Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 11 May 2004, Corrected Copy)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Tuesday 11 May 2004
______

The President (The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann) took the chair at 2.30 p.m.

The Clerk of the Parliaments offered the Prayers.

The PRESIDENT: I acknowledge that we are meeting on Eora land.

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following bills reported:

ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT

The PRESIDENT: I report the receipt of the following message from Her Excellency the Governor:

Marie Bashir

CUT-OFF DATE FOR GOVERNMENT BILLS

Motion by the Hon. Jon Jenkins agreed to:

1. Where a bill, except the Appropriation Bill and cognate bills, is introduced by a Minister or is received from the Legislative Assembly:

(a) after Tuesday 22 June 2004 (Budget Session), debate on the motion for the second reading is to be adjourned at the conclusion of the speech of the Minister moving the motion, and the resumption of the debate is to be made an Order of the Day for the first sitting day in September 2004,

(b) after Tuesday 7 December 2004 (Spring Session), debate on the motion for the second reading is to be adjourned at the conclusion of the speech of the Minister moving the motion, and the resumption of the debate is to be made an Order of the Day for the first sitting day in 2005.

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

LEGISLATION REVIEW COMMITTEE

Report

The Hon. Peter Primrose, on behalf of the Chair, tabled the report entitled "Legislation Review Digest No. 7 of 2004", dated 11 May 2004.

Ordered to be printed.

PETITIONS

Freedom of Religion

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. Duncan Gay and Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes.

Gosford High School

Petition requesting refurbishment of Gosford High School, received from the Hon. Christine Robertson.

The Domain Fig Trees

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

Gaming Machine Tax

Petition praying that the House reconsider the decision to increase poker machine tax, received from the Hon. Rick Colless.

Blue Circle Southern Cement Alternative Fuels Application

Petition calling for disallowance of the application by Blue Circle Southern Cement to burn alternative fuels, received from Ms Sylvia Hale.

CountryLink Rail Services

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

Local Government Amalgamation

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.

CountryLink Rail Services

Petition opposing the replacement of CountryLink rail services with bus services in rural and regional New South Wales, and calling for reversal of the decision to close the Casino to Murwillumbah rail line, received from Ms Lee Rhiannon.

Pharmacy Deregulation Legislation

Petition opposing pharmacy deregulation legislation, received from the Hon. Ian West.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON LAW AND JUSTICE

Reference

The Hon. Christine Robertson, as Chair, informed the House that the Standing Committee on Law and Justice received, on 2 April 2004, the following reference from the Attorney General:

1) That the Standing Committee on Law and Justice inquire into and report on whether it is appropriate and in the public interest to tailor community-based sentencing options for rural remote areas in New South Wales and for special need /disadvantaged populations, including:

a) the perceived benefits and disadvantages of community-based sentencing options including periodic detention, intensive supervision programs (home detention e.g. Drug Court), community supervision orders.

b) the relationship between different intensive supervision programs—home detention and periodic detention (stage 1 and 2),
c) the impact of the availability of intensive supervision programs upon rural and remote communities.

d) the place of periodic detention within a spectrum of community-based sentencing options utilising intensive supervision.

e) the criteria for eligibility for community-based sentencing options,

f) the experience of other jurisdictions in implementing community-based sentencing options,

g) any other related matter,

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders

Motion by the Hon. Michael Gallacher agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 103 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to an order for papers regarding the Treasurer's mini-budget, be called on forthwith.

Order of Business

Motion by the Hon. Michael Gallacher agreed to:

MINI-BUDGET DOCUMENTS

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [2.47 p.m.]: I move:

(a) any documents that assess the impact of any of the measures outlined in the mini-budget on the property market,

(b) any models or documents that estimate the revenues to be raised as a result of the measures outlined in the mini-budget,

(c) any documents identifying savings to be realised by any New South Wales Government department or agency, and

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

This motion is based on a very simple rationale, namely, to get specific details about the Government's so-called mini-budget that were not provided to either the Parliament or the public by the Treasurer when he fronted the Legislative Assembly for his media stunt on 6 April. The so-called information provided in this mini-budget was nothing like that contained in any other budget I have ever seen. In fact, although we are used to the budgets of this Government giving less information than they should, the mini-budget was the worst of all budgets by a long measure.

Normally, the annual State budget is accompanied by an appropriation bill and other legislation together with budget papers and supporting documentation. This mini-budget, by contrast, is so lacking in detail and documentation that one could be forgiven for thinking that the whole process must have been cobbled together by Walt Secord and a couple of the Premier's media spinners on the day of its release. Instead of receiving the real documentation produced by Treasury, the Parliament and the taxpayers of New South Wales actually received five media releases from the Treasurer, two media releases from the Minister for Health, one media release from the Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Lands), one media release from the Minister for Education and Training, one media release from the Minister for Natural Resources and, finally, one media release from the Minister for Mineral Resources. We also received a copy of the Treasurer's speech, which comprised almost 25 pages of spin and hyperbole and lacked detail in a number of areas to which I will return later.

Basically, that was all we were given—nothing more than 11 media releases and a copy of a speech. There was no appropriation bill—or any other legislation for that matter! New South Wales taxpayers are certainly entitled to ask why supporting material and other documentation were not provided. That salient question deserves an answer and is the reason I have moved the motion. Taxpayers are entitled to know where their money has been going and on what premise the Government based its mini-budget. They also want to know why the Legislative Assembly was used as a very expensive prop for a speech and 11 media releases. When speaking in this House against a motion to allow the Treasurer to appear in the Legislative Assembly on 31 March I said:

As I have said, all we have are 11 media releases and one speech. With these observations in mind, I now turn to the specifics of the motion. First, the motion calls for the tabling, within 14 days of this motion being agreed to, of all documents relating to the mini-budget—except Cabinet documents—in the possession, custody or control of the Treasurer or any other New South Wales government department or agency. There must have been source material of some description that has not been made public and from which the Treasurer's speech and the 11 media releases were produced. Obviously, the motion does not apply to Cabinet documents, but it does cover all other relevant documentation held by government departments and agencies.

Some may ask why the motion has not been limited to Treasury, given that some departments and agencies may not have any documentation relating to the mini-budget in relation to which their reply may be "Nil return". Although that may be true in some instances, it is clear that a number of portfolios within departments and agencies were involved in this whole process, including Treasury, Health, Transport, Education, Community Services, Mineral Resources, Lands, Natural Resources and Mineral Resources. There may well be others, and this motion seeks to ascertain that. The motion is inclusive in its wording to ensure that the full picture of the mini-budget is provided, not merely the picture painted by the 11 media releases and the dodgy speech given by the Treasurer in the Legislative Assembly.

The motion makes specific reference to any documents that assess the impact on the property market of any of the measures outlined in the mini-budget. Obviously, there will be a heavy impact in this area for New South Wales. We know that the Premier is not too concerned about that because he has his eyes focussed across the Tasman Sea. He is looking to New Zealand for his future; he is not interested in what people in this State will have to pay at the end of the day. He has his investment property in New Zealand well and truly tucked away. The impact on the property market is of considerable importance when one considers that housing properties make up 60 per cent of the wealth of Australians. I am sure that anyone paying off a mortgage will agree with that statement.

Therefore, the impact on the housing market of the tax changes in the mini-budget is of crucial relevance to the people of New South Wales. Both this Parliament and the public have to be sure that Treasury examined all the issues, and we need to know its conclusions. Neither the Treasurer's speech nor the 11 media releases provide that information. We also know that there will be losers. In particular, renters will face increased rents, which many of them cannot afford. They will also have a much more difficult time trying to save for a deposit if they wish to buy a home in the future. Many mum and dad investors who have paid off or largely paid for their family home and who have bought a modest investment property, will be hit hard with the extension of this tax.

Stamp duty will now apply when they sell an investment property. New South Wales is now the only State in the Commonwealth to tax when people buy and sell an investment property. If people doubt the significance of that, they should consider the following information carefully. The 2.25 per cent exit stamp duty will raise $690 million in a single year and around 250,000 more people will pay land tax for the first time. This huge change will hit the hip pockets of many homeowners, renters, potential buyers, sellers and businesses alike. With this in mind the Government needs to inform the public and this Parliament, with a lot less spin and much more detail, how it came to its final conclusion. It is incumbent on a House of review, particularly the Legislative Council, to seek such information, because it has not been forthcoming from the Government. Put simply, the Parliament should hold the Government accountable on tax changes that could affect every citizen who seeks to own, or who in fact does own, property.

The motion also specifically calls for any models or documents that estimate the revenues to be raised as a result of the measures outlined in the mini-budget. I have been advised that the Government does not oppose the motion. If the Minister at the table were to give me an indication to that effect, I would not continue my speech.
The Hon. John Hatzistergos: We are not opposing the motion. We are happy to supply the material in the interests of accountability and transparency.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I note the statement by the Minister for Justice that in the best interests of transparency and accountability the Government supports the motion. Therefore, I will not labour the point—if you will pardon the pun—further on taxation.

Motion agreed to.

NATIONAL COMPETITION POLICY LIQUOR AMENDMENTS (COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL PENALTIES) BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 5 May.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [2.57 p.m.]: Throughout the extremely long lead-up to debate on this national competition policy amending legislation the New South Wales Labor Government has engaged in an ongoing campaign of scaremongering, myth-making and misleading personal revelations, the aim being to score political points by pretending that it had no choice but to deregulate some of the State's most vulnerable industries. Rather than the Government actually doing its job, for which it receives national competition policy payments, it spread disinformation about as deregulation that was not necessary. As of last week the Government has changed its position yet again. It has split the bill, despite indicating earlier that there was no way that it could or would do so. However, there is now a separate bill that deals with liquor licensing amendments.

One wonders whether the new willingness to split the legislation has anything to do with additional crossbench—or double cross bench—support. The Opposition will watch with interest to see who has changed his or her position on the bill. Both Commonwealth financial penalty bills are knee-jerk reactions to something that Mr Carr has been expecting for 10 years. Last year's National Competition Council [NCC] recommendations should not have contained any surprises for the Government. Mr Carr would have expected them. However, in October 2003, when Mr Carr spoke out against the Commonwealth's acceptance of the recommendations, he showed considerable surprise that the National Competition Council recommended Treasurer Peter Costello withhold $51 million from New South Wales.

What a shock, Bob! It should not have been a shock to Bob because he signed off on the national competition policy in 1995, at the same time endorsing the arrangement that States would reform anti-competitive legislation unless it was shown that retaining restrictions to competition was in the public interest. That is a key part of the policy. The Labor Party seems to have forgotten that important detail in terms of the windfall of money it was to get. Earlier this month the Australian Labor Party's [ALP] Paul Lynch said:

They are the words of an ALP leftie. It was Bob Carr who signed off on the national competition policy on behalf of the people of New South Wales. It was not Nick Greiner, John Brogden or Kerry Chikarovski; it was Bob Carr. So when the leftie luminaries start pumping out the crocodile tears they are world-class wimps; they will say a lot elsewhere but when it comes time they will not do anything in the Parliament. It is like our friend who whispered his petition today because he was frightened of offending the Premier.

Mr Ian Cohen: Not like you with the dairy industry in this House.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I will come to Mr Ian Cohen in a moment. He should stand in line; I will get around to him when we talk about lefties and pinkies. What did the honourable member say?

Mr Ian Cohen: Not like you and the dairy industry.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: We supported deregulation of the dairy industry, although it was not part of the national competition policy.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Tony Catanzariti to order for the first time.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: It is interesting that the Greens, who are friends of the Labor Party, are making comments. They are the mob that brought the Labor Party back to power. They criticise the Labor Party all the time but when it comes to voting they queue up to give their preferences to the Labor Party. As I said, Mr Carr signed up New South Wales for the national competition policy. So Mr Lynch is effectively saying that his leader, the Premier of New South Wales, is personally responsible for this conspiracy, which should be ended. Is that not a tad confusing for anyone who does not understand? This bloke should understand. I suspect that he does and that he was simply peddling the same silly, puerile political line that he always peddles. For example, when the Labor Party is in trouble on trains and health, caucus gives him permission to introduce a private member's constitution bill to change the oath of allegiance. That is what it is about.

The Hon. Kayee Griffin: If you don't like it, don't vote for it.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Interestingly, the people of New South Wales voted against it, as did the people of Australia, but that did not stop this Cabinet from bringing it in to shift the political focus. Labor members are about spin doctoring, rather than facing the facts and doing their job. And that is the key to this legislation. If they had done their job, their homework, rather than spin doctoring they would be in a better position. When we debate the next bill we will detail how inept the Government has been on this legislation. The original deadline for this reform was 2000. It was then extended to 2002, and there was a further extension to 2003. Of the 216 pieces of legislation that New South Wales had to reform, only 73 per cent had been reformed by last year's deadline. New South Wales knew that the suspension of competition payments was coming. It knew it had to meet the obligations to which Mr Carr agreed seven years ago or prove that it was not in the public interest to do so.

The National Competition Policy Liquor Amendments (Commonwealth Financial Penalties) Bill will deregulate the sale of alcohol in this State. The Opposition argues that there are alternatives to a blanket deregulation of liquor and other industries, even with the Government's shoddy attempts to sweeten the blow with additional measures such as those announced last week. This bill will abolish the needs test. The New South Wales Opposition does not support this move; we believe it is not in the public interest. The legislation proposes to substitute the needs test with a social impact assessment. We do not believe that this will provide adequate scope for preventing irresponsible liquor sales. One of the additional measures announced last week was to correct a drafting oversight; the other two relate to social impact assessments and licence applications.

By the amendments, the social impact assessment process will be able to be commenced before a licence application goes to the Licensing Court. This court will have to wait for any approvals until the Liquor Administration Board approves a social impact assessment relating to that application. What the Government fails to make clear, however, is that the board need only approve the assessment's completion, not ratify the recommendations of the assessment, as the recommendations are not legally binding. Last week's additional measures also included an amendment requiring the advertising of social impact assessments. The Hon. Carmel Tebbutt said in her second reading speech last week:

I cannot find the logic in the Hon. Carmel Tebbutt's argument. The bill she was discussing will deregulate liquor sales in New South Wales, regardless of additional measures. How can she say that this would be a vast improvement on the current arrangement? The social impact assessment processes for the liquor industry that are being suggested do not adequately address the current needs criteria of the industry. Frankly, it is as simple as that. Given her portfolio, I thought the Minister could have been a little more circumspect in her comments. Furthermore, the real detail of the content of social impact assessments is being left to another, yet to be introduced regulation. The regulation should have been included in the bill for us to see what is being discussed.

Perhaps Mr Carr's Government has forgotten that New South Wales held a Summit on Alcohol Abuse last year. The Opposition certainly has not forgotten. We remember well the words of one of the keynote speakers, Professor Sally Caswell of the Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation at Massey University in New Zealand. Professor Caswell spoke specifically about evidence of a direct link between the density of outlets, the hours and days of sale of alcohol, and increased alcohol use. Her message was simple: the more available alcohol is, the higher the consumption level. On one hand the Government ran an Alcohol Summit, carefully orchestrated with its people to get the result it wanted; on the other hand the Government has introduced legislation that completely undermines that summit. Indeed, the legislation was introduced by a Minister who has a portfolio relating to an area of social responsibility.

As I said, Bob Carr signed up to the national competition policy that has led to these payments—$12 million relating to liquor—being withheld, after three warnings. He signed the NCC agreement in full knowledge of its requirements and provisions. So he must either pay the fine or lobby to exclude alcohol from the agreement by meeting the public I The Premier's hypocrisy on this issue simply beggars belief, He tells the media and New South Wales Parliament that he wants robust regulation of liquor sales in New South Wales, yet at the first sign of losing these competition payments—in fact, the third sign—he scrambles to draw up legislation that will clearly deregulate the sale of alcohol throughout the State. In 2003 the Carr Government matched the Liberal-National Coalition's policy of opposition to the deregulation of liquor stores and the abolition of the needs test in respect of an application for new liquor stores. We still hold firm on our commitment even though we did not win government; the Labor Party won government on the back of that commitment, yet it has changed its mind.

The Hon. Rick Colless: Just like local government.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Just like local government, just like transport, just like almost everything in this State at the moment. However, this bill clearly indicates that the Government has broken its election commitment, because it abolishes the needs test and therefore deregulates the liquor store industry. We are talking about $12 million, which is less than half of what the Carr Government spends on its personal publicity. If it were to tighten up this legislation, not deregulate, and reduce its mainline use of media monitoring and its own Stasi, it would have that $12 million. It is a pretty simple equation. The Government says it is essential that we have this money, but one can think of 30, 40 or 50 decisions the Carr Government has made this year that could cover the $12 million.

New South Wales had many years to put a public interest case to the NCC and say why its existing liquor legislation should be retained, but it did not. States such as Queensland and Victoria, whose legislation previously contained similar needs-test arrangements, have sensibly protected the public interest in their States, but in this State legislation is invariably a knee-jerk reaction by an inept Government playing catch up. The other States are well ahead. Daily we look over the border into Queensland with envy to see how a Labor government can run a State compared with what we experience in New South Wales. Of course, it would be even better if that State did not have a Labor government.

The Hon. Rick Colless: That is where all the investors are going.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: That is where all the investors are going. The Premier's latest addition to this bill is a public interest test to determine that a liquor licence will have no social detriment. With such vague and evasive terms, I have little faith that this version of a public interest test will be effective. Once again, it seems that laziness has dictated the course of action, or lack thereof, of the Premier and his Government. As even the NCC recently made abundantly clear, it was the New South Wales Government's responsibility to address this issue properly, and to put forward the correct arguments.

The last submission made by the Premier in 2002, defending the existing liquor regulation, was flawed, incomplete and ineffective. Nevertheless, quite a long time has passed since then, during which time this Government could have made further submissions to the National Competition Council—as it was invited to by way of correspondence from the Federal Treasurer. If this irresponsible and flawed legislation were to be agreed to, it would have many negative social impacts, including proliferation of alcohol sales. It is within the Government's power, within the crossbenchers' power, and within the Opposition's power to stop this.

The Opposition will not stand by idly while the Premier bulldozes this legislation through, breaking election promises and threatening small businesses as he goes. With a view to encouraging responsible liquor sales throughout the State and acting in the best possible interests of the citizens of New South Wales, the Opposition cannot support the National Competition Policy Liquor Amendments (Commonwealth Financial Penalties) Bill. The Opposition does not feel that all avenues to resolve this matter have been adequately covered. The New South Wales Government has options to avoid competition penalties on all affected industries, whether that be by proving the public interest of existing regulations, or making fresh appeals to Council of Australian Government [COAG] meetings—a specially convened meeting if necessary—or seeking a change to the COAG agreement on competition policy rules.

The Carr Government expects this House to approve this damaging bill to avoid losing competition payments of $12 million. Yet the same Government has created a crisis in this State through appalling budgetary mismanagement. New South Wales has little or nothing to show for Sydney Labor's nine years of record revenue stream. Rather, it has infrastructure that is falling apart, schools that do not have airconditioning, patients being operated on in hospitals by torchlight, and trains that do not run on time or do not run at all. The whole State is in crisis, yet the Premier tries to make an issue out of this matter.

The Government should be aware that the words "Commonwealth Financial Penalties" in the bill's title are misleading. There are no penalties. We are discussing competition payments or dividends, not penalties. If the Government put as much time into managing the State, doing its homework, and addressing issues of national competition as it puts into providing disinformation and spin doctoring in the title of a bill, the State would be a damn sight better off. The Premier must revisit this case and work with the National Competition Council and COAG to find a solution to it that is in the net public interest. The Opposition does not support the bill.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [3.16 p.m.]: My position on this bill is a bit of a plague on both houses. The fundamental problem with this Government is that it is so debt averse that it is obsessed with paying off debt. Everyone who understands the most basic principles of economics knows that in order to get rich one borrows money and then invests it or uses it to get a better return than the borrowing. In other words, one uses money to get to one's objectives, while managing debt prudently. Generally, if there is asset backing for the debt there is nothing wrong with having debt. If someone in New South Wales tried to save to buy a house they would never be able to buy because the price of the House would go up faster than they can save.

The Government has had record revenues. Its actual revenues have always been higher than its budgeted revenue, so it has been able to spend freely. It has not had a serious economic crisis, yet it is always short of money. It is allowing infrastructure to run down. It is cannibalising some schools to keep other schools going. The health system is in crisis—there are inquiries into that—and there is a huge problem with the education system. The trains are a joke. They have not been maintained, they are in a shambles, they are falling off the rails. The Government is not managing. The fundamental problem is that it has not borrowed and invested prudently in infrastructure that has asset backing. It is doing stopgap work on roads rather than developing the north-west sector rail, and so on.

The Government then finds itself with a budget crisis whose origin is interesting. The National Competition Council [NCC] was set up to get rid of inefficiencies within large government utilities. The NCC seems to have a life of its own and has ploughed ahead with its economic dogma, without any contact with reality. Faced with having to pay for non-compliance with the economic dogma in areas where the NCC said the Government should act—the liquor industry, the poultry meat industry, the dentistry, optometry and pharmacy professions, and farm debt mediation—the Government devised its own silly economic dogma.

The Government packaged these four areas together and, I believe, turned Parliament into a circus in order to express its displeasure at the national competition policy fines. It then linked this issue with the formula for Federal funding of States—which favours the smaller populated and industrialised States, and disfavours larger States, such as New South Wales. There is a good case for the renegotiation of the Federal funding formula. The State Government, for all its flaws and its absurd aversion to debt—even to borrowing for the replacement or improvement of infrastructure—does have a reasonable complaint about the deal that New South Wales gets from the Federal Government.

The Government has packaged these four areas and put them into a mini-budget in order to draw attention to the dogmatic and impractical consequences of the economic theory implemented by the NCC. In the budget the Government rewards the implementation of the policy. The Government has packaged these four areas and turned Parliament into a circus to gain maximum dramatic effect. I am concerned that the Government has used Parliament for this purpose, however worthy its aim in pointing out the absurdity of the National Competition Council's dogma.

I will refer to the dogma of the NCC and some of its consequences. The national competition policy is like any other economic theory or regulatory regime: one formula for everything. The tenet that competition will fix everything is wrong. If a person says, "God will fix everything", some people would nod sagely and say, "Very true" and others would say, "That may be, but here on earth we have noticed some failures". If a person says, "Competition will fix everything", he is likely to be hailed as an economic sage and rewarded with his own column in a daily newspaper. The proposition that competition will fix everything is absurd. Competition spreads the dollars to suit the producers and the buyers and sellers; it does not necessarily benefit consumers. Generally, unrestricted competition results in the big fish eating the little fish, and the big fish then forming a monopoly or oligopoly.

In Australia it is often the case that when the competition genie is let out of the bottle one or two players dominate the market. That has certainly been the case in the retail area and in media ownership. Although some slight restraints have been placed on media ownership, they are not as strict as many of us would like. If the media companies cannot compete on the world stage, so be it. Subsidising one big player to compete on the world stage, which then puts all its profits into the Bahamas, is scarcely beneficial to the Australian taxpayer—even if it does give us the sort of warm glow we get when Ian Thorpe wins a race. Rather than competition benefiting consumers, the end result is a monopoly or an oligopoly of a few companies that control the market and do not compete with each other. A price level is set so that all the companies in the market do well and the consumer loses. That has been the case in the media and in the insurance and banking sectors.

The bill originally had four components: the liquor industry, the poultry meat industry, the optometry, dentistry and pharmacy professions, and farm debt mediation. Poultry was removed from the bill and the NCC issued a press release criticising its removal, saying that poultry growers are paid a set price and the consumer pays the difference. In the poultry meat industry a group of subcontractors, many of whom used to work for poultry companies, buy day-old chicks from the big companies and later sell the birds back to them. It is cheaper for the big companies to let the subcontractors complete this stage, whilst they have control at both ends.

The companies used to undertake this work but, because it is an unpleasant job that involves long hours, they subcontracted it to poultry growers, who work smarter and harder. By using subcontractors, the net cost to the big poultry producers was reduced. The big poultry producers, who control supply and sale, were able to squeeze the margins of the little people. The oligopoly squeezed the small producers. A guaranteed price was set to protect the little people so they had some hope of making a reasonable income when dealing with an oligopoly. It was a classic example of the failure of economic theory, where the little people are squeezed and go broke so the big companies controlling the market can save a few cents per bird.

There is a huge difference in the margin between the payment to growers and the price paid by consumers. I believe the growers receive 50¢ per bird, and consumers pay $5. In other words, there is a large gap, with the big companies making the money. That is a mockery of the economic theory of competition. In a press release the NCC said the guaranteed price is inflicted on consumers. If the large poultry companies could grow the birds for cheaper than 50¢ per bird they would do so. That is the ultimate test. The subcontractors work much more cheaply than it would cost the companies to set up operations and pay employees to do the work. It is a very competitive industry, yet the NCC wants it deregulated. That shows the inflexibility of the dogma displayed by the NCC in the face of oligopolies controlling a market.

I gave that example to show the degree to which economic dogma has overtaken reality. The Government, after a great deal of fuss—which I believe the Government was happy to create—has split the bill into two: the liquor component in one bill, and the other components in a bill yet to come before Parliament. The deregulation of the liquor industry has received the most attention in the press and the most lobbying on behalf of vested interests, presumably because a great deal of money is involved. The maximum amount New South Wales will be penalised for not deregulating the sale of liquor is $12.7 million. That sum needs to be balanced with the extra cost to the community of making alcohol more easily available. As to the loss of revenue, in a letter dated 18 December the Premier referred to the number of intensive care beds that could be bought for that amount of money. That is a specious argument because alcohol abuse is a drain on the health care budget.

Having transfused 120 litres of blood to a patient who was dying from alcoholic liver failure—who then vomited most of the blood over me—I know exactly what alcohol abuse does to people, and their need for intensive care beds. In that case, the patient was in intensive care for six weeks and two days in a ward. He then walked out of the hospital, across the road to a pub and came back vomiting blood again. The consultant said to me, "Is that the same bloke?" And I said, "Yes, sir, it is." I asked whether I should transfuse the patient with water and the specialist agreed. That is what happened and the fellow died. That demonstrates alcohol abuse treatment and how useful intensive care beds are if we do not have intelligent alcohol management. Despite the fact that it will cost $12.7 million to cut the number of liquor outlets, a reduction would be a very good outcome.

Kowtowing to the liquor industry is a worry. The NCC deserves credit because its press release dated 17 February states that if the Government wishes to restrict liquor outlets on social policy grounds it can do so, and that it is not required to have more liquor outlets provided it restricts them in the interests of consumers and not in the interests of other liquor outlets. Concessions have been provided in this legislation in that social impact assessments and licence applications are to be lodged separately. Social impact assessments must be advertised in statewide newspapers as well as local newspapers, which will allow peak community bodies to make submissions. The Liquor Administration Board will also apply a new test in making a decision to grant a licence. The old needs test—that is, whether we need another outlet in the area—will be replaced by a test to establish whether the granting of a licence will detrimentally affect the local community or the broader community. The test will be applied in the light of the social impact assessment. Unfortunately, as with the needs test, the effectiveness of this latest test will depend on how it is applied. One could argue that the strict application of the needs test would result in fewer outlets. However, if it were applied in the spirit intended—that is, to minimise harm to the local community—it could be beneficial.

The legislation contains another significant provision that the Minister did not mention in his contribution dealing with the sale of alcohol at service stations and general stores. Section 49C (2) of the Liquor Act 1982, the principal Act, provides that a proprietor can have an off-licence or retail facility attached to a service station and a general store. The needs test applies in that a licensing court must be satisfied that no other takeaway liquor service is reasonably available in the neighbourhood. That situation occurs in the country where there is no bottle shop or pub. A case in point is the general store and service station on the Princes Highway at Bawley Point, just south of Ulladulla. Schedule 1 amends section 49C (2) so that service stations will be prevented from being granted an off-licence in any circumstance.

This raises a number of questions: Will that mean that service stations that have a licence will not have that licence renewed, and when is a service station not a service station? The definition provides that it must be a business operated primarily for the refuelling of motor vehicles. It is debatable whether the Bawley Point business is operated primarily as a service station or primarily as a general store. Most passing trade involves the sale of petrol, but the locals buy petrol, groceries and liquor, and all purchases are paid for at the one checkout area. The point becomes important because a general store may still have an off-licence, but premises defined as a service station cannot have such a licence. I hope the Minister will clarify that point in his reply.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: The Bawley Point facility is clearly a general store.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: The Opposition has an opinion, but we await the Minister's opinion. A number of studies have been conducted in comparable States of America on alcohol availability, particularly focusing on legislation, regulation, price and taxes. They demonstrate that the cheaper alcohol the more it is consumed, which follows the laws of economics. The studies found also that the convenience and availability of alcohol impacts on consumption and the social harm it causes both directly and indirectly—that is, alcohol-related illness and accidents resulting from impairment caused by alcohol consumption, such as road accidents and crimes of violence. Clearly, given my interest in social policy, I would like to restrict the number of alcohol outlets.

Hopefully that will be the result of this legislation, although that is not guaranteed. The NCC policy must include limitations. The Prime Minister has washed his hands and has said that the Premiers have agreed to the process. Mr Carr has taken the same approach and said that there is nothing he can do. The NCC appears to have ensured that governments cannot control the bureaucracy, and that is worrying. It is the position of the Australian Democrats that the strengthening of monopolies, duopolies or oligopolies against more general competition must be addressed. The case I presented involving the poultry industry is a good example of what can happen, as is our experience with deregulation of the dairy industry. Governments should consider their actions more rationally. On balance, this legislation is probably helpful. However, it is worrying that this circus occurred because of concerns raised about the payment regime imposed by the NCC.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER [3.37 p.m.]: I speak on the national competition policy amending legislation in relation to liquor outlets. It is extraordinary that we are only now debating this legislation, which has been amended many times over the past few months as the Government has tried to work out who to blame for its inadequacy. It is now blaming the Howard Government despite the fact that the Council of Australian Governments [COAG] created the National Competition Council [NCC] in 1985. As other honourable members have pointed out, its establishment was supported by Labor Premiers and the Labor Federal Government. Other States have made moves to work with the NCC's policy, but the Carr Labor Government has delayed and is now pointing the finger of blame at other people and governments.

If the Government does not like the legislation, why does it not take it back to COAG? It should raise the issues again and put the legislation on hold until COAG has addressed the matter properly. I find it farcical that the Carr Government held the Alcohol Summit last year and, despite its good work and recommendations, has now introduced legislation that will increase the number of liquor outlets. The Alcohol Summit is very much on my mind because the Standing Committee on Social Issues is dealing with two alcohol-related matters referred to it by this House¯the Inebriates Act and the recent riot at Redfern. I am sure it will become clear that alcohol had a part to play in the riot and that it is causing a great deal of suffering in the community. Every day many people in our community must deal with the impact of alcohol. It is frightening that we are now debating legislation that will lead to an increase in the number of liquor outlets and in the availability of alcohol. Despite that, the Carr Government is pointing the finger of blame elsewhere. It is a bit rich that a number of Labor members of both this place and the other place are hiding behind a 1985 policy introduced by a Labor Prime Minister.

I note that the honourable member for Port Stephens in the other place, with a foot on either side of the fence, on the one hand said that he opposed the legislation and on the other hand voted for it. He had the opportunity to vote against the legislation at its first reading, and he did not. He continued to tell the community of Port Stephens how dreadful it was. Indeed, the honourable member for Port Stephens was the one who convened an alcohol summit in Port Stephens, at which he heard time and again about the effects of alcohol. He then told the people of Port Stephens how much he opposed the legislation. Using the resources of the good taxpayers of New South Wales, the honourable member wrote a letter to the constituents of Port Stephens under the heading "Help keep alcohol off our local streets". The letter stated:

That does not sound like someone who would vote for this legislation! The honourable member for Port Stephens enclosed with the letter a document headed "A message from John Bartlett MP—Help keep alcohol off our streets—Sign the petition overleaf". That sounds like someone who would fight tooth and nail not to have this legislation, someone who would stand up for the residents of Port Stephens, and certainly someone who would stand up for increased regulation and guidelines on liquor. But that is not the case. This same person voted for this legislation in the other place.

Some sort of change takes over some people when they drive down the F3. As they cross the Hawkesbury River, suddenly the words they uttered in their electorate change; when they get to Macquarie Street they become Bob Carr's men. I believe the constituents of Port Stephens deserve an explanation for the double standards of their local member. I, for one, envisage huge problems arising from this legislation. We have seen evidence of that time and again. The comments of the Police Association of New South Wales are also relevant. The association notes recommendation 2.8 from the Alcohol Summit, which provided:

In my view that points to the need to not increase alcohol outlets, to take some effective action, for the Government to take a stand, and for local members to represent their constituents in good faith. Local members should certainly not hide behind the Carr Government and point the finger, given that the Government has had the power to do something about introducing this legislation long before now.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [3.44 p.m.]: The underlying theme of this legislation is the discredited economic ideology embodied in national competition policy. Despite the hollow protests of the New South Wales Labor Government against this process, it must not be forgotten that the national competition policy review process was foisted upon the people of Australia by the Keating Labor Government. Naturally, it has been enthusiastically embraced by the Howard Government, which shares the Labor Party's fetish for the damaging cult of economic rationalism. The Greens have fundamental objections to the principles of national competition policy and the agenda that underlies it. I borrow from the statement of my Western Australian Greens colleagues, who put it succinctly:

The national competition policy process has spun out of control. A reform agenda that originally targeted publicly owned industries, particularly utilities, has now run amok, wreaking havoc on parts of the economy that were never meant to fall within its scope. Thank goodness there are only four more years of this madness left before the program expires in 2007-08. The fact that the bill was split in two in the Legislative Assembly, and the debacle over poultry, pharmacy, optometry and dentistry, demonstrates just how contentious this issue is. However, the Government must be congratulated on finally splitting the bill and presenting the liquor provisions in a separate bill. Why on earth this was not done in the first place remains a mystery.

I turn now to the specifics of the bill. The Premier has made alcohol policy one of his signature issues. Last year's Alcohol Summit was a welcome opportunity to look seriously at this complex issue. The Greens welcome the start the Government has made on implementation of the Summit's recommendations, and we look forward to some of its more complex and challenging proposals being tackled. The Greens are pleased that the self-regulatory code for alcohol advertising, originating in part from the Summit, was developed and implemented in April this year. We share the serious concerns that many people and organisations raised about the success of the self-regulation model, and we will watch closely how effectively the industry enforces new codes, including the following:

A number of advertisements that would not conform with these new codes spring to mind, and I am not alone in observing with interest how effectively the voluntary code will rein in the relentless promotion of alcohol. Not only has the Premier backed down on an independent, enforceable code on alcohol advertising, but he has taken a strong stand in the interests of existing liquor outlets. In recent months the Premier has generated a lot of sound and fury about the possibility of expanding liquor outlets. It is interesting to speculate whether the Premier's passion has anything to do with the more than $590,000 donated to the Australian Labor Party by liquor and hospitality outlets over the last three years.

No-one disputes that excessive availability of alcohol can be linked to increasing social problems, but this in itself is not sufficient reason to shut down the distribution of alcohol. Prohibition simply does not work, whether in relation to alcohol or any other drug. The system of alcohol distribution as it currently stands is increasingly dominated by a few large players. It is the same familiar pattern we have seen in one industry after another—large corporations buy into a sector and aggressively undercut independent competitors. Once those competitors are out of business, the large operators are in a position to set their own prices, and they go on to do so to their own advantage. Any reform of the liquor licensing system must act against this tendency, not reinforce it.

The bill as it currently stands will do very little to break the virtual monopoly enjoyed by the existing pubs and clubs industry. It will allow large supermarkets and corporate chains, such as Woolworths and Coles, into the takeaway liquor market, but will achieve little else. The Greens believe that the fundamental principle to be followed in the management of alcohol, as with other potentially harmful drugs, is harm minimisation. We advocate that this principle, rather than the ineffective and socially cataclysmic policy of prohibition, should underpin the system of alcohol distribution. Social research indicates that an increase in the number of liquor outlets corresponds directly to increased harm in the community. The implications of this research must underpin any deregulation of the market.

In practical terms harm minimisation means making sure that the damage to individuals who consume a drug and to the society that they live in is prevented or reduced. Measures such as refusing service to people who are drunk and strictly enforcing age limits are important elements of harm minimisation as it applies to the individual. These requirements are already in place and the Greens strongly support their ongoing enforcement and expansion. But applying harm minimisation principles to the wider society is more difficult. It is far more complex than simply limiting the authority to distribute alcohol to existing outlets or controlling the expansion of the alcohol market to supermarkets and large corporations; it requires many more considerations to be taken into account than the economic ideology of unrestricted competition.

The Greens consider that the liquor licensing system needs a robust and effective tool to assess the social impact of proposed licences. This would be a step forward in ensuring harm minimisation by specifying the social challenges faced by residents near the proposed outlet and quantifying the predicted impacts of that outlet on key social indicators. When the bill was first introduced into the Legislative Assembly in February the Greens flagged amendments to tighten up the loose social impact assessments proposed by the Government and to ensure that these assessments apply periodically to existing as well as proposed licences. This is an important point. If we recognise that each and every liquor outlet contributes to alcohol-related harm in the community, then surely any system of social impact assessment should apply to each and every outlet.

But even if we ignore the social impact, surely on the basis of fair competition and creating a level playing field all players within any given market should abide by the same regulations and conditions. Anything less would contradict competition policy. Yet by restricting the system of social impact assessments to new entrants in the market this is precisely what the bill does: the activities of existing pubs and clubs will be exempt from being subject to the social impact assessment system. The Government's claims that tougher social impact assessment processes have been incorporated into the bill are a joke. Under the guise of the social impact assessment it has created nothing less than another hoop for new entrants to jump through, restricting new entrants and protecting Labor's mates in the existing pubs and clubs industry.

It is no wonder that the industry is broadly supportive of the social impact assessment process proposed by the Government. Under the bill industry does not need to do anything, while new competitors will be required to jump high hurdles. The Greens welcome the introduction of a social impact assessment system. The detail of what a social impact assessment must include, as outlined in the draft regulations, is positive. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the way in which the system will be implemented. If the Government were serious about implementing a system that genuinely assesses the social impacts of additional liquor outlets, it would apply that system across the board to all outlets and not limit it to the small fraction of the market that will make up the new entrants.

Furthermore, it would include an increased capacity for the social welfare sector to better engage in the assessment process. Bodies such as the Council for Social Service of New South Wales and the multitude of community organisations providing the front-line services linked to the negative impacts of alcohol are already overstretched, yet there is nothing in the bill to support the additional workload that any social impact assessment process may impose upon them. I return to the point that the bill will strengthen the position of big business at the expense of small business, community organisations and the broader community. It pays lip-service to social impact assessment, opens up the market to big supermarket chains, and protects the existing pubs and clubs industry.

I turn to liquor licensing and the responsible service of alcohol. Earlier this year the Minister for Gaming and Racing assured the crossbench that the Government was about to embark upon a comprehensive process of reviewing the Liquor Act. Currently, under the Act staff serving alcohol at bars must be trained in the responsible service of alcohol. This requirement is soon to be extended to door bouncers. Such training for door staff is well overdue and hopefully will help to defuse volatile and sometimes violent confrontations at pubs and clubs that occur all too frequently. The Greens would like to see this training extended to all staff selling alcohol, including outlets such as takeaway bottle shops and supermarkets. Such an amendment would no doubt be outside the leave of the bill, but if we are to avoid school kids working at Woolworths selling alcohol to fellow students, any review of the Liquor Act should certainly include this provision.

The Greens also hope that as part of that review we will see an overhaul of the inappropriate model of judicial rather than administrative decision making that underpins liquor licensing in this State. Despite the impression given by its name, the Liquor Administration Board—the body that approves liquor and gaming machine licences—is actually a judicial body consisting of a panel of four magistrates. The board considers applications based on a judicial or legal model whose focus is on the rights of the applicant and on formal process. This is nothing more than an anachronism, a throwback to the days when a whole range of licences were determined by a special class of licensing magistrate. It is an out-of-date model that gives control of the system to lawyers, thereby adding expense and complication. It also means that the scope of consideration of the court is always limited.

These days it is routine for licences to be granted by administrative rather than judicial bodies, with avenues for appeal to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal. Under this model legal interference is minimised and, if a licence is refused, the grounds of appeal must be based on failures in the decision-making process. The agencies assessing the merits of a proposal are accountable through the Minister to this Parliament and to the public¯a flawed system but more appropriate than the accountability applying to judges where independence is of the highest importance. The administrative model applies to almost all other categories of licence, including highly sensitive licences such as water and air pollution permits. There is no reason why it should not apply to liquor and gaming machine licences. I call upon the Government to consider these issues closely when considering further amendments to the Liquor Act, and I look forward to further action in this area.

The Premier has described this legislation as "all the Prime Minister's fault", and has howled that there is nothing he can do. Such assertions are a contemptible and empty show. It is true that national competition policy appears to be driving itself and that the Federal and State governments are blaming each other as it careers off course. But the Premier cannot walk away from responsibility for a system created by his Federal Labor colleagues and controlled by a Council of Australian Governments of which he is the one remaining original member. National competition policy continues to be a disaster in the making. During its reign sectors such as retail have become concentrated in the hands of a few large companies, small businesses have closed, the major banks have merged and international consortia have taken over key government contracts. The market advantages of big business have been boosted and foreign ownership of key industries has increased.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

_________

RAILCORP STAFF SALARIES

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Transport Services. Can the Minister explain why, at the same time that he is cancelling the Casino to Murwillumbah XPT service to save $5 million per year and cutting $20 million from State Transit's budget, RailCorp has been in the process of appointing 60 staff to level 3 positions within the department, many of whom will be paid in excess of $100,000 and at least six with salary packages of up to $269,000?

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: More of your Labor mates getting jobs.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The Opposition can make jokes about it—

The Hon. Rick Colless: You are a joke, and that is the problem.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The only joke is the Opposition. That is very clear from the events of the weekend when the Opposition was involved in some of the most disgraceful behaviour in its preselection process. A number of people opposite may well be temporary members.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Point of order: If thug boy opposite wants an opportunity to debate what goes on at weekends, he has an opportunity to do that during the adjournment debate. My point of order relates to relevance.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Minister that answers must be relevant to the questions asked.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Point of order: In his point of order the Leader of the Opposition referred to the Minister for Transport Services by a name other than the proper title by which he should be addressed in this House. I would like you to remind the Leader of the Opposition about the way in which he should address members in this House.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: To the point of order: Madam President, you have ruled on numerous occasions that, if the Minister takes offence, he should make a personal explanation. No unparliamentary language was used.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I have ruled on a number of occasions that the standing orders do not require members to refer to other members by the title "The honourable". However, I remind members that a number of standing orders refer to the term "unparliamentary language". Any language used by a member that makes imputations or inferences about other members is unparliamentary. I uphold the point of order. Will the member withdraw the remark?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I do not mind. Given that their branch meeting was described as the Mundine rematch, I can probably accept the proposition that—

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Tell us about the fat cats.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I know this embarrasses members of the Opposition. It is quite interesting that they called me a bovver boy, yet their own members describe internal party meetings as being a Mundine rematch. I find that quite staggering. They describe other members as "f''ing dickheads" and, in addition, they are involved in what is described as potentially rabid and racist views of the most extreme order.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: Point of order: Madam President, I draw your attention to the fact that the clock has not been started in relation to the answer and four minutes has, in fact, expired.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Members have been informed that the Chamber's electronic timing system is not working and that questions and answers are being timed manually by the Usher of the Black Rod.

BUSINESS AWARDS

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: My question without notice is addressed to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. Would the Minister inform the House about New South Wales companies that have been recognised at recent award ceremonies?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I would be delighted to do so. If honourable members have not already observed, the Deputy Leader of the Government is not here for question time today, so if members have questions for him, they might like to direct them to me.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: We miss his dashing smile.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Yes, I do too. The past two weeks have been significant for a number of New South Wales companies, which have been recognised for outstanding work in their respective fields. Last Tuesday night six companies from New South Wales were honoured at the Australian Electrical and Electronics Manufacturers Association Excellence Awards, which were held at the Australian Technology Park at Redfern. More than 300 people attended the awards, including business and government representatives from interstate. These prestigious national awards recognise excellence in a range of activities in the electronics industry, including commercialising research and development, smart manufacturing, exporting, the environment and innovation.

I am proud to report that 8 of the 11 awards were collected by New South Wales companies. These awards are a key event of the Australian Innovation Festival, which has a program of more than 60 New South Wales activities. Some of the New South Wales winners at the Australian Electrical and Electronics Manufacturers Association Excellence Awards include Peregrine Semiconductor Australia, which some members would be aware is based at Homebush and conducts unique semiconductor work based on ultra-thin silicon-on-sapphire technology. ERG Transit Systems of Silverwater, as many members would be aware, is a world leader in software systems for the transit industry and smart card systems. It has installed its systems in major cities worldwide.

Another local company called Pierlite, which is based at Padstow, is Australia's largest manufacturer of commercial light fittings. It was awarded for its efforts in producing a street light that uses 66 per cent less energy than its competitors. Krone Australia, which members have heard about before, is a Central Coast company that manufactures premium products in the communications and electrical industries. It was awarded for its commitment to manufacturing processes that minimise wastage, energy and packaging.

The previous Tuesday night was also a big occasion for some of New South Wales leading businesses, which distinguished themselves at the Consensus Software Awards by picking up 7 of the 14 prizes. Alexandria company Eagle Datamation International not only won a Consensus award for its ediEnterprise software but also picked up a second $10,000 prize by taking out the Microsoft-sponsored realising potential award for innovation. EdiEnterprise is used to automate and streamline management and operations of supply chain providers, including international freight forwarders, customs brokers, depots, container terminals and trucking companies.

The Department of State and Regional Development has assisted Eagle Datamation International in the past, under its High-growth Business Program, with export development support and also marketing and promotional support as a member of the Australian Technology Showcase. The Consensus Software Awards, now in their fifth year, recognise excellence in software design and help build international credibility and exposure for Australian products. Some of the other New South Wales companies that won the Consensus awards include Atlassian Software Systems of Sydney, whose project management software has attracted clients, including NASA; Console Australia of North Sydney, which manufactures software for the real estate industry; and ClockOn Pty Ltd of Umina, which was recognised for its human resources software. It is great to see the innovative technologies from New South Wales being rewarded in this way. [Time expired.]

NATIONAL LIVESTOCK IDENTIFICATION SCHEME FUNDING

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Is it true that a significant portion of the $5.4 million budget that the Minister announced as a government grant to facilitate the uptake of the National Livestock Identification Scheme [NLIS] implementation for industry has been spent on paying the salaries of existing NSW Agriculture staff? How can the Minister justify spending funding, specifically allocated as new funding to NLIS for implementation, on general departmental staffing costs? Has he since lobbied the New South Wales Treasurer for more NLIS funding and how will the Minister ensure it is better managed and directed to the people who need it most—the individual farmers—rather than propping up the Minister's bottom line?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: My understanding is that the question is erroneous in just about every point. My understanding, from advice I have received from the department, is that the $5.4 million is calculated around the equipment and the basic roll-out system that is required for NLIS. If one takes into account the potential cost to the department, it would exceed $5.4 million by a considerable amount. That is my understanding. The advice I have received in relation to the roll-out is that the $5.4 million is dedicated to the actual equipment and all the necessities for the system to operate.

SCHOOLS FUNDING

The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD: My question is addressed to the Minister for Community Services, representing the Minister for Education and Training. Is the Minister aware of calls on the Federal Government by the New South Wales Teachers Federation to address what that group alleges to be a Federal funding imbalance between public schools and private schools? Is it correct that in the current financial year New South Wales government schools received 89.8 per cent of the total State education budget although their enrolments were only 67.7 per cent of the State's students, whereas private schools, with nearly one-third of the State's enrolled students, received barely over 10 per cent of the New South Wales State education budget? Has the State Government been similarly approached by the New South Wales Teachers Federation to balance apparent underfunding of New South Wales private schools by the New South Wales State Government?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I will refer the Hon. David Oldfield's question to the Minister for Education and Training in the other place, and undertake to get an answer as soon as possible.

PORK INDUSTRY

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Will the Minister update the House on some serious developments affecting the pork industry in New South Wales?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I thank the honourable member for her question on this issue, which is important to her and to the area she represents in northern New South Wales. The pork industry is reeling from yesterday's confirmation that more pig meat imports will soon be permitted into Australia. The announcement by Biosecurity Australia has immediately generated intense worry and uncertainty for rural and regional New South Wales. It also came at a time when farmers are already under great pressure from the drought and the international subsidies affecting many agricultural industries. For honourable members who are not already aware, Biosecurity Australia has announced that it will uphold a ruling to relax our rigorous quarantine standards and allow more imported pig meat into Australia. This was despite an appeal from the New South Wales Government, which was ignored. I point out that on 20 February I wrote to the Federal agriculture Minister, Warren Truss, asking him to meet urgently with the affected industry and me to discuss this issue. Mr Truss refused to meet with this delegation from New South Wales.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: It was just you.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: It was not. I had Australian Pork Ltd, the banana organisation and the apple organisation all committed to meeting with the Minister. Biosecurity Australia's announcement yesterday was also in direct opposition to an independent CSIRO report which warned that this decision will generate a 95 per cent to 99 per cent risk of an exotic disease outbreak in Australia in the next decade. I want to express my disgust at this decision and put it on the record in this place that it is a devastating result for more than 800 pork producers in New South Wales. Key pig meat production areas include Forbes, Grenfell, Young, Tamworth, Gunnedah, Corowa, Narrabri and the far North Coast. The implications of this decision for farmers in these regions, and the $650 million through-chain pig meat industry in New South Wales, are likely to be severe. Industry groups recognise this and have responded in very strong terms. For example, Australian Pork Ltd, the peak pork industry group, stated in a press release yesterday:

That is what Australian Pork Ltd had to say about the Federal Government's decision. Might I add that America is already skiting about the result of this decision. Indeed, an article on ABC Rural online states:

So America is already clear about what this is all about. It is about trade, not quarantine. It is about getting American pork into Australia. Given the situation, one must ask: Who are The Nationals federally looking after, Australian farmers or American farmers? The Federal Coalition now owes farmers some answers. First, if it deems that a 99 per cent level of risk is acceptable, what does it define as an unacceptable level of risk? One outbreak of the pig wasting disease in Europe a couple of years ago cost the local industries $US1.5 billion and killed eight million pigs. Why are we exposing our local industries to the possibility of such terrible losses? Secondly, Biosecurity Australia has already been forced to withdraw a separate import risk assessment document on the banana industry because of serious flaws in the modelling used. How can the New South Wales pig meat industry be sure that serious mistakes are not lurking in the detail of the pork assessment as well? [Time expired.]

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate his answer?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I also join the pig meat industry in objecting to the lack of transparency throughout the entire assessment process. Federal officials claim that they consulted with industry. Some meetings with industry may have taken place, but Biosecurity Australia was not listening. It was running to a trade agenda, which relates to the free trade agreement, not to our quarantine standards. Those standards have ensured that the health status of the Australian livestock industry and, indeed, our plant industries are the safest in the world. We are now jeopardising their status. So today I am calling on the Federal Coalition to put local industries first for once. I also hope that the Opposition agriculture spokesman in this House, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, will join me in lobbying his Federal colleagues on this issue.

I hope that, instead of pouring scorn on us, he lets his Federal colleagues know that this decision must be overturned for the benefit of the 800 pork producers and the thousands of workers along the central divide of this State and in northern New South Wales who rely on a safe and healthy pig industry in Australia for their livelihood and the livelihood of their communities, rather than have our pork industry potentially floored, according to the CSIRO, by a 99 per cent chance of a major exotic disease outbreak within the next decade. We must stop this decision. We must join with the Senate committee that has already called for the decision to be halted and we must put into place a more equitable situation that defends the health status of our livestock industries.

AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE INDUSTRIES SITE REDEVELOPMENT

Ms SYLVIA HALE: I direct my question to the Treasurer. In light of an answer by the Federal Minister for Finance and Administration on 22 November 1999 that no compensation would be payable by the Federal Government to Lend Lease if the Australian Defence Industries [ADI] site at St Marys did not receive rezoning approval, is the State Government liable to pay compensation to Lend Lease, or to any other party, if New South Wales denies development consent? Is finalisation of the sale of the site by the Federal Government to Lend Lease dependent upon New South Wales guaranteeing development consent? Has the State Government entered, or is it about to enter, any such agreement with the Commonwealth or Lend Lease? What is the full financial liability of the State Government, payable to any party, if development consent is denied and the whole ADI site is preserved as a regional park for the people of western Sydney?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I am advised that the Government is not liable to pay any compensation if the development does not proceed at the ADI site at St Marys. The State Government has no plans to enter into any agreement guaranteeing that development consents would be provided. While this is a question for the Commonwealth Government, as far as the New South Wales Government is aware the agreement between Lend Lease and the Commonwealth does not depend on the granting of development consents. If the ADI site were preserved as a regional park no compensation would be payable by the Government to any party. Of course, the State would incur an extra cost to set up and maintain any new parkland.

SUPPORTED ACCOMMODATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

The Hon. JOHN RYAN: My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services. What is the Government's response to the recommendations of the final report from the New South Wales Ombudsman arising from his inquiry into the access to and exiting from the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program [SAAP] entitled "Assisting homeless people—the need to improve their access to accommodation and support services"? What new initiatives has the Government planned to prevent people from being inappropriately excluded from SAAP services?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: The Hon. John Ryan referred to a report that the Ombudsman tabled last week into the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program [SAAP]. As honourable members would be aware, SAAP is a $110 million program that supports homeless people in crisis. It is a program primarily delivered through funding provided to more than 400 non-government organisations across New South Wales and is a Commonwealth-State funded program.

I welcome the report of the Ombudsman as a contribution to the continual improvement in services to homeless men, women and children in New South Wales. The report contains 17 recommendations. It is important to note that the recommendations impact on the Department of Community Services as well as the Office of Community Housing and, most particularly, on a range of SAAP-funded non-government agencies who are service deliverers. I have asked the Department of Community Services to give the recommendations close consideration. I will also be requesting advice from the Supported Accommodation Advisory Council in relation to the report because many of the stakeholders are represented on that council, including both non-government organisations and the Commonwealth.

The Ombudsman has indicated in his report that he would like the department to respond formally within three months in relation to the recommendations that impact in particular on the department or for which the department has some direct responsibility. Certainly the department will comply with that time frame and provide a report to the Ombudsman within those three months.

LOCAL COUNCIL AMALGAMATIONS

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Local Government. Is the Minister aware of allegations by the administrator of the Eastern Capital City Regional Council that the Boundaries Commission used wrong financial figures and failed to identify costs likely to be incurred in the establishment of a new council when advising him about new boundaries? Has he asked the commission for a "please explain" and a report about the reliability of figures provided to him by the commission in relation to boundary adjustments for other councils?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: On 11 February the Government proclaimed seven new councils surrounding the Australian Capital Territory following a regional review. The creation of these new councils will result in financial benefits including a one-off saving of $2.1 million, and further savings of $1 million each and every year. I am aware that negotiations are going on in relation to the distribution of assets, employees and a number of issues but at this stage they have not been finalised. It is too early to tell whether they are financially viable.

TRANSIT OFFICERS

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI: My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport Services. What is the latest information on CityRail's transit officer program?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Today I attended, together with the Premier, the graduation of 66 new transit officers. They are the latest recruits to join CityRail's continuing upgrade of the security program. Today's graduation brings the total number patrolling trains to 374. That means CityRail is on track to meet its commitment to have 600 transit officers patrolling the metropolitan train network by December this year. The new officers are in addition to 300 transit police—and I know the Leader of the Opposition keeps confusing transit police and transit officers. We have 300 transit police as well as 374 transit officers. The Leader of the Opposition keeps confusing the two.

[Interruption]

One can see why we have to concentrate on Bankstown after the events of the weekend in Bankstown. Clearly, there are social problems in Bankstown. It is extraordinary that members of the Liberal Party would interject when I am trying to talk about security, safety and decorum and a campaign to stop antisocial behaviour. Clearly they have had experience with antisocial behaviour over the weekend. What I find particularly interesting is that at a time when we are talking about the coalition of the willing and the problems they are facing, we have in front of us a coalition of the unwilling. The Opposition is so divided and in turmoil that its members cannot look at each other. The Hon. David Clarke is looking at the sky because one of his staffers has been involved in some outrageous behaviour. The Hon. John Ryan sits with his arms closed and Hon. Don Harwin is another temporary member—

The Hon. Don Harwin: Point of order: I am sure this is very entertaining for Government backbenchers but it has nothing to do with the question. I ask you to remind the Minister of the standing orders, which require him to be relevant.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Minister of the standing orders, which require him to be relevant.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I was talking about transit officers. One of the changes we made to transit officers was to have intelligence-based policing. That is a more sensible way to police. Under intelligence-based policing one needs to ascertain potential areas of disturbance. Following the events of the weekend, Bankstown is an area we will be focusing on in the future, particularly around the platforms. It is quite possible that some of the unruly elements that the Hon. David Clarke has put—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: The Minister should be drawn back to the question. I understand why the Minister is concerned about platforms; most of his transport inspectors spend their time on platforms because the trains are not running—as do most people who try to catch a train in the Sydney metropolitan area.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: What is the point of order?

The Hon. Duncan Gay: It is one of relevance. The Minister does not seem to want to give a relevant answer to the question.

The Hon. Michael Egan: To the point of order: there is a distinct possibility that travelling on public transport last week were the thugs employed by the Hon. David Clarke and the Hon. John Ryan. Not all of them have their own transport. It is a matter of great concern. The Liberal Party members managed to use our public transport—

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister was referring to transit officers and transport generally. His response was relevant.

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate his answer?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: As members of the House will be well aware, one of the roles of transit officers is to provide security at special events, the sort of special events we probably saw on the weekend, which were described as a rematch of the Mundine fight.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: It is clearly a matter of relevance—

The Hon. Michael Egan: Point of order—

The PRESIDENT: Is the Treasurer taking a point of order on the point of order?

The Hon. Michael Egan: Yes, I am taking a point of order on the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: I have not finished my point of order yet.

The PRESIDENT: The Treasurer is taking a point of order on the point of order taken by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order on the Treasurer's point of order: I had only got to the stage of saying I was taking a point of order on relevance. It is impossible to take a point of order at that stage, having no more information.

The Hon. Michael Egan: Point of order: This matter has nothing to do with The Nationals. It is an internal Liberal Party matter.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Minister for Transport Services that his answer must be relevant.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I was describing the role of transit officers, who have extensive powers to ensure that people travelling to and from events using public transport have the benefit of a safe and secure environment. If there is antisocial behaviour, such as that displayed at the Bankstown branch of the Liberal Party on the weekend, this form of security is needed to ensure that the public is protected. It is extraordinary that the Coalition presents itself as a unified force. Clearly, it is the Coalition of the unwilling.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: Once again, my point of order is on relevance. The Minister is talking about events to distract the people of New South Wales from his puerile thoughts and puerile trains. He did not get within a bull's roar of any railway station. Nor do his trains!

The PRESIDENT: Order! I uphold the point of order. The Minister's time has expired.

POLICE FIREARMS REGISTRY

The Hon. JOHN TINGLE: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Justice, representing the Minister for Police. Is the Minister aware that he has still not answered the greater part of a question without notice that I directed to him on 30 March? Does he recall that I specifically asked whether numerous complaints were still being received about the slow processing of firearms' licences and permits by the Police Firearms Registry? Does he recall that I also asked how much of the $2.9 million extra funding promised to the registry this financial year had been applied to the registry to date, how many of the promised 40 extra staff have been employed so far, and how much longer it will be before the registry's resources are improved sufficiently to allow it to function properly? Does the Minister agree that in his answer on 4 May he did not answer any of these questions? Will the Minister now answer those specific questions?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: At present I am not able to recollect the specific questions that were directed to the Minister for Police. I cannot answer the subsidiary issues that were raised in the question asked by the Hon. John Tingle. I will refer those aspects to the Minister, obtain an answer and advise the honourable member in due course. As to the final question—do I agree that the previous question he directed was not answered—the answer is no.

BINNAWAY TO GWABEGAR BRANCH RAIL LINE CLOSURE

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Transport Services. Will the Minister confirm that a decision to mothball the Binnaway to Gwabegar branch rail line was made before all public submissions to the Grain Infrastructure Advisory Committee were properly considered? How many permanent jobs will be lost as a result of this closure, and to which area will those displaced workers now be deployed? Following the Minister's decision to close this line, what is his response to the concerns of grain growers and local councils that will suffer higher costs of transporting grain by road, greater road maintenance costs and increased road safety problems?
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: You'd better treat this one seriously.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I always treat sensible questions seriously. As the Opposition knows, no decision has been made on any grain branch line. I have consistently said that. I have also consistently challenged the Opposition to get involved with the Government on a bipartisan basis—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: What about your own internal documents?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: That is not my document. That document was put together in consultation with the industry about potential changes to the structure of branch lines. It is not a document on which the Government has made a decision. I have challenged the Opposition on many occasions to get involved on a bipartisan basis and to sit down with us and the responsible Federal Ministers, in this case Warren Truss and John Anderson, and come up with a sensible arrangement.

The Hon. Rick Colless: Why didn't you come to the Griffith rail seminar?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I will not go to a meeting of The Nationals; I might end up in a brawl. After what I saw of the Bankstown branch of the Liberal Party on the weekend I would be really frightened to go to any Coalition meeting.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Point of order: The Minister had a bit of fun with Bankstown and Punchbowl in his answer to the previous question. This is a very serious issue. People's livelihoods are on the line. I ask that the Minister confine his remarks to the question on the basis of relevance and also in consideration of the people of country New South Wales, who are concerned about their future.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Minister that standing orders require answers to be relevant to the questions asked.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: My answers are always relevant to the questions. Unfortunately, the Hon. Rick Colless interjected that I should have attended a meeting of The Nationals. I clearly made the point that the track record of the Coalition at its internal meetings causes me to have a degree of fear about attending such meetings. It is important to put that on the record.

The Hon. Rick Colless: How about going on to Murwillumbah? Are you scared about going to Murwillumbah?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I want to get the film of the Bankstown meeting. It would be very interesting.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Point of order: The Minister is flouting your earlier ruling. I ask that the Minister be drawn back to his answer, without the need for me to take points of order.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister should be reminded that the standing orders require that an answer be relevant to the question asked. I always allow a certain amount of general discussion by a Minister when responding to a question. However, when a Minister strays too far from the question asked I will draw the attention of the Minister to that fact.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I have challenged the Coalition on a number of occasions to get involved in the process on a bipartisan basis to resolve this matter. As the Coalition knows, one of the central issues is what is referred to as the broadacre agreement, which was part of the freight rail sale. Part of that agreement provided for a back-to-back arrangement to provide funding for some storage facilities. Unfortunately, the Australian Wheat Board [AWB] has chosen to look at locating those storage facilities away from the branch rail line.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: The AWB? Where away from railway lines?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The AWB, absolutely. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition obviously does not even understand his own industry. That is not surprising—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: I do. Tell me where the AWB has put a silo away from a railway line. Name one!

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The Opposition—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: —has asked a sensible question.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The Opposition has never asked a sensible question. The Opposition is clearly stunned by the fact that its own Federal Government cannot— [Time expired.]

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister name the silos that are being located by the Australian Wheat Board away from railway lines?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Not only will I name the branch lines. I will also provide this afternoon a detailed report attached to a press release which will indicate that the Opposition is not prepared to support the Government in resolving this very critical issue.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT STRUCTURAL REFORM

The Hon. KAYEE GRIFFIN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Local Government. Will the Minister outline the next step in the local government reform program?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: The first stage of the local government reform program has seen the creation of 13 new councils, generating one-off savings of almost $11 million and annual savings of $11.3 million. Our local government reform program is not just about reducing the number of councils or about making them bigger; it is about making councils better service providers. Councils must be accountable to their communities, and that is why I am setting up a flying squad of investigators to stop problems before they start. These teams were part of our policy at the last election and were flagged at the New South Wales Shires Association conference held in June last year.

Local government is bound to the State Government. We are responsible for it, and we take our responsibility seriously. The investigators will be out in the field doing spot checks on the performance of councils. They will have the power to investigate councils' finances, conflicts of interest and pecuniary interest matters, planning decisions and complaint handling, as well as any other matter that affects good service delivery. When fully operational, the squads will conduct full reviews of between 10 and 15 councils each year. They will literally be our eyes and ears in council chambers across the State.

I will not hesitate to pull into line underperforming councils. Having said that, I advise that these squads will also be on hand to provide expert advice and assistance to councils in trouble. Councils in trouble will also be able to request a review. I expect the investigators to undertake the first review in June or July this year. This initiative has attracted wide support from the Shires Association of New South Wales and from individual councils across the State. I thank councils for their co-operation and urge them to take advantage of the assistance these teams will provide.

NSW POLICE BUDGET

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG: I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Police. A media report over the weekend stated that the New South Wales Government has slashed $4.5 million from the NSW Police advertising, travel and printing budgets. Will the Minister assure the House that the cuts will not affect operational policing?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: The Minister for Police has made a statement relating to these matters and I refer the honourable member to it.

SOUTH COAST RAIL SERVICES

The Hon. DON HARWIN: I direct my question to the Minister for Transport Services. Is the Minister aware of the comment made by the honourable member for Kiama on radio yesterday that South Coast rail services will be maintained but that the Government is finetuning the timetable? Is he aware of the honourable member's claim that replacing trains with buses is an acceptable solution? Will the Minister make a commitment to South Coast communities that train services between Kiama and Bomaderry will be maintained at the current level and reject the suggestion made by the honourable member for Kiama that substituting rail services with buses on the South Coast line on a permanent basis is an acceptable solution?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The Government has a responsibility to provide public transport services in the most cost-effective way. One can apply a range of technologies to the provision of public transport services, but the logic must be based on demand. Clearly, if the level of demand indicates that railway services are warranted, the Government will provide railway services. If the level of demand does not warrant the provision of rail services, the Government will pursue a course that enables it to provide not only transport services but also all the other services it must provide, including education, health care and so on. The Government is not required to provide expensive services that deliver more than is required. That logic was well recognised by the Hon. Bruce Baird when he was Minister for Transport.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, when Coalition members sat on the Treasury benches they oversaw the largest reduction in country rail services in the history of this State. What did they replace them with? They replaced them with coaches. Why did they provide coach services? They did so because they reached the same conclusion that this Government has reached, that is, that coaches are more appropriate in some circumstances.

The honourable member for Kiama has informed me of community concerns about the maintenance of public transport services and I have assured him that the Government will maintain services in the area. No responsible Government provides expensive technology that does not suit the task. Sensible and responsible government—something honourable members opposite will learn about if they can maintain—

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: In three years time.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: That will be the day. They would learn about sensible and responsible government if they were to study this Government's track record. They would realise that it has been able to provide sensible services based on sensible economics because it has made decisions about appropriate technologies and service provision. The Opposition has made a number of comments about this Government's demise. After the weekend's events the coalition of the unwilling will be lucky to survive the next couple of months. The Hon. John Ryan is holding up a copy of the Northern Star to make some point, but the Hon. David Clarke, who is sitting behind him, is the only member who has not said anything today. He is busy plotting.

The Hon. Don Harwin: Point of order: The Minister was asked a serious question about whether rail services would continue to be provided to and from Kiama, Gerringong, Berry and Bomaderry. He has not provided a relevant answer.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister is reminded of my previous ruling.

PRISONERS TAX FRAUD

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: I direct my question to the Minister for Justice. Will the Minister inform the House about what is being done to prevent prisoners from engaging in tax evasion and similar rorts?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I am pleased to inform the House that in May 2003 executives from the Department of Corrective Services met with Australian Taxation Office [ATO] representatives, including the director of fraud projects. They were advised about allegedly fraudulent taxation claims lodged by inmates serving time in a number of correctional centres across Australia, including New South Wales. It has since been ascertained by the ATO that up to 40 New South Wales serving and former inmates are suspected of fraud involving about $600,000. It was agreed that a working party would be established to explore strategies, to share intelligence and to develop a model for the management of tax fraud in correctional services. Confidentiality issues posed a problem in the form of privacy legislation and were exacerbated by the large number of prisoners in custody and former prisoners.

On 11 July 2003 the department provided a list of correctional centre addresses to the ATO to facilitate data matching of inmates lodging returns. The ATO then advised that it had sought information from the Australian Government Solicitor regarding privacy protocols or legislation that might prohibit the sharing of information with external agencies. On 12 September 2003 the Assistant National Director of Fraud Intelligence formally requested the provision of information relating to people incarcerated in the New South Wales prison system between 1 July 1999 and 30 June 2003. A protocol was prepared and endorsed by the Australian Privacy Commissioner at the request of the ATO. On 19 September the department sought advice from its own corporate counsel on the protocol and the department's legal authority to provide the requested information. On 16 October 2003 advice was received that the department could legally provide such information. Since then the matter has self-evidently remained confidential.

Following the detection of a number of alleged frauds, the department will be holding meetings with the ATO to finetune procedures and policies, and it aims to have them in place for the new financial year. A directive is also being developed to provide guidance to governors and executive staff. Western Australia has already piloted some measures to which New South Wales is giving favourable consideration. They include inmates not being permitted to access tax documents delivered to correctional facilities by hand or by mail; tax packs and BAS statements being available only when issued by correctional centre staff; original group certificates and other documents not being available for inmates to retain in their possession; and staff being required to attach originals to completed returns, which will be placed in special envelopes provided by the ATO and addressed to the ATO fraud section.

The proposed implementation of the strategy is expected to occur before the end of this financial year. I am advised that the problem I have identified has been a national one, with at least four other States across Australia being involved. I commend the co-operation that has taken place between the Department of Corrective Services and the Australian Taxation Office, which hopefully will ensure that mechanisms are put in place to prevent a recurrence of the problems that arose in these instances.

ABORIGINAL PARTICIPATION IN CONSTRUCTION IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services, representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. How many Aboriginal-owned enterprises and people of Aboriginal background have been awarded construction contracts by the Department of Housing and other government entities under the Aboriginal Participation in Construction Implementation Guidelines in the Sydney metropolitan area since 2001? Why are the Aboriginal Participation in Construction Implementation Guidelines not part of the selection criteria for head contractors competing for Department of Housing contracts? Which Department of Housing head contractors have complied with the guidelines, and which head contractors have not complied, or has no data been collected on this aspect? Which other government departments have Aboriginal participation guidelines? What monitoring of their compliance exists, and what are the results, if any, of that monitoring?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: As the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans's question is detailed and lengthy I will refer it to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in the other place and undertake to obtain a response as soon as possible.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES PARENTAL DRUG-USE POLICY

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services. What procedures does the Department of Community Services follow when an allegation of drug use of a parent who is about to have a child restored to him or her is made to the department? Does the department automatically require drug testing of the parties concerned before a child is restored to his or her parents?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: As I indicated last week, with regard to the restoration of children who have been removed from families where drug or alcohol abuse is a significant issue, it may be a requirement that natural parents meet a range of conditions before their children are returned to them. Those conditions are usually subject to a court process whereby the Children's Court determines whether such conditions should apply, and they are usually subject to a process of negotiation and discussion.

Drug testing, or urinalysis, may well be one of those conditions, but it is not universally used in all circumstances. Certainly each case would be looked at individually. As I indicated last week, the paramount consideration of the department is the safety and security of the child, and that is the matter that the department is focused on. The restoration process for a child who has been removed from parental care would usually be subject to a regime sanctioned by the Children's Court. It seems that the Hon. Charlie Lynn has an interest in a specific case. I would be happy to follow up further issues he may raise if he has continuing concerns about that case.

NEIGHBOURHOOD CENTRES

The Hon. HENRY TSANG: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Community Services. What support does the Government provide to neighbourhood centres in New South Wales?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: The question is timely given that this week is Neighbourhood Centre Week, which provides an opportunity for members to celebrate and pay tribute to the important role that neighbourhood centres play in local communities. There are some 300 neighbourhood centres in New South Wales and they are often the hub of many communities. Each week the 10,000 volunteers and staff in neighbourhood centres throughout New South Wales provide a range of activities and a drop-in base for children, young people and families, older people and people with a disability. They provide counselling, family support and a range of other services.

Neighbourhood centres identify community needs and work to help meet those needs. They bring communities together. One important aspect of neighbourhood centres is that they are often able to connect with people who are not comfortable using more formal services. By participating in a wide range of programs or services offered through neighbourhood centres, people can build social networks, enhance their parenting skills, and learn a variety of new skills through training. The centres can also play a vital role in boosting development of young people through child care services and youth programs. In the current financial year the Department of Community Services has allocated more than $12 million to neighbourhood centres.

I refer to two examples of neighbourhood centres, the first a coastal neighbourhood centre and the other an urban neighbourhood centre. Riverwood Community Centre, in south-western Sydney, is one example of the many vibrant neighbourhood centres in New South Wales. Like many neighbourhood centres, it grew from humble beginnings: it began its life as a house in Belmore Road approximately 30 years ago. Today the centre is located in a specially built, multipurpose building, where it provides more than 14 services and programs for the local community.

The centre provides a base for a family support service, child sexual assault counselling, drug and alcohol counselling, and a youth program. There are also job search programs, a program aimed at keeping young people at school, and leisure opportunities for the community such as basketball and tai chi. Like many of the neighbourhood centres in New South Wales, Riverwood Community Centre provides a vast range of services to the local community. I am told that on average 1,700 people a week use Riverwood Community Centre.

In the State's north, hundreds of kilometres away from Riverwood, Urunga Neighbourhood Centre plays a pivotal role in its local community. Urunga is a growing coastal town south of Coffs Harbour with a diverse community of senior citizens and increasing numbers of young families—a mix that can pose challenges for service providers. About 100 people a month access Urunga Neighbourhood Centre for information or referrals. Through the centre, members of the community can use computers and the Internet for just $2. One of the centre's volunteers also provides low-cost, one-on-one computer training for people in the community. Information on training, playgroups and other services is available from the neighbourhood centre. During school holidays the centre's volunteers run hugely popular craft groups for local children. At other times the centre is a place where the community can access the early childhood nurse and a youth service.

Those neighbourhood centres are just two examples of the many neighbourhood centres that are providing outstanding services and opportunities to local communities. The efforts of the dedicated volunteers and staff at such centres help to ensure that children, young people, families, seniors and communities have access to the support, training, information and services they need. I am sure all members of the House would join me in thanking the 10,000 volunteers and staff who make New South Wales neighbourhood centres an invaluable resource, and I hope they achieve the recognition they deserve during Neighbourhood Centre Week.

PARLIAMENT HOUSE WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES

Mr IAN COHEN: I had intended to ask a question of the Minister for Energy and Utilities, but for the second time in one week, having provided the Minister with the question days in advance, I have not been given a prepared answer. Madam President, as the relevant officer presiding over the workings of the Parliament, if I could ask you the question I may receive an answer. Given the enthusiasm with which Minister Sartor seeks community support for voluntary and mandatory water restrictions, will you insist that the Minister practise what he preaches and enforce the same water-saving measures in Parliament House and other government buildings—for example, fitting dual-flush toilets in Parliament House, installing waterless urinals in the men's toilets in Parliament House, installing water-efficient shower heads in the approximately 30 showers in Parliament House, and installing proven innovative methods of water saving whereby shower water is collected and reused to flush toilets?

The PRESIDENT: As Mr Ian Cohen knows, it is not my practice to answer questions asked in the House. However, if the honourable member would like to see me in my office I will give him a detailed description of the excellent water conservation measures that are practised in this Parliament House.

TRANSIT OFFICERS DRIVER TRAINING

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Transport Services and Minister for the Hunter. Have in excess of 120 transit officers lodged expressions of interest to become train drivers? If so, what effect will the transfer of a large number of transit officers into a driver training program have on the Minister's promise to employ 600 transit officers by December?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I am not aware of how many transit officers have applied to become train drivers. I think that was what the question was. We certainly welcome transit officers taking the opportunity to become train drivers. Clearly, if that means we have to backfill those positions we will. We have provided funding for 600 positions and we are on target to reach 600 positions but if we need to backfill any of those positions because people choose other careers, we will certainly do that. The Government is committed to a staffing of 600 positions.

I know the Opposition likes to pick niggly points, as it did a moment ago when I spoke about rail lines as opposed to branch lines. I tried to work out what the honourable member was carrying on about, but clearly my references were to branch lines. The Treasurer pointed out to me that I may well have said "rail line" instead of "branch rail line". So there is absolutely no misunderstanding: branch rail line. I will hold the Opposition to exactly the same standard.

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

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: David Clarke is up there trying to knock off Don Harwin, John Ryan, Patricia Forsythe, and probably the Leader of the Opposition. It is a disunited Opposition.

The Hon. Don Harwin: Point of order: The Minister was asked a very clear question about transit officers and a promise to have 600 of them by December. He is nowhere near it and I would ask you to draw his attention to the standing orders.

The Hon. Michael Egan: To the point of order: The Minister was only halfway through his answer. He was clearly getting to the stage where he was suggesting that when Don Harwin, John Ryan, and Patricia Forsythe get knocked off they could get jobs as transit officers.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Further to the point of order: Not only has the Minister strayed from the question but he is misleading the House. The Minister quite clearly said there are no Australian Wheat Board [AWB] silos on rail lines, and when challenged by the Opposition he repeated "rail lines". It is obvious not only that the Minister is misleading the House but that he does not know his portfolio.

The PRESIDENT: Order! A claim that a member is misleading the House cannot be the basis of a point of order. I would like to have ruled on the relevance of the Minister's answer but, as I could not hear it, I cannot do so. I remind members that interjections are disorderly at all times, and as such I ask the Minister not to respond to them.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: We are seeking to recruit 600 transit officers. A piece of equipment that transit officers are given is a tie that has a clip on it for safety purposes. I am wearing such a tie at the moment. It can be ripped off in case of an incident. I strongly suggest that the Liberal Party gets these sorts of ties for its Liberal Party branch meetings!

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

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: If members have any further questions, they might like to place them on notice.

Questions without notice concluded.

NATIONAL COMPETITION POLICY LIQUOR AMENDMENTS (COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL PENALTIES) BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [5.04 p.m.]: I was talking about the disastrous impact of national competition policy. The market advantages of big business have been boosted and foreign ownership of key industries has increased. All of this has happened without a comprehensive independent assessment of the impact of competition policy on the wellbeing of Australia. The National Competition Council has ushered in the era of oligopoly, and it does not care as long as it is not government controlled.

In summary, this legislation is yet another insult to the people of New South Wales, offered in the name of economic rationalism. Under the guise of competition it opens up the alcohol market to supermarket chains, but does nothing to upset the cosy monopoly enjoyed by Labor's mates in the pub and club industry. The introduction of a social impact assessment system to assess the full impact of liquor outlets on communities is commendable, but it must be extended to include all players in the market, not just new entrants. Until and unless this occurs the Greens will not support the bill.

The Hon. JON JENKINS [5.06 p.m.]: The whole concept of the National Competition Council [NCC] interfering in pharmacy and other non-government instrumentalities is ludicrous. It is equally ludicrous that the various State and Federal governments could not get together and simply remove the powers of the NCC to interfere in those areas. This would have required a meeting of the Council of Australian Governments [COAG] and the signing of a simple document. The buck-passing between the Federal and State governments is simply not acceptable. I wrote to the Treasurer outlining these concerns and asking for some solution to this problem, but I did not receive a reply. When I asked the Premier why, with almost universal State support, the New South Wales Government could not get together with the Federal Government, reform the COAG, and remove the ability of the NCC to interfere in these issues, he simply replied that the Treasurer would not do it.

So we find ourselves in this situation. This has obviously been a contentious bill from the start, and I will briefly give a regional perspective as well as a city perspective on a couple of issues. Within walking distance of the gates of Parliament House—which for me is very short, as I can only walk a few hundred metres—I have found three alcohol outlets open in the early morning hours. How could there possibly be any more outlets? The market would not sustain any more. In order to sustain the barring of more outlets I support the motion that businesses such as florists should not be able to sell liquor under any circumstances, and that a liquor outlet should be just that: a liquor outlet.

Conversely, from a regional perspective, at Hastings Point, where I live, the local store also sells alcohol. If this were not the case one would have to drive some distance to other outlets. In these limited circumstances there may actually be a case for multipurpose outlets and for convenience stores to be able to sell and distribute liquor.

Therefore, regional areas may be able to mount a case for their outlets to have multiple purposes. Nevertheless, I do not believe that additional liquor outlets should be allowed. It is a proven fact that the easier it is to obtain alcohol, the greater the problems associated with it—and cheap alcohol exacerbates the problem. When I spoke to the Premier and his adviser, I suggested that certain measures be included in the bill, such as a local needs test in the form of a survey, petition, or submission to enable communities to voice concerns with respect to their local environment and whether they want another liquor outlet. I suggested that councils, sporting groups, community groups, local progress associations, surf life saving clubs, police boys clubs, et cetera, assess any local problems because often it is their public facilities that are damaged by anti-social behaviour resulting from alcohol abuse.

Councils, in particular, are aware of these problems and it is important that they have input into any social impact assessment for their communities. Local medical practitioners also have a unique view of alcohol problems in communities, and police have special knowledge of alcohol-related problems. They attend assaults, car accidents, and incidents of anti-social behaviour and violence that are often related to alcohol abuse. They have first-hand knowledge of these problems. If I had support I would move an amendment to allow the local police commander to veto any new application for an alcohol licence. The Department of Community Services [DOCS] is another core group with special knowledge of alcohol-related problems; its officers often deal with the problems of family breakdown through alcohol abuse, the abandonment of wives and children, and the tragic destruction, through alcohol, of generations. If I had support, I would also move an amendment to give police and DOCS the power to veto any licence granted under this legislation.

Having made those comments, I believe that the bill goes a long way to achieving some of those aims. Item [10] of schedule 1 to the bill amends section 49C (3) of the Liquor Act. I would support an amendment that specifically excludes any store whose primary function is not alcohol related. I believe that such an amendment has been foreshadowed and I would support it, if moved. I would also like to amend new section 62E to extend the 30-day period. Local police commanders could be on leave when an application is made, and a longer period would enable people to undertake a full and proper social impact assessment, and allow adequate time to carry out research and respond appropriately.
New section 62F states that the social impact of an application must not be detrimental to the local community or the broader community. I believe that is a good test. However, the Minister has the power to direct what the board may consider under new section 62F (3). I understand that an amendment will be moved in Committee to remove this discretion. I shall support that amendment because the board should take into account all provisions in determining social detriment.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Peter Primrose.

NATIONAL COMPETITION POLICY HEALTH AND OTHER AMENDMENTS (COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL PENALTIES) BILL

Second Reading

The Hon. HENRY TSANG [Parliamentary Secretary] [5.13 p.m.]: I move:

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

Leave not granted.

The National Competition Policy Amendments (Commonwealth Financial Penalties) Bill was introduced in the other place on 17 February, and I refer honourable members to the Premier's second reading speech on it. The bill has since been split into two bills: the National Competition Policy Liquor Amendments (Commonwealth Financial Penalties) Bill, whose second reading speech was delivered in this place on 5 May; and this bill, the National Competition Policy Health and Other Amendments (Commonwealth Financial Penalties) Bill. The provisions of this bill relating to optometry, dentistry and farm debt mediation legislation are substantially in the same terms as in the original bill. Some additional amendments relating to pharmacy are included in schedule 4 to the bill. These amendments were inserted at the request of the National Competition Council to remove restrictions on pharmacists entering into commercial arrangements with non-pharmacists.

However, as honourable members are aware, the Prime Minister now has largely accepted our arguments for the retention of our pharmacy legislation. The Prime Minister has advised that the Commonwealth will not penalise New South Wales if we make two comparatively minor amendments to our existing legislation. These amendments will increase the maximum number of pharmacies that may be owned by a pharmacist from three to five, and permit friendly societies to own and operate up to six pharmacies.

The Government has argued against making any changes to our existing pharmacy legislation. The Prime Minister's offer, however, represents a major backdown by the Commonwealth and is an important win for the people of New South Wales. In these circumstances the Government considers that the comparatively minor amendments now required by the Commonwealth should be made in preference to risking the loss of competition payments of as much as $10 million per year. I foreshadow that the Government will move amendments in Committee to remove schedule 4 to the bill and replace it with the comparatively minor amendments now required by the Commonwealth.

I take this opportunity to briefly outline the position on optometry. I am advised that the Prime Minister's office contacted the chief executive of the Optometrists Association and suggested that the association ask New South Wales to present a further public interest case on its behalf. Again, the Premier forwarded New South Wales' public interest case on optometry to the Prime Minister on 4 May. As with pharmacy, if the Commonwealth Government withdraws the fines and guarantees no future fines for optometry, the Government will move to delete the optometry amendments. Although the Government has done everything possible to limit the detrimental effects of the optometry provisions in this bill, it acknowledges, and will continue to listen to, the concerns of stakeholders. However, without a reversal of the Commonwealth's position on the regulation of optometry, the New South Wales Government can take only limited action. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay.

HEALTH LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

The Hon. HENRY TSANG [Parliamentary Secretary] [5.19 p.m.]: I move:

This bill amends a number of pieces of health legislation, namely the Dental Technicians Registration Act 1975, the Human Tissue Act 1983, the Mental Health Act 1990, the Nurses Act 1991, and the Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 1966. The amendments to the Dental Technicians Registration Act are relatively minor. The amendment to section 26 will permit a dental technician who is enrolled in an approved course of training in dental prosthetics to perform dental prosthetics under the supervision of a dentist or a dental prosthetist. This amendment is necessary to facilitate a new mechanism of distance education in dental prosthetics that has been developed by TAFE. This mode of distance education is primarily utilised by practitioners who live in non-metropolitan areas and who would otherwise have great difficulty in accessing appropriate training.

The amendment was proposed by both the Dental Technicians Registration Board and TAFE. Any relevant educational course in dental prosthetics must be approved by the Dental Technicians Registration Board before students enrolled in that course can undertake the practice of dental prosthetics, and the public interest will thereby be protected. The bill also makes a second amendment to section 26 of the Act to remove a redundant reference to the Apprentices Act 1969, which has been repealed. This will have no effect on the education of dental technicians as training has, for many years, been conducted by TAFE rather than by the apprenticeship system.

I turn now to the proposed amendments to the Human Tissue Act 1983. The Department of Health's review of the Human Tissue Act was undertaken as three separate reviews. The first review concerns the donation and use of organs and tissues, and post mortem examinations. That aspect of the review culminated in the passage by Parliament of the Human Tissue and Anatomy Legislation Amendment Act 2003, which commenced on 1 November 2003. The second part of the review concerned assisted reproductive technologies. As a result of that review, draft legislation for the regulation of assisted reproductive technologies has been released for public consultation. The third part of the review dealt with regulation of the supply of blood and blood products, and was undertaken as part of the Government's obligations under the Competition Principles Agreement. The recommendations of that part of the review are reflected in the current proposed amendments to the Human Tissue Act. I seek leave to have the remainder of the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

• to provide for appropriate consents for the removal of blood, and

• to minimise the risks to the public that may arise from the receipt of blood and blood products, and

• to ensure the continued viability of the blood supply.

Mental Health Act,

Nurses Act

Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER [5.23 p.m.]: I speak on the Health Legislation Amendment Bill on behalf of the Opposition. The bill amends five pieces of health care legislation. Every year we deal with a health legislation amendment bill that amends various Acts to tighten up the State's health care. This bill has a number of components and I will speak to each part of the bill separately. As with many of these pieces of legislation, the detail can be complicated, and to some extent the devil can be in the detail. The rationale behind most of these amendments is sound, but we have some concerns, which I hope the Government is able to address. Our concerns are echoed by some of the relevant peak organisations. Nevertheless, the Opposition is always keen to assist the Government to better manage health care in the State. Indeed, the Government has clearly demonstrated that it needs all the help it can get.

The bill amends the Dental Technicians Registration Act 1975 to permit a dental technician to perform dental prosthetics as part of an approved course of training to become a dental prosthetist. I live outside Sydney and spend much of my time talking to people who live in rural and remote communities, and I know that my Nationals colleagues understand some of the difficulties of accessing health care services. Indeed, one does not need to travel far from a major regional centre to find access to medical services challenging, and dental services are no different. This legislation relates to training and access to training, and therefore is even more important. The amendment will assist students involved in distance education in dental prosthetics, which is a course that has been developed by TAFE New South Wales.

As a former TAFE teacher I support any course run by TAFE New South Wales, and I understand the practical nature of the dental prosthetics course. However, it is often impractical for those who live outside metropolitan areas to access appropriate training. These amendments will make it easier for those engaged in TAFE distance education courses to undertake training. The Opposition supports these changes because they are directed at improving the skills base available in rural and remote parts of the State. I understand that the training course requires nine hours attendance per week for three years. Currently the course is run from the Randwick TAFE, so it is clearly inappropriate to make a person travel to that extent and have that level of commitment.

I note the concerns of the New South Wales branch of the Australian Dental Association. My colleague in the other place, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, highlighted the association's concerns. The New South Wales branch has developed a position on practice oversight which becomes a contractual relationship between providers to ensure that the boundaries of competency and authorisation are clearly defined in the event of a complaint. The New South Wales branch is concerned that this might mean that prosthetist training will be an indentured process rather than a formal education process. I hope the Minister will address those concerns when he speaks in reply. This is about self education without ensuring that we have the proper framework in place. I know that the Dental Association had some concerns when it looked at the legislation.

The bill makes six amendments to the Human Tissue Act 1983. The first is to remove the requirement for businesses that supply blood back to the donor of the blood to be authorised to supply by the Department of Health. The second is to remove the requirement for the consent of a parent for a 16-year-old or 17-year-old to donate blood. The third amendment refers to the removal of blood from a child under the age of 16 years without the agreement of the child in some limited circumstances. The fourth amendment will remove the restrictions on the premises in which blood can be collected. The fifth amendment is to permit regulations to prescribe defences and to tighten up offences or actions in relation to infections from prescribed contaminants in blood. I support that, and I know my colleagues will join with me to support the tightening up of conditions in which blood is collected, stored and transported. The sixth change is to increase penalties and make some other amendments. We do not have difficulty with most of those amendments. I can understand there would be some circumstances in which it is necessary to remove blood from a child without permission, but I hope it is carefully controlled and monitored.

I could not understand from the second reading speech in the other place whether that has been carefully regulated, whether strict guidelines are in place for that and in what circumstances it might occur. Perhaps the Minister could also address that in his reply. We support the amendments to the Act and think that there would be limited circumstances. It would require parental permission and would have to be an appropriate course of action. We support the removal of the requirement for parental consent for 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds. That ties in with other consents that young people of that age give about their bodies. It is appropriate but there has not been an explanation of the public benefit in amending that legislation. I wonder whether that is to increase the opportunities for further blood donations. The Minister's explanation in the other place was not clear so it is a matter of conjecture.

The third Act being amended is the Mental Health Act. The amendments are to section 22 of that Act. These are a priority. Section 22 of the Mental Health Act allows for a medical practitioner or an authorised person to obtain the assistance of police to take a mentally ill or disturbed person who has been scheduled under the Act to a psychiatric facility. These amendments make it a requirement that the assistance of police be sought in the involuntary admission of a person only if a serious concern exists about the person's safety and to permit the Chief Health Officer to delegate his or her functions under the Act. This has arisen because of concerns by New South Wales police that officers are being required to transport mentally ill people in a way that is affecting their other duties.

There is no doubt that police resources are stretched far too thinly as it is. That is a matter the Government needs to address. We do not have enough police doing front-line duties. I can understand their view about being called away from their core business, which is the prevention of crime, to escort a mentally ill patient in an ambulance to a psychiatric facility. That must seem to them not to be a priority. However, I think this amendment is enacting something that occurs in any case. The Act already requires an apprehension of risk or harm to justify involuntary admission and therefore the use of police to transport people suffering mental illness. To me, these amendments reflect what is already occurring. The practice of medical practitioners making arrangements for people suffering from mental illness is colloquially known as scheduling. No doubt my colleague the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans would have scheduled many patients in his time. A medical practitioner filling out a schedule 2 form has to state:

That is one section of the form. Medical practitioners have to say they are filling out this form for the person's own protection from serious harm or for the protection of others from serious harm. It is my understanding that medical practitioners do not do this lightly. They fill out those forms because persons may harm themselves or someone else. The patient may or may not be willing or able to go by themselves or with a member of the family or a friend to a mental institution. They may be coming from their home or from hospital. In either case they may be willing at some point to go but then change their minds and become quite violent. Many medical practitioners are aware of the likelihood of this occurring with their patients and fill out that schedule 2 form, and the police are involved in transporting that patient so the patient and others are safe.

The Government has not addressed the question: If police officers do not perform this duty, who does? Memorandums of understanding exist for patients needing transport. The Australian Medical Association is concerned that these memorandums of understanding with police do not always achieve agreement. No-one disagrees with the objective of ensuring that police are called in appropriate circumstances. The AMA has indicated that formulating guidelines that appropriately reflect those circumstances is a much harder task than it sounds. I also urge the Minister to explain what alternative transport will be put in place if the use of police transport for people suffering mental illness is reduced. Ambulance staff across the State have so many duties that their services are stretched. We hear constantly of ambulance blockage and know that many hospitals and other health facilities are congested. I wonder what extra pressure that will place on the health system and those working in it, given that ambulance services are already struggling to meet urgent medical call response times. However, while we acknowledge that such behaviour occurs, we sympathise with the police and urge that they be called only in extreme circumstances. Therefore, we support the amendment.

The fourth and fifth Acts to be amended by this legislation are the Nurses Act 1991, to permit the Director-General of the Department of Health to approve guidelines that provide for the possession, use, supply or prescription of drugs of addiction by nurse practitioners and midwife practitioners, and the Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 1966, to permit the Director-General of the Department of Health to approve a nurse practitioner or a midwife practitioner as a prescriber of drugs of addiction. The amendments are consistent with the Government's wish to expand the nurse practitioners' role. We support the role of nurse practitioners, particularly in rural and regional areas. However, the Government is well behind in rolling out increased numbers of places for midwives. The Australian Medical Association has raised relevant concerns about this issue.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: But mainly as a doctors union.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER: The Australian Medical Association [AMA] is a support organisation for doctors, but in all cases we want nurse practitioners and midwives to be protected in every way possible with regulations, controls and checks and balances. We do not want them exposed to any situation where they may be at risk. We want to make sure if they are offering those services that we support the legislation and regulations are in place so there is complete transparency about their role and understanding of their duties. There should be no confusion and no opportunity for criticism. I believe that is the concern of the AMA. Their role needs to be carefully monitored and regulated and an explanation given of the circumstances in which they are required. The Minister, in his second reading speech in the other place, referred to the methadone program. To that extent, I am not sure of the circumstances in which they would prescribe drugs of addiction. I ask the Minister in reply to provide an explanation of the circumstances, examples of other situations that may apply and the checks and balances that will be put in place. Having spoken to the amendments and raised our concerns, I indicate that the Opposition supports the bill.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [5.42 p.m.]: These amendments, which extend over a diffuse range of subjects, are reasonable. The amendments to the Dental Technicians Registration Act to improve the ability to train dental prosthetists are beneficial. The blood requirements in the Human Tissue Act are reasonable as to parental consent, properties and the control of infection. It is important to have control of infection in blood donations. The requirement for control of infection in semen donations is also important. However, a significant issue that requires attention in IVF donations is that sperm donors are concerned that a child may later bring a suit in relation to any problems he or she may have or responsibilities for his or her existence. A donor may be at risk of an action in tort.

I know a woman who was seeking a sperm donation on the North Shore. She said there were only four sperm donors on the North Shore who were willing to give donations to single women. If one considers that single women are entitled to sperm donations, the lack of sperm donors is a huge problem. I understand that the clinics were obtaining donations from Denmark to overcome the problem, which is an unsatisfactory situation. That issue is not dealt with in this bill because technically it is an ethical issue, not a health issue. It may be beyond the scope of the bill in that it is considerably more controversial than the control of infection in donations. I ask the Government to note that the issue of liability that may arise from sperm donation needs to be dealt with.

As to the Mental Health Act, police have said that doctors are cavalier in filling out schedule 2 forms so that police are dragged into cases where they are not necessary. My experience as an after-hours general practitioner providing schedule 2 forms was a negative one. I had to establish that the person was mentally ill. In some cases where a family member called for a relative to be scheduled as mentally ill, it could be argued it was a force majeure in a domestic dispute and it was difficult to decide whether the relative or the family member should be scheduled. Once I was asked to go to Beverley Hills to schedule a young boy who was mildly mentally retarded. As I tried to talk to him he turned up the volume of his record player and played the same track.

Eventually, due to my astute diagnostic abilities, I realised he was trying to make me listen to the track rather than make a loud noise so that I would go away. The words on the track were "I want my own life". The boy's father had refused him the right to go to a Christian youth camp because his father said he would not be able to cope. He became angry, threw plates around the house and smashed windows. It was a mess. But he was angry about the dispute. In retrospect, he should have been allowed to go to the camp because, as I noted when I eventually talked to him, he probably was capable. The scheduling of people is not an easy task. This boy was painted as violent and dangerous, and it would have been easy to take the word of his articulate father and schedule him. Had I done so, the boy may have continued to be violent and perhaps the police would have been needed.

In another case, I was called to Kensington on a balmy summer's night. The call sheet read "needs scheduling". When I arrived I was told the man needed scheduling, he had been scheduled before and he was out the back. I went out the back on this balmy night and there was a fellow doing tai chi exercises. I said I needed to talk to him, and he said, "When I'm finished." I decided to do some tai chi to develop empathy, which, given my inflexibility and general lack of fitness, was difficult. After a while, as I did the tai chi exercises on this balmy night thinking of all the other calls I had waiting, he told me in no uncertain terms through clenched teeth to go away. They were not the words he used, but they will do in Parliament. When he eventually talked to me I concluded he was seriously schizophrenic, I wrote a schedule 2 and rang a hospital. At that time Sydney hospitals were divided into areas. Every hospital would advise, one, it was not their area, two, the doctor had made the wrong diagnosis and the person was not mentally ill, or, three, they did not have any beds and to try another hospital.

Just getting a bed as a destination for a schedule 2 patient was a nightmare. There are fewer beds available now than there were then, so I find it difficult to believe that the doctors involved have anything other than an unenviable task. Having eventually found a bed for this person, I rang requesting an ambulance and was flabbergasted that no sooner had I put down the phone than an ambulance officer knocked on the door. I was very impressed and asked whether the vehicle had been in the area. The ambulance officer said no and wanted to know why I had asked. I said I had just rung for assistance. The officer told me that an ambulance had been requested the previous day because the patient had discharged himself from hospital and had been on the ambulance service waiting list since then. The patient had been previously scheduled and had left hospital and been with his family for 24 hours. That was lucky because many patients do not go to their family. I had made a totally unnecessary diagnosis; everyone should have known he was there.

Given that the man concerned showed considerable anger towards me, it would not have been unreasonable to ask for police assistance. I had to ring for an ambulance and if he refused to leave I would have had to fill in the appropriate section on the form requesting police assistance. Of course, according to the statistics the ambulance would have taken 24 hours to arrive. Doctors who fill out schedule 2 forms and request police assistance may not be doing so lightly. There are good reasons to request such assistance. For example, if police assistance is requested the ambulance is likely to come more quickly. It may well be that hospitals will accept such patients under police escort more readily than those referred by general practitioners who may be perceived to have incorrectly diagnosed patients. There are compelling incentives for hospitals to reject disturbed people if they do not have enough beds for existing patients. A hospital in that position would probably have to discharge someone to accommodate a schedule 2 patient, but such a decision would be based not on the person's need to be admitted but on whether he or she was sicker than the person occupying the bed. That is a terrible scenario. The relevant amendments are capitalised, presumably to emphasise to the doctor concerned the seriousness of signing a schedule 2 form. The legislation proposes to delete:

YOU SHOULD NOT REQUEST THIS ASSISTANCE UNLESS IT IS NECESSARY AND THERE ARE NO OTHER MEANS OF TAKING THE PERSON TO HOSPITAL REASONABLY AVAILABLE.

It proposes to insert:

YOU SHOULD NOT REQUEST THIS ASSISTANCE UNLESS THERE ARE SERIOUS CONCERNS RELATING TO THE SAFETY OF THE PERSON OR OTHER PERSONS IF THE PERSON IS TAKEN TO HOSPITAL WITHOUT THE ASSISTANCE OF A MEMBER OF THE POLICE FORCE.

That certainly gets the police off the hook if there is no medical necessity for them to attend. However, from a practical point of view, if the hospital does not want to admit a person and the ambulance service does not assess the case as urgent, if the doctor does not want to wait around for a long time there is a great deal of practical pressure to sign the form. Ambulance officers are very reluctant to attend a mentally ill person when it is not clear whether that person will co-operate. One generally signs the form and lets the ambulance officer decide what to do. If it is not signed, technically the ambulance officers go away and the process must be repeated. If it is signed, the ambulance officers are somewhat reluctant to attend, but they try to get the person on board and wait for the police if that cannot be achieved. It is not as clear-cut as it might be. Although I understand that the police might feel abused and put upon, I can also understand why the doctors sign the form in cases in which it might not be necessary.

Theoretically there is other transport, but in practice it is often not available. Even if there is other transport, it is a question of getting the right people in the right place at the right time, and that is a difficult task. Given the parlous state of mental health services in this State, the Government must assure the community that alternatives to police transport will be available if it is serious about this legislation. If that does not happen I will strenuously defend doctors who sign schedule 2 forms on the basis that it is better to have a signed rather than an unsigned form. I am in favour of the role undertaken by nurse practitioners. My experience of working with them in New Zealand and in the Western Pilbara is that they are very savvy, practical people. Some do not like having a doctor nearby because it makes their job less interesting and they are usually more than capable of doing the job themselves. Some rural doctors are reluctant to have them, but that could almost be called a restraint of trade. It is all very well not to have nurses, but if doctors refuse to work in remote areas then we might as well have half-trained personnel working there rather than wish for fully trained personnel who do not present.

The provision allowing nurse practitioners to prescribe drugs of addiction for methadone programs is very sensible. Someone must perform that unpopular service. There is a shortage of doctors specialising in the treatment of drug and alcohol abuse, which is becoming a more serious health issue. Doctors working in the drug and alcohol abuse field are few and far between. Some specialists earn huge amounts of money for performing procedures that take very little time, but those involved in treating drug addicts and alcoholics perform a thankless, poorly paid task. As a result that field does not attract many practitioners. Clients are regarded as undesirable and practitioners are often assaulted. Amending the legislation to allow nurse practitioners to do the work involved is sensible. Dosage administration and other duties are determined by commonsense and experience, and nurses are admirably suited to those tasks.

The Government should be more courageous about giving permission to deliver drugs of addiction. I remember the case of two idealistic nurses at Taree who were able to administer drugs of addiction—they did not prescribe them—and who bought a house and applied for permission to provide drugs for participants in a methadone program but who were refused permission. Interestingly, the campaign to stop them conducting the program was co-ordinated by a local publican who took the high moral ground despite the fact that most of the illegal trafficking was occurring in his pub. The locals did not want junkies in the neighbourhood. Ironically, anything designed to assist them would have moved them out of the pub.

We must recognise that methadone programs are important. While we address the provision of drugs by nurse practitioners we must grasp the nettle in terms of being willing to run methadone and similar programs. A general practitioner in Surry Hills who had been running a methadone program for some years said that people did not realise he was running the program in suburbia. He was in a difficult position. If he advertised the fact, locals would protest although his service had been successfully operating for some time. On the other hand, if he did not help by saying that such programs can be run without causing social dislocation and without junkies obviously wandering around the neighbourhood, he would not be able to prove his point. That general practitioner could not refer to his life experience without receiving a backlash that he may not have wanted. I tried to help the Taree nurses, who I believe ended up selling their properties at a loss after having tried to do some good as nurses dispensing methadone to those who had been prescribed it.

The Government needs to bite the bullet with regard to service delivery of methadone programs, just as I have had to bite the bullet with regard to realistic services and transport for people with mental health problems. In my view the legislation is fine within the present framework but resources must be provided to ensure that its objectives are able to be fulfilled.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Peter Primrose.

ADJOURNMENT

The Hon. HENRY TSANG [Parliamentary Secretary] [6.03 p.m.]: I move:

SEVEN HILLS NORTH PUBLIC SCHOOL

JEAN ARNOT LUNCH

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [6.03 p.m.]: Last Thursday I began an adjournment speech—but I did not get very far—to record that on 6 April this year I had the great honour of officially opening the new buildings at Seven Hills North Public School. One of the reasons I performed that task on behalf of the Minister for Education and Training, Andrew Refshauge, and the local member, John Aquilina, was that 6 April was the day on which the mini-budget was presented in the lower House and neither of those people was able to be present at the opening.
It is always a pleasure for me to go to government schools to perform these sorts of official duties, but it was particularly delightful for me on this occasion because some 20 years ago I prepared the centenary history for Seven Hills North Public School. The school opened in 1883 as Seven Hills Public School and subsequently had its name changed upon the opening of the school that operates near the railway station and the heart of the modern Seven Hills.

Seven Hills North Public School is a very special school. Partly because of its history, it is widely known by those who are directly associated with it and community members as the country school in the city. It has always been a small school. Now located at the extreme end of Seven Hills, the school is still surrounded by buildings that are 100 or 120 years old. Because of its history and the fact that it has remained a small school, it is an extremely tight-knit school. It has a good record of long-serving staff, active parents going through the generations, and a group of students who in many cases have had relatives attend the school. These things make a very good school indeed.

One of the disadvantages of being an old and relatively small school is that it ends up with some very old and unsatisfactory buildings. However, Seven Hills North Public School now has some truly beautiful buildings, and it was very much a day of celebration on 6 April. The school has retained on site a couple of its old portable buildings, so it can now boast of having heritage portables, a phrase that is new to me and, I am sure, to many others. Seven Hills North Public School not only has those beautiful new buildings, a magnificent library and all kinds of other modern facilities, but it is also the proud possessor of a couple of heritage portables.

Another function I was pleased to attend during April was the annual Jean Arnot luncheon, which took place at Parliament House. As usual, the luncheon was organised by the group Business and Professional Women and the National Council of Women. This year's event was hosted by the honourable member for Menai, Alison Megarrity. Alison and I were the two members of Parliament who attended the event. At the luncheon we honoured Jean Arnot and her long record of working at the State Library and as an activist for equal pay and conditions for women. We also honoured a number of other women who have fought over many decades for the rights of women.

At the luncheon a woman by the name of Alice Oxley was sitting at the table at which I was seated. Alice Oxley, who is 99 years old, was also honoured at the luncheon because she attended kindergarten at another very old government school in New South Wales, West Pennant Hills Public School, which opened in 1849 or 1850. Indeed, Alice was in kindergarten with Jean Arnot and that is why she attended the luncheon. Among the many women who organise the luncheon year after year are Val Buswell and Marlene Arditto. For many years Val has been active in Business and Professional Women, the Widows Guild, and so on. She has been particularly involved as a resident, initially of Drummoyne and now of Five Dock, in the Ryde-Hunters Hill branch of Business and Professional Women. Marlene Arditto, who looks after the financial aspects, also plays a wonderful role in Business and Professional Women.

WATER USAGE

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY [6.07 p.m.]: I raise an important issue to the people of regional and rural New South Wales, and that is water. The Carr Labor Government lacks any understanding of this issue, as evidenced in last Friday's Sydney Morning Herald, in which that great Sydney-phile Frank Sartor, the former Lord Mayor of Sydney, bucketed water use in rural New South Wales and criticised the people of regional communities for the amount of water they are using.

It is fascinating that this advice should come from Frank Sartor, who, as Minister for Energy and Utilities, is responsible for the supply of water in Sydney. Over the past 10 years Sydney has overused the amount of sustainable water it receives every single year. Sydney does not have enough water, yet Frank Sartor is telling the people of country New South Wales how and what to do with their water.

Mr Ian Cohen: He is against selling town water to cotton growers.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: It is probably recycled. Are you against recycling?

Mr Ian Cohen: It's restricted town water. They sell it to the council—

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: I say to Mr Ian Cohen: Sydney should start recycling its water and it should be more responsible with its water use. But instead, in Sydney only stormwater and sewerage is subjected to preliminary treatment. It is a disgraceful turn of events in what is supposed to be a sophisticated city. Sydney is way behind London, Paris, Singapore and many other cities, which have extremely clever water recycling plans.

Mr Ian Cohen: It's the way they treat their trade waste. It's the chemicals.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: It is more than just chemicals; it is about a plan of management and vision. For nine years the Carr Labor Government has absolutely lacked vision. Frank Sartor has no right to criticise water use in regional areas when he is responsible for the supply of water in Sydney, which uses, on average, 106 per cent of its sustainable yield per year.

[Interruption]

I say to the Hon. Henry Tsang: One example of spin does not deny the fact that out of three outlets in Sydney we have mercury-laden waste feeding fish as far as three kilometres out in the ocean. Because it is out of sight, it is away from the Government's notice. The Government should fix up its own backyard before it starts criticising the backyards of regional communities.

I also indicate to the Hon. Ian Cohen that I and other members of the State development committee held a briefing with the CSIRO in Griffith. We were very excited about the technology being used there. Salt is being extracted from water in five or six filtration ponds, and at the end of the process evaporated salt remains, which can be sold through sewerage reuse. So Griffith, with the assistance of the CSIRO, is looking at really exciting ways to desalinate water so it can be put back into the river system and reused. There is considerable water reuse throughout country New South Wales, and in most cases the water is tertiary treated. Compared with other cities in the western world, Sydney's system of water usage is archaic.

Mr Ian Cohen: Bob Carr's outfall.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: It is Bob Carr's outfall. The Government thinks it is a policy success just because we cannot see the waste matter, but we are left with the solid waste being deposited three kilometres out to sea. Because it is out of sight the Government is not worried about it. But if Mr Sartor were really committed to ensuring that regional people use water more frugally, he would extend to regional areas the 50 per cent rebate for the installation of rainwater tanks. Currently that subsidy is available only to people living in the cities. That is a just another example of the Minister's priorities.

Australia stores only about 10 per cent of its average rainfall. The United States of America stores around 30 per cent and Canada stores 50 per cent. Because of the drought that has devastated regional areas over the past two years we have to be more sensible about water storage. We have to ensure that when it is dry the rivers still run. We must have a sensible policy for local communities and the environment. Watch this space in relation to the National Competition Council bill currently before the House. The National Competition Council has before it an application from a company with a vision for the reuse of water in Sydney, but Sydney will have nothing to do with it. The company has some visionary ideas about recycling in New South Wales. [Time expired.]

SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

Mr IAN COHEN [6.12 p.m.]: Tonight I will talk about the rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities. However, before doing so, I wish to refer to a local predatory fish—the grey nurse shark. In mid-December 2003 a grey nurse shark carcass was spotted by a recreational skin diver—who has been helping recreational fishers with regard to grey nurse shark research—in a fishmonger's window at Chullora. He contacted NSW Fisheries, which attended and claimed the torso and head of the fish before they were destroyed. It has been said that this grey nurse shark was sold through the Sydney Fish Markets, that the fishmonger bought the carcass together with several other sharks at the same time, and that the carcass showed signs of having been caught in a commercial trawl net.

Malcolm Poole, Chairman of the Recreational Fishing Alliance of New South Wales, informed me that the grey nurse shark was incorrectly identified by the commercial fisher submitting his catch, by NSW Fisheries compliance, by Sydney Fish Markets staff on the market floor and by the fishmonger. So much for the State's education process with regard to the identification of the grey nurse shark. It has failed. How can the average recreational fisher be expected to identify a grey nurse shark? Complacency is not a defence, but certainly the system has failed. Generally speaking, this is indicative of the problems facing predatory fish throughout the world.

Serious concerns have been raised about the ecological effects of industrialised fishing, spurring the United Nations resolution on restoring fisheries and marine ecosystems to healthy levels. Such concerns are extremely well founded. A recent paper published in Nature by Ransom A Myers and Boris Worm of the Biology Department of Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, concluded that industrialised fisheries typically reduced community biomass by 80 per cent within 15 years of exploitation. The Gulf of Thailand, for example, was found to have lost 60 per cent of large finfish, sharks and skates during the first five years of industrialised trawl fishing. The highest initial rate of decline, however, was seen in South Georgia, which has a narrow shelf area that was effectively fished down during the first two years of exploitation.

The paper also stated that it had been found that during the global expansion of longline fisheries in the 1950s to 1960s, high abundance of tuna and billfish were always found at the periphery of the fished area, and while most newly fished areas show very high catch rates, they decline to low levels after a few years. As a result, all areas now sustain low catch rates, some formerly productive areas have been abandoned, large predatory fish biomass today is only about 10 per cent of pre-industrial levels, and declines of large predators in coastal regions have extended throughout the global ocean with potentially serious consequences for ecosystems. These conclusions are supported by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation data set, which indicates declining global catches and a consistent decline in the mean trophic level of the catch, which in turn is a result of moving to predatory fishes.

Although it is widely accepted that single populations can be fished to low levels, this is the first analysis to show general, pronounced declines of entire communities across widely varying ecosystems. These results have several important management implications. Firstly, we need to consider the potential ecosystem effects of removing 90 per cent of large predators. Any ecosystem-wide effect is bound to be widespread and possibly difficult to reverse because of the global scale of declines. Another serious problem in heavily depleted communities is the extinction of populations, particularly those of high ages of maturity. Finally, the reduction of fish biomass to a low level may compromise the sustainability of fishing and support only relatively low economic yields. It is a global problem, and I have pointed out to the House what is happening with the grey nurse shark, a predatory fish, which is on the threatened species list. I believe NSW Fisheries has been less then effective in putting buffer zones around the habitat of the grey nurse shark.

In answer to a comment made earlier by the Hon. Rick Colless, yes, I do eat fish. However, I am careful—although sometimes mistakes are made—to choose fish that are not threatened species, and I am careful to avoid some of the predatory fish, which, I think it has been proven, have very high levels of mercury and, therefore, it is not wise for people to eat them in certain circumstances. But I am on record in this House as supporting sustainable fishing industries. I participated in the fishing inquiry, and I have consistently said that we can have our fish and eat it too if that is done in a scientific, reasonable and environmentally conscious manner—and that means protecting certain species, including the grey nurse shark.

We should be very careful about protecting species that have been rapidly fished out in the Australian bioregion in order that we may continue to use the resource wisely and that gainful employment is provided for professional fishers over generations, preferably in shared management fisheries, which was the subject of debate in this House a few days ago. As a Green I support that type of industry. That our threatened species are going to the brink in Australia and globally should be a concern to all members, not just those who are tagged green.

RECREATIONAL FISHING LICENCES

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [6.17 p.m.]: In the adjournment debate of 4 May the Hon. Melinda Pavey spoke on the administration of recreational fishing licences and the use of funds raised via those licences. A number of statements made by the honourable member in her address were incorrect, and this evening I would like to place the correct information on the public record. First, The Hon. Melinda Pavey stated that the New South Wales freshwater fishing licence was introduced in 1999, when in fact it was introduced in 1998. She also implied that the new inland fishing licence was seen purely as a "cash cow" by this Government, that we could raise even more money by extending its reach to saltwater fishing, and that this was done without the support of saltwater anglers. The reality is that many anglers recognised the numerous benefits of the inland recreational licence and asked the Government to extend licensing to all waters. As a result, the general recreational fishing licence was introduced in 2001.

The honourable member also suggested that a weekly fishing licence is not available in New South Wales, unlike in Queensland, and that anglers are required to have both a $25 freshwater fishing licence and a $25 saltwater licence if they intend to undertake both forms of fishing. The honourable member is incorrect on a number of counts. In Queensland fishing permits are issued for certain stocked impoundments only, and only two types of permits are available: a one-week permit costing $7 and a one-year permit costing $35. One permit is required per person or per married or de facto couple. In contrast, in New South Wales various forms of licence are available. For example, anglers in New South Wales who want to fish for up to three days are able to purchase a licence for $5—this is ideal for anglers who want to go fishing on long weekends; anglers who want to fish for more than 3 days, that is, one week, are able to purchase a one-month licence for $10; or anglers can purchase a one-year licence for $25 or a three-year licence for $70.

In Victoria, which also has a licence covering marine, estuarine and freshwater fishing, a two-day licence costs $5.50, a 28-day licence costs $11 and an annual licence costs $22. The Hon. Melinda Pavey also implied that the revenue raised by the New South Wales licensing system is poorly managed. She asked, "Where is all the money going?" All money raised by the New South Wales recreational fishing licence is placed into the recreational fishing trusts, which use this money to improve recreational fishing in New South Wales.

The uses to which the trust funds can be put are stipulated by law. Expenditure priorities for each fund are also overseen by two recreational angler committees—one for saltwater and one for freshwater. In 2001-02, $8.1 million was received from licence sales and $8.4 million was received in 2002-03. Summaries of total revenue and expenditure for each trust are included in the annual report of NSW Fisheries. Priorities indicated by the anglers include the establishment of the State's 30 recreational fishing havens and the buying out of commercial fishers in those areas.

Preliminary results from trust-funded research have shown that these havens have been very effective in improving recreational fishing. For instance, the success of anglers catching a legal size fish in Lake Macquarie from December to February 2003-04 has increased substantially, from 52 per cent to over 85 per cent in the boat-based sector and from 32 per cent to over 64 per cent in the shore-based sector compared to the same period in 1999-2000 before the havens were created. The Hon. Melinda Pavey also implied that the Minister for Primary Industries has not replied to correspondence from the Anglers Action Group seeking information on recreational fishing issues. The Minister is unaware of any such unanswered correspondence. The letter to which the honourable member refers was responded to on 2 January this year. The information requested was already available in the NSW Fisheries annual report for 2002-03.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey raised concerns also about our fish stocking programs. I can assure the honourable member that the Government is committed to a comprehensive stocking program for our native fish as well as for our important trout fishery. For the past two years running NSW Fisheries has stocked record numbers of native fish and trout through the rivers and impoundments of New South Wales from both the dollar-for-dollar program and production of our government hatcheries. In 2001-02, a record of 7.6 million fish was achieved. This increased last year to 7.9 million fish. This rate of stocking is much greater than the number of fish produced and stocked in other States. The stocking season for 2003-04 is nearly complete, and continuing good performance is expected again this year. Over 2.3 million of these fish were native fish species, including a record 426,000 Murray cod. These fish are required for stocking in our important impoundment fisheries such as Copeton, Burrendong, Wyangala, Glenbawn, Burrinjuck and Lake Hume, where native fish do not always breed in large numbers. Low rainfall aside, these fish have provided excellent returns to anglers.

River stocking in New South Wales is supported through the dollar-for-dollar program, which matches funding from angling and community groups, to purchase native fish from private hatcheries. This highly popular program was fully subscribed in 2003. Therefore, the Minister has agreed with his angler advisory committee and increased funding for this program from the recreational fishing trust to $225,000. Together with the angler contribution, this should provide funding for the stocking of over 800,000 Murray cod, golden perch and Australian bass in the 2004-05 stocking season. Whether the honourable member deliberately sought to impugn the highly successful teamwork over several years of recreational anglers and NSW Fisheries and to misrepresent the many successes of the recreation fishing licence arrangements is unclear. [Time expired.]

CONSTITUTION EDUCATION FUND OF AUSTRALIA

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE [6.22 p.m.]: It gives me great pleasure to speak in support of the recently launched Constitution Education Fund of Australia. Our nation has a well-deserved reputation around the world for its stability, prosperity and freedoms. It is recognised, and rightly so, as a nation firmly based on democratic values. It is our fabric of democratic institutions that form the foundations and framework upon which our nation progresses. Our democratic institutions are the ingredients of our success and the anchor of our democratic system is the Australian Constitution, with its separation of powers distributed through the legislative, executive and judicial branches of our system of government.

The Australian Constitution interacts with the constitutions of each of the States of our Commonwealth, and with all the necessary inbuilt checks and balances, to ensure that there can be no devolution or usurping of total power into the grasp of any one individual or institution, the final result of which can only mean dictatorship. The Constitution Education Fund was established for the purpose of acquainting with and providing a comprehensive understanding of our nation's Constitution and the functioning of our political system. A statement of principle issued by the fund states:

The specific objectives of the fund include:

• To educate Australians of all ages about the workings of the Australian Constitution and the Australian system of government;

• To develop books, videos and other material to support this educational process;

• To train men and women all around Australia to act as spokespersons for the Constitution and to provide materials to support their training;

• To continue meeting the ongoing Constitutional educational needs for all Australians.

The fund, which has been granted tax deductibility status, is headed by a Federal council of distinguished Australians, including Sir Laurence Street, Professor Geoffrey Blainey, Dame Elizabeth Murdoch, Justice Barry O'Keefe, Major General "Digger" James and Kim Bonython. The Governor-General of Australia, His Excellency Major General Michael Jeffery, AC, CVO, MC, has agreed to act as patron-in-chief of the fund's constitutional prize program, which will encompass educational institutions at the tertiary, secondary and primary levels. The fund, and its worthy purposes, will be well served by its executive director, Mrs Kerry Jones, who is admired for her work as the chair of the Federal Government's no case committee during the 1999 republic referendum. It will be remembered that the result of that referendum confirmed that the people of Australia were perfectly content with Australia's present constitutional arrangements.

The people of Australia made it very clear that they did not want our nation's political institutions being tampered with. I know that some republicans have no intention of accepting, nor will they ever accept, the verdict of the Australian people. However, they will just have to live with it—unless, of course, they find a means to subvert that verdict through republicanism by stealth. I have no doubt that the Constitution Education Fund of Australia, under its distinguished Federal council and its capable and energetic executive-director, Kerry Jones, through education will make sure that our democratic political structures are not undermined. I have no doubt that the Constitution Education Fund will make a magnificent contribution to the wellbeing of Australia by promoting a greater understanding of our nation's constitutional framework, a framework that is the foundation of Australia's stability and democratic process.

STATE LIBRARY AND HOMELESSNESS

URANQUINTY GAS-FIRED POWER STATION PROPOSAL

Ms SYLVIA HALE [6.26 p.m.]: For years homeless people have used the space between the State Library and this Parliament building as a relatively safe and sheltered place to sleep and congregate. Some also use the library to read, watch videos or use the Internet. But a new client registration protocol requiring both personal identification and a fixed address is now being implemented that could well deny homeless people access to various parts of the collection and the library services. For many years the State Library held pre-Easter and pre-Christmas afternoon teas for local homeless people. These no longer take place. This is just one of many other changes that have been introduced by the library's administration over the years.

Leather couches were removed from the foyers to stop homeless people using them. Bathroom dryers were changed to make it hard for homeless people to wash in them. Bushes were removed to stop homeless people storing their bags in relative safety behind them. A metal fence with long, sharp, metal spikes is being erected to block off access to the gardens. Sleeping in the garden area has never been a serious problem in the past. Blocking it off denies the homeless a safe and sheltered place in which to sleep. It is indicative of society banishing the homeless from sight and pretending they do not exist. In this case they are being fenced out like animals.

I know the primary role of the library is not to look after the homeless, but its response has been inhumane, thoughtless, unnecessary, and deplorable. It is also an indictment on the State Government that only last week it announced its intention to evict problem tenants and their families from public housing, knowing full well that that would do no more to exacerbate the homelessness crisis in this State.

I turn now to another example of the Government's hypocrisy—its policy of building new fossil fuel energy infrastructure, locking New South Wales into decades of greenhouse pollution while the Premier travels the State making speeches about the need to address climate change. Without doubt climate change is one of the most serious environmental issues facing Australia today. The CSIRO has predicted that temperatures in New South Wales could increase by up to five degrees over the next 100 years. Higher temperatures will result in less rainfall and more bushfires. Scientists predict a doubling of drought periods by 2050 and a reduction in water flow in inland rivers by up to 30 per cent. Coastal storms are expected to increase in intensity by 10 per cent and New South Wales snowfields are expected to reduce by up to 66 per cent by 2030. Those issues will have a devastating impact on the State's agricultural and tourism industries, not to mention the environment.

Against that backdrop the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources is considering granting development consent for a new gas-fired power station at Uranquinty, on the outskirts of Wagga Wagga. The 600-megawatt power station is a peaking plant designed to produce electricity at times of peak demand—on the hottest days of summer. In other words, it will feed the airconditioners of suburban Sydney and Melbourne.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Is your house airconditioned?

Ms SYLVIA HALE: No, my house is not airconditioned. If this Government were serious about addressing climate change, it would institute minimum energy efficiency standards and demand management programs to reduce what is currently the world's highest per capita consumption of electricity. Two weeks ago I visited the site at the invitation of the Uranquinty Residents Action Group. The proposed site will take up to 80 acres of prime agricultural land within 10 minutes drive of central Wagga Wagga. The proposed site is badly situated. North-westerly winds will blow pollution over Wagga Wagga. Local residents certainly do not want it. Daryl Maguire, the local Liberal member, has always supported the site because he owns land on the other side of the town near Bowman—the other alternative site.

The Hon. Don Harwin: Point of order: Contrary to the standing orders the honourable member knowingly made a scurrilous and false imputation about a member in the other place. Her attention should be drawn to the standing orders.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Tony Burke): Order! Standing Order 91 is quite specific. All imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections are disorderly. I ask the member to withdraw the comment.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: I withdraw the comment. The plant will damage Wagga Wagga's clean and green agricultural image. The six jobs that purportedly will be created are an insult to the town. They will be highly skilled jobs for outsiders and the town will lose local jobs in the agricultural sector. The Greens call on the department not to grant consent for the development of this highly environmentally unfriendly power station.

WILDERNESS ACCESS

The Hon. JON JENKINS [6.31 p.m.]: I continue the speech I was making on 6 May about the threat of phytophthora. Phytophthora is spread mainly by other mechanisms as well as human distribution. It is not a significant threat in alpine regions, but the facts should not get in the way of some good FUD—fear, uncertainty and doubt. I think Miles Dunphy would have understood and others certainly do. I return to the issue of how to manage our national parks and wilderness areas, which I will refer to as national parks. Much of my speech has been taken from lectures and presentations by various academics and researchers who are too numerous to mention. I, too, stand on the shoulders of others.

I use Kosciuszko National Park as a perfect example of how ideological green extremists can cause the destruction of our precious parks. It is true that Kosciuszko National Park is home to many rare animal and plant species. It is also true that some of them are in great danger. The two species mentioned were the pigmy possum and the corroboree frog. If honourable members refer to my inaugural speech last year they will see that I specifically mentioned those two species of animals as being at risk after the devastating fires in 2003. I will continue my speech during the next adjournment debate.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 6.33 p.m. until Wednesday 12 May 2004 at 11.00 a.m.
_______________

PARLIAMENT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 11 May 2004, Corrected Copy)

Legislative
Assembly

Legislative
Council

Members

Bills

Committees

Hansard

Research Papers

Engaging with Parliament

External Links