that case. It reported:

The case study … illustrates problems with interagency cooperation [in] reporting children at risk of harm to DoCS, notably in the exchange of information and obligations to report child protection concerns, in particular police,

health and mental health professionals. In this case DoCS minimised concerns raised by family members and neighbours and failed to conduct a full assessment of the risk factors. The child protection system appeared to be less responsive over Christmas when permanent staff went on annual leave. DoCS did not have a full understanding of this child's circumstances until after her death.

There is no doubt from the report of the Child Death Review Team that there were many valuable and disturbing lessons to be learnt by a whole variety of government departments. The Opposition refers to this matter to highlight the necessity of continuing to have fearless and frank reporting to the community about the failure of government services and systems, because without it children's lives are literally at risk. After the child's family reported the circumstances of this death to the Ombudsman's office the office replied in a letter dated 13 August 2001 stating:

Following lengthy discussion with senior staff and the Assistant Ombudsman it has been decided that the concerns raised in all these complaints will be used as the basis for ongoing inquiries with the Department.

In the circumstances I do not propose to take any further action in relation to your specific complaint. However I can assure you that we will be pursuing, with the Department of Community Services, the systemic problems raised by this case.

It was signed by an investigation officer for the New South Wales Ombudsman. Enormous distress was caused to the family to receive a letter in these terms. They found it particularly insensitive on an issue that was important to them about an individual they cared about very much. They got a cold, hard, three-paragraph letter from the Ombudsman giving them very little detail as to the reasons for the Ombudsman's decision for not taking the matter further. As subsequent events proved—and as the Child Death Review Team demonstrated—there was a need to take this matter further and report on it further, and the Ombudsman in this circumstance missed the opportunity to do so.

We are concerned that the Ombudsman has a particular approach to dealing with government departments that from time to time causes him not to be as rigorous as perhaps is the tradition with the Child Death Review Team. It is a bit difficult to explain but the Ombudsman has an emphasis on conflict resolution, and often if the parties to the complaint are satisfied that his review is satisfactory, that tends to result in the investigation not being taken further. That might seem reasonable. However, as was demonstrated in this case, sometimes there is a need for a watchdog to stand aside from just the mere resolution of the complaint and to participate in a more rigorous manner, and when conducting inquiries to be a bit more sceptical than the Ombudsman sometimes is inclined to be.

Perhaps another way in which I can illustrate this—and I mean only to illustrate the matter—is to examine an issue of some controversy relating to the Inspector General of Corrective Services. The Ombudsman has argued that he reviews individual complaints from inmates and has reported that he receives around 4,000 of them each year. But the Ombudsman's annual report shows that he has investigated only 3 of the 4,000 complaints that he receives. And the reason that he has not taken those inquiries further is that the issues were dealt with by conflict resolution and they were deemed to be resolved. There can be a wide variety of reasons for these matters being resolved. Sometimes it can be that one of the parties simply gives up complaining because he or she becomes tired of the battle of taking on a government department. Sometimes it is necessary for an independent scrutineer such as the Child Death Review Team to step outside that approach of conflict resolution and to investigate the matters further, fearlessly and without favour to any of the parties. It can sometimes be that the parties both have issues they might want to hide. They have conflicts of interest with regard to a child death, and sometimes it is necessary, given that the victim is a child, for the watchdog agency to take the view of the child independently of the child's family or the agencies that may have had some association with the child prior to its death.

The Opposition wants to make sure that the circumstances that occurred in regard to the Gallacher matter—and a number of others that I will not detail that the Ombudsman declined to investigate and that were later subject to detailed comment from the Child Death Review Team—do not recur because of the culture that operates within the Ombudsman's office, where there is more focus on dealing with administrative issues and where government departments are afforded more trust than they deserve. The bill provides that the Minister will have a say in the research that the Child Death Review Team conducts. That is not necessarily inappropriate. In some respects the text of the bill is an advance on the provisions of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act in that the text of the Act essentially suggested that it was up to the Minister to invite the Child Death Review Team to investigate an incident, whereas the operation of the Child Death Review Team has been, on finding an issue of concern, to request support from the Minister to carry out the investigation.

The bill reflects that mode of operation as appropriate. It is likely that the impetus to review a matter is more likely to come from the Child Death Review Team than it is from the political process. If I may be independent about these things, governments rarely if ever want someone to inquire into something unless they know the outcome of the inquiry. If it were entirely up to the political process, the Minister of the day—and I freely concede, even if I were that Minister—would be inclined to want to make sure that the Child Death Review Team had plenty to do other than look at the failings of the Minister's administration. So the impetus for carrying out research comes from the Child Death Review Team itself. Importantly, the Child Death Review Team will have the opportunity to report to the Parliament independently if any of its requests for research are declined by a Minister. This means that if the team raises something of concern, it is highly unlikely that the Minister will not agree unless the Minister is prepared and well equipped for the obvious political battle that will ensue from a claim that an attempt is being made to gag the Child Death Review Team.

I suppose it is also possible, if the Minister wanted to be proactive, to make sure that the Child Death Review Team has so much work to do, spirited by its own effort for research, that it never gets around to suggesting other things. I cannot think of any specific way to sort out that problem. It will be left to the diligence of the members of the Child Death Review Team to make sure that the problem does not occur. The bill relaxes some of the confidentiality provisions of the present Act. In the now well-known Folbigg case the Child Death Review Team was aware of a pattern of behaviour by a particular family and would have liked to have reported it to the police, possibly resulting in saving the life of the victim. It was reluctant to do so because it felt that it was constrained by the confidentiality clauses. The Government has agreed to relax the level of confidentiality to make sure that relevant reports can be made to government authorities such as the Department of Community Services, NSW Police and the Coroner. That is appropriate and we support it. I referred to comments made by my predecessor as Opposition spokesman on this portfolio area relating to the issue of confidentiality as it relates to the Child Death Review Team. Those comments have some weight. Mr Hazzard said:

The argument therefore that the Child Death Review Team needs to operate effectively in a protected cocoon like structure away from public scrutiny in the Coalition's view is no longer sustainable.

We would prefer to see a prima facie right for families to be able to access information which has been accessed by the Child Death Review Team. Equally DoCS officers affected by decisions of the Child Death Review Team should also arguably have FOI rights.

Like the Government, the Coalition's primary concern is for the families involved in these incidents. It fully understands and supports the need to keep individuals' private details confidential, particularly from media scrutiny. Given that the team will now take on the more discreet research function, the confidentiality requirements might be relaxed further to allow people to delve deeper into its operations. I readily concede that the Committee on Children and Young People scrutinises the Children's Commissioner, but I am not sure whether it can scrutinise her role in convening the review team. However, this might provide a start.

As I said, I do not wish to quibble about the legislation. I am simply asking a question for the future. I note the opportunity to review the Act. Community groups are concerned that the confidentiality requirements might constrain review team members from making legitimate comments in public debate. They do not support the idea of team members revealing the private details of individual families, but a new level of scrutiny will apply to their public comments about general child protection issues. They are concerned that to some extent review team members would be subject to an unnecessary code of silence. I readily concede that no-one has been able to illustrate how that might constrain a team member. However, if that issue needed to be addressed, the Coalition would be flexible in allowing some level of relaxation. These issues are largely related to ensuring that the Ombudsman's office is rigorous and frank in its reports of investigations. Notwithstanding them and not wanting to hinder the ongoing and productive work done by the review team, the Opposition wishes it well with its new legislation. The Opposition will not oppose the bill, nor will it suggest any amendments. Honourable members on this side of the Chamber look forward to the review team working well and serving the community well as it has done in the past.

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Youth) [8.45 p.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contributions to this debate. As they have noted, the Child Death Review Team has made a significant contribution to reducing the deaths of children and young people in New South Wales and will continue to do so under this legislation. Individuals and organisations consulted as part of this review expressed support for the team and appreciation of its work. The team has unique access to information and the expertise to undertake high-quality research that can prevent the deaths of children.

I note that the Hon. Sylvia Hale, the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans and the Hon. John Ryan referred to the bill's proposed confidentiality provisions. The report of the review specifically and thoroughly considered confidentiality issues. The team consulted widely in forming its views and recommendations, and the bill enacts those recommendations without amendment. Without the safeguards set out in the bill, frank and critical discussions concerning information about child deaths could be compromised. To arrive at sound recommendations that aim to prevent and reduce child deaths, team members need to be able to exchange frank views that are not necessarily a reflection of the body that employs them, whether it be a public or private institution. Confidentiality provides an environment in which those exchanges can take place.

The assumption that confidentiality somehow prevents the team from fulfilling its function of reviewing deaths in an independent manner is wrong. Honourable members can examine past review team reports to see that it is incorrect. The review team's reports consistently criticise agencies' performances and it annually reviews the extent to which previous recommendations have been implemented. At the same time, as honourable members have pointed out, the bill provides for the convenor to report relevant matters to NSW Police, the Department of Community Services, the Coroner and the Ombudsman if the information may assist them in fulfilling their functions. As recommended by the review, the confidentiality provisions in this bill strike a sensible balance between protecting the team's independence and the safety of other children in a family that may be at risk.

An enhanced research function will mean that the team is in a stronger position to make informed recommendations to the government of the day. There are three reasons for broadening the team's research function. First, the team will be able to adopt a population-based focus and improve the safety and wellbeing of all children in New South Wales. Secondly, it will allow for a fuller examination of children's lives and the reasons they die not solely from the point of view of their relationship with the service systems that exist for them and their families. Thirdly, it will allow the team to identify other risk factors which are of serious concern and which may be prevented by the development of responsive strategies.

I appreciate that the Opposition has indicated it will not oppose this bill. Nonetheless, it is important to point out that in the specific case referred to by the Hon. John Ryan—I will not go into great detail because that matter is the subject of a coronial inquiry—when the Ombudsman responded the team did not have the specific role that it now has as a result of community services legislation amendments. The Ombudsman is now responsible for reviewing deaths of vulnerable children and will report on that function as the review team has in the past. I have no doubt that the Ombudsman will be fearless and frank as he or she undertakes that role. As previously outlined, the Government believes this role sits more appropriately with a watchdog such as the Ombudsman's office, given its monitoring and investigation powers and its existing function of oversighting child protection teams. I am advised that the commission has been actively assisting the Ombudsman's office to establish procedures and review methods.

Various approaches are taken to reviewing child deaths throughout Australia. New South Wales is well placed as one of only two jurisdictions—the other being Victoria—to have a body whose specific function is to inquire into the deaths of young children. However, the Australian Capital Territory and Western Australian governments are investigating the possibility of establishing child death review systems. There is no systematic and independent review of child deaths in any of the other jurisdictions. The improvements included in this bill will ensure that New South Wales continues to lead the way in this important area. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

Debate resumed from 25 June.

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE [8.49 p.m.]: The Police Powers (Drug Detection in Border Areas Trial) Bill has been introduced by the Government as a means of dealing with some aspects of the illegal drug trade epidemic, from which New South Wales continues to suffer. I lead for the Opposition and make it clear at the outset that the Coalition does not oppose the bill. We believe that it is a modest step forward—a very modest step indeed—in the fight against drug trafficking. In fact, in some aspects the bill is quite anaemic. The Minister for Police has indicated that the new powers sought in the bill had been requested by NSW Police, and that the request is in response to police intelligence information that drug trafficking into New South Wales from Victoria and South Australia has developed into a problem of major concern. It is also a concern that is being expressed by local mayors from the southern areas of New South Wales.

The bill's overview states that its object is to enable police to stop vehicles and use dogs for drug detection in certain border areas for an 18-month trial. The current legal position is that police have a limited range of powers to stop and search vehicles for illegal drugs. For example, under the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 police have the power to stop and search for illegal drugs if they have a "reasonable suspicion". Similarly, the Police Powers (Vehicles) Act 1998 extends certain powers to the police. However, under both Acts police are required to have the ingredient of "reasonable suspicion" before a vehicle can be stopped and searched.

The predicament that police find themselves in is this. Whilst they may gain intelligence information that establishes the general pattern, or modus operandi, of criminal drug trafficking, very often it is information that relates not to a specific vehicle but to a pattern of criminal activity in a general geographical area. By virtue of its nature, the information does not reach the level of "reasonable suspicion" in specific circumstances and as presently required under the law. In the circumstances surrounding and leading to this bill, the police have established from intelligence gathered by them a consistent and clearly defined general pattern of criminal activity by drug traffickers in southern New South Wales operating between our State and Victoria and South Australia. However, the police have had their hands tied because the information cannot overcome the hurdle of "reasonable suspicion" required under current law.

The purpose of the bill is to allow for police, operating within limits, to effectively utilise their intelligence of general patterns of drug trafficking. The bill will, for an 18-month trial period, enable police to stop vehicles in certain prescribed areas of southern New South Wales and use sniffer dogs for drug detection. The bill requires that there be a "reasonable suspicion" attaching not to a particular vehicle, as is the current situation, but to a general pattern of activity in a defined geographical area. The area defined for this 18-month trial is an area of 100 kilometres along the New South Wales border with Victoria and South Australia and a separate area with a radius of 20 kilometres around the towns of Hay, Narrandera and Birdcage.

A search can only be conducted by way of a warrant approved by a Supreme Court judge, and any police application for such a warrant must first be approved by the Commissioner of Police or the Deputy Commissioner of Police, and then only within certain guidelines. These guidelines include a "reasonable suspicion" relating to "indictable quantities of prohibited drugs or plants", the meaning of which is specified in the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. There must be reasonable grounds to suspect that any geographical area covered by the warrant is being or will be used in connection with supplying indictable drug quantities. In other words, the new powers given under this bill will not relate to minor seizures.

Upon obtaining a warrant, a police officer will establish checkpoints, clearly marked, to stop vehicles. Drug detection dogs will be used, but only within strict guidelines. Any warrant obtained has effect for a maximum of 72 hours, and that time cannot be extended. If required, a new application would then need to be made. As the bill inaugurates a trial, comprehensive data is required to be kept for later assessment. For the first nine months the scheme is to be monitored by the Ombudsman, who will report to the Minister for Police, the Attorney General and the Commissioner of Police at the end of 12 months.

As I said, the Opposition does not oppose the bill but it is concerned about whether the legislation fully enables the police to do their job effectively. For instance, why is the legislation drafted in such a way as to give advance warning to drug traffickers as to where they may or may not operate with relative immunity? Why would one give a bank robber a list of the banks that have security guards and those that do not? Why are warrants limited to a lifespan of only 72 hours without provision for extension? What other recommendations were put forward by our police service that have been rejected outright by the Government?

The Opposition understands that even some Government members have had some concerns about the bill. I have with me a statement released by Milton Orkopoulos, the Labor member for Swansea and convenor of the parliamentary Left caucus of the Labor Party, in which he announces the Left's opposition to the legislation. The statement is headed "Left opposes 'sniffer dogs' legislation" and states:

Anyone who is not white, middle-aged and middle-class is much more likely to be stopped under this legislation.

What a bizarre thing to say! How on earth can anyone squeeze that interpretation out of the bill? All I can say is that the person who wrote this statement must be on a spaceship halfway to Mars. It is a sorry state of affairs that even the modest proposals contained in the bill cannot get support from the Left of the Labor Party. The Opposition hopes that the bill, modest as it is, will be an effective tool against drug trafficking. The Opposition hopes, for the sake of the people of New South Wales, that this legislation will be the start of more far-reaching initiatives by the Government to take on those who traffic in drugs of death and who target in an especially vile way the vulnerable and young members of our community.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [8.56 p.m.]: I admire the Carr Government for the fact that when it is on to a good tabloid story it certainly flogs it to death. This "Sniffer Dogs Mark II" shows a vigilante Carr Cabinet in fine form. The Greens have consistently opposed the use of sniffer dogs, and we will continue to do so. We believe that the intrusive use of these dogs is an affront to civil liberties. One of the hallmarks of a free and democratic society is that citizens should be able to go about their business free from arbitrary intervention from police. Unless there is an immediate threat to human life, ordinary people should be able to walk down the street, catch a train or go to the pub without being arbitrarily searched when there is no reasonable suspicion that they have committed an offence. Members may recall debate on this matter almost a year ago, when dogs were unleashed on unsuspecting nightclub patrons and even people just doing their shopping in areas like King's Cross, at Central railway station—

[Interruption]

I acknowledge the interjections of both Coalition and Labor members, as they enjoy an after 8.00 p.m. laugh together. During the meal break they have probably enjoyed their drug of choice, as they so often do.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: What are you implying? I had chicken in the staff dining room.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I did not say that chicken is a drug. The Leader of the Opposition is a funny man, if that is what he is up to.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Whenever you want to go with me for a blood test across the road, just nominate the date.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I go there regularly, actually. But when it comes to drugs, you have no hope with me, mate. I do not even touch your alcohol. The dogs that were unleashed on unsuspecting nightclub patrons and others almost a year ago caused a great deal of anger and resentment in the community, and continue to do so. What is more, magistrate Mary Jerman ruled that the use of dogs for this purpose is unlawful. But all this controversy, unfortunately, has not deterred Premier Bob Carr and his vigilante Cabinet from continuing to expand their use of these heavy-handed and arbitrary police tactics.

[Interruption]

I wonder whether the guffawing from the former Minister for Police means that he likes the description "vigilante Cabinet". It is probably one of his latest aims.

The Hon. Michael Costa: It is what you had in the last days of the show trials with Stalin. It is your history we are talking about here.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I acknowledge the interjection of the Minister for Transport Services. He said, "This is my history here." From his abusive language I assume he is not proud of his past: he was once a member of the Socialist Workers party, he backed the Fourth International and, presumably, the permanent revolution. I am proud of my political heritage. I said proudly in my first speech that my parents were Communists and that I am proud of their work and what they taught me. But in the Minister's inaugural speech he airbrushed away his Trotskyist connections. Marx got a mention, but not Trotsky. Trotsky was relegated. What is the Minister embarrassed about? Is he not proud of his history? I am.

The Hon. Michael Costa: I'm more proud of my history than Stalin's.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Then why does the Minister airbrush it out?

The Hon. Michael Costa: Poor old Trotsky got cut out of the photo.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Maybe the Minister would like to correct what he failed to mention in the past about his history. Ordinary people driving their cars in rural and regional New South Wales can be stopped and searched by police with dogs, armed with a three-day, catch-all warrant. Every such warrant will cover an entire one square kilometre. But will the legislation apply only to cars and trucks, or can passers-by be searched too? I will listen with interest to the Minister's reply.

These sniffer dog checkpoints will not all be in the outback. Many large towns are covered, including Broken Hill, Hay, Narrandera, Wentworth, Eden, Bega, Albury and Deniliquin. If a checkpoint is set up in the centre of a town, can the Government guarantee that the police will use dogs only on vehicles? The Greens are concerned about clause 9 (f), which states that police can "issue directions" to "any person in the search area". This seems to give the police a legal loophole to extend the power of this blanket warrant well beyond the edge of the roadway.

[Interruption]

Again I acknowledge that you cannot take the policeman out of Gallacher, that is for sure.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: If it had been at your address, many problems would have been solved.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I think he probably wants it for his own caucus room. That is where he has his problems.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: At your address.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Some of the white powder is in his caucus room. This bill is a classic example of the Government handing the police yet another new power and making yet another incursion into civil liberties. And, as usual, it will have little effect. The former Minister for Police likes to talk about show trials. That is what he has here: it is just a bill for show. For starters, get-tough law and order policies fail to prevent crime. With this bill we are talking about a huge waste of police resources in rural New South Wales. It is a nice publicity stunt: con the public into thinking that the borders of New South Wales are being patrolled by cops with dogs. In reality, small one-kilometre-square areas within a huge expanse of territory will be targeted.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: What is the problem?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: The problem is that the patrols will not cover the State.

The Hon. Michael Costa: Move an amendment to extend it.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Exactly. It should be done. Michael Gallacher is the one who wants it. We are saying that the whole thing is a scam. It is a waste of police resources. He is the one who should be doing it, so the Coalition and Labor should come together in their famous co-operation. The Government says the bill has been framed to target what the police believe are hot spots for drug runners. "Hot spots" is another bit of good tabloid talk. Now that the bill has spelt this out, drug traffickers will simply switch to another part of the State.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Nimbin.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: No. Remember the big story here is South Australia. That is what they are paranoid about. The coast road from Victoria is beckoning now. This legislation is like a road map to tell traffickers where to go. Apparently, the coast road from Victoria will remain checkpoint free. We need to be aware that this bill will have no effect on drug crime anywhere in rural and regional New South Wales. It is a waste of police time and money, which is one of the reasons why we will not support it. The bill will only affect ordinary people going about their business. Country people in New South Wales are already getting a bad deal. Money is being spent on pointless police public relations stunts, while rural and regional areas are crying out for proactive, constructive crime prevention programs. The only conclusion is that Government policy has gone to the dogs. The sniffer dogs policy should be scrapped, and the money should be spent on social programs in country areas. The Greens will not support this bill.

[Interruption]

The entertainment from the boys when they come away from their drug of choice leaves a lot to be desired.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans wishes to speak on behalf of the three people who voted for the Democrats at the last State election.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [9.05 p.m.]: More people voted for me than voted for the Leader of the Opposition. Go back and count the below-the-line votes: I got more votes than the Leader of the Opposition. This bill is another example of prohibition. Alcohol prohibition was shown to be totally unsuccessful in the 1930s, but New South Wales is still pursuing marijuana prohibition in the noughties. In 2003 we have learned nothing. In New South Wales 12 people a day die of tobacco-related causes and the Premier gives a gong to the former Premier to start talking about management—never mind how many people die of tobacco-caused disease.

The Government puts only $2.5 million into anti-tobacco campaigns, even though the best experts in the world write in the Australian Medical Journal that we should be spending $50 million on quit campaigns because that is the cost-effective level. But the Government is happy to spend $2.5 million, or whatever it costs, to police some road near the South Australian border. This bill, which is going through the Parliament with a great deal of noise and fanfare, simply alerts drug traffickers to take a different route, even if it is a bit further.

The price of marijuana in New South Wales is unlikely to rise significantly—which is the bottom line test of whether legislation results in actually apprehending a significant number of offenders There may be a tiny increase in the price because traffickers will have to use a little more petrol to access their supplies, but I would think that petrol is a fairly small component in the price of marijuana coming across the border from South Australia. The fact that it is decriminalised there does not appear to significantly affect the crime rate.

Dogs and police will only be in certain areas. Clause 3 of the bill defines a border area as being within 100 kilometres of the border of this State with Victoria or South Australia, within a 20-kilometre radius of the intersection of Lachlan and Moppett Streets, Hay, within a 20-kilometre radius of the intersection of Newell and Sturt Highways, Narrandera, or within a 20-kilometre radius from a place known as the Birdcage, located on Sturt Highway at a certain latitude and longitude. That is where the sniffer dogs will be. One would not have to be a rocket scientist to work out that they are the spots to avoid if one is taking marijuana across the border.

The bill will not achieve its objective, which presumably is to stop the transport of marijuana from South Australia to markets in New South Wales. Why do we continually increase penalties and policing efforts rather than say, "Okay, people are going to take marijuana. The drug trade has such a big economic engine that we will not be able to stop it. Rather, we should effect some demand management and harm minimisation." But that is not being done.

This bill is yet another extension of police powers in New South Wales. New South Wales numberplates should read "NSW—the police state" or maybe "NSW—the sniffer dog state". And, of course, there is no shortage of prisoners in New South Wales to make the new numberplates. The power of police and their dogs to harass patrons in Sydney's nightclubs is now extended to the country. It cannot be said that we city folk do not give anything to the country! I am being sarcastic when I say that this bill will do it for us. This bill is a breakthrough in criminal law as well. New South Wales leads the way in extending the definition of "reasonable suspicion" in the normal course of events from applying to people to applying now to a whole geographical area. This type of escalation was apparent in the anti-terrorism bills that the Parliament passed last year.

The bill is unnecessary. By their own admission, police generally know who is transporting drugs, what cars will be used, and the most likely times. We do not need a phalanx of police and sniffer dogs descending on Hay, Narrandera or Birdcage setting up roadblocks to search every vehicle. Perhaps the border area of New South Wales will look like East Berlin before the wall came down. With a police presence of this size, do police really think that drug dealers will not have contacts to inform them of what is happening? The bill will result in a monumental waste of money, with very little chance of drug use being detected in New South Wales.

The Democrats do not support the bill. We beg for the day when this absurd prohibitive approach will end and when people consider drugs in their pharmacological and sociological context to lessen their harm. Perhaps then less emphasis will be placed on the prohibition of marijuana and more on achieving harm minimisation for marijuana, tobacco, heroin and alcohol. Those drugs should be seen in the morally neutral sense of their pharmacological effect on humans and their economic drivers, because it is that interaction that creates the harm. It is beyond my understanding that we continue with this absurd strategy, which is driven by populism and righteous indignation—the same silly forces that drove prohibition in the United States of America. To continue in this fashion is an indictment of the Parliament.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [9.12 p.m.]: In contrast to the Greens and the Australian Democrats, who strongly oppose the bill and appear to be the pro-drug lobby, the Christian Democratic Party supports the Police Powers (Drug Detection in Border Areas Trial) Bill. We are on record in this House as always voting for the use of drug sniffer dogs. Sniffer dogs have proved to be successful, particularly at airports and in Kings Cross and other areas. Therefore, permitting a trial to allow police to stop vehicles under warrant in order to use drug detection dogs near the border of Victoria and South Australia is a logical development.

It is well known that large quantities of cannabis have come from South Australia because of its soft policy on drugs—a policy supported by the Australian Democrats and the Greens—that allows people to grow marijuana for personal use. To compound the problem, marijuana that is hydroponically grown has 30 per cent the level of THC compared with marijuana grown in the wild, which has a THC content of 1 per cent—and of course THC is the potent component of marijuana that affects the brains of users.

South Australia has a major problem because of a policy advocated by the Greens and the Australian Democrats. South Australia now seeks to reverse that policy, but once the cat has been let out of the bag, so to speak, it is difficult to change. It has been confirmed by media and police reports that considerable quantities of illegal drugs are brought into the southern part of New South Wales from South Australia by bikies, cars, trucks, and so on. This bill will enable police to use drug detection dogs in public places, under warrant, if they have a reasonable suspicion that people in the area may be committing drug crimes.

This use of generic intelligence will be a trial. I find it rather strange that the Australian Democrats and the Greens oppose the bill, because usually they are in favour of trials, such as injecting rooms and giving heroin to addicts. Trials are used so that their impact can be assessed. This bill allows for an 18-month trial using new police powers to search vehicles in designated areas by using drug detection dogs. I understand from the second reading speech that this bill is part of an overall strategy. It may upset the Greens and the Democrats to learn that other similar legislation will be introduced as part of the drug strategy.

This bill is just one piece of a multi-faceted approach and it will not stop all drugs being smuggled into New South Wales. If organised crime gangs find another way to smuggle drugs into New South Wales further legislation will be introduced to combat that. We cannot just sit on our hands and do nothing; we must take all practical steps to protect our citizens, particularly our youths. The Christian Democratic Party is pleased to support the bill.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA (Minister for Transport Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Forests)) [9.16 p.m.], in reply: I shall correct a number of statements made by the Greens so that their friends do not get caught along the way. The 100-kilometre area along the border applies to the length of the Victorian and South Australian borders, so their friends will not be able to use the coast road.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Don't tell them that.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The bill is designed to act as a deterrent and to send a strong message to the community. The Greens should tell their friends that they will not be able to use the coast road, because it is covered by the legislation.

Ms Lee Rhiannon: During the briefing your advisers said they could.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: They were not my advisers. The Opposition has asserted that the area is too small. The one-square kilometre zones will be flexible; they will not be the same zones. Police will determine areas based on police intelligence, and because the zones are variable the area will be quite large. Reference was also made to the authorisation being for a period not exceeding 72 hours. I advise the House that police can apply for new warrants if fresh intelligence emerges.

The perennial point was made about the use of drug detection dogs being an invasion of civil liberties. It has already been clearly established that the use of drug detection dogs is the best method because they are relatively non-intrusive. When I was Minister for Police I pointed out on many occasions that drug detection dogs do not sniff people; when they detect drugs they sit next to the person. The dogs have an acute sense of smell and in a non-intrusive way they establish reasonable grounds for suspicion. The bill clarifies legal issues that were the basis of concerns in some decisions referred to, particularly by the Greens. With those few comments I commend the bill to the House.

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

The House divided.

Mr Burke Ms Burnswoods Mr Catanzariti Mr Clarke Mr Costa Ms Cusack Mr Della Bosca Ms Fazio Mr Gallacher Mr Gay

Ms Griffin Mr Jones Mr Lynn Reverend Dr Moyes Reverend Nile Mr Obeid Mr Oldfield Ms Parker Mrs Pavey Mr Pearce

Ms Robertson Mr Ryan Mr Tingle Mr Tsang Mr West Dr Wong Tellers, Mr Harwin Mr Primrose

Mr Breen Mr Cohen Ms Rhiannon Tellers, Dr Chesterfield-Evans Ms Hale

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

The following bill was returned from the Legislative Assembly without amendment:

Crimes Legislation Amendment (Parole) Bill

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Patricia Forsythe): I report the receipt of the following message from the Legislative Assembly:

Madam President

The Legislative Assembly has considered the Legislative Council's message and schedule dated 26 June 2003 requesting the concurrence of the Legislative Assembly with the amendment to the Research Involving Human Embryos (New South Wales) Bill, and informs the Legislative Council that the Legislative Assembly disagreed with the proposed amendment because:

Under the Commonwealth's Research Involving Human Embryos Act, certain licensed uses of IVF embryos will only be authorised in respect of embryos created before 5 April 2002.

Under Section 46 of the Commonwealth Research Act, this moratorium will be lifted on 5 April 2005, or earlier if decided by COAG.

The amendment has the effect of removing the application of Section 46 of the Commonwealth Research Act to some researchers in New South Wales.

Depending on the business arrangements in a particular research institution, this could affect researchers in universities and public hospitals and those in commercial entities that are not corporations under the Commonwealth law.

The amendment prevents the lifting of the moratorium in New South Wales. This means that the prohibition on the use of excess IVF embryos created after 5 April 2002 will continue indefinitely under New South Wales law.

The amendment will only have effect in respect of those researchers operating pursuant to State law. The Commonwealth law will continue to apply to corporations and others covered by that legislation.

The continuation of the moratorium in New South Wales after it has been lifted in the Commonwealth will cause confusion and uncertainty for those engaged in research in New South Wales.

The amendment would create a permanent two-tiered system between those operating under Commonwealth law and those operating under State law and may lead to researchers in New South Wales operating at a disadvantage to other States because of this confusion.

Legislative Assembly John Price
1 July 2003 Acting Speaker

Consideration of message deferred.

Debate resumed from 25 June.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [9.29 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition on the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill, which has been introduced by the Government to rectify inconsistencies in its existing workers compensation legislation. Special attention is paid to the Workers Compensation Commission. The Government's intention is to improve the fairness of the scheme for its various stakeholders. In light of that, the Opposition will not oppose the bill. Schedule 1 to the bill will amend the Workers Compensation Act of 1987 to ensure that the time limitation on court proceedings does not affect matters that cannot be initiated due to procedural requirements. It will also ensure the effectiveness of existing provisions allowing companies who become self-insurers to purchase their tail liabilities. In addition, the President of the Workers Compensation Commission may delegate specific functions when there is a conflict or an apprehension of bias.

It is important to put on the record again the commitment of the Opposition at the last State election: In the light of our election result, we continue to consider whether we were right—and I believe we were—in ensuring that self-insurers had greater flexibility under the workers compensation scheme. I draw to the attention of honourable members the decision the Government took to deny self-insurers the very reason that they take on the role and responsibility of self insurers—their ability to manage their own claims within the workers compensation scheme. Prior to the election the Opposition was committed to recognising that role and to giving self-insurers the ability to reintroduce commutation to the workers compensation scheme.

The issue of self-insurers having the right to revisit commutations had the support of workers, the union movement and employers, and it obviously had the support of self-insurers. The only people fundamentally opposed to self-insurers and workers having the ability to negotiate satisfactory outcomes for both parties was the Australian Labor Party in New South Wales and the Special Minister of State, who was philosophically driven to ensure that self-insurers had the very reason for operating within the scheme ripped out from underneath them. The Minister did not detail on the record his feelings about self-insurers or about denying workers of self-insurers, the self-insured and their employees the right to reach a satisfactory outcome with the assistance of the union.

Schedule 2 to the bill will amend the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act. This is designed to encourage employers to notify injuries on time by providing financial incentives through claims excess. It will make administrative improvements to the commission. It will make non-compliance with a request from an authorised officer to provide information an offence. In addition, it will ensure that the application of the self-incriminating provisions is consistent between occupational health and safety legislation and workers compensation legislation. It will also give guidance on when the warning against self-incriminating should be given, and it will introduce penalties for non-compliance.

Schedule 3 will amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act to enable the single notification scheme to commence on 1 September. This is designed to reduce the administrative burden on employers by replacing the current dual notification requirements under both workers compensation and occupational health and safety legislation with a single notification. Employers will be able to provide notification to either their insurer or WorkCover. The schedule will also clarify that breaching risk management provisions of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation cannot give rise to a separate action for damages, while not affecting the ability of an employee to bring an action for negligence.

Schedule 4 will amend the Workers Compensation (Dust Diseases) Act to ensure the effectiveness of the current obligation on negligent third parties to reimburse the Dust Diseases Board. Schedules 5 to 7 update existing legislation in light of the earlier amendments in the bill to which I have previously referred. These amendments are straightforward administrative improvements to the operation of the scheme. If the Government had paid more attention to the drafting of its earlier legislation, perhaps the tidying-up changes in this bill would not be necessary. The past couple of years have seen some interesting developments in workers compensation. When this House is considering the reforms that the Government has put forward, it should always remember the legislative reforms promised by the Government that unravelled before our eyes.

The Special Minister of State will never forget the day that he had to bunker down in Parliament rather than leave the confines of the building lest he be unable to get back in the following morning when the protesters were outside Parliament. We will not forget the day many Labor members skulked in through the underground system like rats to ensure they did not confront their comrades out the front. They were not prepared to confront the workers, their so-called mates, and they skulked in like cockroaches.

The Hon. Malcolm Jones: Don't forget the Premier's peace sign.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: As the Hon. Malcolm Jones rightly reminds me, we will never forget the Premier's reverse peace sign that he gave the workers out the front. That was his attitude towards them that day. I will never forget the picket line drawn across the front of the Chamber. One after the other, Labor members crossed that picket to vote for this legislation. How could we ever forget the current Minister for Transport Services in his previous role as the cocky boss at the Labor Council.

The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: He jumped out of it just in time.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Didn't he! The window of opportunity opened for such a short time and he could not get through quick enough. I remember him saying in his previous role as head of the Labor Council that he was most concerned about what the Carr Government was doing to workers compensation in New South Wales, but he could not get in here quick enough. When he came into the Legislative Council he was like a mute, like Harpo Marx, and we did not hear a word from him. Now when we press him on workers compensation, he is not here. He is somewhere else in the building trying to avoid the debate, trying to ensure that his words are never recorded in any debate on workers compensation. Why? Because he gave the workers up. The workers know it, we know it, and we should take every opportunity to remind him—and we most certainly will. The Minister in his second reading speech made a number of references to improving the lot of employers in this State. My personal favourite was:

Having less red tape for employers and allowing them to concentrate on growing their businesses instead of having to duplicate paperwork is in line with this Government's policy.

Will the Minister tell us when this became Government policy? Was it in the past couple of days? We have not seen any evidence of it in the past eight years. In fact, the Government has been a barrier to employment. It is taxing employment at every opportunity and putting more and more red tape or barriers in the way of employment. It is tying up employers in such a way that they have no confidence in the Government to seriously address workers compensation issues. The Government promised so much about total control when it came to unfunded liabilities and how it would bring premiums down, but what do we have now? In 1999, under the previous Minister for Industrial Relations, we started to debate unfunded liabilities, which were somewhere in the vicinity of $1.75 billion.

After all the pain, after all the V for victory signs to the workers outside Parliament House, after everything we were promised and the three tranches of reform, in December of last year there was an unfunded liability of about $3.2 billion—a deterioration of mammoth proportions. With the HIH collapse $4 billion went down the gurgler, with charges from the royal commission perhaps pending. What do we have in workers compensation? Nothing. Everything is fine. We are talking about a $3.2 billion unfunded liability—and that is only for the private sector. That does not include what is happening in the public sector in New South Wales. If all the claims of public and private workers were brought together today heaven knows what the bill would be. But it would be a darned sight more than the $3.2 billion that we talk about in this Chamber.

I assure honourable members that the HIH collapse, as serious as it is, pales into insignificance in comparison. Employers are not the only ones concerned about workers compensation; employees are concerned too, because, as we predicted, as time rolls on more and more workers will realise, as they unfortunately become the victims of an accident in the workplace, that the scheme that was previously there to protect them has not been improved. In fact, it has been taken away. As we discussed earlier, it is so hard for so many to prove an impairment in excess of 15 per cent, irrespective of the seriousness of their injuries in many cases.

The Hon. John Della Bosca: You cannot have it both ways, Michael.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: It is important that the scheme is fair. The Minister knows how I feel about certain aspects of it, especially the way in which police and emergency service workers have been treated. I know that I have the support of Ms Lee Rhiannon on this issue. She will go out of her way to support police and emergency service workers. She would certainly be concerned about the fact that police and emergency service workers, under this Minister, are dealt with in exactly the same way by the workers compensation legislation as if they were gardeners, librarians or people working in a cake shop. They are all dealt with in exactly the same way under this Minister's legislation, irrespective of the job they perform.

The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: Some of us think that is a good idea.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: When the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans hears his window being broken at the back of his house at three o'clock in the morning he will not call a pastry chef from a local cake shop to try to help him out. He will want the cops down there as quickly as possible. That is when all good lefties turn to the right, because they want offenders dealt with as hard as they can be so that they do not come back for seconds. I love to hear the interjections from the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans. They always add that element of humour that is needed in debates on workers compensation. As I indicated earlier, the Opposition does not oppose the bill but we will not miss the opportunity to remind the Minister and the House what we were promised and how we were so sorely let down.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Peter Primrose.

Consideration of Legislative Assembly's message of 1 July 2003.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Assistant Treasurer, and Minister for the Central Coast) [9.45 p.m.]: I move:

That the Committee does not insist on the Council's amendment disagreed to by the Assembly in the bill.

The amendment proposed by the Hon. Peter Breen would have had the effect of removing the application of section 46 of the Commonwealth embryo Act. That provision repeals the moratorium on the use of excess in-vitro fertilisation [IVF] embryos created after 5 April 2002 to 2005. I repeat for the purpose of the Committee's consideration of its resolution that excess IVF embryos created as a result, as has been canvassed in debate already, of legitimate medical therapeutic practice, that is, the fertility program, could not be used for research beyond 2005 unless they were created before April 2002. Clearly this means that important research potentially will not happen in New South Wales when the current stock of excess IVF embryos runs out. Lifting the moratorium will not create a flood of new embryos available for research. I have now satisfied myself, because I originally supported the Breen amendment, that the bill does not cross the important ethical boundary important for most of us between IVF embryos that have been created for a legitimate medical purpose that are being used for medical research and that would otherwise have been destroyed and IVF embryos created purely for the purpose of medical research. That is an important ethical distinction.

I emphasise for the benefit of the Committee and all members considering how they will vote in relation to the current attitude of this Chamber to the amendment that it does not cross that very important ethical boundary. I stress to members that the only IVF embryos that can be used for research purposes are excess IVF embryos, whether or not the moratorium is in place. So the Breen amendment does not affect that aspect. Importantly, consent for the use of excess IVF embryos in research must be gained from all donors: the woman for whom the embryo was created, any spouse or donors, or any person who is the spouse of the woman or for whom the embryo was created. If the Chamber does not pass the bill there will be no strict regulation of research involving human embryos for those New South Wales researchers who are not covered by the Commonwealth Act. This bill ensures that strict regulation is in place and works in tandem with the Commonwealth legislation.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [9.48 p.m.]: I move:

That the question be amended by omitting the word "not".

I am doing this because the amendment agreed to by this Chamber was a very simple one and in fact carried through the objectives of the bill in that it was bringing in a moratorium. The amendment by the Hon. Peter Breen simply meant that the moratorium would continue. I believe that when the Federal Parliament debated the bill the point was made that the date selected for the end of the moratorium was like a temporary date. The Federal members had to pick a date: they could not agree on having an open-ended moratorium so they picked a date. I am fairly certain that it was intended that before the date expired the Federal Government would extend the moratorium. The whole point of the moratorium was to stop the embryos being used; otherwise there would be open slather at the end of the moratorium. As I said during the second reading debate, there were many compromises in the Federal Parliament to come to an agreement on the basis of a bill. So a number of concessions were made. I believe that the date in the bill was a concession; whereas the final intention would be to extend it, as the amendment of the Hon. Peter Breen provides, so that it does not have a closing date after which the embryos could be used.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER [9.50 p.m.]: Honourable members are confused about the purpose of this bill. I will reinforce my position, which is personal, because, of course, this is a conscience vote. If we adopt this legislation in its original form it will bring us into line with the rest of Australia and with what the Commonwealth Government proposed. Therefore, I do not support, and have not supported, any amendments which tinker with the definition of an embryo or change the overriding legislation. If we were to support the amendment, proposed in the first instance by the Hon. Peter Breen, the lifting of the moratorium would see the end of research. We would be altering the essence of the legislation, so we would be better off turfing it out and starting again.

Commonwealth legislation affects whatever we do and we want consistency. When the moratorium is lifted by the Council of Australian Governments [COAG] on 5 April 2005 the Commonwealth research legislation will come into play; we will not be left without support. It is important that we do not tinker with this legislation, that we do not accept amendments and that we do not create a two-tiered system. That would put us out of sync with the rest of Australia. We are trying to create uniformity. Therefore, I support the legislation as it stands and not the amendment as moved by the Hon. Peter Breen.

The Hon. PETER BREEN [9.52 p.m.]: Unfortunately I have not had much opportunity to examine the issues raised by the Minister in the other place. He has indicated to some honourable members of the crossbench that if the bill were to pass with this amendment he would have no choice but to withdraw it. That is a hollow threat and I urge honourable members who might be influenced by it to ignore it. The Minister will not withdraw the bill under any circumstances. Like me, he wants a national uniform system covering research involving human embryos. The purpose of the legislation is simply to include in the relevant section of the bill a provision that it applies only to the existing stock of embryos. That was the intention of the bill as drafted and presented to the Prime Minister. The Commonwealth legislation was always intended to apply only to the existing stock of embryos. The effect of the sunset clause is to extend it in a way never contemplated, certainly in the original discussions and in the way the bill was sold to the people of New South Wales.

The purpose of the amendment is simply to require that this Parliament consider the issue again before the sunset clause comes into operation, that is, before 5 April 2005. The Westminster system of government requires that the people of New South Wales consider the issue in this Parliament, and that it not be decided by regulation or COAG without proper consultation given the way it was originally promoted. In those circumstances it is appropriate that it be discussed in this Parliament. The amendment is not designed to deny researchers in New South Wales opportunities that people in other States might have; nor is it designed to diminish the regulatory system implemented by the Commonwealth legislation. Indeed, the amendment will extend the operation of the Commonwealth legislation by excluding the operation of the sunset clause.

The Minister has canvassed the contradictions between the State law and the Commonwealth law. Section 109 of the Constitution clearly states that in the event of a conflict between the State law and the Commonwealth law, the Commonwealth law prevails to the extent of the inconsistency. The sunset clause will not operate in New South Wales if the amendment is passed; we will operate under Commonwealth law because it prevails. Depending on the stage research has reached when the sunset clause comes into effect we should debate the issue in this place. The idea that the bill might be withdrawn if the amendment is passed should be treated with the contempt it deserves. The Minister will not withdraw the bill under any circumstances. I commend the amendment and I ask honourable members to support it.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [9.56 p.m.]: Before the Hon. Peter Breen came back into the Chamber I moved an amendment to the motion moved by the Minister that we not insist on the Council's amendment disagreed to by the Legislative Assembly. The other place has rejected our amendment and we can accept its decision and not insist on it, which means it lapses. However, if we omit the word "not" we will insist on our amendment. Honourable members who want to support the original amendment should vote to omit the word "not" and then vote for the motion as amended.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Assistant Treasurer, and Minister for the Central Coast) [9.57 p.m.]: Continuation of the moratorium in New South Wales after it has been lifted in the Commonwealth will cause confusion, certainly for those engaged in research in New South Wales. The amendment would potentially create a permanent two-tiered system for those operating under Commonwealth law and those operating under State law; in other words, corporations would operate under Commonwealth law and universities, independent research organisations and so on would operate under State law. That would leave researchers in New South Wales operating at a disadvantage compared to researchers in other States because of the confusion.

There has been a critical misunderstanding of the bottom line ethical issues in the Breen debate and in the Commonwealth debate. This is about a distinction being made in the community between two categories of human embryos. The community accepts as ethical the use of embryos which exist as a result of bona fide medical procedures and which would be destroyed in any event. It becomes a classic ends-and-means argument. Like me, some honourable members have serious reservations about the next ethical step, which is that embryos should be able to be created for medical research. Many of us believe that the Breen amendment and the subsequent rival systems had some influence on that debate. However, I am advised—and I have satisfied myself—that they had no influence on that debate. In fact, the regulatory framework we are putting in place permanently protects New South Wales from being required to have another debate if the community wanted to take on the second category of issues relating to the creation of embryos for medical research. It is extremely important that those who are concerned about either of those two issues—the pragmatic basis on which biotechnological research can proceed or the critical ethical issues—understand that, for all the good intentions behind the Breen amendment, which I accept, it does not achieve what it sets out to achieve.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [10.00 p.m.]: I seek Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile's clarification on a matter. We have a very simple proposition before us: a motion that the Committee does not insist on the Legislative Council's amendment. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile has moved an amendment that seeks to reverse the motion, by saying that the Committee insist on the amendment. I seek guidance from Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, because it seems that he has set out to confuse the Committee about why he has sought to reverse the motion. I foresee a real possibility that some members will be uncertain how to vote, given that Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile effectively proposes the opposite the motion.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [10.01 p.m.]: If the Hon. Patricia Forsythe had been here long enough, she would know that I am simply following the normal Legislative Council procedure. As confirmed by the Clerk, when the Legislative Assembly insists on a matter, we do not have to insist on it.

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG [10.01 p.m.]: I am concerned that many members seem to be confused or have a misunderstanding about embryo research and stem cell research. I have no doubt that, if in two or three years time the New South Wales Government or scientists believed it to be necessary, stem cell lines could be created. Therefore, there is no need to continue with embryonic research. I do not see what benefit would be derived from embryonic research. Many other embryos can be used for research; we do not need to use human embryos. Stem cell research is used in the creation of organs, skin cells, pituitary cells and brain cells, the repair of cell damage and the creation of new hormones. Any trainee or IVF specialist can easily use an existing animal embryo for research purposes. There is absolutely no need for embryonic research, which uses a potential source of life as a never-ending experiment. On the other hand, as the White House said, once stem cell lines are created there is no longer a need for stem cell research. I believe Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile is absolutely right.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [10.04 p.m.]: I wish to clarify another point. Although this is a separate debate to the previous debate, I assume this is also a conscience issue for all members of the Committee, as it was when we voted on the original motion.

Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

Mr Breen Mr Burke Mr Catanzariti Mr Clarke Mr Egan Mr Gallacher

Mr Gay Mr Kelly Mr Lynn Reverend Nile Mr Obeid Mr Oldfield

Dr Wong Tellers, Reverend Dr Moyes Mr Ryan

Ms Burnswoods Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Cohen Mr Costa Ms Cusack Mr Della Bosca Ms Fazio Mrs Forsythe

Ms Hale Mr Jones Mr Macdonald Ms Parker Mrs Pavey Mr Pearce Ms Rhiannon Ms Robertson

Ms Tebbutt Mr Tingle Mr Tsang Mr West Tellers, Mr Harwin Mr Primrose

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Motion agreed to.

Resolution reported from Committee and report adopted.

Message forwarded to the Legislative Assembly advising it of the resolution.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Assistant Treasurer, and Minister for the Central Coast) [10.17 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

The Hon. IAN WEST [10.17 p.m.]: I was honoured today to attend the funeral service held to commemorate and celebrate the life of Brian Miller. Thousands of building workers, employers and members of the public paid tribute to the safety co-ordinator of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [CFMEU], Brian Miller. By agreement with employers, many major building sites around Sydney closed as a sign of respect for Brian. Among those sites were the World Square, Walsh Bay and the cross-city tunnel. Tributes were paid to Brian by friends and comrades: Andrew Ferguson, State Secretary of the CFMEU; John Sutton, National Secretary of the CFMEU Construction Division; John Robertson, Secretary of the Labor Council of New South Wales; Stan Sharkey, former National Secretary of the CFMEU; Peggy Trompf, Director of the Workers Health Centre; and Tom McDonald, former National Secretary of the Building Workers Industrial Union [BWIU].

The Maori Community held Brian Miller in great esteem as a champion of workplace safety. A funeral haka was performed by people dressed in full tribal regalia and displaying traditional mourning body tattoos. Brian Miller died on Wednesday 25 June at 3.30 p.m. after a long and courageous battle with cancer. Brian was a legend in the building industry. He was an official of the BWIU and the CFMEU for over 30 years. He was a carpenter by trade, he played a leading role in all the union's industrial campaigns over a 32- to 35-year period, and he organised volunteer building workers to assist with the rebuilding of Darwin after Cyclone Tracey and to organise volunteer rebuilding efforts after the Nyngan floods and the Como bushfires in 1993 and 1994.

Brian was also a longstanding peace activist. He was the motivator behind more than 150 major construction projects in Sydney including such sites as Darling Harbour, the Queen Victoria building, the Entertainment Centre, and the LHMU [Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union] site, which was completed in 1991 at 187 Thomas Street. Earlier this year nearly 500 people from all areas of the building industry—employers and employees—members of Parliament, and members of the community generally attended the packed tribute dinner for Brian at South Sydney Leagues Club. When the $60 million royal commission into the building industry was set up—fixated by attempts to halt workplace injuries and deaths—it was inevitable that Brian's work would come into the spotlight. The State Secretary of the CFMEU, Andrew Ferguson, in paying tribute to Brian, advised that the building industry is a dangerous place but Brian's tireless work made it considerably less dangerous than when he started his work as an organiser back in the 1960s.

It is fair to say that Brian Miller's work saved many lives. Brian played leading roles in every building worker campaign of the modern era. He cut his teeth as a site delegate in the 1960s, before being elected a full-time BWIU official in 1973. Portable long service leave, the 38-hour week, redundancy, superannuation and licensing of the demolition industry were some of the campaigns Brian threw his energy into. Brian was the first recipient of the Labor Council of New South Wales annual Occupational Health and Safety Award for lifetime achievement, and that annual award now bears his name. Brian was highly respected by workers and employers in the building industry. Andrew Ferguson, in paying tribute to Brian, indicated that when he went on a site there was never any doubt about whose interests he was acting in. For that reason he was feared but respected by developers and builders alike, and we make no apology for what he achieved on those sites. I say, Vale, comrade, a life well led.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN [10.21 p.m.]: I am one of a growing band of motorcycle enthusiasts who are represented by the Motor Cycle Council of New South Wales. Tonight I wish to advise honourable members of the great work done by this association in its advocacy of motorcycle safety and other issues. The Motor Cycle Council of New South Wales represents about 23,000 riders, which comprise about one-quarter of all road riders in the State. It is a voluntary organisation with no support funding from any source other than from riders themselves. Before the establishment of the Motor Cycle Council of New South Wales, advocacy was available through active clubs. The Motorcycle Riders Association of New South Wales developed from this advocacy work, and eventually the Motor Cycle Council of New South Wales was formed in 1986 to act as a single voice to address the appropriate authorities.

The Motor Cycle Council is simply a forum, run along open and democratic lines, in which all clubs in New South Wales can participate. It serves as an advocacy vehicle through which issues can be addressed, and it works with motorcycle groups to discuss issues and set agendas for investigation and action. The council also works with agencies of government in a co-operative manner in order to improve road safety and to establish equity for motorcyclists as road users. Motorcyclists have a solid history of looking after themselves and have a proud history with regard to improving motorcycle safety. Honourable members should be aware that the riders themselves lobbied for the introduction of the "250 Rule" for learner riders, which was introduced in 1977. The riders at the Willoughby motorcycle club developed the pilot scheme of rider training and ran it for five years, working with the Government after an invitation to follow the crash involvement history of participants. This proved to be so successful that the pilot was adopted as the New South Wales Rider Training Scheme in 1990 and it is arguably the best current training scheme in Australia.

The Motor Cycle Council has run Motorcycle Awareness Week continuously since 1997, and the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] has provided $20,000 to assist this concept since 1999. The council is grateful to the Minister for Transport Services for this continuing support and can demonstrate extraordinary value for these funds. As I said earlier, the Motor Cycle Council of New South Wales works with the agencies of government and non-government bodies in efforts to improve safety and establish equity for motorcyclists as road users. In the past few years, the council has worked with the RTA on improvements to the Rider Training Scheme, on motorcycle specific signage and on the vexed issues of road quality and roadside furniture, such as crash barriers. The council has also been supported by the Institute of Public Works Engineers in working with the University of New South Wales through its Injury Risk Management Research Centre to address rider fatigue. This is a world first.

Last year, the Motor Cycle Council of New South Wales produced its own Road Safety Strategic Plan entitled "Positioned For Safety", by reverse consultation with government agencies that are stakeholders in safety issues. This strategic plan lays out strategies to be pursued in addressing the three types of crashes. First, when cars at fault hit motorcycles, which constitute 45 per cent of accidents; second, when single motorcycles crash with no other vehicle involved, which constitute 36 per cent of accidents; and, third, when motorcycles at fault hit cars, which constitute 19 per cent of accidents. Each crash type requires a different strategy. There are strategies directed towards rider attitude. In some cases, the strategies are not directed at riders at all, but to roads or towards other road users, such as drivers of motor vehicles. The latter type is referred to by riders as "Sorry mate, I didn't see you" crashes, which represent the largest proportion of accidents and are the least survivable type. The strategic plan clearly underlines the need to continue Motorcycle Awareness Week.

The strategic plan came about through working with the Motor Accidents Authority. This co-operative effort continues with the Motor Accidents Authority, and several other projects are currently in progress, including those relating to protective clothing and rider behaviour. One of the issues noted was the manner of addressing riders by government, and the council is pleased to note improvements in this area that are gaining credibility for safety messages directed towards riders. As a direct consequence of this work, the council has seen the first motorcycle safety program for some years funded by the Motor Accidents Authority and implemented by the RTA. The strategic plan is valuable and enables other stakeholders to learn of the particular issues surrounding motorcycle safety.

The council is also pleased that local government is beginning to involve itself in motorcycle safety in both urban and rural areas. Some of these efforts are notable, with Ku-ring-gai, Willoughby and North Sydney councils winning an award for their combined efforts in 2001-02. Special mention is also made of the Tumbarumba working group for its efforts, which are permeating the motorcycle community. The council is grateful to the Special Minister of State, the Hon. John Della Bosca, for his continued support for these safety initiatives and for providing funds for last year's unique motorcycle safety program and the current program of motorcycle awareness directed to other road users.

The Motor Cycle Council has proved its worth as a legitimate and responsible organisation in addressing road safety, rider safety, driver-rider education and public awareness campaigns. The council is grateful to the riders of New South Wales for their volunteer funding and for their mature and responsible input into discussions with relevant government and non-government agencies. I believe the next step in the evolution of the council is to seek funding from the Government on a more permanent basis to allow more qualitative research on safety issues, to improve the impact of Motorcycle Awareness Week and to improve driver and rider education programs. I ask the Minister to give favourable consideration to this request when it is made on behalf of the Motor Cycle Council.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [10.26 p.m.]: I take this opportunity to talk about the breath-taking hypocrisy of Bob Carr, the Premier of New South Wales. A self-confessed history nut, Mr Carr's "Praise of History" contained in his book Thought Lines, along with the "Premier's History Award", cannot hide the fact he is selling the Parliamentary Library's collection of rare and valuable books, and is doing little if nothing about the state of public libraries in New South Wales. The selling of public library assets was detailed by John Ellicott in an article in the Australian on 14 February. Over the weekend I had the opportunity to attend a meeting of North Coast Democrats in Angourie. While I was there I spoke to a number of local people and there was a major meeting of regional library staff.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: Point of order: For my sins I have been a member of the Library Committee since I have been a member of the House. The Library Committee has debated this issue on more occasions than I can count. Frequently, the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans has led this debate. The decisions he referred to have not been made by the Premier but by the Library Committee. My point of order is not that a member cannot attack a member of the other place except by way of substantive motion. However, I take exception to the honourable member's attacking, by proxy, a joint committee of which I am a member under the guise of attacking the Premier, who has had nothing to do with this matter.

The ACTING-PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order in relation to the first matter raised. However, any attack on the Premier must be sought to be done by way of substantive motion. The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans will refrain from attacking the Premier directly. The member may speak about the Parliamentary Library in general or the dispersal of library assets.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: I will continue on the library subject. There is a major meeting of regional library staff in Lismore tomorrow and Thursday. They are struggling on, as the Library Act of 1939 does not allow co-operation between councils on libraries, accordingly to an opinion offered by the Solicitor General. Libraries also suffer from very poor State Government funding, and the Premier has declined to send a representative to open the meeting, as he declined two years ago. The level of State Government subsidy for public libraries in New South Wales is not only the lowest of any State or Territory in Australia; it is 50 per cent behind the next worst State in percentage terms, and by far the lowest in absolute terms.

The subsidy provided to the four councils of the Richmond-Tweed Regional Library by the State Government in real dollar terms actually dramatically decreased—even without taking inflation into account—between 1995-96 and 2000-01. This is because the State Government has simply chosen to ignore population growth. The disgraceful fact is that in 1980 in New South Wales approximately $36 million was spent on public library services. Of this total, local government contributed $27.5 million, or 76 per cent, and the New South Wales State Government contributed $8.5 million, or 24 per cent. By 1999-2000, $203.9 million was spent on public library services. Local government contributed $186 million, or 91.3 per cent, and the New South Wales State Government contributed $17.9 million, or 8.7 per cent—constituting a major cost shift to local government. And this is while rates are capped at the consumer price index!

During the same period, membership of New South Wales public libraries increased from 35 per cent of the total population to 50 per cent. Thus while New South Wales residents increased their use of public libraries by 40 per cent, the State Government has dramatically reduced its share of library funding from 24 per cent to less than 9 per cent of total costs. Elsewhere in Australia, the minimum funding by State governments is at least 20 per cent of total costs. Fifty per cent of New South Wales residents are registered library members, and even more use their local library without formally registering. Access to an effective public library and information service is vital if Australia is to become the clever country. Clearly, Mr Carr is content for New South Wales residents—

The Hon. Michael Egan: Point of order: This has become a joke. No-one can understand a word the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans is saying. Hansard certainly cannot understand a word. When I looked up they were absolutely gobsmacked. I have not understood a word he has been saying for quite some time. I have not agreed with a word he has been saying for many years.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: To the point of order: Clearly, I can give a copy of my speech to Hansard. I am hurrying through my speech because I believe honourable members are raising points of order to take up my time in the debate. I ask that you give me leave to continue as quickly as possible.

The Hon. Michael Egan: Further to the point of order: It does not matter whether the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans has a text that he can hand to Hansard. Members are entitled to understand what a member is saying. The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans is simply making a mockery of the House and its procedures.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: To the point of order: Numerous Presidents' rulings have said that a member should be able to be understood in the Chamber.

The ACTING-PRESIDENT: Order! I ask the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans to speak slightly more slowly than he was previously.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: State Government funding is currently $3.18 per person per year, which is less than 1¢ a day per capita. The Country Public Libraries Association and the Metropolitan Public Libraries Association have requested that that be increased to $6 per capita per year. I seek leave to incorporate the rest of my speech in Hansard.

Leave not granted.

[Time expired.]
The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [10.31 p.m.]: Earlier today I had the great pleasure of hosting a function organised by the organisation known as EMILY's List New South Wales—the function was a slightly belated celebration of the additional Labor women elected to Parliament earlier this year and the achievement of the women candidates supported by EMILY's List who ran good campaigns but unfortunately were not elected. It is perhaps appropriate that I make my adjournment speech on this subject, given that tonight all the women members of this House who were present voted together in the conscience vote on the Research Involving Human Embryos (New South Wales) Bill, as they did last week. The women were celebrating their right to choose in relation to that vote, which is an important principle upheld by EMILY's List.

I shall mention some of the women who were successful at the election. Linda Burney, the member for Canterbury, is the first Aboriginal person to be elected to the New South Wales Parliament. It is a great delight to pay tribute to her success. I mention also Noreen Hay, the member for Wollongong, Angela D'Amore, the member for Drummoyne, and Karyn Paluzzano, the member for Penrith. They are only a few of the new women members. EMILY's List is an organisation that gives strong support to women members of Parliament, particularly those whose seats may be marginal. Alison Megarrity is an obvious member in that category. One woman candidate who did well was Imogen Wareing, who, somewhat to her amazement, at one stage looked as if she might achieve a major upset, if not for herself then for the Independent in the seat of Willoughby.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: She was not even in the ballpark.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: I did say she thought she might achieve a major upset, if not for herself then for the Independent. Certainly, the Independent candidate came exceedingly close to taking that seat from the Liberal Party. The diversity of the women supported by EMILY's List—

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: Would you be celebrating the election of a woman in the seat of Willoughby?

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: I would certainly have been celebrating the election of Imogen Wareing in Willoughby. That would have been a particular delight.

Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes: The Independent happened to be a male.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: I am aware of that. I thank honourable members for their support and their helpful comments. I have spoken previously in the House about EMILY's List. Indeed, I am wearing the brooch worn by members of EMILY's List. The organisation, which was set up in 1996, has fought strongly to increase the percentage of Labor women, particularly progressive Labor women not only in the New South Wales Parliament but also in other State parliaments in Australia. We still have a bit of a way to go in the New South Wales State Parliament. Other parliaments around Australia have a markedly higher percentage of women, and we look forward to achieving that percentage in due course.

Currently 35 per cent of Labor members of the Federal Parliament are New South Wales women. So in that respect the target set at the 1994 national Labor Party conference has been met. Once again I pay tribute to the successful women and, indeed, the other Labor women who were not necessarily aligned with EMILY's List and its principles and policies. In terms of the issues dealt with by the Parliament since I have been here, women members across the parties, including the minor parties and Independents, have joined together unanimously on certain issues. That is important in recognising some of the issues that we face in common or the issues that our sisters in the community face. That is also an important aspect of our work here.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER [10.36 p.m.]: Tonight I want to tell honourable members about a wonderful suburb called Ashtonfield. Ashtonfield is a relatively new suburb on the outskirts of Maitland, and is close to the entrance to the F3. It is on the southern fringes of Maitland and close to Newcastle. Many young families have established themselves in new houses in the subdivision, because housing is relatively more affordable by comparison with Newcastle. It is an attractive suburb. Most of the houses are about 10 years old. It is the sort of environment in which children can freely ride their bikes around the streets, and people know their neighbours. It is a lovely, leafy suburb surrounded by bush.

One problem with Ashtonfield is that it is expanding rapidly. It now has the suburbs of Shamrock Hill and Rathluba on its boundaries. Ashtonfield is a perfect suburb in which to bring up children but one problem is that there is no primary school. When the subdivision began, a site was earmarked for a public school, but many years down the track the school has not been built. I applaud the community's continued patience, determination, and work towards achieving the Ashtonfield primary school, but it does not seem to be getting any closer to being built. I am extremely disappointed that no funding for the project was included in the New South Wales budget handed down by the Treasurer last week. In 1995 the then Minister for Education and Training, John Aquilina, visited the site of the Ashtonfield school with the then Labor candidate for Maitland, Tony Keating.

We are now some time down the track and we still do not have a school. Meanwhile the local primary schools are bursting at the seams. During the election campaign the Hon. Patricia Forsythe, the Labor candidate for Maitland, Bob Geoghegan, and I visited surrounding schools, where the classes are jam packed. Some classes have more than 30 students, and in some cases children have to be bussed across the road. One would think that something might happen about a school first promised in 1995. In the Maitland Mercury of28 November 2002 the school was announced yet again:

The oft-mooted project to be built on Government-owned land in Norfolk Street—which has been talked about for the past 10 years—was announced by education minister John Watkins.

However, there was no money in the budget. In the 17 March edition of the newspaper the honourable member for Maitland and the Minister for Education and Training were shown with local residents at the site of the proposed school. The newspaper reported that, according to the Minister, concrete steps had been taken to get things moving on Ashtonfield school. As recently as last week the newspaper reported the Minister as saying that the school is still on track, but there is no money for it in the budget. The people of Ashtonfield and I would like to know whether the Government has had a change of heart. It has been reported that more than 300 children would be admitted into the school in its first intake. That is a huge school population. No more evidence is needed that we need a school at Ashtonfield.

These children cannot keep going to overcrowded schools. The private school near Ashtonfield is also filled to capacity. The people of Ashtonfield want to know where and when the school is going to be built, and where is the money that has been promised since 1995. If the site is there and the Government has made the promise, it needs to deliver. This is a slap in the face for the people of Ashtonfield. Eight years is too long to wait. It is time the people of Ashtonfield got the school they were promised and that the Government came up with the money it has been promising over and over again for many years.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [10.41 p.m.]: This week, in every single country of the world, more than 70 million Methodists will celebrate the birthday of John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist Church, which in this country is part of the Uniting Church in Australia. Tens of thousands of Australians remembered him this week. John Wesley was born 300 years ago this week in Epworth, Lincolnshire, England. He became one of the most significant figures in British social and religious reform in the eighteenth century and one of the most significant church leaders of all time. His father, Samuel, was a Church of England clergyman. His mother, Susannah, taught all her 19 children at home.

After studies at Charterhouse School, at the age of 17 John went to Oxford University on a scholarship. He graduated with a Master of Arts. He stayed on as a tutor, and eventually became a Fellow of Lincoln College, where he gave an annual lecture for more than 60 years. He and other students met to pray and study the Bible so regularly and methodically, they were nicknamed "Methodists". They preached in prisons, conducted schools for poor children and cared for the sick. In 1728 he was ordained a priest of the Church of England, and he and his brother Charles volunteered to go to Georgia, America, as missionaries to convert the native American Indians. The trip was a failure and they returned.

On the return voyage from America, John was impressed by the behaviour of a group of Moravians—a Protestant German religious group—during a violent storm. He saw that they fully trusted in God to keep them safe. Both he and Charles attended their home group Bible studies, and on Pentecost Sunday—21 May 1738—Charles had a conversion experience of fully trusting God. Three days later, on 24 May 1738, John fully accepted Jesus as his Saviour after a religious experience in Aldersgate Street meeting house, where he felt his heart "strangely warmed" by the love of God. From then on, John and Charles travelled all over England preaching that a person could know God's grace fully and live a life based upon Christian love.

For more than 50 years, John rode on horseback over 225,000 miles on unmade roads and in danger of highwaymen. He had lay preachers—non-ordained Bible students—to help him. He preached out of doors so that everyone, rich and poor, could hear him. He never had a parish of his own. He said the "whole world was his parish". In 1739 he established the "New Room" in Bristol, the first ever Methodist Church in the world. Reverend Charles Wesley lived there for many years and trained preachers. John founded an orphan house, a dispensary, a restaurant, an employment centre and several schools for the poor and miners' children. He set up London's first free clinic with properly qualified doctors to look after the poor.

He wrote or translated over 400 books, and his brother Charles became the world's most prolific hymn writer with over 6,000 published hymns, many of them sung to the popular tunes of the day. There was strong opposition to his preaching. Mobs were raised against him. A drunken crowd once burst into his house. Church bells were rung to drown his voice. A maddened bull was driven into the crowd where he was preaching. I like the story of the heckler who came with a pocketful of rotten eggs to throw at him but so great was the crowd that they were squashed while they were still in his pocket. The genius of John Wesley and the Methodists was to combine evangelical preaching with a social concern, a combination seen in Wesley Mission Sydney for the past 191 years.

John Wesley lived to be almost 88. He continued to rise at 4.00 a.m. and kept up his travelling to the end. He died on 2 March 1791. His last words were "God is with us." Ten thousand people filed past his coffin, and his funeral had to be held before dawn because of unmanageable crowds. No-one in eighteenth century England was so well known among people of every class of society. Today, the three-hundredth anniversary of his birth, we remember his influence with gratitude.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG [Parliamentary Secretary] [10.46 p.m.]: I inform the House of the good news that the World Health Organisation has lifted its travel advisories on Beijing. This is welcome news for New South Wales tourism because Chinese tourism is one of the fastest-growing sectors in New South Wales.

[Time for debate expired.]

Motion agreed to.