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

The Clerk of the Parliaments offered the Prayers.

The President reported the receipt of the following message from His Excellency the Honourable James Jacob Spigelman, Chief Justice of New South Wales, Lieutenant-Governor of the State of New South Wales:

LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Office of the Governor

The Honourable James Jacob Spigelman, Chief Justice of New South Wales, Lieutenant-Governor of the State of New South Wales, has the honour to inform the Legislative Council that, consequent on the Governor of New South Wales, Professor Marie Bashir, being absent from the State, he has this day assumed the administration of the Government of the State.

3 May 2004

Bills received.

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

Motion by The Hon. Michael Egan agreed to:

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

Bills read a first time and ordered to be printed.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos tabled a list detailing all legislation unproclaimed 90 calendar days after assent as at 4 May 2004.

Petition opposing the abolition of CountryLink rail services and their replacement with buses in rural and regional New South Wales, received from the Hon. Patricia Forsythe.

Petitions 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 the Hon. David Clarke, the Hon. Duncan Gay, Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes and Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.
Petition praying that temporary protection visa holders be provided with the same rights and services as permanent protection visa holders, received from Ms Sylvia Hale.

Petition opposing alcohol sale deregulation, and requesting exclusion of liquor sales outlets from the National Competition Policy Amendments (Commonwealth Financial Penalties) Bill, received from the Hon. Dr Peter Wong.

Petition opposing the decision to increase poker machine tax, received from the Hon. Rick Colless.

Petition requesting conservation of historic fig trees in The Domain, Sydney, received from Mr Ian Cohen.

Petition opposing amalgamation of Evans Shire Council with any other council, and opposing introduction of the Local Government Amendment Bill, received from the Hon. Duncan Gay.

Motion by the Hon. Greg Pearce agreed to:

1. That the General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 inquire into and report on the 2004 Mini-Budget.

2. That the Committee:

(a) must hear evidence on the Mini-Budget in public.

(b) may ask for explanations from the Treasurer or officers of the Treasury relating to the items of proposed expenditure outlined in the Mini-Budget.

(c) have leave to sit during the sittings or any adjournment of the House.

3. That the Committee report to the House by Thursday 3 June 2004.

[During Notices of Motions]

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: Point of order: Yesterday the Hon. Catherine Cusack read a lengthy notice of motion. Ms Lee Rhiannon then gave notice of a motion but, sensibly—and kindly to all of us—said that as the motion was lengthy she would not read it. I ask you to use your discretion and ask the Hon. Catherine Cusack to apply the same sensible approach.

The Hon. Don Harwin: To the point of order: Standing Order 71 states that a notice of motion need not be read. It does not state that a notice of motion must not be read. Under that standing order a member can read an entire notice of motion.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Members have the right to read notices of motions in their entirety, even if they are lengthy. However, I point out that very lengthy notices of motions seem to lose their impact.

Government Business Notice of Motion No. 1 postponed on motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I move:

That this House:

(a) agrees to and adopts the Standing Rules and Orders set out in the attached schedule. (See pages 8345-8425)

(b) authorises the President to present such Standing Rules and Orders to Her Excellency the Governor for approval.

This motion for the adoption of the new standing rules and orders reflects the recommendations in the first and second reports of the Standing Orders Committee—which is now known as the Procedure Committee—that were presented to the House on 18 September 2003 and 4 May 2004 respectively. As indicated in the first report of the Standing Orders Committee, the current standing rules and orders were adopted by the House over a century ago—on 4 July 1895—and approved by the Governor on 8 August 1895. They were drafted using language typical of the late nineteenth century, and there has been little amendment to them during the past 100 years. In recent years, especially since the reconstitution of this place in 1978 to a democratically elected House—an initiative, honourable members will recall, of the Wran Labor Government that was fiercely opposed by the Opposition—

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: And strongly supported by me.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: That is only because Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile had the benefit of—

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Getting elected.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Not only that but also the benefit of a certain member of this House who in those days held another position in a particular university explaining the proposed electoral system to Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile is very quick on the uptake, unlike the Hon. Catherine Cusack, who takes six years to catch on to things. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile catches on quickly and could see that there was a place in the sun for him.

As I said, the standing orders were drafted using language typical of the nineteenth century and there has been little amendment to them during the past 100 years. However, since 1978 the practices and procedures of the Legislative Council have changed significantly. To cover the increasing gaps in the 1895 standing orders each new Parliament has seen the adoption of a growing body of sessional orders. I have had something to do with that, not only as a member of this House but also in my days as an adviser to then Leader of the House, the Hon. Barrie Unsworth. I remember drafting with Les Jeckeln the sessional order that for the first time effectively provided the House with a routine adjournment debate at the end of every sitting day. There had previously been a very cumbersome procedure.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: So you helped Barrie lose the election too.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I was certainly on his side when he lost the election, but I can tell the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that we have won more elections since I have been here than he has. I am rather pleased about that and I think that trend will continue for a long time to come. I will be here for a long time too. I will be here until 2027, as I said yesterday. I expect that there will be more changes over the next 23 years that, hopefully, will not stay as sessional orders for very long but will be incorporated in the new standing orders. To cover the increasing gaps in the 1895 standing orders each new Parliament has seen the adoption of a growing body of sessional orders, and this is the first overall revision of the standing orders to reflect—

The Hon. John Della Bosca: You'll only be about 80 then.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: No, I will not. I will still be in my prime. In fact, in 21 years I will be 78, which is the age at which one once entered this Chamber—one did not get in until one was 78. But I propose to get out when I am 78, and I will be a very spritely, young 78.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: With a bad cough.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I might have a bad cough but I will not be as badly dressed as the Hon. Michael Costa, who I am simply amazed to discover has been listed by the Fairfax press as the ninth best-dressed person in New South Wales.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: It's a joke.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I think it is a complete joke. The tie-less, tubby, molten-headed Minister for Transport Services is frankly never dressed appropriately—and never will be. It just shows how far downhill the Fairfax press has gone. I think it is absolutely ridiculous even to have that sort of thing in the modern media. The Fairfax press is a joke. It produces that glossy (sydney) magazine.

The Hon. Rick Colless: What number was Henry?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Henry is always attired very appropriately but we cannot say the same for Costa. When the Fairfax press descends to that sort of nonsense in one of the glossy magazines that it produces for all the Liberal yuppies—the baby stockbrokers—we know it has really lost it.

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: What about Della? Did he get a mention?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: No, but if we did want to include a member of this House in a list of the 20 best-dressed in New South Wales we would obviously go no further than my deputy, the Hon. John Della Bosca. I have known him since he was 15 and he has been sartorially splendid from the day I first met him.

Honourable members are diverting me. This is the first overall revision of the standing orders to reflect the contemporary nature and practices of the modern Legislative Council. New rules and orders have been drafted to govern these new practices and procedures. The new standing rules and orders are in plain, modern English and have been through several revisions since they were first drafted in 1992. Modelled in the first instance on the standing orders of the Australian Senate—an institution that I do not have much time for—they are comprehensive and incorporate all the current practices and procedures of the House.

The Standing Orders Committee considered the proposed new standing rules and orders during 2002 and 2003 before presenting its first report to the House. A briefing paper attached as appendix 2 to the report indicates changes to the practices and procedures recommended by the committee within the new orders. Appendix 3 to the report also provides a comparative chart of new and old standing order numbers. With the arrangement of the new standing orders into chapters it is hoped that members will find them more useful and easier to understand and that it will assist others to appreciate better the workings of this House.

As members will be aware, the proposed new standing orders were adopted as sessional orders on 14 October 2003 on a trial basis. The new code of standing orders has worked well to date and, with the minor amendments proposed in the second report from the Procedure Committee, the time is now opportune for the House to adopt formally the new standing orders for approval by the Governor—no doubt with the advice of the Executive Council, of which I am very proud to be Vice-President. To echo the words of the Hon. A. H. Jacob—we all remember him as the Chairman of Committees at that time—in moving the adoption of the 1895 standing orders:

Therefore it is right that we should have a new set of standing orders embodying all the rules of procedure which guide us, and this code has been drawn up by the Standing Orders Committee.

Finally, I would like to thank you, Madam President, as Chairman—I say "Chairman" and you say "Chair"; I will continue to say "Chairman" for as long as you say "Chair"—of the Standing Orders Committee, now called the Procedure Committee, and all members of the committee for their contributions to the adoption of this revised code of standing orders for the new millennium. I particularly thank the Clerk of the Parliaments, Mr John Evans, and the Deputy Clerk, Ms Lynn Lovelock, who had the carriage of this important project. I have no hesitation in saying that, but for their determination to get us all together and to progress this matter, we would still be dealing with the 1895 standing orders—and probably would continue to do so for many a day. I thank the Clerks and other officers of the Parliament for their very good work in drafting the proposals for the Procedure Committee's deliberations. Their tremendous efforts in researching and revising the standing orders as well as those of all the other Legislative Council staff involved in the project are very much appreciated. I commend the motion to the House.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [11.29 a.m.]: On behalf of the Opposition I, too, thank the Clerk, John Evans, and the Deputy Clerk, Lynn Lovelock. I understand that the Deputy Clerk has been working on this project for a number of years and has always come up against a brick wall. She can take great pleasure in the fact that this matter has finally come to fruition. It is also great that the Leader of the Government recognises that the changes to sessional orders introduced by the Opposition in relation to question time have been readily picked up by the Government and have become the standard operating procedures in the House. As time evolves those orders will no doubt be the subject of change. The Opposition is also looking at other areas for future change, including the elucidation provisions within the standing orders. We look forward to further examination of that issue in the future. On behalf of all members of the Opposition, I thank Madam President for allowing us to participate in this process through the Procedure Committee. We look forward to the success of these standing orders in the future.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [11.31 a.m.]: I congratulate the Clerks for rewriting the standing orders in plain English. The standing orders certainly needed to be updated. The Clerks have done a very good job. However, I believe that the standing orders should not be set in stone, as they were in the past. I wrote to the Procedure Committee and asked for some changes, some of which have been incorporated in the new standing orders. I asked for a business committee modelled on the New Zealand Parliament, where the business of the House is in the hands of a committee rather than being the prerogative of Executive Government. I believe that the House should be master of its own destiny, rather than the Government's changing the order to suit its convenience, which has been a longstanding and not very good tradition of this House. I note that a majority of members can recall the House, but there is not a process to do that. Presumably, a person who wants to recall the House will have to contact each honourable member, get him or her to contact the President and then recall the House. The process is not clear. I requested a clear process. I believe that to be an omission in new Standing Order 36.

I am pleased that the form of petitions has been changed. Petitions can merely request action; they do not have to contain archaic wording. Therefore, I presume that petitions that outline the general desire of petitioners will be accepted. I am delighted that I can now present a number of petitions to the House that I have had in my bottom drawer. As they were not correctly worded for the House they were considered ineligible in the past. I am glad that the Government has to respond to committee reports under Standing Order 233. I raised other issues with the Procedure Committee, including that answers to questions must contain real and relevant facts, and that they must not contain imputations, abuse or make statements. That is currently a condition for questions but, interestingly, not for answers. The same standard should apply to questions and answers. It may be a matter of changing the sessional orders. The practice of Ministers simply berating members during question time and not answering questions needs to be tightened up if this House is to have any credibility. We should not be seen as a Chamber where we abuse each other. I will take advice on the method for achieving that objective.

I refer to the practice of members taking points of order during questions, answers and adjournment speeches to use up the speaker's limited time, to stop the member from speaking in full. I believe that the time taken up by points of order should be added on to the time available for the member to speak. A member should have his or her full allocated time in which to ask or answer a question or to speak on the adjournment. I hope that those matters will be corrected in the sessional orders. I am not a whiz on procedure. I flag the fact that I would like those changes and I will be arguing for them when the sessional orders come before the House. However, within that framework, the standing rules and orders have to be current. We should not wait as long as we have to review them. We should see what other changes can be made. I have flagged some issues that I believe are important and worth considering.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [11.35 a.m.]: I support the motion moved by the Treasurer. The standing orders have been revised and are now in plain English. I thank the Clerk, Mr Evans, and the Deputy Clerk, Ms Lovelock, for their outstanding efforts in relation to these standing orders. The motion proposes that the standing orders will be presented to the Governor for her approval, to be signed off by her in accordance with the traditions of this House. It is an acknowledgment of the role of the Governor, who was appointed to represent Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. When honourable members are sworn in they make an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. There are checks and balances in the State and Federal parliaments. For consistency, members make an oath of allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II or her heirs and successors. That links in with the role of the Governor. Honourable members visit Government House, usually annually, and present themselves to the Governor. I put on record my disappointment at the Government's announcement that it agrees to support a private member's bill to remove all reference to Queen Elizabeth II from the oath that we take in this place. It will break the link of consistency between this House, the Governor, the Queen and our role as members. I am pleased to support the motion. I thank the President for chairing the Procedure Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill received, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly agreed to:

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

Second reading ordered to stand as an order of the day.

Motion by the Hon. Rick Colless agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 96 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to the inquiry by General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5 into the public provision of vocational, education and training in rural New South Wales, be called on forthwith.

Motion by the Hon. Rick Colless agreed to:

That Private Members' Business item No. 96 outside the Order of Precedence be called on forthwith:

The Hon. RICK COLLESS [11.40 a.m.]: I move the following motion, as amended by leave:

1. That General Purpose Sanding Committee No. 5 inquire into and report on the closure of residential training at the Murrumbidgee College of Agriculture and in particular:

(a) the process by which the decision was made to close the residential training,

(b) the community and industry consultation that preceded the announcement of the proposal,

(c) the impact on the Leeton and Yanco communities and district, and

(d) the reasons why Murrumbidgee and Tocal colleges have not been transferred to the Department of Education and Training.

2. That the Committee report by Thursday 23 September 2004.

This is a very important issue for the people of the Murrumbidgee, particularly the Leeton and Yanco communities. Honourable members may recall that last year the Opposition moved for a 12-month moratorium on the closure of the residential component of the Murrumbidgee College of Agriculture. At the time there was considerable support in this House for that proposal. However, it was completely rejected by the Minister at the time. It is shocking that rural education means nothing more than the bottom-line approach of this Government, which should be reminded that education is vital to the public good and is increasingly necessary to offer rural youth a variety of regionally specific education options.

In the estimates hearings Opposition members asked the Minister about the actual number of students who had transferred from the Murrumbidgee College of Agriculture to the Tocal college. At the time the Minister was unable to answer that question, as was the director-general. That caused Opposition members some concern, because while the Minister was saying that students from the Murrumbidgee College of Agriculture would be transferred to the Tocal college we knew that that had not in fact happened. When answers were provided to the questions that the Minister took on notice, it became clear that only one student, who was enrolled at the Murrumbidgee College of Agriculture in 2003, had transferred to the Tocal college in 2004. That is extraordinary given that the Government was basing its removal of residential facilities from the Murrumbidgee college on the premise that the students would be moving to the Tocal college.
In the circumstances, it is very important that there be an inquiry into the processes that occurred prior to the closure of the residential facilities at the Murrumbidgee College of Agriculture, the community and industry consultation that took place prior to that announcement, and the very important impact that the closure of that residential facility will have on the Leeton and Yanco communities and the district. There are now no residential education facilities in that area. Those students used the Murrumbidgee College of Agriculture extensively for their rice irrigation training and pastoral education in the western districts of southern New South Wales. Therefore, it is important that the inquiry be undertaken to ascertain all of the reasons behind the closure of the residential facilities at Yanco.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for Primary Industries) [11.44 a.m.]: Unfortunately, as I have just learned that this motion was to come on for debate today, I do not as yet have the detailed prepared material that I intended to use in this discussion.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Notice was given more than a month ago.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: That is true, but staff have not yet delivered the prepared material to me. It will be here shortly.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Perhaps they should read it for you.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I do not need anyone to do anything for me.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! The Hon. Melinda Pavey will cease interjecting.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The purpose of this inquiry is to look at a number of elements surrounding the decision to close the full-time residential training facility at the Murrumbidgee College of Agriculture. I would point out that, although the Hon. Rick Colless has moved this motion, a number of positive things that have occurred in recent times I believe will ensure that the Yanco facility has a very exciting future. Part of the reason for the closure was to consolidate and strengthen our education endeavours across the State, splitting both the functions—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: That is an interesting theory: closing to strengthen.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I was referring to closing the residential side of Yanco and strengthening its contribution to adult education, which is currently probably the most sought after of the department's educational services. As has been pointed out, many thousands of students have utilised the short courses. Basically, it is in-house training conducted whilst students are working in various farm establishments across the State. There are a number of reasons that the Government has taken the view that it is preferable to consolidate the short courses at Yanco and continue with full-time residential education at Tocal. Over the past few years Tocal has shown a significant growth in its full-time residential education activities.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: It got one student from Murrumbidgee—one!

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I am going to deal with all these things after the luncheon break, because some of the myths that have been propagated by the Opposition need to be dealt with in some detail.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You will have three minutes.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Do I have a time limit? I am told I do. The decision to transfer full-time and part-time residential courses from the Murrumbidgee College of Agriculture still stands. This decision is sound and will not be undermined or changed, regardless of the proposed inquiry. These changes are about creating a stronger agricultural education program for the longer term. As I have said, since January 2004 the focus of the Murrumbidgee College of Agriculture has been on providing lifelong learning courses for farmers. In fact, a number of staff have been devoted to that aim. Full-time and part-time residential courses will be transferred to the C. B. Alexander Agricultural College, Tocal. One of the responsibilities of NSW Agriculture and the State Government is to ensure the long-term sustainability of the State's farming sector. Unfortunately, full-time enrolments at the Murrumbidgee College of Agriculture have been steadily declining for 10 years—well before the drought began—while demand for short courses for farmers has increased. As a result, it is simply not responsible to continue the status quo.

Honourable members will note that prior to the announcement a major report on educational programs offered by NSW Agriculture was released around 2001. The report was handed to the Murrumbidgee College of Agriculture for its evaluation, yet enrolments at Yanco continued to decline dramatically compared to the strength at Tocal. I could deal with this in more detail, but some of these issues can be amplified when the matter is referred to the committee. As I said, we are considering a joint venture between Yanco and Charles Sturt University. A working party has been established between the council, the department and Charles Sturt University to determine what programs could be offered and how Yanco could fit within the educational strategies of the university.

Research staff at Yanco, one of our 12 centres of excellence, has increased. We will continue to focus on upgrading research facilities at Yanco. A number of staff are involved in delivering the short courses at Yanco, which, I understand, is progressing well and will continue. Although the committee has the opportunity to consider these issues, I am confident that the Government has done the right thing to ensure that we consolidate our activities across the State to enable Yanco to continue to develop as a first-rate institution offering short courses, and Tocal offering full-time courses.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS [11.51 a.m.], in reply: It is astonishing that the Minister for Primary Industries says that closing the residential side of Murrumbidgee College of Agriculture will strengthen the facilities at MCA. The people of the area are telling us that that is exactly what will not happen. Agricultural colleges have always held short courses. I was a student at Hawkesbury Agricultural College when it was run by the Department of Agriculture. It was a great educational institution. Every holiday the college ran short courses, which was part of its normal management procedures. Students lived in the residential facility provided by the college. The Minister said that regardless of the outcome of the inquiry, the closure would stand. Again, he is displaying the arrogance he displayed last year when this House resolved that there be a 12-month moratorium on the removal of residential facilities at MCA. At that time he said, irrespective of the call by this Chamber for a 12-month moratorium on the closure of the facility, it would proceed.

His arrogance is really flying in the face of the community needs. The community wants to maintain the Murrumbidgee College of Agriculture and it needs to maintain the Murrumbidgee College of Agriculture. The Isolated Parents and Children's Association wants to maintain the Murrumbidgee College of Agriculture and it needs to maintain the Murrumbidgee College of Agriculture. The people of western New South Wales and the people of the Riverina, as the Hon. Tony Catanzariti is very well aware, want to maintain the Murrumbidgee College of Agriculture in its residential format. They do not want to see it disbanded. They want to see it maintained, and we believe it should be maintained.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: We will put it back in three years time.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: As my colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, a future Coalition government will reinstate the residential facility of the Murrumbidgee College of Agriculture.

Motion agreed to.

Debate resumed from 4 May.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [11.55 a.m.]: I am concerned about the Civil Liability Amendment (Offender Damages) Bill. In her second reading speech in the other place Ms Diane Beamer trumpeted the success of the Civil Liability Act 2002 as one of the most significant bills introduced by this Government, together with the Civil Liability Amendment (Personal Responsibility) Act. As evidence for the success of the bill she cited that the number of tort cases has dropped significantly from 20,784 in 2001 to 12,686 in 2002 and 7,910 in 2003. Tort cases pending in the courts dropped from 23,547 in 2001 to 19,128 in 2002 and 9,104 in 2003. If the object of civil liability law is to reduce the number of people suing then it is a huge success. However, people are not suing because the threshold is 15 per cent, which means that if people have not been immensely damaged they cannot get any money. If someone is damaged a little bit the lawyers say, "Tough luck, mate, you'll get no benefit if you go to court." It is a complete nonsense for the Government to call this a huge success.

Some years ago I was an occupational health and safety doctor with Sydney Water when a man who injured his knee claimed that he could not work because when he tried to squat down to dig a ditch his knee was too painful. I assessed the man's knee according to the American Medical Association guidelines and determined that he had only a 1 per cent disability. Of course, the guidelines could not measure pain. His knee moved over almost the normal range and was only 1 per cent lower than the normal range according to American Medical Association guidelines, which did not mean that this man could not work. He took his injury sufficiently seriously to lodge a compensation claim, but they said to him, "Look, mate, if you go through with this compensation claim you will not get nearly as much money. You're only in your fifties. You've got to get through to 60 and get your pension retirement. This is going to cost you a fortune." He said, "Well, my knee hurts. I can't work."

Even though the range of movement in this man's knee was reduced by only 1 per cent according to the guidelines, he was sufficiently disabled to be unable to work. This Government has made the threshold 15 per cent—practically no-one could reach it unless he or she was badly damaged—consequently the number of law suits for damages has fallen. If the Government wants to stop people from suing to get redress for their injuries it should propose an alternative solution. Tort law is an old-fashioned thing that has evolved over thousands of years from Britain, and it is much admired. But it does not deal with the modern idea of injury prevention which is, as any person who has studied safety management theory will tell you, looking at the factors involved, identifying what accidents and incidents occur, and trying to prevent them. To make everyone scared of being sued, pay loads of insurance companies money and then introduce laws to stop everyone from suing until they are badly injured is not the way to solve the problem of compensation for injury in our State.

The Australian Democrats believe that a more systematic approach should be taken. In the suburb in which I live, the council spends a lot of time grinding pavements because the roots of trees make the pavements uneven and theoretically people could trip because of the unevenness of the pavements. The council is so worried about being sued that it has arranged for someone with a grinder to take off the corner of the lumps in the pavement so that the strollers will not be obstructed and the joggers will not trip. The council is addressing a non-specific fear. If someone asked how many people actually trip over the footpath and what the council has done about that, the council would be unable to produce data because no survey has been done. Obviously the systematic approach would be to create a register of people who have had minor pavement accidents.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Transport Services. Does Sydney Ferries intend to dispose of the disused ferry Lady Street in the near future? Have a number of purchase offers been made for the vessel, either for its scrapping or use as a private vessel, any of which would result in some financial return to the taxpayer? Is Sydney Ferries planning to give away the vessel free of charge, with no financial benefit to the taxpayer, to be sunk either as a dive wreck or a seabed fish colony—a measure that would require up to $150,000 to be spent on environmental clean-up requirements? If so, would taxpayers pay for the additional clean-up costs? Will the Minister give an undertaking that Sydney Ferries will dispose of the Lady Street only in a way that will provide some financial return, rather than extra cost, to the taxpayers of New South Wales?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I am not aware of who has written that question for the Leader of the Opposition or what agenda is implied by whoever has written the question for him, but I am certainly prepared to obtain information, at least of the circumstances in relation to the ferry.

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Justice. Will he inform the House of the history of the progress of workplace reforms in New South Wales correctional centres?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I thank the Hon. Tony Catanzariti for his question. The Government has always indicated its commitment to running an effective and efficient prison system. This commitment involves the public sector providing a prison system that does not compromise on efficiency and quality. The Department of Corrective Services recognises that for many years the management of correctional centres has been based on the traditional model of inmate management. Consequently, the Government has brought the department's work practices into line with modern correctional philosophies and principles.

The Productivity Commission, the Auditor-General and the Inspector-General of Corrective Services have all acknowledged the high cost of incarceration in New South Wales correctional centres compared to other jurisdictions. This is partly a reflection of inmate mix, geographical spread of small facilities, the age of facilities and a number of other factors. The 2002-03 annual report of the inspector-general supported the Government's workplace reform initiatives, stating:

I commend the Department for acknowledging that workplace reform is now needed and fully support the measures it intends to introduce.

Negotiations on the Way Forward Program commenced in June 2003 to introduce workplace reforms across the department. The initial focus of these negotiations was on the facilities at the mid North Coast and Dillwynia. The negotiations were successful and a consent award covering those two facilities was agreed upon. The new arrangements will involve rolling let-goes and lock-ins to improve safety by allowing more officers to be present at times when incidences are most likely to occur; cluster rostering to improve the transparency and fairness of the rostering system; enhanced structured days to allow inmates to have access to programs and activities as well as work; and alignment of court cells with correctional centres to increase the effectiveness of local supervision, to allow a rotation program between court cells and correctional centres, and to allow flexibility with regard to staffing.

Following agreement with the union early this year, the Government approved in March the public operation of the new correctional centres at Kempsey and at Dillwynia and the development of a new Mid Western Correctional Centre at Wellington to progress by the traditional method. The finalisation of recruitment action is now taking place with initial correctional officer training to be provided locally at Kempsey. The Government will monitor periodically the ongoing effective and efficient operation of the facilities. This decision is of course good news for the mid North Coast and Dillwynia communities because it means that they can get on with the job of preparing these two facilities for operation.

I congratulate the Public Service Association of New South Wales which has taken an enlightened and constructive approach to workplace reform and has agreed to a more streamlined management and operational structure for these facilities. Negotiations are now under way with a view to implementing these reforms in other correctional centres. The result will be a more efficient and safer working environment for corrective service officers, non-custodial staff and inmates. The $106.6 million Mid North Coast Correctional Centre and the $53.6 million Dillwynia Women's Correctional Centre are on track to be able to receive their first inmates in the next few months. When fully operational, the Mid North Coast Correctional Centre will inject approximately $10 million in salaries annually into the local economy and approximately $3 million in operational costs. When fully operational, the Dillwynia Women's Correctional Centre will inject approximately $10 million in salaries and wages annually and approximately $1.5 million in operational costs.

As I mentioned earlier, the agreement also covers the Wellington Mid West Correctional Centre, which will be constructed using the traditional public sector method. However, the final decision on the method of operation will be made only after the operation of the Kempsey and Dillwynia facilities has been assessed. Following the completion of construction in 2006, the Mid Western Correctional Centre is expected to inject $8 million into the local economy each year in wages and salaries.

The approach of the Government—that is, to support an effective and efficient public sector correctional system—contrasts with the approach taken by the Opposition when it was in government. Honourable members will recall that the Opposition's policy was to support increased privatisation of the correctional system. [Time expired.]
The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate his answer?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Of course. I remind the Opposition of its performance. Under the Coalition Government taxpayers were forced to pay for the $24 million blow-out in the cost of building a correctional centre at Junee. The accepted tender for the prison was nearly $7 million more expensive than was the cheapest private bid.

The Hon. Rick Colless: He looks about as happy as a thundercloud.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I noticed that the Hon. Rick Colless was not at Inverell when I was there recently. I was most offended that he did not turn up. He was mentioned in dispatches and I am told that he never turned up for council meetings.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: That is because he is not on the council.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I noticed that his votes at the last election went to single digits. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition's medication is wearing off and it is only five minutes into question time. Let me return to the question. It cost the Coalition Government approximately $30,000 a week to maintain 60 empty cells at Junee and the then Minister, John Hannaford, said they "had to be paid for". When this Government negotiated the Junee deal, we managed to get it cheaper than the price that the Coalition managed to obtain it for when the agreement was first entered into. Prior to the 2003 State election, what did the Opposition learn from that experience? This is what the Leader of the Opposition, John Brogden, said:

We'll build more jails ... we have always been attracted to the concept of some level of contracting out in these services and we'd look to go down that path.

When asked whether a Coalition government would allow the American company Wackenhut's to run correctional centres in New South Wales, John Brogden replied:

Well, that would be clearly a matter for private tender discussions.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: You are not very good at this, Hat, you have to practise a bit more.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Now Melinda, you are going to be the leader one day, so calm down. You will only need a couple of votes in that party of yours. The Coalition and Government policies should be viewed in contrast: the philosophical position of the Coalition is simply to privatise whereas the position of the Government is that it wants a public sector that is effective and efficient. That is what the Government has managed to achieve through this agreement. The Government will monitor the performance of the agreement closely.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Does the State Government have any plans to relocate the head office of NSW Agriculture from its current location in Orange? Will he give a guarantee to the people of Orange that the head office of NSW Agriculture will continue operating in Orange, at the current staffing levels and with appropriate resources?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is making a lot of assumptions about the restructure. Orange will be a major focus for the new Department of Primary Industries and will have a substantial number of employees.

The Hon. Rick Colless: How many?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I do not know the precise number. I believe it will be similar to the current number.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Where will the head office be?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: With reference to the head office, I have explained to the honourable member that there is a process with the four heads of the department meeting regularly to discuss the many issues involved. We are integrating four departments. The Opposition should not jump to conclusions as to the terms that will be used when they have not been determined in any shape or form.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: This is outrageous.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I inform the Hon. Melinda Pavey that the department does not commence until 1 July.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: In Sydney?

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Is it going to be at Orange?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: We have nearly two months to work out all the issues, including staffing and location. I will not play this game with the Opposition. It is making assumptions about Orange and trying to whip up people's concerns. The building in Orange will remain very heavily occupied.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I ask a supplementary question. In light of the Minister’s answer, will he rule out moving the head office from Orange?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I am not ruling anything in or out. But I make this clear: The office at Orange will remain open and functional and with a full complement of staff after the restructure.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I wish to ask the Treasurer, representing the Premier, a question without notice. Is it a fact that a recent research survey by the Allen Consulting Group for Registered Clubs NSW indicates that new higher poker machine taxes will cause a loss of more than 24,000 jobs in the club industry, 80 per cent of which will be in Australian Labor Party seats, and a large reduction in club donations to community groups and charities, in the order of more than $210 million? Is it a fact that the Treasurer has been working on the premise that the return to player ratio in clubs is 85 per cent? Is the Minister aware that the actual return to player ratio is a minimum of 92 per cent and in many clubs up to 97 per cent? Will he force registered clubs to maintain the level of community contributions? What is his response to this new registered club academic research?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I have seen the Allen Consulting Group report. I cannot say that I have read it all but I have read a large proportion of it. It does make for interesting reading; in fact, it is very revealing. Today I would like to bring to the attention of the House certain sections of the report that, for some reason, have not been highlighted by ClubsNSW. The new poker machine tax rates will apply to the top one-third of clubs only, the top 500. The other more than 1,000 clubs in New South Wales either will pay no tax at all or have a slight reduction in tax. Certainly the top 500 clubs will have tax increases phased in over the next eight years. ClubsNSW has predicted that these new tax rates will bring ruination to the clubs. The report at page 59 is particularly revealing. It states:

Clubs reported intentions to invest $1.67 billion in club facilities over the next three years, consisting primarily of buildings and interior fit-outs for dining. This compares to the $1.3 billion in club facilities-related investment intentions reported in 1999.

In 2003 the clubs are reporting that they have intentions to spend an extra $400 million in capital investment in club facilities. That is $400 million more than clubs were reporting their intentions to be just four years ago. To be precise, it is an extra $370 million, or a 28 per cent increase. In the middle of what ClubsNSW is portraying as a financial crisis for the clubs, they are significantly increasing their spending on buildings and renovations. How can that be? A similar revealing fact is reported at page 58 of the report where the Allen Consulting Group report states:

NSW clubs reported that they are intending to invest $566 million in sporting facilities over the next three years. This compares to the $460 million in sport-related investment intentions reported by clubs in 1999.

In both sporting facilities and the clubs' own facilities, such as dining facilities, clubs are saying that they have investment intentions of more than $2 billion, which is a huge increase over just four years. In other words, in the middle of this so-called financial crisis the clubs are increasing substantially their spending on both sports facilities and club facilities. On the one hand, the clubs say that they will have to increase prices and cut services. On the other hand, their own report tells us that they are spending $566 million on new sports facilities—an extra $106 million, or 23 per cent increase, compared to their 1999 intentions. This sentence on page 66 of the report says it all:

The NSW club movement as a whole is expected to experience a fall in profitability from 8.9 per cent to between 6.4 and 4.7 per cent (depending on revenue outlook) assuming there is no adjustment in club operations as a result of the tax changes.

In other words, despite the tax changes, the clubs will still be profitable. [Time expired.]

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister further elucidate his answer and acknowledge that the sporting facilities are used by community groups, including many children's sports clubs?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I do not suggest that the clubs should not be investing in sporting facilities.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: You are criticising them for spending on infrastructure.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: No, I am not. The Hon. Catherine Cusack is not listening. I am simply making the point that on the one hand the clubs say they are going to be ruined and on the other hand they are increasing their investment intentions quite significantly. The two do not go together. You cannot say it is all going to be doom and gloom, and then say you are going to substantially increase your investments. I repeat the report states:

The NSW club movement as a whole is expected to experience a fall in profitability from 8.9 per cent to between 6.4 and 4.7 per cent (depending on revenue outlook) assuming there is no adjustment in club operations as a result of the tax changes.

In other words, despite the tax changes, the Allen Consulting Group report says that the clubs overall will still be profitable, and they will still be profitable even if they do nothing to cut their costs. That is what "no adjustment in club operations" means. Let me make it clear: The clubs' report has found that they will continue to be profitable even if the big executive salaries are maintained, the very large spending on capital works and redecorating continues, the travel expenses and directors' perks continue, the advertising budgets remain untouched, and the schedule of conferences in luxury resorts remains untouched. I believe that my old friend Pat Rogan is trying to have us all on. Let me point out that in the last calendar year the clubs had revenue from poker machines before tax of $3.1 billion. After both State and Commonwealth tax they were left with approximately $2.4 million to operate their poker machines and subsidise all their other activities.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: And pay their staff and maintain the greens?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: The cost of operating poker machines is not that great. [Time expired.]

The Hon. HENRY TSANG: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Will the Minister inform the House of the decision of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission in the national minimum wage case?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I am pleased to inform members about the Industrial Relations Commission's minimum wages case. In November 2003 the Australian Council of Trade Unions [ACTU] filed a minimum wages claim with the Australian Industrial Relations Commission seeking a $26 per week flat wage increase in all Federal award rates of pay. The New South Wales Government intervened in the case along with all State and Territory Labor governments. I made that statement because all State and Territory governments are Labor governments. Whilst noting the ACTU's claim, the State and Territory governments asked the Commonwealth commission to grant an increase of $20 per week in the minimum wage and all award rates.

The New South Wales Government believes that this was a reasonable and sustainable position based on the current state of the Australian economy as well as the need to establish a balance between the economic impact of such a claim and the importance of maintaining a genuine safety net for Australia's lower paid workers. By contrast, the Commonwealth Government offered a mean and paltry proposal of only $10 a week limited to those on the lowest wage. This morning the Commonwealth commission handed down its decision, awarding a $19 per week increase in all award rates. The umpire reaffirmed that the safety net review should be for all employees who rely on awards.

The commission considered the effect of an increase on employment levels in award-reliant sectors and found that arguments that past safety net wage increases had a negative effect on employment were unconvincing. Today's $19 increase, which is fair, provides a genuine boost to 500,000 workers in New South Wales while remaining affordable for our economy. The decision increases the Federal weekly minimum wage to $467.40 per week from $448.40 per week. The New South Wales Government welcomes the decision of the Federal commission as a responsible and meaningful way to assist all lower paid workers. We will press the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission to flow on the increase to workers on State awards with minimum delay in the State wage case which will be heard towards the end of this month.

The Hon. JOHN RYAN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services. Why do people living in government institutions or group homes not get financial assistance for aids through the Program of Appliances for Disabled People Scheme—the PADP scheme—administered by the Department of Health and from the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care? What action is the Government taking to address this policy which deprives people living in group homes and government institutions of adequate access to aids such as incontinence aids, wheelchairs and vital prosthetic appliances?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: The honourable member referred to the Program of Appliances for Disabled Persons Scheme—the PADP scheme—that is administered by the Department for Health. The Department for Ageing, Disability and Home Care makes a contribution to the funding of the scheme, but the scheme is administered by the Department of Health. I will take the honourable member's question on notice and undertake to provide him with further advice. It is my understanding that residents of large institutions do not access the PADP scheme because other mechanisms are used to cover their needs for particular appliances. I am not sure whether the scheme operates exactly as has been outlined by the honourable member. I will seek some advice from my colleague the Minister for Health and undertake to provide that information to the House as soon as possible.

The Hon. JOHN RYAN: I ask a supplementary question. Why does the Minister not have more information available to her, given that she wrote to a constituent 12 months ago in reply to a letter about this very matter stating that the department was reviewing the matter and the department indicated that the matter was subject to a review last December? Why has that review not been completed? Why does the Minister not know about its progress?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I do not recall writing a letter 12 months ago—the matter to which the honourable member has referred—but I am sure that the honourable member is correct. As I said earlier, the scheme is administered by the Department of Health, so it is quite appropriate that I consult with my colleague to obtain further details. I recall that there has been a review of the PADP scheme but I think it is broader in coverage than that referred to by the honourable member. I am happy to report back to the House as soon as possible. I will obtain further details to address the issues about which the honourable member is concerned. The honourable member raised concerns relating to an individual constituent. I am happy to follow up those issues.

The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD: My question without notice is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Education. Is the Minister aware that the latest journal of the Australian Education Union carries the view that the new three Rs of education are reconciliation, refugees and the republic? Is the Minister concerned that such silly notions are disruptive to Australian children becoming proficient in the real three Rs? Is the Minister concerned about teachers using their position of influence to subvert the minds of young Australians with their personal political ideology? What is the Minister's view about the growing concern among parents that it is inappropriate for teachers to use the school environment to undertake political activities? Does the Minister approve of the rewriting of subjects like history and civics so as to create an entrenched bias that imposes the values and ideology of a particular political persuasion?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: The honourable member skated fairly close to breaching some of the standing orders by making some of the assertions that he made. Nonetheless, I will refer the honourable member's question to the Minister in the other place and undertake to obtain a response as soon as possible.

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Will the Minister update the House on the major seafood campaign being launched by the NSW Food Authority?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I am pleased to highlight the work of the NSW Food Authority that was established to help protect the integrity of our food businesses from paddock to plate. The authority was established in April this year following the merger of SafeFood NSW and the food regulatory functions of NSW Health. Today I inform the House that the authority's first major campaign will be a crackdown on the practice known as fish substitution. That term refers to the sale of one species of fish that has been substituted for another, often more expensive, species. On the most basic level that leads to consumers being ripped off because they are not getting what they paid for. In the worst-case scenario, fish substitution could put human health at risk.

Despite a majority of traders in the seafood industry selling their produce legitimately, a minority group engages in this unacceptable practice. A national report released by Food Standards Australia New Zealand found that there is evidence that fish substitution is occurring in up to 25 per cent of some fish species sold. In this survey only a small number of fish were tested in New South Wales and that is in the context of an industry that includes 1,860 producers, more than 31,000 food service businesses, and almost 18,000 food retailers and manufacturers. Nevertheless, it is clear that fish substitution is an issue that must be addressed. That is why I was more than happy to issue a warning to offenders in the seafood industry today that the penalties for fish substitution were recently boosted significantly under the Food Act 2003.

Fines for individuals prosecuted for fish substitution increased tenfold to $55,000 and penalties for corporations for the same offence are now $275,000. The authority is also about to embark on an industry-wide education campaign to help stamp out the practice. For their part, operators in the New South Wales seafood industry are being reminded to keep clear and accurate records of their fish sale and purchase transactions. This protects legitimate operators and it helps us target those who are doing the wrong thing. I will be continuing to remind operators of their obligations throughout the year. They have a responsibility to consumers and to their own industry which injects half a million dollars into the local economy each year. I am sure that most seafood industry operators share my commitment to seeing their industry thrive, and that they will support this Government's efforts to stamp out fish substitution. I look forward to updating the House in the future on this campaign.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Local Government. Will the Department of Local Government pay for the new election for Snowy River shire following the decision by the New South Wales Supreme Court to void the election result because almost 400 pre-poll votes were not counted? Is the Minister aware of concerns that the pressure caused by forced council amalgamations contributed to the error by the State Electoral Commission by not providing the envelopes with the pre-poll votes at the council elections? Will the Minister apologise to the people of the Snowy River for this mistake and for the inconvenience to residents, and offer to meet the costs of the new poll on 24 July?

[Interruption]

The Hon. TONY KELLY: As the Hon. Christine Robertson comments, that is drawing a very long bow. It is ridiculous to blame the Department of Local Government and claim that council amalgamations had something to do with the void election result.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: It had everything to do with it.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: The Hon. Melinda Pavey knows the reason for the decision. The Supreme Court recently found that new elections are to be conducted for the Snowy River Shire Council following irregularities in the conduct of the recent ordinary election.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: It was a mistake.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: What did it have to do with amalgamations? While there is no council able to meet to elect a new mayor, I am advised that the outgoing mayor, Richard Wallace, continues to perform policy-making and ceremonial duties and that the acting general manager continues to look after the day-to-day operations of the council. I understand that Mayor Wallace is prepared to continue in that role until the election of a new council. The Electoral Commissioner will determine the candidates for the election in consultation with the council. Under the Local Government Act, costs incurred by the Electoral Commissioner in the conduct of council elections must normally be met by the council concerned. However, on this occasion it may be appropriate for the council to approach the Electoral Commissioner formally to make other arrangements to meet the costs of the next election.

The Hon. IAN WEST: My question is addressed to the Minister for Community Services. Will the Minister inform the House on progress in developing a scheme to repay lost or stolen wages to Aboriginal people?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I thank the Hon. Ian West for his question. I know that this matter is of great interest to many members in this place and to the general public. Today I joined the Premier and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in announcing the membership of a panel to progress this issue further in consultation with Aboriginal communities. This builds on the Government's agreement earlier this year to establish a scheme to repay money to Aboriginal people who in the last century lost wages and other payments that were forcibly placed into trust funds.

This is a most significant development. The panel will comprise three respected and committed individuals. Mr Brian Gilligan, the former head of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, will head the panel. He will be joined by Ms Terri Janke, a respected indigenous lawyer, and by Mr Sam Jeffries, who is currently the chairperson of the Murdi Paaki Regional Council in western New South Wales. The panel will conduct consultations with Aboriginal communities to finalise details of a repayment scheme and will report back to Cabinet in October this year. There will be three criteria under which individuals will be able to make a claim for repayment. They are: first, where documents establish that a person is owed money; second, where documents show that money was paid into trust funds but there is no evidence of the money being paid out; and, third, where other evidence can be produced showing that money was likely to have been paid into a trust account and was never paid out. These criteria are equitable and just.

In line with this principle, it is important to note that the Government is not moving to cap payments to Aboriginal persons who may make a successful claim as a result of this process. They will not be required to surrender their legal right to make a further claim and the Government is not moving to introduce a scheme under which payments are capped. Based on presently available information, it is anticipated that the broad categories of Aboriginal people likely to seek restitution include children under the care of the Aborigines protection or welfare boards who were apprentices, women who received family and child endowment payments, recipients of Commonwealth pensions or possibly other Commonwealth benefits, and beneficiaries of lump-sum payments.

It is worth reflecting on some of the tragic situations with which the scheme that the Government is dedicated to establishing will deal. I ask honourable members to imagine for a moment the achievement of Aboriginal people in the earlier part of the last century in overcoming all the obstacles that prejudice placed before them, obtaining an apprenticeship with the local motor mechanic in western New South Wales and working their way through that apprenticeship only to be told when they requested payment of their wages that were allegedly held in trust that they would not be paid to them. Imagine also the experience of the young Aboriginal mother successfully raising a family in conditions that no civilised society would now tolerate without the benefit of child endowment payments. Those payments, which were allegedly held in trust, had disappeared when she applied to receive them. What happened was an appalling breach of trust and the Government is now taking action to return the moneys that are owed.

Having established the broad criteria for payments, the appointed panel members will now consult Aboriginal communities about how best to resolve remaining issues in designing the scheme and the best way for it to operate. While it is for panel members to determine the detail of this consultation, it is envisaged that regional consultations will occur and that the panel will invite interested groups and individuals to make submissions. The panel will be supported in this work by the Department of Community Services and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. I look forward to receiving the panel's report in October and to Aboriginal people being repaid the money taken from them in such shameful and unjust circumstances.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: My question is directed to the Minister for Transport Services. Can the Minister guarantee that Armidale will have a rail-based CountryLink service for the remaining period of the 12-month reprieve granted last year? Can the Minister guarantee that the rail-based service to Armidale will continue to run to its present timetable during that time? Can the Minister explain why the people of Armidale should believe any such guarantee, given his recent treatment of the Casino to Murwillumbah service?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I have spoken to the honourable member for Northern Tablelands, whose electorate encompasses the city of Armidale, about these matters and my views are on the public record.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I ask a supplementary question. Will there be an announcement in the next six to eight weeks that the CountryLink rail service to Armidale is to be scaled back?

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: You want to put that one out, otherwise it will run.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Nothing I say will stop the Greens peddling second-hand information. I refer to my previous answer.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: My question is addressed to the Minister for Community Services. Is it Department of Community Services [DOCS] policy that "minimal" drug use by parents will not prevent the department from restoring children under the department's care to those parents, as was mentioned to my researcher by an officer in the Bowral DOCS office last week? If this is departmental policy, how does DOCS measure what constitutes a "small amount of drug taking"? How many children under the department's care have been placed with people who take a small amount of drugs, and what follow-ups have been undertaken to ensure that these children are not at risk?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: The Hon. Charlie Lynn asks a very good question. It is true that the families with which the Department of Community Services [DOCS] deals often have multiple problems that diminish their capacity to provide support, love and nurturing to their children. Drug and alcohol abuse is one of those problems, as are domestic violence, mental health issues, poverty and a range of other matters about which I report frequently to the House. So when a child is removed from parental care for a period—I make it very clear that that obviously occurs only as part of a court-sanctioned regime—it is a challenge for the department to strike the right balance regarding when it is appropriate to restore the child to his or her natural family if that family has made the appropriate undertakings usually required by the court-imposed orders. The department always operates in accordance with the principle that the interests of the child are paramount. I make that very clear. That principle is reflected in the legislation and in the department's policies. If the Hon. Charlie Lynn is concerned that in a particular case the department has not operated in accordance with this principle I will be pleased to examine the details of that case.

In relation to drug and/or alcohol use by parents, a number of options are available to the department that are used in different cases, including requiring parents to undertake urinalysis to be able to prove that they are drug-free—this is not used in all cases but it is certainly an option for the department; requiring parents to attend drug and alcohol counselling; and requiring parents to attend parental courses to improve their parenting skills. A whole range of measures exist that are usually part of a court order that a parent or parents can be required to satisfy before a child will be restored to the parent or parents. But I do not pretend that this is a straightforward issue. It is not. The Department of Community Services deals with many families who live on the margins and they are, as I have said many times, required to make decisions that I think many of us would find very difficult.

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Commerce. Will the Minister update the House on grouping provisions for workers compensation premiums in New South Wales?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Honourable members may be aware that that grouping refers to the treatment of all companies in a group structure as one single entity, rather than separate entities. Grouping provisions seek to ensure that all employers pay correct premiums and that artificial company structures are not being used to avoid workers compensation premiums—in other words, to prevent employers from premium avoidance by a practice known as company splitting. These grouping provisions were to commence on 30 June this year. However, well ahead of the start date, in 2003 WorkCover issued a discussion paper on the implementation of grouping provisions and undertook a comprehensive consultation process.

More than 100 submissions were received. In consideration of the issues raised in those submissions, WorkCover further researched and analysed the impact of the implementation of grouping on employers in New South Wales and the WorkCover scheme. This work demonstrated that the legislation would have unintended consequences on the premiums paid by a wide range of businesses. WorkCover's research has also found that limiting grouping to employers who have structured their business to reduce or avoid workers compensation premiums, as opposed to legitimate businesses, is complex for both employers and the scheme. Further, such limitation would not with certainty see a corresponding reduction in evasion and an increase in collected premiums.

Put simply, the scope of evasion of workers compensation premiums by company splitting is relatively small compared with the potential disruption to businesses in New South Wales if the grouping provisions were implemented. Obviously the Government was not going to implement provisions that adversely affect legitimate businesses. So that businesses in this State are not disadvantaged by such a policy, it is more equitable to develop measures to target such industries and employers rather than proclaim the current grouping provisions. I have asked WorkCover to address those issues in the current review of the workers compensation premium formula. This will allow for more focus targeting of unscrupulous employers who undertake the grouping practice to artificially minimise premium.

At this preliminary stage the possibilities include altering the mix of claims experienced to industry tariff premium, adjusting the timing of when claims experience premium is levied, and adjusting aspects of the formula to better target assistance to small business. This review will be completed within 12 months. During this time WorkCover will continue to focus on compliance with workers compensation provisions by all employers. I have asked WorkCover to conduct a specific number of workers compensation insurance blitzes in the construction, cleaning and labour hire industries, in particular, as they are where the company splitting practice is most prevalent.

The grouping provisions would have applied to all employers, including those who, for legitimate business reasons, have in existence separate companies for different forms of business operations. The Government will not allow such businesses to be advantaged by this policy, and that is why we will address the issue of company splitting to avoid workers compensation through the premium formula.

The Hon. JOHN TINGLE: My question without notice is addressed to the Treasurer. Has a problem developed in the Infringement Processing Bureau at Maitland with regard to delays in the issue of infringement notices to motorists who have breached speeding laws? Specifically, is it a fact that breach notices may not be issued to motorists who have been detected speeding by a speed camera until six months or more after the offence? Does that mean that a motorist could, unknowingly, accumulate enough points to disqualify him or her and could keep driving unaware of the disqualification? If so, what is being done to rectify the situation?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: My understanding is that the final point made by the honourable member in his question is not correct. A data entry error at the Infringement Processing Bureau did result in a number of penalty notices for camera-detected infringement for offences between 30 December 2003 and 8 February 2004 not being issued until 16 April 2004. In some instances, that meant that reminder notices were received at the same time as the original penalty notice. So that meant that some fines were not issued until 8 to 15 weeks after the date of the offence. The current practice of the Infringement Processing Bureau is to issue penalty notices within six weeks from the date of offence. I can assure the Hon. John Tingle that affected drivers will be given an extension to their due date, and a second reminder will be sent, allowing further time for them to exercise the options available—which are either payment, court election or nomination of another driver. Controls have also been implemented to ensure that the procedural error does not occur again.

The Hon. John Tingle expressed concern that a driver may continue driving unaware of having a suspended licence due to lost demerit points. I am advised that demerit points and suspensions are not applied until either the penalty is paid or the penalty is not paid at the Infringement Processing Bureau and is then sent to the State Debt Recovery Office. That allows the person infringed to nominate another driver or to elect to have the matter heard in court. The Roads and Traffic Authority sends a courtesy letter to drivers when they have accrued eight demerit points. When a driver accrues 12 demerit points the Roads and Traffic Authority advises the driver that they have five weeks before their licence is suspended. With those controls in place, and provided that the address records of drivers at the Roads and Traffic Authority are up to date, it is unlikely that a driver would be unaware of the status of his or her licence.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: My question is directed to the Minister for Transport Services. Why were official minutes not kept by rail officials of a Government-run meeting held at Picton on 31 March 2004 to hear community concerns about rail timetable cuts? Why did the Minister fail to send representatives to the community-run rail meeting held at Mittagong on 20 April 2004? Given the undertaking by the communications officer in the Minister's office that RailCorp communications supremo Helen Willoughby would contact local State members prior to the Mittagong meeting to clarify what briefing and other material had been given to the Minister by Ms Willoughby following the Picton meeting about the opposition of Southern Highlands rail users to planned timetable cuts, why did Ms Willoughby not make that contact? What has Helen Willoughby told the Minister about the Picton meeting? Will the Minister table briefing documents so that rail users can ascertain whether their concerns have been accurately conveyed to the Minister?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: There is really no need for me to table anything of that sort. I am very aware of the changes that we are making.

[Interruption]

Other members want to hear my answer, so members of the Opposition should stop interjecting. There will be timetable adjustments made, and for that I make no apology.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Or for the damage to Latham.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The Opposition lives in a dream world. Its members think that they will win the seats on this side of the Chamber every time the Government is confronted with a normal problem in the course of running the State. I hate to disappoint Opposition members, but that will not happen. Problems arise, and governments produce solutions and move on to the next problem. That is the art of government. We get paid to resolve problems. There will always be problems, and we will always be resolving them. That is what government is. One should not be taking out larger mortgages based on the fact that there are problems, because governments get paid to resolve problems. I suggest to Opposition members that they put aside their credit cards and retain moderation in their expenditure, because they will never sit on this side of the House.

I am very aware of the concerns that have been expressed by certain residents on the Southern Highlands line in relation to timetable changes. But I make no apologies. If I were given the choice of being able on a train path to move 1,000 people instead of 300 people, I would make the obvious, rational choice: to move 1,000 people. If Opposition members want to take the view that they would move 300 people from the Southern Highlands at the expense of 700 people at Campbelltown, that is their choice.

The Hon. Rick Colless: So country people don't count. That is what you are saying.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Absolutely not. Those people will have the opportunity to travel to Sydney like everybody else. But we certainly are not going to be doing sweetheart deals for certain select people who live in Bowral. We will make sure that our public transport system meets the expectations of everybody. The Opposition put on a special service for its mates in Bowral, to get them in and out of their weekend retreats. They did that at the expense of people in Western Sydney. We are quite sensibly restoring a service that will provide the maximum for the people of the region—not sweetheart deals for the stockbroker mates of the Opposition who live in Bowral, to get them to and from their million-dollar weekend retreats. We will use the train path to maximum effect, which is to move people from Campbelltown and the west of Sydney.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: I ask a supplementary question. I ask the Minister to elucidate his answer in relation to his attitude to the people of Bowral.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I am very happy to elucidate my answer. It is very simple; it comes down to basic mathematics. If you have a train that can move 300 people on one train path, that is the constraint on moving people—train paths and capacity of train. If you can get on the same train path a train that can move 1,000 people, what would a rational government do? It would, of course, move 1,000 people. Now, I know there is an inconvenience to the people of Bowral and the stockbroker mates of the Opposition. They have actually got to cross the platform at Campbelltown and get on the electric train—like the rest of the working-class people out there in Campbelltown! The Liberal Party and The Nationals, we all know, represent special interests—usually elite special interests.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. John Ryan to order for the first time. I call the Hon. Rick Colless to order for the first time. I call the Hon. John Ryan to order for the second time.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: It is quite amazing that a group that purports to be an alternative government would choose to put people in the Campbelltown area in jeopardy. This is very simple mathematics: 300 people, one train path, 700 people lose out. If you put a train on that train path that moves 1,000 people, you get more people into the city. It is very simple. So I suggest that members of the Opposition tell their stockbroker mates down in Bowral that they will have to change trains like everybody else who lives in the Sydney metropolitan area.

The Hon. TONY BURKE: My question is addressed to the Minister for Local Government. What is the Government doing to ensure that councillors avoid conflicts of interest in their decision- making?

The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: You have five minutes to insult another section of the New South Wales electorate.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I have no intention of insulting councillors.

[Interruption]

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

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Councillors in New South Wales have a responsibility to their communities to make sure that they behave in a manner befitting their post. Councillors must always remember that their first priority is their community, and to act accordingly. Although the vast majority of the State's councillors are community-minded and dedicated people, it is the unfortunate case that some seek election to suit their own private purposes. That is why it is that councillors, as elected representatives, supply a pecuniary interest return. I would like to take this opportunity to remind all councillors that lodging a return is compulsory. Councillors must have their pecuniary interest returns to their general managers within three months of being elected. Let me make it clear that the Government takes very seriously breaches of pecuniary interest. They are in fact breaches of community trust and respect.

The Local Government Pecuniary Interest Tribunal has advised councillors to take particular care when providing details of their pecuniary interests. They must give due care and attention to the accuracy, detail and content of the disclosures required in their returns. I would advise them to pay particular attention to disclose any real estate or property, whether it is within or outside the council area, and to disclose any interest they have in property either as an owner, trustee, beneficiary or lessee. As I said, such breaches are taken very seriously and can attract tough penalties. If the Pecuniary Interest Tribunal finds that there is a complaint against a councillor, it can reprimand the councillor, suspend the councillor from civic office for a period not exceeding two months, or disqualify the councillor from holding civic office for a period not exceeding five years. I would also remind councillors that these disclosures are appropriately available to the public to view. Members of the public have a right to know that their elected representatives are behaving honestly when it comes to making decisions on their behalf.

I would also like to take this opportunity, as I am sure the House does, to welcome any new councillors to local government and to wish them well in serving their communities over the next term. I would also like to thank the councillors who retired at the last election—including Councillor Hale and former mayor Colless. It is a difficult but rewarding job. I look forward to meeting many new councillors in the near future.

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG: My question without notice is addressed to the Treasurer and the Premier, and Minister for Citizenship. Can they inform the House whether the withdrawal or reduction in funding for the Skilled Migrant Placement Program, for Carnivale, for project staff under the Community Languages Schools Program, and for other projects is indicative of the broader Government strategy to drastically cut State expenditure on multicultural projects and migrant support services?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I thank the Hon. Dr Peter Wong for his question, which I will, as he asked, refer to the Premier for a response.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Is the Minister aware that Victorian farmers claim that carcass feedback is the main direct benefit from the National Livestock Identification Scheme? Will the Minister now commit to mandatory carcass feedback as part of the New South Wales implementation of the scheme, and at no extra cost to the producer? Will the Minister provide details of how problems with the National Livestock Identification Scheme database are being investigated? When will the Minister initiate a public reporting process to address problems with that database?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I am happy to receive that question from the Hon. Rick Colless. The Government supports peak cattle industry organisations in their call for the introduction of improved livestock identification and tracing. We have committed $5.4 million to help the New South Wales cattle industry implement the National Livestock Identification System. The Government's total contribution is in excess of 22 per cent of the total cost of the implementation. With the assistance of the National Livestock Identification Advisory Committee, NSW Agriculture and rural lands protection boards, the Government is also developing a purchase system for identification devices designed to provide farmers with these devices as cheaply as possible.

Australia's key beef export markets demand high food safety standards. The National Livestock Identification System will help to underpin these high standards by providing rapid and reliable trace-back of any disease and residue incidents. The specific question asked by the Hon. Rick Colless—how to report back to farmers—is very much on my agenda. I hope to be able to report to the House very soon about developments in this area.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: If honourable members have further questions, I suggest they put them on notice.

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: On 30 March the Hon. David Oldfield asked me, representing the Deputy Premier, Minister for Education and Training, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, a question without notice about male teachers. I have now been provided with the following answer:

The NSW public school teaching workforce is relatively stable.

In 2003, there were 989 resignations, which is 2% of the workforce. There were 1,460 retirements, which is only 2.9% of the workforce.

In 2003, medical retirements of male teachers represented only seven per cent of all separations, including resignations, terminations of employment, age retirements, deaths and medical retirements.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Yesterday Mr Ian Cohen asked me a question concerning national parks filming permits. I have been advised by the Minister for the Environment as follows:

Mr Cohen has assumed that, following the decision in the Land and Environment Court of 29 April 2004, filming in national parks is permissible under current legislation.

The issue is not as clear as the Honourable Member seems to think.
By way of background, the Department of Environment and Conservation recently granted consent for the filming of Stealth in a part of the Blue Mountains National Park, which also happens to be in a declared wilderness area.

The decision was challenged in the Land and Environment Court by the local conservation group, the Blue Mountains Conservation Society. While the Court did not make any adverse finding about the environmental impact of the proposed filming, it nevertheless set aside the Department's consent on the basis that commercial feature filming was inconsistent with the objects of the National Parks and Wildlife Act and the management principles of the Wilderness Act.

Specifically, Justice Lloyd said that:

"I do not think that a production of a commercial feature film is appropriate public recreation in the context of the objects of the National Parks and Wildlife Act or the purpose of reserving land as a national park. Such an activity has nothing to do with these objects or that purpose."

There is sufficient case law to suggest that, in these circumstances, such activities would be unlawful in a national park. In this instance, the activity in question is the making of a commercial feature film.

In ruling on the Stealth case, the Land and Environment Court has specifically drawn attention to doubts concerning the power to approve the making of any commercial feature film in any national park or reserve, whether or not the land in question is in a declared wilderness area. I stress that the Court's observations were not limited to Stealth—they were made with respect to any commercial feature film.

The Court has also drawn attention to doubts concerning the power to approve the making of any film in a wilderness area, at least in the following circumstances:

1. where the filming is being undertaken commercially (that is, for sale, hire or profit); and

2. where the filming requires exclusive use of the area in question.

The Government is committed to eliminating these doubts.

Mr Cohen is quite wrong to suggest that the current legislation, as it has now been interpreted by the Courts, makes commercial film making possible in national parks.

As the law now stands, it is entirely possible that magnificent Australian feature films such as The Man from Snowy River, Lantana and Rabbit Proof Fence could not be filmed in our national park in New South Wales.

It is even possible that the making of a nature documentary or a tourist promotional video in a wilderness area, at least in those cases where exclusive occupation was necessary to film, would also be unlawful.

These are unacceptable restrictions and ambiguities on the making of films in New South Wales. They undermine the Australian film industry's ability to film in our magnificent Australian bushland settings.

Questions without notice concluded.

[The President left the chair at 1.05 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]

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

Fisheries Management Amendment Bill

Bill received, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Motion by the Hon. Carmel Tebbutt agreed to:

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

Second reading ordered to stand as an order of the day.

Debate resumed from 31 March.

The Hon. KAYEE GRIFFIN [2.33 p.m.]: Amalgamations and structural reform are, of course, extremely vexing issues, and have been for local government for some considerable time. As I said previously, I support the structural reform process. If local government is to continue to fulfil its responsibilities to its residents and ratepayers it needs to look seriously to the future. That may mean amalgamation in some cases and it may mean a broader range of commitment among councils that up to this point may not have worked together to meet the needs of a range of residents and ratepayers beyond the invisible boundaries that in some cases create more problems than they solve. If local government is to look forward, it will have to embrace some things in the future that may not necessarily be palatable at present.

Many councils should be congratulated because they have taken the bit between their teeth and tackled some of the problems. An issue that pertains to the future, which has not been addressed by local government but needs to be, is the vexing problem of infrastructure renewal. There are funding issues associated with infrastructure renewal for a number of local government authorities. Some are better money managers than are others, and some manage services better than do others with concomitantly appropriate financial management. At some stage the vexing problem of infrastructure renewal will beset all councils in New South Wales. There are substantial costs associated with the issue, and unfortunately over many years some councils have not given a great deal of thought to it. If councils do not seriously consider structural reform in the future, do not come to terms with funding infrastructure renewal, and do not carefully consider the services they are providing to their communities, there will come a time when a greater numbers of councils than is the case at present experience serious issues, particularly serious financial issues.

Although I am no longer involved in local government, I was part of it for 22 years. I have always been proud of local government because it provides services to the people and is probably the closest level of government to the people. Quite often local government has been used as a sounding board for issues that are not strictly within local government's responsibilities in terms of the provision of services or financial assistance. However, councils are regarded by most ratepayers and residents as the level of government they turn to when requiring assistance with the provision of services that perhaps the State and Federal governments should be providing, and to very clearly put the community's point of view when issues need to be dealt with.

If local government is to move into the twenty-first century, its leaders will have to come to terms with some changes. Change should not be undertaken for the sake of change, but it should be directed toward benefiting communities and it should result in a more cohesive body of individual councils. In some instances councils should be willing to put aside individual points of view in the spirit of providing a range of services and assistance to people across a region rather than single local government areas, and they should avoid taking too much notice of invisible boundaries that can cause so much grief on occasions.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN [2.38 p.m.]: One of the most compelling arguments in favour of local government in Australia has stemmed from its closeness to the communities being served. A recent editorial in the Canberra Times stated:

In truth, in most of Australia, pressures on councils are pushing them into becoming much the same sort of impersonal and alien institutions as others in the community—whether shops or banks, or state or federal agencies.

Any proposal to reform local government therefore must ensure that people, particularly those in rural areas, have their social and community needs addressed. Government will never effectively meet all the challenges, but it can provide the support that is necessary for local initiatives.

I feel that this Government has missed the opportunity to bring about effective reform to local government because it seems to be more concerned with amalgamations for short-term political gain than with long-term structural change for the benefit of local communities. That is a pity because it will cost local communities plenty, and it will be many years before any government tackles the issue again. One has only to reflect on the Minister's original letter to councils dated 3 July last year, which required them to form their views on reform and gave them only a month in which to do so. The Minister added to the perception of farce when he failed to provide any guidelines or terms of reference for councils to address. The Minister's letter was based on what the Premier had said the previous month in an address he gave to the annual Shires Association of New South Wales conference. He said:

There are large economies of scale to be won by sensible mergers and other forms of cooperation ... Why let small—unviable—Councils, battle on against the odds year after year ... Let's come back to this conference next year with fewer but stronger Councils.

The Premier revealed his real intentions in a local government reform discussion paper when he referred to his "amalgamate at all cost approach to reform" when addressing the topic of voluntary amalgamations. He said:

I think we could do a lot by co-operation, but if they fall short then they will be effectively asking us to crack the whip and we might have to do that.

This veiled threat prompted every council across New South Wales to respond by the required deadline without having the opportunity to properly consult their communities. Therefore the process at the local level was corrupted before it even began. The Minister also stated in his letter that regional reviews would be conducted. Unfortunately, such regional reviews could not take place until September, which was conveniently after the deadline for submissions by councils. It was clear that the Government was paying lip service to consultation because it had already planned its agenda for local government amalgamations. This is clearly another broken election promise by an arrogant Government that has become too tired and too lazy to do the hard yards and bring about proper reform in any area, and we now see it lurching from crisis to crisis in almost every portfolio.

General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5 was left to initiate an inquiry into the issue. Most members and most people I spoke to agreed that some type of structural reform was required. They all agreed that a proper process to bring about reform should include the active participation of the various stakeholders and proper consultation with agencies that have an interest in local government. They all agreed that the worst possible outcomes would result from forced amalgamations. In response to the Government's lack of regard to councils by its imposing time constraints to respond to the Minister's request, the Mayor of Parry Shire Council stated:

The regional reviews have just been too short in time frame and too limited with other input in the process. We are losing an opportunity to reform local government. It will end up a knee-jerk reaction and if we end up down that path we will suffer for many, many years to come. We need to bite the bullet now and ensure that this process is as full and as extensive as time permits but to allow full input to the entire community. I visited a number of review meetings, including some in remote locations, and the input is just not what I feel is needed for proper structural reform of local government

This was one typical response from the truckload of responses received by the committee. I fully support the committee's recommendation that future regional reviews should provide greater scope for more inclusive community consultation by lengthening the time allocated to the consultation process and by holding meetings at times that are conducive to greater participation, such as outside business hours and on weekends. Unfortunately, as seen by its actions, the Government did not do that. The Government has missed an excellent opportunity to reform local government. Instead, to date it has used the notion of local government reform to further its own political agenda without giving any respect to the people affected.

It was apparent that people do consider, and are concerned about, their level of representation at the local level, particularly as these days councils provide much more than roads, rates and rubbish. In fact, the wider community was so concerned about real local government reform that 227 submissions were received by the committee. I thank them for showing such a concern for their local communities. I agree that there is room for reform, particularly when one considers statistics provided which show that 43 councils have less than 5,000 residents, 47 councils have a total income of less than $10 million, and 27 shire councils are on the department's financial watch list. I do dispute, however, that forced amalgamation across the board is the answer to all the ills of local government.

The argument for amalgamating councils centred on better economic benefit and greater efficiencies. As was heard in the inquiry, not every amalgamation or proposed amalgamation will bring economic benefit, and issues such as community identity are forgotten altogether. The inquiry was presented with various methods of assessing the best reform for local government areas, which I believe, if adopted, would better strategically plan for reform and provide better outcomes for communities whilst including them in the process. Right from the start the Coalition's policy was one of no forced amalgamation. That policy was reiterated by the Leader of the Opposition when he wrote to every council last year.

A major argument voiced during the inquiry was the effect of amalgamations on rural councils, particularly a community's sense of identity. The Minister needs to understand that amalgamation alone is not reform and that other ways of restructuring can be of benefit. For example, in many rural areas the council is often the largest employer and there is a valid perception within communities that their way of life could change dramatically if their councils were abolished. Just because a council area becomes bigger does not mean that it will be better off financially if it is poorly managed or has other impacting problems. Corporate governance needs to be addressed, safeguards need to be put in place to protect a council's social and economic viability, and, as previously mentioned, the public needs to be consulted at all stages during the process. Professor Sproates from the University of Western Sydney said:

… We need to find ways to allow government to be both efficient and participatory.

Professor Sproates was against the idea of amalgamations as a whole concept and was more concerned with management practices and better ways to conduct council business. Some councils have addressed the issue of better efficiencies without the need to amalgamate, by establishing regional alliances. Regional alliances can take the form of sharing resources and planning regional projects and schemes. Although there is some limitation on the sharing of resources, regional alliances give a great opportunity for some councils to access the services of larger neighbouring councils whilst maintaining their own identity. The inquiry was presented with examples of successful regional alliances. I congratulate councils who have successfully achieved better outcomes for their communities through this method. Again, amalgamations are not the answer to every local government problem. Regional alliances are effective but do not provide an overall answer, particularly when more than one council wants to use the same resource at the same time.

Perhaps one of the most thought-provoking submissions on local government reform was presented by Professor David Brunckhorst from the Institute for Rural Futures at the University of New England. Professor Brunckhorst's submission was based on a real alternative for the determination of regional local government boundaries. He presented an excellent case study of northern New South Wales using a model that combined collected social survey data with data on the local environment. As described in the inquiry's report, the combined data allows the identification of regions that "more accurately reflect the social functions of rural communities and the ecological functions of the landscape". Professor Brunckhorst outlined the principles for drawing up boundaries for regional areas that best align with community expectations. Professor Brunckhorst said in his report:

The first is that the region should capture the place that is the social capital … the landscape area that is of greatest interest to the region or local residents. Second, that the region maximises or captures the greatest similarities of environmental landscape, which reflects land uses, management of ecological resources, water supply and so on. The third condition … is this region can be scaled up and down for integration for other kinds of service delivery or management.

The process involved surveying a sample of people across the community on a variety of issues, such as their areas of interest in their community, local government, and regional development. People were asked to draw on maps their areas of interest in different issues. The professor indicated that such a methodology could be applied across the State, would take approximately one year to complete, and would be low cost. This is a real and practical reform alternative to mere amalgamation. It allows the community to describe its associations within the area and, combined with local government data, would enable the Government to draw up boundaries that would provide economic efficiencies, community acceptance, and social and regional benefit.

I recommend that Professor Brunckhorst's model be applied across New South Wales to better match up, as the Professor described, "land uses, communities of interest and the environment itself". Such an approach would allow an informed decision to be made on the reform of local government. Detailed information would be presented with full community consultation, as opposed to reform by stealth or scaremongering to achieve political outcomes.

The Government had a real opportunity to do something positive about local government reform. Instead, it successfully created fear and anxiety with the prospect of amalgamation. Its actions have even led to councils fighting among each other just to survive. If the reform process is not handled in a proper manner with positive outcomes, there will be little community acceptance as service delivery plummets. Reform should not have only one objective in mind, that is, to create bigger councils. Reform should be about creating more effective and well-run councils, despite their size, and it should not impact on the identity of the local area. Regrettably, the Government has taken a short-term political view in an attempt to manipulate boundaries for its own political benefit rather than seek genuine reform for the good of everybody in New South Wales. It is, indeed, a sad chapter in the book of reform initiatives by this Labor Government.

Motion agreed to.

Debate resumed from 24 February.

The Hon. TONY BURKE [2.48 p.m.]: I am pleased to present the final report of the Standing Committee on State Development inquiry into "Science and its Commercialisation in New South Wales". As honourable members may be aware, this is the first report of the committee since the State election and therefore the first report that I as chairman and the majority of committee members have been involved in. I acknowledge the assistance of all committee members, who worked constructively throughout the inquiry. We achieved consensus in our report and throughout the inquiry in the gathering of information. Madam Deputy-President, I acknowledge the role that you played as deputy chair of the committee and your role in this Chamber. I thank the Hon. Melinda Pavey, Mr Ian Cohen, the Hon. Tony Catanzariti and the Hon. Christine Robertson for the work in which they were involved. Before I go into the detail of the report I would like to acknowledge the extraordinary work that was done by the committee secretariat. The terms of reference of this committee inquiry were extremely broad ranging.

A large amount of resources were required and the dedication from members of the secretariat was extraordinary. I take this opportunity to thank the acting director, Mr Bayne McKissock, the acting project officer, Ms Cathy Nunn, and the project officer, Ms Madeleine Foley, for their assistance in producing this report. I acknowledge the work of and administrative support provided by Ms Jill Galvin. Because of the regular presence on the floor of the Chamber of Ms Laura Milkins she could probably be referred to as the Hon. Laura Milkins. I thank Jill and Laura for their work during this inquiry. As I said earlier, the terms of reference of this inquiry were extremely broad ranging. The committee was asked to review:

a) existing scientific efforts and programs in NSW public sector organisations.

b) the opportunities for commercialising the results of scientific research.

c) the opportunities for NSW public sector administered programs in meeting policy objectives.

d) the BioFirst program and the opportunities it provides for the commercialisation of research discoveries.

The context of the inquiry was clear. It was understood by all members at the outset that there would be much in science that neither could nor should be commercialised. Basic research is something for which there will always be an ongoing requirement. A lot of basic research will simply require continued government funding. Notwithstanding that, it was a commonly held view throughout the inquiry that we should ensure that, when there was an opportunity for valid commercialisation, it was done efficiently and with the appropriate level of government co-operation. This inquiry was generated by a new Minister but, more significantly, as a result of a new portfolio. Prior to this New South Wales had not had a Minister for Science and Medical Research.

It was refreshing for the committee in a sense because Government, Opposition and crossbench members did not have to deal with the issue of legacy or with whether the inquiry was trying to defend the previous actions of Ministers or departments. The committee conducted a serious inquiry. New South Wales acknowledged through the creation of a new portfolio that more needed to be done. I thank the Minister in the other place, the Hon. Frank Sartor, for asking the committee to conduct the inquiry. The inquiry was stakeholder led. The acronym IP was used continually during the inquiry. Those who were using it were referring to intellectual property but, as one of the committee members remarked after our first session of hearings, what we constantly had were extremely impressive people and genuine stakeholders in the scientific community appearing as witnesses before the inquiry.

The committee followed the normal process of receiving submissions and conducting public hearings. Committee members were involved in field trips, about which I will say a little more later. The committee also held a forum for co-operative research centres [CRCs] in this Chamber. Instead of gathering evidence through the process of asking questions and receiving answers, where we were the people asking the questions, committee members essentially listened to a dialogue that was generated by representatives of co-operative research centres. I acknowledge the assistance given to the committee by Professor Brien Holden and his role with the New South Wales co-operative research centres, which resulted in the committee gathering evidence using a different method. This Chamber was full of scientists talking about how science policy in New South Wales could be better run.

The committee also produced the first report of this Parliament that came complete with its own DVD. Attached to the committee report is the DVD of the CRC forum held in this Chamber on 21 October last year. I refer to the successful field trips, particularly through the Riverina area. I refer also to the field trip to the Australian Technology Park. The information that was gleaned from that field trip—all of which was helpful—is referred to in the report. Some of the information that was gathered from the field trip was surprisingly good and some, as is detailed in the report, was a bit disappointing. That sort of information can be gleaned only as a result of physically visiting a place. The final recommendation in the report refers to models of commercialisation brokerage organisations. We were told about some of the brokerage organisations.
The example that the committee was given was the British Technology Group in England. The committee was also told about a gateway organisation in the United States of America. It will not be the task of this committee, as it has concluded its report, to undertake an overseas trip, but at some stage in the future a committee should undertake such a trip to obtain some necessary information. I acknowledge that that is a defect in the report. The committee should have been able to provide that information to the Parliament. The committee did not embark on an overseas trip even though it thought that might be helpful. No-one would be game to suggest that being away from one's family in another country is meant to be an exciting thing. I do not believe that to be the case. However, as a result, the committee has been unable to provide certain information to the Parliament.

The recommendations in the report are best structured into three different groups. The first group relates to recommendations that deal with the structure of government, the second group deals with the interaction of government and stakeholders, and the third group deals with building a platform in the community from which better science policy is likely to arise. The committee received some evidence that was positive and some evidence that was disappointing about the success and merits of the BioFirst strategy. A number of applications were made to conduct scientific research—research that arguably was not really biotechnology but that could have been counted as biotechnology because a bucket of money was available for it.

It became pretty clear to the committee that a ministerial review of the BioFirst strategy should be conducted. Arguments could be put forward about the promotion of discrete areas, but we did not want worthy opportunities assessed not entirely on their own merits. It could be what some might describe as a definition or a fudge to get those issues classified as biotechnology. The committee also called for the establishment of a ministry for the science portfolio; the establishment of an office of chief scientist; and for a science leadership group comprising representatives of the New South Wales government, the science, technology and innovation sector, environmental sciences and the New South Wales Council of Co-operative Research Centres, to provide short-term advice to the Minister for Science and Medical Research.

The committee also called for the New South Wales Innovation Council no longer to be under the responsibility of the Minister for State and Regional Development but to be transferred to the Minister for Science and Medical Research, and for the Minister to develop intellectual property management and contract guidelines. We established that that was being done on a department-by-department basis. Extraordinary costs are involved with the establishment of IP contracts and identifying what is valid intellectual property. We believe the new portfolio could perform a valid function by providing that information in a whole-of-government manner.

Several research scientists made some valid comments to committee members during our field trip to the Riverina. They said that, although they were being asked to act commercially, they would see none of the benefits from successful commercial spin-offs of research conducted in their unit. Not only do those scientists not see any of the profits but the money is not necessarily returned to the unit. Committee members believe if we want people to act in an entrepreneurial fashion we must establish some entrepreneurial framework within which they can do so. For those reasons we encourage the Premier's Department to initiate discussions with the relevant employee organisations and public sector agencies to identify ways in which the research scientist classification might take into account those sorts of incentives.

The final recommendation regarding the structure of government and the proposed Ministry for Science and Innovation is that a specific person be charged with liaising with co-operative research centres. Although co-operative research centres draw their funds from a Federal pool of money, strong representations were made to the committee regarding the ways in which New South Wales could do what was argued was being done fairly successfully by other States: provide a level of State support to assist with the leverage of those Federal funds.

The second group of recommendations deals with the interaction between government and stakeholders. Recommendation No. 2 seeks to establish an innovation awards program that would supersede the BioFirst awards by encompassing all areas of science and innovation, extending the program to offer flexible short-term postings for Australians living abroad, and including people with significant experience in commercialisation. The committee also recommended the initiation of an annual New South Wales "Science in Parliament" day. We heard several reports about the success of a similar initiative on the part of the Queensland Government. Such success owes partly to the acknowledgement by Parliament and Government that they want to have that dialogue. Those sorts of signals were thought to play a significant role in encouraging the take-up of business and commercial scientific opportunities in New South Wales.

Recommendation No. 12 calls for the introduction of an infrastructure loans scheme. I will explain the principle behind that recommendation because it is more important than the recommendation itself. Regardless of whether the Government chooses to accept the recommendation and establish a loans scheme, the concept involves moving away from the situation that can occur under a grants scheme whereby at the end of the grant period the business instinctually seeks a new grant. The advantage of the loans scheme is that at the end of the loan period the business no longer has to repay any money. This would discourage a business culture of constant grant recall and reliance on government to meet the bottom line—which is what any commercialisation scheme should ultimately aim for. That is the intention of the recommendation, regardless of whether this objective is achieved by introducing a loans scheme.

Recommendation No. 14 deals with commercialisation brokerage, which offers extraordinary opportunities. We often hear that scientists need to think more commercially, but the reality is that while some people with research skill have a great entrepreneurial spirit many will simply be great researchers. We believe it would be valuable to establish an agency that could lend those skills to scientific researchers and assist them in identifying intellectual property and paths to commercialisation.

In building our platform the committee's most important recommendations dealt with education. When it was first put to the committee that education somehow formed part of the inquiry I do not think there was a committee member who was not surprised and thought it might be outside our terms of reference. However, by the end of the inquiry there was no doubt that education was squarely within the committee's terms of reference. Successful commercialisation involves encouraging the best minds to choose a career in science. That is absolutely in the interests of this State. The committee wants the focus given previously to literacy and numeracy to be given to science so that commercial opportunities in New South Wales are never lost.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [3.03 p.m.]: One of the joys of the new job description that I have had since March last year is that I have had the opportunity to rejoin the Standing Committee on State Development, upon which I served from 1991 to 1995 and whose inquiries I always found most interesting and stimulating. The latest inquiry certainly lived up to the standards of the committee's past work. When we held our first meeting and learned that we would have the opportunity to inquire into science and its commercialisation in New South Wales I must admit that I was somewhat nonplussed as I had not had much to do with science in any other area of government in which I had been involved. However, as soon as we began to explore the committee's terms of reference—which seemed extraordinarily broad when they were first presented but which gave us the opportunity to put the inquiry into proper focus, looking at it from a commercial point of view with input from government agencies and in the context of the interests of future research and commercialisation—I realised that science was a feature of many government portfolios, although I had not always viewed it from that perspective.

The inquiry was most interesting. The intellectual property issue that the Hon. Tony Burke, the committee chairman, mentioned is quite relevant. Committee members gained from the inquiry by adding to our knowledge: we drew on the intellectual property of an enormously diverse range of highly motivated and highly intelligent people. I must acknowledge the chairman for his excellent work throughout the inquiry, which was conducted in a bipartisan spirit. Indeed, I look forward in the next few months to the Government's positive response to the committee's report.

The Hon. Henry Tsang: We are going to lose him.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: That is his choice—he has to be elected first. All committee members gained much from the inquiry. If the Government accepts our recommendations this report will help to strengthen the role and place of science and research in New South Wales. It is fair to say that there was some criticism of the current position of New South Wales in comparison with other States that are doing it better. The importance of the inquiry was brought home to me again at the beginning of this week—it was perhaps interesting timing—during discussion about what funding might or might not be in the Federal budget for co-operative research centres [CRCs]. I am ashamed to admit that the CRC concept was quite new to me when the inquiry began but I soon became a great fan of what the centres seek to do. Co-operative research centres bring together government, research organisations—which are often connected with universities—and business in working to a common outcome.

In that context, I noted with interest some of the statistics we received about CRCs during the inquiry. For example, last year—the situation may change as a result of the new grants announced recently—New South Wales had 16 from a total of 71 centres. One would assume that an appropriate share of the pie for New South Wales would be about a third of all centres. However, in the most recent funding round New South Wales was the recipient of only 4 out of 30 grants. Proportionally, other States have done better than New South Wales. For example, New South Wales received $98.65 million, while Victoria received $98.1 million. Other submissions included similar comments.

The committee looked at the impact of research and development spending as a percentage of gross State product [GSP]. It was pointed out that New South Wales was spending only 0.23 per cent of GSP on research and development, compared to 0.31 per cent in Victoria, 0.35 per cent in Queensland and 0.69 per cent in South Australia. New South Wales has a little way to go—I assume that is why we have appointed a Minister for Science and Medical Research. It was clear from many of the submissions the committee received that there is much expectation now that New South Wales has appointed a Minister for Science and Medical Research. It is expected that there will be an attempt to bring together under that Minister some of the diverse approaches to science and innovation and to have a better co-operative approach within government. Many portfolios derive some benefits from science and research: Agriculture, Fisheries, Health, State and Regional Development, Mineral Resources, Lands, State Forests, Environment, and Energy and Commerce. Many people suggested to the committee that it all be drawn together and that we have a better co-ordinated approach. Indeed, the committee has made that recommendation. New South Wales did not always come out well in the inquiry. The submission of Dr Merilyn Sleigh is well quoted throughout the report. She has a long history in science research. She noted:

• There is a widespread perception that NSW is a follower rather than a leader in introducing ways to underpin and foster scientific research and its commercialisation.

• The momentum building elsewhere for a thriving science-based industry sector is not perceived to be occurring in NSW … research itself is fragmented, being spread across many different institutions and different geographic locations. This adds to the perception of a lack of direction in NSW science efforts.

That is why the committee made some of its recommendations. Professor Les Field, from the University of Sydney, said:

• We welcome this initiative by the State Government to tackle the challenge of providing for the future of NSW.

• The University of Sydney's position on the need for a whole-of-government response in relation to science and commercialisation is well known.

• There is a need for greater engagement of State Government with the key research institutions to provide a vehicle for dialogue and consultation which will enable strategic planning for the future and to help the State take advantage of commercialisation opportunities.

Time and again Queensland was pointed out as being the State doing the most to foster scientific research and to underpin its industries in their endeavours in relation to research and development. One of the most important quotes is on the first page of our report. It is from Professor Beryl Hesketh, Pro-Vice Chancellor of the College of Science and Technology at the University of Sydney, who warned against the assumption that commercialisation could be successfully pursued without "feeding the engine room"—that is, research. The committee sought to address the balance between pure research and commercialisation throughout its report. The committee is of the opinion that it is being addressed, perhaps most successfully, in Queensland. Queensland has taken a positive and pro-active approach within a portfolio that is well focussed on the benefits for the State.

I am very passionate about clusters. I apply the theory of clusters to many things that I focus upon, particularly in relation to regional development. The committee has identified that clusters have a role to play to create better opportunities for commercialisation. The committee received a lot of evidence that suggested that that is a way to provide a geographic focus for science and to bring together in a geographic concentration interconnected companies, specialist supporters and researchers to work together. Merilyn Sleigh said:

It is generally agreed that clustering of research, research infrastructure, research commercialisation and new and existing business is the most effective means to develop the critical mass needed for a self-sustaining enterprise community.

That is important as we focus on the way forward. The Government needs to look at policies that will bring together and promote companies working together, and not only sharing research but being geographically located together so they can share each other's knowledge at close hand. That seems to be the way it has worked overseas. While the committee gained much benefit from the inquiry, it would not have been possible without the support of our outstanding secretariat: Bayne McKissock, Cathy Nunn, Madeleine Foley and the administrative support. They were a joy to work with. I remain amazed at how they were able to work through some of the most complex submissions that the committee received and point out the key points so that members could ask seemingly intelligent questions, be intelligent at all times and participate in discussion with people before us. I was pleased to be associated with the inquiry. I recommend that honourable members read this report. I hope that it will underpin science in New South Wales well into the future.

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI [3.13 p.m.]: The Standing Committee on State Development conducted an inquiry into science and its commercialisation in New South Wales. The committee did an excellent job and its report is very detailed. It covers many issues relevant to science and its commercialisation in New South Wales. As a member of the Standing Committee on State Development, I was happy to welcome a delegation of my fellow committee members, including the chair of the committee, the Hon. Tony Burke, to my local area, the Riverina, on 22 and 23 September last year. The committee travelled to Wagga Wagga, Leeton, Yanco and Griffith. The inquiry into science and its commercialisation in New South Wales benefited greatly as a result of its visit to that area.

In touring the facilities in the Riverina, the committee's aim was to get a sense of the opportunities available to New South Wales and Australia through the practical use of publicly funded scientific research. This research was in evidence throughout the many sites that were part of the tour of the committee. The committee found that the big difference evident in the agricultural research is the different focus it has in its outcomes. The research undertaken by the scientific bodies in the Riverina that were visited by the committee tended to be driven by the agriculture sector for the good of farmers and those in the agriculture industry, not just research for commercial or monetary gain. That also appeared to be the case for most rural-based scientific research groups that the committee visited across the State.

An example of such research could be seen in the tour of the committee of the Co-operative Research Centre [CRC] for sustainable rice production in Yanco. This rice CRC has as its key project the minimisation of environmental impacts of rice production. It aims to accomplish this by minimising water use—both by minimising water losses while delivering water to the fields and by maximising the efficiency with which the crop uses the water when it is delivered; by developing varieties of rice that are less affected by cold and do not need to be grown in rice paddies; and by studying useful traits in past crops that could be of use in possible future genetically modified programs. I know that there has already been some success in its research. The CRC has developed a rice that has a much smaller maturation rate, meaning that less water is needed to grow the product.

During the past 10 years rice water use efficiency has improved by 60 per cent. This research by the rice CRC has already seen initial benefits for local farmers and the economy, by contributing to better water management programs by growers and irrigation companies and by its education programs. These practices will become the norm for those in the industry in the future. Scientific research of this kind was also evident on the other sites that the committee visited. At the New South Wales Agriculture Institute in Wagga Wagga a wide range of research is conducted, including the molecular marking of plant genes, a process that can significantly speed up traditional plant breeding times. At Charles Sturt University in Wagga Wagga the applied science schools of agriculture, wine science, and environmental science engage in a number of education and research activities as a joint venture between Charles Sturt University, NSW Agriculture, and the New South Wales Wine Industry Association.

All of these groups are focused on advancing scientific knowledge, but they are driven by the local agriculture industry, for the benefit of both the researchers and the industry itself. The scientists gain the benefits of funding and the practical implementation of their research, while the agricultural industry continues to gain tools to enhance its work. These findings have contributed to a report of such good quality, and I wish to congratulate the committee and staff who have worked so hard to produce it. But the most important acknowledgements that I can give go to the research bodies of the Riverina, which are doing such excellent work. Our visits to these groups were rewarding, and I look forward to seeing the results.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY [3.21 p.m.]: This is the first take-note debate to which I have contributed in my career as a member of the State's upper House. This was an exciting, stimulating and challenging inquiry. I acknowledge and commend the work and the effort of the committee chair, the Hon. Tony Burke, the deputy chair, the Hon. Patricia Forsythe, and committee members Mr Ian Cohen, of the Greens, the Hon. Tony Catanzariti and the Hon. Christine Robertson. I thank them for their shared excitement in the task that we were given. At the outset I mention also Bayne McKissock and Cathy Dunn, of the committee secretariat, who have been acknowledged by all members who have spoken in this debate today. They deserve acknowledgment because they had quite a few new members to guide, including the chair, and that was not an easy task.

As the Hon. Patricia Forsythe pointed out, at the beginning the terms of reference appeared quite daunting, but the committee certainly sunk its teeth into the task and enjoyed the process enormously. A most daunting aspect of the inquiry was the quality of the people that the committee was interviewing. Some of the smartest and most passionate people in our country came before the committee. We thank them for their contributions and for what they taught us. It is very important that government really understands our report and the extent of our inquiries. If we want to continue to be the lucky country, we have to become an even more clever country and use the natural advantages possessed by this nation through its education facilities.

What I have gained most from the inquiry is a renewed drive to encourage our school students to become passionate about science. I pick up the point made by the Hon. Tony Burke that it is vital, if Australia is to continue to grow as a nation, to use our natural competitive edge gained through education, but we must also get our young people interested in science. It has got to be groovy, it has got to be funky, and it has got to be interesting, because it is a large part of where we go as a nation. We are increasingly becoming involved in a very competitive global environment. We cannot compete with China, India or Thailand in terms of labour rates, but we can compete in educating and becoming smarter through the development of technology and exporting that technology and manufacturing know-how. Professor Beryl Lillian Hesketh, Pro Vice-Chancellor of the Colleges of Science and Technology of the University of Sydney, made the point:

If you do not commit to science education starting from primary school going through to secondary and tertiary education, all bets are off; you will never end up with a knowledge-based economy and a technologically advanced society. It has got to start with that; so we have to upskill the community. At the end of the day commercialisation of science is all about upskilling the broad scientific literacy of the community in general, and getting them to understand and embrace that technology is the turbocharger of change; that it is really the driver of economic growth.

Queensland Premier Beattie understood that. At the last Queensland State election he capitalised on the concept of the smart State. It was a continuing theme of the committee's investigations that Queensland is being the smartest of all States in its embracing, encouraging, funding and driving of technology. Congratulations to Premier Beattie; he is doing a fine job. If the findings of the Standing Committee on State Development can generate in the New South Wales Government the same level of interest in this very important area as is apparent in Queensland, then members of the committee will have done a good job.

I would like to thank the Chief Scientist of Australia, Professor Robin Batterham, who hosted a dinner of representatives of co-operative research centres at Governor Macquarie Tower, attended by the Hon. Tony Burke. Professor Batterham is an amazing person. Our country is lucky to have him in the role of Chief Scientist, even though he has been the subject of some relatively petty criticism of late. His work for the Federal Government, leading to the announcements to be made in the Federal budget next week relating to funding for CRCs across Australia, is exciting. It is expected that next week's budget will contain an allocation of some $5 billion towards funding of science and innovation. Professor Batterham has led the charge, with the support of the Federal Government, in this exciting field. In particular, he liked recommendations 2 and 14 of the report. Recommendation 14 touched on the brokerage system in the United Kingdom, a system that the committee was unable to investigate. Professor Batterham also quite likes the idea of the science awards proposed in recommendation 2. I thank him for his involvement.

Another person with some very exciting views was Professor Brien Holden of Vision CRC. He did an excellent job of bringing together, for the first time in New South Wales, all the representatives of the CRCs. Dr Col Gellatly, of the Premier's Department, was able to take away a lot from that exercise. During evidence he gave to the committee Professor Holden pointed out that New South Wales is falling behind the other States and that it is important to address that trend regarding manufacturing CRCs. The Hon. Tony Catanzariti said that one positive aspect is that New South Wales is driving agricultural research. The CRC of the New England University, headed up by Professor Bernie Bindon, is doing some exciting and wonderfully innovate things for beef quality in this country. We are leading the world in beef research, which is very important given the profound effects of that research on the commercialisation and profit aspects of the beef industry in Australia. The New England University and Professor Bernie Bindon are at the head of that charge. As the Hon. Tony Catanzariti said, our visit to the Riverina showed up some exciting developments in rice research, with Australia now leading the world through that research into better usage of water in the production of rice. That can only be good news for Australia.

There was disturbing and disappointing evidence regarding comparisons between New South Wales and other States. That is disappointing. Professor Brien Holden noted that, for example, in manufacturing technology there are seven CRCs in Victoria and only one in New South Wales. Despite having one-third of Australia's population New South Wales compared quite unfavourably with Queensland, which in the last round of CRC funding received $140 million worth of grants for its new and continuing CRCs, compared with $98 million worth of grants in New South Wales.

However, the Government has accepted the committee's recommendation that we appoint a Chief Scientist in New South Wales. Some time ago I saw some advertisements for applicants to fill such a position. I would like to make some recommendations as to whom that person should be, but it probably would not be too advantageous for that person's career. I might mention some names to the Hon. Tony Burke, who, I am sure, was as impressed as I was with some of the people who appeared before the committee—people who could certainly carry out such a role in a completely bipartisan manner, which is what we need.

It is critical that we have appropriate and adequate levels of science education throughout our school system. It is probably somewhat easier for students to receive a good science education in the Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong basin because of its population density. However, I support moves by my party at its last Federal conference to introduce special science training and teaching, perhaps through the University of New England, for country-based teachers to enable them to keep abreast of the latest developments and changes in this fast-moving world. We must give more focus to training our teachers—in the cities, but more especially in country regions—so that Australia can continue to be the lucky country and the clever country, and can lead the world in science and its commercialisation.

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON [3.31 p.m.]: I support and agree with the accolades other members have bestowed upon the parliamentary staff who assisted us during this inquiry. For me, meeting, hearing and reading about so many exciting individuals—many of whom were active in and working on diverse and competitive research for the social good of the people of New South Wales—was a really exciting part of this inquiry. Exciting also was the extent of regional representation, particularly among the commercialisation groups from cotton and rice growers and the University of New England. It is pleasing to know that so much country and regional work is being undertaken. The committee's recommendations were derived from these groups and their highly credible world-class research.

This State already undertakes a considerable amount of commercial research. The recommendations have the potential to grow and extend this State's pool of researchers and research. As the Hon. Tony Burke said, this inquiry was the first that many members had participated in. The value of the views of individual members coming from different perspectives, aiming to achieve a positive outcome for the future of research in New South Wales, cannot be underestimated. I am grateful to all the members of the committee for this experience. I commend the report to the House and to the Minister for implementation.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [3.33 p.m.]: I congratulate the committee on its report. I am pleased that the State is considering this difficult issue. A complex problem for bureaucracies and governments as a whole is how to relate to talented individuals. Yesterday I met with some people who came to this country from Yugoslavia, where for 15 years this husband and wife team, both doctors by profession, specialised in clinical pharmacology testing—designing trials to take experimental drugs to a clinical stage. Given reasonable liaison with people who had drugs for testing, they could design appropriate testing protocols. They believed that this could be done in Australia at a fairly low cost. They have had dealings with Amrad, a Melbourne-based firm that develops the Australian pharmaceutical industry, clinical trial groups and the University of Newcastle. They have tendered for projects at the Federal level to obtain Federal funding for what amounts to a cottage business to examine such drugs. Such enterprises do not necessarily have to start with billions of dollars: they have to be grown from the bottom up.

Some of the great inventions over time were often the result of the workings of an individual. The problem is that the process for the provision of government funds to individuals is cumbersome. The supplier of services to the Government tends to want to deal with another large bureaucracy—or if it is a non-government organisation it wants to deal with a very large non-government organisation. With regard to processing applications for grants, the Government would rather deal with one head office group in the city that has many branch offices in the country than have to negotiate with each and every little group that has grown up over time and is extremely well connected at the grassroots level. The same applies in science when an individual is seeking a grant to develop an idea that may be of immense benefit to the country.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [3.36 p.m.]: Earlier I referred to people tripping on footpaths and the need to maintain a register of injuries sustained in this manner to determine the resources that are necessary to resolve the problem. At the moment the fear is that a council will be sued and, therefore, the council sends out someone to dig up every fifteenth paving stone as the tree roots push them, and to shave the edges of those stones in order that joggers and stroller pushers do not trip over. In my local council area some playground equipment has been changed and some of the pathways along the river have been closed because of the concern that people might be injured using the equipment or the pathways should they become slippery. It is absurd to have a sword of Damocles on tort law, as it were, that leads to a large withdrawal of services and a further constraint cost base upon which it is difficult to arrive at a cost-benefit analysis because no sensible data is available. On 24 February I asked:

Is the Minister aware of the increasing replacement of city footpaths by materials other than concrete or asphalt? Is he further aware that terrazzo and granite slabs have poorer coefficient of friction than the traditional materials, and that these are considerably worse in wet weather? What standards, if any, exist for the coefficient of friction of urban footpaths? Who is responsible for measuring and enforcing them? Have they done so? If there are no such standards, are there plans to set any and enforce them?

The answer, given on 30 March, states:

The Minister has advised that the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources has had no specific involvement with policies that regulate for the slip resistance of "footpaths". The Department's only involvement is with slips, trips and falls in buildings through the Australian Building Codes Board (ABCB) and Building Code of Australia (BCA).

The approving authority for the standard of footpaths in general, is Council.

Of course, the question was not properly answered because the response did not reveal who is responsible for measuring and enforcing, whether that measurement and enforcement has been carried out, and if there are no such standards, whether there are any plans to set standards and to enforce them. The typical response from Ministers is, "No, the matter is not of interest to us because it is a council responsibility." However, I suggest to honourable members that a suburban council has no way of setting a standard for footpaths having regard to their slipperiness in the wet, or inspecting them or enforcing compliance with such standards.

It should be noted that prior to the Sydney Olympics in 2000, the energetic Frank Sartor was criticised for digging up large chunks of asphalt footpaths in Sydney to provide for French-style outdoor dining, for which he later received great praise. Some asphalt footpaths were repaved with granite. As I walk home I traverse some of those granite footpaths and I have noticed that the granite surface is far more slippery than was the asphalt surface, and on rainy days the surface is even more slippery. I do not know how many people have slipped on those granite footpaths, but the slips, trips and falls category in industrial workplace injuries is the highest category of injury. Whether or not the odd person might slip may seem quite trivial, but the collectively large category of slips, trips and falls may be completely invisible under the new civil liability legislative regime because the individual injuries do not meet the high medical injury threshold of 15 per cent impairment.

In my opinion the best way to handle the problem of dealing with numerous minor incidences of public liability is to establish a register of accidents to record the number of slips, trips and falls, then set a standard for a coefficient of friction, and enforce that standard. That suggestion may appear to be a somewhat bureaucratic approach, but I will illustrate the point by anecdote. My mother is an elderly woman and when she alighted from an escalator onto a wet outdoor area in a George Street shopping mall after rain, she slipped on the terrazzo surface and broke her wrist. A woman rushed out of an adjacent shop and said, "Do you want to sue?" My mother held her wrist and said, "No, I do not want to sue. I am of the old school, and I will go on my way and just get my wrist fixed." The lady from the shop said, "I have been here for only two weeks, and during that time six people have fallen in this place. I have told management to put in a non-slip surface here because the terrazzo gets wet after rain, but they have not done so. Someone will have to sue them to get some action."

The point I make is that the Government's idea of civil liability being a personal responsibility is sheer nonsense. Anyone who has studied safety management would know that simply curtailing torts is not the way to address the problem of civil liability. When I visited New Zealand I noticed that children's playgrounds are far better than children's playgrounds in Australia. They are far more innovative and there is a greater variety in their design because New Zealand authorities are not scared of being sued. The notion that torts is a key driver of injury prevention is very silly. General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2 is currently investigating complaints handling procedures at the Campbelltown Hospital and the quality control mechanisms for health care in general. The committee has discovered that the threat of being sued is motivating doctors to hide mistakes, but does not in any way illuminate the path to implementation of a systematic quality control system. Bret Walker SC told me that his investigation of the Campbelltown Hospital has led him to examine practices in the aviation industry as a model for systematic quality control.

Despite claims by the Government that it is addressing tortious damages claims, civil liability is not in any way being properly addressed. I am disappointed in the Minister's comment that my speech is beyond the scope of the bill. His remarks show that he is not eagerly looking for new ideas on how to prevent injuries. He fails to recognise that the circumstance in which injuries occur is the driver of civil liability actions. The Government's idea that people resort to litigation because they think litigation offers better odds of enrichment than the lottery may be convenient for defence lawyers, but it simply is not true. Insurance companies make very cynical assumptions based on bias formed from a narrow sample of injury cases and a venal perspective. The effect of this bill will be to draw offenders into the less than perfect penumbra of civil liability compensation that applies to other sectors of society. Compensation for injuries suffered by offenders is fraught with inadequacy, and the Government's approach to civil liability generally is immensely problematic. Injuries suffered by offenders in detention account for 20 per cent of all injuries for which compensation is sought, and that is a very high proportion, albeit understandable, considering that gaols are very nasty places and no doubt many assaults take place in gaols.

Epidemics of hepatitis C in detention centres are well documented but the Government's response to them was muted. The Government has been extremely reluctant to provide clean needles ever since a syringe was used as an offensive weapon to inject AIDS-contaminated blood into a prison officer. Understandably prison officers are reluctant to make clean needles available to people who may use them as a weapon, but one can only wonder about the number of people who are hepatitis-free when they enter gaols, but who have hepatitis C when they are released. If it is the case that offenders contract hepatitis C while in detention, I assume a similar scenario eventually will apply to offenders contracting AIDS in detention centres. Ultimately, AIDS contamination constitutes an immense assault. Presumably offenders who contract hepatitis C or AIDS in a detention centre will eventually come within the 15 per cent threshold, but no doubt that would be cold comfort to them.

Although I realise that this bill is aimed at achieving equity, it would be better if equity were achieved by mitigation of the potential for damage to occur, both for offenders and for society generally, by the adoption of an efficient risk-management approach to safety, which this Government has not yet had the wit to attempt.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [3.46 p.m.]: I support the Civil Liability Amendment (Offender Damages) Bill, and I will confine my comments to that bill, which I have taken trouble to read. I also undertook some background research in preparation for my speech, so unlike some other contributions that have been made to the debate, my comments will be relevant. This bill is the latest initiative in the Carr Labor Government's reforms of civil liability. The legislation provides for responsible, fair and equitable reforms to inmate compensation by providing that no inmates will receive more compensation that a law-abiding citizen would receive for the same injury suffered in the course of employment.

The bill reflects community concerns: It provides for fair compensation to persons who have been seriously injured, but also reflects the fact that persons who are serving time in a correctional setting have a responsibility to look after themselves. The bill does not remove the right of offenders to take action against the State. Custodial authorities have a duty of care to persons under their supervision. Under the Government's proposals, an offender will receive fair compensation if he or she suffers a genuinely serious injury owing to the negligence of a government agency. However, a requirement of the scheme will be that, as a consequence of implementation, an offender will be independently medically assessed, as are workers in the context of workers compensation. Under the scheme that will be introduced by enactment of this legislation, there will be no unfairness between compensation available to a worker and that available to an injured offender. Importantly, there will also be no difference in compensation that is available to different categories of offenders, such as home detainees, periodic detainees, et cetera.

Most people do not realise the amount of community service work that is performed by offenders who are subject to community service orders or periodic detention. A group of offenders when performing community service work look like any other anonymous group of outdoor workers as they clear rubbish and weeds or remove graffiti. Just a few examples of community service works that are performed by offenders are: the provision of assistance for Riding for the Disabled at Box Hill in the many areas of its operations—the offenders providing that assistance are supervised by the Parramatta Probation and Parole Service; the removal of graffiti through the Mount Druitt Local Shops Amenity and Safety Improvements Program; the undertaking of remediation work along the banks of the Parramatta River and Toongabbie Creek; and regular participation in Clean Up Australia Day.

It is often the case that community service work has a collateral benefit. Offenders learn skills that will be useful to them in obtaining and retaining employment. Many offenders who work on small construction or concreting jobs as part of their community service work obtain employment in the construction industry based on the experience they have gained during detention. This bill will limit the claims that an offender may bring by imposing an injury threshold of 15 per cent permanent impairment. Offenders will no longer be able to claim damages for cuts, scratches and bruises that are suffered while doing physical work. I support the Civil Liability Amendment (Offender Damages) Bill. I congratulate the Government on its fair and commonsense approach to civil liability reform.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [3.49 p.m.]: My colleague Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes has spoken to this bill on behalf of the Christian Democratic Party. I do not wish to add to his remarks, but I want to raise two issues that have not been canvassed during debate on this bill relating to compensation claims for injury by inmates. The first issue relates to the need for the Department of Corrective Services to investigate so-called accidents and injuries that occur in the prison system. Recent figures show a dramatic increase in compensation claims for injuries in prison, and I believe that many of these claims are fraudulent. Prison officers cannot be so careless all of a sudden that prisoners are falling out of bed or suffering other accidents. I believe there is some premeditation by the prisoners. In the past I have seen reports about prisoners having made an agreement to be bashed by another prisoner so they can claim for injury. If the claim is successful, the attacker is paid some of the funds by the claimant.

I am sure that the Government is concerned about this very serious matter. The problem is how to identify fraudulent claims. In many cases the court gives the benefit of doubt to the prisoner who claims he has been bashed or has fallen down the stairs and has no idea why it happened. This type of fraud may be similar to the fraud that occurred in the motor vehicle insurance industry. The NRMA and other insurance companies were able to identify rackets in Sydney in which people deliberately caused damage to their cars and then claimed compensation for injury. By investigating claims and recording the names they picked up a pattern of claims by individuals, revealing their actions to be fraud. I am sure the Minister for Justice would be totally opposed to the abuse of the civil liability provisions. I urge him to introduce additional surveillance methods and investigation of claims by the Department of Corrective Services before they go further down the track.

As to the second issue, the bill will not restrict an award of damages to relatives of a deceased offender under the Compensation to Relatives Act 1897 or an award of damages to a third person for nervous shock arising from the incident that resulted in the offender's injuries, so long as the third person is not an offender or in prison. I believe that these provisions have been abused as well: individuals have intentionally suffered injuries and a relative has claimed for nervous shock. It seems to me that some criminals in our society are exploiting the civil liability law and that this results in the State making payments for fraudulent claims, and an increase in premiums. The bill aims to reduce such pay-outs by imposing stricter provisions so that a prisoner cannot in any way receive any benefit that is not available to a worker suffering the same the injury in the course of employment. That is fair. Perhaps further restrictions should be imposed in cases where prisoners are injured. I question whether injured prisoners should be treated in the same manner as an employee in the workplace. I urge the Government to exercise strict control over claims made by prisoners and to introduce measures to establish whether they are genuine.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [3.54 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to this debate, many of which were thoughtful and directed towards the benefits the bill will bring. As a number of contributors made clear, the bill represents the latest stage in the Government's reform of tort law in this State, some of the most significant reform in recent legislative history.

The bill also continues the Government's reform of offenders' rights to compensation. The Civil Liability Act 2002 removed the right of criminals to make public liability claims when their injury arose in the course of committing a crime. Amendments to the legislation clarified that inmates are not entitled to seek statutory benefits under workers compensation and compensation under privacy legislation. The Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996 removed the right of convicted inmates to claim victims compensation for injuries whilst they were in custody, except in exceptional circumstances. This bill removes anomalies in the way damages are assessed when inmates sue the State for negligence and introduces a one-fault based negligence scheme combining liability, assessment of injury, and payment of damages.

Unfortunately, some crossbench members indicated their opposition to the bill. I believe they do not understand the bill and the contribution it will make in this area. It will replace a multiplicity of schemes that currently provide that a successful claim of negligence can be assessed in a number of different ways. For example, an offender injured whilst performing community service work is assessed differently from an offender injured performing other work or an offender suffering an injury in an accident within a correctional or detention centre. Two types of offenders suffering identical injuries may receive very different awards of damages depending on the type of work they were doing when injured.

Another important aspect of the scheme is a requirement that inmates and other offenders who receive compensation from the department will be obliged, before receiving any payment, to pay any amounts of victims compensation restitution owed by them to the Victims Compensation Fund. The Department of Corrective Services and the Attorney General's Department will establish a protocol, underpinned by this legislation, to ensure that the Director of the Victims Compensation Fund is aware of any offender who sues the Department of Corrective Services. The Director of the Victims Compensation Fund can then levy a charge or garnishee an amount awarded to the offender to recover the compensation paid to the offender's victim or victims.

A number of trends have evolved since the passage of this legislation, which have already been referred to in the speech in the other place by the Minister for Juvenile Justice. It is important to reflect on some of these trends. In the 12 months before the announcement of the Civil Liability Act 2002, that is, between 1 April 2001 and 1 April 2002, the Department of Corrective Services received 32 claims from inmates and offenders. Some of these were against Corrective Services, whilst some listed other agencies as co-defendants. Since the Civil Liability Act was passed—it has been in operation for almost two years, between 22 April 2002 and 17 March 2004—there has been an average yearly drop in claims of about 22 per cent and an average yearly drop in negligence claims of about 13 per cent. So there has already been an impact since the passing of the legislation.

These amendments will further enhance the legislation. They will lead to a greater sense of equality between compensation for inmates and compensation for people not in custody, and also between inmates serving different types of sentences. For example, inmates may be injured whilst in periodic detention, undertaking community service work, or in the course of serving a custodial sentence. Irrespective of the task they may be performing, one of the anomalies under the existing law is that inmates who are working are assessed under workers compensation provisions and those who are not working are assessed under civil liability provisions.

In deference to the contributions made by honourable members, I will refer to various points referred to me during the course of the debate. I hope I can clear up some of the issues. The Hon. David Clarke began his speech by saying that the Opposition proposed an amendment that will close off, to use his words, a gaping loophole which, if allowed to remain, would cost the taxpayers of New South Wales a great deal of money.

My substantive response will be forthcoming in Committee. The Government's reforms will save taxpayers money; the Opposition's amendments would cost a great deal of money. The Opposition's amendments would mean that each of the cases that are outstanding would need to be re-prepared and re-litigated from scratch—for liability, assessment of injuries, and damages. That would create havoc with cases that in some instances were commenced many years ago and in which legal costs have piled up. It would apply to cases that had been finished and were awaiting judgment. It would also apply to cases on appeal. Every case would have to be reassessed to see whether it met the 15 per cent whole-body threshold before it could proceed in court.

Cases that were commenced prior to the date of the commencement of this legislation have not had to go through that process. Under that formula some cases would not be eligible to proceed. Cases that may have to proceed would still have to go through the assessment stage to be able to be recommenced. However, I will deal with that issue in more detail later. The Hon. David Clarke and the shadow Minister in the other place referred to a $300,000 payment in the well-known case of Kevin Presland. The circumstances in which Mr Presland sued the Government were somewhat unprecedented. However, the Government reacted immediately and introduced the Civil Liability Amendment Act 2003 to ensure that the Presland scenario could not again arise.

The Government acted immediately to clarify the treatment of other situations in which mentally ill people might benefit from actions that might otherwise be considered a crime. The Presland scenario was fixed by the 2003 amending Act. In fact, it is irrelevant to this bill because Presland was not an offender who could be covered by the Civil Liability Amendment (Offender Damages) Bill, which we are currently debating. The matter was dealt with under the Civil Liability Amendment Act 2003.

The Hon. Jon Jenkins referred to a hypothetical scenario of a surgeon, serving a community service order for a drink-driving offence, who got a splinter in his eye. He asserted that the surgeon would have suffered a loss of less than 15 per cent of his faculties and would not be able to make any claim for compensation. I would be surprised if a surgeon who was convicted of such an offence, except in serious circumstances, would necessarily be ordered to perform a community service order, particularly if it was a first offence. But, putting that aside for one moment, all offenders are equal before the law and are sentenced by a court applying sentencing principles that take into account the objective features of the offence and the subjective features of the offender. Offenders are also equal in serving their sentences, and no special consideration should arise because an offender has a particular occupation or social status.

In any case, the surgeon's injuries to which the honourable member referred would be way over the 15 per cent whole-body threshold assessed under workers compensation legislation. I am advised that loss of sight in an eye is assessed at 24 per cent, so it would not be precluded by this legislation if the scenario that was presented by the honourable member arose. The Hon. Catherine Cusack made an interesting speech. I am always a big fan of the Hon. Catherine Cusack, who was catapulted into the shadow ministry at lightning pace.

The Hon. John Ryan: With great justification.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I am glad the honourable member said that. I never knew her. Today during question time someone said to me that my advocacy for the Hon. Melinda Pavey would not do her any good as Leader of The Nationals, but I was a strong advocate of the Hon. Catherine Cusack even though I had never met her. I thought anyone would be better than the Hon. Greg Pearce. She certainly has some endearing qualities that would enable her to achieve that spot.

[Interruption]

I am sorry; I did not know the Hon. Greg Pearce was in the Chamber. The Hon. Catherine Cusack made a good speech, but I am sure the Hon. Greg Pearce would be interested to hear that it was totally irrelevant. She referred to the case of Kirkham v Chief Constable of the Greater Manchester Police, which is not even an Australian case. The honourable member might wish to remember that we have our own court system in Australia and our own system of law. The case refers also to specific circumstances, namely, the duty of external parties to pass on information to those who have subsequent custodial responsibility of a prisoner. The Hon. Catherine Cusack also made a number of comments about juvenile justice facilities, which, again, are irrelevant to the measures covered by the bill.

I can advise the honourable member and the House as follows. The Government has, and continues to have, a strong commitment to the rehabilitation of young offenders. We recognise that this difficult group of young people are dynamic and continually pose new challenges for the staff who manage them. Our policy and practice development reflects that. I am surprised that the Hon. Catherine Cusack had the temerity to comment on the design and ideology of the Government. I am advised that the Kariong Centre was designed and constructed under the direction of the previous Government. Its aim was to provide a maximum security environment for the State's worst young offenders. The design was fundamentally flawed. It did not even have a kitchen or school to service clients. This Government has since installed those facilities. The Hon. Catherine Cusack referred to the transportation of detainees.

The Hon. John Ryan: You realise that shadow Ministers giving irrelevant speeches is actually a credit.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: As I said earlier, the honourable member made a useful contribution. It was irrelevant but that does not detract from my comment that it was useful. She talked about the transportation of detainees, which is not covered under this bill. That matter is covered under the Motor Accidents Act. Nevertheless, I enjoyed her contribution. The quality of the contributions of Opposition members to debate on this bill, notwithstanding all their faults, has improved.

The Hon. John Ryan: Damned with faint praise.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: That is probably due to the fact that the Hon. John Ryan did not contribute to the debate on this bill. His usual rants about Commissioner Woodham were absent. We never have a debate on corrective services without some sort of attack on the commissioner by the Hon. John Ryan. We have had inquiry after inquiry in this State, and thousands of dollars have been spent on useless inquiries that have been instigated by Opposition members. But let me not be distracted any further. I was addressing the quality contribution of the Hon. Catherine Cusack, but the Hon. John Ryan is distracting me. Contrary to the statements that have been made by the Hon. Catherine Cusack, comprehensive procedures are in place to ensure that the rights of clients are upheld. An assault is a criminal matter and it is appropriate that the department refers such an incident to the police.

There are also internal reporting systems to investigate and, if necessary, punish those who misbehave. The department is able to—and it does as a matter of course—separate victims and offenders within the centre. Where appropriate, segregation is used. I am advised that staff in the centres also have a responsibility of maintaining the safety of all clients and are guided by detailed policy and procedure.

I move to the contribution of Ms Lee Rhiannon. Whenever that name is mentioned, silence resonates in the House. Ms Lee Rhiannon said that the Greens saw no reason whatsoever to indemnify negligent people from any responsibility for their acts. This bill does not indemnify any person or agency that has been proved to be negligent. The bill ensures that damages that can be awarded to offenders are not greater than those available to a worker suffering from the same injury in the course of employment.

Section 263 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 provides that correctional officers are not personally liable for any negligent act or omission on their part if the act or omission was done in good faith in the execution of their duties. The Department of Corrective Services takes its duty of care towards inmates seriously. The conduct of officers can be referred to police, and internal disciplinary action can be taken and can result in dismissal. This bill does not reduce the amount of care that must be taken by correctional officers or other departmental employees.

Ms Lee Rhiannon also asserted that death and serious injury are on the rise in the prison system. The Productivity Commission's "Report on Government Services 2004" said that in New South Wales correctional centres there was a decrease in the rate of assaults by inmates upon inmates and the rate of assaults by inmates upon officers. In his 2002-03 annual report the Acting Inspector-General stated:

The decline in these categories of incidents is an exceptional result given the increased number of inmates in the system during the year. This outcome suggests the Department's strategies to combat gang and other violence within the system are producing positive results.

With regard to the question of deaths, the Auditor-General noted in his 2003 report to Parliament:

The area of biggest improvement in correctional centres was in the rate of unnatural death.

The Productivity Commission's "Report on Government Services 2004" showed that apparent unnatural deaths in New South Wales correctional centres continued to decrease, from 0.33 per 100 inmates in 1998-99 to 0.11 in 2002-03. In his 2002-03 annual report the acting inspector-general stated:

With the substantial increase in inmate numbers over the past three years one would expect the number of deaths in custody to also increase commensurately. Amazingly, the exact opposite has occurred.

Ms Lee Rhiannon also claimed that the bill would provide two tiers of rights: from Monday to Friday inmates would have the same rights as others in the community but on weekends they would become less deserving of protection. This bill reduces inconsistency; it does not create it. There already exists a number of different schemes to which citizens are subjected from Monday to Friday, depending on the circumstances of the injury. This bill provides uniformity with regard to the damages that can be awarded to injured offenders. It eliminates the multiplicity of schemes that currently operate in the correctional environment.

Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes made a very thoughtful contribution to the debate, and I thank the Christian Democratic Party for supporting the bill. The Hon. Dr Peter Wong also expressed support for the bill, but I must clarify one point he made. He referred to the Legislation Review Committee report on the bill, which stated:

The Committee refers to Parliament the question of whether the proposed amendment trespasses unduly on personal rights and liberties.

The bill amends the unacceptable situation whereby offenders can receive more in compensation than a law-abiding citizen who suffers an identical injury. The Hon. Dr Peter Wong again quoted the report of the Legislation Review Committee, which stated:

The Committee is concerned that some individuals may have commenced claims for common law damages, and thereby incurred significant costs, unaware of the Ministerial Statement of 15 January 2004—

which is the date that the commencement of this bill will be backdated to. The Department of Corrective Services has advised me that it received no negligence claims between 15 January 2004 and 18 March 2004, when the bill was introduced in Parliament. Therefore, the fears expressed by the Hon. Dr Peter Wong appear to be unfounded.

I also thank the Hon. Peter Breen for his contribution to the debate. Along with several other honourable members to whom I have referred, the Hon. Peter Breen, although critical of the bill, appeared to have taken some time to study it and, in his own way, to digest it. The Hon. Peter Breen asked from when the changes would apply. The bill provides that the proposed changes will come into effect from the date of the announcement. This provision was justified by the reason given in the second reading speech of the Minister in the other place and was noted by the Legislation Review Committee in paragraph 28 of its report. It is necessary to commence the changes from the date of announcement in order to prevent a flood of speculative claims. The Hon. Peter Breen also made a point about persons serving weekend detention. He said that a certain regime may operate from Monday to Friday and then a lesser regime may operate on the weekend. Ms Lee Rhiannon also made that point, and my response to the Hon. Peter Breen is identical to the one I gave her.

I acknowledge also the contribution of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile. He expressed concern about fraud, and it is important to recognise that the department takes the attitude that whenever there is a reasonable prospect of success in litigation that it proposes involving inmate claims, it will contest it and place the evidence before the court. We believe that the provisions regarding fraud and suspected fraud will be enhanced by this bill, which requires a threshold of 15 per cent whole-body impairment. In other words, people who try to defraud the system will need to establish particularly significant injuries before they get off first base and qualify for compensation under this legislation. I think that will be an inhibitor to anyone contemplating bringing proceedings on that account. Honourable members should bear in mind that the 15 per cent whole-body impairment threshold will be assessed by independent medical experts having regard to the guidelines used in the workers compensation jurisdiction.

I thank the Hon. Amanda Fazio for her thoughtful and informed contribution to the debate. There is only one speaker in the debate to whose contribution I have not responded: the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans. In accordance with my usual policy, I will not do so. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE [4.16 p.m.], by leave: I move Coalition amendments Nos 1 and 2 in globo:

No. 1 Page 9, schedule 1 [5], line 11. Insert "(including an award of damages in proceedings commenced in a court before the date of assent to the Civil Liability Amendment (Offender Damages) Act 2004)" after "that Part".

No. 2 Page 9, schedule 1 [5], lines 12–31. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(2) However, Part 2A of this Act does not apply to or in respect of an award of damages, or a settlement or consent order in respect of damages, made before the date of assent to the Civil Liability Amendment (Offender Damages) Act 2004.

The circumstances surrounding the need for the Civil Liability Amendment (Offender Damages) Bill are very clear. After much public anger about, and media exposure of, a situation whereby offenders in custody have been using loopholes and inconsistencies in the New South Wales law to allow them to obtain compensation payments that are far in excess of compensation pay-outs legally available to the rest of the community for similar injuries, the Government has decided to act. The Government has been forced to introduce this bill and abolish loopholes and legal inconsistencies that for years have enabled offenders in custody to receive payments in excess of those available to the rest of the community.

However, there is a problem with the bill in its current form: the shonky, excessive, undeserved pay-outs often awarded to offenders in custody will continue for years to come because any claim that was in progress before 15 January this year has been given the green light to proceed. This is unambiguously clear in the overview of the bill, which states:

The new restrictions will extend to existing claims unless proceedings on the claim were commenced before 15 January 2004 (being the date of the Minister's announcement of the proposed restrictions) or an award of damages has been made on the claim before the date of assent. If the claim concerns an injured child, the new restrictions will not apply if proceedings were commenced before introduction of this Bill into Parliament.

As I have said, offenders in custody with claims in progress as at 15 January have been given the green light to go full steam ahead. If the Opposition amendments are rejected, the effect will be that, for years to come, New South Wales taxpayers will be shelling out excessive compensation payouts to prison inmates—compensation payouts that are not available to the rest of the community—simply because the Government refuses to close a loophole perpetuating what is in effect nothing less than a legally sanctioned rorting of the system by a small group.

The Government has suggested that the Opposition amendments are bad because they retrospectively deprive citizens of rights and entitlements available to them at the time they instituted their claims, and it has suggested that it would be unfair and would cause expense and confusion to move the goalposts when existing claims are being processed. The truth of the matter is that the Opposition amendments would retrospectively deprive a small section of the community—offenders in custody with existing claims—from receiving the green light to proceed unhindered to rort the system, which the Government has now had to restructure because, as the Government belatedly admits, it gives entitlements to a small section of the community that are not available to the great majority.

The fact that the Government introduced this bill is an admission that something was very wrong. The Government admits that the system needs to be fixed to stop frivolous claims and undeserved and excessive payouts to one section of the community. The Government then stopped short and, in effect, said that it will continue to pay outrageous and excessive compensation to prison inmates, provided the claims were up and running by 15 January this year. However, only a few months ago the Government held a different position when it amended the rights and entitlements of workers injured while driving trucks in coalmines. On that occasion, the Government deprived workers from bringing claims under the Motor Accidents Act and shifted them under the Workers Compensation Act, where entitlements are much less than those available under the Motor Accidents Act.

At that time, the Government was not concerned about changing the rules midstream. There was no great concern about workers who had commenced proceedings under the Motor Accidents Act only to find that their claims were retrospectively wiped out midstream and their entitlements reduced. The Opposition's amendments will possibly save taxpayers of New South Wales millions of dollars over the next few years. The Opposition's amendments will abolish the privileged position of the few to proceed with claims rorting laws not available to everyone else. Our amendments will put everybody on an equal footing. Our amendments are fair and just. The Opposition commends its amendments to the Committee.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [4.21 p.m.]: The Government is unable to support the Opposition's amendments. As was indicated when the bill was introduced in the Legislative Assembly, the amendments are ill-conceived and contradictory, and demonstrate the profound ignorance of civil liability law that is possessed by the Opposition, and is probably replicated and accentuated by the fact that the Hon. David Clarke has just pillaged large slabs of arguments that the Opposition used in the lower House to try to put a gloss on something that really is quite a failing show.

[Interruption]

Do not commit the same mistake twice. The Hon. David Clarke is a very intelligent person. I have never criticised his relationship with Professor Flint—he is obviously much more superior in intellect to him. The Hon. David Clarke should not pillage the words of the shadow Minister without exercising his own thoughts on the matter. The Opposition is advocating amendments that will affect each and every juvenile justice case and inmate compensation case presently before the courts or, indeed, on appeal. All cases would be rendered useless and could be thrown into the dustbin by these amendments. If the amendments are passed, this legislation will require them to have themselves independently medically assessed before they are able to commence proceedings in order to ascertain whether they make the threshold. If they do not make the threshold they will not be entitled to proceed. I will be clear about what these amendments will involve.

The Hon. John Ryan: The problem with our amendments is that they will work.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Dozens of current court cases will need to be relitigated from scratch for liability assessment injuries and damages, with all the legal costs being picked up by the taxpayer. They will say, "This is the consequence of a bill that has been moved by the Government, which has wiped me out. At the time I commenced this action against the State I was entitled to bring the proceedings. Therefore, if I am going to be bowled out by this legislation, you will pay." That position will be advocated by people with existing claims, irrespective of the merits of them. I refer to criminals in the system—a number are there—who have commenced proceedings that they realise are hopeless, ill-conceived and will go down the tube and they will have to pay the costs of the State when their cases are adjudicated upon. Each of those criminals will be given a free card to get out of that case and have all their costs paid for by the taxpayer. That is what these ill-conceived amendments will mean. People who have lost their cases—recently a number of people have lost proceedings against the department and have already appealed—will be able to file a notice of appeal in the Court of Appeal and will then be able to get out of their appeal. They will withdraw their case in the Court of Appeal on the basis that this legislation will not affect their case. There will be a new assessment method. They will say to the court that the State should pay their costs.

The Hon. John Ryan: How often does Corrective Services recover costs from inmates? Almost never.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: The issue is they will ask the State to pay their costs. In other words, the taxpayer will be bled dry by all these litigants, a number of whom have run their cases, been defeated and have appealed their hopeless cases. They will then ask the State to pay for the costs involved for the termination of their proceedings. Cases that may have some merit will still be terminated, reassessed and relitigated from scratch. These ill-conceived amendments will even apply to cases that have been heard and finished but are awaiting judgment. They will even apply to cases that are on appeal, either by the department or an inmate. David Clarke mentioned retrospectivity—

The Hon. Rick Colless: The Hon. David Clarke.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: The Hon. David Clarke, of course. Are you in the Double Bay branch or the Rose Bay branch?

The Hon. David Clarke: Neither.

The Hon. John Ryan: He lives in Western Sydney.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: That is right. I think the Hon. Greg Pearce is in the Rose Bay branch. Where is Greg Pearce? I wish he would come back. I do not want to say anything behind his back. I made some comments about Greg Pearce but he said—

The Hon. Don Harwin: Are you on a unity ticket with Ms Lee Rhiannon? Refer to members by their proper title.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: The Hon. Greg Pearce. The Hon. David Clarke stated in his contribution that he was supporting retrospectivity because it applied only to a small group of people. The Government was criticised during this debate because it was allowing individuals who had cases to continue to litigate them and have their merits tested in the court system. It is incorrect to say that inmates have access to a scheme at the moment that entitles them to damages above that of a law-abiding citizen. That comment has been made time and again in this debate, and it is wrong. The law that currently applies to inmates is the law that currently applies to every other citizen. If it is a work accident, people sue under the common law provisions of the Workers Compensation Act. If it is an accident that occurs under occupier's liability, people sue under the Civil Liability Act. If it is an accident that involves a motor car, people sue under the Motor Accidents Act. It is not true that there are differences in that regard.

However, it is true that there are differences between inmates—that is, the compensation that inmates receive. For example, I refer to an inmate who is working and is injured. Because that inmate is not able to access statutory benefits, he can get less for his injury than someone who decides not to work. That is the mischief this bill is trying to remedy. It is trying to get consistency through the system so that every inmate will not receive compensation greater than that which an injured worker will receive with the same 15 per cent whole body threshold. When the Government introduced the Civil Liability Act 2002 and made the change retrospective to the date of the announcement the Opposition opposed it. As I indicated in my speech in reply, it has had an impact in terms of reducing the number of inmate claims. It would not have had an impact if that retrospectivity had not been allowed. But when Greg Pearce—

The Hon. Rick Colless: The Hon. Greg Pearce.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I am indebted to the honourable member.

The Hon. John Ryan: Would you call judges by their first names?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Just listen. The Hon. Greg Pearce said this when the Civil Liability Act 2002 was being debated:

It is a most unfortunate breach of our procedures that the Premier chose to make the legislation retrospective. We, as a matter of policy, would not normally wish to support retrospective legislation. We do not believe that it is fair, and it should not be supported.

Who could ignore the contribution of none other than our good friend the Hon. John Ryan, who has been mystically silent in this debate? He said:

There are some potential victims who could not have foreseen that they would have been in trouble as a result of not only the retrospectivity of this legislation. People would have quite reasonably commenced legal action without the knowledge that the law will apply from that date.

An unreasonable situation where victims would not be aware of change in the legislation is not what the Government is proposing. We are not proposing change after they have commenced proceedings on the basis that they knew what the state of the law was at the time. But that is exactly what would happen if the Opposition amendments were supported. The Opposition amendments would change the law to provide a basis that did not exist at the time that the proceedings were commenced. The Opposition, in this context, wants to go to another extreme of applying retrospectivity to proceedings initiated before the commencement of legislation, without any limit. The hypocrisy of such a backflip is breathtaking. That is why I have indicated that the Opposition amendments are costly, ill-conceived, illogical and contradictory, and demonstrate its complete ignorance of the issues.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [4.31 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party has sympathy for the amendments moved by the Hon. David Clarke, because they are in harmony with the purpose of the bill. It is just a question of when the bill takes effect. As was stated, at this stage the bill is linked with the announcement by the Minister on 15 January 2004. I wonder whether it is possible—it may not be—to know how many cases are affected by this amendment. At one stage the Minister said dozens.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: It is about 70.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: What are the categories of those? Are they mostly minor cases, or are there quite a number of serious cases? And what would be the potential payout if successful under the old rules? The Minister has said that there would be considerable cost in the court cases being suspended or ceasing and then recommencing. What would the payouts be under the old rules? Would that be a substantial amount of money?

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: That assumes they win.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: That is assuming they win, yes.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: But a number of them will not win.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: So that cannot be calculated?

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: No.

Question—That the amendments be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

Mr Clarke Mrs Forsythe Mr Gallacher Miss Gardiner Mr Lynn

MrOldfield Ms Parker Mrs Pavey Mr Pearce Mr Ryan

Tellers, Mr Colless Mr Harwin

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

Ms Griffin Ms Hale Mr Hatzistergos Mr Jenkins Mr Kelly Mr Macdonald Reverend Dr Moyes Reverend Nile Ms Rhiannon

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

Ms Cusack	Dr Burgmann
Mr Gay	Mr Obeid

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendments negatived.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

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

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA (Minister for Transport Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Forests)) [4.42 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

In December last year I announced an historic agreement between the New South Wales and Commonwealth governments for the Australian Rail Track Corporation [ARTC] to lease the New South Wales interstate and Hunter Valley lines. The bill provides the framework by which management of the New South Wales rail network will be integrated with the rest of the national rail network. It is the last major step in the realignment of the national rail network. A detailed history of the effort by the Commonwealth to create a national integrated rail network from the mismatched State rail networks was outlined when the bill was introduced in the other place. The most recent effort, which has led to this agreement, commenced in 1997 with the establishment of the ARTC as a Corporations Law company with its shares wholly owned by the Commonwealth.

Initially the ARTC took on railways then owned by the Commonwealth before taking a lease of the interstate lines in Victoria. Subsequently it entered into an arrangement to provide access for operators to the interstate lines in Western Australia. It is important to note that the network is under the control of the Commonwealth through the ARTC. Over the past five years growth in general freight in the New South Wales rail network has been in excess of 30 per cent. In my view this is a strong endorsement of the policies put in place by this Government for competition on our rail network. It is a tangible demonstration of the Government's strategies for separation: the introduction of private sector competition into freight rail operations has delivered genuine gains for the community.

However, to sustain this successive growth requires a change in the underlying management structures of the rail freight network. The long-term freight transport trend is away from traditional hinterland to port patterns towards interstate flows. The Commonwealth is best placed to provide the national context required to effectively manage this evolving transport pattern. Similarly, the Commonwealth holds prime responsibility for funding of the national highway system. It is appropriate that it also take prime financial responsibility for the national rail system. The Government believes that integration of the New South Wales rail network into the national rail network is logical and a long overdue public policy.

The three key features of the agreement with the Commonwealth and the ARTC are a 60-year lease to the ARTC for the non-metropolitan interstate main lines in the Hunter Valley, management by the ARTC of the New South Wales country regional network, and the majority of country rail staff remaining employees of New South Wales. To provide for the continued integrated management of the rural New South Wales network, it has been agreed that the country regional network—that is, branch lines and non-interstate main lines—will be managed by the ARTC on behalf of New South Wales. This network will be managed through an alliance contract between New South Wales and the ARTC. The Rail Infrastructure Corporation [RIC] will retain ownership and New South Wales will retain funding responsibility for the lines.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: For the branch lines?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Yes, for these lines. We are talking about the residual network.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: I just wanted to get it on the record.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: It is more than on the record: it is in the legislation and in contracts, so do not worry about what I say.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: So you will look after the branch lines. Thank you.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Once again, it is on the record, in legislation and in contracts.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: You will look after the branch lines?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: We will look after those lines better than those opposite are looking after the seats over there. When I was sitting over there during the last division I noticed that all the leather has been ripped up. An alliance board will be established to oversee these lines through the setting of key performance indicators. The alliance board will have a key role in overseeing the peak performance indicators for the residual network, and a strategic role in developing key performance indicators for the lease network. The Labor Council will be represented on the alliance board. The majority of country infrastructure maintenance and train control staff are to remain employees of the RIC, and the State Rail Authority [SRA] will continue under an ARTC management. The ARTC will directly employ its New South Wales management administrative staff, and train control managers, infrastructure team managers and leaders. It is proposed that the ARTC lease and management arrangements will be taken up this year.

The proposed arrangements have a number of other significant elements. The Sydney metropolitan freight lines will be leased to the ARTC on similar terms to the lease of the interstate and Hunter Valley lines. It is proposed that this will commence on or after 1 January 2006 and conclude on the same date as the interstate lease. The ARTC is to undertake a five-year infrastructure investment program of $818 million on the New South Wales network, plus a further $52 million on the Albury-Melbourne line in Victoria. This will include a contribution by New South Wales of $61.9 million. The ARTC will construct a new railway line, the Southern Sydney freight line, within the existing rail corridor from Sefton Park near Chullora to Macarthur. This will allow segregation of freight and long-distance passenger services from electric train services in this corridor, and provide a dedicated freight track connecting the interstate rail network with Port Botany.

It is important to note that the ARTC has agreed to be bound by the New South Wales passenger priority principles. New South Wales will have the right to resume network control in cases of gross and persistent non-adherence by the ARTC to these obligations. The ARTC management of the network will be subject to New South Wales rail safety accreditation by the Independent Transport Safety and Reliability Regulator in accordance with the New South Wales Rail Safety Act. The bill makes it clear that the ARTC is responsible for rail safety on the leased network and security of staff. The ARTC securing its accreditation is a condition precedent of the lease and other arrangements commencing.

Clear and achievable performance indicators are being established for performance under the contracts, including track performance and infrastructure conditions. The track indicators will be directed at precluding a run-down of the asset. There have been extensive discussions with the Commonwealth to ensure that New South Wales retains control in the event that the Commonwealth seeks to change the equity structure of the ARTC. It has been agreed that the Commonwealth will consult with New South Wales in the event that it wishes to dispose of any of its interests in the ARTC. New South Wales will have an option to re-acquire the ARTC's leasehold interests in the New South Wales rail network.

An important aspect of the implementation of the arrangement is the protection of the interests of current New South Wales employees. The original ARTC proposal was assessed by New South Wales against a set of 29 criteria that were developed in consultation with the unions. During the assessment of the proposal by New South Wales, an employee reference group was established to advise the unions of progress and to provide a forum for feedback. In July 2003 the Labor Council of New South Wales was involved in, and signed off on, 11 key objectives against which alternative models were considered to arrive at a preferred model. Following extensive consultation with the unions and the Labor Council, it was agreed between New South Wales and the ARTC that most employees would remain employees of the New South Wales Government instead of being transferred. That will allow staff to retain the benefits of being New South Wales public sector employees. The ARTC will be recruiting approximately 300 staff who will be direct employees of the ARTC. A transfer package has been put in place for country staff who resign from a New South Wales rail entity to take up employment with the ARTC. No-one will be forced to apply for a position within the ARTC.

The Government's policy of no forced redundancies applies to work force changes resulting from the ARTC lease. I have written to unions to assure them of this important safeguard. A joint consultative group of the Labor Council and the unions has been established to provide a formal consultative mechanism during implementation of the ARTC arrangements. As foreshadowed when this bill was introduced in the other place, the Government has undertaken further consultation with the unions, and flowing from that the Government proposes to move a number of amendments to the original bill. The most important change is that New South Wales will retain responsibility for occupational health and safety and workers compensation for seconded staff. That will provide an extra layer of protection for workers' interests. For the purposes of occupational health and safety, the legislation will provide that both the New South Wales rail authority and the ARTC will be bound as if they are the employer.

In regard to workers compensation, the legislation will make it clear that the RIC and the State Rail Authority [SRA] will continue to be responsible for the insurance for seconded workers and for all personal injury claims. A regulation-making power has been retained to ensure that the provisions of the Workers Compensation Act will be able to be appropriately applied in the workplace. Other amendments arising from consultation with the unions will provide greater certainty for the application of current industrial agreements, will place bounds around the personal information of seconded workers that may be disclosed to the ARTC, will provide for the protection of a seconded worker when disciplinary action is being considered by the RIC or the SRA, will provide for guidelines to be made by the Public Employment Office in regard to policies relating to the personal circumstances of individuals who will be seconded, will provide for the application of a salary maintenance policy and disciplinary action against seconded workers by the RIC and the SRA, and will require a secondment to be for a specified period.

The Government is committed to a number of additional policy matters raised by a number of unions and the Labor Council of New South Wales, but it was not appropriate to deal with them in the legislation. I have written to the unions and I have advised them of the Government's commitment to these important issues. The RIC will be allowed to competitively bid for work that the ARTC seeks to contract out. The Government agrees that when meaningful work can be found for surplus staff, it will be provided. Accordingly, the Government is happy to agree to this arrangement. I understand that the ARTC has indicated that it will welcome bids from the RIC. As previously noted, the Government has agreed that the Labor Council will be represented on the alliance board that will be established to oversee the country regional network. The unions have requested that the board be established in advance of the commencement of contractual arrangements. . The Government will take steps to establish the board as soon as possible.

The Government will protect the core remuneration of workers. The Government will be giving an assurance that no worker will be forced to accept a secondment to the ARTC at a lower grade than the worker currently holds. Comprehensive arrangements have been put in place to preserve the existing conditions and entitlements of staff. For infrastructure maintenance and train control employees who are working on the ARTC-managed lines, existing enterprise bargaining agreements [EBAs] and other industrial instruments will govern conditions of employment. Future EBAs will be negotiated with the RIC and the SRA in consultation with the ARTC. Staff who take up positions with the ARTC will have a range of options in dealing with their entitlements. Their options are set out in a comprehensive transfer package. Details of the transfer package are being communicated through their work force representatives and directly to staff through briefing and information packs. Country employees who resign from the RIC or the SRA to take up employment with the ARTC will have a three-year employment guarantee.

The principal purpose of the bill is to give effect to the arrangements I have outlined. The bill will enable rail authorities to enter into each of the key agreements with the ARTC to which I have already referred. It also makes a number of consequential changes to facilitate the agreement, including adjustments to the functions and objectives of the authorities and amendment to the Conveyancing Act. The bill includes a number of provisions to ensure that New South Wales policy objectives are met. The ARTC is required to maintain the linear continuity of the lease network. Its powers to deal with land and infrastructure have been limited, including its ability to grant certain financial securities. These safeguards have been put in place to ensure that the ARTC will not be able to withdraw services from the network.

There can be no indirect transfer of the network to a private sector entity. The bill precludes the ARTC from becoming involved in above-rail operations in New South Wales to ensure that rail freight operations remain separate from track ownership. New South Wales recognises that with such a long-term arrangement, it is important to provide flexibility to deal with changes in circumstances. The bill provides clarity of the ability of New South Wales to acquire the ARTC's interests in the leased area by applying the principles of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act. This will allow New South Wales to regain control of part of the leased network if there is a policy need to do so at some time in the future—for example, if New South Wales wants to extend electrified rail commuter operations. In the absence of legislative change, the ARTC would not be subject to planning regulations. The bill creates a framework for the application of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act to the ARTC to avoid a regulatory vacuum.

The Government intends to move a number of regulatory amendments to clarify the application of schedule 6A of the Transport Administration Act. The schedule provides a statutory mechanism to simplify rights of access by rail entities to each other's land and infrastructure. The amendments have arisen in the context of finalising lease negotiations with the ARTC. The substantive changes relate to the ARTC's right to extend or expand infrastructure, location of rail infrastructure on other rail infrastructure, and the application of regulations with respect to access to land. I understand that the Opposition will support the Government's amendments.

I digress to express my appreciation of the role undertaken in this process by the Deputy Prime Minister, and Minister for Transport and Regional Services, John Anderson. I acknowledge that it was his drive and commitment that made this agreement a reality. I know from talking to him that it was a very difficult process. He has a genuine vision of how the rail network should operate. We may have political differences on many matters—

The Hon. John Ryan: You are too right wing.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: He is too left wing for me. The Federal Minister for Transport and Regional Services, John Anderson, has a genuine commitment to a national public policy outcome for rail operations that is in the best interests of the nation. I am pleased to support him in that objective. We have been able to discuss frankly many difficult issues and resolve them during numerous telephone conversations.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: The previous Minister for Transport could not.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Let us not politicise this issue. I am sure that members opposite appreciate the significance of this historical agreement. It was difficult to reach agreement, but the Federal Minister for Transport and Regional Services, John Anderson, and I have built up a personal rapport that has enabled us to agree to a number of issues on trust. In dealing with matters of this nature, it is necessary to be able to do so. I trust him in terms of his commitment to rail and its strategic role within the nation's transport framework. I extend to him and our respective officers my appreciation of the co-operative spirit in which this intergovernmental co-ordination was achieved. It was interesting to see staffers from intense political environments co-operating across the political divide to reach a sensible public policy outcome.

The Hon. John Ryan: It's rare for you, but it's common for us.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: It is very uncommon for the Hon. John Ryan because he has never put up any sensible positions on anything. There has been co-operation at the bureaucratic level. I thank the bureaucrats, both at State and national levels, who have acted professionally to achieve the difficult outcomes. This is an important and historic step towards the revitalisation of rail as a national key strategic transport mode.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [5.00 p.m.]: I lead on behalf of the Opposition in debate on the Transport Administration Amendment (New south Wales and Commonwealth Rail Agreement) Bill. Other Opposition members will contribute to this debate to put a personal perspective from the areas of the State they represent. Members should be encouraged to participate in this debate because, as the Minister for Transport Services has said, this is a significant piece of legislation for New South Wales and the entire nation. As to the long-term national interest, this legislation is as significant for the transport sector as was the standardisation of rail gauges during the twentieth century. The Minister made reference to the legislation being long overdue. Without politicising this issue, I must state on the record that such an approach was made to the Government in 2002, possibly earlier, but it fell on deaf ears. I am sure that the Minister will not interject whilst I have the opportunity to make this observation.

It must be put on the record that this significant and long overdue legislation, which operates in the national interest, came up against a brick wall in the form of Carl Scully, the former Minister for Transport. He was inflexible and not prepared to move on this issue. If we took a vote, I am sure that some of the Government members would agree that this long overdue legislation should have been acted on earlier. We have never been told why the former Minister for Transport, now the Minister for Roads, vehemently opposed this legislation, or whether his opposition continues today. I would be interested to know whether he has changed his mind or whether he still holds the same view. Be that as it may, this proposed legislation is significant and I look forward to its passage through Parliament.

At the time of Federation, all those years ago, the need for standardisation was spelt out. Today we are considering a logical outcome for the rail sector in this State and Australia as a whole. The agreement will end more than 150 years of division and shortsightedness in the management of Australian railways. Additionally, this legislation is timely, given the particular circumstances that exist in rural and regional rail infrastructure in New South Wales. This legislation is all about growth in the transport market. I was fortunate recently to receive briefings on this proposed legislation, which brought home to me the significance of this bill. I was told of the difference between rail usage on the east coast and elsewhere in Australia. For example, in the Nullarbor rail constitutes about 80 per cent of total freight coming across from Western Australia. When compared to the north and south market on the east coast, which is less than 20 per cent, it gives a stark picture of the need for improvement and the inclusion of both road and rail in the process, as this legislation will provide for years to come.

I am a very strong supporter of road transport. This legislation enhances both road and rail modes of transport because they work closely together. I am aware that some members are concerned that the Government is pushing a great deal more transport onto our roads, such as the transport of commuters in New South Wales, particularly on the North Coast. As to road freight, this legislation encourages the growth of the transport market along the north-south corridor, provides opportunities and enhances competition.

The intention of the legislation is to provide for the wholly Australian Government-owned Australian Rail Track Corporation [ARTC] to lease for 60 years the New South Wales interstate rail track and Hunter Valley rail freight corridors. The ARTC will also manage on behalf of New South Wales the remaining country network, which includes branch lines and non-interstate main lines. I note that the Commonwealth and New South Wales governments reached an agreement on implementing this process last December. It is anticipated that the handover will occur on 1 July. This legislation will bring the last major element of Australia's interstate rail system under the management of a single agency. The ARTC process will create a national standard gauge rail network, linking Australia's capital cities and major ports. It will create a one-stop shop for rail access from Perth right around to the Queensland border and will assist in building a competitive rail industry on a commercially viable basis, adding value to the national logistics system.

In general, the legislation will allow for New South Wales rail agencies to lease for 60 years rail lines predominately used for freight or country passenger lines used to transport freight and other non-electrified passenger services; enable agreements to be entered into to allow for the ARTC to construct additional freight lines and facilities and also for the secondment of staff to the ARTC; enable the lease, licence and sale of the ARTC of associated rail infrastructure facilities; confer on the ARTC the rights and responsibilities of a rail infrastructure owner in respect of lease or licensed rail lines; enable the New South Wales rail agencies to enter an agreement for ARTC to manage other lines used to predominately transport freight or country rail lines used for freight and other non-electric passenger services; and make other consequential amendments and provisions of a savings and transitional nature.

There are significant benefits for our rail infrastructure as a result of the ARTC process, particularly for rural and regional New South Wales. This is important when we consider the current appalling state of rail infrastructure, particularly outside the greater Sydney area. Honourable members would be aware that the Government's failure to make appropriate investment in the rolling stock and infrastructure since 1995, particularly in regard to the ongoing improvement and modernisation of the network, has led to the crisis situation we face today. Since the March 2003 State election numerous rail safety issues have been exposed. Initially it was the controversial decision not to close the Menangle Bridge prior to the State election. Circumstances of this decision ultimately became the subject of an Independent Commission Against Corruption investigation. The revelations relating to these decisions were followed closely by the release of a series of reports on rail safety and maintenance issues, which exposed a raft of serious problems within the rail system that must now be addressed.

Last year's Auditor-General's financial report on the Rail Infrastructure Corporation revealed a maintenance backlog as at 30 June 2003 of at least $479 million. While the ARTC process is predominately concerned with improving the freight capacity of the rail network, passenger rail services in New South Wales will also greatly benefit, which is something this Government should pay particular attention to. After all, we have already seen the Minister's first attempt at wiping out country rail services: the XPT running between Casino and Murwillumbah, which will cease operation from 16 May. Thanks to the Premier and the Minister it will go. The Opposition has proposed an inquiry to be conducted by General Purpose Standing Committee No. 4 to examine in detail this outrageous decision, which breaches the Minister's own 12-month moratorium on cutting CountryLink rail services. I fully acknowledge the support for this inquiry of a number of crossbench members in this House.

I reiterate the Coalition's commitment to restore this rail link when it attains office in 2007. Last week a matter that was made clear to us—and it was evident as a result of the overwhelming North Coast support for the Murwillumbah protest train—was that local communities in rural and regional New South Wales support their CountryLink rail services. I established that fact after having visited many regional communities that had a CountryLink rail service—either an XPT or Xplorer train service—from October to December last year. I pay tribute to my Coalition colleagues for their efforts in this regard—the Hon. Patricia Forsythe, the Hon. Robyn Parker, the Hon. Catherine Cusack and the Hon. Melinda Pavey, who have the support of their constituents on the North Coast and in the Hunter region.

I acknowledge that members on the crossbenches took the time to travel on the protest train to support their constituents, in particular, those on the North Coast. For once the Minister should pay attention to the wishes of the community by ensuring the retention and improvement of CountryLink passenger train services. Bearing in mind the significant investment in rail infrastructure in rural and regional New South Wales that the ARTC arrangements will bring about, we will be faced with a far more viable arrangement for CountryLink rail services, in particular as New South Wales passenger priority principles will continue to apply across the New South Wales network, including lines leased to or managed by the ARTC.

Aside from obvious flow-on benefits for passenger rail services in New South Wales, the key area that will benefit is obviously the transportation of freight. For the first time rail's natural competitive advantage over long-haul distances will be able to be properly utilised, in particular, on the north-south rail corridor running along Australia's east coast, with New South Wales obviously benefiting directly. The ARTC's management of the east-west rail corridor to Perth has already increased rail's market share of land-based freight to 80 per cent—a factor to which I have already alluded. Unfortunately, the current situation on the north-south transport corridor is nowhere near as impressive. Anyone travelling on the Hume Highway, the Pacific Highway, or the New England Highway would be well aware of the difficulties being experienced by motorists in this State. They are confronted not by trains or by rail freight but by heavy vehicles and B-doubles. The concerns that have been expressed by the farming community will result in the closure of branch lines in the future.
Under this Government, heavy vehicle freight moving along the north-south corridor will increase exponentially over the next few years. As at March this year, rail held only a 19 per cent share of the Sydney to Brisbane freight market and only an 11 per cent share of the Sydney to Melbourne freight market. The rail link between Melbourne and Brisbane, which covers much of New South Wales, has only a 21 per cent share of the freight market. That means that more pressure is placed on the New South Wales road network.

The Minister continues to focus on the economic bottom line, but he should start looking at the social and environmental impacts of what he is trying to achieve in New South Wales. Improving the quality of rail transport for freight has the benefit of mitigating the otherwise unsustainable long-term pressure that will be placed on the capacity of the State's road network. Our cities and natural environment will benefit from a greater proportion of freight utilising the rail network. Given that the volume of freight being transported is expected to double over the next 20 years or so, that is an important issue. With that in mind, I turn to the funding package for New South Wales.

Over the next five years of ARTC management more than $870 million will be injected into the rail system, predominantly in regional areas, to bring it into line with what New South Wales and Australia need for the twenty-first century. Significantly, there will be funding injections of $180 million for a new southern access route for freight trains through south-western Sydney. That will entail building a non-electrified rail route from Macarthur through to Chullora, separating freight and main line passenger traffic from the urban CityRail electrified system and giving CityRail enhanced capacity and reliability. I am reliably informed that, with the passage of this legislation and with money starting to flow into the Government's coffers, we can expect to see some positive outcomes in about 2½ years time.

There will also be a funding injection of $145 million to upgrade the Hunter Valley network consisting of the track at Port Waratah, Newcastle, to Werris Creek and Ulan via Muswellbrook—an issue to which I will refer in a few moments. The Hon. Robyn Parker, as a member who hails from the Hunter Valley, will also refer to that aspect. New South Wales coal exporters in particular will gain real access charges of around 20 per cent and increased capacity from that measure. I am talking about improvements in services and reliability but we are starting to see access savings for the coal industry in the Hunter Valley—yet another win for the Hunter Valley.

There will be a funding injection of $170 million for the main south line from Macarthur to Albury, and the Murrumbidgee Bridge at Wagga Wagga will be replaced. There will be a funding injection of $123 million for the North Coast line from Maitland to the Queensland border, including the long overdue replacement of the 1920s era signalling systems. There will also be a funding injection of $54.1 million to upgrade the line between Cootamundra and Werris Creek. All the timber bridges on that line will be replaced. That is particularly welcome news in light of the Carr Government's appalling failure to invest in rail infrastructure. All those members who use the country rail network would welcome that announcement.

All rail operators in New South Wales, whether passenger or freight, will benefit from the better track, bridges and signalling systems that will be provided via the ARTC lease. The New South Wales Labor Government has failed to fund rail infrastructure in this State. This package will go some way towards addressing those problems. However, some considerable distance is yet to be covered—an issue to which I will allude later in my presentation. Access to the full length of the interstate main line from Perth to the Queensland border will be negotiable through the one organisation—the ARTC. Importantly, the proportion of freight being carried by rail will be set to increase. Exporters in regional New South Wales will in due course find rail transport a much more attractive option and they will benefit from greater choice, competition and reduced transport costs.

I have spoken to many people who rely on our existing rail network who are calling out for competition. They are certainly calling out for choice. I have been assured by those in the ARTC that this proposal will be a massive leap forward in that direction. Over time we will see more choice and greater opportunities for competitiveness in the system. At the end of the day, that will benefit our primary producers. We must expedite the passage of this legislation. These infrastructure improvements will see rail transit times from Melbourne to Brisbane via New South Wales slashed by 6½ hours. Rail transit times between Sydney and Melbourne will be cut by three hours and between Sydney and Brisbane by 3½ hours—an outstanding improvement.

I reiterate that the ARTC is prohibited from operating passenger or freight train services. It leases and manages the tracks and it is not competing against existing train operators. This is all about enhancing what we currently have and improving freight movements throughout the country. The ARTC process, which is fully supported by the Federal Government, will go a long way towards redressing the disgraceful neglect of rail infrastructure in New South Wales by the current State Government. If action had not been taken via this ARTC lease, rewards from the efficiencies being achieved in other sectors of the economy would have dissipated as a result of the inadequacies in our transport infrastructure—a major Achilles heel for the Carr Government, as it knows only too well.

One of the reasons the New South Wales Government is fully supportive of the ARTC process is that, by coincidence, it will resolve many of the rail infrastructure problems that it has not addressed in the past. Is it simply a case of the Government knowing that eventually it would move toward the ARTC? That is why there has been such a concerted effort over the past few years not to put any money into infrastructure.

It is a little like selling a second-hand car. You do not have rust cut out, modify the engine, or improve the car before you sell it. You wait until it is on its last legs, save your money and prepare to spend it elsewhere. I believe that is exactly what has happened in this case. The Government has allowed rail infrastructure to slide. Thank goodness the ARTC has come to the party and we will finally see some improvements in our rail infrastructure. I commend the Federal Coalition Government for its role in this process. It has again shown leadership. The Minister for Transport Services would do well to take stock of the Federal Government's achievements not only in this sector but in many portfolio areas throughout the nation.

Affected country employees of the Rail Infrastructure Corporation or State Rail Authority are to remain New South Wales Government employees unless they wish to apply for a position with the ARTC. Most will be seconded to positions with the ARTC rather than be transferred to it. I understand that the Minister intends to resolve the outstanding issues he has with the Rail, Tram and Bus Union. In light of the Minister's background in the rail industry, there is delicious irony in his driving these reforms when his counterparts walked away from them completely. It is quite interesting. But we cannot forget that when Ministers and senior bureaucrats were questioned in parliamentary committee hearings about potential job losses as a result of these reforms—

The Hon. Christine Robertson: Nothing positive ever comes out of those committees.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I thank Labor members for their encouragement. It was not Government members but Opposition members who put questions about job losses—reasonable questions that had been raised by the union movement—to the bureaucrats and to the Government. It fell to us to do it yet again. The voice of the worker in this debate was once again also that of the New South Wales Opposition. Harpo Marx and his friends up the back of the Chamber sat like silent hand puppets when we asked those questions. Honourable members may remember Vince Graham telling the committee—I will paraphrase him—that he would be dragged kicking and screaming from the committee before he would answer questions about job losses.

The Hon. Christine Robertson: The cross-examination.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: We asked reasonable questions.

The Hon. Michael Costa: He called you McCarthy, if I remember rightly.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: We hear again from one of the Hollywood Ten. Be that as it may, Opposition members put on the record reasonable questions about job security but the Minister for Transport Services pulled the doona down over the answers to ensure that there was not one leak from the Government.

The Hon. Michael Costa: What is a doona?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: It is the big quilt that the Minister uses to smother the voice of everyone who works with him. Opposition members asked the difficult questions and it is great to say that we played a part in helping the work force and providing some job security and certainty. Until that time the Government had refused to answer any questions whatsoever.

Additionally, I note that the Independent Transport Safety and Reliability Regulator remains responsible for the approval of engineering and maintenance standards on the rail network in New South Wales. The State Government must certainly answer several more questions about this process. I am sure that, true to form, it will ignore them because they are reasonable questions, such as what structures are in place to protect workers. Other questions are at the forefront of our minds as we consider the legislation this evening.

It is estimated that removing funding responsibility for the main rail lines in New South Wales will save the State Government approximately $200 million per year in investment. Where will that money go? The material that was distributed details clearly where money will be spent under the ARTC proposal. As I said, $175 million will be spent on the main south line and $54 million will go to the Cootamundra to Werris Creek line, and all timber bridges on that section of track will be replaced. The ARTC has indicated where it wants to spend money; it has been quite up-front about it. It is now up to the Government to tell the people of New South Wales where it will spend the $200 million it is saving as a result of this partnership and these reforms. We want an ironclad guarantee that the money will not be spirited away and swallowed by the other black holes in the State Government budget. According to the Auditor-General, there is a $470 million maintenance backlog. Obviously a certain amount of that work will soon be assumed by the ARTC. But what about the $200 million that this mob opposite will save as a result of these reforms? We need to know where that money will go. That is only fair.

I have looked at the rail maps and identified a big void between Sydney and the Hunter, which is of particular concern to the Hon. Robyn Parker and me. Exploration is under way by BHP Billiton, which is heading towards securing a 20-year or 30-year lease for the rights to export-quality underground coal worth more than $20 billion. Why has the Government decided to exclude the ARTC from upgrading rail infrastructure in that area? Will we have the opportunity to revisit this issue and ensure that $20 billion worth of coal does not leave Wyong and the Central Coast on heavy vehicles? The roads on the Central Coast are saturated with traffic now. We want some certainty from the Government about this issue.

We want to know that when the lease is granted the rail line will be extended to Wyong. We want the savings that we have been promised in this legislation to be hypothecated to the new BHP Billiton lease in Wyong shire. We want more jobs and benefits in Wyong. There is no doubt about that. However, we do not want our local roads to be destroyed by coal-laden B-doubles, which impact adversely on the environment. We certainly do not want to see serious or fatal motor vehicle accidents caused by an increase in heavy vehicle movements. One can only begin to imagine the thousands upon thousands of truck movements required if we are talking about extracting $20 billion worth of coal from the valleys of Wyong shire. The Government must certainly answer some big questions in that regard.

The ARTC is injecting $872 million under this agreement to upgrade State infrastructure. The Minister is more than happy to put his hand out and say, "Yes, we'll take that $872 million." But look at the list. That money is going to much-needed maintenance upgrades—whether they are improvements to bridges, signals or safety. We need that money to make our system better. But if $872 million worth of work will result from this deal, what work remains to be done to make the entire system equally safe and reliable? The Minister is more than happy to take the money but I guarantee that he will not stand up in this Chamber and spell out exactly the millions of dollars—perhaps billions of dollars—of work that is required throughout the entire system. Standards must be consistent across the ARTC, commuter and branch lines. We must know exactly how much work remains to be done.

The other bone of contention is the Casino to Murwillumbah line, and we cannot move forward in this debate unless I touch on that matter. The Minister needs to explain why that line is included in the alliance agreement to be managed by the ARTC when the Government has earmarked it to be non-operational. Why would the Government allow the ARTC to manage something that will be non-operational? If the Government is going to allow the system to be run down and will not maintain it, why is the ARTC being asked to manage it? I am sure the Minister has a reasonable answer. He is once again rolling his eyes. The public needs to know the answers to those questions because there has been a lack of information provided by the Government in the lead-up to this process. Like the rail network, it is all interlinked. As representatives of the people of Casino to Murwillumbah and the Tweed, we want to know why this line has been included in the alliance agreement when RailCorp has earmarked it to cease operating and will not put any more money into it.

The $145 million upgrade of the Hunter Valley network will be well received. The business community there is screaming for help. I point out that the overall success of the Hunter Valley relies on small businesses in the main street of Newcastle or Charlestown. The $145 million from the ARTC will go a long way to assist a beleaguered Hunter Valley that for so long has been treated as second-class. The Government has treated the people in that area worse than it has treated the people in the Southern Highlands. There is no doubt that the rail network will be improved, and we will then have to look at the ability to move bulk haulage off the port and onto the sea.

On last count there were approximately 50 ships sitting off the Port of Newcastle waiting to dock. We should not for one moment think that this proposal will see the end to the Christmas tree lights off the Port of Newcastle every night. It will rectify the transportation delays in rail and will move the bottleneck up to the coal loader. That will need some leadership and commitment from both private enterprise and the Government.

In the past the Government has been asked questions about the preparedness of the private sector to go through the problems with the Government. The private sector has been prepared to put money into the process. Up until now when we have asked questions, rather than get the certainty that the Hunter Valley business community wants, we get a vitriolic attack from the Minister for Transport Services. It is a shame that the Minister has not gone beyond his old bovver-boy days at the Labor Council. Be that as it may, the Opposition will continue to put these matters on the record and hopefully they will be rectified at some stage.

The $145 million for the Hunter Valley includes more than $14 million for track strengthening and remediation work, $4 million for bridge strengthening work, and more than $66 million, which is crucial, for capacity enhancement through the elimination of identified congested locations which I referred to earlier. The congestion issues will be rectified but until there is some leadership from this Government to rectify the problems on the coal loader, the Government is only going part of the way.

The Hon. Michael Costa: We don't own the coal loader. Hasn't anybody told you that?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: The Minister said, "We don't own the coal loader." He is the Minister for the Hunter, and the Hunter wants an advocate, not an apologist. The Hunter does not want somebody who says there is nothing he can do; it wants somebody in the Hunter Valley who will knock heads together and start getting things happening.

The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: He is a lower House wannabe!

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Once he knifes John Price and moves into Maitland, or gets rid of Kerry Hickey, he will fulfil his dream. But right now the Minister is crushing the dreams of the Hunter. The people of the Hunter want a fighter, not a wimp. They have a Minister who is the best dressed. When was someone from the Hunter in the top 10 best-dressed people in Sydney? The Minister is from Sydney. He is not the best-dressed person in the Hunter, but in Sydney. One can see the Minister sipping cappuccino in Glebe, but the people of the Hunter want a fighter. All they have is this follicly challenged fashion statement who is not prepared to knock heads together and make this coal loader proposal work. For goodness sake, surely someone on the Government side has a bit of passion about the Hunter Valley. We will support anyone for Minister who makes the coal loader work.

Right now we have this burden opposite, this albatross around our neck in the Hunter, and we are stuck with him until such time as we get someone else. But we are only three years away from rectification of that problem as well. That is another bottleneck that we will get rid of but at a different stage. We will not need the support of the ARTC. The Minister is destroying the Hunter Valley by himself. I am pleased to have participated in this debate. The Opposition does not oppose the legislation that will bring major benefits to the rail sector in New South Wales. I conclude by saying: please give us somebody decent for the Hunter Valley.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER [5.36 p.m.]: I support the Transport Administration Amendment (New South Wales and Commonwealth Rail Agreement) Bill on behalf of the people in the Hunter and as a resident of the Hunter. At the outset I congratulate the Federal Coalition Government and Minister Anderson on their leadership, because this legislation is long overdue. I know without that determined effort this would not have happened. People in the Hunter and the coal industry—the Hunter relies on the coal industry—have been calling for some assistance for a long time. In 1999 Port Waratah Coal Services shareholders invested $330 million for a third coal loader to take Newcastle's port capacity to 89 million tonnes per annum. I know that that is a private organisation but it needs leadership from government.

The Hon. Michael Costa: They want to nationalise it!

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER: No, they need leadership from government to assist them. In 1999 representatives of the coal industry wrote to Carl Scully, in his capacity as Minister for Transport Services, asking for support for upgrading rail infrastructure—a request that was totally ignored. As a result, the coal industry in the Hunter, and in fact in New South Wales, has suffered. In 1999 the industry advised the Government that the current rail network was approaching full capacity, and that it was seeking initiatives that would address the capacity shortfalls. It asked for help and called for some assistance. While the Government ostensibly supported the request, it did little, and the Rail Infrastructure Corporation did not spend the capital required to upgrade the infrastructure despite industry's request.

The coal industry even indicated to the Government that it was prepared to underwrite the capital expenditure to the tune of millions of dollars. As well as a capital works program to reduce the bottlenecks, the initiatives included reducing the average train cycle times, as well as an improved communications system between Port Waratah Coal Services, the Rail Infrastructure Corporation, and the rail freight carrier Pacific National. Those initiatives, aimed at extracting maximum network efficiencies from the rail system, were ignored by the Government, rail maintenance was neglected, and the constraints on capacity continue. I have spoken previously about the queue of ships— something in excess of 50 ships at a time—that one can count off the coast at Newcastle. They call it Carr's navy.

We have even heard in this House about the consequences, not only for the coal industry but also recently for the fishing industry, of those ships sitting offshore. During the budget estimates proceedings last year I asked the Minister for Mineral Resources, the Hon. Kerry Hickey, about coal loading and shipping in Newcastle and the demurrage costs that many companies are facing as they wait on the horizon off Newcastle. He denied responsibility for the issue, and told me it was the responsibility of the Minister for Transport Services, and Minister for the Hunter, the Hon. Michael Costa. On 18 September I asked Minister Costa whether he had taken any action to address those reports.

The Hon. Michael Costa: No. We do not have any shares in the coal loader.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER: Of course, the coal loader is a private enterprise, but if the coal cannot be transported on the rail network and onto ships, it cannot be shipped or exported. That was just the usual arrogant response from the Minister. Despite the Minister's insistence that the problem does not lie solely with the coal loader, lower coal prices and a high Australian dollar are factors in plunging profits for our coal industry. The Managing Director of Rio Tinto and Coal and Allied was quoted in the Newcastle Herald of 21 February this year as saying:

The bottom line is the problem rests with rail infrastructure. We are reaping the whirlwind for a lack of money spent on rail infrastructure over the past decade.

Thank goodness the Federal Government is doing something about this matter and we are dealing with this legislation today. The ships are costing the coal industry and New South Wales valuable export revenue. The current queue of ships off the port of Newcastle is costing the coal industry something like $100 million per annum in demurrage costs. It is suppressing its growth and job opportunities in the Hunter. The Leader of the Opposition spoke about the ability of the industry to increase its capacity if we could only get the coal down the rail line and load it.

ARTC's leasing of the interstate and Hunter Valley networks will seek to put an end to years of mismanagement and inadequacies in the Hunter rail corridor by the New South Wales State Government. ARTC will be investing more than $870 million in the rail system in regional areas, which includes specified funding of $145 million to upgrade the Hunter Valley network, which includes $67 million to eliminate bottlenecks. Although ownership of the Hunter Valley rail corridors will remain with New South Wales, the ARTC will have full responsibility for these lines, including investment decisions and train control. The coal industry and other users of the Hunter Valley rail network will benefit from this lease arrangement as infrastructure investment programs include the removal of conflict between coal movements and interstate and regional commuter traffic on the main line.

It is no secret that improvements in the performance of the Hunter coal chain is vital to allow the region's coal suppliers to compete against growing coal exporters in China and Indonesia. Coal exports through Newcastle have increased from around 50 million tonnes per annum in 1996 to more than 70 million tonnes at present. Our mining operations in and around the Hunter Valley are leaders in efficiency and best practice when it comes to the extraction of coal. This makes the New South Wales coal industry one of the most efficient in the world, but in the Hunter it is being let down time and again by the New South Wales Government and its failure to address rail infrastructure problems. The mining sector contributes not only to the Hunter economy but also to the New South Wales economy. It generates 15,000 jobs and contributes approximately $220 million per year in the form of mining revenue. The upper Hunter in particular has seen a huge growth in the industry over the past 20 years. Coal has a total production value of more than $5 billion per year, and it is the State's major export earner by volume and by value.

Production cuts of up to 6 per cent for coal companies were forecast early this year as companies looked at implementing quota systems in order to cut the shipping queue—because they could not get the coal transported by rail as they were unable to have it loaded. Fortunately, in the end, this was not necessary, due to a sudden increase in export coal prices. This would have been a restraint on free trade and a loss of profit for the coal suppliers. In addition, the Government plans to change the way it taxes the coal industry by replacing the flat-rate royalties with a system based on coal prices. We welcome ARTC's leasing of the rail corridor. Finally there are solutions to an ongoing and worsening problem.

I encourage honourable members to support this legislation, not only for the people of the Hunter but for everyone in New South Wales. Again I commend the Federal Government for its initiative. I am really pleased that the New South Wales Government and Minister Costa have been dragged, kicking and screaming, to this agreement, which finally will address the rail infrastructure needs of the Hunter. I support the bill.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [5.56 p.m.]: The Democrats support this bill and we are very pleased that finally the change is to occur. Of course, different railways and different rail gauges have bedevilled Australia since Federation, which was about the time when governments should have started to solve these problems. But more than a century later we are still putting the pieces together. That goes to show how slowly things happen. The historic agreement of September 2003 was entered into to set up a framework for the integration of the management of the New South Wales rail network with the rest of the national rail network. I understand, but am not certain, that this was at the suggestion in 1974 of Gough Whitlam, who was very farsighted in wanting to abolish the States and regionalise government, which is Australian Democrat policy.

Under the agreement contained in the bill, the Australian Rail Track Corporation [ARTC] will lease the New South Wales interstate and Hunter Valley freight corridors and assume the management of New South Wales country branch lines. I believe that the ARTC has done quite a good job of handling things. It has recognised the need for a national network, and it has certainly modernised the rail network across the Indian Pacific route. It might be noted that the Glenbrook train disaster was a result of poor integration of the State Rail network and the Indian Pacific, a matter that obviously had to be addressed.

I must confess that I cannot recall the chronology of this Government's series of rail disasters, and I have told this story a number of times, so I apologise to non-Government members who have heard it before. Minister Carl Scully was trying to persuade the crossbenchers not to have an inquiry into rail safety because, he said, it was not necessary. He then said that he would get all the rail people together. Of course, at the time rail was split into four different authorities, including the Rail Infrastructure Corporation. The representatives of all those authorities gathered in room 1136 and the question was: Should the rail authority heads sit at the table? Should their minders sit at the table with them? Or should the politicians sit at the table?

There was a great deal of juggling, politeness and so on, and finally the Minister said, "Here they all are, crossbenchers. Ask anything you like. We do not need an inquiry; we are open about all this." I asked, "Who is responsible for rail safety in New South Wales?" There was a lot of clearing of throats and discussion to the effect, "I think you should take the question," to which the response was, "No, perhaps you should take that question," and, further, "No, I think that might be your question." But, no, it was not. That was the sort of discussion round the table. It demonstrated pretty clearly why rail accidents were happening: the economic theorists had said that people should be made to compete for the use of the track, that a few telephone calls could be made and the trains would not crash, and so on.

It was pretty clear that rail maintenance was being done by a different group to the group that owned the track, a different group was running the rolling stock and so on. Although there were problems co-ordinating a fairly antiquated network that had been neglected for such a long time, it was very clear that the rather daring market mechanisms used by the economists were not going to succeed. It has now been put back together, which is what Christie recommended. We need a single operator to run the show and a huge injection of funds to try to make up for the many decades of neglect. No-one has had a visionary look at New South Wales rail since Bradfield's time.

The Hon. Michael Costa: There is now.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: We hope that the situation will improve with the ARTC taking it on. About 18 months ago when I spoke to David Marchant by chance he pointed out that various segments of the line needed to be upgraded. The ARTC web site listed the likely benefits and cost of upgrades for anyone who was interested in reading them. It was a step in the right direction. It is one thing to build a highly symbolic line from Alice Springs to Darwin, where it is postulated less than 1 per cent of Australia's freight will end up, when nothing is being done to upgrade the line from Sydney to Melbourne. If it is true that it is cost effective to use rail only when containers can be stacked two high, but overhead power lines and tunnels cannot accommodate trains at that height, there is a problem. I understand that because western New South Wales has very few tunnels and no overhead electric lines for the trains, it can take trains stacked two containers high. The problem has to be addressed.

In the 1920s the line around Mittagong was slowed down to improve gradients for the less powerful trains, but that needs to be re-addressed. The Sydney to Melbourne line, on which the bulk of freight by weight is moved in Australia, must be improved from a rail perspective. It should be roll-on and roll-off. The convenience of road transport is that once a truck is loaded at the source it can go straight to its destination without double handling. Some weight must be taken off the roads. Prime movers should roll onto the train and go up the highway far more cheaply, then roll off or have their loads taken off in smaller units through an effective loading and unloading mechanism. I understand that is world's best practice, and that is what we need in Australia if rail transport is to compete with road transport. But it will be achieved only with a considerable injection of capital, and intelligent and savvy management in the market. The inland route from Melbourne to Brisbane, which requires a new line from North Star to Goondiwindi, or thereabouts, would be a great boost for western New South Wales and could lead to a decentralisation policy that would help western New South Wales.

The Hon. Rick Colless: Have you been to North Star, Ace? Do you know where North Star is?

The Hon. Christine Robertson: I think we need a 10-carriage train at North Star.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: It should be considered much more intelligently than the developer-driven policy that this Government is following. Obviously, we should jockey on that and we should have a plan. It would be nice if people, rather than making sneering remarks in the Chamber, were to make suggestions about what could be done in that area. It is very important that the ARTC stay in public ownership. I wonder whether the lease should be renegotiated should the ownership ever change. It would be extremely foolish to privatise a national rail network, but when Sydney airport is privatised on the basis that it is competing with Brisbane airport—as far-fetched an argument as one could possibly mount because people do not decide whether to go to Brisbane or Sydney on the quality of the airport when they are probably leaving Sydney or Brisbane so far as most of the traffic is concerned because it is actually an end destination irrespective of its airport—it is basically a grab for cash.

The automotive industry bought the bus and rail companies then ran them down to a poor service. Far fewer people travel on public transport now than they did in the 1930s, despite a massive increase in the population. Not only should it be in public ownership but it should also be intelligently run in a market framework, which is why a public corporation must be created and kept in public hands, and why it must perform in a market fashion. That is the challenge for David Marchant and the team at ARTC. The way this Government runs things down is extremely worrying. Recently I intended to go from Murwillumbah to Sydney, but the Qantas plane was cancelled, which meant that I was unable to get to the initial boarding point. I joined the train somewhat later, but the protest to save the train was over. The line from Casino to Murwillumbah is a branch line, which will not be helped by this agreement.

It might be noted that the Beattie Government is improving the line to Robina and has promised to take it to Coolangatta, which is right on the border—about 30 kilometres. The corridor along the Gold Coast is extending itself as a tourist destination, but if more industry follows that area may become a line of national significance carrying freight as well as large passenger volumes. Rather than being a branch line with neglected infrastructure because, according to the Government, infrastructure maintenance cannot be justified because the line carries few trains with even fewer people at inconvenient hours, it could become a major link between New South Wales and Queensland. It could revitalise the whole of northern New South Wales, which is already growing rapidly. One would hope that the ARTC would be interested in that line and its potential. From a Queensland point of view it is almost suburban because the corridor of development extends from Brisbane right through to the Gold Coast. That is not the case on the New South Wales side of the border, but it could be if it had a decent rail network.

It is worrying that these branch lines are left in the hands of this Government, which has showed so little willingness to consider repairs to even its main lines. I have spoken to people in Armidale who are trying to maintain their train service. Beyond Armidale a group of people interested in historic rail have found the Government very obstructive. It will not sell them disused rail motors, instead they are left in sidings where they are destroyed. An attempt was made to put some point blockers between their shed and the main track to try to discourage them from repairing a rail motor. The Government has been quite unhelpful, even for those wanting to run historic rail on some of these branch lines. One can only wonder why, in these types of cases, light small rail motors could not run on rail that has weight restrictions.

The Government is not thinking intelligently about its rail infrastructure. I am worried about leaving the responsibility for these residual lines with the State Government. People are concerned about the line from Shellharbour to Nowra, which is the end of the electrified line, and the Murwillumbah to Casino line. Farmers are concerned about the lines that carry wheat or grain from western New South Wales to the bigger centres. The councils in that area are also very concerned about the alternative use of B-doubles. Heavy vehicles damage local roads. The repair of roads and bridges is a major non-recoverable expense for local authorities.

When the Western Distributor was first mooted I tried very hard to have a rail easement incorporated in the centre of the freeway. The Government responded with recalcitrance and would not agree to that suggestion, even though the project involved excision of land from a national park. It should be noted that the confluence of road and rail in expressways is being used very successfully in Perth, Western Australia. I was disappointed that the New South Wales Government was unwilling to consider my proposal. The cancellation of agreements to buy more rolling stock has exacerbated the problems. There was a delay in purchasing the Olympian trains, which were subsequently replaced by the Millennium trains—of course, the mismanagement of the Millennium trains is now legendary. I note today's newspaper report that fewer Millennium trains are being bought and that a cheaper version might be substituted.

The delay in the provision of rolling stock resulted in the inability of this Government to provide an adequate service from Parramatta to Campbelltown. Due to the poor rail service between those two places, people have resorted to using their motor vehicles, thereby exacerbating traffic congestion. In turn, that has created political pressure for construction of the western orbital. Although construction of the western orbital may have been necessary for other reasons, the need for an alternative road route may not have been so great if the Government had applied some intelligence to the purchase of rolling stock for the Parramatta to Campbelltown line.

The Government learned nothing from having to build the western orbital and making Sydney people as dependent upon their cars as the people in Los Angeles. The Government persisted in rejecting the incorporation of a rail easement in major arterial roadways such as the western orbital. If that is not bad enough, the previous Coalition Government sold large tracts of land for development along Old Northern Road, which suited developers who wanted to sell large plots, instead of developing smaller plots along the Richmond line. As a result, instead of having high-density development along the Richmond rail line, very low-density development was permitted in the north-western sector of Sydney. The Government now claims that the land has been developed without provision having been made for a rail easement and that the population of the area has become too diverse to reverse its decision. Consequently, that area of Sydney is absolutely gridlocked, which is an absolute disgrace.

Instead of making a commitment to address that appalling situation, the Government ceased the construction of the rail link between Parramatta to Chatswood at Epping. That was extremely foolish. If the Government had continued the rail link just a small distance to Epping the western line trains could have travelled up the Carlingford line, and the trains from Parramatta and Liverpool could have travelled through Granville, up the Carlingford line, and across from Carlingford to Epping, and then further on to Chatswood. The Government claimed that there was not much demand for that route, but of course there would be no demand for a route that does not exist! Only people who enjoy driving extremely slowly over very long distances when there is no quick alternative would take that route, so naturally there is no demand. However, once an improved rail passenger service becomes available, inevitably there will be an increase in public support for that service. There really should be a rail line from Epping to Castle Hill and up to the Round Corner area. The sooner an easement is built and improved passenger rail services commence the better off people will be.

However, this Government is in hunkered-down mode. When tunnelling was undertaken between Macquarie University and Epping the set-up costs were quite minimal. However, the Government did not want to continue. It would have been simpler to drill the tunnel, set up the stations and have a rail service working, but the Government has no vision. Instead, it is shutting down all rail construction, which is a disgrace. I am concerned about that. While I am pleased to note that the ARTC is taking over major lines of national significance, particularly in relation to freight, I am most concerned that branch lines are being left in the hands of this Government, which does not properly manage rail services. One wonders what commitment this Government will make to maintaining proper services and repairs on branch lines. If the Government claims that people will be no worse off and that the branch lines are safe, I need only refer to a letter I received from the Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Association of New South Wales Inc. to disprove that assertion. Yesterday the association wrote to the Premier, Bob Carr, and stated:

Dear Premier

The Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Association of NSW Inc (CPSA), has expressed a vote of no confidence in the NSW Transport Minister, the Hon Mr Michael Costa MLC. Minister Costa has misled our Association by informing us in October last year that CountryLink services would not be cut for twelve months. We now find that to be untrue.

A Minister in your Government has an obligation and an expectation from the people of NSW that they will at all times tell the truth. Through his actions Minister Costa has made it difficult for our Association to respect him and the position he holds as Minister for Transport.

We don't have confidence in Mr Costa and would be pleased if you replaced him as the NSW Minister for Transport.

Yours sincerely

Bill Whiley
State Secretary

The New South Wales Government's level of commitment to rail services is a cause of considerable worry to the community. I note that on the map of arrangements to be made concerning the ARTC, there is a big gap between Macarthur and Woodville Junction, which is near Newcastle. All of that area is under State Government control. It will require a large amount of money to construct a rapid route between Sydney and Newcastle. Some tunnels are shown on the map and they will be constructed along the edge of mountainous territory. It would be quite expensive to have a dedicated freight line in such terrain. The next logical question is: When will the ARTC undertake the project? I have not checked whether the ARTC has costed the project on its web site, but one would hope that the project will be undertaken and that the people of the Newcastle area will receive a good rail network. The concern associated with this Government having control over rail lines in this State is that it has a propensity to replace rail services with buses, as suggested in relation to the Murwillumbah to Casino line.

The Government seems to be totally beholden to the Honeysuckle Development Corporation in relation to the Newcastle development, and those developers obviously are eager for a rail easement to be constructed. It is a very simple trick to buy a supermarket site for next to nothing very close to Broadmeadow and to operate a bus exchange to ensure that lots of people patronise the supermarket. At a later stage when the Government has either been persuaded to sell the easement or give it to the developers, a good profit may be made. The spectacle of the Premier attending question time dressed in a toga has been mentioned, while people pay a fortune to listen to twaddle. It is worrying that developers pay huge amounts to a Government that is threatening to cease Newcastle rail services. The people of Newcastle enjoy the convenience of rail. They need a line that goes into the centre of the city and beyond so that kids are able to take their surfboards to the beach. That has been threatened by the short-sightedness of this Government, which seems to have little commitment to the provision of rail services.

Private bus operators have had a dream run in New South Wales. The Auditor-General discovered that school subsidies were being paid on the basis of the number of students requiring a bus service, without any control over whether the students used the bus service or any check on the distances that were travelled. Private school students were driving past public schools and enjoying travel over long distances, free of charge. Unconstrained subsidies were being paid to private bus companies. Private bus companies chose long routes so they could qualify for subsidies on the basis of distances that students were required to travel. The Auditor-General pointed out that the system was poorly managed. If that is not bad enough, a couple of years ago Westbus sold out to the National Bus Company of the United Kingdom at the same time the Euro 2 standards for diesel commenced operation.

At that time I asked a question in this House as to whether Western Sydney bus lines would be compelled to adopt the Euro standard. There was some delay. In the meantime, the National Bus Company was importing buses from Britain that did not meet the Euro 2 standard and could not be used in the United Kingdom—but they were being used in New South Wales! Of course, that was very bad for New South Wales in relation to increasing pollution. Westbus was owned by Mr Bosnjak, but I understand that he sold the business. He is effectively now a lobbyist for the bus transport industry, and I wonder whether he is in receipt of performance bonuses. The Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Association of New South Wales Inc. is very concerned about that also. The association sent another letter to the Premier on 5 May 2004, which stated:

The State Executive of Combined Pensioners & Superannuants Association of NSW Inc (CPSA) views the appointment of Mr Jim Bosnjak and Mr Keith Todd to the State Transit Authority's board as unethical and a major conflict of interest, as they represent the interests of private bus companies.

These State branch lines are effectively being managed by the ARTC, and the Government has a severe conflict of interest in who it appoints to the board of the State Transit Authority. It is a matter of considerable concern. The House should be askance, and the appointment should be examined and perhaps rescinded.

The overall thrust of the bill is to give the administration of rail in New South Wales to the ARTC, with reasonable safeguards put in place for employees. The Legislation Review Committee dealt with some privacy aspects. I want to put in a plug for the committee. Although the committee's assessment process of the new legislation is not as detailed as I requested at the time of its creation, it has done a good job and noted problems in the legislation. The Government has flagged some amendments, which I assume relate to workers compensation and the personal rights of workers. This is necessary and historic legislation. Australia has needed it for 102 years, since Federation. I am concerned about the State Government's plans for the branch lines. I wish the ARTC well in its endeavours. As a person who is interested in transport in Australia, I hope that more freight will be transported by rail and that commuters will use rail more widely. We should attempt to stop the urban sprawl of our cities and become less oil dependent, which will become a huge problem later in this century.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [6.11 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party is pleased to support the Transport Administration Amendment (New South Wales and Commonwealth Rail Agreement) Bill. I do not believe this is the opportune time to discuss all the problems associated with the rail system in New South Wales, as some speakers have done. The previous speaker, the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans, seemed to be debating a no confidence motion in the Minister for Transport Services.

The Hon. Michael Costa: They have done that before!

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I know. Together with previous speakers, I congratulate the Premier and the Minister for Transport Services on this initiative. In particular, I congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister, the Hon. John Anderson, who, obviously with the support of the Prime Minister, entered into this agreement between the New South Wales Government and the Commonwealth Government. It is a very good development. Hopefully, with the same level of co-operative spirit, the State and Commonwealth governments will enter into further agreements in other areas in the future.

The Christian Democratic Party strongly supports the use of our rail system. Previous speakers have said that they favour the rail transport system. We believe that the State should have a modern, efficient, safe railway system and we will do all we can to support such a system. We believe that there will be increasing major problems if more and more truck trains are allowed on our highways. I do a great deal of driving and I have noted that the inside lane on most of our highways is badly damaged by huge trucks. If you want a comfortable drive you have to keep away from the inside lane because of all the bumps and holes. The roads are falling to pieces under the tremendous pressure of the trucks. I live in Gerroa, so I know that the many coal trucks on the highway are putting a lot of pressure on the community.

The Christian Democratic Party is pleased with this agreement, which was announced last September, in which the Australian Rail Track Corporation [ARTC] leases New South Wales interstate and Hunter Valley lines. It has taken many years to reach this agreement. Previous speakers have referred to the original primitive rail system in Australia, even having three separate track gauges adopted by the States. Each State was sovereign and did not take any interest in a national track gauge. If it had not been for the initiative of Sir Henry Parkes and others Australia could have ended up like Europe with separate nations rather than forming a Commonwealth under Federation. New South Wales and Victoria would have continued as sovereign States and would have developed as separate nations with national borders, customs charges and other problems. This agreement is part of the positive development of our nation as one Commonwealth, but still recognising the important role that the States play in the arrangement.

I do not support any argument that the States should be abolished. That would mean only more centralised power in Canberra. Democracy works better with checks and balances between the Commonwealth, the States and local government. I favour devolution of power rather than centralisation of power. There are times when co-operation can occur, as with the national railway system. In those cases, we must look at it from a national, not a State, point of view. This bill is very much in the national interest and we are pleased to support it. We know that there will be some practical problems. We can feel behind-the-scenes tension relating to the unions and employment issues. Perhaps the Minister, with his experience in trade union activity, believes he has developed a system that will work in harmonious relationship. We hope so.

The Hon. Michael Costa: It's called Heaven.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: You pray every morning. Pursuant to the agreement that has been made between New South Wales and the Australian Rail Track Corporation, staff will be seconded, rather than transferred, to the ARTC. That was done for practical reasons so that staff would retain the benefits of New South Wales public sector employees, who I assume have better benefits. Some people hold the view that the Commonwealth, through its industrial legislation and other policies, is not as sympathetic to employees and workers as the New South Wales Labor Government would be. I can understand the rationale behind the system the Government is setting up, but it may be sowing seeds for problems down the track.

The transfer to the ARTC of the 60-year lease will involve a heavy commitment of expenditure by the ARTC. I understand that under the contract it has agreed to spend $820 million on the railway lines in the first six years. The lines certainly need it. I assume that the Commonwealth Government, with its budget, will not have a problem finding $820 million. It certainly is a large amount of money. I am pleased that the Commonwealth, through the ARTC, will provide that funding so that we will have safer, more efficient and upgraded railway tracks in this State. We are very pleased to support this bill. The amendments provided by the Government relate to matters dealing with employment, work conditions and industrial awards. I do not believe we can support the bill and vote against the amendments. Therefore, we will support the amendments when they are moved in Committee.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY [6.20 p.m.]: I support this important bill—probably the most significant legislation to be introduced in this Chamber in recent times. When the Deputy Prime Minister, The Nationals Federal Leader, John Anderson, signed the agreement with the Hon. Michael Costa he said:

The agreement ends 150 years of fragmentation and myopia in the management of Australia's railways. We have finally overcome the confusion that began in the 1850s when the colonies decided to build their railways on different gauges. For the first time one organisation will be able to sell track access to train operators over the full length of the interstate main line from Perth to the Queensland border.

The ARTC's investment program will bring the New South Wales, interstate and Hunter Valley railway networks into the twenty-first century with better track, better signalling and reduced transit times. Rail share in the north-south market is less than 20 per cent compared to about 80 per cent across the Nullarbor. The agreement will make rail more competitive and reduce transport costs. It is an essential part of our efforts to prepare for the dramatic growth in freight traffic that is forecast over the next 20 years.

I congratulate John Anderson and the Hon. Michael Costa on reaching that agreement. I acknowledge the presence in the public gallery of the Chief Executive of the Australian Rail Track Corporation [ARTC], David Marchant. This is an historic agreement. The good news in relation to this agreement is that, from a New South Wales perspective, it will free up around $200 million a year for the State Government to spend on other rail infrastructure across New South Wales.

Over the past few weeks we have been debating the closure of the Casino to Murwillumbah branch line. The people of the North Coast find it hard to understand why, with the freeing up of this money as a result of the establishment of this important ARTC intrastate network involving the Hunter Valley area, that $200 million is not being used to prop up the Murwillumbah to Casino railway service, which costs about $5 million a year to run and carries more than 300,000 passengers every year. However, those are questions to be asked at another time. I acknowledge the vision of John Anderson on this important issue. As the Minister pointed out, from 1997 he has been driving this important issue of national infrastructure policy. He is determined, along with other Government representatives, to get as much freight as possible off our roads and onto the rail network. It is sensible public policy with which no-one would argue.

The exciting thing from a New South Wales perspective is that hopefully we will see better management of our own State Rail system with the freeing up of some of the money that does not now have to be spent on ARTC tracks. It is worth mentioning that while the intrastate line and areas around the Hunter region are the responsibility of the ARTC, branch lines across New South Wales are still in the ownership of State Rail. I place on the record that State Rail is responsible for funding the infrastructure and for the maintenance of those lines. It is a complicated arrangement but, when everything is boiled down, it will not be all that difficult to manage. It is with pleasure that I support the Transport Administration Amendment (New South Wales and Commonwealth Rail Agreement) Bill.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [6.23 p.m.]: The Greens support the concept of a national rail freight network. Getting freight onto rail is one of the Greens most fundamental commitments. We do not want dangerous deteriorating roads dominated by trucks. We do not want the truck industry's air and noise pollution and its greenhouse gas emissions. We do not want landfills full of truck tyres. The rail system should be seen as a solution to our freight worries, not as a problem to be solved. But the Carr Government's starting point is that rail is a problem. Rather than assuming that rail should be fully resourced, the Carr Government does nothing more than argue about whether or not to fund it, how much to fund it, and how to fund it.

The Hon. Michael Costa: That is the budget process.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I acknowledge the Minister's interjection and remind him that this Government should be about the provision of public services. It should not be about cost cutting and looking to make profits; it should be about doing its job. Let us compare that funding with funding for the road network. Vast sums are simply thrown at roads without any concern as to whether they pay for themselves or whether they are crucial or marginal. As the Hon. Michael Costa used to say when he was a union activist in the rail industry, the road lobby has the Government's ear while rail gets the cold shoulder. In the April 1987 edition of the Railway Digest Mr Costa wrote:

There is a need for an effective rail lobby to counter the activities of the road lobby.

The road lobby, which includes the major road transport companies and State Government departments, have lobbied very effectively for increased road construction.

Increased road construction, coupled with cutbacks in public transport, are the aims of the road lobby.

The road lobby is a well-organised, highly financed and effective lobby.

The Hon. Michael Egan: When was transport ever cut back?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: That is what the Government is doing now. If the Treasurer listens to my speech, I will explain it to him. The Government is cutting back public transport enormously. The Treasurer is washing his hands of branch lines. He is washing his hands of all these freight responsibilities because he has his debt obsession.

The Hon. Michael Egan: We have allocated additional funds for rail capital works.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: While the Treasurer and I are having a chat I would like to say to him that one day I think I will be saying, "I miss you" when Minister Costa is in his job. Can the Treasurer see that happening?

The Hon. Michael Egan: I have a feeling that neither you nor I will be either in this place or alive when that happens.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Really? I do not know what the Treasurer has planned for us.

The Hon. Michael Egan: I am not telling you what I am doing, but I am not leaving.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: So the rumours are not true? Is the Treasurer not going in July and doing a swap?

The Hon. Michael Egan: You are the one who is spreading the rumours.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I am not the one who is spreading the rumours; I just said that the rumours were going around. I wanted to establish whether or not the Treasurer was going to be here for a long time. I refer again to the letter that was written by Mr Costa. He stated:

The road lobby is a well organised, highly financed and effective lobby.

The letter goes on to call for concerted action in the defence of public transport. It concludes:

Rail is more cost-effective than road. It will be the major task of the emerging rail lobby to make this known to the community in general.

Mr Costa actually wrote, "Rail is more cost-effective than road." Does he no longer believe that, or has the road lobby rolled him in Cabinet? Is that what happens? Nothing much has changed since that letter was written. Mr Costa, however, has changed. Since joining the Carr Government he has stopped calling for a more organised rail lobby. Now he has become a central player in the Carr Government's sorry saga of railway neglect. It is always a moment for sad reflection to look back at the Carr Government's 1998 blueprint, which goes under the misnomer of "Action for Public Transport 2010". It is full of promises to build and upgrade roads. Almost all of those promises have since been met.

It is also full of promises to maintain and upgrade rail. Almost none of those promises have been met. If the Greens were in government, the Rail Infrastructure Corporation would be the new Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA]. It would not have to come round with a begging bowl. It would not have to be the poor cousin getting cut to the bone while the Roads and Traffic Authority enjoys unfettered access to Treasury. But Labor is in government and, before that, the Coalition was in government. Between the pair of them the results have been decades of neglect of rail infrastructure. That is something that they cannot deny, and I am sure we will hear no interjections from either one on that point.

The Hon. Michael Egan: What did you say?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I said that between the pair of them—Labor and the Coalition—there have been decades of neglect of rail infrastructure. Then I said that I am sure we will hear no interjections from either one on that point.

The Hon. Michael Egan: That is nonsense.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: It is not nonsense. When did the Treasurer last catch a train?

The Hon. Michael Egan: A couple of weeks ago.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Was it running on time? Did he go out to the country? What about a CountryLink service, changing from a train-based service?

The Hon. Michael Egan: I went to Cronulla.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: That is good.

The Hon. Michael Egan: Either it was two minutes late or my watch was two minutes late.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: That is wonderful. It would be good if people across the State could get similar train services. Gradually rural and regional rail has stagnated. The neglect has been criminal and it has brought the system slowly to its knees. Under Minister Michael Costa we are entering a new phase. Neglect and disrepair are giving way to active steps to completely dismantle the rail network.

The rationale seems to be that the system is now so broken that it cannot be fixed. But the only thing standing between today's rail system and a world-class network is the Carr Government's total lack of vision.

The Hon. Michael Costa: It is money. Have you ever heard of that?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: The Minister has the money. It is a matter of where he chooses to spend it. The Government has no vision.

The Hon. Michael Egan: Does the member know much are we spending on rail?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: It is about where the Government is spending the money.

The Hon. Michael Egan: Do you know how much we are spending?

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Kayee Griffin): Order! Hansard is having great difficulty trying to record this conversation.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: The Treasurer can give us the total amount. How much is the Government spending?

The Hon. Michael Egan: This year we will put another $300 million into passenger rail services on top of the $2.5 billion made available for capital works.

The Hon. Michael Costa: And the $1.6 billion in subsidies.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: The Treasurer was after the total expenditure. Can either the Treasurer or the Minister give us that total?

The Hon. Rick Colless: Point of order: Madam Deputy-President, can you advise the House who has the call as there seems to be a private conversation going on between several members?

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Kayee Griffin): Order! I remind members that it is very difficult for anyone to hear when more than one member is talking. It is also very difficult for Hansard to record what is being said in the House. I remind members that one member has been given the call, and I ask other members to refrain from interjecting.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: As I said, the Carr Government has no vision for CountryLink except cutting services. It has no vision for rural branch lines except to leave them to rot and to push freight onto roads that cannot cope at the expense of councils that cannot pay for road repairs. Its vision for freight rail is a warped and convoluted lease deal with its old enemies the Liberal and National parties. This brings us to the bill before the House.

The Hon. Michael Egan: They are our old enemies and will continue to be our enemies.

The Hon. Michael Costa: But the Greens are the new enemies.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: How do you rank your enemies? The Government is unwilling to spend the necessary funds on upgrading freight lines and has decided to fob it off to the Federal level. We are told that we need this deal because it will give us a nationally co-ordinated rail freight network. The Greens agree that Australia needs a nationally co-ordinated rail freight network but we will not achieve that through this particular deal in this particular bill.

The Carr Government has demonstrated why this deal is unnecessary. Under the deal New South Wales through the Rail Infrastructure Corporation [RIC] will keep control of the branch lines. The ARTC will just manage the branch lines. The Minister's staff told us that the Government was giving the branch lines to the ARTC to manage so that there would be a seamless freight system within New South Wales and around the nation as a whole. In other words, the same operator would maintain the track no matter whether it was a main line or a branch line, making it easier for rail freight carriers to run on the tracks. But if a management contract with the ARTC will suffice for the branch lines, why will it not also suffice for the main lines? Why do we need a lease deal for the main lines when a management contract with the ARTC will, by the Minister's own admission, achieve exactly the same result? I hope the Minister will enlighten us about that.

There is a simple reason for pursuing a lease on the main lines: money. The Government does not want to spend the money that is required to keep the track up to scratch. I am glad that the Treasurer is in the Chamber to share these problems with us. The Government has left the track to languish and now it wants to get out of funding upgrades by passing the buck to the Commonwealth. But there is a catch. Opting for a lease deal means handing over workers to the ARTC and the Commonwealth industrial relations regime. Because the Government wants to save a fistful of dollars it is prepared to sacrifice rural and regional jobs—up to one third of the rail work force. The Government is prepared to put employment conditions and worker entitlements at risk. I will return to this issue later as it is a matter of great concern.

The Government is prepared to let go of local expertise and knowledge and switch to maintenance gangs that are mobile, outsourced and downsized. This hardly inspires confidence that the quality of infrastructure will be maintained. This bill gives us an extraordinary insight into the Government's thinking. This Government thinks job security is not important. It thinks corporate knowledge and expertise is not important and all that matters is passing an $800 million package of rail upgrades to the Commonwealth. All that is important is debt repayment and a triple-A credit rating. But guess what, Treasurer Egan? The ARTC will fund much of the upgrade work through debt. That is common commercial practice, particularly when funding capital investment. Treasurer Egan likes to portray himself as a clever economic operator, but his obsession with debt reduction is the opposite of how sensible entrepreneurs approach their business.
The Hon. Michael Egan: General government debt is what I abhor. Income-earning debt is something that I quite readily embrace.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: This is one area in which the Government should have gone into debt to look after our infrastructure.

The Hon. Michael Costa: If you borrow to fund recurrent expenditure, you go broke. Do you understand that? That is what happened in the Soviet Union.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I acknowledge the Minister's interjection, which shows why we will have problems when he is Treasurer.

The Hon. Michael Egan: You won't see it.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: The Treasurer has again assured me that he and I will never see Mr Costa become Treasurer. The Carr Government's aversion to debt and its obvious contempt for railways as an essential public service and an alternative to roads has led us to this bizarre and complex bill, which authorises an equally bizarre and complex lease deal. The Treasurer and Minister for Transport Services sit down with their bankers and bean counters in Governor Macquarie Tower and their minds are on cutting debt and cutting costs. But there is one important cost that this Labor Government is ignoring: the human cost.

This month I visited the Grafton rail depot and spoke to workers there about what the ARTC deal means for them. I found it a most moving and concerning meeting. The men I spoke to have between them 197 years of experience on the railways. Every one of them spoke of the distress, the uncertainty and the hardships that this deal is causing them. One manager has been to see them and they have received a sheaf of vague emails about the ARTC proposal. But this has not addressed the workers' fundamental concerns. They do not believe the ARTC and the RIC are being honest and up front with them. The uncertainty is getting to them. One worker is on stress leave and others will probably have to leave town. Above all, workers simply do not know what is going on. They do not know what their future will be.

Some workers will be offered ARTC secondment, involving different jobs at different locations with different conditions. Failing that, there is a job with the RIC—most likely in a different location with different conditions—or there is voluntary redundancy. What a choice! It is not one that people in this place would tolerate and it is not a choice that these workers should have to make. In a moment worthy of Yes Minister one of my staff was told that there were jobs for everybody. But when he asked about those who were surplus to ARTC requirements—and we understand that there will be many—he was told that they had not been forced out of a job because they had taken voluntary redundancy. So a voluntary redundancy is apparently not counted as a lost job! These rail workers are not being given real choices. For a worker in a place such as Grafton voluntary redundancy could well mean a long spell of unemployment—certainly longer than the payout will last.

Last week I also met rail workers in Bathurst, where I again heard a tale of confusion and uncertainty. I call on Minister Costa to visit Grafton, Bathurst or any rail workshop or RIC office in rural New South Wales and listen to what these workers are saying. Look them in the eye and tell them the real reason they are losing their jobs. The Minister should come clean with the workers. The real reason is that the Minister is hell bent on choking off funding for the rail network as part of his application to be Treasurer. One gets the feeling that this is the last stage of Costa's Treasury apprenticeship.

The Hon. Michael Egan: He does not have the gravitas or the dress style to be Treasurer of New South Wales. He has the economic and financial credentials, but that's about it.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I acknowledge the interjection of the Treasurer and the member of the Opposition about the ability of the Minister for Transport Services to do the job. The Government will tell us that the reason it has come to this complex arrangement with the ARTC, apart from saving money, is that it keeps ARTC-employed workers under the New South Wales industrial relations system. This is a worthy aim. We share the concerns of the Australian Labor Party about the Commonwealth industrial relations framework, but this aim could have been more easily achieved by applying the branch line model to the main lines. The ARTC could be the manager, not an owner. The lease deal uses the idea of secondment to attempt to keep ARTC's New South Wales work force under the New South Wales industrial relations umbrella. This causes all sorts of complexity, and the Government may have failed in its aim.

In proposed sections 88X, 88Y and 88ZA the Government attempts to make the ARTC liable for workers compensation claims under New South Wales legislation. But the ARTC is a Commonwealth agency, and the Greens are unable to see how the ARTC can be subject to New South Wales workers compensation legislation. The scenario arising from that is that an injured rail worker could make a claim against the ARTC and be told that the ARTC is not responsible because it is protected by Commonwealth law. So the worker then turns to the State regime and finds that the bill we are discussing today removes any liability from the RIC. In other words, nobody is liable, and the injured worker receives no compensation. I understand that the Government may be moving amendments to resolve that problem, and in that regard the Greens congratulate the Government on working with the relevant unions. I request that the Minister respond to this concern in his speech in reply.

But the unions still have many issues outstanding. They want the RIC named as preferred tenderer. That will help to protect rural and regional rail jobs. They want an alliance board comprising the ARTC, the unions and the Government to oversee the changeover. They want clarification of ARTC conditions for seconded workers, and they want all industrial instrumentalities and policies to cover seconded workers. They want to know whether their members will work under the conditions they do now with regard to superannuation, privacy and drug and alcohol testing. They also want to know whether the current enterprise bargaining agreement [EBA] will apply to seconded workers, and what will happen when future EBAs are negotiated.

The Greens support the concerns of the union movement. Many union members have told us that the proposed contracting regime will hurt jobs and compromise infrastructure quality. The focus of the ARTC on cutting corners and contracting out will make it impossible for it to carry out all the work for which it is responsible. Its job-shedding plans are completely unrealistic—and even the ARTC seems to be waking up to this. Originally the ARTC said it would need 202 workers. I understand that this has now increased to 340 workers. I do not believe that number will be enough. Meanwhile, the ARTC has not met its target of filling all its positions by the end of April. Until recently, it had not even started interviewing for team managers. Can it really be ready by 1 July, or even 1 October?

So the ARTC is not ready. The contract is not signed. The union is not happy. There is no rush to bring in legislation. There clearly is time for more consultation, but meaningful consultation is dangerous for this Minister; he cannot handle it and that is why he has to control things and get this bill through as soon as possible. I return to the question: What is this legislation supposed to achieve? Is it a patch-up job? It gives $872 million of piecemeal upgrades over five years. After that time, the ARTC is bound by a system of key performance indicators [KPIs] that has not yet been finalised. Even when the KPIs are set in place, the public might never know what they are. Will this be enough to solve the problems our main freight lines are experiencing? The Engineers Australia infrastructure scorecard has given these lines a damning F-rating.

The 1880 Murrumbidgee River rail bridge near Wagga Wagga has a longstanding 20 kilometres per hour speed limit and should have been replaced years ago. About 25 per cent of the Sydney to Melbourne corridor and 45 per cent of the Sydney to Brisbane corridor have either steep grades and/or tight radius curves. This steam age alignment is the main reason that freight train transit times are so slow on each corridor. Indeed, a freight train has an average speed of less than 70 kilometres per hour between Sydney and Melbourne. As noted by the Minister on 6 December 2003 in announcing the ARTC agreement, a freight train has an average speed of a mere 47 per kilometres per hour between Sydney and Brisbane.

Rail now has a paltry 10 per cent of the Sydney-to-Melbourne intercity land freight market, leaving more than eight million tonnes of freight each year being transported by heavy trucks on the Hume Highway. That means up to 3,000 interstate truck movements on the Hume Highway on some nights, and that is extraordinarily dangerous. It is not surprising that the number of accidents has increased on that highway. According to the Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics, this amount of road freight will increase to 11.5 million tonnes a year by 2010, with rail freight dropping to a mere 0.9 million tonnes. That is disgraceful, and that is why I have outlined in detail the Government's bankrupt rail policy.

But still the Government is sitting on its hands. The ARTC agreement suggests that Sydney to Melbourne freight transit times will drop from 13.5 hours to 10.5 hours within five years, and rail's modal share will then climb to 20 per cent. But will that happen? Most Sydney to Melbourne freight trains take about 14 hours to cover about 950 kilometres, not the 13.5 hours stated in the track audit. That same audit states that the cost of the southern Sydney freight bypass would be $146 million. That cost has increased already to $180 million. Besides shifting targets and rising costs, there are major underestimations of the work required.

The proposed works for Glenlee to Junee do not include any significant track straightening—which surely will be essential. Indeed, just $4.9 million is allocated in the package announced in December 2003 for deviations and grade easing works, as opposed to the track audit summary noting $73 million for rail deviation works. Earlier this year I asked a question on notice about the 10.5-hour transit time for the Sydney to Melbourne freight route. On 30 March the Minister said in his answer that this was a target. I assume, therefore, that it is a target and not a key performance indicator. So the lease deal may not save the Hume Highway from an ever-increasing numbers of trucks. The Minister's reply also contains this amazing statement:

The New South Wales Government considers setting priorities for future planning of the interstate network is a Commonwealth responsibility.

This is clear proof that the ARTC lease deal is an exercise in buck-passing. It is an abrogation of responsibility. The State Government created this mess, and the State Government should do whatever it takes to fix it. One can imagine the outcry if the New South Wales Government told the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] to stop all forward planning for major upgrades of the Hume and Pacific highways because those highways are a Commonwealth responsibility. Instead, the RTA has worked hard to ensure that advanced planning for major highway upgrades is done so that when Commonwealth funds are available the work can start without delay. The need for advanced planning for rail upgrades in Sydney has been well articulated by Mr Ron Christie when, as Co-ordinator General of Rail, he wrote in June 2001 to the transport Minister at the time, Carl Scully, about the long-term strategic plan for rail in the greater Sydney metropolitan region. In his letter, Mr Christie clearly stated:

The Long-Term Strategic Plan for Rail is long overdue. In contrast to the attention paid to road network development needs in recent years, there has not been a detailed and comprehensive examination of the needs of the greater metropolitan rail system since the former State Rail Authority was split up in 1996.

Mr Christie's comment applies equally well to rail serving regional New South Wales, and to the idea that advanced planning for rail track upgrades, as well as roads, is needed by New South Wales authorities. This would give us a much better chance of securing Federal funds under the new AusLink scheme for long overdue mainline track straightening. Should we be passing the buck to the ARTC? Let us look at its record in Victoria, which is very informative. The Greens are informed that freight and passenger trains that are meant to run at 130 kilometres an hour are running at 80 or 90 kilometres an hour—on track owned and maintained by the ARTC.

This means that trains leaving Melbourne are coming into Sydney one to two hours late. People are missing connections to go further north, and they are ferried on to buses that then race to catch up with a train. Sometimes these passengers finally board the train in Taree, Kempsey or Coffs Harbour. Sometimes they do not make it at all. Buses are dashing up the highway to the North Coast trying to catch up with a train. How ridiculous! What a waste of money. Should not the Minister be invoicing the ARTC for these costs? I understand this has been happening for two months. It suggests the ARTC is not the panacea the Carr Government hopes it will be.

The problems with our rail system should be fixed by the people who cause them. One of those people is now sitting in this Chamber. There should be no branch line closures. There should be no complex lease deals that cut jobs to satisfy a penny-pinching Carr Government. We do not need this bill. All we need is investment. Putting money into freight rail infrastructure is a long-term investment with social, environmental and economic benefits. The only pain is that suffered by a Treasurer obsessed with the bottom line. But he and his colleagues in Carr's Cabinet are out of step with the community. If we need debt to fund long-term investment in crucial infrastructure, people will support that. They did so for decades, and they would support it again now. We inherited our rail system from earlier governments that had vision. They took risks, they raised debt, and they built a magnificent railway infrastructure across New South Wales. What we are now seeing under the present Minister and the Premier is the greatest wind-back in public transport infrastructure since the dismantling of the tram system.

Sadly, today's governments can think only about budget surpluses and marginal seats. They really are trashing this inheritance. They do not care whether they leave a legacy or disappear into the dustbin of history. Minister, penny-pinching is not a policy, it is a cop-out. If a government does not invest in infrastructure and services, what is the point of that government's existence? It is not doing the job that governments are elected to undertake. Let us get serious about rail infrastructure—no tricky deals to shirk responsibility, no cutbacks and neglect. Let us fund rail, support it, nourish it. Do we want a future in which trucks ceaselessly thunder along our highways and locomotives are seen only in museums?

The Askin Government presided over a massive rundown in the rail system, and it is one of the Wran Government's major legacies that it resurrected some of what was lost. How do you want to be remembered by your children and grandchildren, Mr Costa? At the moment, your tag in history will be how you destroyed New South Wales rail. The Greens will oppose this bill. We call on the Government to go back to the drawing board and come up with a solid, workable plan. The Greens will support a plan that guarantees top-class rail infrastructure and that does not jeopardise jobs. This certainly is not the right plan. It does not put us on track for a sustainable and secure freight rail infrastructure. We join the people of rural and regional New South Wales in urging the Government to think again.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA (Minister for Transport Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Forests)) [6.54 p.m.], in reply: I do not intend to spend much time replying to the debate. I congratulate honourable members who support the Government's bill and the negotiations that lead to it. This is visionary legislation. I will put two things on record. The first relates to the contribution of Ms Lee Rhiannon. Yes, in 1987 I did support a national approach to rail, and that is precisely what is before us. So I stand here very proud of the fact that we do have a national approach to rail. This is a sensible national public policy outcome.

I note that in 1987 Ms Lee Rhiannon was probably supporting the latest Soviet five-year plan. Unfortunately, the Soviet Union collapsed within that five-year time frame, so the honourable member has not seen her vision come to fruition. I do hope to leave a legacy and to be remembered as a person who on most issues opposed Ms Lee Rhiannon's Stalinist vision of the world. With those few words, I note that this is a very important day for the people of New South Wales and that this bill is an important step to a national, integrated transport strategy. I congratulate all who have been involved in bringing the measure to this point. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

Amendments, by leave, by the Hon. Michael Costa agreed to:

No. 1 Page 17, schedule 1 [13]. Insert after line 11:

(3) Without limiting subsection (1), an agreement must contain provisions requiring ARTC to facilitate compliance by the rail authority with any industrial awards or agreements applicable to members of staff temporarily placed with ARTC under this Division.

No. 2 Page 17, schedule 1 [13], line 19. Insert ", if the information is relevant to the exercise by ARTC of its functions in respect of members of staff temporarily placed with it or to workplace safety or the safety of the NSW rail network" after "ARTC".

No. 3 Page 18, schedule 1 [13]. Insert after line 8:

(7) A rail authority must, in taking into account and acting on the basis of any disciplinary or other action taken by ARTC as referred to in subsection (6), have regard to any matters raised by the member of staff in relation to that action at the time that action was taken.

(8) The Public Employment Office may, from time to time, issue guidelines (not inconsistent with this section) for or with respect to the following matters:

(a) the matters to be taken into consideration by the chief executive of a rail authority in respect of the temporary placement of members of staff with ARTC under this section,

(b) requirements relating to the obtaining of consent to placement of members of staff with ARTC at a lower level of remuneration,

(c) the exercise by a rail authority of a power of dismissal of a member of staff as referred to in subsection (6).

(9) A rail authority and the chief executive of a rail authority must have regard to any applicable guidelines issued by the Public Employment Office under this section.

No. 4 Page 18, schedule 1 [13]. Insert after line 9:

Public Employment Office means the Public Employment Office constituted by the Public Sector Employment and Management Act 2002.

No. 5 Page 18, schedule 1 [13], line 18. Omit "an unspecified period". Insert instead "a specified minimum period".

No. 6 Page 19, schedule 1 [13], lines 1–17. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) affects the functions and liabilities of a transferring rail authority, or a director or a person concerned in the management of a transferring rail authority, in respect of a temporary member of staff of ARTC under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 or any employer liability legislation.

No. 7 Page 20, schedule 1 [13]. Insert after line 36:

(5) Nothing in this section permits a regulation to be made that has the effect of:

(a) removing from a transferring rail authority the obligation to have and maintain in force an insurance policy, or to be a self-insurer, under the Workers Compensation Acts in respect of any of its employees who are temporary members of staff of ARTC, or

(b) removing any liability of any such transferring rail authority in respect of injury to a temporary member of staff of ARTC under those Acts or that exists independently of those Acts.

No. 8 Page 26, schedule 1 [24], line 16. Insert "or rail infrastructure facility" after "railway building".

No. 9 Page 27, schedule 1. Insert after line 29:

[33] schedule 6A, clause 2E

Insert at the end of the clause:

(2) Subclause (1) does not permit ARTC to extend or expand rail infrastructure facilities.

No. 10 Page 27, schedule 1. Insert after line 32:

[34] Schedule 6A, clause 3 (1) (b)

Insert "or facility" after "building".

No. 11 Page 28, schedule 1 [34], line 9. Insert "or rail infrastructure facilities" after "buildings".

No. 12 Page 28, schedule 1 [37], line 20. Insert "and rail infrastructure facilities" after "buildings".

No. 13 Page 28, schedule 1 [38], line 23. Insert "or rail infrastructure facility" after "building".

No. 14 Page 29, schedule 1 [41], line 8. Insert "or rail infrastructure facility" after "land".

No. 15 Page 29, schedule 1 [42], line 12. Insert "or rail infrastructure facility" after "building".

No. 16 Page 29, schedule 1 [43], line 15. Insert "or rail infrastructure facility" after "building".

No. 17 Page 29, schedule 1 [45], line 19. Insert "or rail infrastructure facility" after "building" where secondly occurring.

No. 18 Page 29, schedule 1 [47], line 25. Insert "or infrastructure owner" after "building owner".

No. 19 Page 29, schedule 1. Insert after line 25:

[48] Schedule 6A, clause 6 (1)

Insert "or facility" after "enter the building".

[48] Schedule 6A, clause 6 (1) (a)

Insert "or facility" after "entry to the building".

No. 20 Page 30, schedule 1 [49], line 7. Omit "is the building owner". Insert instead "or rail infrastructure facility is the owner of the building or facility".

No. 21 Page 30, schedule 1 [50], line 11. Insert ", infrastructure owner" after "land".

No. 22 Page 30, schedule 1. Insert after line 21:

[54] Schedule 6A, clause 7 (5)

Insert ", facility" after "value of the building".

No. 23 Page 31, schedule 1 [57], line 5. Insert "(as amended by this schedule)" after "7 (8)".

No. 24 Page 31, schedule 1 [57], line 6. Omit "building". Insert instead "facilities".
No. 25 Page 31, schedule 1 [58], line 11. Insert "or rail infrastructure facility" after "land".

No. 26 Page 32, schedule 1 [63], line 2. Insert "or a rail infrastructure facility" after "building".

No. 27 Page 32, schedule 1 [64], line 4. Insert "or rail infrastructure facilities" after "buildings".

No. 28 Page 32, schedule 1. Insert after line 6:

[66] Schedule 6A, clause 8 (3)

Insert "and facilities" after "buildings" wherever occurring.

No. 29 Page 33, schedule 1. Insert after line 14:

[78] schedule 6A, clause 10 (2)

Insert "or rail infrastructure facility" after "a building".

No. 30 Page 34, schedule 1 [89], lines 20–24. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(1A) If ARTC is a party to a dispute and the dispute has not been resolved as referred to in subclause (1), the dispute is to be referred to arbitration, unless the parties agree to submit the dispute to the Minister under this clause. The Commercial Arbitration Act 1984 applies to any dispute referred to arbitration.

No. 31 Page 35, schedule 1 [91], line 2. Omit all words on that line. Insert instead:

Omit "with respect to entry into operator buildings".

No. 32 Page 37, schedule 1 [95], line 14. Insert ", use or occupy" after "enter".

No. 33 Page 38, schedule 1 [97], line 17. Insert "or rail infrastructure facilities" after "buildings".

No. 34 Page 38, schedule 1 [97]. Insert after line 18:

(a1) requirements to be observed between infrastructure owners, building owners and railway land owners with respect to access by infrastructure owners and building owners to railway land and management of that access,

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

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

[The Deputy-President (The Hon. Kayee Griffin) left the chair at 7.00 p.m. The House resumed at 8.00 p.m.]

The Hon. HENRY TSANG [Parliamentary Secretary] [8.00 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Freedom of Information Act is an important part of modern government. But in light of September 11 and Bali we have to strike a better balance between public access to information and protection of the community. We cannot rely on the same assumptions, the same world view, that we had before September 11. In a world under threat we have to act under the assumption that attacks are being planned all the time. We have to assume that terrorists are soaking up publicly available information and searching for targets and opportunities to inflict further attacks on the United States and her allies. The fact is that Government agencies now hold significantly more documents containing sensitive counter-terrorism information than when our freedom of information law was enacted in 1989. We cannot allow the Freedom of Information Act to become an unwitting tool in terrorists' designs.

That is why the Government is introducing legislation to better protect the security of counter-terrorism and other sensitive enforcement information. Commonwealth Freedom of information laws have always included a national security exemption, and the Northern Territory and Victoria parliaments passed similar laws recently. But here in the biggest and, arguably, most vulnerable State we still have not acted. This legislation closes the gap. It is true that New South Wales already has an exemption to protect certain documents relating to law enforcement and public safety. But we need a simple and comprehensive counter-terrorism exemption to stop sensitive information from being inadvertently released or deliberately sought. The bill provides that exemption. I seek leave to have the remainder of the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

This is a Bill that: protects security and risk management plans concerning private and public critical infrastructure; ensures intelligence agencies can prepare and share sensitive documentation without risking release; protects intelligence about particular people, groups or activities that may present a threat to the security of the State; and protects plans for prevention, preparedness, response or recovery that may reveal vulnerabilities or risks that could be exploited by terrorists—and that means, for example, protecting information about the location and quantity of medical supplies in the event of a chemical attack; information that does not readily fall within any of the current exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act.

I believe the proposals in this Bill strike the right balance between public access and public protection.

The exemptions will only apply where restricted access is reasonably necessary for the proper administration of government.

A decision to invoke any of the exemptions in the Bill will be reviewable internally within agencies.

If that fails to satisfy an applicant, they can seek external review of the decision from the Ombudsman or the Administrative Decisions Tribunal.

I turn now to some of the detail of the Bill.

The Bill extends the types of documents that may be exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.

Documents that could reasonably by expected to facilitate the commission of a terrorist act or prejudice terrorism prevention, preparedness, response or recovery may be exempt from disclosure.

For consistency, the definition of 'terrorist act' used in the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act will apply to this exemption.

The formulation for this exemption mirrors the four phases of counter terrorism response under the National Counter Terrorism Plan agreed to by the Commonwealth and States and Territories.

This exemption will assist the State to perform its responsibilities under the National Counter Terrorism Plan, without fear that documents created in accordance with it may be inappropriately released.

Documents created by the Counter Terrorism Co-ordination Command in NSW Police may be exempt from disclosure, as may documents created by the State Crime Command in NSW Police in the exercise of its intelligence functions.

This exemption replaces the current provision in the Freedom of Information Act that exempts from disclosure all documents created by the NSW Police Information and Intelligence Centre, which has been disbanded and its intelligence functions moved to State Crime Command.

This amendment will ensure that intelligence documents that were protected from release under the previous command structure continue to be protected.

Documents created by the Corrections Intelligence Group of the Department of Corrective Services in the exercise of its intelligence functions may also be exempt from disclosure.

The New South Wales Crime Commission will be exempt from the operation of the Freedom of Information Act in relation to its investigative and reporting functions.

This exemption is consistent with that afforded to other important investigative agencies such as the Independent Commission Against Corruption and the Police Integrity Commission.

The Crime Commission investigates and reports on the most serious crimes, and relies heavily on informants.

Therefore confidentiality needs to be assured for investigations to succeed.

The exemption proposed in the Bill may reduce the chance of accidental or inadvertent release of sensitive documents.

It may also help facilitate information sharing between the Crime Commission and other intelligence collecting organisations, and that reflects one of the big lessons the US authorities learnt out of September 11 that effective counter terrorism needs seamless cooperation between intelligence agencies.

The Bill will also reduce the diversion of precious Crime Commission resources to FOI compliance.

This is an additional part of the government's counter-terrorism response, a small but significant step in helping tilt the balance against terrorists and in favour of security.
It's part of the delicate balancing act we've been undertaking since September 11 to maintain our cherished rights and freedoms while closing the gaps exploited by terrorists to inflict mayhem and carnage on innocent civilians.

This is an important Bill for our national security and I commend it to the House.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [8.05 p.m.]: The Greens will not oppose the bill, but we believe that much of it is unnecessary and redundant and has nothing to do with existing law. But I guess it is good for a few headlines. The aim of the bill is to bring certain police units and certain types of sensitive information within the exemption and restriction provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. This kind of exemption is already fairly common and applies to other similar agencies and bodies. The bill will also make any document an exempt/restricted document if it contains material that, if disclosed, could reasonably be expected to facilitate or prejudice the prevention of, or response to, a terrorist act. The Greens cannot see why this provision is necessary. Section 4 of the current Act already exempts all documents that, if disclosed, could reasonably be expected to harm public safety or law enforcement. That provision, which describes the range of possible sources of such harm, is already broad and comprehensive.

Proposed section 4A does not add anything substantial. In fact, we understand that the existing provision, the current law, probably protects more information than the proposed new section. In other words, the bill does not add substantial new restrictions, and it does not create new offences or procedures. One has to ask: what is the actual purpose of the bill? The Government wants to look tough on terrorism—we know that, we see the headlines regularly—so it has created cosmetic legislation that is mere window-dressing. Premier Carr is now facing the problem that has clung to the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, for the past few years: the Premier, like Mr Blair, has become a victim of his own cleverness. Spin and media manipulation have been used so often that they no longer fool anybody.

The Premier's supposedly smart strategy of announcing a mini-budget was immediately seen by many people to be a sham gesture, a political stunt, and there are plenty of other examples, such as his recent re-announcement of six-month old policies on the rail network and his recent reheating of a policy announcement on fighting greenhouse gases. The bill is yet another example of a government without ideas resorting, in knee-jerk fashion, to the now bankrupt policies and tactics of spin and stunts.

Ms Cherie Burton told the Legislative Assembly that this bill would help New South Wales to catch up with the Commonwealth and the other States. But, for Ms Burton's information, the Commonwealth Freedom of Information Act has always contained a national security exemption, which is not nearly as broad as the current New South Wales public safety provision or the proposed terrorist act provision in the bill. In other words, we are not lagging behind and therefore we have no need for the bill. We certainly have no need of Premier Carr's spin machine, which can no longer distract the people of New South Wales from the parlous condition of public services and infrastructure in this State. I would be very interested in hearing from some member of the Government on why we need the bill.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Peter Primrose.

Bill introduced, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Youth) [8.10 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill now be read a second time.

The Crimes Amendment (Child Neglect) Bill contains strong and sensible amendments to the Crimes Act 1900 to deal with the complex issue of child neglect. Late last year the Government set up a working party comprising officers of the Department of Community Services and the Attorney General’s Department to review offences in the Crimes Act and the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998—which I will refer to from now on as the care legislation—in relation to child neglect. The process was aimed at determining whether the law, as it stands, sufficiently reflects contemporary community standards and values. The working group recommended that the Crimes Act be amended.

This bill will replace the existing section 43, insert a new section 43A, and amend section 44 of the Crimes Act. These changes complement the amendment late last year to section 43 of the Act, which saw the age of a child to which the offence applied increased from 2 years to 7 years. Other than that amendment and the proposed amendments in this bill, I understand that these provisions have been the subject of little or no modification since they were first incorporated in the Act. This is reflected in the language of the Act as it stands, which the Government has acknowledged requires modernisation. By making the language of these provisions more contemporary and otherwise strengthening the Act’s treatment of child neglect related cases, the relevant authorities will be better able to pursue prosecutions in appropriate circumstances.

I now turn to the individual amendments. The bill proposes the deletion of the current section 43 and its replacement with a new section 43. Like the present section, new section 43 applies to any person. While retaining the essential character of the section it replaces, new section 43 is phrased in contemporary language. If a person intentionally abandons or exposes a child under 7 years of age without reasonable excuse, and the abandonment or exposure causes a danger of death or serious injury to the child, the person is guilty of an offence and can be imprisoned for a maximum of 5 years.

A defence of "without reasonable excuse" replaces the use of the term "unlawfully" in the current section. It will be the role of judicial officers to determine whether an individual can establish this defence. Trivial or shallow reasons will not assist an individual being prosecuted under this section. I am advised, for example, that the proposed section could be used to mount a prosecution against anyone—it need not be a parent—who abandons a child in a car in the blazing summer sun, thereby causing a danger of serious injury to the child.

The section 43A offence focuses on people with parental responsibility who, without reasonable excuse, intentionally or recklessly fail to provide a child with the necessities of life. The necessities of life include, but are not limited to, such things as providing a child with adequate food, clothing, medical treatment, accommodation, or care. If a person with parental responsibility, without reasonable excuse, intentionally or recklessly fails to provide such necessities of life to a child for whom he or she has parental responsibility, and the failure causes a danger of death or serious injury to the child, the person is guilty of an offence and can be imprisoned for five years.

The bill amends section 44. All references to "child" or "ward" will be removed as they are now covered under the new provisions of section 43A. This will mean that section 44 will continue to apply to other vulnerable people, but not to children. There is a similar offence under the care legislation, but if it is more appropriate for a custodial penalty to be pursued, the Crimes Act provisions can be used. It should be noted that the offences outlined in this bill will complement other Crimes Act provisions relating to assaults and other acts causing danger to life or bodily harm.

It is appropriate at this point that I address whether custodial penalties should be provided for in the care legislation or whether they should be in the Crimes Act. The Government believes that gaol penalties and other non-financial penalties, such as community service orders, for such offences should be contained in the Crimes Act and not in the care legislation. The focus and thrust of the care legislation is about preventive and intervention strategies and working with families where there are allegations of risk of harm and neglect. I do not believe it is appropriate to reinstate prison sentences in care legislation when they were specifically removed in 1998 following the Parkinson Review of the 1987 care legislation. Gaol penalties were removed to make the legislation more focused on the interests of children and young people.

The Government certainly supports the prosecution of people where there are serious allegations of abandonment and neglect. In appropriately severe cases, the option of imprisoning the perpetrator should be clearly available. These prosecutions should be carried out by either the police or the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions under the Crimes Act, rather than by the Department of Community Services [DOCS]. The process is then separated from the intervention work undertaken by DOCS. I do not consider it appropriate to amend in any significant way the care legislation at this time. The legislation already contains offences in relation to child abuse and neglect of children and young people.

The monetary penalties in the care legislation are significant. The maximum penalty for these offences is 200 penalty units, which is currently $22,000. If proceedings are commenced in the Local Court, the maximum penalty that a magistrate can apply is $11,000. The State’s care legislation requires DOCS to focus on the safety, welfare, and wellbeing of a child or young person. It requires DOCS to provide a primarily care and protection response that is aimed at taking action to enhance a child’s safety, welfare and wellbeing. The care legislation also allows DOCS to work with parents and care givers to provide support and education that is aimed at intervention for the family as a whole if possible, focusing on circumventing any cycle of neglect or abuse. It allows DOCS to engage in early intervention and prevention work so that DOCS can work with parents to help them change their behaviour. This preventive approach can help to circumvent or minimise the likelihood of harm from neglect.

The Government’s Families First strategy and DOCS early intervention initiatives are excellent examples of the Government’s commitment to strengthening families and preventing the abuse and neglect of children. These programs seek to identify early warning signs and provide practical assistance to children and families in need. Families are offered tangible and positive help, rather than a punitive approach. Many children who come to the attention of DOCS have struggling parents or care givers who are facing myriad complex problems, among which might already be a history of incarceration.

The Government has consistently acknowledged that neglect issues are challenging and require a range of responses, including the tough, but workable, changes to the law proposed in this bill. As I have said previously, the Government does not believe that custodial sanctions should automatically apply in all cases of child neglect. Such an approach might have superficial appeal, but it will not resolve the problem of child neglect. We must recognise, however, that there will be cases that demonstrate a complete and inexcusable failure to care for a child to such an extent that the child’s life or health is seriously endangered.

The bill proposes sensible and workable amendments in the difficult area of child neglect. The proposals use contemporary language and will provide clear options to care and law enforcement-related authorities when determining what sanction should be pursued in circumstances in which a child’s welfare is jeopardised. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Don Harwin.


The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Youth) [8.20 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The National Competition Policy Amendments (Commonwealth Financial Penalties) Bill was introduced in the other place on 17 February. I refer honourable members to the Premier's second reading speech on that bill. The bill has since been split into two bills: the National Competition Policy Liquor Amendments (Commonwealth Financial Penalties) Bill and the National Competition Policy Health and Other Amendments (Commonwealth Financial Penalties) Bill. For the information of members, the national competition policy bill dealing with health and other amendments will not be read a second time tonight. I wish to make some additional comments on the national competition policy bills. As members are aware, the Government resubmitted its public interest case for the retention of New South Wales pharmacy legislation on 16 April at the invitation of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has today announced his decision to effectively overrule his Treasurer and the National Competition Council's demands that pharmacies be deregulated.

The Prime Minister has indicated that he will not impose penalties on New South Wales if we amend our existing bill to increase the maximum number of pharmacies that may be owned by an individual pharmacist from three to five, and to permit friendly societies to own and operate up to six pharmacies. While the Government argued for the retention of our existing legislation and would rather not have made any changes at all, this is a major backdown by the Commonwealth and a win for New South Wales families. The Prime Minister has seen reason and listened to our concerns and the concerns of the New South Wales community. As a result, the Government will delay the second reading of the National Competition Policy Health and Other Amendments (Commonwealth Financial Penalties) Bill while the amendments specified by the Prime Minister are being prepared.

I now turn to the National Competition Policy Liquor Amendments (Commonwealth Financial Penalties) Bill. The Government has made three amendments to the bill it originally introduced, one of which corrects a drafting oversight and two of which strengthen the protection against a proliferation of alcohol outlets. The bill has been amended to permit the social impact assessment and the licence application to be lodged separately. The amendment will allow the social impact assessment process to commence or be determined prior to an applicant proceeding with licensing applications before the Licensing Court. I should emphasise that the Licensing Court will not be able to approve a licence application unless the Liquor Administration Board has approved a social impact assessment in relation to that licence application.

The second amendment is an additional requirement for the advertising of social impact assessments. Social impact assessments will have to be advertised in statewide newspapers, as well as in local newspapers. This will assist peak community bodies to be aware of the lodging of social impact assessments so they can make submissions on them if they wish. The third and most important amendment relates to the test that the board must examine all social impact assessments against—namely, whether the granting of the licence would detrimentally affect the local or the broader community. Previously, the bill defined "local community" as the "neighbourhood" in which the licence is located. Defining "local community" in this way would require the board to look more at a geographical area than the particular characteristics of the community which both lives around and would use the new premises. For example, the community affected by the new premises may be greater or less than the geographical boundary imposed by the use of the term "neighbourhood".

It is clear from the Alcohol Summit, from our consultations on the bill and from comments during debate in the other place that we need to ensure that the board has in mind the particular community in which the licence is proposed to be placed. The amendment will ensure that the board's focus is not limited only to a geographical concept of neighbourhood. Instead, the board will be required to consider matters set out in mandatory guidelines to be issued by the Minister. These guidelines will require the board to look at the particular characteristics of the community living around the premises, including matters such as its socioeconomic status and the proximity of low income housing.

These guidelines will complement the regulations that detail the requirements applicants must satisfy in relation to the preparation of social impact assessments. These draft regulations and guidelines are available for comment. I am confident they will ensure detailed and independent information is available to the board, and that the board will take into account those factors that are most likely to lead to social detriment when it makes its appraisal of a social impact assessment. I understand the Australian Hotel Association, the Liquor Stores Association and the Police Association are broadly supportive of the legislation as it will better protect communities from alcohol-related harm; ensure that key stakeholders such as the police, health authorities and local government have a genuine and formal role in whether or not a new licence is granted; and ensure a rigorous social and public interest test is applied to require a hurdle of "no social detriment" before the granting of a new licence.

This is one area of competition policy reform that has actually led to a vastly improved set of regulatory arrangements. I would like to emphasise again that the New South Wales Government will not allow the Commonwealth's demands to result in a proliferation of liquor outlets across New South Wales. We all know that alcohol can have negative effects on people's judgment and behaviour. This is scientifically proven. There is also a growing body of research that has clearly established the link between alcohol density and alcohol-related injury, violence and alcoholism rates. Research from the United States of America indicates that outlet density is a major predicator of alcohol-related violence, injury and other adverse health outcomes. Harvard University has found that reducing the number of alcohol outlets may be an important component in preventing frequent and heavy drinking and its harmful effects. The Commonwealth may argue for changes to our liquor laws that may see an increase in liquor outlets across New South Wales, but everyone else knows that the costs of this far outweigh the benefits. We have carefully drafted the provisions of this bill and the amendments I have just outlined so they maintain, if not strengthen, the integrity of the New South Wales liquor licensing system. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Peter Primrose.

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [8.26 p.m.]: I speak on behalf of the Opposition on the Freedom of Information Amendment (Terrorism and Criminal Intelligence) Bill. The bill is a response to the need to renegotiate the compromise between public access to information and protection of the community in the wake of the events of the past couple of years—in particular, the horrific events of September 11 in New York and Washington, the Bali atrocities that affected so many Australians, and events around the world that are affecting nations on all continents—which are part of this so-called war of terrorism being waged against western nations and other nations that seem to have attracted the opprobrium of the terrorists.

The bill responds to the lack of any specific exemption in the Freedom of Information Act 1989 on the grounds of protecting national or State security. Similar exemptions have already been passed in the Commonwealth, Victorian and Northern Territory jurisdictions. The key provisions of the bill are, firstly, an amendment to the Freedom of Information Act to exempt documents relating to counter-terrorism and criminal intelligence from disclosure. A document is to be exempt under this legislation if it contains matter the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to facilitate the commission of a terrorist act or to prejudice the prevention of, preparedness against, response to or recovery from the commission of a terrorist act.

Secondly, the bill amends the Freedom of Information Act 1989 to exempt the New South Wales Crime Commission from the operation of the Act in the exercise of certain functions. The document shall be exempt if it is a document that has been created by the State Criminal Command of the NSW Police in the exercise of its functions concerning the collection, analysis or dissemination of intelligence, or the Corrections Intelligence Group of the Department of Corrective Services has created the document in the exercise of its functions concerning the collection, analysis or dissemination of intelligence.

The Government has indicated that the application of those exemptions will be reviewable—something that is provided for in the Act. First, it will be reviewable internally within the agencies concerned and, second, it will be reviewable externally by the Ombudsman or by the Administrative Decisions Tribunal. That, of course, is the key issue. Restricting the access of the public to information, which must occur on grounds of national security, must be balanced by the need for the public to be able to scrutinise and keep accountable the activities of government. That issue was dealt with by the Legislation Review Committee in its "Legislation Review Digest No. 2 of 2004" in which it considered the issue of trespassing on personal rights and liberties, as it was asked to do under section 8 of the Legislation Review Act.

The committee took the view that the Government had the balance in the bill correct and that the provisions that had been placed in the bill and the protections—the external review by the Ombudsman or the Administrative Decisions Tribunal—were right. That was the view of the Legislation Review Committee, which I think has much to recommend it. It is a good committee that works quite well. However, as a member of the Opposition I have other concerns. I refer to the exemptions that are reviewable by the Ombudsman and by the Administrative Decisions Tribunal. There is immense concern in the community, and rightly so, about whether that provision will be abused by the government of the day. I refer to an editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald of 13 April that went through, and correctly outlined, the arguments for the bill and that then made this apposite comment:

But long experience of the way State and Federal governments have perverted the intent of freedom of information statutes suggests that the agencies will seek to prevent anything that they regard as inappropriate from seeing the light of day, regardless of whether it may relate to inappropriate behaviour or even budgetary overruns.

I suppose that is at the heart of the concerns that we have. In a longer debate on the issue of freedom of information legislation, which is not strictly relevant to this debate which focuses on terrorism and criminal intelligence, we would have an opportunity to look at some of the problems we have had in relation to the excessive secrecy of this Government in a wide range of its activities. In deference to the seriousness of the situation covered by this bill I will limit my comments to reading onto the record a summary of the speech that was delivered by my colleague the honourable member for Epping in another place. He said:

It is obvious to everyone in the House that it is important that terrorists should not have access to documents that can assist them in any way. The countervailing balance is, of course, that it is equally important that the public and the Parliament should have reasonable access to all documents necessary to keep the Government accountable. Things that are done in extreme secrecy are often done, regrettably, totally incompetently. There are far too many examples of incompetence by the Government to enumerate in this debate. Keeping documents out of the public domain to ensure security without at the same time encouraging unaccountable incompetence within government agencies is a fine balance. That is the dilemma we all face. My great concern about the bill is that on balance it may end up hiding and protecting incompetence rather than protecting us from the threats of terrorists. Things done incompetently by government, of course, increase terrorist threats.

During the recent parliamentary recess we saw an unbelievable breach in security at the Eveleigh railway yards that received wide publicity on television news and that led to the defacing of a Millennium train, which was all very regrettable. However, it underlined an issue relating to national security. Obviously the facts would have to be slightly different to bring it within the purview of the provisions of this bill. When there is obvious public interest in knowing that something needs to be done in relation to the security of, for example, a railway yard, I would hate to see it covered up in the so-called interests of national security.

Those are the sorts of concerns to which my colleague the honourable member for Epping in another place was referring. That is a concern that the Opposition wants to see placed on the record. Over the past nine years that this Government has been in office we have seen too many examples of devices within the Freedom of Information Act being used to cover up information that the public should have been entitled to have. With those few brief comments, the Opposition does not oppose the bill. Obviously, it is desirable that this sort of legislation is introduced. As I said earlier, it has been addressed in other jurisdictions. It is good to see it being introduced in New South Wales.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [8.37 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party is pleased to support the Freedom of Information Amendment (Terrorism and Criminal Intelligence) Bill. The purpose of this bill is to protect the security of counter-terrorism and sensitive law enforcement information. The Commonwealth Government and State governments are working together to develop a planned and co-ordinated response to the increased threat of terrorism following the disastrous and murderous attack on New York and Washington on September 11 and the Bali bombings on 12 October 2002. Since the Freedom of Information Act was enacted government agencies now hold many documents that contain sensitive counter-terrorism information that could be of great value to terrorists in our nation. We support the purpose of this legislation, which is to put in place procedures when Federal freedom of information laws and State laws contain exemptions to restrict the disclosure of documents that could damage national security.

I am sure that all honourable members were surprised when they learned of the recent arrest of terrorist suspects in Sydney. Those terrorists were accessing material on the Internet provided by government agencies in New South Wales. That material included diagrams of electrical powerlines in the State, details of the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor, the Holsworthy army camp, the military headquarters at Victoria Barracks and naval installations at Sydney Harbour. That material, which was found in the possession of those individuals, was publicly available. I assume that in future the Government will thoroughly check what information is being provided—through previously legitimate sources and for legitimate reasons, such as academic research—to those working in various areas. The protection of sensitive material covers more than just the security plan that is held by the Commissioner of Police. That affects the supply of a whole range of materials and information to the general public.

The situation is complicated by the "sleeper cell" terrorism method whereby people who live and act normally and who arouse no suspicion whatsoever receive a mobilisation signal and change from law-abiding citizens into murderous terrorists. I am sure honourable members are aware of recent events in Saudi Arabia. An Australian engineer and several American and English engineers not involved with any military operation—they were working at an oil installation—were murdered as they sat at their desks performing their duties. They knew their killers quite well as they were the security guards upon whom they relied for protection against terrorists. The three guards were members of a terrorist sleeper cell. They could have killed the engineers at any time but waited until they received some signal then dropped their innocent facade and embarked upon an action that they knew would result in their deaths. That is what happened, as the guards were killed by Saudi Arabian security forces. It was a chilling reminder of how terrorists operate and how difficult it is to combat terrorism in such circumstances.

I have referred already to the events of September 11 and in Bali, and mention has been made of the train graffiti incident, which involved people accessing a secure rail facility. That was a telling incident, especially in light of the recent terrible terrorist attacks on several trains in Madrid that were aimed at innocent commuters. Some people may think this bill is an overreaction. However, I believe we cannot be too secure or too careful in the present climate. The Christian Democratic Party supports this bill. It will provide a comprehensive counter-terrorism exemption under the New South Wales Freedom of Information Act to address the heightened risk that sensitive counter-terrorism information will be released inadvertently or sought deliberately. There is a related need to ensure that sensitive law enforcement information can be protected properly.

The documents that will be exempt under this legislation include those documents that could reasonably be expected to facilitate the commission of a terrorist act or prejudice terrorism prevention, preparedness, response or recovery; documents created by the Counter Terrorism Co-ordination Command in NSW Police; documents created by the State Crime Command in NSW Police and the Corrections Intelligence Group of the Department of Corrective Services in the exercise of their intelligence functions; and documents of the New South Wales Crime Commission in relation to its investigative and reporting functions. We are pleased to support this bill, which has been introduced in conjunction with similar moves on the part of the Commonwealth and other States.

The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD [8.43 p.m.]: Like Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, I support the Freedom of Information Amendment (Terrorism and Criminal Intelligence) Bill for all the good reasons that he mentioned. It should come as no surprise that terrorists were apprehended recently in this country. It is well known—at least by me and I am sure by many others—that terrorists have been present in cell form in Australia since at least 1993. In fact, telephone calls relating to the first attack on the World Trade Center were traced to Lakemba. That has been a matter of fact for some 11 years now. Those cells undoubtedly operated constantly before and since that time. There have finally been some arrests and I have no doubt that others will follow.

Australia faces an ever-increasing terrorist threat as a result of world events. That threat is not necessarily related to the presence of our troops in Iraq but is a consequence of the Islamic-inspired terrorism that is occurring everywhere. The simple fact that we are involved in the war against terrorism makes us a target as much as any other nation that decided to fight the actions of these treacherous dogs who promote themselves as being some sort of freedom fighters. In fact, they are nothing more than murderous people whom we are perhaps treating with more respect than they deserve by describing them as people. We should not be surprised that terrorist cells have been operating in this country for some time. Unfortunately, I suggest that the very freedom of the society in which we live is our Achilles heel. Although a number of people will be concerned about what they consider to be a loss of rights and access in certain areas of society, as the threat of terrorism looms larger and becomes stronger in everyday Australian life it will be necessary for us to give up some things that we, as a democratic society, take for granted. That does not mean that we will be living in a police state but we will be required to give up some things freely to ensure the everyday safety of everyday Australians.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: We have to be careful.

The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD: I acknowledge that comment. But people must understand that we will not win this fight by observing the Marquess of Queensbury rules. The scum against whom we are engaged do not fight using rules or by following a lifestyle that most of us would naturally adopt or understand. These people—I use that term loosely—will do anything at any time under any circumstances, without quarter to woman, child or any other individual in this country, in order to gain what they want to gain. If we must give up something here and there that might be considered to be an entrenched right, we do so for the good of the nation.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG [Parliamentary Secretary] [8.48 p.m.], in reply: I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG [Parliamentary Secretary] [8.49 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [8.49 p.m.]: In an interview on ABC Illawarra on 4 March Mr Martin Ferguson, the shadow transport spokesman in the Federal Parliament, was asked about government inaction on a particular issue. What was his reply? He said:

…stop the games, accept your responsibilities and do the job you have in front of you.

Who do honourable members think he was talking about?

The Hon. Rick Colless: Bob Carr, I bet.

The Hon. DON HARWIN: My colleague is most prescient. Martin Ferguson was talking not about John Howard, John Anderson and the Federal Government's handling of the transport portfolio but about Bob Carr, the New South Wales State Government, and particularly about Carl Scully. The issue to which his comments were directed was none other than the Princes Highway. Martin Ferguson's view regarding the Princes Highway—which is presumably also the view that the people of the South Coast could expect from a Latham government—is that the Carr Government should accept its responsibilities in relation to upgrading that highway.

An important event during the past four weeks when the House was not sitting was the incredible announcement by the Minister for the Illawarra about the Sydney to Wollongong fast train link and the Thirroul to Waterfall tunnel. The longstanding commitment of the Australian Labor Party while in government, and reiterated in its policy document on the Illawarra at the recent State election, was to proceed to build those two critical pieces of infrastructure, which are very important for the people on the South Coast. During the recent recess the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning announced that the whole project is dead.

This State Government will not accept its responsibilities on the Princes Highway. It will not improve rail access, such as building a Thirroul to Waterfall tunnel to facilitate a fast train link. The Government is cutting back rail services—as we have repeatedly heard in this House in relation to other regions—and implementing timetables that will make it more difficult for the people of the South Coast who do not have a motor vehicle to come to Sydney. Also during the recess the National Roads and Motorists Association President, Ross Turnbull, accompanied by the Lord Mayor of Wollongong, Alex Darling, travelled on the Princes Highway and highlighted the need for it to be upgraded. In relation to the road priorities of the NRMA, Mr Turnbull stated in the latest edition of the Open Road that in his view, and the view of the NRMA, the Princes Highway should be completed to a minimum four-lane divided highway to the Jervis Bay turn-off and a 100 kilometre an hour design standard highway to the Victorian border by 2014. I commend the NRMA for publicly announcing that policy.

It has been a longstanding policy of the State Opposition to do something about the Princes Highway when it is elected to government. The Opposition went to the State election with an excellent policy to spend an extra $200 million over five years on the Princes Highway, which would have enabled all sorts of upgrades for the length of the highway to be completed. One should not forget that the State Government spends five times as much on the Pacific Highway annually than it does on the Princes Highway. I do not begrudge that money because the Pacific Highway needs it, but one should not forget that the South Coast does not have rail services south of Bomaderry. Frankly, the rail services between Sydney and Bomaderry are not that good, and they are not getting any better. So it is about time that this State Government did exactly what the Federal Labor shadow Minister, Martin Ferguson, said—that is, it should stop the games, accept its responsibilities and get on the with the job it has in front of it of fixing the Princes Highway.

The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD [8.53 p.m.]: On numerous occasions I have voiced my concerns about the kidnapping of public education by minority political extremists. As the next Federal election approaches, some of the best examples of political interference are coming to light. It is clear the teachers union will dishonestly mislead the public at every turn in its attempt to unseat the Howard Government. The Australian Education Union admits to running a campaign against the Federal Government. Such activists have been allowed to get away with so much, they have become so arrogant they do not even bother to mask their agendas. On 16 February in the New South Wales Teachers Federation journal Vice-President, Angelo Gavrielatos, stated:

At the Federal Conference of the Australian Education Union held January 16 to 18 in Hobart, delegates from across Australia unanimously resolved to campaign to defeat the Howard Government in the upcoming federal election.

The National Public Education Campaign will be unprecedented in its scope, ensuring that every school and college community across every electorate nationwide will expose the Howard Government's continued attack on public education.

To support this we must endeavour to create committees consisting of parents, teachers and principals in every electorate. Information kits, petitions, proforma letters, media releases and relevant material will be developed to support electorate committees.

Except, there has not been an attack on public education by the Howard Government. Rather, the Howard Government has increased funding to public education. In the last Federal budget, the Howard Government increased funding to public schools by, on average, 5.5 per cent and in New South Wales to the tune of 5.7 per cent, whereas the Carr State Government increased funding to public schools by a lousy 0.8 per cent—not even 1 per cent. The Teachers Federation has got it all wrong; it should be praising the commitment of the Howard Government and attacking the Carr Government.

If there is truly any attack on public education, it is being undertaken by militant activists of the Teachers Union. These self-appointed social engineers have no interest in the education of children except for that which follows the line of their own unsustainable, stupid and minority beliefs. The most recent propaganda of the Teachers Federation takes the form of a television advertisement which states:

For a privileged few, this is one of Australia's elite private schools—and this is one of Australia's quality public schools.

BUT if you compare what these schools receive from the Federal Government, the public school gets much less.

In fact, 2/3rds of Federal Government funding goes to private schools who only teach 1/3rd of our students.

Our kids need a fairer system.

Public education, it is our future.

This drivel amounts to a classic example of a lie of omission intentionally designed to deceive. The advertisement intends viewers to believe the majority of taxpayers' funds are directed to private schools, and that of course is a lie of monstrous proportion. The Teachers Federation consistently and conveniently fails to acknowledge State funding for public schools and, in any accurate expression, State funding must be taken into account when considering taxpayers' funds spent on public education. On average, public schools receive per student nearly double the taxpayers' funds received by private schools per student. Some private schools receive the equivalent of approximately 80 per cent per student of what public schools receive per student, but those schools receive extra from both State and Federal governments on the supposed basis of need. They include Islamic and Aboriginal private schools such as Al Faisal College and Mirriwinni Gardens Aboriginal Academy. Whether these schools deserve more than other private schools is a matter of opinion, but even their taxpayer funding is remarkably less than the funding received by public schools.

The fact is private school students are subsidised by taxpayers' funds at a far lower rate than public school students. Private schools save taxpayers approximately $4 billion each year. I will say that again: Approximately $4 billion is saved by the fact that private schools exist and students go to those schools in preference to public schools. Private schools actually have a sustainable case to lobby for even more taxpayer-funded assistance. The Teachers Federation could not be more wrong, nor could its campaign against the Howard Government be more dishonest. It is not my job to defend the record of the Howard Government, or any government for that matter, but I very seriously take it as my job to expose the terrible agenda and personal political activism in schools of those not fit to teach anyone, let alone children.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [8.57 p.m.]: I join with the people of the Tweed and the Far North Coast and other members of this House in expressing dismay at the Carr Labor Government's intention to close the Casino to Murwillumbah XPT service from 17 May, and the Labor Government's reneging on its earlier undertaking to give the service a 12-month breathing space. From 17 May the Murwillumbah to Casino rail line will be replaced with coach services—all part of the Carr Government's disastrous mismanagement of the State's budget. It has left the Tweed reeling and comes on top of the disastrous implications of the poker machine tax increase and new stamp duties and land tax impositions, as well as a host of other problems imposed upon that part of New South Wales by this Government. The intention to close the line has generated a huge outpouring of anger in the Tweed.

The Hon. Rick Colless: What does Neville think about that?

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: We do not know—not much, I guess. The front page of the Tweed Daily News of 7 April, for example, reflects the sombre mood: "A Black Day for Tweed" it proclaimed. The Government's announcement comes after constant reassurances from the aforementioned member for Tweed, Mr Neville Newell, that the service was safe. Where does this leave the future of services in the growth area that is the Tweed? As the Northern Star commented, the XPT decision leaves in tatters the hopes of Northern Rivers residents for a commuter service running from Casino to Murwillumbah, which would improve employment prospects for residents in all the towns on the train line, and help cement the links of the greater Northern Rivers community. And it destroys the region's ambition to extend the rail link to Brisbane, which would make it easier for residents to access essential services not available on the Northern Rivers, and help open up the whole region to tourism and open new freight links, improving the prospects of local business operators.

In addition, it means job losses for railway workers and a likely increase in traffic adding to the risk of extra accidents on the roads, in turn putting a strain on our hospitals. We all know about the death rate on the Pacific Highway. How does a bus enable disabled people easy access to toilet facilities when they have to navigate a bus aisle? Of course, this challenge for older, less mobile and disabled travellers of being forced off trains and onto buses is a major source of anxiety about the future of CountryLink services throughout the State, not just on the far North Coast. As the mayor of Lismore, Councillor Merv King, has said, the line closure made no sense in the face of the region's growing population. He points out that in the next 15 to 20 years the population from Hervey Bay to Coffs Harbour is expected to make up one quarter of the Australian population. That could mean up to five million people. So incensed was Lismore City Council Mayor Merv King that he announced the council would refuse to let CountryLink buses use its Lismore bus transit centre as replacements for train services. The council rejected a formal request from CountryLink for access to the transit centre in town.

North Coast councils are taking a united approach in protesting the elimination of this vital link between their communities. That is good to see. A former CountryLink manager at Murwillumbah summed up the position by expressing great cynicism about transport Minister Costa's assertion that only 184 people use the train each week. He says that would have to be a "pork pie" and that that breaks down to only 26 people a day. He said he was sure more than 26 people were on the platform getting on and off the train every day when he was the CountryLink manager at Murwillumbah, especially during holiday periods. He said:

I suppose Mr Costa has been fed the figures he wanted to see. To state the money saved would be spent on health, education and community services in the area is only patronising the people of the Tweed District and will not happen, as the bulk of the State's revenue goes to New South Wales, that is, Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong. This is another case of the Carr Government breaking promises to rural and regional people.

The Tweed shire mayor, Councillor Warren Polglase, called for the "line to remain open and staff to keep their jobs until a Federal Government funding study is completed". That is a $50,000 Federal Government feasibility study to maintain the rail service and examine the commercial viability of running a light rail service. Local councils have actually sponsored that study. As Councillor Polglase reminds us, the State Government promised that the rail line would stay open until at least December 2004, and would then be given a full review. He said:

We want the line to reopen and staff to keep their jobs until the Federal Government funded study is completed.

The anger of many far North Coast residents is encapsulated by Mr Fletcher from Banora Point, who has published his disgust at the closure of the line. He asks what mandate Premier Carr has to take away the rail line. He said:

Labor is supposed to be for the worker. Save the rail link and get rid of our local link.

His reference to the local link is the member for Tweed, who is the weakest link.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [9.02 p.m.]: I wish to speak on the theme of Anzac Day, which was celebrated on 25 April, and to report on a very significant seminar held in the Parliamentary Theatrette on Wednesday 21 April, when a number of speakers shared background material as an adjunct to the theme of Anzac Day. One of those speakers was Reverend Col Stringer of Queensland, an expert on Australian history, who thrilled the audience with his two sessions, both of which included original film and re-enactment video footage of life in the trenches and battle sites of World War I, and particularly of the Australian Light Horse charge of Beersheba, in Palestine. Reverend Stringer challenged today's generation of Australian Christians with the question, "Who will teach our children responsibility?" and "Where are the men of the church today who will stand and fight for their families?" He quoted this text from Nehemiah 4:14:

Do not be afraid of them; remember the Lord who is great and awesome, and fight for your brothers, your sons, your daughters, your wives and your houses.

He gave an outstanding exposition and challenge to Australians to stand up and fight for God's values like "Fighting Chaplain McKenzie", a World War I hero. Reverend Stringer reminded us that a hero is not in the style of Ned Kelly, but rather of William McKenzie, the Salvation Army chaplain who led over 3,000 men to the Christian faith amidst the horror and desperation of the battle sites and mud-filled trenches of Gallipoli, the Middle East and battlefields of France. As chaplains were not permitted to carry a weapon, because of the regulations of international rules of war, Chaplain McKenzie carried a trenching shovel into battle alongside soldiers and, far more significantly, he carried his bible. Reverend Stringer gave an address about our Australian Light Horse troops' magnificent campaign and the charge of Beersheba in 1917, when, against the odds, they were able to overthrow the enemy and were integral in the liberation of Jerusalem. The soldiers had been issued not only with bayonets but also with a copy of the New Testament. Reverend Stringer declared:

As the original Light Horsemen volunteered in a time of national need, we need volunteers to stand up for this nation.

The reference to the Light Horse is very important and significant, because on Sunday 4 July the annual Reserve Forces Day National Parade will be conducted. On this occasion it will mark ninety years since the outbreak of the Great War, and this year the Reserve Forces Day National Parade will acknowledge the debt we owe to our wonderful Australian horses. Over 185,000 horses served in the Boer War and the 1914-18 War. They suffered unimaginable conditions but never failed their riders. Only one horse, a charger named Sandy, which belonged to Major General Sir William Throsby Bridges, who was killed at Gallipoli, was allowed to return home to Australia to take part in his State Funeral.

In the national parade—which will take place right outside Parliament House at 11.00 a.m. on Sunday 4 July—I understand there will be 124 horses, at least one for each year since 1914. The Light Horse Squadron will consist of a Light Horse Troop and two contingents of civilian "recruits" in 1914 dress who have "come in from the bush" to join the Australian Imperial Force, along with some ladies who have brought in their horses to "donate to the war effort". Everyone has asked the question: Who will be there to watch the parade? Year after year I have taken part in it. Sadly, in contrast with the Anzac Day parade, very few members of the public watch this parade. It assembles near St Mary's Cathedral, where on this occasion the Governor-General will inspect the Reserve Forces in their various units, which will then line up and march down Macquarie Street. Following the parade will be a reception in Parliament House, to which I am sure all honourable members will have been invited.

Following the Light Horse in the parade will be horse-drawn wagons and vintage armoured and transport vehicles, ranging in age from World War II vintage up to the current day. The horse and vehicle contingent will move through the ranks of 5,000 former and serving reservists including bands. Also in the parade will be Navy, Army and Air Force units and representatives of the Reserve Forces of the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Canada and New Zealand. The Patron-in-Chief, Major General Michael Jeffery, will review the parade and take the salute at the dais in front of New South Wales Parliament House. I urge all members to bring their families along and support the Reserve Forces Day National Parade.

Mr IAN COHEN [9.06 p.m.]: I celebrate and commemorate the life of a very much-loved community worker, Jules Pearse, who died recently in my home town of Byron Bay. Jules Pearse touched the lives of many people with his irreverence, sense of humour, caring nature and sense of commitment to his community. Jules lived and worked in Australia, Canada and South Africa. He was a pilot in Forty-four Squadron of the South African Air Force, which comprised people with civilian jobs who worked on weekends to give members of the regular forces a break. It was not just a training unit. Jules was in active service and had some close calls. As a policeman in Canada he took part in stake-outs and went undercover. He married Jay when she was working for Scandinavian Airlines. In the short time before their son Michael's arrival they managed some exciting trips, including to Australia and Byron Bay, which Jay fell in love with.

Before moving to Byron Bay Jules's passion was working in business. He loved the intrigue and the people, and figuring out how they operated. He worked for prominent companies in South Africa, Balieu Bowring in Melbourne and Willis Faber, CBA Bank and Switzerland General in Sydney. To maximise time with his family he purchased a small yacht and made a point of taking Jay and children, Michael and Brigid, sailing as often as he could. He enjoyed hack-and-slash golf, but generally his passion was his work. On the move from Sydney to Byron Bay the family wondered what on earth he would do with his time. Of course, he recreated the business buzz by getting involved in local organisations. As a mediator he was good at pouring oil on troubled waters. With a storm raging he would make a patch of calm water and settle things down. This applied equally more recently in the local community.

Having said that, he was not a fence sitter: he grasped the nettle and did the hard stuff when required. People and their behaviour always fascinated him; he was excellent in working with and getting the best from people. From the time of his diagnosis Jules hung on and resolved to wring every drop of life from the time remaining to him. He made it his mission, and as time passed he seemed indestructible. During the reprieve he and Jay travelled when they could, including overseas. Jules was a businessperson with a logical and focused mind. His views on the world were conventional in some respects, but with steady pressure from his daughter, Brigid, he turned a shade of green, and gave his time to the World Wildlife Fund and the Wilderness Society. He threw himself into community projects. He was President of Bay FM and Friends of the Library dealing with the new Byron Bay library project.

Jules was a committee member of the Shire Council Library Advisory Committee. He was Treasurer of Byron Youth Service and he was involved with Amitayus Hospice Service, giving talks to their trainees on a client's perspective of the roller-coaster ride of living with cancer. He continued all this up until the last feasible moment. Jules had vision and he had plans for our community. Jules worked hard to ensure that the vision and plans of the groups with whom he worked would come to fruition. Jules was an exceptional man. He will be missed by a whole community.

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE [9.10 p.m.]: For the past three years the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union has been leading a national campaign, Make It Here or Jobs Disappear. Despite what critics say, this is not a narrow protectionist campaign aimed at propping up inefficient Australian industries because of fear of facing the new globalised marketplace. Manufacturing is vital to maintain our high standard of living. Manufacturing is essential to the New South Wales economy for investment, innovation, export and employment. It provides 50 per cent of the productivity growth in New South Wales and it is the second largest export industry. It is the second largest employer in New South Wales and accounts for more than 12 per cent of the work force. Every growing economy in the world is based firmly on a healthy manufacturing sector.

In these rapidly developing economies it is the productivity of the manufacturing sector that has provided the foundation for their ability to devote a larger share of their gross domestic product to the provision of services such as health, education and infrastructure. The healthiest economies internationally are widely diversified with strong government intervention and a comprehensive industry policy. These are both features that are not part of our current Federal Government's agenda. In fact, our Federal Government has abdicated its role in the development of an industry policy to an ideological agenda of deregulation. Consequently, the Federal Government has no vision or strategy to ensure that we have a strong and vibrant manufacturing sector for the new millennium.

There is no commitment to apprentices or training that will establish our skills base for the future. There is no strategy for developing and supporting regional economies through networking and government procurement policy. The same rapidly growing economies that I have referred to already as being firmly based on a healthy manufacturing sector—Singapore, Finland, Ireland and others—have also shown that the development of a knowledge-based economy cannot happen without the intervention of government. There has to be a deliberate and interventionist industry policy to provide the infrastructure, education and research that will allow a knowledge-based economy to thrive. Trade unions are in a good position to advocate structural change because they have a long-term agenda, not just a short-term commitment to maximising current profits.

Their commitment is to the long-term provision of jobs and job security. They understand clearly the need for a long-term strategic vision by governments to ensure the future health of the global economy. Global corporations will go wherever the conditions are in their best interests. Corporations with high labour costs are increasingly moving to countries without effective trade unions or government regulation of labour, and corporate and environmental laws. They are looking for cheap labour and unregulated production that will give them a cost advantage in the global export market.

The Hon. JON JENKINS [9.14 p.m.]: I continue the speech I commenced in last night's adjournment debate. To lessen the number of feral cats we need two things: the engagement of the community to assist and road access. We need road access for the simple reason that we need to get people into the wilderness areas to set traps, lay poison, shoot, infect, spray and apply whatever other control mechanisms we are applying to the pest population. We need community engagement because we need thousands of volunteers involved in this activity to make it work. The National Parks and Wildlife Service does not have the personnel to carry out these sorts of tasks. I note the usual Green fear, uncertainty and doubt [FUD] that the uneducated people do more damage than good. It is rubbish. What the Greens ignore is that much of the infrastructure of a modern society consists of volunteers. The State Emergency Services, Coast Guard, Volunteer Rescue Services, Rural Fire Services, St John's Ambulance Service, Landcare, et cetera, are trained and staffed by volunteers for these much more complex tasks.

For the most part, the physical and mental tasks involved in basic pest control are relatively trivial, and where they require some education the National Parks and Wildlife Service is ideally placed and equipped to handle public education tasks. In fact, is not education one of its prime directives? If we want to preserve our precious parks, we have to be engaged as a nation, as a State, as a local community and as individuals in the care, maintenance and protection of these jewels. This planet is merely borrowed from our children. It is our duty to pass it on in a reasonable shape to their children and to their children's children. The real question is why the National Parks and Wildlife Service did not want any assistance to maintain the parks. There is no answer because it is driven by blind political ideology, not reason. But let us turn our attention to the most damaging mismanagement practice in the National Parks and Wildlife Service: basic fire management.

Basic fire management practices are so neglected that further catastrophes, like Kosciuszko, will undoubtedly occur again leaving more lifeless desert as a testament to the extreme Green fanatic. We cannot fire manage our wilderness and national parks because there are no roads, and roads are necessary for this task. Why do we need roads? Let me try to make it simple. To fire manage a park for the benefit of the animals and plants requires two aspects, one of which is low fuel loads so that fires are not so intense that they will kill the trees and so that animals can survive underground or in the hollows of trees, or can outrun the fires. The ideal situation is when a forest is burnt in sections in alternate years. These section burns allow animals to escape the fire into unburnt sections and also allow for the burnt section to regenerate quickly. To satisfy the first aspect we need to have a burn regime that is appropriate for different types of flora. For a typical dry sclerophyll forest this may require a burn about every five to eight years. Different forest types will have different requirements.

To satisfy the second aspect we need to have a network of roads and natural features that allow for either the self-limiting or man-induced limiting of the range of fires. The roads are used to create natural firebreaks and to start back-burning activities. This process of controlled section burns requires the maintenance of an accessible road network. As we know, the National Parks and Wildlife Service simply does not have the manpower to maintain its road network to control feral cats. It should call on volunteers to help in this aspect. Now we have some progress in this area. Under the memorandum of understanding between the National Parks and Wildlife Service and the four-wheel drive association, the association has been heavily involved in maintaining many road systems throughout some selected national parks.

I now return to the original question: Why is it that the Green extremists push the National Parks and Wildlife Service to close the roads whenever a national park is declared? The only answer we have from the peak Green groups is that in 1934 someone who, while a great visionary in his time, had not the slightest inkling of the threats now posed to our environment, and was trying to protect the environment from possible commercial activities that were quite legal and accepted in that less enlightened period. I will continue this speech at the next opportunity. [Time expired.]

The Hon. HENRY TSANG [Parliamentary Secretary] [9.19 p.m.]: I am pleased to inform the House of a trip I recently undertook to Hong Kong. As some honourable members may know, although I was born in China I spent a significant part of my childhood as a refugee in Hong Kong. When my parents fled China, they moved to Hong Kong and that is where I spent a large part of my primary and secondary school years. Hong Kong is therefore a place with which I identify closely and with fondness. My visit was part of the Hong Kong Government's Sponsored Visit Program, which provides access for visitors to senior representatives from the public and private sectors, as well as information about Hong Kong. With all the changes that have taken place in Hong Kong since the handover, the visit proved to be most worthwhile for me.

During my visit I met with many senior government officials and members of the Hong Kong Legislative Council, including the Hon. Dr David Chu Yu-Lin, the Hon. Choy So-Yuk, and the Hon. Dr Hon Lui Ming-Wah. As the deputy chairman of the Parliament's Asia-Pacific Friendship Group, I have extended our friendship to the Hong Kong Legislative Council. One of the officials with whom I held discussions was Mr Kevin Ho, who is the Director-General of Trade and Industry. We discussed building stronger links between Hong Kong and New South Wales. One of the ways of doing so is through the sister state relationship that New South Wales has with the neighbouring province of Guangdong and the sister city relationship that Sydney has with Guangdong's capital, Guangzhou. Mr Ho emphasised to me the integration of Hong Kong's economy with Guangzhou and other cities in the Pearl River Delta in a special economic zone which, as a hub for business, finance and services in the area, is considered to be a type of free-trade area with Hong Kong.

Hong Kong's record economic performance after the severe acute respiratory syndrome [SARS] and its prosperity are underpinned by free trade and a strong growth in tourism. Hong Kong's performance as a regional financial centre was reaffirmed by the Secretary for Financial Services, Mr Frederick Ma, with whom I also had a meeting. The important point made by Mr Ho was that the Hong Kong Government saw its own involvement in the Pearl River Delta as a great opportunity for New South Wales and Australian companies to boost their trade activities Chinawide, including in autonomous regions. The strong relationship that New South Wales enjoys with the Guangdong province will be renewed with the upcoming Joint Economic Meeting that will be held later this year in Guangzhou.

I was therefore pleased to also have had the chance to meet with the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong branch of the Australian Chamber of Commerce. The chamber is the largest branch outside Australia and one of the largest in the world. It has provided great service to Australian companies in Hong Kong by generating networking opportunities as well as business development and assistance. Its membership includes many New South Wales based companies. I look forward to working more closely with those companies to further assist their expansion in this important Asian market.

Some of the other meetings I had were with the Secretary for Justice, Ms Elsie Leung, the Associate Director-General of Investment Promotion, Mr John Rutherford, the Commissioner for Tourism, Ms Eva Cheng, the head of the Central Policy Unit, Professor Lau Siu-Kai, and the Secretary for Education and Manpower, Professor Arthur Li. I look forward to welcoming Professor Li to Sydney soon, when he visits to establish Australian partnerships in education. I also met with the Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption. These meetings reinforced the shared heritage between Australia and Hong Kong through the latter's past membership of the Commonwealth, and we still share many traditions especially in business, commerce and sport.

Hong Kong remains an important commercial and financial centre in the Asian region and in many ways is a competitor with New South Wales. But more importantly, I think it provides a great opportunity for Australian, but particularly New South Wales, companies to make an impact on the wider Chinese marketplace, precisely because it is easier for Australians to come to grips with Hong Kong than with the mainland. I thank the Director of the Hong Kong Trade and Economic Office in Sydney, Ms Jenny Wallis, and her staff for organising such an informative and productive program for me. Jenny Wallis is a marvellous ambassador for her country and does a great job in spreading the word on Hong Kong in Australia and New Zealand.

My visit gave me a contemporary insight into the new Hong Kong administration, seven years after the British handover. It is important to note what has not changed in Hong Kong, namely, the British tradition of the rule of law, the use of English in practice as a common language, transparency in government and business administration, a diverse and harmonious multicultural and multinational business community, and the continuous spirit of striving to succeed under adverse conditions—not forgetting that Hong Kong is, and always has been, an exciting city to visit. Hong Kong and New South Wales are strong regional economies with many longstanding ties. Increased business activity between the two areas can only be of mutual benefit in providing jobs in both places. With the Chinese economy expanding rapidly, the focus on Hong Kong as a stepping stone to the mainland market may be very rewarding for Australian and New Zealand business communities.

Motion agreed to.

---

1. Repeal of previous rules and orders

All existing standing rules and orders of the House are repealed.

2. Where cases not provided for

In any case not provided for in these standing orders, any matter may be decided by the President or Chair of Committees as they think fit. In making any ruling the President or Chair may base their decision on the customs, usages, practices and precedents of the House and parliamentary tradition.

3. Practice notes

(1) The President may issue practice notes on the procedure and practice to be followed under any standing order.

(2) A practice note may be disallowed, in whole or in part, by motion on notice.

(3) A motion for disallowance will have precedence as business of the House.

4. Rights of House not restricted

Nothing in these standing orders affects the rights, privileges and powers of the House.

5. Proceedings on opening of Parliament by Governor

(1) On the first day of the meeting of a session of Parliament to be opened by the Governor, where there is a President:
(a) the President will take the Chair at the time stated in the proclamation and read the prayers,
(b) the Clerk will read the proclamation calling Parliament together, and
(c) the Governor will be introduced to the chamber by the Usher of the Black Rod.

(2) On the first day of the meeting of a session of Parliament to be opened by the Governor, where there is no President:
(a) at the time specified in the proclamation the Clerk will read the proclamation calling Parliament together,
(b) the Governor will be introduced to the chamber by the Usher of the Black Rod.

6. Proceedings on opening of Parliament by commission

On the first day of the meeting of a session of Parliament to be opened by commissioners,
(a) the Clerk will read the proclamation calling Parliament together,
(b) the Clerk will announce the commissioners appointed to open the Parliament,
(c) a commissioner will direct the Usher of the Black Rod to request the attendance of the members of the Legislative Assembly to hear the commissioners’ message,
(d) members of the Assembly will sit in the Council chamber,
(e) a commissioner will then inform the members of both Houses of the purpose of the meeting,
(f) the Clerk will read the commission appointing the commissioners to open Parliament,
(g) a commissioner will read the commissioners’ message, and the members of the Assembly will withdraw,
(h) the Clerk will announce the names of the members elected at the periodic election.
(i) the Clerk will also announce the names of commissioners for swearing members, and read the commission,
(j) new members will take and sign the oath or affirmation of allegiance required by law and sign the roll of the House, and
(k) the House will then proceed to elect a President.

7. Governor’s speech

(1) When the Governor attends the chamber, the Usher of the Black Rod will announce and conduct the Governor to the dais.

(2) The Governor will direct the Usher of the Black Rod to command the immediate attendance of the Assembly in the Council chamber.

(3) When the members of the Assembly have come with their Speaker into the Council chamber the Governor will address both Houses of the Parliament.

(4) The President and the Speaker will each receive a copy of the Governor’s speech and the Governor will withdraw from the Council chamber.

8. Address-in-reply

(1) The President will report to the House the speech of the Governor.

(2) A motion for an address-in-reply to the speech may be made forthwith or on a future day, and must be seconded.

(3) Consideration of the Governor’s speech will be dealt with as government business.

(4) When the address has been agreed to, a motion will be made that it be presented to the Governor by the President and members.

(5) The President will report to the House the presentation of the address and the reply of the Governor.

9. Opening of Parliament by the Queen

When Her Majesty the Queen is present in the State and intends to address both Houses of Parliament on opening the session, references in this chapter to the Governor will be read as references to Her Majesty the Queen.

10. Swearing of new members

New members may present themselves and take and sign the oath or affirmation required by law and sign the roll of the House at any time during the sitting of the House when there is no business then under consideration.

11. Term of office

The office of President becomes vacant:
(a) immediately before the House assembles for the dispatch of business at its first meeting following a periodic Council election,
(b) if the President ceases to be a member of the House,
(c) if the President is removed from office by a vote of the House, or
(d) if the President resigns in writing addressed to the Governor.

12. Election of President

(1) Whenever the office of the President becomes vacant the Clerk will act as Chair of the House for the election of the President, and will have the powers of the President under the standing orders while acting.

(2) A member, addressing the Clerk, will propose to the House as President a member then present, and move that the member take the Chair of the House as President. The speech of the member proposing the motion and of any other member may not exceed 15 minutes.

(3) If only one member is proposed as President, the member proposed is declared elected without any question being put. The newly elected President will then express a sense of the honour proposed to be conferred on them, and will be conducted to the Chair.

(4) If 2 or more members are proposed as President, a motion will be made regarding each such member, that the member take the Chair of the House as President, and each member so proposed will express a sense of the honour proposed to be conferred on them, and may address the House.

13. Ballot

(1) When a ballot is required, the bells will be rung and the doors locked, as in a division.

(2) When 2 members have been proposed as President, ballot papers will be distributed by the Clerks to all members in their places. Members must write on the ballot paper the name of the candidate for whom they wish to vote, and deposit it in the ballot box provided by the Clerk. The candidate who has the greater number of votes is to be declared elected President, and will be conducted to the Chair.

(3) When 2 or more members have been proposed, the votes will be similarly taken and the member who has the greatest number of votes will be the President, provided that member has also a majority of the votes of the members present.

(4) If no candidate has such a majority, the name of the candidate having the smallest number of votes will be withdrawn, and a fresh ballot will take place; and this will be done as often as necessary, until one candidate is elected as President by such a majority, and the member elected will be conducted to the Chair.

(5) If there is an equality of votes, the votes will be again taken, and if again there is an equality of votes, the Clerk will determine, by lot, which of the candidates, having the same number of votes will be withdrawn, as if the candidate had obtained the lesser number of votes.

14. Presentation to Governor

(1) Having been conducted to the Chair, the member so elected will return acknowledgments to the House and assume the Chair.

(2) Members may congratulate the President, and a Minister will inform the House of the time at which the Governor will receive the House for the purpose of presenting their President.

15. Election of Deputy President

(1) At the commencement of the sittings following a periodic Council election, or when any vacancy occurs, the House is, by motion without notice, to elect a member to be Deputy President and Chair of Committees.

(2) The Deputy President and Chair of Committees will be elected in a similar manner as the President. However, the President will conduct the election, and where there is an equality of votes, will exercise a casting vote.

16. Term of Office – Deputy President

The Deputy President will hold office for the life of the Parliament in which elected and until a successor is elected.

17. Duty of Chair

(1) The Deputy President, when presiding in the House, will exercise the same authority and have the same duties and powers as the President, but will give place to the President whenever the President arrives in the House.

(2) The Chair of Committees will take the Chair at the table in all committees of the whole House.

18. Temporary Chairs

The President will nominate at the commencement of each session a panel of not less than three members who may act as Temporary Chairs of Committees when requested, or in the absence of the Chair of Committees.

19. Title

The Chair of Committees and Temporary Chair of Committees may be referred to as Chairperson, Chairman or Chairwoman.

20. Absence of President

In the absence of the President, the Deputy President will perform the duties and exercise the authority of President in relation to all proceedings of the House.

21. Absence of President and Deputy President

(1) If both the President and the Deputy President are absent, one of the Temporary Chairs of Committees will act as President.

(2) If no Temporary Chairs are available in the absence of the President and Deputy President, the members present, if a quorum, will elect a member present to act as President for that day only, the question being put to the House by the Clerk.

22. Relief of President

(1) The Deputy President will take the Chair when requested by the President, without any announcement to the House.

(2) In the absence of the Deputy President, one of the Temporary Chairs will take the Chair, without any announcement to the House.

23. Leaving the Chair

The President may leave the Chair at any time to suit the convenience of the members, without any question being put.

24. Absence of Clerk

In the absence of the Clerk, the Clerk's duties will be performed by the Deputy Clerk, or in the absence of both, by the next senior officer.

25. Parliamentary secretary

A parliamentary secretary may act as a Minister in the House in all respects, except in relation to answering questions with and without notice.

26. Leadership of parties and groups

After each periodic Council election and whenever changes occur, the leaders of parties or groups with two or more members in the House may announce the leadership of the parties or groups represented in the House.

27. Meeting of Council

The bells will ring for two minutes prior to the time appointed for a meeting of the Council, and the President on being announced by the Usher of the Black Rod, will then take the Chair, and acknowledge the House.

28. Prayers

(1) The President, on taking the Chair each day, will read the following prayers:

Almighty God, we humbly beseech Thee to vouchsafe Thy blessing upon this Parliament. Direct and prosper our deliberations to the advancement of Thy glory, and the true welfare of the people of our state and Australia.

Our Father, who art in Heaven: Hallowed be thy name. Thy Kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth, as it is in Heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil: For Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever, Amen.

(2) The President may nominate another member, or request the Clerk to read the prayers.

29. Quorum at commencement of sitting

(1) If there is no quorum present when the Chair is taken at the time appointed for a meeting of the House, the bells will again ring for 5 minutes. If there is still no quorum present the President will adjourn the House to the next sitting day.

(2) A member who enters the chamber at or after the time appointed for the meeting of the Council may not withdraw until a quorum is formed or the House is adjourned.

(3) When the House is adjourned for lack of a quorum, the names of the members present will be entered in the Minutes of Proceedings.

30. Quorum during sitting

(1) If it appears, on the report of a division of the House by the tellers, that a quorum is not present, the President will adjourn the House to the next sitting day. No decision of the House will be considered to have been reached by that division.

(2) When the Chair of Committees informs the President that a quorum is not present in committee, the bells will ring for 5 minutes. The President will then count the House, and if a quorum is still not present, will adjourn the House until the next sitting day. However, if a quorum is then present, the President will leave the Chair and the committee resume.

(3) If a member draws attention to the lack of a quorum, the bells will be rung until a quorum is formed but for no longer than 5 minutes. If after 5 minutes a quorum is not present, the President will adjourn the House to the next sitting day.

(4) When the attention of the President, or the Chair of Committees, has been called to the absence of a quorum, a member may not leave until the House or committee has been counted.

(5) The doors of the House will be unlocked while the President is counting the House.

(6) When the House has adjourned for lack of a quorum the names of the members present will be entered in the Minutes of Proceedings.

31. Adjournment of the House

(1) Except where the Standing Orders provide for the President or Clerk to adjourn the House without putting a question, the House can be adjourned only by its own resolution.

(2) The adjournment of the House to terminate the sitting may be moved at any time by a Minister.

(3) The motion for the adjournment of the House to terminate the sitting may not be amended.

(4) On any motion for adjournment to terminate a sitting:

(a) the question will be put no later than 30 minutes after the motion has been moved, or, when a Minister wishes to speak or is then speaking, at the conclusion of the Minister’s remarks,
(b) any member may speak for five minutes on matters not relevant to the question, but may not refer to matters which are otherwise not in order.

(5) If, before the days and hours of sitting have been appointed by the House, an adjournment takes place without the day and hour being fixed for meeting, the House will meet on the days and at the hour appointed in the previous session.

(6) Whenever the House is adjourned for lack of a quorum to the next sitting day, and that day is a general holiday or public holiday, the House will stand adjourned to the following sitting day.

32. Interruption for adjournment

(1) The House may appoint the time that proceedings will be interrupted on Thursdays and Fridays to permit a motion for adjournment to be moved, if a Minister so wishes, to terminate the sitting.

(2) If, at the time of interruption:

(a) a division is in progress, the division will be completed and the result announced,
(b) the House is in committee of the whole, the Chair will report progress and seek leave to sit again.

(3) When any business under discussion, if not disposed of, is interrupted by the operation of this standing order, the debate will stand adjourned and be made an order of the day for the next sitting day at the end of government or general business, as the case may be, fixed for that day, unless a motion is moved without amendment or debate for the adjournment of the debate to another day (to be stated).

33. Ministerial reply to adjournment matters

A Minister may, before the House proceeds to the business of the day, make a statement in relation to any matter raised on the adjournment at a previous sitting.

34. Minister to be present in the House

The House will not meet unless a Minister is present in the House.

35. Times of meeting

The days and times of meeting of the House in each sitting week will be determined by the House from time to time.

36. Recall of House

(1) The President, at the request of an absolute majority of members that the House meet at a certain time, must fix a time of meeting in accordance with that request, and the time of meeting must be notified to each member.

(2) A request by the leader or the deputy leader of a party in the Council is deemed to be a request by every member of that party.

(3) A request may be made to the President by delivery to the Clerk, who must notify the President as soon as practicable.

(4) If the President is unavailable, the Clerk must notify the Deputy President, or, if the Deputy President is unavailable, any one of the Temporary Chairs of Committees, who must summon the Council on behalf of the President, in accordance with this standing order.

37. Conduct of business

A Minister may move a motion connected with the conduct of government business at any time without notice.

38. Routine of business

The House is to proceed each day with business in the following routine:
Formal business under standing order 44
Presentation of papers
Presentation of petitions
Notices of motions
Matters of public interest
Ministerial statements
Ministerial replies to matters raised on the motion for adjournment
Motions and orders of the day, or vice versa, as set down on the Notice Paper.

39. Business of the House

The following business is to be placed on the Notice Paper as business of the House, and will take precedence of government and general business for the day on which it is set down for consideration:
(a) a motion for leave of absence to a member,
(b) a motion concerning the qualification of a member,
(c) a motion concerning the operations of the chamber.

40. Government and general business

The House must appoint the days or times on which government business and general business is to take precedence.

41. Reports of committees - precedence

The House must appoint the day and time on which motions for the consideration or adoption of reports of committees of the House and any government responses on such reports are to take precedence.

42. Presentation of documents

(1) Documents ordered to be presented, returns, reports of committees, papers and statutory instruments may be presented when no business is before the House.

(2) Private members may only table documents by leave of the House.

43. Government business on Notice Paper

Ministers may arrange the order of their notices of motions and orders of the day on the Notice Paper.

44. Formal motions

(1) Before the House proceeds to the business on the Notice Paper each day, the President will ask whether there is any objection to notices of motions or orders of the day for the third reading of a bill being taken as a formal motion, without amendment or debate. If no objection is taken by any member, the motion is to be taken as a formal motion.

(2) Formal motions are to take precedence of all other motions and orders of the day and will be disposed of in the order in which they stand on the Notice Paper.

(3) The question of a formal motion must be put and determined without amendment or debate.

(4) An order of the day for the third reading of bills may be dealt with as a formal motion.

45. Postponement of business

(1) After the formal motions are disposed of and before the business of the day is proceeded with, the President will ask whether any member wishes to postpone any notice of motion or order of the day of which the member is in charge on the Notice Paper for that day. A notice of motion or order of the day may be postponed to a later hour on the same day or a subsequent day, on motion. The question must be put and determined without amendment or debate.

(2) Business may also be postponed, on motion, at the time when it is called on.

46. Interruption of business

(1) If any business before the House or a committee of the whole is interrupted by the operation of any standing or other order of the House, the business may be dealt with at a later hour of the same day, or will be set down on the Notice Paper for the next sitting day at the end of business already set down.

(2) When an order of the House specifies a time for the consideration of a matter, at the specified time:

(a) if a question is before the House, the President is to interrupt proceedings, and resumption of debate on that question is to be made an order of the day for a later hour of the day without any question being put,
(b) if the House is in committee, the Chair is to interrupt proceedings and report progress to the House. The President is to fix further consideration of the business before the committee as an order of the day for a later hour of the sitting without any question being put, or
(c) if a vote is being taken, the vote will be completed and the procedures in paragraph (a) and (b) then followed as appropriate.

(3) A member speaking when proceedings are interrupted may continue speaking when proceedings are resumed.

47. Questions

(1) The House is to appoint the time when questions without notice will be taken each sitting day.

(2) Until a time is appointed by the House, questions will be taken at the time and day last appointed by the House.

48. Ministerial statements

(1) A Minister may make a statement regarding government policy at any time when there is no other business before the House.

(2) The Leader of the Opposition, or a member nominated by the Leader of the Opposition, may speak to a ministerial statement, not exceeding the time taken by the Minister in making the statement.

49. Journals

(1) All proceedings of the House are to be recorded by the Clerk and published in the Minutes of Proceedings, signed by the Clerk.

(2) A business paper containing notices of motions and orders of the day is to be published by the Clerk.

(3) Publication, in written or electronic form, of the Minutes of Proceedings, Questions and Answers Paper and Notice Paper is authorised under this Standing Order.

50. Custody of records

(1) The Clerk is to have custody of the journals, records and all documents tabled in the House. They may only be taken from the office of the Clerk by a resolution of the House, or if the House is adjourned for more than two weeks, by approval of the President.

(2) The House is to be notified at its next sitting whenever approval is given by the President for any such removal.

51. Hansard

(1) The Clerk is to ensure that a Hansard record is kept of all the debates in the House.

(2) Publication, in written or electronic form, of the record of debate in the House or any committee, known as Parliamentary Debates and Hansard, including publication of Hansard ‘galley proofs’, is authorised under this Standing Order.

52. Order for the production of documents

(1) The House may order documents to be tabled in the House. The Clerk is to communicate to the Premier’s Department, all orders for documents made by the House.

(2) When returned, the documents will be laid on the table by the Clerk.

(3) A return under this order is to include an indexed list of all documents tabled, showing the date of creation of the document, a description of the document and the author of the document.

(4) If at the time the documents are required to be tabled the House is not sitting, the documents may be lodged with the Clerk, and unless privilege is claimed, are deemed to be have been presented to the House and published by authority of the House.

(5) Where a document is considered to be privileged:

(a) a return is to be prepared 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 by the date and time required in the resolution 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.
(6) Any member may, by communication in writing to the Clerk, dispute the validity of the claim of privilege in relation to a particular document or documents. On receipt of such communication, the Clerk is authorised to release the disputed document or documents to an independent legal arbiter, for evaluation and report within seven calendar days as to the validity of the claim.

(7) 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.

(8) A report from the independent legal arbiter is to be lodged with the Clerk and:

(a) made available only to members of the House,
(b) not published or copied without an order of the House.

(9) The Clerk is to maintain a register showing the name of any person examining documents tabled under this order.

53.

Documents from the Governor

The production of documents concerning:
(a) the royal prerogative,
(b) dispatches or correspondence to or from the Governor, or
(c) the administration of justice,

will be in the form of an address presented to the Governor requesting that the document be laid before the House.

54. Other methods of tabling documents
(1) The President and Ministers may table documents at any time when there is no other business before the House.
(2) The Clerk, under the authority of any Act or by resolution of the House, may table documents at any time when there is no other business before the House.
(3) The publication of documents tabled by the President, a Minister or the Clerk is authorised under this standing order.

(4) Other members may table documents by leave, and unless authorised by the House to be made public, are available for inspection by members of the House only.

55. Tabling of reports and documents when House not sitting

(1) Where, under any Act, a report or other document is required to be tabled in the House by a Minister, and the House is not sitting, such report or document may be lodged with the Clerk.

(2) Any report or document lodged with the Clerk is:

(a) on presentation, and for all purposes, deemed to have been laid before the House,
(b) to be printed by authority of the Clerk,
(c) for all purposes, deemed to be a document published by order or under authority of the House, and
(d) to be recorded in the Minutes of Proceedings of the House.

(3) Documents may not be lodged with the Clerk when the House has been prorogued.

56. Documents quoted in debate

(1) A document relating to public affairs quoted by a Minister may be ordered to be laid on the table, unless the Minister states that the document is of a confidential nature or should more properly be obtained by order.

(2) An order under paragraph (1) may be made by motion without notice moved immediately on the conclusion of the speech of the Minister who quoted the document.

57. Motion after tabling

On a document being laid before the House, other than a petition or a return to an address or order, a motion may be made:
(a) that a day be appointed for its consideration, or
(b) that it be printed.

58. Amendments after tabling

Clerical or typographical errors may be corrected, by authority of the President, in a document that has been ordered to be printed. No other amendments may be made except by authority of the House.

59. Printing of tabled papers and documents

(1) On the first sitting day of each month, a Minister is to table a list of all papers tabled in the previous month and not ordered to be printed.

(2) On tabling, a motion may be moved without notice, that certain papers on the list be printed.

60. Inspection of documents

(1) Documents may be inspected in the offices of the Clerk at any reasonable time.

(2) The Clerk may charge a reasonable fee for copies of extracts from documents or papers tabled in the House.

61. Record of members

(1) The Clerk is to keep a roll of members, showing:
(a) the name of each member elected to the Council,
(b) the date of election,
(c) term of service,
(d) date of taking oath or affirmation,
(e) expiry of term of service,
(f) date of ceasing to be a member, and
(g) length of service.

(2) A member must sign the roll when the member takes the oath or affirmation of allegiance required by law.

(3) A list of current members is to be published by the Clerk.

62. Attendance of members

A record is to be kept in the Minutes of Proceedings each day of members who do not attend at some time during the sitting.

63. Leave of absence

(1) The House may by motion on notice stating the cause and period of absence give leave of absence to a member.

(2) A member who has been granted leave of absence is excused from service in the House or on a committee for the period of the absence.

(3) A member will forfeit leave of absence by attending in the House or a committee before the expiration of the leave.

64. Questions to Ministers and other members

(1) Questions may be put to Ministers relating to public affairs with which the Minister is officially connected, to proceedings pending in the House, or to any matter of administration for which the Minister is responsible.

(2) Questions may be put to other members relating to any matter connected with the business on the Notice Paper of which the member has charge.

(3) Questions may be put to a chair of a committee relating to the activities of that committee, but the question must not attempt to interfere with the committee's work or anticipate its report.

(4) At the discretion of the President, one supplementary question may be immediately put by the member who asked a question to elucidate an answer.

(5) The asking of each question must not exceed one minute and the answering of each question must not exceed four minutes. A Minister may seek leave to extend the time for an answer by one minute.

(6) The asking of a supplementary question must not exceed one minute and the answering of each supplementary question must not exceed two minutes.

65. Rules for questions

(1) Questions must not contain:
(a) statements of fact or names of persons unless they are strictly necessary to render the question intelligible and can be authenticated,
(b) arguments,
(c) inferences,
(d) imputations,
(e) epithets,
(f) ironical expressions, or
(g) hypothetical matter.

(2) Questions must not ask:
(a) for an expression of opinion,
(b) for a statement or announcement of the government’s policy, or
(c) for a legal opinion.

(3) Questions must not refer to:
(a) debates in the current session, or
(b) proceedings in committee not yet reported to the House.



(4) Questions must not anticipate discussion upon an order of the day or other matter on the Notice Paper, except an item of private members’ business outside the order of precedence or an order of the day relating to the budget estimates.

(5) An answer must be relevant to a question.

(6) In answering a question a member must not debate the question.

(7) The President may direct that the language of a question be changed if it is unbecoming or not in conformity with these rules.

66. Answers to questions without notice

(1) When a Minister refers a question to a Minister in the other place, the Minister must provide the answer to the House within 35 calendar days after the question was first asked.

(2) If an answer to a question without notice is not provided within 35 calendar days, the President is to inform the House on the next sitting day of the details of any question not answered. The relevant Minister must immediately explain to the House the reason for non-compliance.

(3) Unless an answer to a question without notice not provided within 35 calendar days, but provided before the next sitting day, is accompanied by an explanation of the reasons for the late provision of the answer, the late provision of the answer will be reported to the House by the President, in accordance with paragraph (a).

(4) If, after explanation in the House, the Minister has not provided an answer within three sitting days, the President is to again inform the House and the Minister will again be called to explain. This procedure is to continue until an answer is provided.

(5) The reply to a question without notice may be delivered to the Clerk when the House is not sitting.

(6) When a reply to a question without notice is received by the Clerk, it is for all purposes deemed to be a document published by order or under the authority of the House.

(7) On any prorogation of the House, answers to questions without notice delivered to the Clerk since the last sitting of the House, are to be printed and circulated.

67. Written questions

(1) Notices of questions, signed by a member, must be handed to one of the Clerks-at-the-Table during the sitting of the House.

(2) The rules for questions apply to written questions.

(3) The Clerk is to publish in a Questions and Answers Paper, printed and circulated to members, notices of questions in the order in which they are received.

(4) The reply to a question on notice may be delivered to the Clerk, whether or not the House is sitting, and is to be published in the Questions and Answers Paper.

(5) When a reply to a question on notice is received by the Clerk, it is for all purposes deemed to be a document published by order or under the authority of the House.

(6) Ministers must lodge answers to questions on notice within 35 calendar days after the question is first published.

(7) If an answer to a question on notice is not received within 35 calendar days, the President is to inform the House on the next sitting day the details of any question not answered. The relevant Minister must immediately explain to the House the reason for the non-compliance.

(8) If, after explanation in the House, the Minister has not submitted an answer within three sitting days, the President is to again inform the House and the Minister will again be called to explain. This procedure is to continue until a written answer is submitted.

(9) A Questions and Answers Paper is to be printed and circulated on any prorogation of the House.

68. Presentation of petitions

(1) A petition may only be presented to the House by a member.

(2) At the time provided a member may present a petition, including a petition for a private bill, or relating to a private bill before the House, on public or individual grievances, if it relates to a matter over which the House has jurisdiction.

(3) When presenting a petition, a member may state:

(a) the petitioners,
(b) the number of signatures,
(c) the subject matter of the petition, and
(d) the request for action.

(4) When presenting a petition, a member may move:
(a) “That the petition be received”, and
(b) “That the petition be read by the Clerk”.

(5) No amendment or debate may be made on questions relating to petitions.

(6) A member may not present a petition from that member.

(7) The member presenting a petition must sign it at the top of the first page.

(8) A petition may not be presented to the House once the House proceeds to the orders of the day, except by leave of the House.

(9) The Clerk must refer a copy of every petition which is received by the House to the Minister responsible for the administration of the matter the subject of the petition.

69. Form of petitions

(1) A petition must be made in ink, and written, typewritten or printed without insertion or erasure.

(2) A petition must contain a request for action by the House or Parliament.

(3) A petition is to be in the English language where practicable, and if not, must be accompanied by a translation, in English, certified to be correct by the member who presents it.

(4) Signatures must be written on a page containing the petition, and must not be pasted or otherwise transferred to it. Additional signatures may be attached the petition.

(5) A petition must be signed by the petitioners with their names. A petition may be signed by a person for another person in the case of incapacity. A person not able to write may make a mark in the presence of a witness, who must sign as a witness.

(6) Petitions of corporations must be made under their common seal.

(7) No letters, affidavits or other documents may be attached to a petition, except for a private bill.

70. Content of petitions

(1) No reference may be made in a petition to any debate in Parliament of the same session, unless it is relevant to the petition.

(2) A petition must be respectful, decorous and temperate in its language, and must not contain language disrespectful to the Parliament.

(3) A member presenting a petition must be acquainted with its contents, and take care that it is in conformity with the rules and orders of the House.

(4) A petition must not request, either directly or indirectly, a grant of public money.

71. Giving of notices

(1) A member may give notice of a motion to initiate a subject for discussion by reading the notice of motion aloud, giving the Clerk at the table a signed written copy and stating the day proposed for moving the motion.

(2) Lengthy notices need not be read, provided a summary of the intent of the notice is indicated to the House.

(3) The Clerk will enter notices of motions on the Notice Paper in the order they are given.

(4) A member may give notice of a motion for any other member not present. The names of both members are placed on the notice.

(5) Only one general business notice of motion may be given by a member on each call from the Chair.

(6) A notice of motion must be given before the House proceeds to the business of the day as set out in the Notice Paper, except by leave of the House.

(7) A notice of motion may not be set down for a day later than four weeks from the day of giving notice.

(8) A notice which is contrary to these standing orders or practice will be amended before it appears on the Notice Paper.

72. Alterations and withdrawals of notices

(1) A member may by notice change the day proposed for moving a motion, but only to a later day.

(2) A notice may be withdrawn at any time before the notice is moved.

73. Notice required

A motion may only be moved if notice was given at a previous sitting of the House, or by leave of the House, or as provided by the standing orders.

74. Precedence of motions

(1) Motions shall be called on each day in the order shown on the Notice Paper.

(2) Any motions on the Notice Paper each day which have not been dealt with by the adjournment on that day will be set down on the Notice Paper for the next sitting day, at the end of any business already set down for that day.

(3) A motion for a special adjournment or which relates to the privileges or business of the House will take precedence of all other motions or orders of the day.

(4) A motion may be moved without notice by a Minister:

(a) for a special adjournment of the House, or
(b) expressing appreciation, thanks or condolences of the House.

75. Moving of motions

(1) Motions, other than the motion for the address in reply, do not require a seconder.

(2) A member at the request of another member who has given notice may move the motion of which notice has been given.

(3) If a motion on the Notice Paper is not moved when it is called on, it will be withdrawn from the Notice Paper.

(4) A motion which has been moved is in the possession of the House, and may only be withdrawn by the mover by leave of the House.

(5) A motion which has been superseded or withdrawn by leave of the House may be moved again during the same session.

(6) Once an amendment has been proposed to a motion, the original motion may not be withdrawn, unless the amendment has been withdrawn or negatived.

76. Leave of the House

(1) A motion which requires notice may be moved without notice by leave of the House.

(2) Leave is granted when no member present objects to the moving of the motion or other course of action for which leave is sought.

77. Raising matters of privilege

A matter of privilege, unless suddenly arising in proceedings before the House, may only be brought before the House in accordance with the following procedures:

(1) A member intending to raise a matter of privilege must inform the President of the details in writing.

(2) The President will consider the matter and determine, as soon as practicable, whether a motion should have precedence of other business.

(3) The President’s decision will be notified in writing to the member, and if the President thinks it appropriate, or determines that a motion relating to the matter should have precedence, to the House.

(4) While a matter is being considered by the President, a member must not take any action or refer to the matter in the House.

(5) Where the President determines that a motion relating to a matter should be given precedence of other business, the member may, at any time when there is no business before the House, give notice of a motion to refer the matter to the Privileges Committee, and that motion will take precedence of all other business on the day for which notice is given.

(6) If the President decides that the matter should not take precedence, a member is not prevented from referring to the matter in the House or taking action in accordance with the practices and procedures of the House.

(7) If notice of a motion is given under paragraph (5), and the House is not expected to meet within one week after the day on which the notice is given, the motion may be moved at a later hour of the sitting as determined by the President.

78. Motions for disallowance of statutory instruments

(1) A notice of motion to disallow:
(a) a statutory instrument under section 41 of the Interpretation Act 1987, or
(b) any other statutory instrument or document made under the authority of any Act and which is subject to disallowance by either or both Houses of the Parliament,

is to be placed on the Notice Paper as business of the House.


(2) When the order for disallowance of a statutory instrument is called on, the House will first decide on a question proposed without amendment or debate – That the motion proceed as business of the House.

(3) If the question is agreed to, the House will then decide, on motion, when the matter will proceed.

(4) The debate on any motion moved under this order as business of the House is to be conducted as follows:

(a) the member moving the motion and the Minister first speaking may speak for not more than 15 minutes,
(b) any other member and the mover in reply may speak for not more than 10 minutes,
(c) if the motion is not sooner disposed of, after a total time of one and a half hours debate, the President is to interrupt proceedings to allow the mover of the motion to speak in reply, and
(d) the President will then put all the questions necessary to dispose of the motion and any amendments.

(5) When the House determines that a motion for disallowance will not proceed as business of the House, it will be set down as private members’ business outside the order of precedence.

79. Resolutions of continuing effect

The House may adopt resolutions which have continuing effect until such time as they are amended or rescinded.

80. Definition

An order of the day is a bill or other matter which the House has ordered to be taken into consideration on a particular day.

81. Disposal of orders

(1) Unless otherwise ordered, orders of the day will be called on and disposed of in the order in which they are shown on the Notice Paper.

(2) Any orders of the day on the Notice Paper each day which have not been dealt with at the adjournment of the House will be set down on the Notice Paper for the next sitting day at the end of any business already set down for that day.

(3) An order of the day may be moved or postponed by any other member in the absence of the member in charge of it or at the request of that member.

(4) An order of the day may be discharged by motion without notice.

82. Pre-audience

A member who is in charge of a bill has pre-audience when the order of the day is read.

83. Order maintained by President

(1) The President will maintain order in the House.

(2) Whenever the President rises during a debate all members including the member speaking must sit down, and the House must be silent so that the President can be heard without interruption.

(3) When the President is proposing a question a member may not enter or leave the chamber.

84. Conduct of members

(1) A member should acknowledge the Chair on entering or leaving the chamber.

(2) A member may not pass between the Chair and a member who is speaking, or between the Chair and the Table.

(3) A member not addressing the House may not converse aloud or make any noise or disturbance during debate.

(4) Any member persisting in such conduct after being called to order by the President may be dealt with for disorderly conduct.

85. Members to address President standing

(1) A member who wishes to speak must rise in their place and address the President.

(2) A member unable to stand because of sickness or infirmity may speak when seated.

86. President or Deputy President taking part in debate

The President or Deputy President may take part in any debate, but they must speak from the floor of the House and address the House generally.

87. Right to speak

(1) Except where expressly provided, a member may only speak once:
(a) on any question before the House, or
(b) on an amendment.

(2) In committee of the whole House members may speak more than once on a question.

88.

Personal explanations

When there is no question before the House a member may, by leave of the House, make a personal explanation. The subject of a personal explanation may not be debated.

89. Explanations of speeches

A member who has spoken on a question may only speak a second time to explain a matter on which the member has been misquoted or misunderstood. The member may not introduce any new matter.

90. Reply

(1) A reply is allowed to a member who has moved a substantive motion or moved the first, second or third reading of a bill. A reply is not allowed to a member who has moved an amendment.

(2) The reply of the mover of the original question closes any debate.

91. Rules of debate

(1) A member may not reflect on any resolution or vote of the House, unless moving for its rescission.

(2) A member may not refer to the Queen or the Governor disrespectfully in debate, or for the purposes of influencing the House in its deliberations.

(3) A member may not use offensive words against either House of the Legislature, or any member of either House, and all imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on either House, members or officers will be considered disorderly.

(4) A member may read reasonable lengths of extracts from books, newspapers, publications or documents.

(5) When an objection is taken to the reading of a list of names of individuals or organisations who have made representations in relation to the matter the subject of the debate, without distinguishing the comments or views of those individuals or organisations, the member must confine their remarks to:

(a) a statement of the comments or views of those individuals or organizations, and
(b) the number of individuals or organizations making similar representations.

92.

Relevance and anticipation

(1) A member may not digress from the subject matter of any question under discussion; or anticipate the discussion of any matter shown on the Notice Paper, except an item of private members’ business outside the order of precedence, unless, in the opinion of the President there is no likelihood of the motion or order of the day being called on within a reasonable time.

(2) This standing order does not prevent debate of any matter on the address-in-reply.

93. Question may be read

A member may request that the Clerk read the question at any time during a debate, but may not interrupt a member speaking.

94. Continued irrelevance or tedious repetition

(1) The President or the Chair of Committees may call the attention of the House or the committee to continued irrelevance or tedious repetition of a matter already presented in debate, and may direct a member to cease speaking.

(2) A member directed to cease speaking may request that the question be put “That the member be further heard”. The question must be put without amendment or debate.

95. Interruption of speaker: points of order or privilege

(1) A member may not interrupt another member speaking, except to call attention:
(a) to a point of order or privilege, or
(b) to the lack of a quorum.

(2) A member may draw attention at any time to a point of order or a matter of privilege arising during the proceedings then before the House.

(3) The President may intervene at any time when, in the President’s opinion, the speaker is in contravention of the rules and orders of the House.

(4) On a question of order or a matter of privilege being raised, the business under consideration is suspended until the question of order or matter of privilege is determined.

(5) On a question of order being raised, any member speaking or called to order must sit down.

(6) The President or Chair of Committees may hear argument on the question, and may determine it immediately, or at a later time, at the President’s or Chair’s discretion.

(7) The President or Chair of Committees may also intervene at any time to determine a point of order.

96. Dissent from President’s ruling

(1) Any member may dissent from a ruling of the President by motion moved immediately “That the House dissent from the ruling of the President”.

(2) Debate on the motion may be adjourned on motion, without amendment, until a later hour of the sitting or to the next sitting day.

97. Motion that member be heard

Any member may move without notice, that any member who rises to address the House “Be now heard”. The Chair must put the question immediately, without amendment or debate.

98. Motion that member be no longer heard

(1) Any member, except a member who has already spoken in the debate, may move without notice that a member who is speaking “Be no longer heard”.

(2) The motion “That the member be no longer heard” may not be debated or amended.

(3) Before putting the question, the Chair will advise the House to consider whether:

(a) the member speaking has had ample opportunity to debate the question,
(b) the member speaking is abusing the standing orders or conventions of the House, or is obstructing business, or
(c) the motion, if carried, would take away the rights of the minority.

99. Closure of debate

(1) At any time during debate on a question in the House or in committee of the whole, and whether or not a member is addressing the Chair, a member may move “That the question be now put”.

(2) A member, except a Minister, who has spoken in the debate or who has previously moved that motion, may not move a motion that the question be now put.

(3) The motion “That the question be now put” may not be debated or amended.

(4) Before putting the question, the Chair will advise the House to consider whether the motion, if agreed:

(a) is an abuse of the rules or conventions of the House,
(b) would deny the rights of the minority, or
(c) is an abuse of the standing orders.



(5) If the motion “That the question be now put” is carried, the House or committee will vote on the question immediately before it without further debate or amendment, except for the mover in reply, where any reply is allowed, who may speak for 30 minutes before the motion is put.

100. Putting of question ends debate

A member may not speak to any question after it has been put by the President and the vote commenced.

101. Adjournment of debate

(1) A debate may be adjourned on motion to a later hour of the same day or to a future day.

(2) A motion to adjourn a debate may be debated or amended.

(3) When a debate is adjourned, any member may move, without notice, that the order of the day for resumption of the debate take precedence of all other business on the Notice Paper for that day, except government business on a government day.

(4) A member on whose motion a debate is adjourned is entitled to speak first on the resumption of the debate.

(5) If a motion for the adjournment of the debate on a question is negatived, the member moving the motion may address the House at any time during the debate.

102. Putting of question

(1) When a motion has been moved, the President will propose a question on it to the House.

(2) When the debate on a question is concluded, the President will put the question to the House.

(3) The House may, by motion without debate, order a complicated question to be divided.

(4) When a motion consists of more than one question, the questions should be put sequentially if any member so requests.

(5) A question being put will be resolved in the affirmative or negative, by the majority of voices, “aye” or “no”.

(6) The President will state whether the “ayes” or “noes” have it, and if that opinion is challenged the question will be decided by division.

(7) All questions will be decided by a majority of the members present other than the President or other member presiding. When the votes are equal the President or other member presiding will have a casting vote.

103. Same question

(1) A question may not be proposed if it is the same in substance as any question which has been determined during the same session, unless the order, resolution or vote on such question was determined more than 6 months previously or has been rescinded.

(2) This standing order does not prevent a motion for disallowance of an instrument substantially the same in effect as one previously disallowed.

104. Rescission of order

A resolution, order or vote of the House may not be rescinded, during the same session, unless seven days notice is given.

105. Events superseding a question

Debate on a question may be superseded by a member moving “That the debate be now adjourned”.

106.

Lapsed question

(1) If the House is adjourned or committee of the whole is interrupted by the absence of a quorum, the question then under consideration lapses.

(2) Debate on a lapsed question may be resumed, by motion on notice, at the place where it was interrupted.

107. Form of the previous question

(1) The previous question is put in the form – “That the question be not now put”.

(2) The previous question may not be moved to an amendment, nor in committee of the whole House.

(3) The motion “That the question be not now put” may not be amended.

(4) In debating the previous question, the original question and any amendment may be debated.

108. Determination of previous question

(1) If the previous question is carried, the original question and any amendment to it are disposed of, and the House proceeds to the next business.

(2) If the previous question is negatived, the original question and any amendment before the House must be put immediately without amendment or debate.

(3) When a motion consists of a series of motions which are under discussion as one motion, and the questions are to be put separately, the decision of the previous question on the first motion is conclusive for all of the motions.

109. Moving of amendments

(1) A member may amend a question:
(a) by omitting certain words,
(b) by omitting certain words in order to insert or add other words, or
(c) by inserting or adding words.

(2) An amendment may be moved to a proposed amendment as if the proposed amendment were the original question.

(3) An amendment may not be moved to an earlier part of a question if a later part has been amended or has been proposed to be amended, unless the proposed amendment has been withdrawn by leave of the House.

(4) An amendment must be relevant to the question it is proposed to amend and must not be a direct negative of the question.

(5) A proposed amendment may be withdrawn by the mover, or in the absence of the mover with the mover’s authority, by leave of the House.

(6) The mover of a motion or a member who has already spoken in the debate may not move an amendment.

(7) An amendment to a question must be in writing and signed by the mover, if required by the Chair.

(8) Amendments do not require a seconder.

110. No amendment to words agreed to

A member may not move an amendment to words which the House or Committee has agreed should remain or be inserted or added, except to add other words.

111. Procedure for putting of amendments

(1) The Chair will put the question on every amendment “That the amendment be agreed to”.

(2) When an amendment has been agreed to, the main question must be put as amended.

(3) When an amendment has been proposed but not agreed to, the original question will be proposed.

112. Calling for divisions

(1) A question put by the Chair in the House or committee must be resolved by a majority of voices for the “ayes” or “noes”.

(2) When the Chair states that the “ayes” or the “noes” have it, members may challenge that opinion.

(3) A division may not be called for unless voices have been given both for the “ayes” and “noes”.

(4) A division may only be called for by two or more members who have given their voices against the majority as declared by the Chair.

(5) If only one member calls for a division, the member may ask for their vote to be recorded in the Minutes of Proceedings.

(6) At any time before the tellers are appointed a call for a division may be withdrawn by leave of the House. The division will not be proceeded with, and the decision of the Chair will stand.

113. Voting in division

(1) A member must vote in a division in accordance with that member’s vote by voice.

(2) A member may not vote in any division on a question in which the member has a direct pecuniary interest, unless it is in common with the general public or it is on a matter of state policy. If a member does vote, the vote of that member is to be disallowed.

(3) A member is not entitled to vote in a division unless the member is present in the chamber when the question is put with the doors locked.

114. Procedure for division

(1) Before a division is taken, strangers may be ordered on motion without notice, to withdraw from the House.

(2) When a division is called for, the Clerk, by direction of the Chair, must ring the bells for five minutes as indicated by a minute glass timer.

(3) When the bells stop ringing, the Chair will direct the doors to be locked. A member must not then enter or leave the chamber until after the division is concluded.

(4) When successive divisions are taken and there is limited or no intervening debate, the Chair may direct that the bells be rung for one minute, if no member objects.

(5) When the doors have been locked and members are in their places, the Chair must:

(a) state the question to the House,
(b) direct the “ayes” to go to the right of the Chair and the “noes” to the left, and
(c) appoint two tellers for each side.

(6) Every member present when a question is being decided by division must remain and vote.

(7) After members have taken their seats on the side of the chamber on which they intend to vote they may not move from those seats once tellers have been appointed and until the result of the division has been declared.

115. Counting of division

(1) The names and total number of members voting on each side is recorded by the tellers on each side, who must sign their respective lists, and present them to the Chair, who will announce the result to the House.

(2) If the tellers’ cannot agree on the numbers, the Chair may appoint new tellers.

(3) If there is only one member on a side in a division, the Chair, without completing the division, must immediately declare the decision of the House.

(4) The Clerk will record divisions in the House in the Minutes of Proceedings.

(5) Members paired during any division will be recorded by the tellers and printed in the Minutes of Proceedings and Hansard.

116. Casting vote

If the numbers voting for each side are equal, the Chair must give a casting vote. The Chair may give reasons for the casting vote and those reasons may be entered in the Minutes of Proceedings.

117. Points of order in division

A member taking or speaking to a point of order during a division must remain seated and be covered.

118. Correction of divisions

If the numbers or names of members voting in a division are incorrectly reported, the House on being informed of the error may order the record to be corrected.

119.

Divisions in committee

Divisions in committee of the whole House are to be taken in the same manner as in the House.

120. Making of address

An address to the Governor or the Queen, except an address-in-reply, must be proposed by motion on notice given in the usual manner.

121. Presentation of address

(1) The whole House, the President or members named for the purpose, may present an address to the Governor.

(2) An address to the Queen, (or any member of the Royal Family,) must be transmitted to the Governor by the President requesting that it be forwarded for presentation.

(3) When an address is ordered to be presented by the House, the President, accompanied by members, is to proceed to Government House. On being admitted to the Governor’s presence, the President will read the address to the Governor.

(4) The President must report the Governor’s answer to an address as soon as practicable after receipt.

122. Presentation of message

(1) The President must report a message from the Governor to the House as soon as practicable after receipt.

(2) The message may be taken into consideration at once, or a future day fixed for its consideration.

(3) If a message is received from the Governor when the House is in committee, the President may resume the Chair without any question being put. After the message has been dealt with, the President may leave the Chair and the committee resume its proceedings.

123. Methods of communication

All communications with the Legislative Assembly must be by message, conference or by committees conferring with each other.

124. Messages from the Council

A message from the Council to the Assembly must be in writing, signed by the President or Deputy President and delivered by one of the Clerks-at-the-Table.

125. Communicating a resolution

A motion may be moved, without notice, at any time when there is no business under discussion, that any resolution of the House be communicated by message to the Assembly.

126. Messages from the Assembly

(1) A message from the Assembly will be received, if the House is sitting, by one of the Clerks-at-the-Table, or if the House is not sitting, by the Clerk. The Clerk is to inform the President of every message received.

(2) The President is to report to the House every message received as soon as practicable, without interrupting any business before the House.

(3) If any proceeding is necessary on receipt of a message, a future day must be fixed for its consideration.

127. Messages to be recorded

Every message must be recorded in the Minutes, together with any answer given.

128. Requests for conference

(1) A conference requested by the Council with the Assembly must be by message.

(2) In requesting a conference, the message from the Council must state the general object of the conference and the names of managers proposed to serve.

(3) The number of members must be not fewer than five at an Ordinary Conference and 10 at a Free Conference.

(4) A conference may not be requested by the Council on the subject of a bill or motion of which the Assembly is in possession at the time of the request.

129. Appointment of managers

(1) A motion requesting a conference must contain the names of the members proposed to be the managers for the Council.

(2) If the House requires, the managers for the Council will be selected by ballot.

(3) The number of managers to represent the Council in a conference requested by the Assembly will be the same as the Assembly.

130. Sitting suspended

During any conference the sitting of the Council must be suspended.

131. Time and place of conference

(1) The Council will appoint the time and place for holding a conference requested by the Assembly.

(2) When the Council requests a conference, it will agree to it being held at the time and place appointed by the Assembly. The agreement of the Council must be communicated by message.

(3) At a conference requested by the Assembly, the managers for the Council will assemble at the time and place appointed, and receive the managers of the Assembly.

132. Proceedings at ordinary conference

(1) At ordinary conferences the reasons or resolutions of the Council will be communicated by the managers in writing. The managers will only receive communications from the managers for the Assembly in writing.

(2) At ordinary conferences the managers for the Council will deliver the reasons or resolutions of the Council to the managers for the Assembly, or receive from the managers of the Assembly the reasons or resolutions communicated by the Assembly.

133. Free conference under the Constitution Act

(1) When the Assembly, under section 5B of the Constitution Act 1902 requests a free conference, the Council must agree to the conference being held without delay. The Council must appoint the time and place for holding the free conference.

(2) At free conferences the managers for the Council may confer both orally and in writing with the managers for the Assembly.

134. Report of conference

When a conference has concluded, the managers for the Council will report the proceedings to the Council in writing as soon as practicable.

135. Conduct of ballot

(1) When the House decides that a ballot will be conducted, the bells will be rung and the doors locked as in a division.

(2) Ballot papers will be distributed by the Clerks to all members in their places. Members must write on the ballot paper the name or names of the candidate or candidates for whom they wish to vote, and deposit it in the ballot box provided by the Clerk. If any voting paper contains a larger or lesser number of names than are to be elected, the voting paper will be rejected as informal.

(3) When all voting papers are collected, the Clerk will ascertain and report to the President the names of the members having the greatest number of votes, who will be declared elected.

(4) If two or more members have an equality of votes, the result of the ballot will be decided by casting vote of the President or other member presiding.

136. Initiation

(1) A bill, other than a bill received from the Assembly, must be initiated by a motion for leave to bring in a bill.

(2) A member having leave to bring in a bill must present a copy to the House.

(3) The title must agree with the order of leave, and no clause may be inserted in a bill which is irrelevant to its title.

(4) A bill not in accordance with the order of leave, or with the rules and orders of the House, will be ordered to be withdrawn.

(5) The precise duration of every temporary bill must be expressed in a distinct clause at the end of the bill.

(6) A second bill may only be introduced under the original order of leave when the order for the second reading or any subsequent stage of the original bill has been discharged.

(7) When the original bill is withdrawn, the order for the introduction of the second bill may be read.

137. First Reading

(1) The question on the first reading and printing will be taken together as one motion, be put by the President immediately after the bill has been received, and be determined without amendment or debate.

(2) On every order for the reading of a bill the short title only will be read.

(3) After the first reading, on any bill other than a bill received from the Legislative Assembly, the second reading may be moved immediately or made an order of the day for a later hour or for a future day. Immediately following the second reading speech by the mover, debate is to be adjourned until a future day which must be at least five calendar days ahead.

138. Urgent bills

(1) A Minister may declare a bill to be an urgent bill, provided that copies have been circulated to members.

(2) The question – That the bill be considered an urgent bill – will be put immediately, without amendment.

(3) When a bill has been declared urgent, the second reading debate and subsequent stages may proceed immediately or at any time during any sitting.

139. Cognate bills

(1) Cognate bills may be introduced on one motion for leave and proceed through all subsequent stages, except committee of the whole, in a similar manner as a single bill.

(2) At the request of any member, the motion will be put as separate motions.

(3) In committee of the whole cognate bills will be considered separately, unless the committee agrees unanimously.

140. Second reading

(1) On the order of the day being read for the second reading of a bill, the question will be proposed:
(a) “That this bill be now read a second time”, or
(b) “That the order be postponed or discharged”.

(2) An amendment may be moved to the question for second reading:
(a) by leaving out “now” and inserting “this day 6 months”, which if carried will finally dispose of the bill,
(b) by referring the bill to a standing or select committee, or
(c) by moving the previous question.

(3) A bill which has been ordered to be read "this day 6 months" may not be considered again in the same session.

(4) When a standing or select committee has reported on a bill, a future day may be fixed for the second reading.

141. Committal

(1) After the second reading, unless the bill is referred to a standing or select committee:
(a) the President may inquire of the House if leave is granted to proceed to the third reading of the bill forthwith, or
(b) the House will immediately resolve itself into a committee of the whole for consideration of the bill, or
(c) a future day may be appointed on motion for consideration of the bill in Committee of the Whole.

(2) After a bill has been read a second time a motion may be moved:
(a) without notice for referring the bill to a committee,
(b) on notice for an instruction to the committee of the whole.

142.

Consideration in committee

(1) In committee of the whole, the preamble will stand postponed without question put, and the clauses will be read in their order separately by the Chair.

(2) On each clause the question will be put – That the clause, as read, stand a clause of the bill.

(3) In reading the clauses of a bill it will be sufficient to read the numbers only.

(4) The discussion must be confined to the clause or amendment before the committee.

(5) A clause may be postponed, whether or not it has been amended.

(6) In considering a bill, the committee may, by leave, consider clauses, parts, divisions or schedules together, and in the case of cognate bills, may consider a bill in whole or in part.
143. Order of consideration

(1) The order below will be followed in considering a bill:
(a) Clauses as printed, and proposed new clauses,
(b) Postponed clauses (not having been specially postponed until after consideration of other clauses),
(c) Schedules as printed,
(d) Proposed new schedules,
(e) Preamble,
(f) Title.

(2) In re-considering a bill, the same order will be observed as far as possible.

144. Amendments in committee

(1) An amendment may be made to any part of the bill, provided it is relevant to the subject matter of the bill and otherwise in conformity with the rules and orders of the House.

(2) No new clause or amendment may be proposed which is substantially the same as one already negatived by the committee, or which is inconsistent with one that has been agreed to by the committee, unless a recommittal of the bill has intervened.

(3) No amendment or new clause may be inserted which reverses the principle of the bill as read a second time.

(4) If a clause is amended, a further question will be put “That the clause as amended, be agreed to.

(5) If an amendment has been made in the bill, not coming within the original title, the title will be amended, and that amendment will be specially reported to the House.

(6) No clause, schedule or amendment in substance may be proposed in any bill, except in committee of the whole.

(7) A clause may be negatived, even if amended, and a new clause proposed in its place.

145. Uncompleted proceedings in committee

No notice may be taken of any proceedings of a committee of the whole, or of a standing or select committee, on a bill, until those proceedings have been reported.

146. Report from committee

(1) When the consideration of a bill in committee of the whole has been concluded the question will be put “That the Chair report the bill (or the bill as amended) to the House”, and if that question is agreed to the Chair will leave the chair and report the bill, if necessary with an amended title.

(2) On the motion that the Chair report the bill, the reconsideration of any clauses may be moved as an amendment.

(3) When a bill is reported, the adoption of the report may be moved immediately, or a future day fixed for that purpose.

147. Recommittal of report

On the motion for adoption of the report the bill may, on motion, be recommitted, in whole or in part.

148. Third reading

(1) When the report of the committee of the whole is adopted, a future day may be fixed, without notice or debate, for the third reading.

(2) When the order of the day for the third reading of a bill is called on, the question will be proposed “That this bill be now read a third time”.

(3) An amendment may be moved to that question:

(a) by leaving out “now”, and adding “this day 6 months”, which, if carried, will finally dispose of the bill during the present session, or
(b) the previous question may be moved.

(4) Before the bill may be read a third time, the Chair of Committees must certify in writing that the bill is in accordance with the bill as reported, which the President will announce to the House.

149. Recommittal on third reading

When the order of the day for the third reading is called on and before the motion for the third reading is carried, the bill may, on motion, be recommitted in whole or in part.

150. Correction

Amendments of a formal nature may be made, and the Chair of Committees or Clerk may correct clerical or typographical errors, in any part of a bill.

151. Transmission to Assembly

(1) When a bill originated in the Council has been passed, the Clerk will certify at the top of the first page: “This (public) bill originated in the Legislative Council and, having this day passed, is now ready for presentation to the Legislative Assembly for its concurrence”.

(2) After the third reading a bill will be deemed to have passed and the Clerk will so certify, and the bill will be sent, with a message, to the Assembly for concurrence.

152. Legislative Assembly amendments to bills originated in the Council

(1) When a bill has been returned from the Assembly with amendments, the message and the amendments will be printed and a time fixed for taking them into consideration in committee of the whole either forthwith, at a later time, or this day 6 months.

(2) Amendments made by the Assembly may be agreed to with or without amendment, or disagreed to, or the consideration of them postponed, or the bill ordered to be laid aside.

(3) An amendment may not be proposed to an amendment of the Assembly that is not relevant to it, and an amendment may not be moved to the bill unless it is relevant to, or consequent upon, the acceptance, amendment or rejection of an Assembly amendment.

(4) When amendments made by the Assembly have been agreed to by the Council without amendment, a message will be sent informing the Assembly accordingly.

(5) If Assembly amendments have been agreed to with amendments, the bill will be returned with a schedule of those amendments, and a message requesting the concurrence of the Assembly.

(6) If Assembly amendments have been disagreed to, the bill may be laid aside, or it may be again sent to the Assembly, with a message requesting its reconsideration.

(7) When a bill is returned to the Assembly with amendments made by the Assembly disagreed to, the message accompanying the bill must also contain reasons for the Council not agreeing to the amendments proposed by the Assembly.

(8) The reasons will be drawn up by a committee appointed (on motion without notice) for that purpose when the House adopts the report of the committee of the whole disagreeing to the amendments, or may be adopted by motion at that time.

(9) When amendments have been made by the Council on the amendments of the Assembly, a schedule of those amendments will be prepared, certified by the Clerk, and accompany the bill.

153. Bill again returned from the Assembly

(1) If the Legislative Assembly returns a bill with a message informing the House that it:
(a) insists on its original amendments to which the Council has disagreed,
(b) disagrees to amendments made by the Council to the original amendments of the Assembly, or
(c) agrees to amendments made by the Council on the original amendments of the Assembly, with further amendments,

the House in committee of the whole may:
(d) agree, with or without amendment, to the amendments to which it had previously disagreed, and make, if necessary, consequent amendments to the bill,
(e) insist on its disagreement to such amendments,
(f) withdraw its amendments and agree to the original amendments of the Assembly,
(g) make further amendments to the bill consequent upon the rejection of its amendments,
(h) propose new amendments as alternative to the amendments to which the Assembly has disagreed,
(i) insist on its amendments to which the Assembly has agreed,
(j) agree, with or without amendment, to such further amendments of the Assembly making consequent amendments to the bill, if necessary, or
(k) disagree to the further amendments and insist on its own amendments which the Assembly has amended,

and if agreement is not reached or if the bill is again returned by the Assembly with any requirements of the Council still disagreed to, the House may order the bill to be laid aside, or request a conference.

(2) When the Assembly's amendments have been agreed to, or a conference is requested, or when the bill is finally passed in the Council, a message will be sent informing the Assembly accordingly.

(3) The Clerk will, at every stage, certify on the first page of the bill the action taken by the Council.

154. Bills received from the Legislative Assembly

(1) Bills coming to the Council for the first time from the Assembly will be proceeded with in the same manner as bills originated in the Council, except for initiation.

(2) Whenever the President has several messages from the Legislative Assembly to report transmitting bills for concurrence, the President may inquire if leave is granted for procedural motions for the first reading, printing, suspension of standing orders where applicable, and fixing the day for the second reading, to be dealt with on one motion without formalities.

155. Return of Legislative Assembly bill

(1) When a bill has been passed by the Council with or without amendment, it will be returned to the Assembly by message, with the Clerk’s certificate that the bill has been agreed to by the Council without amendment, or with the amendments indicated by the accompanying schedule, as the case may require, requesting the concurrence of the Assembly to the amendments.

(2) When any amendments have been made by the Council to a bill which has been first passed by the Assembly, a schedule of the amendments will be prepared containing reference to the page and line of the bill where the words are to be inserted or omitted, and describing the amendments proposed, and this schedule will be certified by the Clerk and will accompany the bill.

156. Disagreement with Council amendments

(1) If the Assembly returns a bill with amendments made by the Council disagreed to, or further amendments made, the message returning the bill will be printed and a time fixed for taking it into consideration in committee of the whole, or the House may order that the amendments be considered immediately or “this day 6 months”.

(2) Where the Assembly:

(a) disagrees to amendments made by the Council, or
(b) agrees to amendments made by the Council with amendments,

the Council may:
(c) insist or not insist on those amendments,
(d) make further amendments to the bill consequent upon the rejection of its amendments,
(e) propose new amendments as alternative to the amendments to which the Assembly has disagreed,
(f) agree to the Assembly amendments to its own amendments, with or without amendment, making consequent amendments to the bill if necessary,
(g) disagree to its amendments and insist on its own amendments which the Assembly has amended, or
(h) order the bill to be laid aside,

and unless the bill is laid aside, a message will be sent to the Assembly advising of the Council's action.

157. Assembly amendments to Council amendments

(1) When a bill is returned to the Assembly with amendments made by the Assembly to the Council’s amendments disagreed to, the message returning the bill will also contain reasons for the Council not agreeing to the amendments proposed by the Assembly.

(2) The reasons will be drawn up by a committee appointed for that purpose when the Council adopts the report of the committee of the whole disagreeing to the amendments, or may be adopted by motion at that time.

(3) When further amendments are made by the Council to the Assembly amendments on the Council’s original amendments to a bill which has been first passed by the Assembly, a schedule of the further amendments will be prepared, will be certified by the Clerk and will accompany the bill.

(4) The Clerk will, at every stage, certify on the first page of the bill the action taken by the Council.

158. Amendments after disagreement

Where the Assembly has disagreed with amendments made by the Council in a bill first passed by the Assembly, further amendments may only be made which directly arise from that disagreement.

159. Lapsed bills

(1) A bill which lapses by reason of a prorogation before it has reached its final stage may be proceeded with in the next session at the stage it has reached in the preceding session, if a periodic election for the Council has not taken place between the two sessions, under the following conditions:
(a) If the bill is in the possession of the House in which it originated, not having been sent to the other House, or, if sent, then returned by message, it may be proceeded with by resolution of the House in which it is, restoring it to the Notice Paper.
(b) If the bill is in possession of the House in which it did not originate it may be proceeded with by resolution of the House in which it is, restoring it to the Notice Paper, but such resolution may not be passed unless a message has been received from the House in which it originated, requesting that its consideration be resumed.

(2) A bill so restored to the Notice Paper may be proceeded with in both Houses as if its passage had not been interrupted by a prorogation, and, if finally passed, may be presented to the Governor for assent.

(3) If a motion for restoration of a bill to the Notice Paper is not agreed to, the bill may be introduced and proceeded with in the ordinary manner.

160. Presentation for assent

(1) A bill originated in the Council and finally passed by both Houses will be printed and presented by the President to the Governor for Her Majesty’s assent, having been certified by the Clerk accordingly.

(2) On the second sitting day of each month, a Minister is to table a list of all legislation that has not been proclaimed ninety days after assent.

161. Protest against the passing of a bill

Any member objecting to the passing of a bill may have a protest entered in the Minutes, copies of which will be forwarded to the Governor by the President.

162. Procedures after presentation of bills

(1) All public Acts assented to and public bills reserved for the signification of Her Majesty’s pleasure, will be numbered by the Clerk immediately before the title, in the order of assent or reservation, with the date of assent or reservation added after the title, and commencing with a new series of numbers from the January of each year.

(2) After numbering, the Act will be enrolled and recorded in the manner required by law.

163. Explanation, under the Constitution Act, of a departmental bill

(1) Any Minister of the Crown who is a member of the Legislative Assembly may, at any time, on motion agreed to by the Legislative Council, according to section 38(A) of the Constitution Act 1902, sit in the Legislative Council for the purpose of explaining the provisions of any bill relating to or connected with any department administered by that Minister.

(2) Such motions may be moved without notice at any time after the bill has been read a first time.

(3) The question will be decided without debate or amendment, except for a statement, not exceeding 10 minutes, by the mover in support of the motion.

(4) Under this standing order a Minister who is a member of the Legislative Assembly may take part in any debate or discussion in the Legislative Council, but may not vote.

(5) Unless otherwise decided, the consent will extend only to the second reading of a bill and the proceedings in committee following the second reading.

(6) Only one Minister of the Crown who is a member of the Legislative Assembly may sit in the Legislative Council at any one time under this standing order.

164. Notice of intention

(1) Notice of the intention to apply for a private bill must, within three months prior to the presentation of the petition (for the private bill), be published once a week, for four consecutive weeks:
(a) in the Government Gazette,
(b) in at least one daily newspaper published in Sydney, and
(c) in one newspaper published in or nearest to the district affected by the bill.

(2) The published notice must contain a true statement of the general objectives of the bill, and state what private interests, so far as they can be conveniently set forth, will probably be affected by the bill.

(3) The production of the numbers of the Government Gazette and newspapers containing the notice will be required at the time of presenting the petition, and will be sufficient proof of such notice.

165. Initiation

(1) A private bill may only be initiated in the Council by petition first presented and received, together with a printed copy of the proposed bill. The petition must be signed by one or more of the parties applying for the bill.

(2) Every petition for a private bill will:

(a) commence by stating that the public notice required has been duly given,
(b) contain a copy of the public notice, and
(c) conclude with a request for leave to bring in the bill.

(3) When the petition has been received, notice of motion for leave to bring in the bill may be given, as in the case of public bills.

(4) When leave to bring in a private bill has been given, and before it is read a first time, it will be printed, at the expense of the parties applying for it, in the same form as public bills, and a sufficient number of copies of it will be delivered to the Clerk, for the use of the House.

166. Payment for private bills

(1) Before a private bill may be read a first time, the sum of $50 towards meeting incurred expenses, must be paid to the credit of the Legislature, and a certificate of such payment must be produced by the member moving the first reading of the bill.

(2) Whenever the expenses incurred exceed the amount paid, as determined by the Clerk, a further sum of $50 must be paid to the credit of the Legislature by the parties applying for the bill, and further certificates produced before the bill is further proceeded with.

(3) Whether the bill is passed, rejected or withdrawn, the promoters must pay any additional sum which may be required to fully pay any expenses incurred. In the event of a balance remaining in favour of the promoters the Clerk will issue a certificate of the actual expenses incurred and arrange for the refund of any unexpended amounts.

167. Form of the bill

Every private bill must contain a preamble, reciting the circumstances on which the bill is founded, and the matters in reference to, or by reason of which the legislation is required.

168. Reference to select committee

(1) When a private bill has been read a first time, it will be referred to a select committee, to be appointed upon notice of motion, and such committee will require proof of the allegation contained in the preamble.

(2) Every petition for or against a private bill will, if received, be referred without motion to the select committee on the bill, and any petition against a bill must distinctly specify the grounds of opposition.

(3) The select committee may hear counsel if it is desired, take evidence as required, and decide on matters in issue between the persons conducting and opposing the bill.

(4) The select committee will determine whether the preamble, with or without amendment, will stand part of the bill. If decided in the affirmative, the several clauses of the bill, together with any amendments, will be considered. If determined in the negative it will be fatal to the bill.

169. Report of the Select Committee

When a select committee reports in favour of a private bill, a future day will be appointed for the second reading, and the bill will be proceeded with in the same manner as public bills.

170. Private bills originating in the Assembly

Private bills originating in the Assembly, if accompanied by printed copies of the reports and proceedings of the select committee to which they were referred, will be proceeded with in all respects as public bills, unless the House determines otherwise.

171. Lapsed private bills

(1) A private bill, originated in the Council and having been reported by a select committee, which lapses in either house by reason of a prorogation before it has reached its final stage may, upon receipt of a petition by the promoters for leave to proceed, be introduced again, including any amendments already agreed to in the Council, and read a first time without notice or debate.

(2) Such private bill may also, on motion agreed to, be passed through all subsequent stages through which it had passed in a previous session without further notice or debate.

(3) If a motion for such proceedings is negatived then the bill may be proceeded with in the ordinary way.

(4) If a private bill having been read a first time and referred to a select committee, lapses by reason of a prorogation before the committee has reported, it may, upon receipt of a petition from the promoters, and by order of the House, be read a first time and referred to a select committee together with the minutes or evidence taken before, together with all papers, petitions and instructions previously referred or given. When the committee reports on the bill, it may be proceeded with in the ordinary way.

(5) In the case of every private bill the standing orders will be held to be satisfied in all respects, where they have been complied with in a previous session.

172. Appointment of committee

(1) A committee of the whole House will be appointed by a resolution that the House resolve itself into a committee of the whole immediately or at a future time.

(2) When an order of the day is read for the House to resolve itself into a committee of the whole the President will leave the Chair without putting any question, and the House then resolve itself into committee, unless a notice for an instruction to the committee is proposed.

173. Proceedings in committee

(1) A committee may consider only the matters referred to it by the House.

(2) A question in committee will be decided in the same manner as in the House.

(3) A motion contradictory to the previous decision of a committee may not be entertained in the same committee.

(4) A motion for the previous question may not be made in committee.

(5) In committee members may speak more than once on the same question, and, when a question has been proposed from the Chair, must confine themselves to that question.

(6) Motions “That the question be now put” and “That the Chair report progress and ask leave to sit again” must be moved without debate and immediately put and determined, but neither of those motions may be repeated within 15 minutes after either of them has been moved, unless debate on the matter has concluded.

(7) Except as otherwise provided by the standing orders, the same rules of the conduct of members and of debate, procedures, and the conduct of business will be observed in committee as in the House, the Chair of Committees having the same authority as the President for the preservation of order, but disorder in a committee may be censured only by the House, on receiving a report.

174. Appointment of acting Chair

If the Chair wishes to leave the Chair any Temporary Chair may take the Chair, and if no Temporary Chairs are present, then the Chair may appoint any other member to take the Chair, such member having the same powers as the Chair.

175.

Disorder in committee

(1) The Chair may name a member for being guilty of a wilful or vexatious breach of any of the standing orders or for interrupting the orderly conduct of the business of the committee.

(2) When the Chair names a member, the Chair will leave the Chair and report such action to the President.

(3) After the House has dealt with the named member the Committee will resume.

(4) If disorder arises in Committee, the President may resume the Chair without any question being put, and may leave the Chair in the same manner, after which the committee will resume its proceedings.

176. Quorum

(1) The quorum in committee of the whole will be the same as for the House.

(2) If notice is taken of the absence of a quorum in committee, the Chair will count the committee, and if after the bells have been rung for five minutes a quorum is not formed, or if it appears on a division (by which division no decision will be taken to have been arrived at) that a quorum is not present, the Chair will leave the Chair and report to the House.

(3) When the Chair reports an absence of a quorum in committee to the President, the President will count the House, and if a quorum of members is then present, the House will again resolve itself into a committee of the whole without any question being put.

(4) If the proceedings of a committee are interrupted by lack of a quorum and consequent adjournment of the House, the resumption of the committee will be an order of the day for the next day of sitting, and when the order is called on the proceedings will be resumed at the point where they were interrupted.

177. Report of the committee

(1) When all matters referred to a committee have been considered, the Chair will be directed to report to the House, and when the consideration of those matters has not been concluded, the Chair may be directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

(2) A motion may be made at any time during the proceedings of a committee that the Chair report progress and ask leave to sit again.

(3) Resolutions reported from a committee may be agreed to or disagreed to by the House, or agreed to with amendments, recommitted to the committee, or the further consideration of them postponed.

(4) A motion may be made “That the Chair do now leave the Chair”, which if carried will terminate the proceedings of the committee.

(5) Any committee whose proceedings have been so terminated may be revived by order on motion.

178. Objection to Chair’s ruling

If objection is taken to a decision of the Chair of Committees, such objection must be stated at once in writing. If the committee decides, the Chair will then leave the Chair, and the House resume. When the matter has been laid before the President and disposed of, the committee will resume proceedings where they were interrupted.

179. Effect of instructions

(1) An instruction may give a committee of the whole House authority to consider matters not otherwise referred to it, or extend or restrict its authority.

(2) An instruction may be given to a committee on a bill to divide a bill into two or more bills or to consolidate several bills into one.

(3) An instruction may be given to a committee on a bill to amend an existing Act or consider amendments which are not relevant to the subject matter of the bill but are relevant to the subject matter of the Act it is proposed to amend.

180. Notice required; when moved

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), an instruction may only be moved by motion on notice. A motion for an instruction is to be moved before the House resolves itself into a committee of the whole House or when the order of the day is read for the resumption of a committee.

(2) An instruction may be moved as an amendment on the question for the adoption of the report of the committee.

181. Debate on instructions

Debate on a motion for an instruction:
(a) must be relevant to the instruction,
(b) may not refer to the objects of the bill to which the instruction relates, and
(c) may not anticipate discussion of a clause in the bill.

182. Instruction to select or standing committees

An instruction may be given to a select or standing committee to extend or restrict its terms of reference. Any instruction must be moved before the committee reports.

183. Notice given

Any member may give notice of an item of private members’ business for debate during the session.

184. Consideration of

On days set apart for general business, the House is to consider items of private members’ business in the sequence established by a draw conducted by the Clerk at the beginning of the session and from time to time.

185. Conduct of the draw

(1) The Clerk is to conduct a random draw of 12 members’ names from items of private members’ business already placed on the Notice Paper, to establish the order of precedence.

(2) To the extent that there is a sufficient number of notices on the Notice Paper, the draw is to be conducted from the names of members with notices in the following order:

(a) Opposition members,
(b) Cross bench members,
(c) Government members.

(3) The names of members with notices will be drawn separately in the sequence shown in paragraph (2) to determine their relative position in the order of precedence for the first 12 items.

(4) A member is ineligible to be included in the random draw of names if that member has previously been selected in a draw and had an item of business disposed of, when there are other members in the same group in paragraph (2) with notices who have not previously been selected in the draw.

(5) A member whose name is drawn in the ballot may transfer their turn to another member who does not have an item of private members’ business inside the order of precedence. Where this occurs both the member whose name was drawn and the member who received the transfer are ineligible to be included in the draw until all other members in the same group in paragraph (2) with notices have been selected in the draw.

(6) The items drawn will appear in numerical sequence from 1 to 12 on the Notice Paper under “Items in the Order of Precedence”. Those items not drawn in the order of precedence will appear on the Notice Paper under “Items outside the Order of Precedence”.

(7) The Clerk is to notify the members involved of the date, time and place of the draw no later than one day prior to the conduct of the draw.

(8) The order of precedence must not contain more than 12 items at any time.

(9) Any member whose name has been drawn and who has more than one notice of motion on the Notice Paper, must advise the Clerk as soon as possible following the draw which notice of motion is to be placed in the order of precedence. If a member fails to advise the Clerk within two working days, the first motion standing on the Business Paper in the name of the member will be included in the order of precedence.

(10) Further random draws will be conducted as necessary to determine items in the order of precedence, up to a maximum of 12 items.

186. Debate on motions

(1) An item of private members’ business, other than a bill, must not receive more than three hours of debate.

(2) When an item other than a bill is being considered:

(a) the mover of the motion may speak for not more than 30 minutes, and
(b) any other member may speak for not more than 20 minutes.

(3) When an item other than a bill is not earlier disposed of, at 15 minutes before the end of the time provided for the consideration of the item, the President is to interrupt proceedings to allow the mover of the motion to speak in reply for not more than 10 minutes. The President will then put every question necessary to dispose of the motion, forthwith and successively without further amendment or debate, unless the motion is withdrawn as provided by the standing orders.

187. Debate on bills
(1) Where there is debate on the question for leave to bring in a bill the following time limits will apply:

(a) a maximum of one hour debate,
(b) the mover of the motion, and any other member, may speak for not more than 10 minutes, and
(c) 10 minutes before the end of the time for debate, the President is to interrupt proceedings to allow the mover of the motion to speak in reply for not more than 10 minutes.

(2) On any motion being agreed to for leave to bring in a bill, the question on the first reading and printing will be taken together as one motion, and put without amendment or debate.
(3)

Where there is debate on the question for the second or third reading of a bill the following time limits will apply:

(a) the mover may speak for not mover than 30 minutes, and
(b) any other member and the mover in reply may speak for not more than 20 minutes.

(4) After the second reading speech of the mover, debate on the bill must be adjourned for at least five calendar days, while retaining its position in the order of precedence.

188. Postponement of items in order of precedence

An item of private members’ business listed in the order of precedence may be postponed. However, an item which is postponed for a third time will be removed from the order of precedence and set down at the end of private members’ business outside the order of precedence unless the House otherwise orders, on motion moved without notice.

189. Time limits to apply

When an item of private members’ business is dealt with on days set aside for government business the time limits in this chapter apply.

190. Disorderly conduct by members

(1) If a member, after warning by the President:
(a) continues to obstruct the business of the House, or
(b) continues to abuse the rules of the House, or
(c) refuses to comply with an order of the Chair, or
(d) refuses to comply with the standing orders, or
(e) continues to disregard the authority of the Chair, or
(f) otherwise obstructs the orderly conduct of business of the House,

the President may name the member and report the member’s offence to the House.

(2) If an offence indicated in paragraph (1) is committed by a member in committee of the whole, the Chair is to suspend the proceedings of the committee and report the offence to the President.

(3) A member who has been reported as having committed an offence may make an explanation or apology, as the member thinks fit, and then, if required by the Chair, withdraw from the Chamber. A motion may then be moved without notice that the member be suspended from the service of the House. No debate or amendment is allowed on the motion, which must be put immediately by the President.

191. Suspension of member

(1) A member found guilty of an offence under the standing orders may be suspended from the service of the House by motion moved without notice for any period of time that the House decides.

(2) Any suspension may have effect:

(a) until the House terminates the suspension,
(b) until the submission of an apology by the offending member, or
(c) both of the above.

(3) A member who is suspended from the service of the House is excluded from the chamber and galleries, and may not serve on or attend any proceedings of a committee of the House during the period of suspension. If a member enters the chamber during the member’s suspension, the President will order the Usher of the Black Rod to remove the member from the chamber.

192.

Member called to order

If the President or Chair of Committees calls a member to order three times in the course of any one sitting for any breach of the standing orders, or a member conducts themselves in a grossly disorderly manner, that member may, by order of the President or Chair of Committees, be removed from the chamber by the Usher of the Black Rod for a period of time as the President or Chair may decide but not beyond the termination of the sitting.

193. President may suspend sitting or adjourn House

In cases of serious disorder in the House or in committee of the whole House, the President may suspend the sitting of the House for a time to be stated or adjourn the House until the next sitting day without any motion.

194. Powers of House not affected

Nothing in this chapter affects any power of the House to proceed against any member for any conduct unworthy of a member of the House.

195. Distinguished visitors

Distinguished visitors may be admitted to a seat on the floor of the House, by motion without notice.

196. Conduct of visitors

(1) Visitors may attend in the galleries during a sitting of the Legislative Council, unless otherwise ordered by the House.

(2) The President only may admit visitors to the seating in the gallery on either side of the President’s Chair.

(3) No person other than a member, a Clerk-at-the-Table or an officer attending on the House may enter any part of the chamber reserved for members, while the House is sitting.

(4) Paragraph (3) does not apply in respect of a member breastfeeding an infant.

(5) The Usher of the Black Rod, subject to any direction by the President, is to remove any person who enters any part of the chamber reserved for members while the House is sitting, or causes a disturbance in or near the chamber.

197. Removal of strangers for disorderly conduct

If a person, not being a member:
(a) interrupts the orderly conduct of the business of the House,
(b) obstructs the approaches to the House, or
(c) creates a disturbance within the precincts of the House,

the President or Chair of Committees may order the Usher of the Black Rod to remove that person from the precincts of the House and to exclude them from the House for the period directed by the President or Chair.

198. Suspension of standing orders

(1) In urgent cases, any standing order or other order of the House may be suspended by the House in whole or in part:
(a) by a motion on notice, or
(b) by leave of the House.

(2) On a motion for the suspension of a standing or other order a member may not speak for more than five minutes, and if the debate is not concluded after the expiration of 30 minutes after the moving of the motion the question on the motion will then be put.

199. Effect of suspension

The suspension of a standing or other order is limited in its operation to the particular purpose for which the suspension has been sought.

200. Proposal for debate

(1) A member may give notice of a motion – That the following matter of public importance should be discussed forthwith: [specifying the matter].

(2) Consideration of the motion is to take precedence of all other business set down on the Notice Paper for that day, except business taking precedence under standing order 74 (3).

(3) When the motion has been made, the question is to be decided without amendment or debate, except a statement by the mover and a statement by a Minister not exceeding 10 minutes each.

(4) If the question is agreed to, subsequent discussion of the matter may not exceed one hour thirty minutes, whether on the same or subsequent sitting days, excluding the reply of the mover.

(5) The following time limits on speeches will apply:

(a) member proposing the matter – 15 minutes,
(b) any Minister first speaking – 15 minutes,
(c) Leader of the Opposition or member nominated by the Leader of the Opposition, when the matter is proposed by a member of the government – 15 minutes;
(d) any other member – 10 minutes,
(e) proposer in reply – 10 minutes.

(6) If discussion of a matter is adjourned to another sitting day, the order of the day for its resumption is to take precedence as provided in paragraph (2).

(7) Only one matter of public importance may be proceeded with on any sitting day, but this is not to preclude the resumption of an adjourned discussion on the same day.

(8) Matters of public importance will only be considered on days on which government business has precedence.

201. Urgency motions

(1) A member may move a motion, without notice – That the House now adjourn to discuss the following matter of urgency: [specifying the matter].

(2) The member proposing the motion to debate the matter of urgency must hand to the President, prior to the commencement of the sitting on the day to which the proposal relates, a written statement of the proposed matter of urgency.

(3) The President will inform the House at the conclusion of formal business that a motion has been received, at which time the President will put the question on urgency without amendment or debate, except a statement by the mover and a statement by a Minister not exceeding 10 minutes each.

(4) If urgency is agreed to, the following time limits on speeches will apply:

(a) member proposing the matter – 15 minutes,
(b) any Minister first speaking – 15 minutes,
(c) Leader of the Opposition or member nominated by the Leader of the Opposition, when the matter is proposed by a member of the government – 15 minutes;
(d) any other member – 10 minutes,
(e) proposer in reply – 10 minutes.

(5) At the conclusion of the debate the motion will lapse, with no question being put.

(6) No second motion for the adjournment of the House to discuss a matter of urgency may be made on the same day.

202. Person referred to

(1) Any person who has been referred to in the House by name, or in such a way as to be readily identified, may make a submission in writing to the President, on any one or more of the following grounds, claiming:
(a) that they have been adversely affected:
(i) in reputation,
(ii) in respect of dealings or associations with others,
(b) that they have been injured in occupation, trade, office or financial credit, or
(c) that their privacy has been unreasonably invaded, and requesting that they should be able to include an appropriate response in the parliamentary record.

(2) Where a person makes a submission to the President, the President must, as soon as practicable, consider the submission and decide whether:
(a) to refer the submission to the Privileges Committee for inquiry and report, or
(b) it is inappropriate to be considered by the committee on the grounds that the subject matter of the submission is trivial, frivolous, vexatious or offensive in character.

(3) The President must inform the person in writing of the decision.

203. Reference to committee

(1) Where a submission is referred to the Privileges Committee, the committee may decide not to consider a submission referred to it if, in the opinion of the committee, the subject matter of the submission is not sufficiently serious or is frivolous, vexatious or offensive in character. The committee must report its decision to the House.

(2) Where the committee decides to consider a submission, the committee may confer with, but not take evidence from any person, including:

(a) the person who made the submission, and
(b) any member who referred to the person in the House.

(3) In considering any submission, the committee:
(a) must meet in private,
(b) must not consider or judge the truth of any statements made in the House or in the submission,
(c) must not make public:
(i) any minutes of proceedings,
(ii) any evidence, or
(iii) any submissions, either in whole or in part, except in its report to the House.

(4) In reporting to the House on a submission, the committee may recommend:

(a) that no further action be taken by the House or by the committee in relation to the submission, or
(b) that a response by the person who made the submission, in a form of words agreed to by the person and the committee and specified in the report of the committee, be published in the Minutes of the Proceedings or incorporated in Hansard, and must not make any other recommendation.

(5) Any response by a person who made a submission and which is included in a report to the House:
(a) must be succinct and strictly relevant to the questions in issue,
(b) must not contain anything offensive in character,
(c) must not contain any matter where publication would have the effect of:
(i) unreasonably adversely affecting or injuring a person, or unreasonably invading a person’s privacy, in the manner referred to in paragraph 1, or
(ii) unreasonably adding to or aggravating any adverse effect, injury or invasion of privacy suffered by a person.
(6) In this order, person includes an unincorporated association, a corporation and a body corporate.

(7) A notice of motion to adopt a report from the Privileges Committee on a citizen’s right of reply:

(a) is to be placed on the Notice Paper as business of the House for six sitting days following the giving of the notice of motion,
(b) if not dealt with within the six sitting days, the motion will be placed on the Notice Paper as general business.

204. Sessional committees

(1) The House may establish sessional committees at the commencement of each session of Parliament to consider matters relating to the provision of services to members.

(2) The functions and composition of any sessional committee will be as determined by the House from time to time.

205. Procedure cCommittee

(1) A Procedure Committee will be appointed at the commencement of each Parliament.

(2) The committee may:

(a) consider on its own initiative any amendments to the standing orders,
(b) propose to the House changes in practice and procedures of the House, and
(c) consider any matter relating to the procedures referred to it by the House or the President.

(3) The President, Deputy President, Leader of the Government and Leader of the Opposition are to be among the members of the committee.

(4) Members may be appointed to the committee as substitutes for a member of the committee, by notice in writing to the Chair of the committee.

(5) Nominations may be made by the Leader of the Government, the Leader of the Opposition, the Government and Opposition Whips, and Cross Bench Members, as applicable.

206. Standing committees

(1) The House may establish standing committees which have power to sit during the life of the Parliament.

(2) The functions, source of references and composition of any standing committee will be as determined by the House in the resolution appointing the committee.

207. Select committees

(1) The House may appoint select committees to consider matters referred by the House. A select committee has power to sit during the life of the Parliament. When the committee completes its inquiry and presents its final report to the House, the committee ceases to exist.

(2) The composition of any select committee will be as determined by the House.208. Powers

A committee has power:
(a) to adjourn from time to time,
(b) to adjourn from place to place,
(c) to send for and examine persons, papers, records and things,
(d) to make visits of inspection within New South Wales and, if authorised by the House, with the approval of the President, elsewhere in Australia and outside Australia, and
(e) to request the attendance of and examine members of the House.

209. Must not sit while the House is sitting

(1) A committee may sit during any adjournment of the House.

(2) A committee must not sit while the House is sitting, unless the House otherwise orders.

210. Membership

(1) The composition of each committee is to be determined by the House in the resolution appointing the committee.

(2) Government members are to be nominated by the Leader of the Government.

(3) Opposition members are to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition.

(4) Cross bench members are to be nominated by agreement between cross bench members.

(5) In the absence of any agreement the representation on a committee is to be determined by the House.

(6) Nominations for membership of the committees are to be in writing to the Clerk within seven days of the passing of the resolution appointing the committee.

(7) Members may also at any time, by motion on notice, be discharged by the House from attending a committee, and other members appointed or added.

(8) The President may not be elected to any committee other than one of which the President is an ex officio member.

(9) If the Deputy President is elected to serve on a committee and declines to do so, another member is to be elected.

(10) No member may take part in a committee inquiry where the member has a pecuniary interest in the inquiry of the committee.

211. Chair and Deputy Chair

(1) Chairs and Deputy Chairs of Committees are to be appointed or elected by the committee in accordance with the resolution of the House appointing the committee.

(2) The member nominated as Deputy Chair is to act as Chair when the Chair is absent from a meeting.

(3) In the absence of both the Chair and Deputy Chair from a meeting of a committee, a member of the committee is to be elected by the members present to act as Chair for that meeting of the committee.

(4) The Chair, Deputy Chair or other member acting as Chair at a meeting of a committee has a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equality of votes, a casting vote.

212. Priority of references

The priority to be accorded to a reference received by a committee may be determined by the Chair of the committee, unless the committee decides otherwise.

213. First meeting

(1) The Clerk is to fix the time and place for the first meeting of each committee in such a manner as the Clerk thinks fit.

(2) At the first meeting, before proceeding to any other business the Chair and Deputy Chair are to be elected, unless the resolution of the House appointing the committee provides otherwise.

214. Quorum

(1) Unless otherwise ordered, the quorum of a committee is three members.

(2) If, after 15 minutes from the time appointed for the meeting of a committee, a quorum is not present, the meeting is adjourned and the Chair of the committee will fix the next meeting of the committee.

(3) The clerk of the committee is to record the names of the members present.

215.

Loss of a quorum during a meeting

If, during the sitting of a committee, the loss of a quorum is brought to the attention of the Chair by another committee member, after ten minutes has elapsed the Chair will suspend the proceedings of the committee to a later hour. If a quorum is not then present, the committee will be adjourned to another day, to be fixed by the Chair.

216. Member attendance

(1) A member must seek leave of the committee in order to be absent from four or more consecutive committee meetings.

(2) If a member fails to attend four consecutive meetings of a committee without leave of the committee, the absence is to be reported by the Chair to the House.

(3) If the member fails to attend the next meeting without leave of the committee, the Chair is to again inform the House. This procedure is to continue until the member attends a committee meeting.

(4) These requirements do not apply to those committees for which the House has made provision for substitute members.

217. Sub-committees

(1) Where the resolution appointing a committee makes provision for sub-committees, a committee has power to appoint sub-committees consisting of two or more of its members:
(a) to assist the committee in the exercise of any of its functions, or
(b) to investigate and report on any matter referred to the committee.

(2) A sub-committee has the same powers as the committee appointing it.

(3) The committee is to appoint one of its members to act as Chair of any sub-committee and the member appointed has a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equality of votes, a casting vote.

(4) Unless otherwise ordered, the quorum of a sub-committee is two, of whom one must be a government member and one a non-government member.

(5) A sub-committee is to report to the committee on any matter referred to it by the committee. The committee may adopt the report, reject the report, or adopt the report with variations.

(6) A sub-committee is to conduct its meetings and business in the same manner as the committee appointing it.

218. Participation by members of the House and others

(1) Unless a committee decides otherwise, a member of the House who is not a member of the relevant committee may take part in the public proceedings of a committee and question witnesses but may not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of any quorum or division.

(2) Persons other than members of the House and officers of a committee may attend a public meeting of a committee, but will not attend a private meeting except by express invitation of the committee, and will always be excluded when the committee is deliberating.

219. Meeting or joining with other committees

A committee or any sub-committee may:
(a) join together with any other committee of the House or the Legislative Assembly to take evidence, deliberate and make joint reports on matters of mutual concern, and
(b) meet with any other State or Commonwealth parliamentary committees to inquire into matters of mutual concern.

220. Joint committees

(1) A proposal for a joint committee of the House and Legislative Assembly must contain the names of the members of the House appointed to serve on the committee.

(2) Any such proposal agreed to by the House will be forwarded to the Legislative Assembly by message.

(3) The proceedings of a joint committee will be reported to the House by one of the members appointed to serve on the committee.

(4) At least three members of the House must be present at any meeting of a joint committee.

(5) If the House agrees to a proposal from the Legislative Assembly to appoint a joint committee, the House will determine the time and place of the first meeting of the committee.

221. Submissions

Any person or body may make written or recorded submissions to a committee with respect to any inquiry being conducted by the committee.

222. Evidence

(1) A committee is to take all evidence in public unless the committee decides otherwise.

(2) A witness before a committee is to be given the opportunity of correcting their transcript of evidence, but corrections must be confined to verbal inaccuracies or explanations of answers. Corrections in substance can only be made by further giving of evidence.

223. Publishing submissions and evidence

(1) A committee has power to authorise publication, before presentation to the House, of submissions received and evidence taken.

(2) Evidence taken in camera may be published by resolution of the committee where it is in the public interest to do so.

(3) A committee:

(a) may make available to any member of the public a copy of:
(i) any written submissions made to it,
(ii) the report of any inquiry carried out by it, or
(iii) the record of any evidence taken in public, and
(b) may charge a reasonable sum for making copies available.

(4) A committee or sub-committee may authorise the tape recording of its public hearings.

224. Unauthorised disclosure of evidence and documents

(1) The evidence taken by a committee and documents presented to it, which have not been reported to the House, may not, unless authorised by the House or committee, be disclosed to any person other than a member or officer of the committee.

(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply to:

(a) any proceedings of the committee that are open to the public and news media,
(b) any member of the committee or officers of the House or committee in the exercise or performance of their duties,
(c) press releases or statements made by a member of the committee on the authority of the committee,
(d) written submissions presented to a select committee and authorised to be published by the committee,
(e) any submission or document of the committee referred to any person for comment to assist the committee in its inquiry, and
(f) any document authorised to be published by the committee.

(3) Any person committing a breach of this standing order may be reported to the House.

225. No representation of witnesses

A person or body is not entitled or permitted to be represented by counsel or a solicitor at a hearing of a committee unless the committee decides otherwise.

226. Reports

(1) A committee has leave to report to the House from time to time its proceedings, evidence taken in public, and recommendations as it deems fit.

(2) A committee may include in any report made to the House a draft bill to give effect to the recommendations of the committee.

(3) For the purposes of preparing a draft bill for incorporation in a report to the House, a committee may, with the consent of the relevant Minister, make use of the services of any staff of the Parliamentary Counsel’s Office.

(4) A committee may publish discussion papers for the purpose of any inquiry.

227. Consideration of reports

(1) The Chair, on the request of the committee, is to prepare a draft report and submit it to the committee.

(2) The draft report is to be considered at a meeting convened for that purpose and may be amended as the committee thinks fit. A report may be reconsidered and amended.

(3) The report of a committee, as agreed to by the committee, must be signed by the Chair, or in the event of the Chair refusing, any other member appointed by the committee.

228. Members’ opinions to be reflected

(1) The report of a committee is, as far as practicable, to reflect a unanimity of opinion within a committee.

(2) It is the responsibility of a committee Chair and all members of a committee to seek to achieve unanimity of opinion.

(3) Where unanimity is not practicable, a committee’s report should be prepared so as to reflect the views of all members of the committee.

(4) Where unanimity is not practicable, any member may append to the report a brief statement of dissent, provided that:

(a) the member has sought to have their opinions included in the report agreed to by the committee,
(b) the statement of dissent is relevant to the committee’s report and the terms of reference of the inquiry,
(c) the statement does not contain any matter which would unreasonably adversely affect or injure a person, or unreasonably invade a person’s privacy,
(d) the statement of dissent is signed by the member or members making it,
(e) the statement of dissent is no more than 1,000 words in length.

229. Chair’s foreword

A committee Chair’s foreword must be approved by the committee prior to tabling of the committee’s report in the House, if the committee so resolves.

230. Tabling reports

The report of a committee, with accompanying documents, is to be tabled in the House by the member signing the report, or in the absence of the member, by some other member of the committee, within ten calendar days of the report being adopted by the committee.

231. Tabling out of session

(1) If the House is not sitting when a committee wishes to report to the House, the committee is to present copies of its report to the Clerk.

(2) A report presented to the Clerk is:

(a) on presentation, and for all purposes, deemed to have been laid before the House,
(b) to be printed by authority of the Clerk,
(c) for all purposes, deemed to be a document published by order or under the authority of the House, and
(d) to be recorded in the Minutes of the Proceedings of the House.

232. Debate on committee reports

(1) On tabling of a report from a committee a motion may be moved without notice “That the House take note of the report”.

(2) At the conclusion of the speech of the mover, the debate is to be adjourned to the next day on which committee reports have been given precedence.

(3) Unless otherwise ordered, the order of the day for the resumption of debates on committee reports is to be set down on the Notice Paper in the order in which the reports were presented.

(4) The debate on committee reports on any day on which the debate has precedence is to be interrupted after one hour. The interrupted debate is to stand adjourned and be set down on the business paper for the next day on which it has precedence.

(5) Each speaker in the debate on committee reports is to be limited to 10 minutes, except the committee Chair who is allowed 15 minutes and a further 10 minutes in reply.

233. Government response

(1) On the tabling of a report from a committee, which recommends that action be taken by the government the Clerk is to refer the report to the Leader of the Government in the House who must within six months of a report being tabled, report to the House what action, if any, the government proposes to take in relation to each recommendation of the committee.

(2) If, at the time at which the government seeks to report to the House, the House is not sitting, a Minister may present the response to the Clerk.

(3) A response presented to the Clerk is:

(a) on presentation, and for all purposes, deemed to have been laid before the House,
(b) to be printed by authority of the Clerk,
(c) for all purposes, deemed to be a document published by order or under the authority of the House,
(d) to be recorded in the Minutes of the Proceedings of the House, and
(e) to be distributed by the clerk of the committee to inquiry participants.

(4) The President is to report to the House when any government response has not been received within the six month deadline.

234. Resources

(1) A committee is to be provided with the resources necessary to carry out its functions.

(2) A committee may, with the consent of the appropriate Minister, make use of the services of any staff or facilities of a government department, administrative office or public body.

(3) A Chair of a committee may report to the President on any matter relating to the administration, functioning or operation of the committee.

(4) The Clerk is to appoint an officer of the Council to act as clerk to the committee.

(5) The clerk to a committee must record and include in the committee’s report to the House:

(a) the names of the members attending each meeting of a committee,
(b) the proceedings of the committee and every motion or amendment moved and the name of the mover, and
(c) the names of the members voting on each side in a division.