The President (The Hon. Peter Thomas Primrose) took the chair at 11.00 a.m.

The President read the Prayers.
Motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly agreed to:

That, under section 14 of the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1971, the Hon. Don Harwin be appointed as trustee of the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Fund.
Business of the House Notice of Motion No. 1 postponed on motion by Ms Lee Rhiannon.

Business of the House Notices of Motions Nos 2 and 3 postponed on motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay.

Business called on, and postponed on motion by the Hon. Rick Colless, on behalf of the Hon. Greg Pearce.

Debate called on, and adjourned on motion by the Hon. Christine Robertson, on behalf of the Hon. Amanda Fazio.

Business called on, and postponed on motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay.

Business called on, and postponed on motion by the Hon. Roy Smith.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.09 a.m.]: I seek leave to amend the motion of which I have given notice by omitting all words after "That" and inserting instead:

this House:

(a) notes that horrific human rights abuses are continuing in Zimbabwe, in particular citizens of Zimbabwe who stand up for moral justice and democratic rights risk abduction, torture and brutal methodical beatings at the hands of police,

(b) notes that the Federal Government has banned the Australian Cricket Team from playing in Zimbabwe later this year, and

(c) supports this decision as an important demonstration of Australia's rejection of the ongoing human rights abuses in Zimbabwe.

Leave granted.

Accordingly, I move:

That this House:

(a) notes that horrific human rights abuses are continuing in Zimbabwe, in particular citizens of Zimbabwe who stand up for moral justice and democratic rights risk abduction, torture and brutal methodical beatings at the hands of police,

(b) notes that the Federal Government has banned the Australian Cricket Team from playing in Zimbabwe later this year, and

(c) supports this decision as an important demonstration of Australia's rejection of the ongoing human rights abuses in Zimbabwe.

Because the motion is reasonably self-explanatory, I will not take all of my allotted time. I am hopeful and quietly optimistic that the motion will attract the unanimous support of the House. I find myself in the slightly odd position of congratulating the Federal Government, which is not something I do often. This is a very important issue. People would be aware of the situation in Zimbabwe. Members of this House have over many years taken a close interest in the deteriorating situation there. My purpose in moving the motion is to bring to the attention of the House the ongoing issues.

I have received the most recent report from Human Rights Watch about what is happening in Zimbabwe. I do not intend to deal in detail with various abuses that have been occurring because they have been widely reported in recent times, but it is very clear that human rights abuses in Zimbabwe continue unabated under Robert Mugabe, particularly the abuse of freedom of assembly. Recent reports show that any type of peaceful demonstration within Zimbabwe by student activists, trade unionists or human rights activists results in routine arrests and, disturbingly, that many activists are tortured at the hands of the police. There is no freedom of expression or freedom of information. All reports coming out of Zimbabwe continually demonstrate the difficulties of anyone trying to move towards democratic change in that country. Torture and ill-treatment continue.

The political situation is having a real impact on the incidence of HIV-AIDS, particularly in relation to access to health services by the people of Zimbabwe. It is incumbent upon all of us to exhort the Australian Government to continue to apply pressure on Zimbabwe to move to democratic processes. I do not intend to speak to the motion at length, other than to say that sporting boycotts play an important role in this issue. I fully support the action taken by the Federal Government in withdrawing Cricket Australia from playing against Zimbabwe, thereby depriving the Mugabe regime of a propaganda tool. I commend the motion to the House.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [11.13 a.m.]: The Opposition strongly supports the motion. Like many Australians, I love cricket. It has been a great sadness to many cricket supporters that the Australian Cricket Board placed the Australian cricket team in the position of having signed up for tours of Zimbabwe—a country that clearly has placed itself well outside the international community. Zimbabwe has been suspended from the Commonwealth and is being run by a homicidal maniac who has proved to be utterly resistant to pleas by the rest of the world to behave in a humane and rational way, not to mention resistant to acting in the interests of his nation.

Clearly the role of such a high profile sport as cricket has been, in the eyes of the Mugabe regime, used as a public relations measure to assert its authority and legitimacy. For the Australian cricket team to have formal touring arrangements with a country such as Zimbabwe, which has been outside the world community on human rights issues for so long, is completely inappropriate. In addition to welcoming the ban on the tour, I congratulate the Federal Government on the manner in which it has handled the very difficult issue of sporting boycotts. I do not think there is carte blanche support in Australia for the use of sporting boycotts. I am one of the members of the Liberal Party who strongly supported sporting boycotts of South Africa during apartheid, but I recognise that there are other views. It would be a mistake to say that there is consensus on sporting boycotts at a national level. However, in this instance, Australians have overwhelmingly supported a boycott of the tour of Zimbabwe.
Individual players in the Australian cricket team have been placed in a very awkward position. Clearly, they did not want to go to Zimbabwe. The standard of the matches involved in the tour does not meet the international cricketing community's expectations of a good cricket match and a beneficial game. Australian cricketers were placed in the invidious position of being forced to play cricket in really dreadful circumstances because of the Australian Cricket Board's contract.

The Australian Government investigated the issues and worked with the cricket team and the Australian Cricket Board to impose a ban in a way that ensures Zimbabwe does not benefit from the millions of dollars of fines applicable to Australia's not following through with the tour. Moreover, our cricketers have not been placed in the position of having to make political decisions or to arbitrate on matters of world politics. I know that the Australian cricket team's captain, Ricky Ponting, was most appreciative of the manner in which the matter has been handled: a very difficult situation for a The Australian Government investigated the issues and worked with the cricket team and the Australian Cricket Board to impose a ban in a way that ensures Zimbabwe does not benefit from the millions of dollars of fines applicable to Australia's not following through with the tour. Moreover, our cricketers have not been placed in the position of having to make political decisions or to arbitrate on matters of world politics. I know that the Australian cricket team's captain, Ricky Ponting, was most appreciative of the manner in which the matter has been handled: a very difficult situation for all concerned has been averted. It is my hope that the Australian Cricket Board will approach future matters with greater intelligence and sensibility and not place either our cricket team or our country in a similar position again.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [11.16 a.m.]: The Greens support the motion moved by the Hon. Penny Sharpe. We are pleased that John Howard has told Cricket Australia that his Government will block the tour. I am particularly pleased to report that, having for so long shamefully opposed sanctions against the apartheid government of South Africa, Mr Howard has now recognised that sporting sanctions are an effective way for the international community to isolate a repressive regime without directly hurting the welfare of its people. I note, for instance, that the leader of Zimbabwe's Movement for Democratic Change, Morgan Tsvangirai, has said that the controversy surrounding Australia's decision to withdraw from the tour serves to highlight the political and economic crisis that is engulfing his country.

Zimbabwe is a country suffering from very serious problems. The World Food Program calculates that this year it will have to feed 4.3 million people in Zimbabwe, which is almost half the population. The death toll from treatable diseases, such as malaria and HIV, is greater than the birth rate. Life expectancy in Zimbabwe is now less than 40 years of age, and gross domestic product has fallen by almost 50 per cent since 2000. The government of Robert Mugabe is not solely responsible for these problems. There has been a devastating drought affecting much of southern Africa, similar to the drought that has affected Australia, but the drought alone does not explain the collapse of Zimbabwe's economy. The Mugabe government bears responsibility for the situation in Zimbabwe because of its repression of human rights, its attack on opposition politicians, political activists and journalists, its seizure of farms, its bulldozing of homes around cities, and the forced repatriation of people to rural areas that are struggling through drought.

The behaviour of the Mugabe regime has become thuggish and repressive. Having freed itself from colonial repression, Zimbabwe has now been plunged into a new form of repression. For that, Mugabe and his corrupt coterie should be condemned and isolated by the international community. The situation in Zimbabwe is deteriorating rapidly. The international community, particularly the Southern African community, must apply as much pressure as it can for Mugabe to step aside and for democratic elections to take place for a new leadership that can begin to address the dire circumstances of the people of Zimbabwe.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [11.19 a.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the motion moved by the Hon. Penny Sharpe, which states:

That this House:

(a) notes that horrific human rights abuses are continuing in Zimbabwe, in particular citizens of Zimbabwe who stand up for moral justice and democratic rights risk abduction, torture and brutal methodical beatings at the hands of police,

(b) notes that the Federal Government has banned the Australian Cricket Team from playing in Zimbabwe later this year, and

(c) supports this decision as an important demonstration of Australia's rejection of the ongoing human rights abuses in Zimbabwe.

Under Mr Mugabe's dictatorship Zimbabwe is one of the most despicable nations in the world for the abuse of its citizens and attacks on the democratic rights of its citizens. The motion refers to abduction, torture and brutal beatings not by gangs but by official police officers in uniform. Leaders of the Zimbabwe opposition, including women, have been beaten by police and have sought protection from the authorities in Zimbabwe. Mr Mugabe conducted an almost ethnic cleansing of certain parts of Zimbabwe where there were towns and villages inhabited by people who were opposed to his dictatorship. He gave orders for those community houses to be bulldozed and did not make provision for alternative accommodation for those families. The destruction of those homes and livelihoods was a means of intimidating citizens of Zimbabwe to not oppose his dictatorship.

No-one could defend Mr Mugabe's actions in any way whatsoever. Sadly, he has received support from some African nations that probably see some racial aspect to his actions; however he has received condemnation from some Western nations. It is a tragedy that other African nations, including South Africa, have given Mr Mugabe moral support. He, of course, says that the attacks against him are part of Western colonialism. That is rubbish: I believe there is sufficient justification for the attacks on Mugabe's regime and for his regime to be removed from power. There should be genuine democratic elections and the Zimbabwe opposition should be given all the usual rights that oppositions have in nations such as Australia and the United Kingdom. That is not happening in Zimbabwe. Those democratic rights should be restored. The motion refers to cricket in Zimbabwe. Withdrawing Australia from playing games against Zimbabwe may be another way of putting pressure on Mugabe's regime and may encourage the opposition to stand up against him.

Mr IAN COHEN [11.24 p.m.]: As a member of the Greens I support the motion moved by the Hon. Penny Sharpe. It is totally appropriate that we discuss this matter in this forum. I certainly have no problem in congratulating the Howard Government on its stance on this matter. The world is witnessing a serious state-run violation of human rights in the Mugabe-dominated regime in Zimbabwe, and that should not be happening. As previous members have said, Human Rights Watch and other organisations have reported on consistent and clear incidents of abuse by the Mugabe regime. That regime does not offer any opportunity for a healthy, democratic process.

Robert Mugabe was once a revolutionary for change in that area, a breakaway from colonialism. But in a few short generations his lust for power has degenerated into a form of despotism that is having an absolutely catastrophic effect on the people of Zimbabwe, and that should not be tolerated by the international community. It is obvious that we need to see a move to democratic change in that society. To ban the Australian cricket team from participating in games with Zimbabwe is a worthy act by the Australian Government. While there is always the misfortune of seeing sportspeople used for political ends, nevertheless sports and politics obviously mix, as George Orwell wrote in his short story The Sporting Spirit, and that has not changed.

I remember taking part in demonstrations against South African sporting teams, particularly the surf teams that came to Australia in the early 1970s. I went to Coogee Beach and participated in a demonstration at a time when it was far less acceptable to do so. The former President of this House, Meredith Burgmann, at that time was inspiring in her stance on the anti-apartheid campaign and the campaigns against visiting South African football teams.

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: I was there at the lawn demo.

Mr IAN COHEN: I acknowledge that the Minister has a much-feted history of radical action. It is interesting to see his current state of play. Nevertheless we see that in many instances in history and it is fantastic that many people have participated in those activities. I feel proud to have been a small part of that movement in the early 1970s to change the values of society.

It was sad to note that Sekai Holland was brutalised by the Mugabe regime. Sekai Holland has been an active part of the Zimbabwe opposition movement and I am aware that she has been an active member of that opposition right from the start of the regime. I met her and her Australian husband at the University of New South Wales when I was a young student. I was very much affected by her dedication and clarity. Now, some 35 years later, a woman of such high moral and intellectual standing and dedication to her cause has been brutalised by the Mugabe regime. I find that to be a very sad state of affairs.

We have seen the brutalisation of individuals and oppositions, the seizure of farms and the forced repatriation of people. We are seeing a widespread form of repression in Zimbabwe that has to end, and I believe it will end. In a small but significant way the stopping of sporting contacts sends a very strong message. I have no doubt that the tide of history will be with the democratic forces in Zimbabwe. I support it, and hope that it comes sooner rather than later, because that type of regime cannot and should not survive. I commend the Hon. Penny Sharpe for moving the motion.

Dr JOHN KAYE [11.29 p.m.]: I join my colleagues the Greens and members of other parties in congratulating the Hon. Penny Sharpe on moving this motion. It is important to make these statements, even though they are symbolic, and it is important to increase the pressure on the Mugabe regime. I add my voice to the voices of those who have condemned these horrendous human rights violations. It is hard for Australians to understand, most of us having lived our lives without experiencing that level of repression. What would it mean if we were subjected to random arrest, random torture, the loss of freedom of expression and the loss of a free and vibrant media?

It is good that all honourable members are joining the international call for the condemnation of Zimbabwe. We saw that work in the case of South Africa, where the apartheid regime was transformed into a regime of democracy. I want to add one thought to all this: What we are seeing here is the playing out of the tragedy of colonisation. The idea that one so-called civilisation can impose itself on another to create a different kind of order is a proven recipe for disaster throughout the world. Destruction of the social fabric that existed prior to the advent of the British and the Dutch in the southern Horn of Africa took away an important series of social structures, social relationships, forms of governance and forms of economic relationships. Under the ideology of civilisation, people tried to impose a new form that did not work. In reality, it was purely an excuse for the economic exploitation of a native people.

What they left behind was a complete absence of structures, of culture and the institutions of governance. The consequences that we see in southern Africa are being played out today. That important lesson must be learned throughout the world—a lesson that the United States needs to learn in respect of Iraq and any venture into Iran. The imposition of one country on another is doomed to failure. What does work—the lessons learned in South Africa clearly show this—is the use of international condemnation, the use of sporting boycotts, and the use of international pressure to ensure that any repressive regime understands it will not get away with these sorts of activities. I join my colleagues in supporting the motion and in congratulating the Hon. Penny Sharpe on moving it.
The Hon. PENNY SHARPE [11.32 a.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions and note that I believe this motion will be passed unanimously. I think it sends a strong message about human rights and what is happening in Zimbabwe. I thank everyone for their contribution and their support.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER [11.32 a.m.]: I move:

1. That this House:

(a) notes the recent announcement by Coal and Allied of job cuts totalling 250 positions at their three Hunter Valley mine sites,

(b) further notes that this follows the announcement earlier this year by Austar of 79 jobs cuts at their Cessnock mining operations,

(c) condemns the Government for failing over 12 years in Government to plan and provide the proper infrastructure needed to meet the needs of local industry including a third coal loader and quality roads and rail,

(d) criticises the Government for their city-centric policies, that are crippling the Hunter’s opportunity to tap into Australia’s resources boom, and

(e) notes the queue of coal ships off the coast of Newcastle and the message this is sending to buyers of coal around the world about the reliability of the Hunter and Australia as a supplier of coal.

2. That this House calls on the Government to speed up the process of construction of a third coal loader and make the infrastructure investment necessary to enable Newcastle and the Hunter Valley to compete with the rest of the world.

This motion relates to coal, its importance to the Hunter Valley, the importance of the Hunter Valley to New South Wales, and the importance of the coalmining industry to the New South Wales economy. There is polarisation about the coal industry and there are different and diverse views about the amount of coalmining we should be undertaking, whether we should be opening new mines, and the general effect of coalmining across the board. That having been acknowledged, we must also acknowledge the need for this State Government to make coalmining and the transportation of coal from our coalmines to our ports and to overseas export markets as efficient as possible.
I know that my colleagues from the Hunter and, in particular, the Leader of the Opposition and shadow Minister for the Hunterw will support this motion and agree that coalmining is a major driver of the Hunter economy and of employment in that region. Earlier this year the Hunter region received the news that Coal and Allied, a major coalmining operation in the Hunter region, would be cutting 250 jobs at its three Hunter Valley mine sites and that Austar, a smaller operation, would be cutting 77 jobs at its Cessnock sites. Why would that be happening in the coalmining heart of this State? We are looking at record exports of coal, so why are coalmining jobs being cut? It is simply because this State Government has not moved quickly enough to advance the movement of coal to meet the demand at the port of Newcastle.

This region is the coalmining heart of this State. In 1799 the first coal exports, bound for India, were loaded in Newcastle. These job cuts are a devastating blow for the region and the families who are affected. Given that Australia is experiencing a boom in the resource industry, it is a matter of concern that this should happen at this time. Expressing concern about this matter does nothing to help those families who have lost their jobs and it does nothing for those families who at times face real concern about the longevity and certainty of their jobs. The mining industry and its employees need that certainty. Michael Johnsen, President of the Scone Chamber of Commerce, told the Newcastle Herald that it could cost the Upper Hunter hundreds of thousand of dollars in revenue. The chamber estimates that even if the number of jobs to be cut were halved, $600,000 in disposable income would still be lost. He is quoted as saying:

It was largely the fault of the NSW Government for not putting money away from coal rights to invest in infrastructure.

That is the story we get across the board. This Government has been in office for 12 years but it has failed to invest in coalmining infrastructure, in departmental infrastructure and in every area for which it is responsible. Michael Johnsen referred to the failure of this State Government years ago to approve and build important infrastructure, including the third coal loader. The Government made that announcement only this year, funnily enough, the day after Austar announced its job cuts. The Government also made that announcement during the election campaign. One could be forgiven for being cynical about that announcement. It took an election campaign and loss of jobs for this Government to finally move.

Anyone who sat outside Newcastle, looked across the port and counted the ships on the horizon would understand the cost to the economy of not having a third coal loader. This region also needs improved road access and improved bridges. The Government receives $1.5 billion in royalties and taxes from the mining industry, yet it has not bothered or had the vision to put any of that back into the region to improve infrastructure. The Premier and his Ministers visited Newcastle last week and repeatedly said that they had heard the message from local voters at the recent election, but we have seen nothing to demonstrate that they listened to those voters and will start working for the region.

The cost of the Government's failure to provide the infrastructure needed in the Hunter is rising. Xstrata said that it is costing the coal industry $1 billion a year between New South Wales and Queensland in demurrage fees, with coal ships queuing off our coastline. I wonder whether the Premier went down to the beach last night to have a look at the number of ships off the coast. I bet he did not go near it.

Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes: They counted 100 in the Hunter.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER That is not an unusual occurrence. Often those ships are there for days. A whole industry is developing around the delivery of fruit and vegetables and other goods to the ships that dot our coastline. When my children were younger we used to have a competition counting ships off the coast. This is an ongoing problem. It could have been solved if the Government had shown some initiative and invested some of the royalties it gets from the coal industry in much-needed infrastructure. This issue has nothing to do with the debate about coal power. If we do not export the coal another country will. That is the danger we face.

Premier Iemma had some photo opportunities around the Hunter but I bet he did not have his photograph taken in front of the queue of ships off the coastline. I bet he did not go anywhere near them. But it is a fact of life for people in the Hunter, particularly in Newcastle. The Government must listen to the people. I just listened to the first Liberal member for Port Stephens deliver his inaugural speech in the other place. For the first time there is an Independent member for Lake Macquarie. It is about time the Government heeded the message that came out of the recent State election. That message is very clear: support industry and coalmining in the Hunter so that coal can be moved through the coal line, onto ships and off our coast. Last week the Premier handed out Premier's Awards in the Hunter—but only in Labor-held seats. What hypocrisy! The Government claims to have listened to Hunter residents, yet no-one in the electorates of Lake Macquarie and Port Stephens—the two seats not represented by Labor members—received a Premier's Award.
The Hon. Catherine Cusack: What if you are in the Labor Party but you live in a Liberal seat?

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER: The Prime Minister's Awards are bestowed across every electorate. It does not matter who represents those electorates—Labor, Liberal, Green or Independent. But this Premier is partisan. Local members in the other place received an invitation to attend the awards ceremony only at the last minute. Does that mean there are no good, community-minded people in Port Stephens and Lake Macquarie? No, it does not. The best community-minded people live in those regions but the Government is interested only in supporting its Labor flunkies; it ignores everyone else. The Premier claims to be listening to the Hunter but I do not think his hearing aid is turned up.

Fortunately, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is listening to the Hunter region and has approved an amended capacity balancing system to help Port Waratah Coal Services reduce the queue of ships. While this is one step in the right direction, it is not the only solution for the region and it does not negate the State Government's responsibility to ensure that it puts in place the proper infrastructure to support the Hunter region. The coal industry provides jobs for some 11,000 people directly in Newcastle and the Hunter region as a whole, and 54,000 indirectly if the minerals processing and businesses supported by mining are included. Clearly, the area derives a huge benefit from coalmining.

However, major buyers of Australian coal admit that they are looking elsewhere for supplies. For example, the delays and coal ships queue off Dalrymple Bay near Mackay in Queensland are so bad that a South Korean company, Posco, says that it is considering seeking alternative suppliers in Mongolia, Indonesia, Mozambique and Russia. It described Queensland suppliers as the worst in the world right now. That is something that Queensland is doing worse than New South Wales. Stunning though it may seem, delays in this State are not as bad as those in Queensland. But that will soon change if the problems are not resolved, and our overseas buyers will look elsewhere for coal. I am sure that some will argue that burning coal fuel damages the environment, but if we do not supply the market other countries will.

It is argued that we should invest in developing clean coal technologies and industries. The CSIRO in the Hunter has devised some great initiatives in that regard. If the Government were listening to the community it would spend money on developing and expanding clean coal industries. If New South Wales is the centre for excellence in mining, we should also be the centre for excellence when it comes to developing alternative fuels. The Government must fund and support infrastructure to make that happen. Newcastle is the largest coal port in the world. I hope that the Government is looking at the problems being experienced by our Queensland neighbours and will make the investment necessary to prevent our State going down the same track.

The State budget is to be delivered next month and the people of the Hunter region will be looking very closely at the details of spending for the area. After 12 years of Labor we will no longer tolerate the drip-fed system of funding that has become synonymous with this Government. The mining industry wants the necessary infrastructure to be developed quickly. Do not forget it was only when the Australian Rail Track Corporation [ARTC] took over the lease of the track that coal was moved efficiently down the line to the port. For years the coalmining industry had told the State Government that it could not shift its product efficiently because its engines were delayed by passenger trains. The industry lost millions of dollars. So the ARTC came on board and built an overpass. The investment required was only small—about $23 million—compared with the money being lost every day.

The coal now moves quickly down the line but is blocked if there is no coal loader available on the wharf. Ships are queuing off the coast in their hundreds. I am sure that other members will want to contribute to this debate because they appreciate the importance of coalmining to the Hunter and of developing proper infrastructure. In four years the State Government will pay—just as it did at the recent election—for its reluctance to support the Hunter region and its coalmining industry and for its failure to listen effectively and respond to our needs.

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI [11.47 a.m.]: This motion is vintage Opposition negativity. Honourable members opposite have only one approach to business in this House: focus on the negative and bring down the achievements of our regional communities. In comparison, the Iemma Government has pushed ahead with massive infrastructure investment in regional New South Wales. The State Plan has confirmed this priority by making "stronger rural and regional economies" a key goal to be delivered through increased business investment in rural and regional New South Wales and through better access to training in the regions to support local economies.

The Government has clear goals and clear business growth targets that will produce real outcomes for regional New South Wales. The Iemma Government's State Infrastructure Strategy released last year reinforces the State Plan's focus on infrastructure investments across the whole of New South Wales. Under the strategy the Iemma Government will invest almost $10 billion in infrastructure this financial year—by far the largest capital investment in our State's history. This represents government capital assets to the value of $318,000 per person. The Hunter is identified as a key region for investment under this strategy. And central to the future of the Hunter are developments at the Port of Newcastle.

These developments—the massive expansion of Port Waratah Coal Services and the approval of a new coal export terminal to be built by the Newcastle Coal Infrastructure Group—will create more than 3,000 jobs for the Hunter. These are real outcomes, real jobs for the hardworking families of the Hunter. All this, yet the Opposition's doom and gloom sideshow would have us believe that the Hunter is in some sort of resources and export crisis.

The facts speak for themselves. Coal exports through the Port of Newcastle brought more than $6 billion into the New South Wales economy in 2006 alone. The number of people working in the Hunter mining industry has more than doubled over the past five years alone, rising from 4,800 people in 202 to almost 11,000 in 2006. The Hunter Valley Coal Chain and Port of Newcastle operated at a rate equivalent to 86 million tonnes per year for the period from 1 January to 30 April of this year, the highest rate ever over a sustained period from Newcastle. The New South Wales Government has invested $300 million in Hunter Valley rail upgrades over the past six years to secure the future of the Hunter coal exporters. And more than $30 million in new funding has been allocated for the construction of port, road, rail and wharf infrastructure at the former BHP site, with work to begin in 2008. Only the Iemma Government has the understanding of the Hunter economy to make sure that this record of growth is sustained. Ports across New South Wales handle a massive $60 billion worth of trade each year, and under this Government Newcastle and the Hunter continue to lie at the heart of this record of success.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [11.51 a.m.]: I support the learned and well-researched contribution made by my colleague the Hon. Robyn Parker. The difference between the contributions made by my colleague and the Government is that the Hon. Robyn Parker presented argument based on looking forward to the future and acknowledging the inherent nature of the problems that confront not only the Hunter Valley but general issues regarding coal and climate change. On the other hand, the Hon. Tony Catanzariti delivered a speech prepared by some boffin. The honourable member could have done a better job himself. The speech he delivered was all about defending, or trying to defend, the Government's position on this issue, when quite clearly the Government does not have a leg to stand on. I will talk about that later in my contribution this morning. All honourable members should note that the motion put forward by the Hon. Robyn Parker acknowledges the importance of the industry and the effects of job losses. We did not hear the Government talk about job losses. A comparison of the contribution of the Hon. Robyn Parker and Notice of Motion No. 13, in the name of Ms Lee Rhiannon, shows—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: The total hypocrisy of Ms Lee Rhiannon.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Hypocrisy is one thing, but it also demonstrates how the Greens play at the edge. They get a few crumbs on a number of controversial issues then knead all the crumbs together to get enough of a slice to get themselves into Parliament. That is their approach to politics and policy.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: It's a crummy policy!

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Right. They cannot stand on their own two feet. It is tempting to support any motion that seeks to censure the Premier for doing anything—which is, in itself, a miracle—but the last part of Ms Lee Rhiannon's notice of motion seeks to censure the Premier for the Government's decision to approve a third coal loader, describing that as an irresponsible and dangerous act. In my view we should amend that motion to censure the Premier and his Government for their failure to approve the third coal loader in a timely manner, noting the detrimental impact of their failure on the Hunter Valley coal industry and the loss of 250 Hunter Valley jobs in the past few weeks. Of course, the Greens approach is to play at the margins and put together the crumbs to make the slice that will give them a place in here. Until they come up with a reasonable policy that acknowledges the problem and puts forward reasonable solutions and a way forward—rather than the scatterbrained stuff we hear from them—they will continue putting crumbs together. They will not win seats in the lower House because they never will be truly representative of the community.

We on this side are more than proud to represent the Hunter Valley. Instead of standing by and observing the decline of an industry, and constantly referring to it as a dying industry, we spend time in the region and with the industry to know what they are proposing, to learn of their own research and development to ensure the future of their industry, and to ensure that there is a reasonable outcome so far as the economy and jobs are concerned. I will touch on some of those matters today. If the Greens were being honest they would acknowledge that three-quarters of the world's gas emissions do not come from the use of coal. As the Executive Director of the Australian Coal Association recently stated—unchallenged by anybody—only 4 per cent of the world's coal production passes through Australian ports, as most importing countries buy coal for their domestic reserves or for steelmaking. That flies in the face of the argument that the Greens continue to put forward.

The reality is that this 4 per cent of the world's coal production results in a $24 billion national industry that boosts the Australian economy. It is difficult to distil from that the figure for New South Wales alone, as was said by the Executive Director of the Australian Coal Association. However, the December 2006 ACIL Tasman report on the industry, prepared for the Ministerial Advisory Council, looked at two models of future projections for New South Wales. From this we start to see exactly what will be the impact for the New South Wales economy—as opposed to looking at that $24 billion in the national or global context.

The accepted businesses as usual [BAU] model referred to in the ACIL Tasman report identified jobs growth in excess of 12,000 by 2020, whereas the widely recognised Vision for 2020 plan for the industry projects jobs growth to rise by a further 8,400. Therefore, in the next decade and a half, we are looking at a jobs growth figure in New South Wales alone of 20,000—and those are direct jobs. It does not take into consideration the flow-on effect in other employment areas that will benefit from this expansion. The report goes on to note that a further 46,500 full-time equivalent jobs will result from this expansion. Those will be primarily in the Hunter Valley, in the minerals sector, which is really the backbone of the New South Wales economy, and significantly, in the second-largest city in this State. The approach to this issue by the Government and certainly by the Greens fails to consider the human and social impacts that those sorts of job numbers will have in areas that have struggled in the past, areas that have done it tough when it comes to jobs. The current direction of the industry is quite positive for our future.

The Greens spend a lot of time talking about their support for blue-collar workers and members of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union et cetera. The ACIL Tasman report contains a table giving jobs growth. For trade jobs the increase to 2007 is 113, growing to 16,000 by 2020. For intermediate production and transport jobs—the low end of the scale of jobs involved in the industry—the increase to 2007 is 197, growing to 2,677 by 2020. Given that well over half of thermal and coking coal will come from the Hunter Valley, the question is: What have the Greens got against the people of the Hunter Valley actually getting a job?

The Hon. Michael Costa: They hate them.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: According to industry sources, putting a stop to coal exports today would bring about a reduction in global emissions of about 1.3 per cent.

The Hon. Michael Costa: Bob Brown wants to close it down in three years.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: They are national figures. The only reason the Greens talk about closing it down is so that they can continue to play at the margins and cobble together enough support for their Senate or upper House positions. Currently the debate is about carbon capture and storage. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change most certainly identifies that as the challenge for future growth and expansion of the coal industry. Industry and governments around the world are spending billions of dollars on developing this technology, but the Greens refuse to acknowledge it. One company in the Hunter Valley alone—Macquarie Generation—has massively increased its ability to become more efficient by using solar power. It uses mirrors to heat the water.

The Hon. Michael Costa: It is still token.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: The Minister says, "It is still token", but the reality is—

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted and set down as an order of the day for a later time.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Lands. Now that the Federal Government has announced an $80 million grant to Wyong and Gosford councils to construct the much-needed water pipeline between Mardi and Mangrove Creek dams, thus overriding the $40 million offer by the Federal Opposition, will he now guarantee to the people of the Central Coast that neither he nor his office will hinder or obstruct necessary land consents? Will he give the people of the Central Coast his undertaking that he and his office will put politics aside and ensure that this water pipeline is expedited?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Yes.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Education and Training. Will the Minister inform the House what the Government is doing to mark Reconciliation Week?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: As honourable members will be aware National Reconciliation Week this year marks the fortieth anniversary of the 1967 referendum. More than 90 per cent of Australian voters said "yes" to the Commonwealth, ending discrimination against indigenous Australians. The significance of the 1967 referendum and the meaning of Reconciliation Week are reflected in the New South Wales theme, "Their Spirit Still Shines". It recognises the contribution of both indigenous and non-indigenous members of the Federal Council for the Advancement of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders who campaigned for the "yes" vote in the 1967 referendum. The Iemma Government is determined to improve the quality of life of Aboriginal people—and education is at the heart of our work. Improved education for Aboriginal people is a specific goal of the State Plan.

We are backing this target with significant funds—$65 million of targeted investment to improve outcomes for Aboriginal students. We know that more Aboriginal young people are going to school and enjoying learning with their families and communities. We know that more Aboriginal staff are being encouraged to participate in the department's workforce and we are encouraging all staff to have a stronger understanding of Aboriginal people and cultures. We know that more non-Aboriginal people are learning the history of Australia and its indigenous people and we know that more Aboriginal young people are being given the skills to inspire confidence and develop successful careers and lives.

This week throughout New South Wales, schools and regions are celebrating Reconciliation Week in many ways including tree plantings, special assemblies, art competitions and barbeques for parents and students. Regional staff in the Illawarra south-east region are undertaking cultural training during Reconciliation Week, and a workshop is being held at Sanctuary Point to promote the teaching and learning of Aboriginal languages. At Coffs Harbour Education Campus a partnership between schools, TAFE and Southern Cross University is devoting a day to education and celebration. This morning, dozens of indigenous students attended a wreath­laying ceremony in Hyde Park to honour the service and sacrifice of indigenous veterans.

Thousands of indigenous soldiers fought side by side with white Australians on battlegrounds across the world, and this ceremony provided an opportunity to honour those who made the ultimate sacrifice. The courage and selfless sacrifice of indigenous Australians helped to shape our proud Anzac tradition. Reconciliation Week also provides an opportunity for the Government to renew and strengthen its partnership with the peak body providing advice on Aboriginal education and training—the New South Wales Aboriginal Education Consultative Group. It will be my pleasure to host a dinner this Friday to acknowledge and honour the life members of the New South Wales Aboriginal Education Consultative Group.

My ministerial colleague in the other place the Hon. Linda Burney is a life member and keynote speaker at the dinner. It will give the Government the opportunity to thank the consultative group and its life members for their role in improving life chances for generations of Aboriginal students. As Minister for Education and Training, I am committed to achieving the key target of improving levels of attainment for all students. I can assure the House that the Iemma Government is taking practical steps and making real advances to improve education for Aboriginal students.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads, and other disasters. In light of recent problems in the Roads portfolio such as the Lane Cove Tunnel debacle, the Spit Bridge, the Iron Cove Bridge and traffic congestion, what assurances can he give the people of New South Wales that his usual chaos will not prevail during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation [APEC] summit? Will he detail to the House and the people of New South Wales what plans are in place—
The Hon. John Della Bosca: Point of order: The question clearly contains argument.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I do not believe the question contains argument. The recent visit by Dick Cheney caused chaos. We need to find out for the people of New South Wales whether there will be chaos. I can understand that the Leader of the Government wants to cover up for this bloke and not let him answer. Clearly, the training wheels are not working. If that is the case, let it be. However, if he wants to let his Minister answer and tell the people of New South Wales what is in place, do it.

The Hon. John Della Bosca: He's happy to answer. You should ask a question that is in order.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Standing Order 65 (1) states clearly that questions must not contain arguments, inferences, imputations or ironical expressions. The question is out of order. Accordingly, I uphold the point of order.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I direct my question to the Minister for Energy. When did the Minister first become aware that a shortage of cooling water resulting from the current drought might constrain the availability of some coal-fired generators in New South Wales and thus threaten the reliability of supply? Was this before or after the terms of reference were drafted for the Owen inquiry into electricity supply in New South Wales? If it was before they were drafted, will the Minister explain why water shortages, their impact on coal-fired generation and the need to make the electricity supply robust against the current and future droughts were not specifically mentioned in the terms of reference given to Professor Owen?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The precise date on which I learned of the difficulties that could arise if the drought continues was sometime after the inquiry was announced. Mention was made of the difficulties a couple of generators in Queensland were having sourcing adequate water supplies. When the Greens talk about water and coal-fired generators they do not seem to appreciate that we are talking about a small volume of water compared with the overall volume of water used for industry and other purposes in the State. We allocate in the order of 6,000 gigalitres of water per annum for various consumptive usages. The coal industry utilises in the order of 80 to 85 gigalitres of that total amount of water. Coalmining and other mining industries use approximately 62 gigalitres. Those two major industries use very little water compared with the consumptive usage in New South Wales as a whole.

The Greens also ignore the fact that approximately 28 per cent of coal-fired power stations in New South Wales use seawater. Consequently, water is an issue to some degree but it is not the most significant issue within the discussion. It is important to remember that this discussion is about baseload needs going forward; it is not an inquiry about all sorts of other issues dealing with energy. It is about baseload requirements. If it can be supplied by other means, that is open for debate and discussion within the context of this inquiry.

I am sure the honourable member will put forward his views about the need for solar panels and wind turbines in New South Wales. I have examined various renewable energy technological devices and I am a great supporter, but I do not believe that in the next 50 years they will be able to serve as our baseload energy generators in this State and cover baseload requirements. As I have stated previously, if we take one major power station, such as Macquarie Generation's Bayswater or Liddell sites, their power generation capacity is approximately 3,300 megawatts. If we had an array of solar power generation facilities to cover the generation of power on that scale, we have not reached the point of technological expertise that would enable us to integrate it. And that leaves aside the issues associated with manufacturing batteries that have not yet been invented with capacity to store and deliver an energy source on the scale we are discussing.

I am informed that the area required for such a power generation plant is approximately 8 square kilometres, just for the solar panels. I am sure that the metropolitan Greens, led by Ms Lee Rhiannon, would organise a demonstration against visual pollution caused by such a site! The number of wind-powered stations required to cover even one baseload generator in this State would cover thousands of square kilometres, and where could we put such a facility? We have enough trouble with the Greens over one set-up at Taralga.

Mr Ian Cohen: That is not true. We supported it.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The Greens have been opposing it locally. [ Time expired.]
The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: My question is addressed to the Attorney General. Will he advise the House on the latest information regarding the rehabilitation of Aboriginal offenders?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Last week I had the great pleasure of launching a major rehabilitation program for offenders of indigenous background. Based on the Hunter region, the Keepa Keepa Program is focused on one of the Iemma Government's top priorities—the reduction of the rate of indigenous imprisonment in New South Wales. The program involves a unique whole-of-government approach. As part of the program, the Department of Corrective Services works closely with the Attorney General's Department and officials from the Department of Health in examining the reasons why offenders are committing crime in the first place. Those agencies provide indigenous offenders with vital employment skills in an effort to stop their cycle of reoffending and to turn their lives around for the better.

Importantly, the program also calls upon the assistance of the Keepa Keepa elders and is based on traditional land outside Kurri Kurri. Last week, accompanied by the member for Cessnock, Mr Kerry Hickey, I visited the site of the program in bushland at Mount Sugarloaf and met Mr Richard Hardon. Mr Hardon is the son of Senior Sergeant Hardon who was murdered by an armed offender at Mount Sugarloaf. I also met the daughter of Uncle Alex, who is a leading figure in the local indigenous community. The Keepa Keepa Program is dedicated to both men.

Today I pay tribute to them and thank their families for allowing their names to be used in conjunction with the program. After launching the program, I also had the great pleasure of speaking to some of the community's Aboriginal elders to obtain their firsthand views on how the program will work. The cultural wisdom of these elders will be invaluable to the future success of the Keepa Keepa Program because they best understand the underlying causes of offending and will best understand how Aboriginal offenders can rebuild their lives and re-enter their communities.

The Keepa Keepa Program will specifically target male Aboriginal offenders in Newcastle, Lake Macquarie and Maitland who have been sentenced to community service orders. After cultural instruction by the elders, the offenders will undertake first aid training and be accredited before they are sent to work on site in bushland around Mount Sugarloaf. Having visited the site last week, I assure the House that the program will involve plenty of hard work for the offenders who are taking part, but the heart of the rehabilitation will be an examination of the fundamental causes of the crimes.

Offenders will confront their problems by taking part in discussions about core issues that often lead them to offending, such as alcohol, drugs, anger and violence. There will also be discussions about their relationships, how they communicate with family, friends and the community, and discussions about their traditional culture. Again, the cultural knowledge and wisdom of the Aboriginal elders will be the cornerstone of all those discussions. The Keepa Keepa Program is the latest in a range of programs that target Aboriginal offenders in custody. The award-winning Yetta Dhinnakkal Centre at Brewarrina and the Warakkirri Centre at Ivanhoe place young Aboriginal offenders in rural properties where they are taught horticulture and agriculture as well as a range of other practical skills, including small motor maintenance, welding, road sealing, building skills, literacy and memory skills, and first aid.

Respected Aboriginal elders visit and instruct offenders on Aboriginal heritage and culture. Like Keepa Keepa, the programs ensure that offenders attend courses to address problematic behaviour, such as substance abuse, relapse prevention, anger management, domestic violence and drink-driving. I am able to report the lower-than-average reoffending rate among young offenders who have passed through the programs, which demonstrates that the programs are working. The Nangy Kingar Program at the Cessnock Correctional Centre is another program that teaches Aboriginal inmates carpentry and joinery. We hope that Keepa Keepa will be a model for the wider community like all the other programs—a model of how we can stop the vicious cycle of reoffending for all offenders, Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I ask the Attorney General, and Minister for Justice: Is it a fact that Anne Buckingham, a niece of the late Abe Saffron, has accused Mr Saffron of being the person behind the horrific fire in June 1979 so that he could gain control of the Luna Park property? Will the Government reopen the inquiry into the tragic deaths of seven persons who were killed while riding Luna Park's Ghost Train in June 1979, to answer the concerns of their families?
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I thank Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile for his question. The New South Wales State Coroner, Magistrate Jerram, is aware of the recent media publicity surrounding allegations of Mr Abe Saffron's connection to the fire at Luna Park in June 1979. The State Coroner has not received a formal application to reopen the inquest into the deaths. The State Coroner will consider any application for a reopening of an inquest in the light of fresh evidence or facts that may become available. The New South Wales Police Force is responsible for investigating criminal matters. As such, any evidence, if it is available, should be brought to their attention.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads. Given recent events in his portfolio, will he detail the traffic movement plans that are in place for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation conference? What assurances can he provide for motorists that interrupted traffic flow associated with the visit by Dick Cheney and traffic congestion problems associated with the visit by the Queen Mary II and the Queen Elizabeth II will not be repeated?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for his question. It is good to see that on his second attempt he managed to ask a question that is in order, but he should keep his training wheels on. The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation [APEC] conference from 2 September to 9 September will be a huge event for people in Sydney. During that week, Sydney will be in the international spotlight, reinforcing its position as a truly international city.

However, it must be recognised that the security arrangements for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation conference will cause unavoidable disruption for Sydneysiders, and people in Sydney should be under no illusion about that. During that week, there will be road closures and parts of the central business district [CBD] will be locked down. It will be very difficult to move around the city, and people need to be aware of that. There will be substantial security operations in place throughout the whole period of the Asia­Pacific Economic Corporation leaders meeting.

The Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] is working very closely with the Asia-Pacific Economic Corporation task force and the New South Wales Police Security Command regarding both traffic and transport arrangements. I advise the people of Sydney and this House that traffic changes will include substantial special event clearways, which will restrict parking in substantial parts of the central business district, restricted access areas, temporary bus terminals, and no parking and no stopping areas in tollway zones. These are all required on the advice of both the New South Wales Police Force and national intelligence and security agencies. In addition, the Roads and Traffic Authority expects that over 300 green light corridors will be required to move dignitaries around the city, especially between the airport and the central business district.

Sydneysiders experienced the disruptions that green light corridors can cause during the Cheney visit and the more recent visit by the Prime Minister of Greece. These restrictions will be inconvenient to Sydneysiders but are required for security purposes. I am advised that in the lead-up to the Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation conference motorists will be warned, where possible, of the traffic restrictions that will be in place, including the use of signposts, variable message signs, and information on the Roads and Traffic Authority website.

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: My question is addressed to the Minister for Regional Development. How is the New South Wales Government helping regional New South Wales to develop its tourism industry?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I thank the Hon. Greg Donnelly for his interest in economic development in New South Wales regions. Recently I visited Lismore to launch the highly innovative Northern Rivers Farm and Nature Tourism Project, the first of its kind in New South Wales and indeed, the first for Australia. This is a project to train and support farmers and rural landowners in farm and nature tourism—so that they can look at tourism business opportunities from a fresh perspective and with greater knowledge. The project provides a range of ways to diversify farm businesses and increase income streams to help fight the impacts of droughts and market fluctuations and ensure the long-term sustainability of properties. The program was launched in the Northern Rivers region where tourism is a key economic driver.

The Northern Rivers region extends from Grafton to the Queensland border, and then west to Kyogle, Tabulam, and Casino. The tourism industry in that area has an estimated turnover of $700 million every year, generating 6,000 jobs. The region receives more tourists than either the Northern Territory or Tasmania and has the second-highest level of international tourists in New South Wales, behind Sydney. It has stunning national parks and long stretches of unspoilt coastlines, including World Heritage rainforest reserves. This program will help farmers take advantage of this wonderful environment. The project has now commenced with the first 20 out of 40 participants attending a series of workshops at Southern Cross University. At the workshops landowners learn about tourism business development and planning, as well as specific skills in tourism marketing and management.

The first session is an interactive workshop aimed at assisting farmers to evaluate their ideas before committing to more intensive business planning and skills development. They will then receive support and evaluation to launch their own ventures. Some of these may include offering accommodation along the lines of farm stays, perhaps flora and fauna tours, or just a simple farm-gate stall selling fresh produce. One interesting example includes extending a goat dairy to cheese making and a retail outlet. Another is establishing a café to encourage tourism and serve local produce. With the Iemma Government's support, these people are strengthening their livelihood and helping to drought-proof the towns they live in and near. The New South Wales Government is providing $40,000 in line with its commitment to supporting regional communities in business development.

The project is an initiative of the Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre and the Australian Regional Tourism Research Centre at Southern Cross University. I thank the five local government partners that were involved in this project: Clarence Valley, Ballina, Byron, Kyogle and Lismore shires as well as the Southern Cross University. I thank them for their participation and partnership in this project. I look forward to following the progress of this important project and congratulate all parties on this initiative.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: My question is addressed to the Minister for Roads. Under the Lane Cove Tunnel contract, is Connector Motorways liable to pay a penalty if it closes the tunnel for maintenance? If so, is that a contributing factor to why the Government has agreed to keep the tunnel open for maintenance works, potentially exposing workers to risk of injury or death from speeding vehicles, rather than closing it, as usually occurs when maintenance work is done on the M5 East Tunnel? Is the safety of workers on the Lane Cove Tunnel put at risk in order to avoid embarrassment to the Government from the tunnel being closed for maintenance and to limit Connector Motorways financial losses from lower tolls and financial penalty?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: The Greens always manage to amaze me with their conspiracy theories. As a starting point, it is important to understand why maintenance is done at night on all Sydney road tunnels. Maintenance is done at night to minimise inconvenience to traffic. Clearly maintenance would not be done during busy periods, and that is why it is done in the early hours of the morning or the late hours of the night. It is to minimise inconvenience. Every tunnel is unique in its design and length. All tunnel operators must meet required occupational health and safety obligations, under law. That is how decisions are made about appropriate safe levels within tunnels.

Connector Motorways has control of the Lane Cove Tunnel and determines the appropriate speed limit to meet its occupational health and safety obligations under the appropriate Acts. To suggest that the decision has anything to do with revenue is typical of the Greens and their constant attacks on Sydney motorways and cars. The Lane Cove Tunnel is a very long tunnel, it is one and a half times the length of the Sydney Harbour Tunnel, and a lot of work is being carried out on the westbound tunnel, towards the end of the portal, that could be carried out only after the Lane Cove Tunnel had opened. Of course, Epping Road has been redirected and roadworks are still occurring at that westbound end.

If the Greens had done any research, or checked any commentary on this issue, they would have known that the Government and Connector Motorways had advised the public, both before and after the opening of the tunnel, that ancillary roadworks would be required around the Lane Cove Tunnel. The tunnel was a $1.1 billion road project and included the expansion of the Gore Hill Freeway. From time to time roadworks are undertaken around the tunnel, and, of course, the operators change the speed within the tunnel to ensure they meet the safety requirements for any workers in the tunnel.

All workers may not be in the tunnel, as they may be on the access areas on the sides of the tunnel, or working on the world-class ventilation system or electronics system, or on the 150 signs and speed signs that may require maintenance. Work is ongoing in that large piece of road infrastructure. I certainly support Connector Motorways in adopting the appropriate safety levels to protect the workers in that tunnel.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister explain why the M5 East Tunnel is closed when repairs are undertaken, whereas the Lane Cove Tunnel is not closed when repairs are undertaken?

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: Point of order: That question is completely unrelated to the previous line of questioning.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: To the point of order: My question clearly builds on the point that the Minister was exploring, and he should be given the opportunity to supplement his answer.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister may continue if his answer is relevant to the original question and the supplementary question.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: The problem with the question is that it assumes the work done in both tunnels is the same. Every tunnel is different, with different circumstances, different maintenance and different work requirements. The M5 East is a much older tunnel and may require additional maintenance for issues that occur over time. The operators of the M5 East make a decision on how to handle their tunnel when they are doing maintenance or repairs, as do other operators. They are two different tunnels, one is a brand-new infrastructure and the other has been around for sometime. It cannot be argued that work carried out in one is similar to work carried out in the other. The operators have legal obligations to ensure the safety of their workers in any tunnel.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Justice. Given the Minister's enthusiastic support of the trial domestic violence court intervention model yesterday, will he acknowledge that all violence against women is a criminal matter? Will the Minister take steps to reinstate the violence against women program to the Attorney General's Department, which was inappropriately moved to the Department of Community Services by his predecessor? If not, why not?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: The answer to the first question is yes. The answer to the second question is no, and for the reasons stated at that time.

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI: My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Will the Minister update the House on the drought and the progress in sowing winter crops?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I am happy to inform the House that today there is good news to report from the bush. There has been plenty of rain in the last couple of weeks and it has been fairly widespread. It was refreshing to read headlines such as "Rainfall brings hope to the land" in the Daily Telegraph on 21 May 2007, and "Good rain to help farm confidence soar" in the Sydney Morning Herald on 28 May 2007. It is no secret that the drought is far from over. More rain is needed, and plenty of it, to break this one-in-100-year drought.

However, each day of rain is one day closer to the end of the drought. Falls of up to 75 millimetres across some of the worst drought-affected areas, such as Bourke, Tibooburra and Walgett, have drenched bone­dry paddocks and given our farmers the best start to the winter cropping season in five to six years. Central and southern New South Wales have not missed out either. The early break means that canola and chickpea plantings will be the biggest in years—about 200,000 hectares for each area. Almost 50 per cent of this year's wheat crop is already planted, and we can expect to see the remainder sown in the next three weeks.

Honourable members will not be surprised to learn that the long dry spell still has a tight grip across the State and is continuing to have a devastating effect on New South Wales. Last month's figures show that about 83 per cent of New South Wales is drought declared. Like the New South Wales Farmers Association, the Government is disappointed with the comments of the Federal Minister for Agriculture, Peter McGauran, who flat out denied any chance of farmers getting help to get their crops in the ground. Mr McGauran must be aware that all the New South Wales cropping belt is currently exceptional circumstance [EC] declared. This means that these farmers need all the help they can get.

While trying to knock on the head the idea of replanting assistance, the Federal Government has suggested no alternatives. In fact, all it has done is rip funding out of the agricultural portfolio. In the recent federal budget, expenditure for the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry portfolio was down nearly $100 million in 2007-08 and $714 million in 2008-09. Furthermore, the $314 million that was pledged in the budget for exceptional circumstances assistance will dry up quickly if the drought continues or takes a turn for the worse. Perhaps we need the new member for Murray-Darling and the shadow Minister to pack a lunch and head to Canberra to talk some sense into Mr McGauran and his colleagues. I hope they go down to Canberra fairly quickly.

It is estimated that a replanting scheme in New South Wales could easily cost around $400 million. Realistically, only the Federal Government has the funds to make this real difference because it draws every cent possible—$400 million—out of New South Wales through the GST.

[ Interruption]

The comment of the Hon. Melinda Pavey was interesting. This week I have had a couple of goes at her, but I am feeling in a more generous mood today so will ignore her interjection on this occasion. I am more generous than other Ministers in that regard. To help ease the pain caused by the drought to date the Government has spent over $300 million in assistance. Honourable members would be aware I recently announced that the Drought Support Worker Program and the Farm Gathering Program have been extended until December. The Government has waived the western lands lease annual rents for 2007-08 and it has continued the Stock to Slaughter Scheme until 31 August 2007. That also includes the continuation of the transport subsidies.

In order to process more quickly the claims that we are receiving, both for exceptional circumstance assistance and also from farmers in the irrigation areas, we have increased the number of staff working for the Rural Assistance Authority to more than 30. To achieve that aim the Government has even opened a second office in Orange. We are processing around 350 exceptional circumstance applications a week, so it is no surprise that exceptional circumstance applications have hit record levels. [ Time expired.]

Mr IAN COHEN: My question is directed to the Minister for Education and Training, representing the Premier. Can he advise on the Government's progress in re-establishing the Coastal Council following the motion to re-establish the council, which was passed unanimously by the Legislative Council on 23 November 2006?

The Hon. Michael Costa: The Legislative Council is not the Government.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Obviously, this is an important question. I acknowledge the pertinent interjection of the Treasurer and Deputy Leader that the Legislative Council is not the Government. I will raise the matter with the Premier and provide a full answer to the House in the near future.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Justice. Is he aware that guidelines limit the holding of offenders in court cells beyond 72 hours? Is he aware of instances where offenders are being held for longer than 72 hours? In particular, are the guidelines being breached at Surry Hills, Campbelltown, Wollongong, Penrith and Parramatta? What is he doing to rectify the situation?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Representations relating to this matter have been made to me. I have drawn them to the attention of the Commissioner for Corrective Services and he has taken action to ensure that appropriate arrangements are in place.

The Hon. KAYEE GRIFFIN: My question is addressed to the Minister for Commerce. Will the Minister update the House on government savings being achieved through recent information and communication technology initiatives?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I am pleased to advise the House that, under a new agreement, taxpayers in New South Wales will save more than $120 million over the four-year lifecycle of government personal computers. This is part of the Iemma Government's People First Information and Communications Technology Plan. The savings on the new contracts demonstrate the Iemma Government's commitment to cutting red tape, including putting resources into front-line sources like hospitals, police, emergency services, and community services. Information and communications technology is essential for delivering government services effectively and efficiently.

I am advised that this agreement means government agencies will no longer need to negotiate separately with individual suppliers. That means less red tape and tendering costs. Another key feature of the contracts is the introduction of an environmentally sensitive disposal scheme for replaced computers, which is becoming a bigger issue for society as a whole as we have a turnover of technology. Suppliers will collect old and obsolete equipment and ensure that it is disposed of in an environmentally responsible manner. The Iemma Government is committed to supporting New South Wales industry. That is why a panel consisting of personal computer suppliers with New South Wales-based assembly facilities has been established.

I am advised that Optima Technology Solutions and Annabelle Bits, trading as ASI, were successful in the local assembled category, and Acer Australia, Lenovo Australia and New Zealand, and Hewlett Packard Australia were successful in the open suppliers panel. In addition to personal computers, new agreements are being developed for notebook computers, servers and associated services. This follows an anticipated $50 million a year in savings through the negotiation of the government telecommunications contract. The Iemma Government has signed agreements with AAPT, Macquarie Telecom, Optus and Telstra for the delivery of fixed-line and mobile services for government agencies. I am advised that many agencies are already benefiting from savings of more than 30 per cent on the cost of fixed-line calls.

Agreements for three other telecommunications categories, including PABX systems, conference phone services, phone handsets, managed phone services, and some data services, are to be finalised soon. This is about cutting the State Government's annual telecommunications bill by more than $50 million a year. It is important that the Government uses its purchasing power to achieve the best possible prices and level of service for all government agencies, regardless of their size or their location. The Government's tender process has increased competition amongst carriers bidding for government business and provides improved terms and conditions for government agencies, and we will pursue further savings.

The telecommunications contracts follow the Iemma Government's successful contract for the government broadband service, now delivering high-speed broadband access to more than 1,000 government sites in 24 rural and regional centres. The former Minister for Commerce can take some of the credit for that. Many government agencies are now paying 40 per cent less than previous broadband contracts and the substantial savings are going directly to front-line service delivery. There are real efficiencies to be gained in information technology communication. The people's first strategic information and communications technology plan is expected to deliver an estimated savings of $565 million over four years.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: I direct my question to the Minister for Lands, Minister for Rural Affairs, and Minister for Regional Development. Has the preferred site, as in both town and beach, for the Australian Surf Life Saving Championships to be held between 2010 and 2012 been determined? If so, what is the site? If not, when will the decision be made? Will the Minister confirm that the championships will not be held at Boambee Beach at Coffs Harbour?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I am not aware that the decision has been made. The surf life saving championships will be held in the Coffs Harbour area. I understand that they are bouncing between two local beaches, including Boambee Beach. But, as far as I know, the final decision has not yet been made. I will advise Ms Sylvia Hale when it has.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: My question is directed to the Attorney General, representing the Minister for Health. Is the Minister aware of the concerns of the New South Wales Cancer Council that last year's revisions to the Isolated Patients Travel and Accommodation Assistance Scheme have resulted in inconsistent advice being provided to patients from the six Isolated Patients Travel and Accommodation Assistance Scheme offices across the State? Is the Minister further aware that the scheme has become more complex and bureaucratic as a result of the changes, with doctors and patients having difficulties with the paperwork? Has the Government undertaken yet another review of the service as a result of these concerns and problems? If not, will it do so?
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: During my time as Minister for Health we increased the benefits under the Isolated Patients Travel and Accommodation Assistance Scheme and streamlined the bureaucracy so that those benefits can flow to more patients.

The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: They've failed.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: No, the benefits were increased quite considerably. It is one of the most generous transport schemes in the country.

The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: It is more bureaucratic.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: In fact, we streamlined the bureaucracy by reducing the number of transaction locations. In any event, I will obtain a more comprehensive answer from the Minister for Health.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: My question is addressed to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Will the Minister inform the House about New South Wales efforts to ensure that employers are clear about their workplace safety responsibilities?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I thank the Hon. Amanda Fazio for her question and acknowledge her ongoing interest in occupational health and safety matters. The Commonwealth Government's recent legislative changes to allow national companies to bypass State workplace safety laws is a concerning development. New South Wales has made considerable efforts to resolve the confusion created by the Commonwealth's unhelpful entry into this important area of responsibility. I wrote to the previous Commonwealth industrial relations Minister, Kevin Andrews, in December last year pointing out that a safety gap was emerging created by holes in the Commonwealth legislation. I have received no reply. I wrote to the Minister's successor, Joe Hockey, in January this year and again in February.

New South Wales has outlined simple and commonsense workplace scenarios that expose the inadequacy of the Commonwealth's new laws, including situations where workers are not covered by any safety laws at all. I have yet to receive a satisfactory reply that addresses the practical problems now faced by employers and employees. Commonwealth officials have been advising employers that, first, the Commonwealth will not have exclusive jurisdiction over the entire site of a national self-insurer; second, the Commonwealth has no power either to advise or to enforce in respect of subcontractors and their employees on a site controlled by a national self-insurer; third, subcontractors and their employees remain covered by New South Wales law; and, fourth, in spite of this, New South Wales WorkCover inspectors have no legal power to enter a workplace controlled by a national self-insurer. That means that a significant category of employees will not be covered by any safety compliance laws given the Commonwealth's bloody-minded attitude to this problem.

New South Wales of course rejects this advice and the approach suggested. It would lock out State workplace safety inspectors or require them to gain consent from the controller of the premises. This clearly undermines the requirement of the Council of Australian Governments that there be no reduction in safety standards in the course of harmonisation. The impact of the Commonwealth's advice to employers is to leave some New South Wales workers, particularly subcontractors and their employees, unprotected by any workplace safety laws.

The Commonwealth has so far ignored the problems. I have written again to the Commonwealth Minister requesting that a meeting of the Workplace Relations Ministers Council be held prior to the end of June. It has been eight months since the council last met in September 2006, and there are important workplace issues to be resolved—not the least of which is the resolution of the Australian Safety and Compensation Council that Ministers meet, consider and endorse its business plan for the next financial year. The Commonwealth Minister was quoted in the Australian Financial Review as saying that that is "unnecessary", despite his own council asking Ministers to do so.

The Commonwealth Government consistently refuses to work with the States, preferring an arrogant and bullying approach despite evidence that this does not work. The Workplace Relations Ministers Council has met on more than 70 occasions over the past century, as governments dealt cooperatively with Australia's shared industrial relations powers. The Howard Government, however, cancelled, rescheduled and avoided meetings for a year and a half while it devised in secret its failed WorkChoices laws—laws that are now accepted as being so bad that the Commonwealth refuses even to speak their name. They are a bit like the character out of the Harry Potter books. Now much modified, WorkChoices remains unbalanced, unfair and unacceptable to the majority of Australians. Yet Joe Hockey is pursuing the same blind, arrogant approach to workplace safety, leading to more extremist laws that do not work. I await the Commonwealth's reply to my request for genuine dialogue on this very important issue.

Dr JOHN KAYE: My question is directed to the Minister for Education and Training. Is the Minister aware that Federal Liberal member of Parliament Bronwyn Bishop told Alan Jones on 2GB radio this morning that she had written to the Prime Minister asking him to purchase Seaforth TAFE in order to open an Australian technical college on that site? Given that TAFE colleges in the northern beaches region are now operating at or above design capacity, will the Iemma Government admit that it made a mistake in closing Seaforth TAFE and reopen it, will it hand it over to the Commonwealth Government to operate an Australian technical college, or will the Government hand it over to real estate developers?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I am a little confused about what course of action Dr John Kaye is suggesting the Government take. He referred initially in his question to a conversation between Alan Jones and the Hon. Bronwyn Bishop—which I am sure would have been engaging and interesting. I am sorry that I missed it; I am usually an avid listener both to Bronwyn Bishop and to Alan Jones. I find them very entertaining and their information very useful. I often learn a lot from what they say. In fact, I appeared on Alan Jones's program last Federal election night with Bronwyn Bishop.

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: And you got on very well.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: We got along famously.

Dr John Kaye: Point of order: Neither the Minister's hair-do nor his appearances with Alan Jones are relevant to my question, which asked him to address the future of Seaforth TAFE, an important public education site that is at risk of being sold to the Commonwealth—

The PRESIDENT: Order! I refer the member to Standing Order 65. There is no point of order. The Minister may proceed.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I thank Dr John Kaye for making those points, but he mentioned both the Hon. Bronwyn Bishop and Mr Alan Jones in his question and I was simply attempting to contextualise my response. I do not think I would be taking too much advice from Bronwyn Bishop about anything, including technical and further education. But I am anxious to make sure that we have capacity, and there is certainly a requirement for skills instruction. I am pretty certain that the member is not suggesting that we hand over any site for use as an Australian technical college. I would have thought the Greens would not be too sympathetic to that approach. Dr John Kaye presented me with a series of complex options—to sell the site, to reopen Seaforth TAFE or to give it to the Commonwealth to operate as an Australian technical college. I will have to seek further advice and provide him with a detailed response as soon as practicable. As to Alan Jones and Bronwyn Bishop—

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: We're glad you'll consider it.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I will consider it. I think it is a very important matter. I thank Dr John Kaye for raising it, and I will provide a detailed response. I must make the important point that when I had the privilege of appearing on the Alan Jones program last Federal election night I made the confident prediction to Mrs Bishop, who was very pleased that the Coalition had won control of the Senate, that it would be the downfall of the Howard Government because it would not be able to help itself when it got control of the Senate.

The Hon. Eric Roozendaal: Nostradamus Della Bosca.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Thank you. Although I perhaps do not have the gift of foresight, I showed a little prescience on that occasion. I thank the member for giving me the opportunity to point that out to the House.
The Hon. DAVID CLARKE: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads. Will the Minister inform us what actual progress, if any, has been made on improving air quality inside and outside the M5 East tunnel and how the proposed pumping of unfiltered tunnel air out of the tunnel is supposed to improve local air quality? Further, how is the Roads and Traffic Authority responding to the local residents' objections to the proposal? How will the Roads and Traffic Authority protect local residents from the harmful emissions? And when will this plan be operational?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I am pleased to receive the question from the Hon. David Clarke. Last year the New South Wales Government announced a plan to improve air quality with the M5 East tunnel. I directed the Roads and Traffic Authority to take a new look at the causes of haze in the tunnel and to advise me on innovative ideas to improve air quality. It is important that honourable members hear the full package of measures relating to issues to do with air quality in and outside the M5 East tunnel.

The Government's Air Quality Improvement Plan includes video identification of pollution-causing heavy vehicles. This system is now operating, and details of vehicles identified by the system are provided to the Department of Environment and Climate Change for the issuing of penalty notices. Of course, honourable members would be aware that the M5 East tunnel has an 8 per cent gradient which places trucks under additional pressure when they are travelling uphill. If this equipment detects trucks exceeding stipulated pollution levels, they are targeted. Another measure is increased ventilation flows with an extra 12 jet fans. These fans were commissioned in December 2006 and are now in operation. In addition, we are committed to the installation of Australia's first road tunnel filtration system. A revised ventilation strategy will not commence until the filtration plant is in operation.

It is important that honourable members of this House understand that the building of a $50 million filtration plant in the M5 East tunnel will be the first filtration plant on any road tunnel anywhere in Australia. We are working towards that now. A modifications report has been submitted to the Department of Planning seeking approval for the filtration plant and a subs It is important that honourable members of this House understand that the building of a $50 million filtration plant in the M5 East tunnel will be the first filtration plant on any road tunnel anywhere in Australia. We are working towards that now. A modifications report has been submitted to the Department of Planning seeking approval for the filtration plant and a subsequent revised ventilation strategy. This is an open and transparent process, and it has included consultation with the local community and stakeholders. The Roads and Traffic Authority's modifications report has been exhibited on the Department of Planning and Roads and Traffic Authority websites. The application is currently subject to a rigorous and independent assessment process. It is important to understand that there is a proper planning process for the introduction of this filtration plant.

As I have previously advised the House, reductions in air quality arise from traffic in stop-start conditions. These conditions can occur when a traffic incident has already caused severe congestion within the tunnel. In-tunnel air monitoring is the responsibility of the operator, Baulderstone Hornibrook Bilfinger Berger Joint Venture. In-tunnel air quality reports are provided to the Department of Environment and Climate Change and NSW Health on a monthly basis. Outside air quality data from four monitoring stations is published on the Roads and Traffic Authority website.

Air quality standards for the M5 East tunnel are among the most stringent in the world, and the tunnel continues to be operated in accordance with those standards. In normal conditions air quality in the M5 East tunnel is managed using ventilation fans. The Roads and Traffic Authority will continue to work with the Department of Planning to ensure that all requirements are met for the installation of the filtration plant.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: My question is addressed to the Minister for Energy. Will the Minister update the House on the success of the Government's greenhouse gas reduction scheme?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I say fearlessly that the Iemma Government has led the world in the way emissions trading works. In fact, our Greenhouse Gas Reduction Scheme, or GGas, which commenced on 1 January 2003, was one of the first schemes of its type in the world. And whilst John Howard continues to pontificate on the introduction of a national emissions trading scheme, the New South Wales Government's scheme has already seen more than 41 million tonnes of greenhouse gas abatement certificates created. That is a significant greenhouse reduction, as everyone here would agree. That is the same as removing nine million cars off the road. A 2006 World Bank report shows that the New South Wales scheme is the second largest emissions trading scheme in the world behind that of the European Union. GGas imposes mandatory greenhouse gas reduction targets on electricity retailers.
I am pleased to add that some high electricity users have also volunteered to participate. To meet the targets, retailers and the large user voluntary participants can "buy" greenhouse abatement certificates from the open market. Certificates are strictly regulated by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal. They are created by organisations carrying out carbon reduction or abatement projects such as generating low-emission electricity, planting trees or reducing their demand for electricity by installing energy efficient technology. One credit or abatement certificate costs around $12 on the open market and represents one tonne of greenhouse gases. On average about 55,000 certificates are traded on the market each day with more than 100 companies involved. The New South Wales Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal keeps track of these trades through the operation of the Greenhouse Registry.

By putting a price on carbon, the scheme gives a strong signal to companies and organisations to make a concerted effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Since GGas started we have seen some very creative, and still strictly regulated, projects get off the ground. I am sure most people have seen organisations giving away energy-efficient light bulbs to their customers. The customer must confirm that the light bulbs will be installed, and then a certificate can be created as demand for electricity, and therefore greenhouse emissions, is reduced. Recently we have tightened the rules around projects such as light bulb giveaways in order to maintain the integrity of the scheme. We are striking the balance between practical and creative greenhouse solutions and ensuring that the community can be comfortable that the scheme is doing the job it is supposed to do, that is, reduce emissions in a cost-effective manner.

I will give some examples. One cement company south of Sydney has met its own greenhouse targets by upgrading its primary kiln to be more energy efficient; a large university in Sydney has replaced inefficient lighting in one of its major buildings, saving significant amounts of power; another company has planted rows of oil mallee species trees in Western New South Wales in a major carbon sequestration project, and more than three-quarters of a million trees have been planted since joining the scheme; and a large metals manufacturer has switched one of its boilers from using coal to using waste gas. These are but a few examples that demonstrate that carbon trading can work.

With GGas and our recently announced New South Wales Renewable Energy Target, we are committed to meeting the climate change challenge head-on. In the absence of Federal leadership in this area, the Iemma Government has extended the New South Wales Greenhouse Gas Reduction Scheme to 2021 and beyond or until a national emission trading scheme is established. I believe that as we speak the Prime Minister is reviewing a report from the Emissions Trading Taskforce. My message to John Howard is: Hurry up and get on board. Your excuses about the "negative economic impact" of emissions targets just do not wash. [ Time expired.]

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I ask the Treasurer a question without notice. Is it a fact that the unanimous, bipartisan Senate report of February 2007 on the funding and operations of the current Commonwealth, State and Territory agreement found that "caring families are suffering a crushing and unreasonable burden" and that a substantial increase in funding is required in the Commonwealth­State­Territory Disability Agreement due by 1 July 2007? What action is the New South Wales Government taking to rectify this distressing situation so as to help desperate caring families?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The member will have to wait for the budget to see the Government's response on a range of issues. I do not intend to pre-empt the budget. As my colleague the Leader of the Government has advised, he has been instrumental in pushing for additional funding under the precise terms of that report and the Federal Government to date has not responded, as is usual. It would rather put billions and billions of dollars aside in a Future Fund.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: What's Kevin's offer?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I am pleased that the member has conceded that Kevin Rudd will be the next Prime Minister. I am sure I will be talking to him, as will the current Minister for Disability Services, after the next Federal election. In the meantime we have to deal with the ratbags that are in government federally, and they are not forthcoming with additional funding. The New South Wales Government will continue to pursue the matter.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: My question is directed to the Treasurer. Has he ever been a director of a company that lost money? Did he disclose such directorship in his pecuniary interests returns?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I do not know what the honourable member is referring to. I am happy to take the question on notice. My pecuniary interest statement has been a matter of public record, as have the statements of every other member of Parliament. If the honourable member has any information that requires me to make any correction, I am happy to do so. But to the best of my knowledge the question is without foundation.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Treasurer elucidate on whether he has ever been a director of a company that lost money?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I can advise the House that I have sat on the board of a number of public corporations. Unfortunately, many of those corporations have lost money. The reality is that government businesses are a real problem when it comes to making money. Many of them do not even have the object of making money. I sat on the board of the State Rail Authority, which was set up by the previous conservative Government. Unfortunately, it did not make money. I sat on the board of Sydney Water, which made money and paid a dividend. I sat on the board of WorkCover, which was not a company that sought to make money. I do not understand where the honourable member is heading. Many of our public corporations are not-for-profit organisations: they have other statutory objectives. That is the basis of my involvement with public companies.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: If honourable members have further questions, I suggest that they place them on notice.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Earlier the Hon. Michael Gallacher asked me a question about water on the Central Coast. I can now supply the House with further information. Honourable members might be aware that today the Howard Government was finally shamed into committing funding for this important project for the Central Coast. Despite a surplus of $15 billion, the recent Federal budget allocated no funding towards this missing link or any other Central Coast infrastructure. After a strong community campaign led by Federal Labor candidates, thankfully both the Federal Government and the Opposition have committed $80 million towards building a pipeline to secure a water supply for the Central Coast. I understand that shadow Minister Albanese made that commitment today. I am advised that no route has been decided upon. I am also advised that if any Crown land is involved in the project, the Department of Lands will promptly address any statutory requirements. It is all part of our commitment to the people of the Central Coast.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Yesterday Ms Sylvia Hale asked me a question relating to Ms Roseanne Catt, and I wish to add further information to my answer. As I stated yesterday, I am currently awaiting advice from the Crown Solicitor in relation to representations made to me by Ms Catt. The actions of witnesses in Ms Catt's trial are issues the Crown Solicitor will have to consider in providing me with this advice. However, in relation to prosecution of witnesses I can inform the House that on 18 October 2004 the Registrar of the Court of Criminal Appeal formally referred the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions in accordance with the request of His Honour Judge Davidson of the District Court.

As the Director of Public Prosecutions has no investigative function, the conduct of any investigation is a matter for the police. Letters alleging criminal conduct by a number of witnesses have been referred to the NSW Police Force. Police have advised that several internal affairs investigations have been undertaken and finalised, with the most recent of these occurring last year. No further advice from the Director of Public Prosecutions has been sought in relation to these charges.

Questions without notice concluded.

[ The President left the chair at 1.03 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]
Mr IAN COHEN [2.31 p.m.]: I move:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 44 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to the report of the independent legal arbiter on a disputed claim of privilege on papers relating to Boral Timber, be called on immediately.

I have real concerns that the Government is not allowing this information to be tabled at this time. This motion is urgent because once again the Government is withholding information from the public. It is outrageous that the Government is not allowing the tabling of the report of the independent arbiter Sir Laurence Street. This is not just a report from the conservation movement. It is a report from Sir Laurence Street that was requested by the office of the Clerk. The report came into existence as a result of a call for papers in October last year that the Government did not oppose. While the papers were released, many of them were claimed to be privileged.

This Labor Government has a culture of secrecy and of making broad, sweeping claims of privilege. I sought to challenge the claim for privilege because principles of transparency and accountability should apply. The papers were examined by Sir Laurence and a report was returned to Parliament some three weeks ago. I believe it is urgent that this report should be tabled for the information of members of Parliament and for the public to peruse. The debate is urgent because the denial of the release of the report shows contempt for the public and for due process. How many taxpayer dollars were spent on the independent arbiter's examination of the documents?

The debate is also urgent because the forest agreement reviews are overdue and it is imperative to assess the impact of logging. The volumes of records need to be released for this reason. Grave concerns have been expressed about the ability of the New South Wales Government to meet its timber commitments from north-eastern New South Wales. Those concerns have been expressed within government departments and by the community, so the concerns have been well ventilated. Supplies have been predicted to drop considerably approximately eight years after the first contracts were signed, which is right now. A previous assessment by the New South Wales Auditor-General—

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: Point of order: The honourable member should be specifically addressing the issue of why the motion should be considered urgent by the House. He is transgressing by discussing the substantive subject matter of the motion. I ask you to direct him to return to addressing its urgency.

Mr IAN COHEN: To the point of order: I believe that I am not speaking to the substance of the motion. I am referring to urgency in terms of when the previous assessments were made, the fact that there are concerns, and that a review is due. I believe I am referring to the urgency of the matter and I am substantiating that urgency.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! I remind the member that he must confine his comments to why the motion is to be regarded as urgent today.

Mr IAN COHEN: Thank you, Madam Deputy-President. I appreciate that, and I am trying to substantiate the urgency by mentioning a series of actions, and in certain cases a lack of action, as well as the fact that the review is due right now. I believe the taxpayers have the right to know the extent of the commitment that the New South Wales Government has made and what the likely financial implications will be if the contracts have not been met or cannot be met at the present time. I believe that those reasons establish a clear case of urgency for this motion.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Lands, Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Regional Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [2.35 p.m.]: Once again this is an example of queue jumping. The House has an ordered system for Private Members' Business on Thursdays, and there are approximately 60 such items on the list. The Clerks have established a ballot system whereby a dozen motions are deemed to be inside the order of precedence. I am sure the Hon. Don Harwin would love to discuss his motion, which is inside the order of preference, as would Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes be keen to debate his motion, and I know that the Hon. Ian West would like to speak about his Trades Hall motion.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: We are midway through a debate on coal.
The Hon. TONY KELLY: More importantly, as the Leader of the Opposition points out, we are midway through a very important debate about coal. The motion moved by Mr Ian Cohen is just another example of queue jumping. His substantive motion is No. 44 on the list, outside the order of precedence. The matter was not sufficiently urgent to motivate Mr Ian Cohen to give notice of it earlier. It was the forty-fourth notice given. The Government will vote against the motion. It is not urgent.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Mr Cohen Ms Rhiannon Tellers, Ms Hale Dr Kaye

Mr Ajaka Mr Brown Mr Catanzariti Mr Clarke Mr Colless Mr Gallacher Mr Gay Ms Griffin Mr Kelly Mr Khan

Mr Lynn Mr Macdonald Mr Mason-Cox Reverend Dr Moyes Reverend Nile Mr Obeid Ms Parker Mrs Pavey Ms Robertson Ms Sharpe

Mr Smith Mr Tsang Mr Veitch Ms Voltz Mr West Ms Westwood Tellers Mr Donnelly Mr Harwin

Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [2.44 p.m.]: I am pleased to continue the debate on the Coalition's support for the significance of the coal industry and the associated industries that work in conjunction with and survive off the success of the coal industry in the Hunter Valley. It is important to make the point that every member of this House, whether fully in support of the coal industry or totally against it, wants clear air and clean water. We are all working towards that aim. The Greens have the view that somehow we can turn off the coal industry and walk away from the second-biggest city in New South Wales that has a $25 billion industry for the benefit of the entire nation.

We on this side of the House look towards the continuing evolution of research and technology within the coal industry and, indeed, the opportunities that may exist in the future as we move away from coal to alternative sources of energy. It is important to make the point that, when comparing like with like in relation to the dollar value of potential sources of energy, the Bayswater Power Station works out at about $1 million per megawatt, wind would be $2.5 million per megawatt, nuclear would be $2.9 million per megawatt, and solar would be $4 million per megawatt. Capital expenditure referred to by the Greens would be in the vicinity of building the equivalent of four Bayswater facilities, costing about $12 billion, for an alternative energy source. The reality is that the advances in technology simply do not exist.

Earlier I said that the industry should be congratulated on the work it is doing in its own research and development, and industrialisation, for the future. The industry is investing billions of dollars worldwide to try to make itself more efficient. As I cited earlier, when the Minister for Energy quite rightly interjected, Macquarie Generation is using the equivalent of four football fields of mirrors to heat water to make its system more efficient and to reduce its reliance on traditional coal-fired power. One matter that is not lost on the Opposition, although the Hon. Tony Catanzariti made no mention of it in his speech, is the degree of uncertainty for the future brought about by a couple of factors, an uncertainty that has resulted in job losses in the Hunter Valley.

When introducing the motion this morning the Hon. Robyn Parker rightly pointed out that Coal and Allied is now looking at the loss of 250 jobs in the industry. Using the analogy I referred to earlier relating to full-time equivalent jobs in the coal industry, those job losses would be much greater. The Greens are happy to knock around with the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [CFMEU] and to talk about workers, but it is the jobs of those workers that will go. Those 250 contractor jobs and trades jobs will now go. If we went down the path that the Greens want to go down those job losses would be greater. We would be talking about the loss of tens of thousands of jobs, with no alternative to ensure the future of those workers.

Honourable members should look no further than at the contribution of Mr Joel Fitzgibbon, Federal member for Hunter and the Treasurer's local member. Recently he spoke about job losses in the Hunter Valley and referred to it as a black mark for all concerned. Predictably, he fired a shot over the bows of the Federal Government and said that these problems should be placed at its feet. He felt that the Federal Government had not shown leadership in this industry. He also expressed concern about the quota system that is in place in the Port of Newcastle. After he raised concerns about these issues the Prime Minister, John Howard, said he was prepared to look at what was available in a regulatory sense. The Prime Minister offered to meet with the New South Wales Premier but, as yet, the Premier has not told us what he is prepared to bring to the table.

The Treasurer's local member and Federal member for Hunter, Joel Fitzgibbon, did not just have a go at the Federal Government; he also had a go at the State Government. He was stronger in his criticism of the current State Government and his own local constituent and Minister for the Hunter, the Hon. Michael Costa. An article in the Newcastle Herald of 4 May 2005 states:

The Federal member for the Hunter aimed the crosshairs at who he believed was responsible for failing to provide the support and resources necessary to allow the proposed expansion to become a reality.

Those job losses occurred because of the uncertainty, the bank-up and the infrastructure problems at that port, and this State Government's lack of leadership and decisiveness in bringing to a head its decision relating to the third coal loader. The Hon. Tony Catanzariti should be given the hospital pass of all hospital passes for attempting to defend the State Government. However, his own Federal Labor colleagues have aimed the crosshairs firmly at this State Government for its ineptitude in driving the much-needed infrastructure that could have saved the 250 jobs about which we speak. Those 250 jobs equate to the loss of thousands more in full-time equivalents and to the loss of millions of dollars, much needed money, from the Newcastle local economy.

In the words of Opposition members and the Federal member for Hunter, Joel Fitzgibbon, the Minister for the Hunter and Deputy Leader of the Government in this House quite simply has failed. We have heard in debate in this place and in the media that upwards of 70 coal ships are moored off the eastern seaboard waiting to get in, load up and go. Much of that has to do with the ability of the coal loader to meet demand. When I talk to people from the coal loader they tell me that coal is delivered to the coal loader some weeks before it is loaded onto the ships. The coal loader does not have the ability to meet demand and ensure an adequate supply.

As we have heard, there are problems with the rail lines and the coal loader is unable to meet demand in the Port of Newcastle. No doubt the Greens will say that the Opposition and the Government are captives of the coal industry, but I remind the Greens of the position of the Opposition on mining in Wyong Valley which was taken at the last State election. I declare an interest in that. The Opposition came up with an alternative water solution that Federal Opposition candidates are now happy to embrace—what is commonly known as the missing link proposal—which will ensure the preservation of the Central Coast water supply and infrastructure in that area. I congratulate Mr Ken Ticehurst and the Hon. Jim Lloyd on ensuring the commitment today of that much-needed $80 million. It will go a long way towards protecting Central Coast water.

At the end of the day the State Government still has to ensure that the 500 square kilometres of additional water catchment are brought into play to preserve the Central Coast water supply. Honourable members could talk for many hours about problems relating to the Hunter, the fortunes of the Hunter Valley and, in particular, Newcastle. I congratulate the Hon. Robyn Parker on giving members an opportunity today to support the industry and the Hunter community. Unfortunately, it is only a matter of time before the Greens will again subject us to an onslaught of diatribe and dislike in relation to the Hunter Valley. They are hell-bent on destroying this industry.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ [2.55 p.m.]: This motion demonstrates the irresponsibility of Opposition members. It shows their ignorance about the complexity of the Hunter Valley coal export chain, the limited role of the Government in the coal chain, the ongoing initiatives to expand government-operated sections of the coal chain, and the importance of cooperation in achieving maximum coal exports from the Hunter Valley. The New South Wales Government recognises the need for government agencies to play a cooperative role in achieving maximum throughput for the system as a whole.

The Hunter Valley Coal Chain is a complex system, including loader points at the coalmines, tracks operated by the Rail Infrastructure Corporation and the Australian Rail Track Corporation [ARTC], rail rolling stock operated by Pacific National and Queensland Rail, coal loaders owned and operated by Port Waratah Coal Services and a consortium of coal producers, and the Port of Newcastle, operated by the Newcastle Port Corporation. The coal industry is investing significantly to increase capacity and the New South Wales Government has also contributed to the expansion of the capacity in the Hunter Valley Coal Chain. The Government approved a $170 million expansion of Port Waratah Coal Services, completed in February this year, which increased the capacity of the Kooragang terminal from 64 million tonnes to 77 million tonnes per annum, bringing its total capacity to 102 million tonnes per annum.

In April the Government approved a further $78 million expansion of Port Waratah Coal Services to increase capacity to 120 million tonnes per annum, and the total capacity of Port Waratah Coal Services, including Kooragang and Carrington, to 145 million tonnes per annum. Also in April the Government approved a new $922 million coal export terminal by the Newcastle Coal Infrastructure Group, with a capacity of 66 million tones per annum. The New South Wales Government has invested $300 million in Hunter Valley rail upgrades over six years, and in 2004 it leased the rail network to the Australian Rail Track Corporation, which will continue the New South Wales Government's plan to upgrade the Hunter Valley network.

The Australian Rail Track Corporation is committed to spending another $375 million on enhancing the Hunter Valley network to 2011. The Opposition's complete lack of understanding of the Hunter coal industry and the operation of Port Newcastle is sorely evident in the current motion. The Hon. Robyn Parker called on the Government to speed up the process of the construction of a third coal loader. Perhaps it is news to the Opposition that the infrastructure we are talking about is private infrastructure, not government-constructed infrastructure. The Government has no direct control over the construction period.

The Hon. Robyn Parker: We were talking about the approvals processes. You weren't listening.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: Yes, the Government has control of the approvals process, and we approved the project in April. The Hon. Robyn Parker claimed that the Government approved the project in the run-up to the State election and said that it was a political ploy.

[ Interruption]

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! I remind the Hon. Robyn Parker that interjections are disorderly at all times, and she should cease interjecting.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: I was wondering which election the member was referring to, given that the New South Wales election was held on 24 March. I secured a copy of the Minister's media release, which reveals that the project was approved on 13 April, that is, sometime after the State election. The Minister for Planning, Frank Sartor, made his announcement on 13 April. It was not a political ploy. The Hon. Robyn Parker obviously has no grasp of the basics of this matter—although she noticed that the project had been approved.

Through the cooperation of logistics operators, the Hunter Valley Coal Chain has been able to export at an all-time record rate for a sustained period. Coal Chain stakeholders achieved this result by aligning maintenance schedules and planning export schedules jointly. This spirit of cooperation is key to the Hunter Valley continuing to export record amounts of coal while new infrastructure becomes available. In the 2005-06 financial year a record level of throughput was achieved at the Port of Newcastle, with 80.2 million tonnes of coal shipped. In playing the blame game the Opposition is placing in jeopardy the jobs of those working in the coal industry, the supply chain and associated areas by eroding the cooperative spirit that is crucial to efficient operation and to maximising throughput. A loss of cooperation will mean a loss of throughput, and a loss of throughput could put pressure on the jobs of those working in the Hunter. The New South Wales Government and the Newcastle Port Corporation will continue to work with coal producers and those along the supply chain to assist in the growth of this important industry.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [3.01 p.m.]: The Greens oppose the motion. However, I am pleased that Ms Robyn Parker moved it as the subsequent debate has unzipped the sham of the climate change talk that we hear continually from the major parties. While Labor and Coalition members speak often about climate change, they are silent about the role of coal. The mining and burning of coal contribute 40 per cent of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions total. So the major parties' claims of concern about climate change and support for renewable energy projects mean very little if they have no plans to phase out the coal industry.

Previous speakers in this debate—particularly the Leader of the Opposition—distorted considerably the Greens policy in this area. I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition is still in the Chamber. He made many inaccurate statements about this issue. Some of my Greens colleagues will also speak in the debate, so members can look forward to hearing them explore these issues in great detail. My colleagues will explain how the Hunter is losing out because of the major parties' obsession with following the lead of the coal industry. Whatever the coal industry wants is delivered by the Coalition federally and by Labor at a State level. That has certainly been the role of government in this State for a couple of centuries. Once upon a time the coal industry was incredibly critical to the economy and the future of this State and of Australia as a whole. But now it is dangerous for us to be locked in with the coal industry.

We have heard much in this debate about the line of ships off the Hunter coastline that are waiting to be filled with coal. That scene reminds me that the bulk of coal industry profits are going offshore. Very little goes to the Hunter. But the Coalition and Labor are not telling the full story. The Leader of the Opposition cried crocodile tears about job losses in the coal industry. That industry has been losing jobs for well over a decade.

The Hon. Robyn Parker: Don't you care about people in the Hunter?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Yes, we care enormously about the future of the Hunter. That is why we visit the Hunter regularly and are formulating detailed policies about how to work the transition from coal to renewables and energy-efficient industries. That is where future jobs will be found. My Greens colleagues will cite figures that reveal the extent of the jobs growth in those areas. The irresponsible policies of the major parties are robbing the Hunter of much-needed jobs because we are losing contracts in the renewables field to European countries, particularly Germany and Denmark. They are picking up contracts in China and elsewhere in Asia. It is criminal that the policies of the major parties are allowing that to occur.

Paragraph (c) of the motion calls for support for the provision of a new coal loader. It has been interesting to watch the debate around this point play out. Labor and Coalition members have been beating each other up over who can get coal out of Australia the fastest. That underlines the irresponsibility of the major parties on this issue because every tonne of coal exported returns to us as greenhouse gas emissions. The runaway climate change crisis knows no borders. The issue affects us all, which is why we need responsible policies in this area.

I believe the basis for the motion is the line-up of coal ships off the Port of Newcastle. I am sure that the Hon. Robyn Parker, who comes from the area, is well aware that coal ships have been queuing there for many years. However, the newspapers have picked up the story recently. Why are Liberal members moving motions in this place about something that has been happening for years? It is because a section of the coal industry is pushing for the provision of a third coal loader. This debate is not about resolving the problems of the Hunter, boosting the local economy, looking after the environment and providing more jobs; there is a sectional interest at play—and the industry sends its profits overseas, certainly not to the Hunter.

The Leader of the Opposition tried to badge the Liberal Party as having suddenly gained an awareness of the problems in the coal industry in the Wyong Valley. But he simply exposed his hypocrisy, because the Wyong Valley has marginal seats as well as coal. Why have the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Hartcher and other Liberals shown a sudden interest in coal and water in the Wyong Valley?

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Wrong, wrong, wrong. It was years beforehand. Have a look at the record, Lee.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: And there have been marginal seats for years and years. The hypocrisy is clear. Last year I moved a motion about coal and water not in just the Wyong Valley but in all the other areas where rivers and creeks have been undermined.
The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Get real!

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I acknowledge the interjection. The Opposition again demonstrated its hypocrisy on this issue.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! I remind the Leader of the Opposition that interjections are disorderly, and he should cease interjecting.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: When the Greens sought to bring on the debate in this place Opposition members refused to support our motion. They clearly wanted to avoid the issue. The new coal loader is central to this debate. It is interesting to look at some of the history of community concerns about the proposed new coal loader. During August and September 2006 more than 700 people wrote to the New South Wales Government requesting that it reject the proposal for a new coal export terminal in Newcastle Harbour. Remember, Newcastle Harbour is already the world's biggest coal port. Nearly all the submissions received by the Government opposed a new export terminal on the basis of the massive amounts of greenhouse gas pollution that it involved.

In November 2006 the Government appointed an independent expert panel, and it conducted three days of public hearings into the proposal. I was one of those who gave evidence to the panel. They were quite extensive proceedings. Once again the community came out in force, with nearly every submission to the panel stating that the proposed new terminal should not go ahead. In April 2007 the New South Wales Government overrode the clear will of the community, caved in to the coal lobby, and approved the new export terminal. On the same day it approved a major capacity expansion of the existing Kooragang coal terminal. Those two projects together will increase Newcastle coal export capacity to 211 million tonnes per year. That is equivalent to well over three times New South Wales domestic greenhouse pollution from all sources. That is what we are exporting overseas: a massive amount of coal that will end up making a huge contribution to the load of greenhouse gas emissions, which are causing runaway climate change.

The new coal export terminal alone would be the climate change equivalent of doubling New South Wales domestic greenhouse gas emissions. While the project does have the approval of the New South Wales Government, I emphasise that the fight most definitely is not over. Already we have seen considerable protests in Newcastle about this proposal. I participated in an occupation of Newcastle Harbour last year in which 800 people took to the water in a whole range of crafts and on surfboards to demonstrate that this proposal should not go ahead. It will take at least 2½ years to construct the export terminal, and during that time the social licence can be withdrawn. That is why we will certainly be keeping the pressure on through a whole range of different activities.

It is definitely not too late to prevent the project from proceeding. There will be large public demonstrations. A number of Greens members of Parliament and I have signed a pledge of commitment to participating in non-violent direct action to stop the expansion of the coal industry in the Hunter. We have done that because the present situation is so urgent. Runaway climate change is damaging our economy, not just our environment, and the proposal before us today is extremely irresponsible.

The construction and operation of the terminal will result in a significant increase in global greenhouse pollution. That matter should have been addressed in much more detail by speakers from the major parties. But, once again, they have failed to come to grips with the problem that their Federal party leaders talk about. How can they be serious about climate change if they do not intend to deal with the whole issue of the future of the coal industry? I am very proud of the fact that the Greens are on record as saying: Yes, we are committed to working on a policy to phase out the coal industry. Our policy is not to shut down the coal industry, as has been suggested by the major party scaremongers in this place.

[ Interruption]

I acknowledge the interjectors, because once again they get it wrong. They cannot understand what basic, responsible policy is. It is: no new coalmines, no new coal projects. That means that there will be no new projects. Existing projects will run their life, which is about 20 years, or maybe 15 years. We have that time to bring forward the renewables, the energy-efficient systems, so that this State can be run responsibly. If this new coal loader goes ahead it will effectively increase global emissions of carbon dioxide by 0.5 per cent, and that is an increase that this planet can ill afford.
We need to bear in mind—and this is why we had an occupation of Newcastle Harbour, and why there will continue to be very strong protests in the Hunter and in other parts of this country—that the coal loader is not just a project on its own; it will drive the development of coal projects, particularly up the valley and into the Upper Hunter, the Gunnedah area and the Liverpool Plains. That is because the coal to be exported has to come from somewhere, and that is where it will be coming from. It is not just the Greens who are saying this; the proponents of this new coal loader, the Newcastle Coal Infrastructure Group, put that on record in a media release dated 25 August 2005. We need to bear in mind—and this is why we had an occupation of Newcastle Harbour, and why there will continue to be very strong protests in the Hunter and in other parts of this country—that the coal loader is not just a project on its own; it will drive the development of coal projects, particularly up the valley and into the Upper Hunter, the Gunnedah area and the Liverpool Plains. That is because the coal to be exported has to come from somewhere, and that is where it will be coming from. It is not just the Greens who are saying this; the proponents of this new coal loader, the Newcastle Coal Infrastructure Group, put that on record in a media release dated 25 August 2005.

That group expressly linked the construction of the coal export terminal to a number of proposed mines in the Hunter: Centennial Coal's proposed Anvil Hill open-cut coalmine, near Denman; BHP Billiton's proposed Mount Arthur underground coalmine, near Muswellbrook, where work has just started; the Felix Resources proposed expansion of the Ashton open-cut coalmine, near Singleton in the Hunter Valley; the Excel Coal—now Peabody—proposed expansion of the Wambo open-cut coalmine, near Singleton; Newcastle Coal Company's proposed Tasman underground mine near Fassifern; Excel Coal's proposed Wilpinjong open-cut coalmine near Mudgee; and the Felix Resources proposed Moolarben long-wall coalmine near Mudgee. They are just some of the projects that will be driven if this export terminal is built.

In assessing the so-called benefits of the project, the benefit-cost analysis in the environmental assessment for the project did not consider the construction and operation of the coal export terminal in isolation from rail infrastructure improvements and increased mining production in the Hunter Valley. The environmental impacts of the associated infrastructure and increased mining activity, however, are excluded from the cost calculations. The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act states that the determining authority must take into account "to the fullest extent possible" all matters affecting or likely to affect the environment by reason of the activity proposed.

The environmental impacts of the proposed new coal export terminal at Newcastle cannot be credibly or accurately considered in isolation from the mines I have mentioned. This proposal needs to be considered along with the fact that the impact on climate change is huge, and the role of the coal loader needs to be considered in that wider context. The projected increased mining activity will extend far beyond the confines of the Hunter Valley. I emphasise that again, because members of this House need to understand that if they sign off on the motion before us they will be signing off on much more than just a coal loader. It will drive projects up and down this valley.

The other point I want to make is that the coal loader is often presented in the contest of what a hard time the poor old coal industry is having. Let us bear in mind that the existing coal loaders are already being operated by a section of the coal industry that often has differences with those that back the Newcastle Coal Infrastructure Group, spearheaded by BHP Billiton. It is certainly a rival of Port Waratah Coal Services, which runs the two coal loaders currently operating, run by Xstrata, Anglo and Rio Tinto. I mention that for the information of members who are thinking of supporting this motion. In supporting the motion, which has a section about the coal loader, they will be falling in behind BHP Billiton, which has been having a long-running blue with other multinational coal interests on the question of who gets their coal out first. I move:

That the question be amended by omitting paragraphs 1 (c) to 1 (e) and 2, and inserting instead:

(c) the port of Newcastle is currently the world's largest coal trading port exporting about 80 million tonnes of coal per year,

(d) the Iemma Government's decision to approve a third coal loader at the port of Newcastle will result in an extra 66 million tonnes of coal exported each year and expedite the expansion of the coal industry in the Hunter and the Gunnedah Basin, and

(e) the coal exported through the new loader will increase global emissions of greenhouse gases by 0.5 per cent.

2. That this House censures the Premier for his Government's decision to approve a third coal loader as an irresponsible and dangerous act that will increase New South Wales's greenhouse gas emissions and accelerate climate change.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [3.20 p.m.]: The effect of the amendments moved by Ms Lee Rhiannon will perpetuate the myth that more clean New South Wales coal dug out of the ground and exported worldwide will have a negative, rather than a positive, effect on the environment. I note that the Leader of the Opposition postulated in his contribution that if we shut down all New South Wales coal exports, we would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 1.4 per cent. That is not a credible argument. If we shut down all New South Wales coalmines tomorrow, I guarantee honourable members that within six months coalmines would open up all over the world to meet the shortage in demand. And I can assure honourable members that that coal would be much more filthy than the nice clean coal we dig out of the ground. The CO2 emissions might be the same, but all sorts of other crap and pollutants would be produced.

I note that the Greens do not seek to amend the first two subparagraphs of the motion moved by the Hon. Robyn Parker, which relate to jobs. Subparagraphs (a) and (b) refer to the recent announcement by Coal and Allied of job cuts totalling 250 positions and the announcement earlier this year by Austar of 79 job cuts at its Cessnock mining operations. When Ms Lee Rhiannon and the Greens protest at the coal loader I wonder whether they will feel somewhat like class traitors. I am sure the 300-odd miners who may have lost, or who may lose, their jobs because of delays—whose ever fault that may be—will not be too happy to see the Greens protesting the construction of the coal loader. The Greens argument that the new coal loader and the expanded Kooragang Island coal loaders are bad for the environment is a very local view; perhaps they should take a more global view. The Shooters Party could not possibly support the amendments, because they are not valid.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [3.22 p.m.]: I support my Greens colleagues and strongly oppose the motion moved by the Hon. Robyn Parker. I am astounded that a motion before this House about the future of the coal industry does not refer in any way to climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. The website of the Department of Environment and Climate Change refers to the impact of climate change. Under the heading "What is climate change?" it states:

Human activity, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, has made the blanket of greenhouse gases around the earth "thicker".

The website of the Department of Environment and Climate Change specifically refers to the impact of climate change on New South Wales. It states, "Most changes are expected to have negative impacts." The article on the website continues:

Probable effects include:

· Hot, dry conditions which will put crops under greater heat and water stress.
· Rivers are likely to decline and extreme weather events are likely to become more frequent.
· In the coastal zone, storms may combine with a rise in sea level to worsen coastal erosion.
· Bushfires are likely to become more frequent and intense.
· Some CSIRO projections show the snowfields largely disappearing by 2050.

This is the effect the benign, nice clean coal referred to by the Hon. Robert Brown will have on the environment. Coal-fired power is one of the major contributors to greenhouse emissions, yet we are debating a motion aimed at increasing the mining and shipping of coal. This is a blinkered, short-sighted and dangerous motion. We must plan for post carbon energy production. Continuing to expand the coal industry sets back the planning and the actions we must take now to move towards an energy system based on renewable resources. A new coal loader mires us in a fast-fading carbon-centred past. We should debate motions about the energy sources of the future, not the energy sources of the past.

The record of job losses outlined in the motion are a taste of things to come as the coal industry becomes untenable and uneconomic in a time of climate change and the international move to renewable energy. The Greens sympathise with people who face losing their jobs. History is littered with the suffering of people whose jobs have disappeared in the wake of technological change—the four-loom weavers, the stocking knitters, the coal lumpers who used to load the coal, the felt hat makers, and even within the memory of many of us in this place, the ice carters, the dunny carters, typists and comptometrists. They have all disappeared in the wake of technological change. It is that future we are holding out to the people of the coalmining region of this country.

All members can resolutely bury their heads in a pile of coal, but that will not stop the march of technological change. The Greens position is that unless we admit that and unless we plan for it, then we really are looking at great depression, great hardship, great suffering and great unemployment in this country. We must transit to a post fossil fuel economy in a planned way rather than wait for it to be forced upon us by the rest of the world economy. The Greens support a just and planned transition for those currently working in coalmining into the emerging, renewable energy industry. That transition must be underpinned by government support for retraining and the adoption of new approaches to energy generation.

The motion is highly irresponsible, as is the Howard Government's lack of leadership on climate change. The motion proposes business as usual when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions. It says that Australia should carry on polluting and export more coal. The Newcastle coal export capacity will be increased to 211 million tonnes per year, which is equivalent to well over three times the New South Wales domestic greenhouse pollution from all sources. As Geoff Evans, a Director of the Mineral Policy Institute, noted in 2005:

The Hunter produces two-thirds of New South Wales electricity, in the process generating more than 40 megatonnes of CO2 per year—emissions equivalent to Australia's total car fleet.

The Hon. Robyn Parker is advocating an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. Even though we know that greenhouse gas emissions are dangerous to the climate and will harm us and other species, the motion is irresponsibly placing short-term financial gain in front of the health and wellbeing of future generations and our planet.

Let me paint a picture of what the next generation and the generation after that will face if the temperature rises by just 2 degrees. If we carry on with a business-as-usual approach and our grandchildren go to snorkel on the Great Barrier Reef, what will they see? There will be no more brightly coloured coral. They will see a biologically dead, bleached, stony formation that used to be the Great Barrier Reef. If our grandchildren go to Kakadu, they will find that 50 per cent of the wetlands have gone. They may also be caught in one of the increasing number of tropical storms that will hit Australia's north.

The Hon. Robyn Parker: Point of order: I have listened to the member go on and on, but the motion relates to a third coal loader in the Hunter region. It is not about Kakadu. The member should not be permitted to rave on incessantly about climate change. We are talking about getting a coal loader constructed quickly so that coal can get out of the port of Newcastle, which is a long way from Kakadu. The motion is about jobs in the Hunter. I ask you to draw the member back to the leave of the motion.

Dr John Kaye: To the point of order—

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! I will rule on the point of order. Paragraph 2 of the amendment of Ms Lee Rhiannon to the motion refers to climate change. Accordingly, the comments of Ms Sylvia Hale are in order.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: Thank you, Madam Deputy-President, for an entirely sensible ruling. As I was saying, if our children go to Kakadu, they may be caught in one of the increasing number of tropical storms that will hit Australia's north, and perhaps they will be bitten by a mosquito carrying a tropical disease that has spread southwards. There will be permanent water restrictions and Australia's agricultural land will have shrunk. The temperature will be hotter and the risk of bushfires will have increased. This is not idle speculation or scaremongering by the Greens. This is what the Government's own scientific experts from the CSIRO are saying. This is what the International Panel on Climate Change is saying. This is what the State Government's own Department of Environment and Climate Change is saying, as I indicated earlier.

The damage that the coal industry is doing is not just an issue for the future. Recently I was in Singleton where I heard the concerns of local residents about the carcinogenic effects of coal dust, particularly on the children of that town. People were saying to me that they were experiencing forms of cancer that are unique to coalmining regions. They are extraordinarily rare forms of cancer but the area has had several cases recorded. Statistically, the incidence of these rare cancers in this area is extraordinary. But when we remember that in Singleton 30,000 tonnes of fine particles, that is small particles less than 10 micrometres in diameter [PM10s], and a further 1,200 tonnes from coal-fired power stations are released into the air every year from local mines, we must acknowledge that we have a serious problem.

It is not only the health of the economy that we are concerned about but also the health of the citizens who live in those regions and whose options for moving often are not great. Singleton's residents fear that they or their children are paying a terrible price for the benefit of the coal industry. In particular, they want investigations carried out on cancer rates and the rates of respiratory disease in the area as well as on any possible contribution made to cancer rates by coal dust that frequently invades their town. And they have every reason to be worried. The Hunter region has been identified as having the highest rates of cancer in New South Wales—a phenomenon that many residents and other people believe to be attributable to pollutants emitted from the heavy fossil-fuel-based industries in the area—not only the coalmines but also the aluminium smelters, such as Hydro Norsk and Alcan, which have been led to the area by heavily subsidised electricity charges and which consume nearly one-third of the electricity produced in the region.

The expansion of coalmining is not good for the health of communities in the Hunter Valley, it is not good for the State, and it is certainly not good for the planet. I therefore urge honourable members to support the amendment moved by my colleague Ms Lee Rhiannon.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [3.35 p.m.]: I am amazed that the Greens have moved a new paragraph 2 to condemn the Government's decision to approve a third coal loader when both sides of the House are pressing for a third coal loader to be constructed and commissioned in Newcastle. The greens are completely out of kilter with other members of this House, which is often the case. That is why I propose to move an amendment to congratulate the Government on finalising the approvals for a new third coal loader and call on the Government to make necessary infrastructure investment to enable Newcastle and the Hunter Valley to compete with the rest of the world.

I will move the amendment because this Labor Government has had to move ahead with this project in spite of the campaign organised by the Greens, in spite of the way the Greens attempted to use this issue during the recent State election, and in spite of the threats that the issue posed to Labor Party representation in the Hunter and the Newcastle region. I congratulate the Government on having the courage to proceed with construction of the third coal loader, which is absolutely necessary to dissipate the bottleneck of coal transportation at the port of Newcastle. I move:

That the question be amended as follows:

1. Omit paragraph 1 (c) and (d).

2. Omit paragraph 2 and insert instead:

2. That this House congratulates the Government on finalising the approvals for a new third coal loader and calls on the Government to make the infrastructure investment necessary to enable Newcastle and the Hunter Valley to compete with the rest of the world.

As honourable members will no doubt note, I have included in my amendment most of the wording of paragraph No. 2 of the Opposition's motion. I do not believe it is important to have two subparagraphs (a) and (b). Subparagraphs (a) and (b) are factual and should be retained. However, the reference in subparagraph (c) to "failing over 12 years" is not factual and should be omitted. As the Greens remind us, the proposal was being debated in 2005-06. There were public meetings and so on to discuss that should there be a new coal loader. As far as I am aware, there was no debate under way in 1995, which is 12 years ago. Subparagraph (d) is meaningless. I do not believe that a reference to city-centric policies adds anything to the motion. I categorise that as political jargon.

I note the Greens have announced publicly and stated in the House that they have adopted a new policy of direct action to prevent the third coal loader from being constructed. I am very concerned about that because even though the Greens say that the direct action will be non-violent, direct action usually involves violence because of the very way in which direct action is organised. For example, protests conducted during the G-7 Summit were mooted to be non-violent but proved to be quite different. The State Government and the Federal Government are very concerned about the forthcoming Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Conference because protestors have said that they will take non-violent direct action against it. We know from previous examples that non-violent protests, whether or not as a result of the instructions of organisers, turn into violent protests, and large numbers of protesters take violent action

That has happened in a number of other places, including Melbourne, where protesters have smashed shop windows, attacked police and charged police safety barriers, knocking the barriers over. To my mind, that is violent action. It could not be described as non-violent. I call that violence. If it is physical action by the protesters, that is violence. I urge the Greens to reconsider the campaign of direct action that they are organising. They may be setting in train something that will get out of control, and something they will come to regret.

We are all aware of the queue of coal ships off Newcastle. With the new approval and the newly introduced quota system, the number of waiting coal ships should be reduced. I am hopeful that will happen. As the Hon. Robert Brown said earlier, countries throughout the world want to buy Australian coal. If New South Wales stopped supplying coal, as the Greens policy states, Japan, China, Korea and other countries would buy coal from other countries. Stopping the sale of coal to those countries will not reduce the greenhouse effect or damage to the climate. In fact, the effect would probably increase because countries such as Japan, China, Korea would purchase dirty coal from other nations that are waiting to jump on the bandwagon should Australia cease supply.

Coal would still be purchased and used, and would still create negative effects on the climate. If no coal were available for developing economies, countries such as China, in particular, would collapse. And I do not believe the Greens would want that to happen. If it did, millions of Chinese would be out of work with resultant hunger and deprivation for a country that is trying to catch up to the developed world. Whether or not we agree with the strategies of countries such as China, that is the reality we face in this modern world. We should not do anything to sabotage the opportunities of such nations, particularly China. I ask the House to support my amendment.

Dr JOHN KAYE [3.42 p.m.]: On behalf of the Greens I oppose the motion moved by the Hon. Robyn Parker and support the amendment moved by Ms Lee Rhiannon. I thank the Hon. Robyn Parker for bringing this debate on today. It is important to debate the future of the coal industry. Today's debate has highlighted differences of opinion. Those differences are important because this debate will determine not only the environmental future but also the economic future of Australia. It is important that the debate is conducted openly and honestly. For that reason we should all be disappointed to hear the Greens' point of view being misrepresented, particularly by the Leader of the Opposition, who said that the Greens' position was to close down the coal industry. That is not our position, and never has been.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Yes, it is. That is what Bob Brown wants to do. Isn't he a Green? Are there two Greens now, the Brown Greens and the green Greens.

Dr JOHN KAYE: No, the position of the Greens has always been to talk about the future of the coal industry and the expansion of the coal industry. Essentially this debate is about the expansion of the coal industry, not about existing coalmines. I draw attention to the sentiment expressed about jobs in the motion moved by the Hon. Robyn Parker. The Greens share her concerns about the economic future of the Hunter Valley and of the rest of New South Wales, indeed the rest of Australia. The other side of this debate does not have a monopoly on concern for our future economy. This coming weekend I will attend a gathering of concerned people at Anvil Hill—and there will be no violence. The gathering will be non-violent. I invite Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile to come with us—

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Can you control everybody involved?

Dr JOHN KAYE: I am sure Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile could if he were there! I invite Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile to come with us and see what non-violent direct action is and how it works when it works well. The monopoly on concern about jobs is a myth. Everyone who attends Anvil Hill this Sunday will be deeply concerned about the future of jobs.

The Hon. Robert Brown: There won't be any miners, I'll bet!

Dr JOHN KAYE: I acknowledge the interjection of the Hon. Robert Brown. Yes, there will be a number of miners present—miners who are concerned about the health of their family, their children, and the future of this planet. It is interesting that in the debate about jobs I never heard a single whisper in this Chamber about the 18,000 jobs that disappeared from the coal industry between the mid-1980s and 2002. Coal jobs disappeared not because of any policy, but because of the greed of the coal corporations when they mechanised and moved to longwall mining and mechanised open-cut mines. At that point the coal corporations replaced their employees—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Do you understand that longwall is underground, not open-cut?

Dr JOHN KAYE: Yes, I do understand. When was the last time the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was in an open-cut coalmine?

The Hon. Duncan Gay: About three weeks ago.

Dr JOHN KAYE: Well I have worked in one.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! I remind the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that interjections are disorderly at all times, and I urge Dr John Kaye not to respond to interjections.

Dr JOHN KAYE: The 18,000 lost jobs were in open-cut and underground mines. They were lost in underground mines because of the introduction of longwall mining—new technology that replaced miners with money; new technology that drove mining jobs out of the industry. The mining jobs that were lost were never mourned, bewailed or in any way identified by the people who are now putting their hands on their hearts and saying that they are concerned about jobs in the coal industry. We would take their present concerns far more seriously if we had heard something from them when the 18,000 jobs were lost. The Greens would take the Opposition's concerns far more seriously if it had expressed some concerns about the 63,000 full-time equivalent jobs on the Great Barrier Reef that are being put directly at risk.

If we expand the coal industry in Australia, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will increase and the future of the Great Barrier Reef will be put at risk. If the Barrier Reef goes, 63,000 tourism and service jobs will go with it. The idea of putting more money into the coal loader is certainly an investment, but it is not an investment in the future; it is not an investment in jobs. It is an investment in the past. It is an investment in industries that will not be able to grow in a carbon-constrained future.

In this country we are losing valuable time and resources, and valuable capital, that could be invested in industries that will respond to the energy needs of the world over the next 50 years, instead of being invested in industries that the rest of the world will not want in 15 to 20 years time. Let us talk on the Coalition's terms, not the Greens' terms. Let us talk about economic rationalism and dollars. When one tonne of coal from that coal loader is burnt overseas, it will produce about 2.6 tonnes of carbon dioxide. Each tonne of carbon dioxide produces about $103 worth of damage to the environment. Those are not my figures; they are the figures of the former chief economist of the World Bank, Sir Nicholas Stern. He said that every tonne of coal, when it is burnt, produces about $103 worth of economic damage over the lifetime of the carbon dioxide that it releases in the atmosphere.

Each tonne of coal, when sold, probably earns about $70 in revenue for the owner, but it does $268 worth of damage. That is, every tonne of coal that we put through the coal loader constitutes, economically, a $198 loss. Therefore, a 211-million-tonnes-a-year coal loader in the Hunter Valley, as is proposed, will cause $56.5 billion worth of damage to the atmosphere, to the climate. That is a $42 billion-a-year loser—$42 billion a year more damage than anybody makes in revenue from selling that coal. Why is that so? Why can we still talk about that as being economic? The coal industry, the energy industry, and the entire fossil fuel industry operate in a market failure. Sir Nicholas Stern refers to it as the biggest market failure ever in the history of humanity. He referred to it as a market failure because we have failed to cost in the externalities. We have failed to cost in the damage that is done to children, and as-yet-to-be-born children, who will suffer as a result of the damage we are doing to our climate.

By expanding that coal loader we will be moving into a regime of doing more and more damage to the future. We are passing off our costs to the future and we are profiting at the expense of future generations. It simply is not an economic proposition. It is not rational economics, and it is not a rational economic investment; it is an investment in destroying the climate, the economy and jobs. It will destroy jobs in the future and it will destroy jobs right now. If we expand the coal loader we expand the coal industry. If we expand the coal industry we foreclose on the future of the horse breeding industry, the wine industry, the tourism industry, and agriculture in the Hunter Valley.

The horse industry employed Craig Knowles, a former Minister for Planning, to lobby on its behalf to ensure that the Anvil Hill development does not go ahead. It was interesting to hear what members of The Nationals had to say about this issue. Their friends in the horse industry have had to turn to a former Labor Minister to lobby this Government, as they have no friends in The Nationals. Members of The Nationals have deserted them for coal. There is a direct conflict between expanding the coal industry and maintaining a healthy horse-breeding industry, a healthy wine industry and agriculture in the Upper Hunter and on the Liverpool Plains. But it is not only there that jobs will be lost. Jobs will also be lost in tourism throughout Australia and jobs will be lost in the important renewable energy industry, where we should be directing our inventive energies.

If we were really serious about jobs we would look at Denmark. Honourable members will recall my stating at the beginning of my speech that between the mid-1980s and 2002 we lost 18,000 jobs from the coal industry because of investment in mechanisation in open-cut mines and underground mines. At the same time that we lost those 18,000 jobs the little country of Denmark invested in renewable wind energy. It made a decision that it would be the world's leader in wind energy, and it produced 16,000 new jobs. If Australia had made the same social investment in wind energy as Denmark has done it would have produced about 60,000 new jobs over the same period that we were busy losing 18,000 jobs in the coal industry.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You are happy to put a wind generator on my farm but you would not want it going on your place.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I acknowledge the interjections from The Nationals. Many farmers around the world and in Australia are enthusiastic about adding value to their land.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: Not the ones that you and the Government are trying to put near your neighbours.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I am not trying to put any anywhere. Many farmers are enthusiastic because they see it as a way of adding value to their land. Under those wind generators they can continue their agricultural practices. I return to my earlier point. If Australia had invested in renewable energy or wind power we would have 60,000 new jobs. If we were serious about creating jobs that led to export opportunities—and building Australia is more than creating just a hole in the ground—as a clever country that exports its goods we would be investing in renewable energy and in technologies that are needed by the world.

How do we go about justifying an industry that is uneconomic? How do we go about justifying the expansion of the coal industry when it is uneconomic and headed in the wrong direction? Those who support the expansion of the coal industry use three major arguments. The first is simply to say that there is no problem with greenhouse gas emissions, that it does not really matter, that the science is wrong. To those people I say, "Thank you very much, but get off my planet, and get off the planet of the next generation and the generation after that."

The Hon. Rick Colless: It is not your planet.

Dr JOHN KAYE: The planet belongs to us all. By wilfully disregarding the scientific evidence we are committing an act of criminal negligence against future generations. The second argument is that, if we do not do it, someone else will, and that coal will probably be dirtier than our coal. That is about as sensible as a drug dealer saying to the world, "I will continue to sell drugs because if I do not sell my drugs, somebody else will seel theirs. Their drugs will be more dangerous than my drugs, so I should continue to sell drugs." That is a complete and utter moral failure. If members had read any ethics text books whatsoever they would reject such an argument. They would not only reject such an argument; they would realise that the premise "If we do not do it somebody else will" is the weakest and lowest form of morality and would justify any kind of immoral activity.

The final argument used to justify this uneconomic expansion of the coal loader is the argument about clean coal. People say, "We do not have to worry about this because coal can be clean. One day it will be okay, it will be clean." The problem is that even the most enthusiastic proponents of clean coal technology—and I challenge people to define what they mean by "clean coal", given that it has at least four meanings The final argument used to justify this uneconomic expansion of the coal loader is the argument about clean coal. People say, "We do not have to worry about this because coal can be clean. One day it will be okay, it will be clean." The problem is that even the most enthusiastic proponents of clean coal technology—and I challenge people to define what they mean by "clean coal", given that it has at least four meanings—are aware that all that technology is at least 15 years off. Even the most enthusiastic proponents of clean coal are saying to us, "It will not be available for 15 years." The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], Sir Nicholas Stern, the United States National Oceanographic Institute, and all the scientists are saying the same thing: "We do not have 15 years to wait around."

In the meantime, if we continue to mine coal and we continue to put carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, we will do damage from which we will never recover. We will do damage to the economy and to the environment. Saying that coal one day will be clean is gambling with our future. It is as about as silly as saying, "I cannot afford to pay my rent so I will take whatever money I have, put it in a poker machine, push the button and hope like hell that enough money will come out to pay my rent." We do not gamble with our future; it is not a sensible thing to do. We certainly do not gamble with our future when we have sensible alternatives. So expanding the coal industry is investing in a major risk activity: a risk activity that clean coal will never work; a risk activity that the climate will overtake any economic benefits that the industry will bring; and a risk activity that we will destroy our genuinely clean energy industries, which possibly could provide us with a solid source of import revenue.

It has been said that the Greens are leading this campaign, but that is not true. In June a large number of people will be involved in a campaign entitled, "No new coal." We take seriously the future and the viability of the future. Many of us have signed a pledge that we will be involved in non-violent direct action—non-violent in the sense that we have pledged not to commits acts of violence but to involve ourselves in direct action. We believe that we have passed the point where we can sit by and allow the future of this planet to be compromised in this way.

On Friday outside Governor Macquarie Tower, on Saturday and Sunday at Anvil Hill, on 5 June outside Parliament, and on 17 June outside the Waratah rivulet, community members, coalminers who are worried about the future of their children, the future of their communities and their health, community members, environmentalists, and Greens will be there. We will have one major message—no new coal. Let us make the transition now. Let us have the imagination, the intelligence and the foresight to stop expanding the coal industry, and put our collective and productive intelligence into an industry that will see us through the next 50 years—the renewable energy industry and the energy efficiency industry.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.59 p.m.]: I support the original motion, which details the problems currently facing the Hunter Valley, and I congratulate the Hon. Robyn Parker on moving it. Two amendments have been moved to the motion, and I question their validity. I believe that Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile moved his amendment in good faith—all his actions have good motives—but, sadly, it does not reflect the true situation. Some of his contribution was inappropriate, as are parts of his amendment. The new Greens member in this place, Dr Devious, asserted that the Greens do not want to close down the coal industry. There must be green Greens and brown Greens because that illustrious article of faith, the Illawarra Mercury , has a different view. It carries an article by one Senator Bob Brown, who claims to be the Leader of the Australian Greens.

Ms Lee Rhiannon: He is the leader.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I am told he is the leader. He wrote the article, in which he states:

The Greens believe that we must move beyond Australia's reliance on coal. I have called on whoever wins office at this year's election to commit to a plan to phase out coal exports … by the end of the next term of government.

The Leader of the Australian Greens says that we must move beyond coal. Yet the Greens in this place—

Ms Lee Rhiannon: Point of order: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should give correct information. He claimed to be quoting from an article by Bob Brown.

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: No, he didn't.

Ms Lee Rhiannon: Yes, he did. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should be accurate and explain that he is quoting from a newspaper article, not the words of Bob Brown.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! That was not a point of order, as the member well knows. When taking points of order in future, the member should ensure that she raises matters upon which the Chair can make a ruling rather than seek to make debating points under the guise of a point of order.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: As I said earlier, the Greens hate the truth, and this is the truth. I am quoting from an article authored by Senator Bob Brown, the Leader of the Australian Greens. It is an op-ed piece that he submitted to the Illawarra Mercury —no more, no less. But the Greens hate the truth, even if it comes from their leader. They hate using real facts. Ms Lee Rhiannon's amendment contains the myth that the coal exported through the new loader will increase global emissions of greenhouse gases by 0.5 per cent. That is a neat statement. If it is true, it is a frightening statement. But how can it be true? If we do not have a third coal loader what will happen to the power stations? They will simply buy their coal elsewhere—and it will probably be of a much poorer quality than the New South Wales product. On the scale of world coal nastiness, our coal is nowhere near the top. In fact, across the Victorian border—

Dr John Kaye: So coal is nasty.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Behave. Dr Kaye will get another chance. He had a go this afternoon and mucked it up. On his first outing without the training wheels he made huge mistakes and misled the House. He should come back and have another go later because he did not get it right today. It was easy when he was writing the stuff for Lee to spout, but he did his own stuff today and mucked it up. He does not like that.

The premise on which the Greens' amendment is based is incorrect. The Greens claim that they do not want to close down the coal industry. But of course they do. They claim to support the coalminers but of course they want their jobs to go. The Greens will tell anyone anything in order to get a vote. They protested against the desalination plant at Kurnell and then gave their preferences to the Labor Party, which will build it. The Greens are the greatest hypocrites in this State and they should be ashamed of themselves. Yet they act all pious in this place. The Greens are just ridiculous.

The Government has finally approved the provision of a third coal loader. Good on it. I am critical of the Government not for its forward planning but for its past planning. The decision is 12 years too late. The Port of Newcastle is blocked at present for two reasons. Demurrage costs have increased because there is insufficient capacity. The new coal loader has been approved but the Government deserves no congratulations because the process took two and a half years. I know Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile is a decent man who wants to do the right thing by the Government but I cannot applaud a government that took so long to make a decision and caused so many problems in the port. For that reason we cannot support the amendment moved by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.

Another reason for the blockage at the Port of Newcastle is that the Federal Government has taken control of the rail tracks. Its initial changes to the timetable were outstanding. Everyone in the region agrees that the service improved when control shifted from State Rail to the federal body. In fact the queue of ships—Iemma's navy—off Newcastle disappeared. The Australian Rail Track Corporation is now making line improvements, which are partly to blame for the current problem and the loss of 250 jobs from Coal and Allied. I am not alone in believing the State Government has let us down. The Leader of the Opposition referred to the Federal Labor member for Hunter, Joel Fitzgibbon. Many members would be aware that he is not a card-carrying member of The Nationals, and he is certainly not a member of our cheer squad. He said:

The federal and state governments and the companies who control Newcastle's coal port should collectively hang their heads in shame

He then condemned the State Government:

… for not acting more quickly in encouraging and facilitating coal port expansion and competition through the establishment of a third coal loader.

As I said earlier, while the State Government should be applauded for finally approving the project, it should be criticised for taking so long and causing the current problems. I will not take up the time of the House unnecessarily. I simply indicate that the Opposition cannot support the amendments moved by Ms Lee Rhiannon and Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS [4.09 p.m.]: I support the motion moved by the Hon. Robyn Parker, and congratulate her on bringing forward this very important issue. I will make a few comments about some aspects of Ms Lee Rhiannon's amendment, particularly climate change. It is worrying that members of this Chamber, though dealing with issues that affect what is very much a wealth-creation industry, make it very clear that they want to phase out that industry, shut it down, or whatever one wants to call it.

Ms Lee Rhiannon: Wealth for whom? Not for the poor farmers.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: The member asks, "Wealth for whom?" Let me tell the member a little bit about the whole concept of wealth and how wealth is created. I am not necessarily talking about dollars. The only way in which the Greens seem to measure wealth is in terms of dollars. Well, wealth is much, much more than just dollars. Wealth is about creating the things that the whole of our society is built upon. Look around this Chamber and you see wealth. What is here and in our own homes is part of the material wealth that we have built for ourselves over the years. Ms Lee Rhiannon fails to realise that the original source of everything in this Chamber is either mining or agriculture. The leather benches that we sit upon are a little bit of stored sunlight; they are created by agriculture. The woollen carpets are created by agriculture. The timber in the desks is created by agriculture.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: It is a carbon sink.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: It is a carbon sink—exactly! The stainless steel jugs that we get drinking water from, and the glasses from which we drink that water, come from the mining industry. They were part of the wealth creation process. There are only two ways to create wealth: mining or primary industry. Any other industry in which we are involved is in fact a wealth accumulating industry, not a wealth creating industry. So it is relevant to keep in mind the importance of the role that the wealth-creating industries play in the establishment and maintenance of our society. I want to make a few comments about the sequestration of carbon in agriculture. The Greens tell us on their website about the need for everybody to turn into vegans because we can't have people eating meat—

Dr John Kaye: That's absolute rubbish!

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: It is on the website.
Dr John Kaye: It is not. Name the clause.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: It says the management of livestock for human consumption creates greenhouse gas, and therefore we should all be vegans. What utter nonsense!

Dr John Kaye: That is not what we say.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: Let me tell the member something about agriculture and animals. For a start, there have always been ruminant animals on this earth.

Dr John Kaye: Not in the numbers there are now.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: I challenge that. I am currently trying to find out what the numbers are because in the days before North America was settled by Europeans, herds of millions upon millions of bison roamed the North American plains. In Africa, herds of millions and millions of springbok, antelope and wildebeest were roaming the plains of the Serengeti. Those animals are not there today. Yes, there are commercial animals, sheep and cattle, which have been bred for human purposes. As I was saying, the very leather covering the chairs and benches in this Chamber comes from that source.

Agricultural is a net sequester if it is managed correctly. To give some idea: it is a well-recognised fact that the oceans are the biggest sink for carbon on this planet and that the soils are the second-biggest sink. In Australia, there are 450 million hectares of agricultural soils, excluding the central deserts. If we were to increase the amount of carbon stored in our soils by just 0.2 of 1 per cent, that would equate to 135 million tonnes of carbon that could be stored for each 0.2 per cent increase we had in soil carbon. It just so happens that 1 tonne of carbon is equivalent to 3.7 tonnes of carbon dioxide, and 135 million tonnes is about 550 million tonnes of carbon dioxide—which, coincidentally, is about the level of Australia's emissions. Therefore, agricultural holds in its hand the potential to stop global warming—if it is caused by carbon dioxide accumulation.

Dr John Kaye: For one year only.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: Yes, for one year only. I ask the Dr John Kaye: Farmers have increased their soil carbon content levels from 0.5 per cent to what?

Dr John Kaye: I do not know the percentage.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: I did not think so. They have increased it to 4 per cent over 10 years. That is an increase of 3.5 per cent over 10 years, which is a lot more than is required to stop the carbon emissions from Australia.

Dr John Kaye: For one year.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: No, not for one year. You can do that for a hundred years.

Dr John Kaye: You cannot keep increasing the carbon level of soil forever.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: No, that is right. But what the member does not understand is that the carbon level in soils in native grassland state, before they were cultivated and used for agriculture, varied from the highlands to the plains, according to the climate and soil type and many other variable factors. A very small increase in the level of soil carbon can be achieved on a regular, sustained basis for a long period of time.

Dr John Kaye: How long?

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: Work it out: 0.02 per cent is all that is required to cancel out Australia's emissions. I am a trained agronomist, and I know for a fact that the clients I had when I was working in the agronomy field could increase their soil carbon content levels from 0.5 to about 4 per cent or better in about 10 years. That is a lot more than is required to hold off the carbon story. I want to make a few comments also about the whole concept of climate change. I am not necessarily a climate change sceptic; I do believe a change is happening. But I would like some better information on the cause of that.
Go back in geological time scales, to 600 million years ago when the carbon dioxide levels were much, much higher than they are now—not by a factor of 2 or 3, but a factor of nearly 20. It was 7,000 parts per million in the Cambrian Period. The Carboniferous Period, between 280 million and 350 million years ago, was when most of the coal was laid down. Carbon dioxide levels during the Carboniferous Period were very low—about the same as they are now, around 250 to 350 parts per million.

The other interesting thing about that time period was the average global temperature of the earth. At that stage it was about 12 degrees centigrade, which is approximately the average global temperature now. Funnily, during the Cambrian Period, when carbon dioxide levels were very high, the earth's temperature was about 22 degrees centigrade. In Permian Time, global temperatures and carbon dioxide levels were about the same as they are now. Look at them and you will see there are a number of ice ages. We are in an ice age now, believe it or not. I put it to the Greens that the reason the earth is warming is not related to carbon dioxide levels. It is a proven fact that within the ice ages there were small fluctuations that lasted about one hundred thousand years.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Solar flares.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: That is one of the theories that has been put forward. If solar flares are causing this little warming period then carbon dioxide levels are irrelevant to global warming. The Greens have not explored that argument. They use the carbon dioxide story to justify shutting down the coal industry, the livestock industry and "land clearing".

The Hon. Duncan Gay: They describe coalmining as akin to drug dealing.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: Yes. I find it difficult to draw the nexus between carbon dioxide levels increasing and the story the Greens put forward. If the Greens argument is correct, can they explain to me why, during the change from the Silurian to the Ordovician period, which was one of the early ice ages, when the world's global temperature dropped to about 12 degrees the carbon dioxide levels were up around the 4,500 parts per million? Why was the temperature so low when the carbon dioxide levels were so high? I am sure the Greens have some meaningless explanation.

Dr John Kaye: Read the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] report.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: There is more to this story than carbon dioxide, but the Greens will not admit it. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition stated, we will oppose the two amendments moved by Ms Lee Rhiannon. The motion moved by the Hon. Robyn Parker should be supported. We need the third coal loader. I commend her for bringing the motion to the House.

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY [4.22 p.m.]: I will not take up too much of the time of the House, but I will make a couple of comments about the focus given to the Stern review by Dr John Kaye. I am not a scientist by training. I have been trained in economics and other fields, not in science. But anyone who is interested in this debate makes an effort, because of the enormity of the consequences, to try to understand the science and determine whether what is being said and its implications are as definitive as the assertions by some individuals and some groups. I draw the attention of the House to an article drawn to my attention a month or two ago by a friend who is interested in this area.

The article provides salient reading for those who want to understand, as best they can, what is going on with climate change. "The Stern Review: A Dual Critique" appears in volume 7 No. 4 of the October­December 2006 edition of the eminent journal World Economics . The article was published after the release of the Stern review last year, which was given a lot of attention in this debate, particularly by the Greens. The article on the report is in two parts. The first part, which is co-authored by a number of scientists, examines the science of the Stern review. The second part examines the economic aspects of the Stern review. The conclusion of the first part, which deals with the science, runs for more than a page and I do not intend to refer to all of it. In part it states:

We conclude that the Stern Review is biased and alarmist in its reading of the science. In particular, it displays:

· a failure to acknowledge the scope and scale of the knowledge gaps and uncertainties in climate science…
· massive overestimation of climate impacts through an implausible population scenario and one-sided treatment of the impact literature, including reliance on the agenda-driven advocacy documents
· lack of due diligence in evaluating many pivotal research studies despite the scandalous lack of disclosure of data and methods in these studies
· lack of concern for the defects and inadequacies of the peer review process as a guarantor of quality or truth

These and other related problems arise because the Review has relied for advice almost exclusively on a small number of people and organisations that have a long history of unbalanced alarmism on the global warming issue. Most of the research cited by the Review does not, on inspection, make a convincing case that greenhouse warming constitutes a major threat that justifies an immediate and radical policy response.

The Hon. Rick Colless was, at least in part, alluding to some of these points. The position that the Greens put forward today is that there must be an immediate response and it has to be a radical response. The authors of the article do not believe the evidence supports that. The conclusion continues:

Contrary research is consistently ignored, as are basic observational facts showing that alarm is unwarranted.

The contribution from the Greens was not a consideration of a broad range of approaches; rather it was selective in what would advance their case and prosecute it. The problem with the Greens is that their approach is always unilateral: We know best. You will have to cop it. This is what we say is good for you. The conclusion continued:

The Review fails to present an accurate picture of scientific understanding of climate change issues, and will reinforce ill­informed alarm about climate change among the general public.

This is what the Hon. Rick Colless was getting at and this is what the Greens want. They pick up issues and they run with them. They want to alarm people. Obviously, they want people to get behind their campaign, which they regard as central to their existence as a Green party.

The Hon. Robert Brown: Wearing thin, though.

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: It is wearing very thin. As the general public comes to understand the way the Greens are running their campaign—alarmist and scaremongering—they will not retain public support. The public wants a measured, considered approach. They want their leaders and their governments, at both the State and the Federal level, to put forward carefully considered policies that people can understand; policies that are not full of hyperbole and exaggeration. People do not want scaremongering and they do not want exaggeration. The second part of the article deals with the economic analysis of the Stern review. Again, it is many pages long. I will go straight to the conclusions. Many of the authors of the article are highly trained economists. The conclusions state, in part:

Our main conclusions coincide with, and serve to confirm and reinforce, those reached by our scientific colleagues.

The authors are examining the economic side of the Stern review and matching it up with the science that is dealt with in the first part of the article. The conclusions continue:

Like them, we would emphasise in particular two inter-related features of the Stern Review:

· it greatly understates the extent of uncertainty as to possible developments, in highly complex systems that are not well understood, over a period of two centuries or more.

Looking back and trying to understand how we arrived at the position we are in today is an extremely complex and challenging task. The Hon. Rick Colless did not go back a few centuries; he went back millennia. It is necessary to go back that far to try to develop a full and complete picture in understanding how we have arrived at the position we are in today with respect to climate change. The second point in the economists' conclusion states:

Its treatment of sources and evidence is persistently selective and biased.

It is interesting to match that comment with the first part of the report because it makes the same observation—that the material that is being used to run the argument is selective. They conclude, although I am sure the Greens will disagree, that the approach is actually biased. It is not bad enough that it is selective; it is also biased and jaundiced. In combination, it is hardly what one would call a recipe for a balanced consideration of the matter. The economists go on to state:

These twin features have combined to make the Review a vehicle for speculative alarmism.

I pause to point out that these are serious allegations by people who demonstrate considerable intellectual horsepower in dealing with this complex debate. They go on to state:

We also endorse, from our own analysis, the judgement of our colleagues that the Review

· mishandles data

· gives too little attention to actual observation and evidence, as distinct from the results of model-based exercises
We all know what one can do with models. If certain assumptions are added, changed or varied, we have all been around the block enough to know what can happen there. The conclusions also state:

· takes no account of the failures of due disclosure, and the chronic limitations of peer reviewing, that have been characteristic of work relating to climate change which governments have commissioned and drawn on.

I will not deal with the report in greater detail because I am conscious of the time that is being taken up by this debate. I conclude by making the point that we need to be very careful in accepting that the Stern report as the be-all and end-all of our consideration of climate change. I am not saying that we should dismiss the Stern report out of hand, but I believe we should be very careful about jumping in and out of its contents and accepting its conclusions. We should broadly examine the issue, challenge and debate particular points of view and hopefully come up with a very considered policy outcome that will take New South Wales and the rest of Australia forward, particularly in the context of the coal industry. I urge the House to accept the amendment moved by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for Primary Industries, Minister for Energy, Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for State Development) [4.32 p.m.]: I have listened to most of the debate, and I must say that it is one of the most vigorous debates I have heard in this House for a while. The contributions made by some honourable members reflect the level of understanding they have of the industry and some of the passion that has been engendered by the issue. I am pleased that the debate has been fairly wide ranging because coal is an important issue within our community. Technology and practice in the coal industry will have to change if we are to continue to mine and utilise coal in the future for sustainable electricity generation.

The coal industry has given material effect to its belief that changes will have to be made by the establishment of a voluntary and environmental levy in New South Wales and Victoria. Over the next 10 years the levy is expected to amount to approximately $1 billion. That reflects the industry's awareness that it has to move to a clean coal future. It was instructive to listen to the contribution to the debate made by the Greens. It is important to analyse the point of view expressed by the Greens. It disturbs me that the Greens are so implacably opposed to clean coal technologies.

Ms Lee Rhiannon: We are not opposed. You are just distorting it. We are not saying we are opposed, and the Minister knows that. Be accurate!

The Hon. Duncan Gay: That is not true. You have said that clean coal causes job losses.

Ms Lee Rhiannon: Yes, right at the moment.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: It worries me that the Greens do not support clean coal.

[Interruption]

Ms Lee Rhiannon has had her turn to speak. She will have plenty of chances to express her point of view, but for the moment she should listen to me. At an appropriate time she will be able to say something. Yesterday Dr John Kaye referred to coal but he made no mention of clean coal technology.

Dr John Kaye: That is not true.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Yesterday his comments were about how bad fossil fuels were and how they are destroying the world. He referred to renewable sources of energy.

Dr John Kaye: Point of order: What the Minister is saying is completely incorrect. He should try to remain factual in his remarks.

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

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I am happy for Dr John Kaye to demonstrate that he supports clean coal technology. I will give him an opportunity to do so in the new future in this House, and when that happens I am sure that every member of this House, bar the four members of the Greens, will vote in favour of the motion. However, there can be no doubt that we have to improve the efficiency of coal and reduce its carbon imprint. Most countries have signed up to do that. There is extremely exciting work going on around the world to move toward clean coal technologies.
Ms Lee Rhiannon: When is it actually going to be viable? Tell us that.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: What really upsets me about the Greens is that I have not heard Ms Lee Rhiannon say at any point, in all the time I have been a member of this House, that she supports Al Gore's view that post-carbon capture and sequestration are very important tools in limiting future carbon emissions.

Ms Lee Rhiannon: That is not the point. It will not work now, and it will not work in 10 years time.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Ms Lee Rhiannon wants to close down the industry before it has even started. That is what Ms Lee Rhiannon's spiritual leader, Senator Bob Brown, has said. He wants to close down the coal industry within three years. Everything that is being said and done by Ms Lee Rhiannon indicates that she will go up to Newcastle and join in civil disobedience protests against the coal industry. She wants to close the industry down. She should be honest. She wants to get rid of the 56,000 jobs that are associated with the coal industry. She wants to get rid of all the jobs in the Hunter. She goes crook about the number of jobs that have been lost due to the difficulties that currently exist in Newcastle.

[ Interruption]

I have been supporting the union. Ms Lee Rhiannon should go and talk to the union about that and hear what the union has to say. I have been supporting the union in relation to Yang coal and Coal and Allied. I am out there defending jobs. I want workers to be in the mines, getting more coal out through the coal loaders. I want them to do that, but I also want to see us as a community and as a nation, as well as the community of nations, doing more work on developing clean coal technologies. I just hope that the Greens and every other political party in this Parliament join with this Government, Al Gore, the Stern report and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change No. 3 [IPCC3] to support post-carbon capture and clean coal technologies. I look forward to the day when the Greens get rid of their Luddite approach to the issue and get on with supporting clean coal technology.

Coal is not going to go away. It is the most abundant fuel that is technologically available for use in driving energy generation globally. It is by far the most abundant energy source, and that position will not change for many years. The trick is to drive coal technologies forward and change carbon emission practices. That is what we have to do. I look forward to support from the Greens in the future. I am sure that in the near future the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and the Hon. Robert Brown will support the Government's motion and pass a resolution related to clean coal. At that stage it will be very interesting to see what the Greens do.

The vast majority of people, when they learn of the role of clean coal in ensuring a reduced carbon impact in this country and globally for the future, will support it. The Greens have an obsession with coal. They do not have a realistic approach on how the industry can be tidied up by the production of less carbon. That just leaves me breathless. I remind members who talked about alternative technologies, particularly the Greens, of the Government's policy prescriptions that are in place. Very shortly there will be a national scheme recommended by the Prime Minister, and one will be put forward by the alternative Prime Minister, Mr Kevin Rudd, and that will be debated over the course of this year. Within a very short time we will have a national trading scheme that will drive some of those technologies. But we are very far way from having technologies in the renewables area that can meet baseload need, the basic large demand, 24/7. I am a complete supporter of wind power, solar power, geothermal power and tidal power.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: I am a supporter of wind power.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I know that The Nationals are absolutely in support of wind power, and I know they supported the wind farm in Taralga. The Government was very much in support of that and it will drive through power trading schemes. However, for a long time coal will be the basis of energy in this State and other States. The task for all of us is to get behind clean coal technologies and get on with the job of introducing them. The original motion probably was not written in the knowledge of what was happening. The Government has made the approvals and the coal loaders are off and running in Newcastle. Over the next two years we will export a significant amount of extra coal to our global partners.

The Government is very proud to have approved plans for two major port infrastructure projects in Newcastle that will create 500 construction jobs and help address delays in the processing of coal export ships. The projects were recently announced at Kooragang Island and are worth a combined $1 billion. That will double the export capacity of the Port of Newcastle. The first project is the $922 million coal export terminal by Newcastle Coal Infrastructure Group [NCIG]. That terminal on Kooragang Island will be built in two stages. Initially it will boast a capacity of 33 million tonnes per annum, expanding to 66 million tonnes per annum, depending on market demand. The project will involve capital investment of $922 million and will generate 500 jobs initially, and during operation it will have about 100 permanent jobs.

The second project is the $78 million expansion of the existing Kooragang coal terminal, operated by Port Waratah Coal Services Limited. The expansion will increase that loader's capacity from 77 million tonnes per year to 120 million tonnes per year. The expansion will include new low-noise drives and soft-flow design chutes with higher capacity. The coal loaders will support the operation of existing mines, which are critical to the New South Wales economy and generation thousands of jobs, without which significant and lucrative contracts would be lost to competing overseas operations. Demand for coal continues to grow, largely driven by developing Asian markets. More than 930 coal ships visited Newcastle alone in 2005-06.

The two projects will meet Newcastle's coal export needs for at least a decade. In addition, the Government has ensured that it has made a balanced decision, one which took into account both environmental issues and the need to support a strong New South Wales economy. Minister Sartor imposed more than 90 conditions of approval on the Newcastle Coal Infrastructure Group proposal, including adopting recommendations from the expert panel and more than 40 conditions on the Kooragang coal terminal expansion.

The Government has acted to protect jobs in the Hunter as well as our vital export industries. The Government opposes the motion and supports the amendments moved by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile. In conclusion, I will honour my promise to bring on a debate on coal at some stage. I think we need to thrash out this issue. I note that last night Dr John Kaye said that the Greens have a message that they repeat over and over again. That is a message of fear. They are his very words.

Dr John Kaye: Finish the sentence. I said "fear and optimism".

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: It sounded very close to the concept of scaremongering. There is no doubt that that drives the policy—to paint as black a picture as possible. That is why the Greens are caught in a bind over clean coal. They want to demonise coal so much that they cannot make any concession to its future. I make this promise to the House: There will be a debate and a vote on this matter soon, and I am sure it will be a vote of 37 to 4.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER [4.45 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their participation in this important debate. We have strayed far from the original motion and the intent of the original motion. When I moved the motion I commented that we needed to talk about the future of the coal industry, clean coal and the Hunter region being an ideal location for an opportunity to increase clean coal exploration—and the CSIRO is perfectly placed to do that. I acknowledge that, but there are things to do in the future on climate change. Nevertheless, my motion was about the current situation and the job losses in the Hunter caused by the mining industry because of the reluctance of the Iemma Government to act.

The Government should have acted more than 2½ years ago to put infrastructure together to support the development of a third coal loader. The State Government is not to build the third coal loader, although one would think it is the Government's project; all it had to do was approve the project. The Government tries to make out that it is its achievement. The Minister talked about the jobs that would be created and how much the third coal loader would provide.

All the Government had to do was approve the process, and that took 2½ years, and it took a thumping in the recent election in the Hunter region before the Government did anything. It took 12 days of counting to determine the result in the Newcastle electorate. Soon after that determination there was an announcement by Austar, on 12 April, that it was going to lose 79 jobs because, as it said, "The only reason we are reducing operations is the lack of export capacity in the coal chain. If the capacity was available we would be using it." The senior site executive told employees that the reintroduction of capacity balancing of the port system had an adverse affect on the mine's business plan.

He said that they could not get coal out through the coal line to the waiting ships. A number of members have talked about these issues in a broad-ranging way. This motion is about jobs in the Hunter. The Coalition cannot support a motion congratulating the Government because the day after the determination of the vote in Newcastle, 2½ years late, it announced that it was going to approve the process to establish the third coal loader. That coal loader will not come on line for at least another couple of years. This motion addresses the present situation. We know what those who are waving the environmental flag are really about. If they were concerned about the environment, they would be worried about the poor quality of marine life around the ships that are queuing to get into the port of Newcastle.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Dragging their anchors.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER: They are dragging their anchors. The Greens want to turn this debate into one about climate change, when it is really about jobs in the Hunter, support for the coalmining industry, and support for the statements made by Joel Fitzgibbon, the Federal Labor member for Hunter, who said on radio that this was an embarrassment to other countries and that they would be taking advantage of the situation. Joel Fitzgibbon said:

Federal and state governments and the companies who control Newcastle's coal port should collectively hang their heads in shame—the state government for not acting more quickly and encouraging and facilitating coal port expansion and competition through the establishment of a third coal loader.

Government members should hang their heads in shame. This is about supporting such statements, supporting the coal industry and supporting jobs. Members of the Greens said that they were not against the coalmining industry, yet their Federal leader, Senator Bob Brown, said:

The public is entitled to know whether Prime Minister John Howard and opposition leader Kevin Rudd value today's coal profits over our children's wellbeing.

He went on to say:

I have called on whoever wins office at this year's election to commit to a plan to phase out coal exports. That plan must be in place by the end of the next term.

The next Federal term of government is about three years away, and the Greens, with their environmental claptrap, are all about shutting down the coal industry in that time. My motion is about the current situation. It is about jobs and about the approval process. Today the Minister lauded the fact that the Government had finally approved this process. I note the absence in the Chamber of the Minister for the Hunter, the Hon. Michael Costa. It would have been great to hear his comments on this matter. The people of the Hunter expect their Minister to support the coalmining industry. I am sure he would have been supportive of his Federal colleague Joel Fitzgibbon, and I am sure he would have been equally embarrassed about the delay in approving an increase in coal loader capacity.

As well as being about the Hunter and about supporting jobs, this motion is about the achievements of the coal industry, not those of the State Government, which has taken so long to approve this process. The Coalition cannot support the amendment to the motion moved by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, which seeks to congratulate a government that has taken 2½ years to get this process going—and only after 79 jobs were lost at one coalmine and a further 250 jobs were lost at another. In the recent State election the Government got a thumping in the Hunter, losing the seats of Lake Macquarie and Port Stephens, and almost losing the seat of Newcastle. That is what it took to get the Government to take action. As Joel Fitzgibbon said, this Government should be hanging its head in shame.

I would be delighted if Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile withdrew his amendment; I am sure he would agree that the inaction of the Government is no grounds for congratulation. The Coalition supports the coal industry and it supports clean coal exploration. We support those who work in, and make their livelihood from, the coal industry in the Hunter Valley. We know where the Hunter is; we know how important the coal industry is to the Hunter and to New South Wales; and we are aware of the record revenue that this State Government reaps from coal royalties. We know the value of this industry to the Hunter and to New South Wales, and know the agenda of the Greens and we know about their civil disobedience.

Let us tell the people that the Greens agenda is really about shutting down the coal industry. I am sure those who turn up this weekend to the foreshadowed rallies in the Hunter will be pleased to hear that. I am sure that anyone associated with the coal industry is sceptical about the Greens' hidden agenda, which is available in black and white in an article written by Senator Bob Brown, the leader of the Greens. He plans to shut down the coal industry within a few short years. This motion is about the current situation in the Hunter; it is not about climate change. It is about what is happening now in the Hunter. We want to ensure that we get the most out of our coal industry and we want to ensure that we can move coal down the line.
Pressure was placed on the State Government to get the coal line moving in the first place. It was not until the Australian Rail and Track Corporation took over the lease of the coal line that things started moving. People in the Hunter are sick of seeing coal ships on the horizon. I invite honourable members to come and have a look at those ships and to get their photographs taken with coal ships in the background along the beautiful horizon. Other members should also take the opportunity to talk to coalmine employees to establish what this means to them. [ Time expired.]

Question—That the amendment of Ms Lee Rhiannon be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Mr Cohen
Ms Rhiannon
Tellers,
Ms Hale
Dr Kaye

Noes, 34 Noes, 34 Mr Ajaka Mr Brown Mr Catanzariti Mr Clarke Mr Colless Mr Costa Ms Cusack Ms Fazio Ms Ficarra Miss Gardiner Mr Gay Ms Griffin

Mr Hatzistergos Mr Kelly Mr Khan Mr Lynn Mr Macdonald Mr Mason-Cox Reverend Dr Moyes Reverend Nile Mr Obeid Ms Parker Mrs Pavey Mr Pearce

Ms Robertson Mr Roozendaal Ms Sharpe Mr Tsang Mr Veitch Ms Voltz Mr West Ms Westwood Tellers, Mr Donnelly Mr Harwin

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Question—That the amendment of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Mr Brown
Mr Catanzariti
Mr Costa
Mr Della Bosca
Ms Fazio
Ms Griffin
Mr Hatzistergos
Mr KellyMr Macdonald
Reverend Dr Moyes
Reverend Nile
Mr Obeid
Ms Robertson
Mr Roozendaal
Ms Sharpe
Mr TsangMs Voltz
Mr West
Ms Westwood


Tellers,
Mr Donnelly
Mr Veitch

Noes, 19 Mr Ajaka Mr Clarke Mr Cohen Ms Cusack Ms Ficarra Mr Gallacher Miss Gardiner	Mr Gay Ms Hale Dr Kaye Mr Khan Mr Lynn Mr Mason-Cox Ms Parker	Mrs Pavey Mr Pearce Ms Rhiannon Tellers, Mr Colless Mr Harwin
Mr Ajaka Mr Clarke Mr Cohen Ms Cusack Ms Ficarra Mr Gallacher Miss Gardiner	Mr Gay Ms Hale Dr Kaye Mr Khan Mr Lynn Mr Mason-Cox Ms Parker	Mrs Pavey Mr Pearce Ms Rhiannon Tellers, Mr Colless Mr Harwin

Lynn
Mr Mason-Cox

Ms ParkerMrs Pavey
Mr Pearce
Ms Rhiannon

Tellers,
Mr Colless
Mr Harwin

Question resolved in the affirmative. Amendment agreed to. Question—That the motion as amended be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative. Motion as amended agreed to. Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted to permit a motion to adjourn the House. The House continued to sit. ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT The PRESIDENT: I report the receipt of the following message from His Excellency James Jacob Spigelman, Lieutenant-Governor of the State of New South Wales: J. J. Spigelman Office of the Governor L IEUTENANT- G OVERNOR Sydney 2000 The Honourable James Jacob Spigelman, Chief Justice of New South Wales, Lieutenant-Governor of the State of New South Wales, has the honour to inform the Legislative Council that, consequent on the Governor of New South Wales, Professor Marie Bashir, being absent from the State, he has this day assumed the administration of the Government of the State. 30 May 2007 BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Postponement of Business Government Business Orders of the Day Nos 1 to 4 postponed on motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly. SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT Question resolved in the affirmative. Amendment agreed to. Question—That the motion as amended be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative. Motion as amended agreed to. Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted to permit a motion to adjourn the House. The House continued to sit. ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT The PRESIDENT: I report the receipt of the following message from His Excellency James Jacob Spigelman, Lieutenant-Governor of the State of New South Wales: J. J. Spigelman Office of the Governor L IEUTENANT- G OVERNOR Sydney 2000 The Honourable James Jacob Spigelman, Chief Justice of New South Wales, Lieutenant-Governor of the State of New South Wales, has the honour to inform the Legislative Council that, consequent on the Governor of New South Wales, Professor Marie Bashir, being absent from the State, he has this day assumed the administration of the Government of the State. 30 May 2007 BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Postponement of Business Government Business Orders of the Day Nos 1 to 4 postponed on motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly. SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT Motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly agreed to: That this House at its rising today do adjourn until Tuesday 5 June 2007 at 2.30 p.m. TABLING OF PAPERS The Hon. Tony Kelly tabled the following papers: (1) Annual Reports (Departments) Act 1985—Report of Department of Education and Training for the year ended 31 December 2006. (2) Annual Reports (Statutory Bodies) Act 1984—Reports for the year ended 31 December 2006: Southern Cross University—Volumes 1 and 2 University of New England University of New South Wales—Volumes 1 and 2 University of Sydney University of Technology, Sydney University of Western Sydney—Volumes 1 and 2 University of Wollongong Ordered to be printed. ANTI-DISCRIMINATION AMENDMENT (OFFENDER COMPENSATION) BILL 2007 Second Reading Debate resumed from 30 May 2007. The PRESIDENT: I inform members and visitors in the galleries that the Hon. Michael Veitch is about to make his inaugural speech in this House. I ask that the customary courtesies be extended to him. The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH [5.11 p.m.] (Inaugural Speech): I wish to acknowledge that this august Chamber of democratic decision-making is located in the Eora nation and, more specifically, is on Gadigal land, and I pay my respects to the Elders, past and present. Mr President, I would like to commence my inaugural speech in this Chamber by congratulating you on your election as President. A number of years ago you kindly extended the political hand of friendship to me. You have been a reliable source of genuine assistance, wise counsel and solid companionship. Along with your wonderful wife, Jan, you have provided truly valuable support to my political endeavours. I know that all who sit in this Chamber are confident and comfortable in your capacity to professionally and sincerely oversee our deliberations. Well done, Mr President. I come to this Chamber having never worked for a union, having never worked for a politician and having never been a paid political party official. In fact, my background is purely working class. This however, in no way reduces or deflects from my strong belief and support for the union movement and the right of individuals to collectively negotiate their employment conditions. Nor does it in any way deflect from my commitment to social justice issues. I have always proudly been a financial member of the union of my calling, and I would have it no other way! I was born on the lands of the Wiradjuri nation and I continue to live on the lands of the Wiradjuri nation, more specifically Burrowmunditory land. I have immense respect for the way our indigenous friends have cared for the land and for their close affinity with nature over many thousands of years. The first people on this land have a connection, an understanding, of how to exist and treat our land that is tangible and real. In my view, we Europeans are a little slow to learn the many valuable lessons held by our indigenous friends. For example, it took us white folk quite a while to find our way over the majestic Blue Mountains when in fact the local inhabitants had been crossing them for thousands of years. Why was it that we could not garner the respect and dignity within ourselves and simply ask them to show us the way? I firmly believe that communicating with the indigenous community about the way forward should be paramount for the progression of this country as a whole. However, for too many years there has been just talk, with little or no action. Even today, the vital issue of reconciliation remains in an indeterminate state. I believe that this is a blight on our nation and must be put right if Australia is to move forward emotionally and physically, as well as economically. Reconciliation, however, cannot be successful without an explicit commitment to inclusiveness. Accordingly, my trust in our indigenous friends to help lead the way forward for this great country is unshakeable. There are lessons to be learnt from all sides of the reconciliation divide. We should be moving forward together as peers and not as combatants or protagonists. Recently the Hon. Linda Burney spoke about the fortieth anniversary of one of the greatest, if not the greatest, constitutional referendums conducted in this country. Obviously, I am referring to the 1967 referendum that has rightly been referred to on a number of occasions this week in the House; the referendum that recognized Aboriginal citizenship. In her moving address, Ms Burney reminded us of the injustices perpetrated on the First Peoples in the so-called building of our nation. In my opinion, the 1967 referendum was the first step in embracing the First Peoples of this land as equals, but is by no means the only step. We must strive to continue down the path of reconciliation arm in arm with our friends in the indigenous community. Whilst the journey has commenced, it is far from completed. I have a very deep sense of community, and a firm belief that the fabric of society is not merely a collection of atomistic individuals. If I can be so bold as to challenge the central tenets of Thatcherist ideology, I would say emphatically that there is such a thing as society and that society as we know it is under threat in 2007. Accordingly, I believe that communities once empowered and adequately resourced can establish the framework under which they will operate. I talk not just of geographic communities but also communities of like-minded people pursuing common goals. I also believe that communities should "look after their own" as no-one should be left behind in the scramble that has become modern life. It saddens me greatly to have seen over the past decade or so a radical move in Australia toward what the Federal Labor leader refers to as the "me, myself and I" mentality—a mentality where everyone is considered a single economic unit. From my perspective, the social engineering through economic rationalist policy is overturning the great strengths that have historically differentiated Australia from many other countries. The strengths I refer to are compassion, fairness and social justice. On the contrary, we now, for example, live in a society where materialism reigns supreme regardless of personal debt levels. More importantly, we live in a society whereby "mutual obligation" does not mean that the citizens of this country hold our governments accountable for full employment and general prosperity, but rather certain governments are allowed to vilify and attack those in the community that are in most need. This is the nth degree of economic rationalist theory and it is driving a huge chasm into every community in Australian society. In my view, not only is this ideological zealotry seriously flawed, it is unfair, unjust, and unnecessary. When a society cannot look after its own, when people must wait years to see a dentist because of the Federal Government's ludicrous and mean decision in 1996 to stop funding public dentistry, when the needs and wishes of our disabled people are not being properly considered in public policy federally, when our public schools are being funded less and less using economic rationalist funding models, when budget surpluses and election war chests are used as election "sweeteners" at the very same time ordinary citizens cannot make ends meet, there comes a time to question the assumptions that underpin the flawed logic that is economic rationalism. That time, I believe, is now. There are Australian parents who seriously cannot put food in the lunchboxes of their children, who cannot travel to the next town or suburb for a child's sporting activity because of their financial situation, who cannot afford to support their teenagers at a university. These are the real tangible outcomes of dry economic rationalist funding models. These models are all too readily applied irrespective of the economic and social consequences that they bring. Accordingly, I believe there are several threads to the fabric of society that form the functional community that I strive to find; that I strive to develop. I will refer to some of these important threads. The first is the family. Every man, woman and child cannot continue to fight for themselves as individuals without negatively impacting on one of the foundations of society. My wife, Adrienne, and I are foster parents of some 10 years service to the community. In fact I am only the second foster parent to come into this Chamber, following the Hon. Penny Sharpe. At least we are the only members to come into this place who have openly indicated our foster parent status. Foster parents experience firsthand, and often in a very confronting manner, the unintended consequences of our modern society. Young parents are working a number of jobs and lengthy hours in an attempt to support their families. In many cases this inevitably leads to frustration, stress and tension. Too often, and regrettably, this frustration is released through alcohol and drugs. Accordingly, governments must actively support parents to enable them to spend more valuable time with their young families and not, on the contrary, engineer a system that further reduces the time we spend with our loved ones. As an aside, we as legislators need to be mindful of the fact that criticism of the Department of Community Services is also an inadvertent attack on foster parenting. We must do more to support and recognise the endeavours of foster parents, who serve a very special need that many, in fact most, families will not even consider. Although foster parenting is indeed a most charitable, yet rewarding sacrifice, it must be duly recognised by the community and by governments. Another thread to our community life under serious attack is public education. I was quite heartened to hear the Hon. Trevor Khan and Dr John Kaye speak at length and with obvious passion in their inaugural speeches about the need to support public education and public education practitioners. I agree with them 100 per cent. Public education is paramount to a well-functioning, well-developed and mature society. Public education makes a far greater contribution to any community than just simply education. For example, our public school teachers support and supervise extra-curricular activities after school hours of every weekday. It is an indictment on the Federal Government that our national system of funding schools is entrenching social disadvantage in rural and suburban Australia, as reported by Anna Patty in the Sydney Morning Herald on 17 May 2007. It appears that Australia is the only OECD country that disproportionately funds non-government schools to the extent that they do. Although I wholeheartedly support the policy of my party that stipulates funding based on need, I believe that public education must be sufficiently funded to correct the resource imbalance that is now entrenching disadvantage. It is not only the public funding gap that must be addressed, but also the sullied reputation of public education. For too long those who wish to denigrate the great contribution made to public education by the teaching profession have mischievously propagated that perception. One could almost assume an unnatural bias or a degree of entrenched discrimination being put into play. All of my children are public school educated. I have had the opportunity to experience firsthand the outstanding contribution, the genuine commitment and the compassion of public education practitioners. I thank the public school profession. I appreciate their valuable daily contribution to the betterment of our society and to the fabric of our community. Many other important elements, or threads, to the fabric of our society are being undermined by the application of economic rationalism. These include, but in no way are restricted to, the not-for-profit sector, volunteering, local government and health. I had the absolute privilege to sit on the State and National Executive of the Association for Competitive Employment [ACE]. This great organisation is the peak body for specialist disability employment providers across Australia. I served as the national president of the organisation for some time. I have seen and experienced firsthand the dilemmas and paradigm shift being experienced by this sector because of the implementation of outcome-based funding models developed by the economic rationalists in Federal Treasury. With two decades of economic rationalism before us I will never be convinced that bringing every aspect of society, including its people, down to a single economic unit is good policy. Likewise, I am not convinced that it is good governance. Nor am I convinced that budget surpluses in perpetuity are good economic management when infrastructure in Australian remains at such deficient levels. If the House will indulge me I will say a bit about myself. I was born at Gundagai. My father, Bob, was 20 years of age at the time and my mother, Val, was 17. My father was the youngest of 11 children. My mother was also one of 11 children. Through various marriages I finished up with 40 uncles and aunts. With such a big family it is inevitable that everywhere I travel I seem to run into family. Is the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox in the Chamber? I am the oldest of five children, and I have four children of my own. I also have a beautiful daughter­in-law. And—I can say this because I am the grandfather—I have the most gorgeous granddaughter known to mankind. I am the second Gundagai-born parliamentarian to take a seat in the New South Wales Parliament. The other was George de Salis, who sat in the other place in 1885. I was educated at Adelong Central School. Again, I am only the second individual to be educated at Adelong to sit in the New South Wales Parliament. The other was Walter Boston, a Labor member of the Legislative Assembly who was elected in 1913. My high school education was undertaken at Tumut High School. I worked as a shearer, and I am the fifth shearer to sit in this Chamber since the commencement of responsible government in 1856. The most recent shearer to sit in this place was Ernest Farrar, who was elected in 1912 and who died while still in office in 1952. Hopefully I can match that. I also worked as a railway porter, or station assistant. I finished as an Assistant Station Master in 1990. I worked at Rydalmere and Toongabbie stations as an Assistant Station Master. It is there that I met Bob McDonnell, a proud Vietnam veteran and loyal friend. Every month I would travel with Bob by train from Sydney's western suburbs into the city for monthly meetings of the Australian Transport Officers Federation. I am only the fourth station worker to hold a seat in this historic Chamber. I grew up in the Ellerslie Valley along the Yaven Creek on a property called Coorumbene. My father worked as a farm labourer, shearer and barman in an attempt to provide enough income to raise his young family. My mother also took the odd job working at the Mountain Maid Packing House in Batlow, or undertaking domestic duties for other people. I can remember playing with the Reynolds boys—Matthew, Michael and Andrew. I also fondly remember rabbit trapping, working with dad during school holidays, and the many fishing expeditions with Uncle Will and Uncle Leo at Burrinjuck Dam or on the banks of the Tumut and Murrumbidgee Rivers, idling away many an hour waiting for that magic moment when the one big fish—hopefully a Murray cod, Yellow Belly or trout—would provide the evening dinner. I distinctly remember there was never a lot of money. I also distinctly remember my father's penchant for a party or a barbeque. He passed away at age 57, his life surely shortened by his ethic of working very hard and playing even harder. My mother, Val, was, and remains, a strong woman. Mum, she is here this afternoon, we can be proud together that you have been mentioned in Parliament. Once leaving school, my work history was very itinerant. I inherited my father's penchant for a party, and I spent the next 10 years doing just that—partying. However, this time in my life was also one of reflection, and I started to formulate the beginnings of my political beliefs. Shearing suited my carefree attitude, but it is also a vocation of many lessons, some of them hard ones. Shearing remains one of the hardest, if not the hardest, way of earning an income in this country. I could work hard all day earning a living and then party at night. I continue to have great respect for shearers: They are down to earth and remain close to my heart. It was not until I met my wife, Adrienne, that I realised I really wanted to make a difference; that I really wanted to help people who had less than I had. Adrienne is an outstanding individual, a wonderful partner and an unbelievably patient parent. Adrienne has a subtle and gentle way of making a point. I can honestly say I do not remember an argument in our 17 years of marriage. Adrienne, thank you for your support since election night 1990, which was our wedding day by the way. It is a little ironic that I was elected to Parliament on our seventeenth wedding anniversary, 24 March 2007. Of course, everyone in this Chamber understands the impact that public life has on families. I have been in local government since 1995, and my children have already made a number of personal sacrifices in the name of dad's career. Family has become extremely special to me. I have been blessed with four fantastic children, each making their individual mark and each just as special to me as the others. I will strive to leave a community service legacy that my children and grandchildren will be proud of. My eldest son, Mark, and his wife, Melissa, are here today. They are a young couple who are raising a young family, and I am so proud of their commitment to hard work and their acceptance of the responsibility that comes with raising a family. Mark works two jobs and Melissa works as a casual child care worker as well as taking whatever else she can to help make ends meet. They are the real people in society who the Prime Minister believes have never had it so good. I would say that attitude shows how out of touch the Prime Minister is. Heaven help people if things happen to get any worse! I thank Mark and Melissa so much for making the trip today. They make me so proud, and I love them both so very much. My teenage daughter, Madlen, is also here today. Madlen is still laughing at the thought that her father could even remotely be referred to as "the Hon.", though my son, Patrick, still thinks it is all very cool. My younger children, Gareth and Alicia, are also here this afternoon to share in this special moment. Influences and mentors in my life have been few. I lacked a real mentor as a teenager and look back at a large number of missed opportunities that may not have been squandered, had I received elder counsel. Nonetheless, my uncle, Patrick Taylor, was definitely one of the biggest influences in my life, even if he is not aware of it. He is a great free thinker who enjoys ideological discussions about Leftist politics and the plight of everyday working Australians. The spirit and the commitment to public education of Pat Taylor are second to none—a true and passionate practitioner in the interests of all students, not just a select few. I will change tack somewhat to acknowledge a great Labor parliamentarian in Terry Sheahan. Terry was the member for Burrinjuck when I was a young boy. A little gesture by him as the local member toward my family made life just that little bit easier for Mum and Dad. I reflect upon that one action now and can see what a difference a good local politician can make, without getting any publicity. Many people from all sides of politics, grassroots members and senior politicians, still pull me aside and mention how much respect they have for Terry Sheahan. They invariably go on to explain just why he was a great local member of Parliament. I am certain the same will be said about the Hon. Ian Armstrong, who retired at the last State election after many years representing the people of the Central West. Ian was also a very effective local member. Hopefully, he will not be lost to public life just yet. There are many thankyous to say, and the risk is forgetting someone—so I thank everyone who in some way has assisted me along my journey to this august Chamber! Specifically, however, I extend a thankyou to the union movement as a whole for its contribution and advocacy to society, as well as to the Australian Labor Party. I also make special mention of the rank and file members of the Australian Labor Party, whose tireless endeavours assisted in my election to this esteemed Chamber. I also wish to extend my appreciation to Luke Foley for his hard-nosed and forthright advice—often whether I wanted it or not! To Geoff Derrick from the Finance Sector Union, I send a thankyou for his genuine friendship and counsel on industrial matters—and his very poor rugby league judgment! To Sally McManus and all at my union, the Australian Services Union [ASU], thank you. Sally has been a fantastic supporter and the Australian Services Union is a great union for its members, particularly in the social and community services programs. But I must reserve a special thankyou for Senator John Faulkner—a true believer and devotee of the labour movement. I first met John many years ago in his capacity as the duty senator for Hume. I believe Senator Faulkner is moving toward legend status within the Australian Labor Party. To have had John as a supporter certainly makes me feel humble. Moreover, Senator Faulkner has provided the prompting, the reality checks and the brutal facts along the journey that has led me to follow the footsteps of some 680 individuals who walk But I must reserve a special thankyou for Senator John Faulkner—a true believer and devotee of the labour movement. I first met John many years ago in his capacity as the duty senator for Hume. I believe Senator Faulkner is moving toward legend status within the Australian Labor Party. To have had John as a supporter certainly makes me feel humble. Moreover, Senator Faulkner has provided the prompting, the reality checks and the brutal facts along the journey that has led me to follow the footsteps of some 680 individuals who walked this way before me since the introduction of responsible government. Thank you so much, John. I look forward to the banter and interjections during my future addresses to the House. In particular, I look forward to some verbal jousting with my friend the Hon. Duncan Gay—who has indicated there will be no easy rides for me as a newcomer to this Chamber. I am certain some old lessons from the shearing sheds will come in very handy! I follow in the footsteps of just 680 other individuals since responsible government commenced in 1856 to deliberate in this Chamber. I am also just the 201 st member of the mighty Australian Labor Party since 1856 to have won a seat in this Chamber. I take my place with pride and with a great degree of humility. Like everyone else in this Chamber, my intention is to genuinely serve New South Wales for the betterment and progress of the people of New South Wales, and to do so responsibly with understanding and compassion. The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [5.36 p.m.]: The Anti-Discrimination Amendment (Offender Compensation) Bill was introduced in the Legislative Assembly at 4.26 p.m. last Tuesday, agreed to in principle and passed by 10.30 a.m. the next day, yesterday. The first I knew of it was at approximately 5.00 p.m. yesterday when it was introduced and read a second time in this Chamber. The bill will undoubtedly pass through all stages today and thus will have flown through Parliament in 48 hours. By any standards, that is rocket-like progress. I note that the intent of section 17 (1) (a) and (b), to be inserted by schedule 1 [3] of the bill, is that the amendment will take effect for all orders for damages made on or after 29 May 2007. There is a note in the bill stating that 29 May 2007 is the date on which the notice of the motion was given in Parliament for the introduction of the bill for the amending Act. It is arguable that the effect of the bill is retrospective because it captures a category of cases that were brought before the Anti-Discrimination Commission prior to 29 May 2007. The effect of the bill will be to potentially alter the outcome of those cases where orders have not yet been made, but we do not know because the Government has omitted to tell us how many cases are affected and, of those, how many cases, if any, are yet to be determined, and how many cases, if any, have had a determination made against the State, with a compensation order still pending. I suspect that this information, which has not been shared with the Parliament, could reveal the Government's true motivation for the urgent passage of this bill. This is all very peculiar. In seeking to understand the haste and timing of the bill, I closely read the Minister's second reading speech as well as the debate in the other place. The only explanation offered by the Minister was to ensure that the Victims Compensation Fund is the immediate benefit of this proposal. But there is no explanation of why the fund needs the immediate benefit of this proposal. I suspect that the real motivation of the bill is that a single notorious case is about to erupt into political controversy. Hardly anybody who is involved in this Parliament would want to unwittingly tread on a political landmine, and I have no wish whatsoever to defend or offer comfort to any notorious criminals; but nor will I obstruct efforts to close loopholes that allow abuse of our compensation system. Of course, if called to a vote, I will certainly vote in favour of the bill. But at the same time I place on the record my fear that the Government's mismanagement of issues is causing us to deal with the problem in a way that tramples on many important principles. I dislike the fact that I will be supporting the bill while not knowing its true motivation and impact. I greatly dislike statements by the Government that prisoners lose their rights when they go to jail. I simply cannot agree with that proposition. Prisoners lose one right, and that is their right to liberty, although they lose many privileges associated with deprivation of liberty. I suppose the issue is: What is a right and what is a privilege? In my mind a right is universal and the State cannot pick and choose rights for any of its citizenry. If we did pick and choose which people have rights and which people do not, that would seem contrary to the spirit and definition of rights. I expect prisoners to serve time in custody as punishment for their crimes—no more, no less. Our prisons should not be holiday camps, but it is far beyond the punishment imposed by the courts for people to emerge from prison with brain injuries as a result of assault, infected with hepatitis C as a result of rape, or suicidal as a result of bullying and abuse. I expect the State to administer its prison system in a humane way, uphold basic human rights, and abide by the laws that they are charged to administer—including anti­discrimination laws. I do not believe that our prison system has a perfect record or even a good enough record in meeting those expectations. The major cause of imprisonment in my home region of Richmond-Tweed is traffic offences, usually relating to driving without a licence. More than 100,000 licences are cancelled annually due to fine default or loss of points. The Sydney Morning Herald recently reported that 970 people went to prison last year for traffic offences. Many people, especially a disproportionately large number of young men, are very vulnerable in our prison system, and I fear for the safety of anyone who goes to jail. To my mind, freedom from discrimination is a right and not a privilege. Importantly the bill does not remove that right altogether. It is my view that it is diminished, and I certainly dislike that, but at least it is not altogether removed. Some members have stated that the effect of the bill will be to ensure prisoners cannot profit from their crimes. I find that to be a strange attitude. Our anti-discrimination laws apply to public-sector agencies and, to quote the overview section of the bill, provide for "compensation for loss or damage suffered by reason of conduct of certain public sector agencies while the person was an offender in custody (or for failure to comply with orders made in connection with any such conduct)". In the past, if compensation was paid to prisoners it was clearly determined by a tribunal and was legally warranted as a result of misconduct on the part of the State. That is not a profit of crime, it is not accurate to say that it is a profit of crime, because that brushes over unlawful behaviour by the State. The system is only in part about compensation. The more significant outcome of these cases should be improved standards and behaviour. That is always desirable in our prison system and I fear that this bill will not help that cause. If our anti-discrimination laws are sloppy, if their administration is second rate, perverse decisions and outcomes can result. The Government should directly address those problems. This is, if you like, the hard road, but it is on principle the better road for the Government to take. The inferior approach, which I suspect we are following today, is to reduce those rights for a category of persons so that if the laws are being rorted, at least that will not be by prisoners who caused embarrassment to the Government. That fixes the political fallout, but it fails to solve the underlying problems. It is no secret that I believe that the administration of our anti-discrimination laws by the Administrative Decisions Tribunal has had some farcical outcomes. Last year we had to pass special legislation overturning a ruling by the tribunal that State Rail was racist in its treatment of overseas students because it did not allow them travel concessions that are available only to New South Wales citizens. I do not know whether it was the law, or the application of the law, that lacked commonsense. I do recognise that we have a legal system—and not a justice system—and that commonsense does not seem to be a requirement of that system. I suppose that is what keeps us in employment as parliamentarians. If the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 were working effectively and in step with community expectations, this extraordinary bill would not be necessary. The Act has had a significant and positive impact upon our community; but it is 30 years old and it seems that an increasing number of stop-gap measures are needed to keep it within the boundaries of community expectations. These measures, presumably such as this bill, offend the principles of transparency and good government. I wonder how many more bills will be needed before the Government addresses the core problems by reviewing these laws and getting them right. I am uncertain about the applicability of his bill. According to the definitions, an "Offender in custody" and "protected defendant" have the same meaning as in Part 2A (Special provisions for offenders in custody) of the Civil Liability Act 2002. That definition includes detainees as defined by the Children (Detention Centres) Act. It is my understanding that that definition in turn includes children on remand. In other words, it appears that people aged under 18 who have not at any time been convicted of any offence are covered by this bill. On the other hand, people aged over 18 who are on remand appear to have been excluded from the definition. I am not sure whether it was the intention of the Government to include children on remand, but not adults on remand. I would appreciate the Minister's guidance on that point. This type of error can happen if this bill is rushed through and the net has been cast very widely. A final issue highlighted by the bill is the unfortunate situation whereby the Attorney General, whose job it is to draft these laws, is also the Minister responsible for administering the laws in our prison system. I mean no disrespect whatsoever to the Hon. John Hatzistergos, who is a very capable Minister. If we have to have one person doing both jobs, I would prefer that it be him. However, I am uncomfortable that one person is responsible for the integrity of our anti-discrimination laws, the tribunals that administer them and the staff in the prison system who are supposed to be bound by these laws. It seems a clear conflict of interest. I do not know which hat the Minister is wearing in this debate, and that places him, the Executive and the Parliament in an undesirable position when legislating on matters affecting prisoner welfare. In conclusion, I restate that it is not my desire to argue the case of any notorious prisoner; indeed it is to the contrary. The concerns I raise relate to principle and good governance. I do not agree with legislating to catch a single case; that is the unstated purpose of the bill, although the effect is wider. I do not agree with legislating in anticipation of a single quasi judicial decision. I do not agree with retrospectivity. I do not agree that the Attorney General should also be running our prisons, and I cannot agree with secret agendas that cannot be disclosed to Parliament in Minister's second reading speeches. I especially dislike the use of the tactics that allow for a bill to appear without notice and rocket through both Houses in the near record time of 48 hours. All those things are offensive to good governance, but that is the reality of the situation we are placed in by the Government. I thank the House and the shadow Attorney General for the opportunity to place these concerns on the record. Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [5.48 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Anti­Discrimination Amendment (Offender Compensation) Bill 2007. This is an important bill and we support its objects, which are to provide that damages awarded to a person under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 as compensation for loss or damage suffered by reason of conduct of certain public sector agencies while the person was an offender in custody, or for failure to comply with orders made in connection with any such conduct, are not to be paid to the person and instead are to be paid into the Victims Compensation Fund to be used for the purposes of that fund. Payment into the Victims Compensation Fund discharges a public sector agency's liability to pay the damages concerned. We do not consider this bill to be a response to radio shock jocks, as some members have claimed, or media headlines. The bill reflects a widespread view within the community that prison inmates should not be able to make money from appeals under the Anti-discrimination Act. Tribunals assess those claims and in some cases their awards have been questionable. In some cases there is suspicion that the prisoner manufactured the event that lead to a claim; in one case even having another prisoner attack the claiming prisoner, but not kill him, so he could then put in a claim. In another case, because of a faulty bed in a cell, a prisoner fell out of that bed and put in a claim. There have been many questionable claims of prisoners trying to benefit financially from the Anti-Discrimination Act, which was designed to benefit citizens in the community, not for persons in prison. The Christian Democratic Party supports the bill and the provision that damages go to the Victims Compensation Fund, which does a great deal of good work in our society. The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Attorney General, and Minister for Justice) [5.49 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. I take this opportunity to acknowledge particularly the cooperation of the shadow Attorney General in facilitating the fast passage of this legislation. I make a couple of points in response to some of the matters raised in the debate. First, I must debunk the contention that somehow this legislation involves a dilution of anti­discrimination laws. It does not. The anti-discrimination laws as they stand and the obligations of departments, including the Department of Corrective Services, are unaltered by this legislation. The only difference that is achieved by this legislation is that obligations for any compensation payment that the Administrative Decisions Tribunal may order to be paid by an agency that has been the subject of an adverse finding are to be discharged by payment into the Victims Compensation Fund. In other words, all other orders that the tribunal may potentially make in the case of a finding of anti-discrimination will not be affected, including an order for compensation. The difference is that it will be discharged by payment into the Victims Compensation Fund. To that extent it should be said also that the prospects of adverse publicity which the Hon. Catherine Cusack referred to in her contribution are not affected either because the case can run, the tribunal can hear all the evidence and can make all the orders, including the order for compensation. The only difference is that the discharge of that compensation order will be made by a payment into the Victims Compensation Fund. I do not see anything obnoxious or abhorrent in that concept; I think it is perfectly reasonable. People who are in prison and who have committed serious criminal offences invariably have victims who are compensated out of the Victims Compensation Fund. It is very difficult in many of those cases to get money from the prisoner to recompense the fund for that payment. This is an opportunity for us to provide that an order for compensation made to a prisoner will benefit the Victims Compensation Fund and the prisoner's victims. A number of comments have been made in relation to the definition of offenders. We borrowed the definition of offenders in the Civil Liability Act for precisely the reason that it is already there and there should be a level of consistency. But, reflecting that there may be a case that gives rise to particular issues that may require us to take a somewhat different approach in relation to an offender or a class of offender, there is a capacity in this bill for a regulation to be made—incidentally, it will be potentially disallowable by either House of Parliament—exempting a particular case or group of cases from the legislation. So there is that flexibility built in. The other argument that has been raised is that somehow this is retrospective legislation. It is not retrospective at all. It is entirely consistent with the approach we have taken in other compensation-type legislation where we make the announcement that the legislation will date from a particular date, the Parliament ultimately passes that legislation and it applies from that date. It applies prospectively to any order for compensation that may be made from the date of the announcement; it does not affect any cases and any compensation that has been paid prior to those announcements. There is no retrospectivity, there is prospectivity. For all those reasons I believe it is important to support this bill. I make one other observation about anti-discrimination generally, particularly in relation to the contribution of the Hon. Catherine Cusack. I believe that anti-discrimination laws, and indeed all the laws we have, depend ultimately for their validity on community support. If anti-discrimination laws are undermined perverse outcomes result; for example, prisoners being able to benefit. Anti-discrimination laws would be undermined because people will not accept that result. What I am doing here and what this Parliament is doing today is reinforcing anti-discrimination laws and preserving community support for them. Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put. The House divided. Ayes, 25 Mr Ajaka Mr Brown Mr Clarke Mr Colless Ms Cusack Ms Ficarra Miss Gardiner Mr Gay Ms Griffin

Mr Hatzistergos Mr Khan Mr Lynn Mr Macdonald Mr Mason-Cox Reverend Nile Ms Parker Mrs Pavey Ms Robertson

Ms Sharpe Mr Tsang Ms Voltz Mr West Ms Westwood Tellers, Mr Donnelly Mr Harwin

Ms Hale
Dr Kaye
Tellers,
Mr Cohen
Ms Rhiannon

Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading Motion, by leave, by the Hon. John Hatzistergos agreed to: That this bill be now read a third time. Bill read a third time and returned to the Legislative Assembly. ADJOURNMENT h May 2007. Every year, the National Day of Thanksgiving gives us an occasion to reflect on the efforts of those who work, often without fanfare or financial reward, to enrich the lives of all Australians. It is a day to honour the otherwise unsung heroes of our society. In 2007, we pay special tribute to older people, who have laid the foundations of present-day Australia and now share with us the wealth of knowledge and experience. We recognise indigenous Australians, whose rich culture and strong sense of community have helped shape our nation throughout its history. We also salute volunteers and service organisations, who contribute their expertise and enthusiasm to initiatives that make a real difference. Across Australia, many dedicated individuals and groups donate their time and energy to important causes and offer emotional and material support to those in need. Given the pace of modern life, it is sometimes easy to take for granted extraordinary contributions that ordinary people make to our community. However you and your family choose to mark the National Day of Thanksgiving, I encourage all Australians to take time to say "thank you". The Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Kevin Rudd, stated: On behalf of Federal Labor, I am pleased to offer my full support to the National Day of Thanksgiving. The National Day of Thanksgiving is a unique opportunity to reflect, both on our own lives and those around us. But it is also a day of celebration, a time where we can express our gratitude and praise our fellow Australians who enrich our nation on a daily basis. This year, in particular, we acknowledge the enormous contribution of our senior citizens, Indigenous Australians and all those in our community who give their time to assist those less fortunate. This group includes the nation's unsung heroes—our wonderful volunteers, selfless charity workers and members of community service organisations. Whether attending an official event or not, the National Day of Thanksgiving is an event in which we can all participate. I encourage everybody—in whatever way they can—to take time out on the 26th May to let all these special Australians know just how much they are respected and appreciated. I encourage everybody—in whatever way they can—to take time out on the 26th May to let all these special Australians know just how much they are respected and appreciated. The service commitment and tireless efforts of all these groups have and continue to make Australia and our local communities a great place to live. During that night in Melbourne the audience and organisers also honoured a number of church leaders, including Pastor John Alley and his wife, Hazel; Pastor Kevin Conner and his wife, Rene; Pastor George Forbes and his wife, Nancy; Pastor Richard Holland; Pastor Bert Hollingsworth, representing the Aboriginal community, and his wife, Charmaine; the late Frank Houston and his wife, Hazel, who were represented by their daughter Beverley, son and Graeme Houston and wife, Caroline; Belle Harris, wife of Pastor Leo Harris; Reverend Harry Westcott and wife, Doreen; and Mr Ronald Stanton, a World War II veteran and his wife, Margorie. Those Christian men and women in the church were presented with plaques in appreciation for serving throughout their lifetime and I was privileged to be a part of the group who were honoured. I call on all honourable members to take part in the National Day of Thanksgiving 2008. WORKPLACE AGREEMENTS FAIRNESS TEST The Hon. IAN WEST [6.07 p.m.]: I take this opportunity to acclaim, adopt and congratulate the Hon. Mick Veitch on his excellent, first-class inaugural speech. Tonight I speak about the elusive concept of fairness and I am sure that the Hon. Mick Veitch will appreciate the point I am trying to make. It is interesting that any time we talk about the inherent Australian values, the idea of fairness and a fair go always comes up, alongside such things as mateship and egalitarianism. Both sides of politics try to claim ownership of a fair go but it means different things to different people. Historically in Australia at various times a fair go has not applied to women, immigrants, refugees, Catholics, indigenous people, and the list goes on. The definition has been fluid and it is arguable that even today there is not an agreed definition. So when people start talking about fairness we are entitled to ask what is meant. The Federal Government plans to introduce something called a fairness test to apply to all new workplace agreements in New South Wales and across the country. This fairness test means that an employee must receive something for losing a so-called protected award condition. For instance, to quote an example in the explanatory memorandum to the proposed legislation, it would be possible to take away Sunday penalty rates in return for a parking spot. However, what the example fails to mention is that this fairness test does not test the fairness of the bargaining position between the employer and the employee. Employees might prefer Sunday rates but if their boss says the employment is conditional on them accepting this so-called trade-off, there is no choice and no adequate safeguards to stop this from happening. Is this particular example fairness? The fairness test will be administered by a government-controlled body called the Workplace Authority, which will have wide scope to determine what a trade-off is. Workplace Relations Minister Joe Hockey explained in media interviews that a pizza would not be sufficient compensation to trade away penalty rates, yet there is nothing in the proposed legislation to stop that from happening. The final say is in the hands of the workplace authority. There is no legislative means to appeal or review the decision of this organisation, which is controlled by the Government. There does not even appear to be an obligation for the workplace authority to be consistent in its decisions, like a court would have to be. Is that fairness? Likewise, the fairness test could increase complexity for businesses, as they have to come up with contracts which, if they trade away any so-called protected conditions, must provide adequate compensation in the eyes of a third party that may give inconsistent decisions. Is that fairness? If the workplace authority determines that a contract is not fair, under the proposed legislation the employee is entitled to compensation. However, if the employer is not forthcoming with payment or compensation, the employee could be left to chase payment through an expensive and drawn-out process through the civil courts. Is that fairness? Some would argue work is inherently unfair. After all, masters have traditionally derived surplus value from the work relationship being unfair. On a broader level, it would be reasonable to ask what is fair about a chief executive officer in charge of company whose business is little more than financial speculation taking home a multimillion dollar pay packet, while the person cleaning his office toilet is living below the poverty line? Is that fairness? The Federal Government does not believe in fairness for all. For example, it believes people who work in businesses of fewer than 100 employees do not have the same right to fairness as others. Workers in these so­called small businesses cannot be unfairly dismissed, so we are left to conclude all sackings in small business must be fair. They are fair, according to the Federal Government, even if someone is sacked for bringing up legitimate safety concerns, as was the case of Barry Hemsworth at Botany Cranes. It is obvious that members of the Liberal Party simply pay lip service to the word "fairness" and it is not interested in fair outcomes. They are hypocrites attempting to deceive the public of New South Wales by using "fairness" as a weasel word. Thankfully, the public is seeing through this trickery and the Federal Government is, in the words of their leader, headed for annihilation. Now, that would be a fair dismissal. BATTLE OF BULLECOURT NINETIETH ANNIVERSARY The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [6.12 p.m.]: This year is another of those years in which commemorative services are being held to mark the ninetieth anniversary of battles in which Australians and Allied forces fought on the Western Front. It was Easter Monday in 1917 when the Canadians took Vimy Ridge and it was on Easter Monday 2007 when the Queen, in the company of the Prime Ministers of France and Canada, dedicated the wonderful Canadian memorial that towers over those battlefields in northern France. I was at Vimy Ridge that day and at the ecumenical service at Arras Cathedral, which was rebuilt after being bombed in the great battles for that region. I was drawn to the Western Front because two days after the Vimy Ridge commemoration it was the ninetieth anniversary of the disastrous first Battle of Bullecourt. On that anniversary, a perfect spring day, I walked through the wheat fields in and around that village, fields in which my grandfather, in the 48th Battalion of the Fourth Division of the Australian Imperial Force, had fought. The winter of 1917 had been the coldest winter in France for 40 years and 11 April 1917 was no normal spring day. There are many accounts of Bullecourt, each more grim than the other. Robert Macklin wrote: Bullecourt would be a disaster of the first magnitude for the Australian troops … including (the) 48th Battalion. The British commander, General … Gough—a cavalry man at heart—conceived the idea that the new experimental … tanks should lead the charge against the heavily defended Hindenburg Line. However, in the field the tanks proved worse than useless … moreover, Gough insisted on deploying them without artillery cover that would spoil their "surprise" value. In the result, more than two-thirds of the Australian force became casualties of Gough's "inspiration". In Backs to the Wall—A Larrikin on the Western Front George Mitchell, who was also in the 48th Battalion, wrote of the days leading up to the battle: The boys were in great nick. The battalion was up to its full strength and pride, trained to the minute. The hardships of the winter were history, and the big, fit men were laughing and joking as they marched … … After being sent out into the snow, though … the men were withdrawn when the tanks failed to appear … Mitchell then wrote of the second instance the men were dispatched: … At 2.30 a.m. on 11 April we again lined up in the still-falling snow, and moved in muffled silence across the fields to a shallow or hop-off trench, dug more for alignment than cover. … The faint muttering of tanks came to us. This was to be a … The faint muttering of tanks came to us. This was to be a silent attack, without artillery. We saw the tanks over on the right—big black blurs outlined sharply against the snow. They lined up and moved forward, slowly … their exhausts flared red in the night. Their droning noise aroused the German lines. Big shells smashed among us … men staggered back looking like snow men, save where blood showed black … … "Prepare to advance" (came the order) …(but) many men were rigid with cold and could not move … … Down on us came a sudden squall of shells. We realised that they were from our own guns … Three officers … survived in the battalion …Not one of our company officers was left … Our party—about 60 strong, with our two remaining officers—spread along the German front line … No other Australian force was left in the Hindenburg Line … The following afternoon … two officers out of 21 and about 40 men out of 600 in the actual attack were still on their feet … As Peter Hart wrote in Bloody April : The Australian 4th division managed to get forward into the village of Bullecourt and then unwisely pressed on towards Riencourt, where they were effectively cut off to be slaughtered en masse. In Les Carlyon's The Great War it is said: Thus the men who fell … on the western front were part of the largest tragedy in Australian history—179,000 dead and wounded. The men spoke of this place in terms of villages, roads and rivers. To them, the names of these created their own imagery. It was enough to say that a man had been at Bullecourt. It was enough to speak of the Menin Road at Ypres … Polygon Wood and Broodseinde … … we didn't know until years later how badly the Australians had suffered in 1916 and 1917, at Fromelles and Pozieres, Bullecourt and Passchendaele. As the Australian historian Robin Prior wrote: Those men engaged the main army of the main enemy in the main theatre of war. This has not happened with Australian troops since. I visited the little museum at Bullecourt, which has been maintained for many years by the wonderful former mayor M. Letaille. He is still moved as he shows pilgrims the fat file of closely typed names of the thousands of men who died or were missing in those now peaceful and productive wheat fields, the dozens of different types of shovels used for digging trenches or graves, or both, or the saws that were used for amputations. My grandfather was there, except he survived, and the more I learned about that battle and the others in which the 48th Battalion fought, the less I understand the impossibility of his return. But return he did. He went back on the land, married his waiting fiancée, raised my mother and her two brothers and, with others of his ilk, built a new hospital as the district war memorial. I came back from France and attended the 2007 Anzac Day ceremony in his home town, which was is dedicated to his community and war service. My family are forever indebted to the Coonawarra-Penola RSL sub-branch for a wonderful commemoration, the memory of which we will cherish forever. TEACHERS PERFORMANCE PAY Dr JOHN KAYE [6.17 p.m.]: The idea of performance-based pay for teachers is dangerous and silly. The concept of paying teachers differential amounts according to some estimate of how they perform in the classroom is dangerous because it undermines the values of public education, it attacks teacher professionalism and it would destroy teacher morale. It is silly because we are trying to pay teachers on the basis of something which cannot be measured. It is an idea that has never been successfully tried and has failed on many occasions quite spectacularly. Federal education Minister Julie Bishop is wrong. She is trying to blackmail the States into accepting performance-based pay. It is an idea that she and the Federal Coalition have imported from the United States based on the extremist work of people like Professor Eric Hannaschek from Stanford University, funded by an institution set up by the Wal-Mart family, the Waltons, who have funded a Department of Education reform at the University of Arkansas in Little Rock specifically to advance arguments in favour of performance-based pay. It has not been successfully implemented in California, but has been implemented in Texas with disastrous results. The idea of performance-based pay raises econometrics to the level of a religion. It says if you cannot measure something, you should not do it and you should not bother rewarding it. Public education is, at heart, a cooperation between teachers, students and parents. It is particularly a cooperation between teachers. Julie Bishop needs to spend more time in public education classrooms to see the way public education classrooms work, purely because of the sharing of resources, ideas and experiences. Performance-based pay is one sure way of dividing classrooms in public education. With the best will in the world, that sharing will be undermined and made much more difficult by the idea that teachers will be rewarded differently for different activities. Performance-based pay will lob a hand grenade right into the middle of every staff room. It not only damages cooperation; it also damages morale amongst public education teachers. For sure, performance-based pay has winners, but it also has losers. In a background briefing on Radio National on 25 February 2007 there was a report on the implementation of performance-based pay in Houston, Texas. One man received $US7,115 in bonuses and another received $US6,000. But teacher Margaret Gaza's bonus was only $US38. I will never forget hearing her say, "It was a tremendous humiliation. I value my job. I value the work that I do." It was a heart-wrenching and outrageous outcome. It is a silly idea because we simply cannot measure what teachers do in the classroom. It is not possible to say that the educational outcomes of one student are the responsibility of one teacher. Education is a transformation that happens over a large number of years. It is almost impossible to measure sensibly the way in which students achieve. There is a whole variety of tests, none of which can be accepted as a single measure of teacher performance. The inevitable consequence of creating one test that measures teacher performance is that that test is what teachers will perform to. In the 1860s performance-based pay was implemented in Victoria and called payment by results. It was implemented through a series of tests that were trotted out around schools. It did not take teachers long to find a cooperative solution to it and to share those tests among one another. It was a dismal failure and, by the early part of the twentieth century, it had been completely removed. The arguments about performance-based pay on improving students' results have failed. It is not surprising that the people who are promoting performance-based pay are the same people who are openly hostile towards public education. The Howard Government is attempting to shift the blame for its poor performance in funding of public education onto teachers. If we are serious about improving educational outcomes and if we are serious about students in public education and giving them the very best, we would increase the funding of public education by the necessary $2.1 billion a year. That is really investing in the future; it is not beating up on the teachers of public education. [ Time expired.] CONSTRUCTION AND MINING INDUSTRIES EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ [6.22 p.m.]: I refer to an issue that concerns me greatly. During the 1970s the school that I attended ran a campaign entitled "Girls Can Do Anything". That campaign coincided with a big shift in the women's movement. Women's employment figures were starting to converge with the employment figures for men, and women moved into non-traditional areas of employment. At the time only a few women were employed in the trades, so the "Girls Can Do Anything" campaign was one of the most successful in getting women into the trades and into different areas of life. I was fortunate as it gave me a chance to do some of the things that I ordinarily would never have done, and that included joining the Australian Regular Army. One of the great experiences I had in the Australian Regular Army was to be the first woman in Australia to be awarded a field force corps trophy. I was the corps trophy holder for the military police in 1991, when I was posted to Singleton, which I assure honourable members was a long way from parliamentary chambers and this kind of lifestyle. I was also a member of the first women's rugby union team and I ran onto the Sydney Football Stadium, the first women's rugby union team to play at that stadium. We did a super 12 curtain raiser and I played for country. I do not know how I ended up representing the country side, but I did. The next year I represented the city side. At that time there was a unique method of selecting those who played in a New South Wales rugby union team. The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: What position? The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: Open side. Since 1970 there has not been a great take-up of trades by women. A lot of work has been done by TAFE and by the trade union movement. The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, the Electrical Trades Union and the Transport Workers Union all ran programs to try to get people into trades, but that just has not happened. We need a complete cultural shift in the way we think. We must look at these industries and shift the culture to enable people to work in them. We rely on our agencies and our leaders to do that. We need a progressive-thinking government—a government that does not see the role of women as being part-time workers marginalised off to the side. I was surprised when the former Sex Discrimination Commissioner implied that the New South Wales Parliament was the most sexist workplace she had ever experienced. Has she looked at the figures that show how many women take up employment in the trades? What did she think was going on in the construction industry, the mining industry and the transport industry? Why were women not being employed as chefs? Did she fail to notice a large shortfall in the number of women who are taking up trades? The Hon. Greg Donnelly: What did she do about it? The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: She did nothing. If it were not for hairdressing— The Hon. Don Harwin: Point of order: Until the honourable member responded to the interjection she was in order, but when she responded to it she reflected on a member in the other Chamber and therefore was out of order. The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: I am sorry; I withdraw that statement. The PRESIDENT: Order! I uphold the point of order. I note that the member has withdrawn the statement. The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: The great tragedy in all this is that we have failed to achieve a cultural shift to enable women to work in non-traditional areas of employment, which has meant that they have missed out on some great economic benefits. The construction and mining industries reflect the greatest improvement in jobs and economic growth. There is a tremendous lack of women in those industries, which means that they have not benefited economically in those areas. I know it is difficult and that we need a huge cultural change. I know everybody wants his or her children to have a university degree and to get ahead, but we must continue this important fight to get women to take up employment in the trades. Forty-six per cent of people in our employment work force are not unskilled; they have access to those jobs and to economic growth. This Government will continue to fight for that cultural change. GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DISTRIBUTION The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX [6.27 p.m.]: I congratulate the Hon. Michael Veitch on his inaugural speech. It is great to have another shearer in the House. Tonight I want to talk about the important role of the Commonwealth Grants Commission in distributing the proceeds of the goods and services tax [GST] amongst the States and Territories. In doing so I wish to debunk some of the myths cultivated by the New South Wales Treasurer that somehow the Commonwealth Government is depriving New South Wales of hard-earned cash. The main task of the Commonwealth Grants Commission is to advise the Commonwealth Government on the distribution among the States and Territories of revenues from the GST and revenues from the Commonwealth health grants. The distribution of those revenues should ensure that all State and Territory governments have the fiscal capacity to provide services of the same standard if they make the same effort to raise revenue from their own sources and operate at the same level of efficiency. The determination of fiscal capacity is a complex process. I will not bore honourable members with the inordinate detail, but it involves a detailed analysis of each State and Territory budget. It is done on an arm's length and independent basis by the commission. The fiscal capacity of a State is a measure of the difference between what it can raise from its own tax base, as well as the spending of that State in relation to expenses based on averaging amongst the States. It is not the same as a State's budget, but adjustments are made to that budget data to reflect equivalencies across the States. Indeed, State budgets reflect the State's own service delivery policies rather than the national average policy. Again, the commission uses national averaging to determine a State's assessed expense requirements. The fiscal capacities that are calculated by the commission form the basis upon which GST revenue and health care grants are distributed amongst the States. Despite the Treasurer's protestations to the contrary, this process is both rigorous and independent. It results in a per capita capacity to pay for each State and Territory. Historically, the commission has independently determined that New South Wales has a greater fiscal capacity to pay than other States. This is to be expected, given the population distribution, natural resources and strong industrial base in New South Wales. The resulting State relative capacities to pay determine the share of GST payments for each State and Territory. This is known as horizontal fiscal equalisation. The longstanding intergovernmental agreement on reform of Commonwealth-State financial relations is based on this proposition. When the Commonwealth introduced its new tax system from 1 July 2000 it guaranteed that all States would fully benefit from tax reform by topping up GST payments for each State and Territory to cover any difference between GST revenue and what each State would have received under the previous Australian Government Financial Assistance Grants. In other words, no State would be worse off under the GST; they could only receive more than they would have received under the previous system. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that this year Commonwealth Budget Paper No. 3 estimates that New South Wales will receive $162 million more from the GST than it would have received under the former Commonwealth-State financial arrangements. This windfall gain is estimated to grow to $631 million in 2007-08, $970 million in 2008-09 and $1,103 million in 2009-2010. We do not hear the New South Wales Treasurer talking about windfall gains from the Commonwealth. No, no, no! What we continually hear from the Treasurer is the simplistic assertion that the Commonwealth should simply pay all the GST collected from New South Wales back to New South Wales. This is deliberately misleading and fails to acknowledge the historical basis upon which these payments have been made through the Commonwealth Grants Commission. Indeed, New South Wales now has a share in a growth tax that will continue to fund services in our great State. The introduction of the GST was a great deal for New South Wales, and it continues to be a great deal for New South Wales. It is time this Treasurer and this Government acknowledged this fact. The figures do not lie. It is time to stop the carping. It is time for the Treasurer to stop misrepresenting the facts. It is time the Government took responsibility for its own actions and inactions, instead of seeking to blame the Commonwealth for the problems it has consistently failed to address. Question—That this House do now adjourn—put and resolved in the affirmative. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 6.32 p.m. until Tuesday 5 June 2007 at 2.30 p.m.