15205

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Thursday 7 April 2005 ______

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

The Clerk of the Parliaments read the Prayers.

INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION AMENDMENT BILL

Message received from the Legislative Assembly agreeing to the Legislative Council's amendment.

PRIVILEGES COMMITTEE

Report: Person Referred to in the Legislative Council (Ms S. Scheff)

Motion by the Hon. Peter Primrose agreed to:

That the House adopt report No. 29 of the Privileges Committee, entitled "Report on Person Referred to in the Legislative Council (Ms S. Scheff)", dated April 2005."

Pursuant to standing orders the response of Ms Scheff was incorporated. _____

Reply to comments by the Hon John Hatzistergos MLC as Minister for Justice in the Legislative Council on 26 October 2004

The following comments are provided in response to statements made by the Hon John Hatzistergos on 26 October 2004 during question time.

The statements referred to The Australian Prisoners’ Election Newspaper of which I am the editor. In addition, I am referred to and identified in the following statement:

Following that complaint a summons was issued in the Supreme Court by a person whose name I often see in relation to such matters but I can never remember, no matter how many times I see it and even though it is in front of me at the moment.

I believe that the statements made by Mr Hatzistergos damage my reputation as the editor of the newspaper because they inaccurately represent the circumstances surrounding the Supreme Court action and the content of the newspaper.

I wish the following statement to be considered:

On 26 October 2004, several inaccurate statements were made by the Hon John Hatzistergos during question time.

1.) The Victorian commissioner also had the good sense not to permit the distribution of this material.

The Commissioner of Corrections Victoria stated on 5 October 2004 that The Australian Prisoners’ Election Newspaper will be made available to prisoners. That statement was also part of the affidavit filed with the NSW Supreme Court on 6 October 2004.

2.) As reported in Hansard, there was the following exchange between the Hon John Hatzistergos and the Hon. John Della Bosca:

The Hon JOHN HATZISTERGOS: …… Then there was a question and answer section at the back, and guess who were the participants?

The Hon. John Della Bosca: Lee Rhiannon and Arthur Chesterfield-Evans?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Close. It was the Greens and Socialist Alliance.

This statement also contains incorrect information. There were answers provided by the Democrats, Liberals, and Labor.

3.) A third example from Hansard is the following statement:

Voting had taken place in most of the centres, resulting in the summons being discontinued the very next day— I might add at great cost to the taxpayers of New South Wales who had been preparing to fight the case. 15206 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 April 2005

I believe that the reason for the case being discontinued was because pre-polling was moved forward in correctional centres by the Commissioner for the specific purpose of preventing the Court from providing relief in the form of a judgement. I have formed this opinion from information which I received from my solicitor.

On 7 October 2004, I was advised by my solicitor that he had been informed that prisoners in every prison in New South Wales except Bathurst prison had already voted for the Federal election and that prisoners had voted by pre-poll earlier this week. Further, the prisoners at Bathurst prison would be voting between 9 am and 1 pm on the following Saturday morning.

(I decided to continue with the action on the basis that prisoners at Bathurst should still be allowed to receive the information before voting even if the other prisoners had been deprived of the newspaper by the Commissioner.)

Later that day I was further advised by my solicitor that he had been informed that voting at Bathurst prison would take place between 12pm and 4pm on Friday 8 October.

My solicitor further advised me that because of this change in circumstances, a judgement for relief would be considered futile, and therefore the judge would probably dismiss the action. _____

PETITIONS

Crown Land Leases

Petition requesting the withdrawal of changes to the rental structure of Crown land leases, particularly enclosed road permits, received from the Hon. Duncan Gay.

Clothing Industry Worker and Employer Protection

Petition opposing exploitation of clothing industry workers, and requesting protection of small clothing businesses, received from the Hon. Dr Peter Wong.

Gaming Machine Tax

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

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders

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

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 165 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to a reference to the Standing Committee on Social Issues concerning dental services, be called on forthwith.

Order of Business

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

That Private Members' Business item No. 165 outside the Order of Precedence be called on forthwith.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL ISSUES REFERENCE

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [11.15 a.m.]: I seek the leave of the House to amend Private Members' Business item No. 165 outside the Order of Precedence by omitting paragraph 2 and inserting instead:

2. That the committee report by Friday 31 March 2006.

Leave granted.

Accordingly, I move:

1. That the Standing Committee on Social Issues inquire into and report on dental services in New South Wales, and in particular: 7 April 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15207

(a) the quality of care received in dental services,

(b) the demand for dental services including issues relating to waiting times for treatment in public services,

(c) the funding and availability of dental services, including the impact of private health insurance,

(d) access to public dental services, including issues relevant to people living in rural and regional areas of New South Wales

(e) the dental services workforce including issues relating to the training of dental clinicians and specialists,

(f) preventive dental treatments and initiatives, including fluoridation and the optimum method of delivering such services, and

(g) any other relevant matter.

2. That the committee report by Friday 31 March 2006.

I believe that the inquiry by the Standing Committee on Social Issues is necessary in order to draw attention to the problem of dental health. The Federal-State stand-off on dental health must be resolved. Medicare is flawed: It covers all the body except the teeth. The body is divided into specialties but the mouth is ignored. If a person has a boil on his bum he gets treatment but if he has a boil on his gum he does not. Action in this area cannot be delayed. According to a study conducted by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 36.7 per cent of people classified as deprived avoided a dentist visit because of the cost as opposed to 14 per cent of privileged people. So cost is a big factor in dental health maintenance.

Dental health remains a State responsibility, and New South Wales has been neglecting this area. The Federal Government offered dental relief funding only until 1996 and the other States have, albeit reluctantly, picked up the tab. Queensland is spending twice as much per capita on dental services as New South Wales and is committed to increasing this funding as it recognises that it is not enough. Victoria is the next worst State after New South Wales and also intends to increase its spending. The incidence of tooth decay is rising: It has more than doubled in the 35 to 44 years age group in the past 23 years. In the past six years there has been an increase in the incidence of tooth decay in all age groups. In the country there are fewer dental fillings and more extractions. Teeth are decaying to the point that they cannot be fixed. Rural people are losing their teeth at nearly twice the rate of the urban population. The percentage of people who are edentulous—that is, they have no teeth at all—is 5.5 per cent in urban areas and 9.2 per cent in rural areas. Action is needed now.

Public dentistry is suffering the most. NSW Health currently has 60 unfilled dentist positions, indicating that it cannot recruit or retain enough dentists. There are only 10 full-time public dentists in rural New South Wales, and many of these graduated before 1975. The training of dental professionals takes time and the number of graduates is low. Some 120 dentists graduated every year in the late 1970s but recently the number of dentist graduates has been as low as 45. There will be only 60 local graduates this year.

In the past 30 years our population has doubled but the number of dentists being trained has halved, according to the Australian Dental Association, New South Wales Branch. The demographics are that many dentists are baby boomers and will retire and add more old people to those who need more care. More than 30 per cent of currently practising dentists will retire in the next five to eight years, so some action is needed. By 2010, only five years away, New South Wales will be short of 500 dentists just to retain current service levels. There will be a big increase in demand so a crisis is coming. Urgent action is needed now.

There is also a need for paradental staff to make prostheses, and a need for more specialist training positions and specialist teachers. The inquiry needs to be thorough and will take time, so regrettably, after consultation with the clerical staff from the committee, I have amended the reporting date. There is certainly no time to lose. We must get this inquiry on the road. I commend the motion to the House.

Motion agreed to.

CRIMES AND FIREARMS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (APPREHENDED VIOLENCE ORDERS) BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 23 February 2005.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [11.21 a.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Crimes and Firearms Legislation Amendment (Apprehended Violence Orders) Bill, which was introduced by the Hon. 15208 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 April 2005

John Tingle. There has been confusion about the objects of the bill. All honourable members should understand that the bill does not seek to do away with or seriously dilute the present system of apprehended violence orders [AVOs]. The main object of the bill is that a court must refuse to make an AVO or to confirm an interim AVO if it is satisfied that the defendant was not advised of the particulars of the complaint, and given a chance to be interviewed, before the complaint was made or the interim AVO was re-heard, or if the court is satisfied that the complaint or request is frivolous, vexatious, or without substance.

Additionally, the bill requires a court making an AVO to explain to the defendant, that is, the person who has been served with the AVO, how long the order lasts and that it can be revoked; and to explain the procedure for seeking a revocation. The bill would make it an offence to make a vexatious, frivolous or false complaint or to seek to have an AVO issued from such a complaint. It also seeks to change what applies where firearms and/or a firearms licence have been taken from the defendant as soon as an AVO was issued; and to make it an obligation for the police to return licences and firearms when an AVO is revoked, or where a court decides not to continue the interim AVO. However, this latter provision is secondary to the main thrust of the bill, which is to try to stop AVOs being used as a weapon to disadvantage a person.

For example, the Christian Democratic Party has received advice from lawyers while preparing the bill that it has now become standard procedure, particularly when a woman goes to a lawyer wanting a divorce, for that lawyer to recommend that she take out an AVO against her husband, as an extra lever to give her an advantage in the divorce proceedings. There may be no evidence of any kind of violence, real, threatened or feared, but that does not matter. The wife would almost certainly have an interim AVO issued for the asking. If she approaches the police, as most apparently do, an interim AVO application would be made out for her without question. Police find themselves in a very difficult situation. If the police hesitate, or refuse the AVO, and something does happen to the woman, they could be accused of not responding suitably to her complaint, and could be in trouble. So it is safer for an officer to issue the AVO without question, without further examination and without interviewing the person, the husband in this case, against whom the AVO has been taken out.

This bill would require an officer to seek substantiation of the complaint, as would be routinely done if a charge of assault or a similar charge was being laid. The substantiation should probably take the form of the officer interviewing the husband, or partner—or whomever else the order is sought against—and checking their side of the story. That is important, because a person who has an AVO issued against them is immediately disadvantaged. The person has to either consent to the AVO being issued, and therefore have that on his or her record, or go to court to try to stop it. In that case, this person, the defendant, has to pay all his or her legal costs, whereas the complainant has all costs paid for him or her. Where the AVO has been sought maliciously, or frivolously, or perhaps by a neighbour who is in dispute with another neighbour, this great cost, inconvenience and stigma is particularly unfair and unwarranted.

The whole thrust of the bill is to try to stop the frequent misuse of the AVO legislation and bring it back to the specific purposes for which the legislation was originally introduced, as a barrier against violent treatment of people, and particularly to protect women from violence. It was never intended to be used as a weapon, or to be used to gain an advantage over someone else, but there is clear evidence that that is the way it is often being used today. The bill does not take away or diminish the real protection the AVO legislation offers to genuine cases of feared violence. But by making the process of having an AVO issued a little more detailed, and requiring substantiation; and by making it an offence to seek an AVO where no real grounds exist, it does seek to remove serious injustices resulting from the improper and manipulative operation of the legislation. For those reasons the Christian Democratic Party supports the bill.

The Hon. JON JENKINS [11.26 a.m.]: As usual, I will be brief. I agree with Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile that the apprehended violence order [AVO] system has been abused. I know of several people who have been seriously and adversely affected by spurious AVOs, not only because their property has been seized and perhaps damaged or not returned but more by the social stigma, especially in small communities from where I come, where once an AVO has been taken out a person is presumed to have deserved it. At least in one case I know intimately there was absolutely no reason for the AVO to be taken out and it was purely done as a matter of course on solicitor's instructions following a separation.

I understand the reasons for the bill but there are obvious problems. If a person seeks but is refused an AVO and then is subsequently injured or, heaven forbid, killed by the person against whom the AVO was sought, there would obviously be serious repercussions. I understand the alternative view is that the police who have to make these daily decisions, and particularly junior police who may be on duty late at night when the 7 April 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15209

AVO is taken out, are placed in a very difficult position. I am not sure that I am happy with a junior constable deciding on the fate of an AVO. At least at this stage I will probably support the bill. I have some reservations, which I hope the Hon. John Tingle will address in his reply. I want to broach with the Hon. John Tingle the suggestion of a short-term interim AVO where firearms seized are not—

The Hon. Peter Breen: Deal with the bill!

The Hon. JON JENKINS: I am dealing with the bill. When firearms are taken, perhaps they could be removed for a shorter period of time and held, rather than removed, until the courts decide on the matter.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Jon Jenkins.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders

Ms LEE RHIANNON [11.29 a.m.]: I move according to contingent notice:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 166 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to the Minister for Economic Reform, be called on forthwith.

This is a matter of urgency because Minister Costa is creating uncertainty and insecurity throughout New South Wales. The issue is urgent because it is vital that the Premier reconsider portfolio allocations as a way of lessening the damage the Minister is doing to New South Wales. It is a matter of urgency as the Minister is promoting policies which, if implemented, will cause hardship for some public servants, will result in economic uncertainty, and will destabilise the already weak planning regime in this State.

This is a matter of urgency because the Premier needs to reconsider portfolio arrangements in order to safeguard the wellbeing of the State. This needs to be done in the context of the statement made by the Minister for Economic Reform to unions that 20 per cent of public servants are surplus to requirements; in the context that the Minister announced decisions that reversed Government policy, without consultation with local members of Parliament, and in the face of community opposition; and in the context that the Minister is using the title Minister for Economic Reform as a licence to stray into other Ministers' portfolio areas and promote policies that impact on members of Parliament in marginal seats in regional areas.

This motion needs to be debated today because it goes to the heart of the economic wellbeing of this State. It is a matter of urgency because Minister Costa is going round the State promoting policies that are damaging the fabric of our communities. I argue that it needs to be debated today as the Minister is doing his level best to drive people off buses and trains and into their cars, as is seen with his revival of the F6 Freeway, a plan long thought dead until the Minister arrived on the scene. That project would result in the demolition of about 200 homes in the Sutherland area as well as damage to wetlands.

The Hon. John Della Bosca: Point of order: The honourable member is entitled to argue why she believes the motion is urgent, but I submit that she is now debating the substantive issues of the motion. I ask that the member be drawn back to saying why the motion is urgent and why it should be debated ahead of other private members' business.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: To the point of order: I can understand why the Government does not like what the honourable member is saying: it was bad enough that it was said in caucus, but it would be worse for the Government if this House discussed the matter now. Though the Leader of the Government does not like what was being said, the honourable member has not strayed beyond the guidelines for establishing urgency and precedence.

The Hon. Peter Primrose: To the point of order: The statement by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that some Government members may not like what was being said by Ms Lee Rhiannon clearly indicates that he believes that Ms Lee Rhiannon had commenced debating the substance of the motion by raising those issues now. So I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for making that point so well.

The question before the House is whether standing orders should be suspended, and the honourable member should be attempting to establish that this matter is more important and more urgent than all other matters on the notice paper. The issue is priority. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, Ms Lee 15210 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 April 2005

Rhiannon has started to address the substantive motion. She should be asked to return to establishing why the motion is more urgent than other matters on the notice paper.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: To the point of order: I was working through a number of points to show why the motion should be debated urgently. I would like to be able to continue to work through those points. I note that the Hon. Peter Primrose, a member of the Labor left, is working hard to stop this motion being brought forward, and that is very disappointing.

The Hon. Peter Primrose: Further to the point of order: Might I indicate for the record that, as a member of the Australian Labor Party, I am always happy to support the Government in this place.

The PRESIDENT: Order! At this stage Ms Lee Rhiannon must confine her remarks to whether standing and sessional orders should be suspended to give priority to a motion outside the order of precedence. General remarks about the substantive motion are out of order.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Point of order: Madam President, I seek your ruling on the substantive motion, which asks the House to call on the Premier to reconsider portfolio arrangements within Labor's caucus. This is an internal matter for the Labor Party and the Government. I cannot recollect this House debating such a motion. From memory, when attempts have been made to debate such motions, they have been ruled out of order. I submit that the substantive motion should be ruled out of order as a frivolous attempt to abuse the procedures of the House for political purposes.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: To the point of order: The notice paper has any number of notices of motions calling on the Federal Government to do various things. The subject matters of those motions are not even within the purview of the State. The House allows debate on motions calling for action by the Federal Government, so I do not know why the House would rule Ms Lee Rhiannon's substantive motion out of order. Should we apply the same argument to other notices of motions on the notice paper and rule them out of order?

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Further to the point of order: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition missed my main point, which is that the motion asks the House to call on the Premier to reconsider portfolios within the Labor caucus. I emphasise "within the Labor caucus". It is analogous to this House saying it wants changes to be made within the leadership of the Greens, such as having Mr Ian Cohen as its leader. The Greens would object to such a motion. I am sure we would all object to debating the internal affairs of other political parties in the Chamber. That is what the motion is all about. I believe it would be improper and bordering on bad manners for the House and its non-Labor members to interfere in the affairs of the Labor Party caucus.

The Hon. John Della Bosca: To the point of order: Quite apart from the remarks made by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile about courtesy, and the comments made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on the point of order, the forms of the House allow private members to draw any matters of public affairs to the attention of the House and to ask the House to resolve those matters. However, the motion strays into the area of attempting to direct the Executive Government as to portfolio arrangements of Ministers, and clearly that is outside the Westminster convention and the forms of the House.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The point made by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile is very interesting. If a question were asked in question time to do with matters relating to the Labor Party rather than a Minister's actual public responsibilities, it would be ruled out of order. However, the Chamber's right to debate whatever it wishes is sovereign. In the past, the House has debated motions calling on the Prime Minister, for instance, to do certain things. Accordingly, I rule that the motion is in order. However, I remind the member that she must only speak about whether standing and sessional orders should be suspended to give precedence to her motion.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I further argue that this is an urgent motion because we need to be considering what damage is being done to the State's— [Time expired.]

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, Assistant Treasurer, and Vice- President of the Executive Council) [11.38 a.m.]: I oppose the motion to bring on this matter ahead of other items in the Order of Precedence. First of all, I would make an observation about the timing of the suspension motion. There is a view about private members waiting their turn. This suspension seems to be amusing and delighting Opposition members. I am not at all discomforted about debating the substantive motion and the competence or otherwise of any Government Minister— 7 April 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15211

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Then let the debate go ahead.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: There is a very good reason why I do not think it should go ahead. I would be particularly keen to point out the strengths and competencies of my colleague the Hon. Michael Costa. However, the simple fact is that Ms Lee Rhiannon must wait her turn. There is no way that her motion is urgent. She knows it is not urgent. By any criterion, this matter has no greater urgency than any number of items ahead of it in the Order of Precedence.

We are debating whether this motion, either because of its timing or because of some element in the motion, is more urgent than others. Ms Lee Rhiannon is playing politics. In presenting reasons why the motion was urgent Ms Lee Rhiannon relied on a number of unsubstantiated assertions based on hearsay or press speculation. The business paper lists a number of genuinely urgent motions, and a number of honourable members have been waiting a considerable time to have their motions debated. It is an affront to other members of this Chamber and their entitlement to debate their motions, for Ms Lee Rhiannon to put her political agenda ahead of the forms of this House.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 18

Mr Breen Mr Gay Mr Ryan Dr Chesterfield-Evans Ms Hale Dr Wong Mr Clarke Mr Lynn Mr Cohen Ms Parker Tellers, Ms Cusack Mrs Pavey Mr Colless Mrs Forsythe Mr Pearce Mr Harwin Miss Gardiner Ms Rhiannon

Noes, 20

Mr Catanzariti Mr Kelly Mr Roozendaal Mr Della Bosca Mr Macdonald Ms Tebbutt Mr Donnelly Reverend Dr Moyes Mr Tingle Ms Fazio Reverend Nile Mr Tsang Ms Griffin Mr Obeid Tellers, Mr Hatzistergos Mr Oldfield Mr Primrose Mr Jenkins Ms Robertson Mr West

Pair

Mr Gallacher Mr Costa

Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) ENFORCEMENT AMENDMENT (X 18+ FILMS) BILL

Second Reading

Debate called on, and adjourned on motion by the Hon. Peter Primrose.

CO-LOCATED GENERAL PRACTICE CLINICS

Debate resumed from 3 March 2005.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [11.48 a.m.]: I support the motion moved by the Hon. Kayee Griffin, and in doing so I make it clear that I totally reject the comments of the Hon. Robyn Parker and the amendment she moved. Her contribution was typically negative. She sought to make two political points about an issue that deserves serious consideration. The motion moved by the Hon. Kayee Griffin is: 15212 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 April 2005

That this House:

(a) recognises the strong evidence that co-located general practice (GP) clinics help to reduce pressure on busy public hospital emergency departments.

I do not believe there is any dispute about that. The motion also states:

(b) condemns the Federal Minister for Health Tony Abbott for refusing to adequately fund such clinics despite many attempts by the New South Wales Minister for Health to convince the Federal Minister these clinics will be strongly welcomed in the New South Wales community …

I will deal with that matter shortly. The motion goes on to state:

(c) calls on the Federal Minister for Health to provide funding for a co-located GP clinic at Canterbury Hospital where it would be strongly welcomed by the local community.

I will refer later to the benefits of co-located general practice clinics, but, first, there is strong evidence that co- located general practice [GP] clinics help to reduce pressure on busy public hospital emergency departments. This statement is not in dispute. On 13 August 2004 the Federal Minister for Health and Ageing, Tony Abbott, announced the launch of "New After Hours GP Clinics". Let us look at what he had to say:

I am here today to announce two new important initiatives to help facilitate greater access to after-hours primary medical care. The issue of after-hours access to doctors is an important one. Over the past few years the number of after-hours GP consultations has fallen by about 15 per cent. This is a problem that was first recognised and acted upon by the government in the 2001 Budget with the introduction of the After Hours Primary Medical Care Programme.

Today's announcement involves first, the establishment of seven new after-hours services under the Primary Medical Care After Hours Programme and second, the offer to the states of an additional six co-located after-hours clinics. That's to say after-hours clinics that will be situated at or near public hospital emergency departments. So this is an important part of the government's continuing commitment to ensure that the Australian people have good access to after-hours medical services.

A journalist asked him, "So there are 13 in total", and Tony Abbott replied:

We're offering six new co-located GP clinics to the states and we are funding an additional seven applications for after-hours clinics, after-hours services under the After-Hours Primary Medical Care Programme.

When Tony Abbott was asked whether he knew where they were going to be situated, he stated:

Yes I do. It is all in the press release. As I said we are offering six to the states, three in NSW, two in Victoria and one in Queensland. The three NSW clinics are being offered at Liverpool, Nepean and Lismore hospitals.

He went on to give details about where they were going to be located in States other than New South Wales. He then said:

It's an offer to the states. I am reasonably confident that the Victorian and Queensland Governments will be happy to consider the offer. I am not so sure about NSW. Certainly we have been talking to NSW for some time. Those negotiations have had their ups and downs. But the fact is I think it is important to at least make public the Federal Government's willingness to co-operate with the states in terms of setting up these after-hours clinics and that's why I am announcing today that the Federal Government is, amongst others, offering the NSW Government funding for three co-located after-hours clinics in NSW along the same lines as the clinics that we've already started in conjunction with the Western Australian Government in Perth.

The journalist asked him, "New South Wales wanted about 50, didn't they? Were their demands unreasonable?" Tony Abbott replied:

Certainly there has been talk in the past of up to 50 co-located clinics in NSW. The most recent discussions with the NSW Government have been around six new locations. At present, the Federal Government is only prepared to offer three.

The simple fact is that Western Australia, which has a much smaller population than New South Wales, and already had some clinics, was given an additional four clinics under the new arrangements. When the journalist asked Tony Abbott, "Isn't that disproportionate to the population?" the Federal Health Minister replied:

The Federal Government is prepared to fund and to facilitate ten of these clinics around Australia. The West Australian Government got in first with its proposal.

I assert to this House that that is not the best way in which to distribute health services in New South Wales. One would think the decision would have been based on some type of needs-based planning or some population planning, but, no, the first State to make an application gets more facilities than would be its due under any 7 April 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15213 reasonable proposal. I will now examine Federal Liberal Party policy in the run-up to the last Federal election. On 26 September 2004 the Federal Liberal Party released a policy document entitled "Round the Clock Medicare: Investing in After Hours GP Services". It stated:

Australia has a world-class health system. We are fortunate to have a strong network of general practice that is the first line of treatment for illness and injury.

The Coalition's long-term goal is to build on the … foundation of world-class general practice. We want to ensure that as many people as possible have access to quality and convenient GP services.

Over the last 8½ years the Coalition has strengthened general practice. We have made GPs' working lives easier. We have increased GPs' income through Medicare rebates and the Coalition's Practice Incentives Programme. Under Strengthening Medicare we have made provision to train a further 1,500 doctors and 1,600 practice nurses.

The next goal is to extend the reach of general practice around the clock. While it is relatively easy to find a GP in standard hours in most parts of Australia, it is more difficult to find GPs providing services after-hours - weekday evenings, Saturday afternoons and evenings and Sundays.

My comment on that is that it does not matter whether a person can find a GP if that person does not have the money to pay for the consultation and the GP does not bulk-bill. That person still will not have access to a GP service, and that is the whole point that I think the Federal Liberal Party's policy failed to recognise. There are large proportions of the community in New South Wales and elsewhere in Australia who are locked out of access to GP services because the GPs do not bulk-bill and people simply cannot afford to pay. Those people go to public hospital emergency departments for treatment and cause access block. The policy also stated:

Labor's favoured solution is to provide after-hours GP clinics co-located with public hospitals. That is one approach, but it should not be the only approach. The Coalition's after-hours plan will support a range of models, from GP cooperatives to mobile medical deputising (locum) services to dedicated freestanding after-hours clinics.

This investment in after-hours GP services will cost $393 million over four years. Round the Clock Medicare is an investment well worth making as part of our ongoing mission to strengthen Medicare.

The Coalition believes that after-hours GP services should be well-located, being at sites where local communities gain the maximum benefit from them. Whether or not they are linked to a public hospital is not the main consideration. This doesn't rule out clinics co-located with public hospitals, but this should not be the only option available.

The Labor approach focuses on clinics co-located with public hospital emergency departments. Sometimes public hospital co- location may be the best option for a community (such as regional hospitals where GPs are already contracted to provide emergency support). But it should not be the only option.

The Coalition therefore will not let community needs be subordinated to ideological rigidity and pressure from the States.

In my view, that statement should be read the other way. The Coalition will provide only medical services that accord with its ideological rigidity, and it will reject any pressure from the States to provide appropriate and evenly distributed medical services. All that this motion is asking for is that the Federal Minister for Health and Ageing honour his commitment to the people of New South Wales as detailed in that policy document and in his press release that I referred to earlier.

In the detail of the policy I refer to above, $200,000 funding was announced for the establishment of five "well-located" after-hours clinics. Surprise, surprise! Four of the five locations were in Coalition-held marginal seats. Yet the Hon. Robyn Parker has the hide to stand up in this House and accuse the Government of using the health system as a political football. The Hon Robyn Parker also said:

Instead of working out how to use the State's massive goods and services tax revenues to provide proper health care for the people of New South Wales, this Government, like a small child, is pointing the finger of blame at the Federal Government.

It is undisputed that the people of New South Wales pay $13 billion a year in GST but receive only $10 billion in revenue distribution and that they are being ripped off to the tune of $3 billion a year, according to the Commonwealth Grants Commission's report on Report on State Revenue Sharing Relativities 2005 Update, supporting information volume, at page 182.

[Interruption]

This information comes from the Commonwealth Grants Commission—the organisation that rips off New South Wales to the tune of $3 billion a year. The Commonwealth Grants Commission says that New South Wales spends $90.76 per person on health more than it should. That is what is being said by a body that does not even give New South Wales its fair share. 15214 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 April 2005

I turn to overcrowding in emergency departments, which would be alleviated by the establishment of co-located general practice clinics. The Australasian College for Emergency Medicine's report of April 2004 on access block and overcrowding in emergency departments deals with this issue. The key points made by the report are that emergency department overcrowding is a national problem and requires a co-ordinated nationwide approach, and that hospital bed closures have resulted in hospital occupancy rates of over 95 per cent, which causes access block for emergency patients requiring inpatient admission and is a cause of emergency department overcrowding. The report stated:

The solution to overcrowding is to reduce hospital occupancy below 85 per cent. Solutions to emergency department overcrowding will be found at all levels of the health system from pre-hospital to post-acute care. Solely targeting increased resources to emergency departments will have the least effect in preventing overcrowding.

That means we have to look at other solutions. One proven solution is to have co-located general practice clinics. Historically, overcrowding in Australian emergency departments was first observed in Sydney metropolitan hospitals in the late 1980s and into the early 1990s. From there it spread to Melbourne and subsequently to South Australia and Western Australia. It has become an increasing problem in Queensland hospitals over the past two to three years. It was already a well-recognised problem at a time when bulk-billing in general practice was at its peak. The increase in emergency department overcrowding in Australia as well as overseas has followed the increase in access block.

The term "access block" describes the delay that patients who need hospital admission experience in emergency departments when an in-patient bed is unavailable. I refer to other issues contained in the report concerning an in-depth look at the causes of overcrowding. A number of causes have been proposed for emergency department overcrowding, including a declining general practitioner work force.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

The PRESIDENT: On 6 April 2005 I was asked to rule whether the term "boofhead" is unparliamentary and, therefore, out of order. I am generally in favour of the tradition of robust debate in this Chamber and believe that members of the House should not be too precious about their public lives. Having examined a precedent and considered the issue deeply, I find that the term "boofhead" has been used in past debates in this Chamber and, having regard to the rulings of previous Presidents, I rule that the term "boofhead" may be considered unparliamentary only if the member so addressed finds the term offensive. I am advised that the Hon. Ian Macdonald does not regard the term as offensive. Accordingly, I rule that on this occasion the term "boofhead" is not unparliamentary. However, I can warn members that I have discovered that the following terms are unparliamentary: scabs and rats, treacherous turncoat, thug boy, nong, and duplicitous Labor lap dog, which have been ruled out of order.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

______

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT REVIEW

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: My question without notice is directed to the Special Minister of State, and Minister for Industrial Relations. Now that the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 is due for its five-yearly review, will the Minister give a guarantee to the long-suffering business community of New South Wales that a person or body independent of the Government and the Labor movement will conduct the review? Will the review investigate the cost to business of compliance with occupational health and safety requirements and the impact that this has on job creation? Further, will the Minister agree to the creation of an independent panel of business representatives, not the Workers Compensation Advisory Council, to work with the reviewing authority?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: It is interesting that when the Leader of the Opposition was the shadow spokesperson on these matters he was very keen and caused something of a robust debate in the course of consideration of the Workers Compensation Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Council. He was concerned that I was not as enamoured of some aspects of the council's charter, or the way the advisory council worked at the time. In fact, he was most disturbed, along with a few other people, that I was not sufficiently respectful of that body in the course of the significant reforms and review of WorkCover's operation. The 7 April 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15215 involvement of stakeholders of that body has been subject to significant recasting and it is now a very constructive body. It is capable of playing a very strong advisory role to the board of WorkCover, the Government, the general community and myself as Minister.

I am very satisfied with the work of the current advisory council. In spite of my high regard for the advisory council, I am pleased to inform the Leader of the Opposition that it is not currently, and will not become, the Government's intention to ask the advisory council to conduct the statutory review of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and regulations that he indicated is due to be done shortly. I am not in a position to make an announcement; it would probably be outside the standing orders if I were to make a Government announcement in response to the question.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: I would not take a point of order.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The Leader of the Opposition has indicated that he would not take a point of order; however, I am not in a position to make a detailed announcement. I will make an announcement shortly. By way of general response to his question, I advise that he, the business community, the work force and the union movement in this State can be satisfied that the review will be conducted with the utmost professionalism. Of course, there will be substantial independent input by professional occupational health and safety technicians, the business community and the trade union movement, as well as general representatives of the work force.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Input into the general review or conducting the review?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I will leave the detail until I make the announcement. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will be quite happy with the proposed format.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: That will be a first.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: It will be a first, because the Leader of the Opposition is a very hard man to please on these matters. He wants everything, but at times decisions have to be made. I give most things, but not everything. Members of the House and those interested in occupational health and safety will be satisfied to learn that the review will be conducted very seriously by the Government and by WorkCover. The review will be fearlessly independent in the mode of its inquiry. There will be ample opportunity for input and impact on the governance of the review by the business community of New South Wales.

In the member's question he referred to the "long-suffering business community". I think he was inferring that in some way the business community of New South Wales is finding the occupational health and safety laws burdensome. The inferences in his question need to be considered in the light of the great success of the occupational health and safety laws and regulations in bringing down the number of fatalities, reducing the number of reportable accidents and the long-term role in the reduction of workers compensation premiums, evidenced in the last WorkCover statistical bulletin.

DISABILITY SERVICES

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY I direct my question to the Minister for Disability Services. Will the Minister outline the innovative approaches being developed to assist people with a disability?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I congratulate the Hon. Greg Donnelly on asking that question.

The Hon. John Ryan: Point of order: I do not wish to be in any way disparaging on the member's first question without notice but the question was: Will the Minister outline innovative new measures. That would indicate that the Minister was being asked to outline new policy, which, as I understand it, is against the standing orders.

The Hon. Peter Primrose: To the point of order: "Innovative" is not "new". "New measures" do not mean policy. In any case, my recollection is that the word "new" was not mentioned.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: To the point of order: My understanding of the member's question was that he asked me to outline innovative approaches being developed to assist people with a disability. I thank him for his question.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The question asks the Minister to outline "innovative approaches", which does not necessarily constitute a request for an announcement of government policy. The question is in order. 15216 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 April 2005

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: It is my privilege to answer the first question asked in this Chamber by the Hon. Greg Donnelly. The Inclusion of Communication and Behaviour Support program delivers simple, proven techniques for communicating with people with disabilities to increase their participation in the lives of their families, friends and community. A similar program in Victoria has assisted in reducing by 70 per cent violent assaults in the regions in which it was introduced. The Inclusion of Communication and Behaviour Support program is delivered by speech pathologists with extensive experience in direct service delivery to people with disabilities in group homes and large residences.

Under this program, specialist speech pathologists visit group homes and large residences, deliver classroom-based training, provide practical material to use in the workplace and follow up implementation. The program assumes that challenging behaviour is a form of communication, that is, it is a response to needs not being understood or met by families, friends and others in the community. The program intends to improve communication between staff and the people with disabilities that they support. The department is testing this program with approximately 90 staff in the Hunter and metropolitan north regions. Another new project that the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care has instigated is the Active Support model.

[Interruption]

I am not making an announcement. The honourable member should read the standing orders. The Centre for Developmental Disability Studies has been funded to trial the model with clients, staff and managers from five group homes in Sydney. Active Support represents a highly cost-effective intervention because group home staff apply their time in a very focused manner, which results in greater opportunities for people with disabilities to gain skills. I am also pleased to advise the House that the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care has implemented a new regional approach to information and referral known as reception, which provides a single point of contact in each region for people seeking information and assistance.

The new approach ensures that people who contact the department receive good quality customer service, that they are referred appropriately and that people with a disability are assisted to access mainstream services in their local community. These are just small examples of some of the changes— [Time expired.]

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

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: More than $940 million will be allocated this financial year for disability services, representing more than a doubling of funding since 1996. The Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care supports more than 13,000 people each day across a range of services delivered by government and non-government providers, or a total of 80,000 clients a year. In this financial year funding of $455 million will be provided for accommodation support services—up by more than $230 million since 1996. This funding assists more than 5,000 people in accommodation provided directly by government and non- government service providers. An amount of $137 million has been allocated in 2004-05 for respite services, representing a doubling of funding since 1996. This included an extra $3.2 million this financial year and for future years, providing an additional 400 flexible respite care packages each year.

Around $180 million a year is spent on services for children and young people across a range of early intervention, respite, therapy and post-school support services. Under the boarding house reform strategy this Government has assisted more than 440 residents with high support needs into more appropriate accommodation. The Government provides $5.7 million annually for resident support services. The Local Support Co-ordination Program, which operates in 55 areas of the State, employs 29 co-ordinators at a total program cost of more than $3 million. This program assists individuals and families to plan for the long term and to prevent crisis.

NATIONAL LIVESTOCK IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM TAGS PRICING

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Will the Minister explain why Victorian farmers, at a subsidised rate, pay only $1.80 for each Allflex National Livestock Identification Scheme [NLIS] tag when New South Wales farmers are being forced to pay $2.60 for each of their subsidised Allflex NLIS tags—a difference of 80¢? Will the Minister explain this discrepancy when both Victoria and New South Wales entered into a partnership late last year on a joint tender process? I ask the Minister whether he is aware of the following comment made by the Victorian Minister for Agriculture, Bob Cameron: 7 April 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15217

This is a big saving ... It also compares favourably to the recently announced discount price in NSW.

Will the Minister match the Victorians?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: No. At this stage I will not be matching the Victorians. It is good to see the honourable member once again being so positive about the National Livestock Identification Scheme [NLIS]. Over the past two years he has been trying to chip away at this important trace-back system that is being rolled out nationally. The Government has made the decision to go ahead with it. New South Wales had a joint tender with Victoria—something that was announced some time ago. The cost in Victoria is $1.80 for each tag, plus a $10 handling fee for each order. The $10 fee for each order was adopted from the New South Wales arrangements.

This reduced price is as a result of lower cattle numbers. As the majority of Victorian cattle are already tagged, the subsidy can be spread over far fewer tags. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred only to those two figures without realising the incredible difference between what this Government is doing and what the Victorian Government is doing, which beggars belief. The honourable member should get his facts right. In Victoria NLIS tags are GST exempt. The New South Wales Department of Primary Industries is currently investigating the possibility of GST exemptions for this State—another advantage over the prices in Victoria.

The honourable member does not realise that our tag subsidies are significantly under the market in New South Wales—a fact that the farming community has overwhelmingly accepted. In future years I am sure there will be further inevitable decreases in the price of tags. That is the system that is in place in New South Wales. The price of tags in New South Wales is well under the market price. Honourable members should remember that Victoria is well on the path to achieving its NLIS goals.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You are a thief.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I am not a thief. Without a doubt the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is the most useless member of The Nationals who has ever held the position of Opposition spokesperson on agriculture. What happened to the talented people who were once members of The Nationals? I refer, for example, to the Hon. Robert Webster and to the Hon. Richard Bull who were both talented men. Ian Armstrong leaves the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for dead. People still think that Ian Armstrong is the spokesperson on agriculture. People in Artarmon recently asked me whether Ian Armstrong was still The Nationals spokesperson on agriculture. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition once again is trying to chip away at the NLIS as it is being rolled out in this State. He is trying at every point to frustrate this important trace-back system that will ensure our international customers continue to buy the best beef in the world.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I ask a supplementary question. In light of the Minister's answer today, does he recall his statement during a budget estimates hearing on Friday 25 February when he said that postage and handling costs were commercial in confidence? Can he explain why his Victorian counterpart disclosed that Victoria's and New South Wales' postage and handling charge was $10? Today the Minister said in this House that the charge was $10 but he told a budget estimates committee that he could not disclose that information because it was commercial in confidence. Why was he trying to mislead the budget estimates committee?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: That is blooming nonsense. This Government made an arrangement in relation to postage and handling. I was not compelled to talk about any of those issues at any point. However, because there has been further agreement between the parties we are able to talk about other things. There is nothing wrong with that whatsoever. The arrangement, which is with the rural lands protection boards, is a good one.

CHILDHOOD DEPRESSION

The Hon. JOHN TINGLE: My question without notice is addressed to the Special Minister of State, representing the Minister for Health. Is the Minister aware of recent media reports that up to 5,000 Australian children younger than five have been diagnosed with depression and are prescribed antidepressant drugs? Will the Minister say whether, in reference to New South Wales, these reports are correct? If the reports are correct will the Minister state what diagnostic criteria psychiatrists use to determine whether a child aged five years or less is suffering depression?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I thank the Hon. John Tingle for that very good question. I will refer the matter to the Minister for Health and ask him to respond as soon as practicable. 15218 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 April 2005

HURSTVILLE GROUP HOME VISITOR ACCESS

The Hon. JOHN RYAN: My question is directed to the Minister for Disability Services. I wish to follow up on the deferred answer that the Minister gave in the House on 5 April 2005 regarding the Hodge Street group home in Hurstville. Are families of residents still being denied access to the house, two months after I raised this matter? How can parents be sure that their children are being cared for properly given their previous concerns about adequate monitoring of their children's personal hygiene and the incident in which a resident was scalded by a hot shower and not taken promptly to hospital? How many service providers have responded to the tender process to which the Minister referred in his answer? What plans has the Minister made to expedite this process and allow families to visit their children in their own home?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I thank the Hon. John Ryan for his question and acknowledge his ongoing interest in this difficult and complex problem. Arrangements have been made for one of the group home residents to visit her family. I am advised that the last six visits have proceeded without incident. Additional visits have occurred with the family, such as on Easter Sunday, when the resident spent the afternoon and evening with her family. The Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care continues to work with all the families involved with that group home and with organisations to ensure that service users have continued access and contact with their families. The department is continuing to work with the resident and her family to resolve any other remaining concerns that she or her family members might have. I am unable to respond to the Hon. John Ryan as to the tender process. I will ascertain what information I can about that aspect of his question and provide that information to him as soon as is practicable and appropriate.

UNION OFFICIALS INSPECTION POWERS

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG: My question is directed to the Minister for Justice, representing the Attorney General. When operating under the delegation of the Industrial Relations Commission in exercising the authority to inspect premises, are union officials acting as officers of the court? Are there any standards or a code of conduct relating to how union officials must behave when exercising such delegated authority?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I will refer the matter to the Attorney General.

BRIGALOW BELT SOUTH BIOREGION AND NANDEWAR BIOREGION

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Is the Minister aware that sawmills in Gwabegar, Gunnedah, Baradine and Bingara will have no millable, economically viable sawlogs available to them by the end of May? Is the Minister aware also that these mills collectively employ 86 people directly? Will the Minister lift immediately the moratorium on forest compartments in the Brigalow Belt South and the Nandewar bioregions to allow the mills access to millable sawlogs to avoid these businesses going bankrupt and 86 people losing their jobs? If the Minister will not lift the moratorium, what compensation will be payable to those businesses and families as a result of his indecision?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The Government is making a very important decision in relation to the future of the forests and the range of the park. That decision will be made in the not too distant future. As honourable members will realise, transitional arrangements were put in place from 31 December to ensure that appropriate supply is maintained to the mills in the area. Arrangements will be made that continue to ensure that, until the decision is made, millable timber is supplied to the mills in question.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: I ask a supplementary question. What transitional arrangements were put in place and when were the mills advised of those transitional arrangements?

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: Good question!

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: It is not a good question. What would the Hon. Patricia Forsythe know about it? I know that she has become interested in Dubbo and the south-western part of the State in recent times. She is very concerned about other issues that we should talk about—but I am sure those opposite will stop me—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order—

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Save the timber workers! 7 April 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15219

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Melinda Pavey to order for the first time.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: My point of order has two parts. First, whenever the Minister for Primary Industries is asked a question he vilifies people—he was just vilifying the Hon. Patricia Forsythe. Secondly, the Minister was about to leave the substance of the question. Madam President, I ask you to draw him back to the substance of the question before the House. He is a boofhead.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I have ruled previously that the Chair cannot possibly read a Minister's mind. I have no idea what the Minister is about to say. I remind members that they should not make imputations against other members of the Chamber.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I certainly was not doing that. I have been appointed convener of the "Save Ned" committee—the campaign to re-elect Ned.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Stop making light of people's lives!

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Melinda Pavey to order for the second time.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I have been anxious to inform the House of some very important facts about the preselection that is going on in Western Sydney. Those opposite are so defensive that they will not allow me to say even a few words about it. Ned, I'm doing my best for you, mate! Look at him: He is so pleased. The Hon. John Ryan is smiling and he has his hands over his face. He is really pleased with my efforts. But look on the backbench. There is the man who is not game to go west of Hillsong—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: The Minister for Primary Industries was asked a very serious question about an issue affecting the people of New South Wales. He refused to answer that question. Madam President, I ask that in future you draw Ministers back to the questions before the House.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind all Ministers that their answers must be relevant to the questions asked. The Minister's time has expired.

TEACHING AND LEARNING EXCHANGE

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: My question is addressed to the Minister for Education and Training. What action is the Government taking to assist parents to support their children's learning?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: We all recognise that parents and caregivers are their children's first teachers. Children learn from their parents: the first people to help them make sense of the world. The educational role of parents does not stop when children start school. Research shows that parental support is an important factor in a student's success. We know it is important to ensure that children get off to a good start in school-based education and to help those who experience difficulties along the way as early as possible.

The Department of Education and Training has developed a parent and community access point on the new Teaching and Learning Exchange, which is known as the TaLE. Accessible on the Internet, the Teaching and Learning Exchange is a one-stop shop where parents and community members can find out about learning at school, career and post-school choices and helping children to learn. Instead of having to trawl through different parts of the department's web site, the Board of Studies NSW site and any number of other sites, parents can now go directly to the TaLE to find the information and resources they need to be effective partners in their children's learning.

For example, most children in year 3 are working towards achieving the outcomes of the stage two syllabus. The TaLE starts with a table that explains the connection between a child's age, school year and educational stage. From there, parents can easily access Board of Studies documents that explain what children will be learning at each stage and in each key learning area. A parent can also find the Department of Education and Training and other resources to help support their child's learning. Learning is a lifelong process and we know that education does not end when someone leaves school. There is no doubt that when children are contemplating what they will do after year 12 it is often an anxious and confusing time, and parents want to support their children regarding the range of choices available to them upon their completion of year 12.

On the TaLE parents can find information about post-school options, including work, study and combinations of both. This will enable parents to help their children make the decision that is right for them. 15220 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 April 2005

The TaLE provides parents with links to TAFE NSW sites, where they can explore what our State's premier vocational education and training provider can offer.

The TaLE also provides parents with easily accessible links to other relevant sites. These include links to organisations that can offer support for children with learning difficulties as well as those focusing on opportunities for gifted and talented students. The parent and community access point is only one part of the TaLE, which also provides a central gateway for teachers to access teaching and learning resources and professional learning opportunities.

For the first time, the TaLE makes the wealth of resources available within the public education system easily available to teachers wherever they are and whenever it suits them. For example, teachers can browse resources by the stage and key learning area, making lesson preparation easier and more time efficient. For the first time too, teachers in our public schools will have access to TAFE resources, and vice versa. A Resource Piloting Centre enables resource developers to receive valuable feedback from teachers across the State during the development process. Importantly, the Resource Piloting Centre also enables teachers to share their own resources with each other.

One of the most exciting aspects of the TaLE for teachers is the online professional discussion forum, which provides an opportunity for teachers to debate issues of professional interest with peers in schools and TAFE colleges across the State. That is a concrete example of how information and communication technology can help break down the professional isolation or geographical isolation. The TaLE has been developed for the Department of Education and Training by the Centre for Learning Innovation, which was established earlier this year to foster innovative practice across schools and TAFE. It is a great example of how we can support teachers and parents to be able to access as much information as possible through the Internet to support education of their children.

TUNNEL AIR FILTRATION EQUIPMENT

The Hon. PETER BREEN: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads. Is the Minister aware that his predecessor as roads Minister agreed to install air filtration equipment in the M5-East road tunnel during construction of the tunnel if it could be demonstrated that the job could be done for $10 million? Is the Minister aware also that a former member of this Chamber, Richard Jones, and I demonstrated to the former Minister that electrostatic precipitators could be installed in the M5-East road tunnel during construction at a cost of $8.5 million, and the former Minister then reneged on the agreement? Given that the Minister is now spending $20 million trialling air filtration equipment, will the Minister consider making provision for the installation of electrostatic precipitators in the cross-city and Lane Cove tunnels?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I am not aware of any discussions that were held between the Hon. Peter Breen and the previous Minister for Roads. The position in relation to filtration for all our tunnels has not changed. The estimates that I have seen on filtration arrangements are way in excess of the figure that has been quoted.

BELMONT HIGH SCHOOL RECONSTRUCTION

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER: My question is directed to the Minister for Education and Training. What consultation has the Minister had with the parents and citizens association and teachers of Belmont High School following the devastating fire that destroyed 15 classrooms and three staffrooms at the school nine months ago? Is the Minister aware of a community developed strategic plan for rebuilding the school? Why is the Department of Education and Training building over an existing structure using only Treasury managed insurance funds? Will the school receive any further capital works funding for rebuilding and repairs so that the teachers and students of Belmont High School receive twenty-first century facilities?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: As the honourable member indicated, a fire occurred in block A at Belmont High School on 19 June 2004. Block A is the main school building, which housed 15 classrooms, administration facilities and three staff studies. On the day of the fire, officers of the department's Asset Management Unit met on site with the school principal and representatives from the Department of Commerce to assess the fire damage and determine temporary accommodation requirements. Demountable buildings were installed. A meeting between representatives of the department and the school community was held on 16 November 2004, and again on 14 February, to discuss the reconstruction of damaged facilities at the school and other issues raised by the school community. 7 April 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15221

I am told that a further meeting took place on 23 March to discuss project options and to review the reconstruction plans. The school principal has committed to providing feedback to the department's Asset Management Directorate by the end of term one 2005. This feedback will then be incorporated into the final plans for reconstruction of facilities at the Belmont High School site and tenders for the work will then be called.

WINTER FIRE SAFETY

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: My question is addressed to the Minister for Emergency Services. Will the Minister inform the House of initiatives being taken by NSW Fire Brigades to ensure people are safe from fire this winter?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I thank the honourable member for her question and commend her for her continuing interest in our emergency services. It is timely, as temperatures start to fall again, to remind all New South Wales families of the need to take extra care when using winter heating and electrical equipment. NSW Fire Brigades statistics show that one-third of all residential fires occur during the winter months. People should take the time now to check their heaters and other appliances to make sure they are in good working order, and have any necessary maintenance or repairs carried out before winter. Unfortunately, over the past year, several emergencies situations have arisen in which children and adults have tragically died in house fires. All honourable members would be aware that just last week in the Hunter Valley, fire brigade firefighters were on the scene of a house fire in less than 10 minutes but were unable to save young Mathew and Shane Davies, who had been trapped inside. Our thoughts and prayers are with the boys' family and friends—and with all members of the local emergency services—at this terribly difficult time.

Winter is the peak time for home fires, with NSW Fire Brigades statistics indicating that about a third of all residential fires occur during this season. In winter 2003, 1,300 families across the State experienced the trauma of a house fire. In the past month alone, fire brigades have been called to 324 fires in homes, including 164 in Sydney, 76 in Newcastle and 50 in the Blue Mountains. Many home fires can be prevented if people take simple precautions to keep their families safe. The most common causes of winter home fires include: people leaving cooking and heat sources, such as open fires and candles, unattended and failing to extinguish them before they go to bed; faulty heaters and electric blankets; overloading power supplies and leaving lint in clothes dryer filters. I appeal to all families to ensure that they have smoke alarms installed and working, and to create and rehearse a home escape plan. If people need advice, winter fire safety fact sheets in 22 languages are available from local fire stations and the NSW Fire Brigades web site.

Families also can visit their local fire station on Saturday 7 May for the brigade's annual open day. I urge all honourable members of Parliament to attend their local fire brigades. This year's open day will focus on children's fire safety, as well as household chemical safety. The kids will be able to explore a fire engine and other equipment while their parents talk to their local fire officers about fire safety. Some simple family fire safety measures include: installing and regularly testing an adequate number of smoke alarms, and now is a good time to check whether alarm batteries need replacing; never leaving cooking unattended; ensuring chimneys are clean and that a screen is kept in front of fireplaces; checking electric blankets for damage or frayed cords; placing portable heaters well away from curtains, tablecloths and bedding; cleaning lint filters in clothes dryers; and not overloading power points. Above all, I appeal to people to call 000 immediately they see a fire or other emergency. Seconds count, so never assume somebody else has called. If the emergency services do not know about an emergency, they cannot respond to assist.

MARINE PARKS AUTHORITY FINANCIAL REPORT

The Hon. JON JENKINS: My question is addressed to the Minister for Local Government, representing the Minister for Natural Resources. The Auditory-General's report to Parliament in 2005 in relation to the Marine Parks Authority states:

… it is our view that the Authority is a reporting entity and should produce a general purpose financial report. We wrote to Premier's Department and to Treasury in March 2001 on this matter. Treasury also wrote to the Premier's Department in July 2001 asking for approval to schedule the Authority under the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, and again in September 2003. The issue remains unresolved—

Given that it is now 2005, what will the Government do to resolve this overdue issue? How can the fishing community and the people of New South Wales ascertain that their hard-earned tax dollars are being spent wisely? When will a general purpose financial report for the Marine Parks Authority be produced? Will the Minister produce retrospective audit reports for the millions of dollars already spent? 15222 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 April 2005

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I will refer the honourable member's question to the Minister for Natural Resources and seek an appropriate response.

LONG BAY CORRECTIONAL CENTRE BUSINESSES COMPENSATION CLAIM

The Hon. DON HARWIN: My question is directed to the Minister for Justice. What were the reasons behind the Government paying business compensation at Long Bay gaol of $1.1 million for the closure of the Hard Rock Bakery and $650,000 for a failed T-shirt manufacturing business? What is the status of a compensation claim for up to $2 million for the forced closure late last year of the Panama plant nursery at Long Bay gaol?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I am aware of some of the issues raised in the question, but I am not aware of the extent to which I am able to discuss some of them because they involve matters of legal advice and commercial-in-confidence considerations. I will take the question on notice and in due course give what answer I can to the honourable member.

CLOUD SEEDING TRIAL

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI: My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Will the Minister update the House on the cloud seeding research project in the Snowy Mountains?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I thank the honourable member for his question. Of course, coming from Griffith, he has a keen interest in such matters and in looking after citrus growers. It has been nearly a year since the six-year cloud seeding research trial began in the Snowy Mountains. The trial is part of the State Government's efforts to deal with the very serious and real issue of global warming and the impact it is having on this significant alpine environment. Average temperatures in our alpine areas have been on a slow but steady rise since the 1960s. Snowfalls are shrinking, endangered species are suffering and tourism industries are being affected. Cloud seeding could help us reverse the damage and achieve a win for both the environment and local jobs. I can inform honourable members that I have now received a copy of a report from Snowy Hydro Ltd, which is administering this trial, outlining some of the results from the first year. This report is with the independent Natural Resources Commission, which has an ongoing role in monitoring the project.

I expect the Natural Resources Commission to analyse the results and report back to the Government soon. But, in the meantime, I can update the House on some of the early findings, which have been very encouraging indeed. Two thousand snow samples were collected from the defined trial area last winter and sent to the Desert Research Institute in the United States for analysis. The results suggest there was an increase in snow precipitation in the samples of 25 per cent, on average. We had always hoped to increase the snow coverage in targeted areas of the Snowy Mountains by up to 10 per cent each season. These initial samples certainly indicate the goal could be realistic. The signs are so strong that cloud seeding is generating the additional run-off that we had hoped for when the snow melts.

Honourable members might recall that, overall, we hope the extra snow from the cloud seeding trial will deliver 70 gigalitres of water when the snow melts. In other words, an extra 70,000 Olympic sized swimming pools worth of water could be generated. This run-off could increase water certainty for irrigators on the Murray and the Murrumbidgee rivers. And it could be used by Snowy Hydro to generate additional renewable electricity. Some challenges that arose last winter made it difficult to quantify more specifically how much additional run-off was generated. For example, we believe that the drought may be affecting the water content of the snow. We believe the drought reduced the overall number of snowfalls last winter. In fact, there was a 10 per cent reduction in snowfall events that could be targeted. Snowdrifts and wind also have presented some challenges in collecting the necessary data.

Of course, these kinds of challenges are to be expected with any scientific research project. I am sure many of them will be addressed this coming winter, with the second cloud seeding season due to start around June. Overall, I again express my congratulations to everyone involved in this cutting-edge research project. It is making steady progress and is subject to ongoing environmental monitoring. While these results are preliminary, they do seem to support our initial hopes. Cloud seeding may turn out to be critical to the survival of species such as the corroboree tree frog and the mountain pygmy possum. It may give more security to the many jobs that depend on a vibrant alpine tourism industry. And it may help us invest in renewable energy for future generations. I look forward to updating honourable members on the progress of this research this winter. 7 April 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15223

TROUT STOCKS

Mr IAN COHEN: I ask a question of the Minister for Primary Industries. The draft NSW Fisheries fish stocking environmental impact statement released last year includes a recommendation to continue stocking New South Wales rivers with both brown trout and rainbow trout. Is the Minister aware these species are listed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources as two of the world's worst invasive alien species? Will the Minister direct NSW Fisheries to reassess the environmental impacts of trout stocking before any determination of the fish stocking environmental impact statement is made?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I am pleased Mr Ian Cohen has asked the question, because in the not too distant future I will be releasing details of the environmental impact statement on the overall fish stocking program, as required under management strategies. I wish to make it clear that we are committed to the fish stocking program and will continue to be so. The honourable member should await the environmental impact statement, which I think will contain a number of surprises for him.

WADE HIGH SCHOOL, GRIFFITH, FIRE

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Education and Training. Does the Minister recall her response on Tuesday this week to a question regarding a fire at Wade High School? Will the Minister now improve security at all Griffith schools, given that, whilst there was a security system at Wade High School, it was not in the classroom where the fire started, nor were there any smoke alarms in the classroom? Is the Minister also aware that at Wade High School firefighters faced difficulties because the nearest outlet to obtain water for the fire was on the street and some 100 metres from the building? As there have been five fires in the past three years, does the Minister believe it is warranted to put an alarm system and smoke detectors throughout all classrooms in Griffith schools?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I would like to provide the House with some more detail regarding the fire at the Wade High School, Griffith, then address some of the more systemic issues raised by the honourable member. Today people from my office spoke with representatives of the asset management unit, and I am advised that a detailed review occurred yesterday involving the principal. Four demountables are due to be delivered and set up today, and a further four will be established in time for the start of term two. In addition, a large 11-module demountable facility will be delivered to the school. This facility has separate administration staff areas, plus storage areas. The matter will be closely managed by the department, which is committed to dealing with the replacement of the structures affected by the fire as quickly as possible.

As I indicated on Tuesday, when I answered a question on this matter, I extend my sympathy to the school students, teachers and community regarding the disruption at the school and the impact that such a fire would have on them emotionally. There is nothing worse than seeing something that you hold in high regard, such as part of this school, burning down. The department is doing everything it can to minimise the disruption in the education of the students.

With regard to broader security measures, as I indicated two days ago, last week the Premier and I announced some further security measures in the lead-up to the school holiday period in order to make sure that we are sending a very clear message to anyone who might be thinking of tampering with our schools that they should not even try. If they try, they will be unsuccessful and they will be caught. Some of the initiatives include patrols of an estimated 1,260 schools across the State; 230 dedicated security guards conducting daily patrols, twice as many as there are during the school term—an increase from 172 guards for the same period last year; fencing for additional schools; the trial of new communications equipment for the New South Wales police dog squad officers to provide a faster response to security breaches; special technology to detect when school telephone lines are cut in an attempt to disable alarm systems; and increased video surveillance of schools.

We have the 24-hour school security hotline number. I encourage local communities to be aware of that number—1300880021—and to report any suspicious activity. Previously I indicated that there had been a significant reduction in the number of incidents as a result of the stepped-up measures the Government has put in place through the School Safety Directorate. Compared to the same period for 20003-04, trespassing has been reduced by 47 per cent, fires have been reduced by 33 per cent, and break and enters have been reduced by 12.5 per cent. The department takes very seriously the threat of fires in our schools, and that is why, as I reported recently, we seconded an officer from the Fire Brigades to work with the School Safety Directorate to ensure that schools are able to deal as effectively as possible with the threat of arson. The School Safety Directorate and that officer are involved in many initiatives. We take this issue seriously. We are ensuring that our schools can withstand any nefarious activity engaged in by those in our community who do not hold education dear, as we do. We are ensuring that if they do something, they will be caught. 15224 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 April 2005

FUEL STANDARDS

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: My question is addressed to the Minister for Fair Trading. What is the Government doing to ensure that consumers receive the petrol they pay for when they purchase fuel at petrol stations?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Honourable members would be aware that the primary responsibility for the regulation of petrol and fuel standards rests on the Commonwealth under the Fuel Quality Standards Act 2000.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Why didn't you do a John Watkins when he made all those promises about bringing petrol prices down in 1999?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: He ran a big campaign on this. The Federal Government's failure to control rising petrol prices, particularly since the introduction of the GST, has impacted severely on the financial wellbeing of many families in New South Wales. The Commonwealth has good reason to rejoice in high petrol prices: it imposes a fuel excise, currently around 38 cents, on every litre of petrol sold in New South Wales. It is interesting to note the Opposition's response to my raising this, because when the Coalition was in government it had a similar hands-off approach to petrol prices. And I do not understand why The Nationals are given responsibility for this portfolio regardless of whether they are in government or opposition. When Gerry Peacock was Minister he said that the problem was that consumers were buying expensive petrol; the problem was not the petrol, rather it was the fact that consumers were buying it. He said that motorists paying higher petrol prices had only themselves to blame because they were not prepared to use market forces to shop around.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: When was that? Was that back in the last century?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I do not know why The Nationals maintain this portfolio. Katrina Hodgkinson is no different. The Hon. Melinda Pavey is sitting on the backbench oozing with talent and the Opposition is not prepared to elevate her to the frontbench. When we came to government we introduced mandatory price boards, which required petrol stations around New South Wales to disclose the up-front price of petrol. This morning, together with the honourable member for Heffron, I had the pleasure of announcing at a service station in Redfern the commencement of our annual inspection program. Fair Trading inspectors across New South Wales will embark on random unannounced visits to service stations across New South Wales to conduct inspections and to ensure that consumers receive their appropriate purchases of petrol.

Operators of the 2,430 service stations across New South Wales will have their bowsers inspected to ensure that they measure accurately the fuel that customers are buying. During these times of high petrol prices consumers should not be forced to pay more to receive less. For most families fuel is the second most significant weekly purchase after groceries, and at this time of high petrol prices it is important that they get what they pay for. If consumers pay for 50 litres of petrol, that is what they should get, nothing less. The cost of such a loss, particularly in these times of high prices, cannot be underestimated. Traditionally compliance has been around 98 per cent: 2 per cent of bowsers have been found to be non-compliant. Conditions that cause bowsers to be inaccurate include incorrect operation, mechanical failure and poor maintenance.

Notwithstanding these statistics, petrol remains a significant weekly purchase, and a single non- compliant bowser can be the subject of many transactions. When inaccurate bowsers are identified operators will be directed to close them until they are recalibrated properly. Service station operators who wilfully attempt to rip off unsuspecting consumers can expect to face significant penalties, including fines of $20,000 for individuals and up to $100,000 for corporations. Notwithstanding the fact that the Federal Government has a significant influence on the control and regulation of petrol, the New South Wales Government will continue to do whatever it can to ensure that consumers get what they pay for at petrol stations. Any consumer who believes that a station's bowser is inaccurate is encouraged to contact Fair Trading.

DENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Ms SYLVIA HALE: I direct my question to the Minister for Education and Training, and the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Given the closure of free school dental clinics at Bulli and Berkeley in the Illawarra, the grounding of the mobile school dental van in the Bega area and the closure of many other school dental services around the State, will she, as Minister for Education and Training, seek to increase funding to the school dental service or can she, as the Minister representing the Minister for Health, reassure the House that the Department of Health will pick up the funding shortfall? 7 April 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15225

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: This is not a matter about which I have too much detailed information. I am not sure whether the funding falls within my portfolio or within the Health portfolio. I am happy to follow up the issues and I undertake to get back to the honourable member with a response.

M5 EAST TUNNEL AIR POLLUTION

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads. Is the Minister aware that motorcyclists stuck in the daily peak-hour grind of the M5 East tunnel—they have no escape route; they just cannot get out—are breathing in emissions in the tunnel? Should motorcyclists, and even those driving convertible cars, avoid driving through the M5 East tunnel for health reasons during peak-hour periods, which nowadays extends for most of the day? When will the Roads and Traffic Authority release a safety brochure in this regard? In the meantime, should these people be warned to wear oxygen masks within the M5 East tunnel?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: On at least two occasions I have spoken about the M5 East tunnel I have advised that the tunnel was constructed and is operated on the basis of approvals, and that will continue to operate that way. Those approvals are based on research conducted by the Department of Health.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Would you ride a bike through it?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I would ride a bike in a lot of places.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You would?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Of course I would ride a bike through it. Clearly, I am not an expert on air quality in the tunnel. Experts have given advice on it, and we will ensure that the operator complies with the criteria approved for the operation of the tunnel.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: I ask a supplementary question. Would the Minister be prepared to ride as my pillion passenger during peak hour—on my Harley—as part of the research to determine whether motorcyclists should wear oxygen masks?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I would be quite prepared to do that, subject to his being prepared to disclose his driving record and his qualifications for operating the vehicle he is talking about.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFORM

The Hon. KAYEE GRIFFIN: My question is addressed to the Minister for Local Government. Will the Minister outline proposals to reform local government in New South Wales?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: As honourable members would be aware, the State Government has announced a new wave of reform to local government. I acknowledge that our proposal to have an independent oversight of councillors' fees and expenses policy has raised some concerns with some in the industry. I place on the record that these reforms are not about punishing or bagging local government. As the Minister for Local Government, I attend many gatherings of local government representatives throughout the State. I have met and seen the work of many hardworking councillors either as developers of strong and innovative economic and social programs or when they forge strategic alliances they have built with some of their neighbouring councils. By far the vast majority of councillors in this State are dedicated civic officers who are acting in the best interests of their residents and ratepayers.

However, as the Minister for Local Government I also have a responsibility to the general welfare of ratepayers of New South Wales. That is why it disturbs me that from time to time there are examples of just a handful of councillors who tarnish the name of the industry as a whole. Reforms that have been instituted in the past few years are about protecting the integrity of the local government sector in New South Wales. One of the reforms is in the areas of councillors' fees and expenses. The proposal to require councils to submit their fees and expenses policy to the independent Local Government Remuneration Tribunal every year is not a new idea.

I have flagged this proposal on a number of occasions and explained that the role of the Local Government Remuneration Tribunal is similar to State and Federal remuneration tribunals for elected representatives. The New South Wales parliamentarians' logistical support allowances are approved by the 15226 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 April 2005

Parliamentary Remuneration Tribunal and local councils will have a similar system. The Government will invite the Local Government and Shires Associations and other key industry stakeholders to join a working party to establish guidelines that will be used by the tribunal. As I have already said, State and Federal parliamentarians must adhere to strict guidelines when claiming expenses as part of their public office. We want to ensure that ratepayers can be confident that councillors are making fair and legitimate use of the policy when carrying out their civic duties.

I also wish to update the House on the decision to review planning practices of councils in New South Wales. We are concerned about the use of section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The function of section 96 is based on the premise that development application [DA] modifications should be minor and not result in substantially different outcomes. Section 96 allows adjustments to be made to a DA that has already been approved, provided that the adjustment is minor only. We are concerned that a number of minor modifications, when added together, can amount to significant changes from the original consent. The review will enable the Government to ascertain the use of section 96.

We have selected 15 councils entirely at random for the review. They have been chosen as the sample group which is representative of large metropolitan councils and coastal councils. They have been selected because they deal with a large number of development applications. A number of councils that are involved have agreed to participate in the review so that the department can gain a broader perspective on the issue. I thank those councils for helping in the assessment. I reiterate that the review is being undertaken not because there are concerns associated with the selected councils: On the contrary, the councils have been selected entirely randomly.

As my colleague in the other place has said, we are delivering yet another round of positive measures to strengthen local government. These are reforms that support councillors who are striving to do the right thing. These reforms will make it harder to abuse the trust placed in elected representatives by hardworking ratepayers of New South Wales.

PRISONER COMPUTER ACCESS

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: My question is directed to the Minister for Justice. Can he inform the House whether there has been a recent directive by the Commissioner of Corrective Services to gaol governors that no prisoner is allowed to have access to a computer in his or her cell?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Yes.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: I wish to ask a supplementary question.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Members seeking the call should stand and call to the Chair in a loud voice. No time remains to allow the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans to ask a supplementary question.

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

M5 EAST TUNNEL AIR POLUTION

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: During question time when I was asked whether I would be prepared to ride along the M5 East with the Hon. Charlie Lynn, I made the observation during my response that I would be prepared to do so on the basis of his having an appropriate driving record. I add to that a vehicle inspection.

LONG BAY CORRECTIONAL CENTRE BUSINESSES COMPENSATION CLAIM

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: The Hon. Don Harwin asked me several questions about what I think are private business units with dealings with corrective service industries and the Department of Corrective Services. I am not in a position to advise the House of anything in relation to the alleged T-shirt manufacturing business. I am not sure what that refers to. If I can get some more details, I will be happy to look into that issue. I am advised that the matter concerning the Hard Rock bakery is still before the courts and is subject to cross-claims against other parties and the Government is involved. I do not propose to say anything further about that. In relation to the matter of the Panama plant nursery, I am advised that no formal claim has been lodged. 7 April 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15227

COMMUNITY LANGUAGES SCHOOLS PROGRAM STAFFING

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: In relation to the question without notice asked by the Hon. Dr Peter Wong, I advise the House that there have been no changes made to funding given to community languages schools under the Community Languages Schools Program. Funding of $2.2 million is granted to more than 400 community language schools in New South Wales each year.

DEFERRED ANSWERS

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

MACQUARIE FIELDS RIOTS

On 3 March 2005 the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans asked the Special Minister of State, representing the Premier, a question without notice regarding the Macquarie Fields riots. The Premier provided the following response:

I note that the Hon Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans's question addresses the same issues regarding the events in Macquarie Fields as raised by the Hon the Reverend Fred Nile in his question on notice on 1 March 2005. I refer Dr Chesterfield- Evans to my response to the Reverend Nile's question, which was lodged on 29 March 2005.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION FEMALE APPOINTMENTS

On 3 March 2005 the Hon. Catherine Cusack asked the Minister for Industrial Relations a question without notice regarding Industrial Relations Commission female appointments. The Minister provided the following response:

Since the 1995 election and in accordance with Labor's legislative framework for Industrial Relations the New South Wales Government increased female members of the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission by more than fifty percent.

As at 30 June in the year 2000 four of the eleven Commissioners were female.

In 2005 this figure has remained stable and the New South Wales Government has continued to work incrementally towards ensuring equitable appointments of officers to the commission.

This commitment is supported by the most recent appointment to the New South Wales Industrial Commission, the Honourable Deputy President Anna Frances Backman on 19 August 2004.

Questions without notice concluded.

[The President left the chair at 1.05 p.m. The House resumed at 2.45 p.m.]

CO-LOCATED GENERAL PRACTICE CLINICS

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [2.46 p.m.]: Prior to question time I was talking about the causes of overcrowding in public hospital emergency departments. A number of causes have been proposed for emergency department overcrowding, including a decline in the general practitioner work force, a decline in bulk-billing, the medical indemnity crisis and the occurrence of epidemics such as the meningococcal scare in 2002. All those issues are important in the provision of clinical services in emergency departments, and provision for them must be considered in forward planning. The decline in bulk-billing rates has forced people who cannot afford to pay upfront for medical services to seek treatment in emergency departments. People may be triaged at level five, and sometimes at level four.

The general practice patients in emergency departments were identified in a report. It was stated that emergency medicine overlaps with all medicinal craft groups and specialties. It would be no surprise to hear that some patients who could be treated by a general practitioner might present to an emergency department. General practice and medical specialty overlap all other medical crafts and specialties including emergency medicine. Attempts have been made to quantify the general practice load in emergency departments. One of the first studies was published in the Macklin papers in the early 1990s. It found that 15 per cent of emergency department attendees could be classed as suitable for general practitioner attendance. The methodology was a retrospective chart review. Similar studies here and in the United Kingdom have claimed that up to 60 per cent of patients could have been treated by a general practitioner.

This issue is important. Australia is potentially facing a major problem in relation to general practitioner [GP] services. The requirements of the GP work force have been seriously underestimated. GP 15228 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 April 2005 remuneration levels calculated in the relative value study have not been implemented and restrictions have been applied to the availability of provider numbers. As a result, we may be seeing general practice financially deregulate. For those and lifestyle issues, GPs are increasingly reluctant to provide extended hours services. The Commonwealth is trialling a number of options in an attempt to alleviate this problem. One option is to co- locate general practices in, adjacent to or near hospital emergency departments. That is what the motion is seeking to do; to have the Commonwealth fund the establishment of co-located general practice clinics in New South Wales.

The motion specifically refers to general practice clinics. One clinic has been established in the Canterbury area and I suggest their establishment should be considered in other areas of need. I refer now to the submission by the Health Services Union of Australia [HSUA] to the Senate Select Committee on Medicare, conducted during the former term of the Federal Parliament. The HSUA is a specialist health union with members working in many areas of direct health care including public and private hospitals, community health centres, ambulance services and residential aged-care facilities.

Membership of the union is across the spectrum and includes doctors, nurses, allied health professionals, ambulance officers, clerical and administrative staff, and support staff. The HSUA submission identified that Medicare was in crisis and that one of the most pressing problems in the health system today is the decline in the rates of bulk-billing and the increasing cost of GP services. The union stated that the decrease in bulk-billing and increase in billing costs has occurred at the same time as reports of a critical shortage of GPs and reductions in surgery hours across the country. HSUA members working in regional or country areas regularly report reductions in the number of GPs and specialists working in their towns, resulting in the loss of both expertise and service. After-hours service, either via home visits or extended hours, has become a thing of the past.

In small communities it is not uncommon to have GPs who have closed off their books altogether or who cannot see patients with non-urgent conditions for up to four weeks. In medical terms, the greatest impact of the fall in bulk-billing rates and in the availability of GP services is being felt in Australia's public hospitals. Over the past two years all States and Territories have reported significant increases in the number of patients turning up at emergency departments with conditions that could be treated by a GP. According to an analysis completed by State and Territory governments, the cost of providing GP-type services in emergency departments is estimated to have been about $1 billion in 1999-2000.

The New South Wales Department of Health has found that in New South Wales towns where GPs do not bulk bill, people use public emergency departments at a rate of around 60 per cent more than in those towns where GPs do bulk bill. In 2001-02, 15,700 people visited New South Wales emergency departments for a medical certificate or repeat prescription and 9,000 for coughs, colds, sore throats or tonsillitis. We should recognise that they would have been far better served at a co-located GP clinic instead of having to attend an outpatients or emergency department.

Patients are not only complaining about a lack of access to, and the cost of, general practice services, they are putting off medical treatment in their routine visits to doctors for check-ups, increasing the risk of serious problems developing in the long term. That trend has been observed in American hospital emergency departments over a number of years. Because no free medical treatment is available in America people who cannot afford health care allow their health to reach a critical state and when they turn up at emergency departments, usually in an ambulance, very little can be done for them. Australia is a country that prides itself on having a good health system. We should not allow ourselves to go down that path.

One of the impacts in the increase in emergency department presentations is the increase in waiting times for non-urgent patients. Figures from the Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing show that in New South Wales during the 2001-02 financial year 58 per cent of patients needing treatment within 30 minutes, which is category three, received it within that time. That compares with 68 per cent in the 1996-97 financial year. So the trend is being revealed in those figures. However, it is not only in emergency departments that the impact of the lack of affordable GP services is being felt. Community health facilities and outpatient sections of hospitals are also under greater pressure and they are seeing more people who are unable to afford to visit their local doctors.

The poorest and sickest members of the community suffer the most from the difficulty of obtaining affordable health care. For that reason I urge all honourable members to support the motion moved by the Hon. Kayee Griffin and to ask the Federal Government to meet its election commitments to establish co-located GP 7 April 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15229 clinics in New South Wales. The alternatives that have been identified by the Health Service Union of Australia are that the incentives would also make it easier to introduce the much-needed change. That union is saying— I agree with it and it is implicit in this motion—that we need co-located GP clinics on the sites of major public hospitals. If they were properly resourced those facilities would bulk-bill all their patients and have their own nursing staff for support.

Both the Commonwealth and State governments have repeatedly acknowledged the potential for these facilities for improving services to the public, reducing waiting times and allowing emergency departments to focus on emergency care. But there has been a disturbing lack of action in introducing these clinics, despite the obvious benefits that they would bring. Opposition members must stop trying to protect the Federal Government and ask it to cough up the funds to develop these clinics in New South Wales. I ask all honourable members to reject the amendment and to support the original motion. [Time expired.]

Ms SYLVIA HALE [2.55 p.m.]: The Greens reject the notion that there is strong evidence to suggest that co-located general practice [GP] clinics will help to reduce pressure on busy public hospital emergency departments. The pressure on public hospital emergency departments will be reduced only when there are enough inpatient beds to meet demand. While the Howard Government's erosion of Medicare and the decline in bulk-billing are also responsible for the number of people attending emergency departments, the State Government is not blameless and must acknowledge its contribution to the deplorable state of public hospitals.

This Government wants to conflate two issues. On the one hand we have people who need free medical care attending emergency departments when they cannot find a bulk-billing doctor and on the other hand we have hospitals constantly on code red ambulance bypass. The Hon. Kayee Griffin and her colleagues want us to believe that one is causing the other, but nothing could be further from the truth. Patients with GP-treatable health issues are mostly not even treated in the same sections of the emergency departments as acute and subacute patients. They are seen in a consultation section or consultation room and they are usually dealt with quite quickly. It is not those patients who block beds and put hospitals on bypass.

The crisis stems from the inability to move patients from an emergency department to a normal hospital bed once they have been admitted to hospital. That is because the Government has refused to adequately fund and staff the necessary number of in-patient beds. The President of the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine, Dr Ian Knox, stated:

… emergency department overcrowding is the result of the decline in inpatient hospital beds. Nothing will change in our emergency departments until that situation is fixed. Establishing GP clinics and health advice lines will do nothing to get patients out of the emergency department and into their hospital beds.

The college uses the term "access block" to describe this phenomenon. A recent survey of 82 hospitals on a particular day last year revealed that of the 1,509 patients receiving treatment in emergency departments, 704 were ready for admission to hospital and simply waiting for a bed. Of the patients waiting for beds, 83.5 per cent had been in the emergency department for more than eight hours. That means that 39 per cent of all emergency department beds in the responding hospitals were taken by patients who were waiting for an in-patient bed and who had been in emergency for more than eight hours. Those 588 patients were the victims of access block.

The college also found that on the day of the survey the total number of people undergoing treatment who were not waiting for a bed increased by only 4.7 per cent. That figure fell slightly in major referral hospitals, but the number waiting to be seen increased by 56.4 per cent, from 291 to 455. Hospital bed closures—and there has been a 15 per cent increase in bed closures across the country since 1995—have been cited by the college as the single most important cause of emergency department overcrowding. Solutions to emergency department overcrowding will be found when we deal with the lack of funding and staffing at all levels of the health system. Solely targeting more resources to emergency departments will do little to prevent overcrowding. In New South Wales hospital beds are needed across the entire system and not just in emergency departments.

General practice patients attending emergency departments also represent the low end when it comes to the complexity and cost of procedures. A significant reduction in these types of patients—if they can be identified—would have only a marginal impact on emergency department workloads. That is the view of the doctors who work in our hospitals and emergency departments. The Hunter trial of the after-hours clinic mentioned by Ms Griffin revealed that although the GP clinics were well attended by patients, this had a minimal impact on emergency departments in the area. The effect on John Hunter Hospital, which has the largest and busiest emergency department in the region, was an average reduction in attendance of one patient every two hours while the clinics were open. This reduction is almost negligible. 15230 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 April 2005

The strain that an ageing population is putting on hospital and emergency department resources has also been underestimated. Patients who cannot access necessary surgery and do not have the community health support they need as senior citizens will still present at emergency departments with painful and debilitating conditions that only surgery or inpatient treatment can address. Shorter surgical waiting lists, not GP clinics, will ensure that they do not need to keep attending emergency departments. In the Sydney Morning Herald on 6 October 2004 Ross Gittins wrote:

... waiting lists for elective surgery aren't an unfortunate accident—they're a design feature. Federal and State governments use them to keep a lid on growth in the cost of public hospitals.

Any reasonable person knows that a "design feature" that results in people living with debilitating pain or ill health is a shameful indictment of any health system. This Government's refusal to adequately fund health care is at the core of this issue. The Greens agree that the Howard Government's attack on bulk-billing is putting enormous strain on the State's health system. However, as I said, this has little or no relevance to hospital code reds. The Labor Party deliberately mixes these issues to hide what is really going on, and its complicity in it.

Moreover, by conflating them, Ms Griffin and her colleagues reveal a complete or intentional ignorance of what is really going on in hospitals and how emergency departments function. This sudden interest in co-located clinics is a ploy to divert attention from the chronic underfunding of the hospital system and to pass the buck to the Commonwealth. While the provision of free clinics is not necessarily a bad move in itself, it must not occur to the exclusion of addressing the underlying endemic problems of the health system.

The Greens' stance on the need for an integrated approach to health care based on health promotion, not just illness treatment, has the support of many in the health care industry. Surgeons are calling for the whole system to be restructured, warning that more funding alone will not fix the problem. The Australian Healthcare Association, which represents public hospitals, has said that waiting lists will remain lengthy until the system is restructured. The problem with discussing system restructuring is that it often encourages the Carr Government to focus only on this aspect of the problem and to refuse to deal with the funding crisis. Let us be clear: If this Government does not put more funds into health to create more beds, the system will never be fixed—no matter how much administrative fiddling the Government engages in.

The provision of community services is vital for the equitable distribution of an adequate range of health services. Community health centres—where the promotion of health and the delivery of community- based treatment are priorities—help to keep people out of hospital emergency departments. But this Government has chosen to close services such as those at Cremorne and Chatswood. GP clinics located adjacent to large public hospitals will not fulfil the need for centres that provide health care in the community. This is most evident with mental health care, where new acute services are provided at the expense of community-based mental health services. Yet it is the community-based services that may prevent many acute presentations at emergency departments in the first place. This is well recognised by the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists and by mental health staff in this State.

Better planning is needed so we do not have piecemeal proposals, such as co-located clinics, to address the problems in emergency departments while problems elsewhere in the system are hidden or ignored. This motion is part of the never-ending blame-shifting between the State and Commonwealth governments. A solution can be found only by examining the health system beyond the confines of the emergency departments. The Greens want to see a proactive focus across the nation on the crisis in the health system so that the individuals who rely on that system have their health care needs met and are not disadvantaged by it.

The motion also fails to address one of the most important issues currently affecting the public health system: the private health care rebate. Both the State and Federal governments should recognise that it has been a disaster, and the Labor Party should immediately withdraw its support for the Howard Government's policy on this matter. Commonwealth funds should flow not into the coffers of the private health insurance industry but into public health provision. It is reprehensible that the Australian Labor Party should continue to support a measure that so blatantly and unfairly subsidises the health expenses of the wealthy while failing to address the real needs of the majority of people.

But the most important criticism of the private health rebate is that staff and resources follow every dollar that is shifted from the public system to the private system. Every dollar moved is a wasteful use of resources, because the profit-driven private system is far more expensive than the public system. Every treatment in the private system costs much more than it costs in the public sector. Crucially, this movement of money from the public system to the private system has, because of the higher costs, done nothing to dent waiting lists. If this were a genuine motion to address the very serious problems in public hospitals, it would state: 7 April 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15231

1. The Carr Government will stop shifting the blame to the Commonwealth and deal with the crisis in the health and hospital system.

2. The Carr Government will train and hire more doctors and nurses and fund more inpatient beds.

3. The Carr Government will provide more funds for community health services, including mental health and aged care, to help ease the demand for hospital beds.

4. The Carr Government will recognise that we cannot have good health without good dental health and will undertake to reverse the twofold increase in untreated dental decay in this State since the early 1980s amongst 35- to 44-year-olds and solve the crisis in training new dentists and dental specialists.

The Government must commit to solving the health crisis in this State: the underfunding of hospital systems, the decline in community-based services, and the crisis in the dental health system. The State Government should urge the Federal Government to reinforce bulk-billing and the Australian Labor Party should guarantee that, if elected at the next Federal election, it will do the same. Moreover, Labor should commit to providing extra funding to the States to resolve the national health crisis.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [3.08 p.m.]: I support the motion moved by the Hon. Kayee Griffin, which, in part, states:

That this House ... recognises the strong evidence that co-located general practice clinics help to reduce pressure on busy public hospital emergency departments.

The motion goes on to condemn the Federal Minister for Health and Ageing, Tony Abbott, for refusing to fund these clinics adequately, and calls on him to provide funding for a co-located general practitioner [GP] clinic at Canterbury Hospital, where it would be strongly welcomed by the local community. I support the principle of the motion but I draw attention to another part of Sydney where a similar clinic would be most welcome and where a site was selected. That site is near Ryde Hospital, and it is one of the seven sites in New South Wales selected after the Federal Government agreed in principle to support the clinics.

I am disappointed that the Federal Government has failed to fulfil its commitments, and that has also been a major matter of concern in the area around Ryde Hospital and the broad area that it serves, including Ryde, Eastwood and Denistone. For some years a large number of doctors practised in an after-hours medical centre located quite close to Ryde. Although that practice was privately operated it was a very workable system and people knew that it bulk-billed, was open for long hours, and was very close to Ryde Hospital. Unfortunately, at the end of 2003 the centre was forced to close, largely as a result of the decline in bulk-billing and the increasing difficulty of such practices remaining viable under the Federal Government's very friendly bulk-billing and health-funding regime.

The Hon. Kayee Griffin knows very well the difficulties that have been faced in the Canterbury area and the need for a co-located general practice clinic in that area. I assure the House that there were many others on the list. At one stage the negotiations seemed to be proceeding well, and certainly the New South Wales Government expected that the initiative would be supported. It was probably what could be described as a win- win situation. The program had been successfully trialled in the Hunter and there was a well developed proposal for its expansion into Sydney, the Central Coast, and the Illawarra.

In 2003 it seemed that an agreement was close, but the plans fell over, through the meanness and a lack of co-operation of the Federal Government. As I said, the need has been even more strongly felt in the Ryde area because at the end of 2003 the after-hours medical clinic, under the chairmanship of Dr Bruce Kinghorn, was forced to close. Despite efforts by Dr Kinghorn, and a considerable amount of local publicity in what is, after all, the Prime Minister's electorate, no progress was made, so it has been a most unfortunate series of events.

It is not surprising that the Opposition is playing politics with its amendment to delete all of the motion moved by the Hon. Kayee Griffin after the words "That this House". However, I am very surprised that the Opposition amendment does not retain any reference to the existence of co-located general practice clinics or to the evidence about the purpose they serve. Playing politics is one thing but to actually to seek to delete the entire principle behind the motion moved by the Hon. Kayee Griffin—a principle that had in a co-operative way been put into practice and trialled very successfully in the Hunter—is very disappointing indeed. The Opposition amendment blames the New South Wales Government for any pressures and problems in the health system, but it ignores the massive share of funding that is continually taken from this State by the Federal Government, and particularly Treasurer Costello. 15232 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 April 2005

We have the shortfall created by the Federal Government returning to us only $10 billion of the $13 billion of GST that this State raises. We have the shortfall caused by the crazy old-fashioned economic practices of the Grants Commission. Again, I stress that, even given the points made about the role of the Grants Commission and other such bodies that advise the Federal Government, in the end the buck stops with the Federal Treasurer because he is the one who makes the decision. This State has lost out on the GST and the Grants Commission systems and it continues to lose out on a whole series of individual funding cuts, whether under the guise of competition policy or various other quite spurious arguments, such as the money that has been taken from New South Wales in relation to the rural water arrangements, particularly those in the Murray- Darling. Many other examples could be given.

I strongly support the motion moved by the Hon. Kayee Griffin and I stress that this issue does not only relate to Canterbury Hospital, it applies also to other parts of the State. I would have thought that a relatively cheap, sensible and cost efficient way to ensure that medical practices and bulk billing are available for long hours each day and on Sundays is to extend the trial, as had been planned, and co-locate general practice clinics close to public hospital emergency departments, instead of pouring resources into what are always going to be highly expensive accident and emergency departments in hospitals. That would free those busy departments of people who can quickly get treatment for matters that often are not incredibly serious and do not require the kind of skill that is available in a hospital emergency department. I call on the House to reject the very negative and unprincipled amendment moved by the Opposition, and to support the motion moved by the Hon. Kayee Griffin.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [3.18 p.m.]: I support the amendment moved by the Hon. Robyn Parker to the motion moved by the Australian Labor Party about co-located general practice clinics. The tired and old representatives of the Labor Party Government want this House to recognise the strong evidence that co- located general practice clinics help reduce pressure in busy public hospital emergency departments. The motion calls on the House to condemn the Federal Minister for Health and Ageing, Tony Abbott, for supposedly refusing to adequately fund such clinics. The motion also refers to Canterbury Hospital. My colleague the Hon. Robyn Parker has moved an amendment that the House:

(a) recognises the Carr Government's closure of 4750 hospital beds since 1995 and the pressure these closures have caused within public hospitals

(b) notes that Department of Health statistics that, contrary to Carr Government claims, show that Triage Level 5 presentations have declined since 2000, and

(c) calls upon the Government to stop blaming others for its health failures, re-open closed beds and start to support the hardworking doctors and nurses in the public hospital system.

I support the amendment, especially as I have a particular interest in rural and regional health. The Carr Labor Government tries to shift the blame for all its political problems onto another jurisdiction, but that mantra is not washing with the people of New South Wales. I suppose that is why Government members keep dishing up motions like this: to try to deflect responsibility away from the Government. That ploy is not working. The motion seeks to condemn the Federal Minister for Health, the Hon. Tony Abbott, and by implication the Federal Treasurer, the Hon. Peter Costello, who was mentioned adversely by the Hon. Jan Burnswoods. It fact, Peter Costello's budget three years ago featured rural and regional health as the predominant expenditure item in the entire national budget.

Last Sunday I attended with the Hon. Tony Abbott the opening of the Rural Health Education Centre at Tamworth Base Hospital, a fantastic project brought to fruition by the Federal Government through the efforts of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Hon. John Anderson, and Dr Michael Wooldridge, the Federal Minister for Health at the time. They responded to approaches by the New South Wales parliamentary Nationals to establish outreach programs in non-metropolitan universities to ensure that more doctors are educated in non- metropolitan settings.

In a timely fashion following those representations, the Hon. Michael Wooldridge announced the establishment of 10 university departments of rural health and 10 rural clinical schools. Those departments and schools are up and running. Until Sunday, the temporary premises of the University of Newcastle had been operating at Tamworth, with some very impressive results, along with many other of the university departments of rural health and rural clinical schools throughout non-metropolitan Australia.

The Federal Government allocated $2.5 million to build the University of Newcastle's teaching facility for doctors, nurses, and other health professionals. It is literally built as a completely integrated part of the Tamworth Base Hospital. The facility has a state-of-the-art lecture theatre, tutorial rooms, a stocked medical and 7 April 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15233 health library, meeting rooms, and administration areas. The facility is up and running following its opening by Mr Abbott last weekend. That is just one small example of the Federal Government taking the initiative and improving the delivery of New South Wales health services and the training of health professionals to overcome the health professionals shortage, which is not just a feature of Australian non-metropolitan areas but virtually a global phenomenon.

This Labor Party motion is an attempt to deflect attention from the absolutely dreadful reputation that the Carr Labor Government has racked up in its first, and last, decade in office. For example, in the 10 years that Mr Carr has been Premier of this State, he and his various Ministers for Health have closed nearly 5,000 hospital beds. In 1995 there were 24,190 beds in this State's public hospitals, but as at June last there were only 19,370 beds. That is a 20 per cent cut in the number of public hospital beds available in this State.

The Hon. Robyn Parker: They ought to be ashamed.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: The Government should be ashamed of itself.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Especially given the population growth.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: As Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile says, hospital bed numbers have been declining although the State's population has been increasing. Interestingly, Mr Carr goes on and on about the population growth in Sydney in particular, but at the same time he closes down beds in the State's public hospital system. Independent bodies such as the Australasia College of Emergency Medicine have found that the shortage of inpatient beds in New South Wales has led to overcrowding of hospitals and long waiting times for hospital beds. We know that hospitals are overcrowded and we have long waiting times, but that professional body specifically has found that the shortage of inpatient beds has had the adverse consequences of overcrowding and long waiting times in our public hospitals.

Most of the time, the Carr Labor Government's main priority is spin over substance, and the manipulation of statistics has been the order of the day. At times the Government has tried to cover up the extent of bed closures by including cots and basinets in bed number statistics. That is what the Government attempted to do in 2003. But we know that closed beds and empty wards have led to cancelled elective surgery, and to problems in emergency departments of hospitals across the State—the very reason the Government is using this motion to try to deflect attention onto the Federal Government. That is why Opposition members are very cynical about recently announced commitments by the Government to reopen beds, because the number of new beds announced by the Government would not even fill the enormous gap that Labor has created.

The other demonstrated problem is the considerable shortage of health professionals, so that even if the number of beds announced by the Government were opened, patients would not have sufficient health professionals to look after them. In the past few months the New South Wales Government has reshuffled area health services. I, for one, am extremely cynical of boundary changes of area health services, because once those boundaries are changed the Government can cover up at estimates hearings regarding where particular budgets are up to, which health service is getting what, and who is under budget and who is over budget. As far as I am concerned, this is just another way of trying to eliminate transparency in the overall health budget.

In 1995 the incoming Premier promised to reduce public hospital waiting lists by half or resign. That is probably the most infamous of all of the broken promises of the Carr Government. The list of broken promises is very long, but in the end the broken promise regarding public hospital waiting lists will probably nail the Government. I think the people have given the Government a fair go at addressing public hospital waiting lists.

The Hon. Robyn Parker: But 10 years is a bit long!

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: It is 10 years too long. In not insisting that Mr Carr resign, given his broken promise on this issue, people have been too kind to the Government. The same comment applies to Mr Carr's first Minister for Health, Dr Refshauge, who of course was a signatory to the promise to halve the public hospital waiting lists or resign.

During the 10 years of the Carr Labor Government the public hospital waiting list has not been halved, rather it has increased by 20,094 patients, an increase of 45 per cent. The average waiting time for surgery has practically doubled in those 10 years to 70 days. The Labor Party does not like us talking about its 10 years in government because it is a cumulative political problem. In 1995, 44,707 people were on the public hospital 15234 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 April 2005 waiting list, but at the end of 2004, 64,801 people were on the waiting list. In December 2004 the Auditor- General found that operating theatres were used inefficiently, and that this compounded the problem. Certainly, this has been a big problem in non-metropolitan areas for years. Ever since the Labor Party has been in government operating theatres around New South Wales that are safe and appropriate to use have had their doors shut. They are in darkness. The Government has failed also to address the important benchmark of how the system is operating literally: the number of people who have waited for more than 12 months for surgery. During the decade in which the Labor Party has been in government the number of people waiting for more than one-year for elective surgery has more than quadrupled.

In March 1995, when the Carr Labor Government came to office, 2,265 people had been on the waiting list for elective surgery for more than one year. In December 2004 that number had increased to 9,634. In March 1995 these patients, dubbed the "long-wait patients", constituted 5.1 per cent of the waiting list, but at the end of 2004 that percentage had almost tripled to 14.9 per cent. It is an extraordinary and depressing statistic. Other speakers have referred to the crisis in the hospital emergency department access block, which is a term used to describe emergency department patients waiting for more than eight hours to be admitted to a bed. The emergency department access block has more than doubled from 15 per cent in 1996 to 32 per cent in 2004. Unfortunately, as we know, patients sometimes wait for days in "emergency" as a result of the bed closures to which I have referred and overcrowding in the wards, and this, in turn, leads to staff shortages and health safety issues, such as the basic cleanliness of hospital wards.

The Hon. Robyn Parker: They run out of blankets and sheets.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: They do. Unfortunately, I have seen that. The access block crisis contributes to a major deterioration in ambulance turnaround times and, consequently, blow-outs in the elective surgery waiting list. Recently not one metropolitan health service has managed to meet the benchmark for moving patients from emergency departments to in-patient beds. Another element of the crisis in hospitals in this State is the emergency department code red. In May 1996, not long after the Labor Government came to office, an assessment of code reds determined that major Sydney hospitals spent an average of 12 hours closed to all but the most life-threatening cases. But in May 2004 that figure had blown out to 273 hours—that is hospitals in the capital city were closed to all but the most life-threatening cases for an average of 273 hours. Consequently ambulances are shunted between hospitals to try to find an emergency department with adequate staff and space to admit patients.

I have accompanied a patient to the emergency department of Sydney Hospital; he had been directed by his doctor to report to an emergency department. He was not meant to be at a general practitioner clinic, co- located or otherwise. He was advised specifically to attend the emergency department at St Vincent's Hospital because that was the closest emergency department to where he lived. The doctors who assessed him at St Vincent's confirmed that he needed surgery. Unfortunately, they were unable to admit him, but they were kind enough to advise that he could access emergency treatment at Sydney Hospital. He attended St Vincent's Hospital at 11 o'clock in the morning, and I was with him until midnight that night when he finally made it through the door of the waiting room at Sydney Hospital to receive some preliminary treatment. Earlier he had been triaged. He sat in that waiting room for all that time because every hospital in Sydney, apart from Sydney Hospital, was on code red, and that meant that all ambulances were directed to Sydney Hospital. But that fact was not obvious to those sitting in the waiting room; nothing had been communicated to them to advise what on earth was going on.

The person I accompanied to the hospital had no idea why he had been stranded in the waiting room along with other people, some of whom were in considerable pain. I really admired their stoicism. Finally, the person I was with received preliminary treatment in the emergency department. Eventually he was admitted to a bed, and the following night—not that night—he received the surgery that was considered essential for him two days earlier. I have observed what it means to be a patient in the hospital system in this city when most of the hospitals are placed on code red. I know what it feels like, and I can assure honourable members that it is a frightening experience for both patients and their families. Today many of this capital city's hospitals spend more time on code red than not on code red. At least one of the major Sydney hospitals spends up to 95 per cent of any month on code red status. Sometimes all hospitals are on code red at the same time. That is when health workers report that hospitals are on code black—and no-one is accepted. Those situations are completely unacceptable. [Time expired.]

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [3.38 p.m.]: Debate on this motion about co-located general practice clinics has evolved into a discussion about the public hospital system in New South Wales. The motion and the 7 April 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15235 amendment highlight the differences of opinion with regard to whether health funding should be a Federal or State responsibility. There is no doubt that our hospital system is under tremendous pressure. The motion refers to co-located general practice (GP) clinics and is critical of the Federal Minister for refusing to adequately fund such clinics.

I do not know the funding details but I remember hearing the Federal Minister for Health and Ageing, Mr Tony Abbott, speaking about this concept. My impression was that he thought it was a good idea and worthwhile supporting. Perhaps the Federal Government is still considering whether to allocate funding to it, but that is another matter. I did not think there was any criticism of the concept by Mr Abbott. The co-location of general practice clinics with a hospital seems to me to be a workable approach to reducing pressure on hospitals to make hospital beds available and to ensure that emergency departments are operating efficiently.

I have had some personal experience of attending public hospitals. As honourable members know, some years ago I had an accident in the Parliament, broke three ribs and was taken to the Sydney Hospital. I place on the record how impressed I was with the care I received at the Sydney Hospital. Late last year I experienced severe bouts of vomiting and was taken to a public hospital in the Shoalhaven. I was very impressed by the quite efficient and professional care I received at that hospital on that occasion. It may be that I attended on a day when things were quiet, but I certainly was treated with speed and efficiency and I experienced no delays at all. I compliment the staff on their professionalism.

On another occasion I attended the public hospital at Sutherland with my grandson who had suffered an eye injury. The boy's parents and my wife, who also attended, and I were very concerned that he might lose the sight in his eye. Fortunately that did not eventuate. My grandson received prompt care at the Sutherland hospital. The only concern was that the hospital's X-ray equipment was not functioning and my son had to take the boy by car from the Sutherland hospital to the private hospital across the road to be X-rayed. Afterwards my grandson had to be taken back to the Sutherland hospital. That incident confirmed something I had been aware of for some time—the need for funding to provide the latest equipment in public hospitals. I know that for various reasons, which I will not go into now, private hospitals tend to have up-to-date equipment. We must make certain that public hospitals have properly functioning up-to-date equipment. People who attend public hospitals expect the hospital's equipment to be A1.

The amendment moved by the Hon. Robyn Parker on behalf of the Opposition seeks to change the tenor of the debate so that the resolution will not be critical of the Federal Government but will instead be critical of the State Government. I do not think any honourable member would deny that there is justification for her doing so, but the propriety of changing the substance of the motion is probably an issue that reflects on the forms of this House. The amendment is simply a statement of fact. Cutbacks have occurred, 4,750 beds have been closed since 1995 and there have been other problems associated with the level of care offered at some hospitals. The amendment also refers to the need for the State Government to reopen some of the closed beds and to ensure that there are sufficient doctors and ancillary staff available to service the wards.

I understand that most wards are closed because there is a shortage of available staff to service them, rather than a shortage of patients to fill them. In some instances a hospital may decide to close wards because of budgetary constraints in an attempt to reduce expenditure, but in most instances people are uncertain about the real reason for wards being closed, and that leads to a suspicion of calculated confusion on the part of the hospital. I believe that in many cases wards are closed because of a shortage of funds. There may also be some justification for the belief that the real reason is a shortage of staff. Honourable members are faced with a dilemma in deciding whether to support the motion. Because the amendment is factually correct, the Christian Democratic Party will support the amendment.

The Hon. KAYEE GRIFFIN [3.44 p.m.], in reply: I will briefly explain the need for co-located general practice clinics and the reason I moved the motion. Co-located general practice clinics assist in reducing inefficiency in the delivery of health care in Australia by providing more co-ordinated and comprehensive care for people who need general practitioner services but who turn to emergency departments for treatment either because after hours services are not available in their area or because they do not have a regular general practitioner. Those difficulties apply particularly to people who live in the Canterbury local government area, as I have previously stated.

Honourable members know that the Hunter trial was successful. Canterbury Hospital is one of the most appropriate sites for extension of co-located general practitioner facilities because it is extremely busy. For many years Canterbury Hospital's emergency department has been one of the busiest in Sydney. It serves a very 15236 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 April 2005 diverse population of over 135,000 people. If the Canterbury Hospital is to be a site for a co-located general practitioner clinic, it will be necessary for a commitment that people attending the clinic will be able to access Medicare and bulk-billing.

I do not accept the amendment that has been moved by the Hon. Robyn Parker. It is an attempt to destroy the effect of my motion and to undermine the justification I have demonstrated for co-located general practitioner clinics. In the Canterbury local government area, the need for such a clinic is urgent; people cannot afford to go to general practitioners because of the cost of late night consultations. There are very few general practice medical services available in Canterbury. Research has revealed that disabled people, young people and elderly people do not necessarily have access to transport late at night. They certainly do not have access to a general practice surgery late in the evening. The only choice they have is to go to the hospital, and that creates other problems.

Canterbury Hospital eagerly supports the proposal for a co-located general practitioners clinic. I urge the Federal Government to provide access to Medicare and bulk-billing so that co-located general practitioner clinics can be established. I make the point that I have moved the motion because of my concern for the people of Canterbury. I know the area extremely well and am familiar with its many problems. I acknowledge that other areas have similar problems, but I am concerned that in the Canterbury district many people experience severe problems in accessing general practitioner services late at night. I am pleased to highlight these problems by moving the motion. I oppose the amendment.

Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 15

Ms Cusack Reverend Nile Mr Tingle Mrs Forsythe Mr Oldfield Mr Gallacher Ms Parker Miss Gardiner Mrs Pavey Tellers, Mr Lynn Mr Pearce Mr Colless Reverend Dr Moyes Mr Ryan Mr Harwin

Noes, 19

Ms Burnswoods Ms Fazio Mr Roozendaal Mr Catanzariti Ms Griffin Ms Tebbutt Dr Chesterfield-Evans Ms Hale Mr Tsang Mr Cohen Mr Hatzistergos Mr Costa Mr Obeid Tellers, Mr Della Bosca Ms Rhiannon Mr Primrose Mr Donnelly Ms Robertson Mr West

Pairs

Mr Clarke Mr Kelly Mr Gay Mr Macdonald

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 15

Ms Burnswoods Ms Griffin Mr Tsang Mr Catanzariti Mr Hatzistergos Mr Costa Mr Obeid Mr Della Bosca Ms Robertson Tellers, Mr Donnelly Mr Roozendaal Mr Primrose Ms Fazio Ms Tebbutt Mr West 7 April 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15237

Noes, 19

Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Lynn Ms Rhiannon Mr Cohen Reverend Dr Moyes Mr Ryan Ms Cusack Reverend Nile Mr Tingle Mrs Forsythe Mr Oldfield Mr Gallacher Ms Parker Tellers, Miss Gardiner Mrs Pavey Mr Colless Ms Hale Mr Pearce Mr Harwin

Pairs

Mr Kelly Mr Clarke Mr Macdonald Mr Gay

Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT (PLEDGE OF LOYALTY) BILL

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

Motion by the Hon. Peter Primrose agreed to:

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

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

VICTORIAN TRADES HALL COUNCIL REMEMBRANCE DAY PROTEST RALLY

Debate resumed from 3 March 2005.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [4.00 p.m.]: Madam President—

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner to order for the first time.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: I oppose the motion moved by the Hon. Charlie Lynn, which reads as follows:

That this House condemns the Victorian Trades Hall Council for conducting a protest rally in Melbourne on Remembrance Day.

As this motion has been on the business paper for some time it is important to note that the Remembrance Day that is being referred to is the Remembrance Day in 2003. When this debate commenced on 3 March I listened to quite a bit of it and I read in Hansard some of the speeches that were made, which were quite moving. I read the speeches of members who referred to the deaths and injuries suffered by members of their families in the various wars in which Australians fought, in particular, in the twentieth century.

As conservatives have almost always done in the Parliaments of Australia, this motion seeks to politicise 11 November, Remembrance Day, and to politicise anything to do with war and the military in the interests of the conservative agenda that they push. During the First World War it was often said in the Federal and New South Wales parliaments that, on the whole, conservatives who kept making the most outrageous and over-the-top speeches in favour of conscription, increasing the war effort, or attacking other people whose views they did not agree with, were too old to serve. The first conspicuous thing about them was that those who attacked others who had not enlisted in the First World War were almost always reasonably elderly, boring conservative men who were never in any danger of being sent to the front because they were above the maximum age.

Often they were very rich and had not suffered the unemployment and dislocation that occurred as a result of the First World War. A form of economic conscription was instituted which was responsible for 15238 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 April 2005 sending so many of our young men to Gallipoli and then later to the Western Front. If we compare the kinds of debates that took place in this House in 1915, 1916, 1917 and 1918 with this debate we see that some of the speeches that were made by conservative old men in this House on this occasion could well have been made on those occasions. Debate on this sort of issue is almost always about sending someone else to war and killing someone else. It is very rare for someone who is willing to take the risk and go and fight to speak in a debate such as this.

There is one notable thing about Australians who did fight in the war, and I include my father, who had a most interesting and adventurous career in the Air Force during the Second World War. He was probably very lucky to return because he tended to do things that he always made light of, such as being in a plane, coming back from fighting the Japanese but unfortunately running out of fuel and crash landing, but fortunately landing on top of a tree which was fairly soft and so he survived. My father, like most of the other Air Force people that he and I knew, had a sense of humour and he was able to talk in a balanced way. Oddly enough, he was also a pacifist but he did his duty during the Second World War.

He had a sense of humour and a sense of the rights of other people. That has always been a proud part of the tradition of Australian service people. That is one of the major reasons why a huge percentage of the vote against conscription in 1916 and 1917 came from people at the front. In 1916 and 1917 soldiers on the Western Front in France voted no to conscription—something that the armchair generals on the other side of Chamber might bear in mind. There was also a lot of lightheartedness, something that is not talked about so much these days. It was often said—when there were still enough people alive to remember it—that the first Australian returned soldiers were the blokes who burned down the brothels in Cairo in 1915. Right from the commencement of the Returned Services League and the proud history of returned soldiers we had the larrikins and the criminals but we also had among them the very brave young men.

Our first returned soldiers never made it to Gallipoli because, as I said, they burned down the brothel quarter in Cairo. It was all hushed up and they were sent back, but they were not drummed out of the regiment. It is quite depressing to think that this House could waste time condemning a group of trade unionists in another State for exercising their democratic right two years ago to march in protest on 11 November as though somehow that was not appropriate to what is referred to as Remembrance Day. I conclude by stating that I remember 11 November for two other reasons. The first is that it is the anniversary of the infamous dismissal on 11 November 1975 by John Kerr of the Whitlam Government. The other is that it is the anniversary on the day on which Ned Kelly was hanged. If proud Victorian trade unionists want to stand up for their rights against the kinds of things that the conservative Government in Canberra is trying to do to them, I say "Good on them."

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN [4.08 p.m.], in reply: I thank most honourable members who contributed to the debate on this motion. I thank my colleagues the Hon. Rick Colless, the Hon. Greg Pearce, the Hon. David Oldfield, the Hon. David Clarke, the Hon Don Harwin, the Hon. Patricia Forsythe and Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile for their support for the motion. I also acknowledge the contributions of the Hon. Eric Roozendaal and the Hon. Amanda Fazio. In particular, I acknowledge the contribution of the Hon. Ian West because without doubt it was the best speech the honourable member has made in this House. He spoke from the heart and with great passion and feeling. Even though he does not support the motion, I very much respect his contribution.

In the early part of 1942 Australia was in great peril. Britain was fully engaged in a struggle against Nazi Germany and Churchill was desperate to secure America's entry into the war. While the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor eventually brought America into the conflict, we could not rely on the Americans' total support as Churchill had already reached an agreement with President Roosevelt that their war effort should be prioritised and directed towards saving Britain. The Pacific was to be a sideshow until this was achieved. This meant that the promised levels of manpower, tanks, planes and other armaments required to stop the expansion of the Japanese in the Pacific never materialised. So we were left largely to our own resources with regard to the defence of our Australian territory.

The shelling of houses in the eastern suburbs of Sydney from two Japanese midget submarines caused thousands of people to rush to the Blue Mountains, the Southern Highlands and beyond. When the Japanese bombed Darwin in February 1942 many residents fled as far south as Adelaide. Upwards of 10,000 people abandoned their homes in Cairns and Townsville. Elsewhere in Australia people built air raid shelters in their backyards. Others hatched elaborate plans to escape the certain raping and pillaging by the invaders. According to Paul Ham's research in his excellent book on Kokoda, thousands of people went bush and a few terrified souls even committed suicide.

Prime Minister John Curtin tried valiantly to warn the nation of the need for austerity to ensure that our militia troops, who were preparing to meet the Japanese advance with not much more than rifles and bayonets, 7 April 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15239 had as much support as we could muster. On 28 July 1942, the day after the Japanese launched their attack on the young Australian brave hearts from the 39th Infantry Battalion on the Kokoda plateau, the Sydney Morning Herald reported that Australians needed to eschew every selfish, comfortable habit, every luxurious impulse and every act, word or deed that retarded the victory march. Christmas holidays were reduced to three days from the usual week or so.

But the left wing unions protested. Many of their workers resigned, took the normal holidays and then reapplied for their jobs. The Government chastised them for their selfishness because our fighting forces needed every ounce of material that could be produced. But this did not worry the left, who argued that the war was a capitalist plot for control of the world. The treachery of the left was exposed when the Labor Treasurer, Ben Chifley, launched an austerity campaign in his budget speech on 3 September 1942. He warned that the spending of every shilling should be avoided wherever possible. No capital could be sold or invested without government permission. Profits on capital were pegged at 4 per cent and those in excess of that were taken in tax or passed on to consumers.

The left wing unions defied this call and continued to sledgehammer the workers into believing they were victims of a capitalist plot. We saw a demonstration of those tactics from the Hon. Jan Burnswoods, who espouses the conspiracy theory. I do not know why she continues to live in Australia: Her true home is Cuba, North Korea or North Vietnam. But she knows the benefits that she enjoys here would not be available to her in those countries. The number of strikes soared as pay and conditions deteriorated. We now know that almost six million working days were lost to strikes during World War II—4,462,925 days were lost in New South Wales alone. The number of industrial disputes in 1942—the year of our greatest peril—was double that of the previous year. Wharf workers went on strike at critical times. Troops bound for Port Moresby sometimes had to load ships themselves because left wing Australian union dock workers were on strike. The communists and their treacherous acolytes fanned the flames of union action. They blamed the war on the capitalist bogey and on employers.

This caused much grief to our great wartime leader, John Curtin, who might have been expected to sympathise with these outrageous union claims. He declared that anybody who refused to accept the sacrifice was not a true citizen of the Commonwealth. On 19 August 1942—two weeks before the epic battles of Isurava and Milne Bay—he asked the Australian people:

… to think about the troops a little more and think about ourselves a little less.

As we know, Curtin gave everything, assuming the full weight of care of a nation at war. Not all unionists followed these traitors, however, and many dinkum Australians within the union movement defied the calls of the communists. Except for the Hon. Jan Burnswoods, the Labor members who spoke during this debate referred to the majority of unionists who defied those traitorous calls and worked to support the war effort.

During the Vietnam War those in the left again attacked the soldiers who were sent to war to serve the government of the day. They caused immense physical and psychological damage to those who served in Vietnam and that damage continues to this day. If ever there was a time for the left to say sorry, it is now. The left should apologise because they got it wrong. As recently as 1999 the High Commissioners of North Korea and North Vietnam were invited to attend the opening of Parliament. That was an absolute insult to anyone who has ever fought against communism, socialism and Nazism.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: I moved a no-confidence motion in the President.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: Indeed. I understand why the President is not in the Chamber. She is a beneficiary of the hard work and the sacrifices that were made but she is certainly not a contributor. In summary, there are two days on our national calendar that belong to veterans and other patriotic Australians— who constitute 99.9 per cent of our population. Those days are Anzac Day and Remembrance Day. On those two days on our calendar we pause, reflect, remember and pay tribute to those who made the ultimate sacrifice and to those who served to protect the peace and prosperity that we enjoy in Australia today. The irrelevant minority from the left should stay in bed on those two days and pull the covers over their heads in shame. There are 363 days of the year on which the left can orchestrate some sort of stunt that is relevant in their minds. But I say to them: Leave Anzac Day and Remembrance Day alone. Attempting to defend their action in holding some sort of protest march on the grounds that they were exercising their freedom of expression and freedom of speech is a pathetic defence of the indefensible. 15240 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 April 2005

I thank all honourable members who spoke in strong support of the motion condemning the Victorian Trades Hall Council for holding a protest rally in Melbourne on Remembrance Day. I ask all responsible unionists not to disrupt but to set aside Anzac Day and Remembrance Day for veterans and other patriotic Australians.

Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Postponement of Business

Private Members' Business item No. 7 in the Order of Precedence postponed on motion by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, on behalf of the Hon. David Oldfield.

Private Members' Business item No. 8 in the Order of Precedence postponed on motion by Ms Sylvia Hale.

Private Members' Business item No. 9 in the Order of Precedence postponed on motion by the Hon. Tony Catanzariti.

Private Members' Business item No. 10 in the Order of Precedence postponed on motion by the Hon. Greg Pearce, on behalf of the Hon. John Ryan.

Private Members' Business item No. 11 in the Order of Precedence postponed on motion by Ms Sylvia Hale, on behalf of the Hon. Dr Peter Wong.

SHEEP INDUSTRY

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [4.23 p.m.]: I move:

1. That this House notes:

(a) the dishonest campaign being conducted against Australian woolgrowers by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) which has resulted in major American retailer Abercrombie and Fitch boycotting Australian wool in its 749 US shops,

(b) the comments of the South Australian Farmers Federation that until better methods of preventing fly strike are found, the practice of mulesing to prevent fly blown sheep will continue,

(c) the statement from the wool industry research body, Australian Wool Innovation, that an injection to provide the same outcome as mulesing is several years away,

(d) the condemnation of PETA’s campaign by RSPCA national president Dr Hugh Wirth, who stated radical and extreme animal rights groups set back the work of the RSPCA, and

(e) that without the practice of mulesing to preventing fly strike a lot of sheep will suffer a very slow, long and painful death where they wither away to nothing and die in agony.

2. That this House calls on:

(a) PETA to stop its dishonest campaign of misinformation, and

(b) the Federal Minister for Agriculture to mount an education campaign in the USA targeted at retailers and consumers to inform them of the requirements for this practice and the cruel consequences for the sheep population if this practice was to be discontinued.

This lengthy motion deals with a very important issue not only to the people of New South Wales but to all Australians involved in the agriculture industry, particularly woolgrowers. Since 19 October when I put this motion on the Notice Paper, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals [PETA] has successfully lobbied by way of demonstrations and petitions a number of other prominent American clothing retailers, so that at least three or four other major clothing chains in America are boycotting Australian wool products because of a dishonest campaign that is being conducted. I will give an overview of PETA's campaign and what it is doing to reinforce in people's minds the continuing importance of the Australian wool industry. I know it is a long time since we used to say Australia "rides on the sheep's back" but it is still an integral part of our agricultural industry. 7 April 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15241

The Australian wool industry is being threatened by extremist animal rights organisations that are based in the United States of America. These organisations are not interested in the welfare of our wool industry or our sheep and are bent on their own misguided ideological crusades. These organisations, most notably PETA, are running a campaign against the Australian wool industry and the practise of mulesing. The campaign threatens local jobs and the livelihood of regional and rural communities in New South Wales and across Australia. The campaign involves using fear of protest as a tool to get clothing companies to boycott Australian wool. And the extent to which these people go is quite significant. I urge honourable members who are interested to look at the PETA web site.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: I have. It's disgraceful, isn't it?

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: Yes, I agree with the Hon. Melinda Pavey that it is disgraceful. They show a video of sheep mulesing that is not counterbalanced by any footage or mention of the horrific effect on sheep of fly strike, which is why farmers conduct the practice of mulesing. The PETA campaign has been run in such an emotive way with "Your friend, the sheep. Sheep are intelligent, friendly animals that can be kept as pets" in Germany and other countries. School children are shown quite horrific postcards and photographs of sheep that have been mulesed. PETA plays on the emotions of young children who think that lambs are nice cuddly little things that one might pat in a petting zoo—which, by the way, PETA is also opposed to. It is a very discredited campaign but one that is very effective and emotive. PETA pickets outside shops where Australian wool goods are being sold.

PETA's incredibly simplistic solution is that the reason Australia does not look after its sheep properly, which is why they get fly strike, is because Australians run too many sheep on properties. PETA says we should actually do two things, apart from banning mulesing. We should run fewer sheep so that we can look after them more properly—I do not think it understands that people on properties in Australia run 30,000 or 40,000 head of sheep in really good times. It must think people have 50 or so sheep with bells on their neck, name tags, et cetera. PETA's second great suggestion is that Australia should not use any merino sheep or merino crossbreeds because merinos with their crinkly skin and heavy wool loads are not appropriate to be farmed in Australia. The fact is that Australia's wool industry is founded on merino sheep. If one were to do something crazy like trying to get rid of merino sheep the wool industry in Australia would be destroyed overnight.

But this information is not being put forward to anyone. PETA is only giving a very emotive message to "look at what these evil Australian farmers do to sheep". I have been to sheep and cattle farms in England and know that in the height of summer their idea of bad flies is nothing in comparison to what we encounter in Australia on a sheep property, not even at the height of summer. The blowfly problem in New South Wales and other areas of Australia is simply not comparable to the situation in England and in some parts of America. We have a different problem and we have had to tackle the approach to it in a different way. To simply say that if we ran smaller flocks of sheep we would be able to keep an eye on them and make sure that they were not subject to flystrike shows the complete ignorance of these people about the farming industry in New South Wales.

Most farmers, whether running sheep or anything else, try to ensure their animals are healthy, not diseased, and not subject to any problems from parasites, flies or anything else. It is in the farmers' best interests to make sure their animals are as healthy as possible. The idea that somehow Australian farmers have to do mulesing simply because their flocks are too big and neglected is ridiculous. The practice of mulesing is undeniably painful for the sheep, but it protects them from the harsh realities of the Australian outback. Other methods are being investigated, and money is being put into research to ensure the development of other methods.

There is general consensus that within a decade the practice of mulesing will no longer be necessary, because Australian farmers will have alternatives. There may be an injection to ensure that the sheep's rump remains fairly smooth and will not have problems associated with the accumulation of urine and faeces in the wool. Those accumulations create dags in the wool, and the dags attract flies.

The simple fact is that at the moment there is no alternative to mulesing, and if the practice were stopped, each year hundreds of thousands of sheep would probably die from flystrike, an awful condition. PETA and other animal rights organisations should understand that flystrike equates to sheep being eaten alive by maggots. That is the reason for mulesing. Though PETA claims to be an animal rights activist, it would subject sheep in Australia to that fate. That is quite appalling.

We need to consider the importance of the Australian wool industry. This is not the 1950s, and Australia no longer rides on the sheep's back. But the wool industry is still a very important part of the 15242 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 April 2005

Australian economy. In fact, it is vital to Australia's economy and the world's clothing industry. Australia is the world's largest producer of wool, an industry valued at $3.3 billion in 2002-03. In that year Australian wool accounted for 48.5 per cent of all wool used in the world's clothing. That is because much of Australia's wool clip is of fine grade; it is of a better quality than wool produced overseas. At the premium end of the clothing market, for example Italian wool suits, in which very fine, premium fabrics are used, buyers prefer very fine micron wool from Australia because it is of the best quality.

It is widely accepted that Australia produces the world's best quality woollen fibre, and that is Australian merino wool. The Australian merino is recognised worldwide for its ability to produce wool that is pure, white, soft and fine, but strong. Sheep have been a vital part of the Australian scene almost since the first fleet arrived in Botany Bay in 1788. In 1800 the colony's number of livestock was recorded at 6,124 sheep and only 1,044 cattle. New South Wales is the main wool-producing State in Australia, with over 36 per cent of the national flock in 2002. It is difficult to put a number on how many people are directly or indirectly supported by the wool industry, but there is no doubt that a collapse in the Australian wool sector would devastate rural and regional communities in New South Wales, with follow-on effects to be felt throughout capital cities.

What is mulesing? It is a practice to stop merino sheep from being attacked by blowflies—the most challenging and difficult task faced by sheep and wool producers. The New South Wales Department of Primary Industries describes and defines the Australian sheep blowfly, Lucilia cuprina, as the major pest species of blowfly in Australia. It is responsible for initiating over 90 per cent of all flystrikes. Unlike the native blowflies, Lucilia cuprina breeds mostly on living sheep. Females are attracted to the smell of fleece rot and lay about 250 eggs in clusters in damp fleece.

Mulesing is a vital part of sheep husbandry in Australia, particularly with merino sheep. It involves surgically removing the skin around the breech, or backside, of the sheep to prevent wool growth. This reduces the risk of flystrike by the unique and very aggressive Australian blowfly. Without mulesing, blowfly eggs are laid in moist wool. The flesh-eating maggots create painful wounds, causing the sheep considerable pain and often death by blood poisoning. Mulesing is the only effective currently available method of providing sheep with lifetime protection from breech flystrike. Without this procedure, up to three million sheep would face death. Even the RSPCA supports the practice of mulesing in particular circumstances. I would like to refer to an RSPCA press release regarding the practice of mulesing, particularly in locations where the risk of flystrike is high. It says:

The RSPCA considers mulesing a necessary means of eliminating or minimising the pain and suffering caused by flystrike.

The Australian Veterinary Association President, Norm Blackman, said animals could die if not treated, and added:

If they get flystrike later on, the suffering is horrendous.

Let us look at PETA and what it does. PETA is a United States based activist group. It has launched a campaign against international and local retailers who use Australian wool. PETA believes that mulesing is a cruel and painful act that could be avoided. The act of mulesing, and PETA's campaign against it, hit headlines last when PETA pressured United States clothes retailer Abercrombie and Fitch to boycott clothes containing Australian wool until the process is eliminated. To understand the case PETA is putting forward, one has to understand the organisation itself. PETA is not your usual animal rights organisation. It is an extremist organisation that is ideologically opposed to animal husbandry and is committed to ending industries that involve animals. The PETA web site states:

PETA operates under the simple principle that animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment.

The fact that humans take advantage of animals for any reason is seen as moral outrage by PETA. Jack Waterford, editor of the Canberra Times, best summed it up when he wrote:

The People for Ethical Treatment of Animals are not really interested in the betterment of animals. They are against the exploitation of animals for any purpose, full stop. They do not believe there is a humane way of farming an animal for food, for labour or for pleasure.

He referred to "their first premise, that the use of animals by human beings for any purpose is wrong and immoral". PETA first made headlines in the 1990s when it was linked financially to the Environmental Liberation Front. The Environmental Liberation Front openly claimed responsibility for terrorist acts, including the torching of a $25 million apartment building in San Diego in 2003. PETA has no inhibitions about lying, or using fear and intimidation to spread its case. 7 April 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15243

Some examples of the actions taken by PETA include depositing a dead racoon on the plate of Anna Wintour, editor of Vogue, to protest the use of fur in the magazine's pages; deploying its own version of a United States industry slogan "Got Milk?" to imply that Rudy Giuliani's prostate cancer was caused by milk, and going as far as to put up billboards saying "Drinking milk contributes to prostate cancer"; appealing to university students in the United States by running advertisements saying that beer is better than milk, a campaign that Wendy Hamilton, President of Mothers Against Drunk Driving in the United States, described as "an irresponsible, recycled publicity stunt that literally puts cows before kids"; and even going as far as to travel with an exhibition called "Holocaust on your plate", which compared what humans do to animals with the Jewish Holocaust!

PETA is running a campaign against Australian wool. The campaign is not the usual campaign of raising public awareness about what it regards as an improper practice. The campaign has been based on fear and intimidation. The campaign against the wool industry includes publishing announcements of the boycott on its web site, in media interviews and news releases, including an interview on the "60 Minutes" program; intimidating two retailers in the United States, Abercrombie and Fitch and J. Crew, and one retailer in the United Kingdom, New Look, into agreeing not to purchase any goods made of Australian wool by threatening to publish defamatory material and holding protests in front of their stores; publishing announcements in the United states that retailers would face demonstrations and boycotts, beginning in November 2004, if they used Australian wool; and publishing a letter to Benetton asserting that it had been chosen as an "international target" and threatening to target its stores for using Australian wool. The campaign goes on and on.

As I said, at the moment there is no real alternative to mulesing. No-one is saying that mulesing is not painful to sheep, but the fact is that it is the best available method of preventing flystrike, which is even more painful. The Australian wool industry research body Australian Wool Innovation recognises that mulesing is not a replacement for other fly management practices. It says that growers, in conjunction with mulesing, also jet their sheep with approved insecticides, crutch their sheep, drench to control internal parasites, use fly traps where effective, and inspect their sheep regularly, especially during bad fly conditions.

The research body is planning to phase out the current mulesing method by 2010. The problem is that currently no viable alternative is available to woolgrowers. I ask the House to support the motion because this matter should cut across rural and city boundaries, on two bases. First, we need to ensure that we protect our agricultural industries, because they are vital not only for the economic viability of country areas but also for our overall economy. Second, it is not for radical extremist organisations like PETA to set the agenda for how we deal with animals. People who mistreat animals, whether they are companion animals or farm animals, are the exception. As I said, most farmers and woolgrowers ensure they have the healthiest animals possible because that is in their best interests.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Not let them become flyblown.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: The Hon. Melinda Pavey is right. No reasonable farmer whose livelihood depends on his being able to produce reasonable quality goods for the market will sit back and allow his sheep or cattle to become degraded, diseased, or run down. We must stand back and consider what PETA is trying to do. Trying to stop mulesing is only part of its bigger agenda to stop all forms of farming. PETA is opposed to people eating meat and wearing leather or fur. But its agenda, which is marginalised, does not fit into the mainstream of our life.

PETA's campaign is not based on its research of mulesing in Australia. PETA has on its web site a video of people mulesing sheep. If people could see the alternative—a poor sheep stumbling around the paddock suffering from flystrike and literally dying on its feet because it is being eaten inside out by maggots—I am fairly sure that they would not like either but they would agree that mulesing is the lesser of the two evils. Mulesed sheep might have a raw rear end, but at least they will live. PETA contends that the practice of mulesing exposes sheep to increased danger from flystrike because they have raw skin on their rear end.

The Hon. Rick Colless: That is absolute nonsense.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: That is simply not the case. In the first instance, blowflies are attracted to the smell of wet wool and wool rot, and to the urine and faeces caught in the wool around the rear end of the sheep. PETA's argument has no merit. The second part of the motion asks the Federal Minister for Agriculture to deliver an education campaign in the United States of America targeted at retailers and consumers informing them of the necessity of the practice of mulesing, and of the cruel consequences for sheep if the practice were discontinued. 15244 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 April 2005

Honourable members might note that I am not condemning the Federal Government for not doing anything. PETA, with a relatively small amount of money and a hard core group of people supporting it, has managed to attract an awful lot of publicity by taking direct action against retailers. People with colour-photo placards stand outside shops and harass shoppers. They make it difficult for people to feel brave enough to enter the shops. So far, three or four retailers in the United Kingdom and the United States of America have decided that the easiest thing for them to do is to not stock clothing made with Australian wool products.

The Federal Government, the Federal Minister for Agriculture and some of the wool industry bodies should take this fight up to PETA. They should launch their own media campaign and issue press releases discrediting PETA. They should make available photos of the consequences of not mulesing sheep. They should fight PETA at its level. PETA is not simply a group of people who look at sheep and think, "The poor little lamb. We do not want to see anyone sniffing around its rear end with a pair of shears." PETA has a much bigger agenda than banning mulesing. It has been fighting on a different range of issues for a very long time and it is very good at doing it. A full-page article in "Insight" in the Friday 11 March edition of the Sydney Morning Herald with the headline "The unkindest clip of all" underlined the need for some form of public campaign to be mounted against PETA. An article headed "Tan me hide when I'm dead" states:

"We are complete press sluts," the founder and president of PETA, Ingrid Newkirk, once told The New Yorker magazine. Newkirk even has plans to turn her death into a media event.

In her will, which is on the PETA.org website, she says: "Upon my death, it is my wish that my body be used in a manner that draws attention to needless animal suffering and exploitation."

Newkirk wants her flesh "used for a human barbecue, to remind the world that the meat of a corpse is all flesh, regardless of whether it comes from a human being or another animal, and that flesh foods are not needed".

The skin is to be made into leather products "to remind the world that human skin and the skin of other animals is the same and that neither is 'fabric' nor needed".

Her feet are to be turned into umbrella stands "as a reminder of the depravity of killing innocent animals, such as elephants, in order that we might use their body parts for household items and decorations".

Newkirk wants one of her pointing fingers sent to the owners of the Barnum and Bailey Circus to stand as the "Greatest Accusation on Earth" over the way animals have been "kidnapped" from their homes and "forced into involuntary servitude for the sake of cheap entertainment".

Her liver is to be vacuum-packed and sent to France as part of a public appeal to end "the vile practice of force-feeding geese and ducks for foie gras". And on it goes.

But Newkirk also asks that a little piece of her heart be buried at the Hockenheim motor racing track in Germany, preferably near the Ferrari pits used by Michael Schumacher.

Even animal-rights zealots have outside passions and Newkirk's is formula one.

Has it ever occurred to this hypocrite, Ingrid Newkirk, that formula one drivers wear leather suits and sit on leather seats when driving their racing cars and? But this is typical of the sort of craziness coming out of this organisation that, time and time again, has been given legitimacy by tapping into people's emotions about caring for animals. And they are right: everyone likes to care for animals. Probably everyone in this Chamber has a pet of some sort or another, or has had one at some time.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Or wears leather shoes.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: Yes, most people have leather shoes, except perhaps for Mr Ian Cohen. This campaign is really very unfair. Australian sheep producers look after their sheep. The practice of mulesing prevents sheep from suffering from flystrike. If people want a better idea of exactly what PETA are up to and the sorts of things it does I recommend that they look at an article in the 14 April 2003 edition of the New Yorker magazine headed "The extremist. The woman behind the most successful radical group in America" by Michael Specter. It goes on for page after page about how Ingrid Newkirk got involved. What spurred her into her campaign of absolute excess was the abandoning of some cats next door to her house when she was about 20. That experience turned her into an absolutely fanatical animal rights activist.

One of the good things about Australia is that we have never resorted to the extremism of animal liberation that exists in the United Kingdom, where people kill those who are involved in animal experimentation. They have actually dug up the body of a person who ran an animal laboratory. They firebomb research laboratories and they attack people who own intensive farming operations. That is the type of activity that the people of New South Wales have been spared. But I assure honourable members that if PETA wins this 7 April 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15245 contest, extremist activists in Australia will take up the cause. The victory will attract extremists and encourage them to engage in the same type of craziness in Australia that they have engaged in overseas.

We should respect the fact that husbandry and the manner in which animals are treated continually improve. We should also respect the fact that New South Wales has quite strong animal welfare laws. People who are deliberately cruel to animals are dealt with according to law, and that legislation will be strengthened by amendment in the near future. I urge honourable members to completely reject the dishonest campaign being conducted by PETA and ask the Federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to run a counter campaign to confront these extremists.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: Not only Federal, but State too.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: I do not mind if all the States that have a sheep industry are involved. I would not object to an amendment in those terms because I really think that PETA has to be confronted head- on to make it clear that we will not be blackmailed by its dishonest campaign. If PETA believes so strongly in the rights of animals, why does it not equally consider the rights of people to go into shops unfettered by protesters, to buy whatever goods they want and to make up their own minds on matters in a fair and balanced way?

I find it disturbing that PETA's web site is emotionally exploitative and preys particularly on young teenagers who are uncertain about where they are going in life and want to latch onto something. Teenagers usually like animals, so PETA's biased campaign could have a very negative effect on them. If PETA was willing to engage in argument on the facts of the matter, my attitude would be different, but PETA does not operate like that. I urge honourable members to support the motion and reject PETA's very dishonest and very damaging campaign. I ask honourable members to support our Australian woolgrowers.

Mr IAN COHEN [4.52 p.m.]: I have listened with interest to be arguments advanced by the Hon. Amanda Fazio and I am particularly interested in her quoting the RSPCA as saying:

The RSPCA considers mulesing and necessary means of eliminating or minimising the pain and suffering caused by fly strike.

It is interesting to consider the Hon. Amanda Fazio's dissertation on the misinformation circulated by the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals [PETA] and her reference to PETA's followers as extremists. PETA champions several issues and I am sympathetic to some of them but I hasten to add that I am not an extremist. I wish to read the RSPCA's statement in its entirety because selective quoting of the statement may distort this debate. In a media release on 15 October 2004 entitled "Statement by the RSPCA Australia regarding mulesing of sheep" the RSPCA said:

"RSPCA Australia does not endorse or accept mulesing as an essential sheep husbandry procedure. In particular geographical locations where there is a high risk of fly strike and it has been established that there is absolutely no acceptable alternative to mulesing, the RSPCA considers mulesing a necessary means of eliminating or minimising the pain and suffering caused by fly strike.

I find it rather misleading and inappropriate for selective quoting to be used at the commencement of this debate because the opinion of this august body, the RSPCA, has been given a completely different complexion from the message it intended to convey in its press release of 15 October 2004. The Hon. Amanda Fazio takes objection to the propaganda circulated by PETA, and on similar grounds I take objection to her quoting half a press release during what I think should be an up-front as well as a quite interesting and worthwhile debate. I congratulate the Hon. Amanda Fazio on bringing this matter before the House for debate, but her selective quoting distorts the concern that a respected animal welfare organisation, the RSPCA, has about mulesing.

[Interruption]

The Hon. Amanda Fazio selectively quoted the RSPCA. It is quite clear that the opinion intended to be conveyed by the RSPCA is quite different from what the Hon. Amanda Fazio conveyed. The time allocated to me today is limited, and I intend to continue when the debate is resumed. Let us consider the alternatives to mulesing. I believe that most farmers would rather not resort to mulesing, but for many reasons practices become entrenched until alternatives are developed, such as non-surgical procedures and chemical control of flystrike. Research is being undertaken presently, and my understanding is that mulesing is not the only effective method available to control flystrike. I understand that alternatives are already available.

The Hon. Rick Colless: There are alternatives for different breeds of sheep. That is what you do not understand. 15246 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 April 2005

Mr IAN COHEN: I acknowledge the interjection by the Hon. Rick Colless, who suggests that the answer to the problem lies in different breeds of sheep. In this day and age members of Parliament are obliged to examine appropriate methods of controlling flystrike by the application of humane animal husbandry practices while different solutions, including breeding research, are investigated. I hope the Hon. Rick Colless does not intend to use the fine wool argument, because some fine wool sheep are enveloped in fabric and confined to create high-quality wool. Massive flocks of sheep are being kept in an inappropriate environment.

The Hon. Rick Colless: That is absolute nonsense.

Mr IAN COHEN: Sheep are not native to Australia. They were introduced into Australia purely for the purpose of animal husbandry, but in some cases that was done with the knowledge, sympathy and understanding of people who were capable of rearing animals in rural areas of Australia in the most humane way possible. It is about time people in the animal breeding industry devoted more time and resources to breeding research to produce sheep that do not have the problems that are characteristic of current flocks.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Genetically modify them?

Mr IAN COHEN: If that is the only answer, fair enough. I am sure there are alternatives, because great advances have been made over many years in bloodline breeding. An Australian Wool Innovation [AWI] Ltd project involving a team of scientists from the University of Adelaide is developing a non-surgical alternative to mulesing for the control of flystrike in sheep. The researchers are working on a method that causes wool in the breech of sheep to fall out, inhibits regrowth, and contracts the skin. Essentially, the effect of this treatment is the same as mulesing because it results in a wool-free breech and fewer skin folds.

The treatment involves injecting a naturally occurring protein under the surface of the skin. The protein disrupts the normal structure of the skin and after a few days the wool falls out. As the breech area heals, the skin tightens and shrinks, removing skin folds around the treatment area. The treatment has been so effective that three or four centimetres of skin in the breech treated with the protein shrinks to a line that is one or two millimetres wide. Subsequently the animal is less susceptible to soiling around the breech area and is better protected against flystrike during its lifetime. Another advantage of the treatment is that, unlike conventional surgical mulesing, there is minimal disruption of the epidermis, which is the top player of the skin.

The new method involves no surgery and has no side effects. A commission report estimates that without mulesing or an alternative, up to three million sheep a year perish when conditions are conducive to prolific flystrike. I acknowledge the variation in opinion among members of this House, but I believe we have a major problem to contend with. I also acknowledge that the Hon. Amanda Fazio is genuinely concerned about the welfare of animals. It is important to recognise new sets of values based on the recognition of animal welfare rights. When we engage in intensive animal husbandry, it is appropriate to devise ways of minimising flystrike while maintaining the humane treatment of animals. The benefit of mulesing to Australian sheep producers is significant. I do not have a precise figure.

The Hon. Rick Colless: Millions.

Mr IAN COHEN: Yes, I agree. Mulesing reduces the number of sheep lost and increases production. I assure the Hon. Rick Colless that no-one denies the economic benefits of mulesing. In the context of this debate, PETA effectively and efficiently has been portrayed as an eco-terrorist extremist organisation.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Do you support PETA?

Mr IAN COHEN: My comments should be construed in the context of the motion. Together with the RSPCA and many other community organisations and individuals, I support re-evaluation of the mulesing process. The issue is that the AWI has invested about $700,000 in the research and development of a non- surgical alternative to mulesing, including $400,000 in a project being conducted at the University of Adelaide. It has allocated at least another $1 million dollars for similar research over the next three years. The results of the project so far are promising, and the AWI is providing all necessary support.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted. The House continued to sit.

COMMITTEE ON THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION

Consideration of Legislative Assembly's message of 6 April 2005.

Motion by the Hon. Henry Tsang agreed to:

That:

(a) the review under section 32 of the Protected Disclosures Act 1994 be referred to the Committee on the Independent Commission Against Corruption, and 7 April 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15247

(b) the review is to determine whether the policy objectives of the Protected Disclosures Act 1994 remain valid and whether the terms of the Act remain appropriate for securing those objectives.

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

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Postponement of Business

Government Business Order of the Day No. 2 postponed on motion by the Hon. Henry Tsang.

WATER EFFICIENCY LABELLING AND STANDARDS (NEW SOUTH WALES) BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 6 April 2005.

Mr IAN COHEN [5.02 p.m.]: Yesterday I was offering some justified criticism of the one-eyed attitude the Government has had over many years to the use of waste water in both the Sydney Basin and areas up and down the coastline. The Government's culture of putting pipes into the sea and "end-of-pipe" solutions seems to have permeated Sydney Water and other authorities over that time. It is a generational direction for dealing with waste water. After I said that yesterday, the Minister issued a press release. Although I condemned the Minister yesterday, I congratulate him today. In part, the Minister's press release, entitled "Investing in NSW Future Through Water and Energy Savings Funds" stated:

Business and industry will be given incentives to become water and energy efficient as part of the Carr Government's strong and detailed plans to protect the environment and make Sydney and other NSW centres more sustainable.

Minister for Energy and Utilities Frank Sartor has announced some businesses will also be required to prepare water and energy savings action plans, under The Energy Administration Amendment (Water and Energy Savings) Bill 2005.

That legislation is to be introduced into State Parliament. The press release continued:

The measures are expected to save up to 80 billion litres of water each year and 800,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions.

Greater efficiency will also reap major rewards for consumers, realising a gross saving on energy bills of $370 million.

"Sydney's growing population is placing increased pressure on our water and power supplies, " Mr Sartor said.

"Households, which account for 70 per cent of Sydney's water consumption, have saved close to 113 billion litres of water since October 2003.

That is an indication of the population's reaction; its support for more stringent measurers—pulling its weight, if you like—on water consumption. The Minister continued:

"Now, it's time for business, government, and councils to do more.

"Water is a low-cost input for business, and new technology designed to save this precious resource can take years to pay off in the form of lower bills.

"As part of the Metropolitan Water Plan, we have already announced a $30 million fund to encourage business to invest in water savings measures.

"In order to meet the challenges of our growing population, the same principle should also be applied to our energy network.

The Minister extolled the benefits of the proposed legislation, and I commend him for his efforts, particularly with regard to the State's water supply and the range of measures that the Government is considering, including greater re-use. The Government estimates that each year there will be a saving of 5.3 billion litres of water. The press release continued:

Mr Sartor has today announced the establishment of a working party to implement re-use schemes at Caltex and Continental Carbon, using high-quality effluent from Cronulla Sewage Treatment Plant.

A separate working party is being set up in conjunction with Orica to examine the best use for treated groundwater from its reverse osmosis plant in Botany Bay.

Hopefully that will be successful and effluent can cleaned up and re-used. The press release continued: 15248 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 April 2005

Sydney Water itself faces tougher licence conditions, including a 25 per cent reduction in leakage from the system by 2009.

These are all steps in the right direction and are to be commended. My office has issued a media release congratulating the Government on taking a significant step towards meeting the targets to reduce greenhouse emissions in announcing the new water and energy savings funds. We are using our water and energy more efficiently, and that is the key to Sydney becoming more sustainable. Consumers also benefit, as money saved as a result of reduced demand on energy supplies can be passed on to them. Hopefully new funding will encourage investment in water efficiency technology, and with increased competition to produce energy and water saving technology and cost savings new jobs will be created.

Those activities constitute a moving away from the "end-of-pipe" solution that I have been criticising. Cost savings can be achieved by diversifying the remedies, and that, in itself, will create a great deal more jobs. If the new funds are managed by independent not-for-profit bodies, and they are guaranteed an existence of least 10 years so that they have a chance to work and be implemented properly, there will be hope. I certainly look forward to some degree of success. In New South Wales we have to go much further with water efficiency than just introducing labelling and standards. Yesterday I drew attention to the great volume of water that is wasted in urinals throughout Parliament House. In a meeting with the Minister I suggested that dual-flush toilets should be installed in Parliament House. A major saving could be achieved by such basic standards being achieved in Parliament House and in other government buildings throughout Sydney. I do not know what rating the cisterns in Parliament House would receive; probably only half a star at present.

I have discussed this issue with the Minister. Will he reconsider the matter and conduct an audit into water usage in Parliament House, all the government-owned buildings in Sydney and other centres throughout New South Wales? Commercial firms often get off lightly as the Government does not require them to provide decently designed buildings and to effect proper use of water.

Water is a vital and undervalued resource. New South Wales has been experiencing one of the worst droughts in recent history. The water levels in our dams have been at record lows. This problem is not likely to go away in the future, with climate change posing real threats because of higher temperatures and more frequent droughts. Sydney's rapidly growing population is also putting immense pressure on our dwindling water supply. These issues must be addressed urgently. The answer is not in the construction of new dams, the augmentation of existing dams or the pumping of water out of our river systems or underground reservoirs. Typically, these are the stopgap measures that have been put forward by Sydney Water for generations. They are the sorts of methods that, by their very nature, are finite, and they are liable to fail eventually. If they do not fail in the process of delivering enough water, they fail to ensure that our resources are used wisely.

I will refer later to the situation in Shoalhaven. Sydney Water failed miserably in its removal of water from one catchment to another and one catchment was denied appropriate environmental flows. Resources were not moved to another catchment. Today I attended a forum on the coalmining industry that examined the amount of water being used by that industry. The Government must subsidise rivers and environments that are suffering because of the unreasonable extraction of water by coalmines and because of the damage and cracking that is being caused to riverbeds by mining activities.

Minister Hickey stopped one coalmine operating on the Nepean River. I understand the coalmine will operate right up to the edge of the river on one side and will recommence on the other side. We still have a great many problems to resolve. It does not involve rocket science; it requires something quite basic. What resources do we have in our catchment areas? I am sure that members of The Nationals who are in the Chamber would appreciate working creatively with such a limitation.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Like we are already doing in Wagga Wagga?

Mr IAN COHEN: As the Hon. Melinda Pavey said, it is being done in certain areas. Sewage effluent is being reused in an attempt to maintain our river flows.

The Hon. Don Harwin: Eighty per cent of sewage in the Shoalhaven is being reused.

Mr IAN COHEN: That is so, but the Shoalhaven has another set of specific problems to which I will refer later. This is a massive attack on the local water supply to augment the Sydney supply. It is completely out of balance, and after many years the Government insists on continuing to pump effluent into the ocean.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: A thousand swimming pools a day. 7 April 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15249

Mr IAN COHEN: I acknowledge the interjection of the Hon. Melinda Pavey. The equivalent of 1,000 swimming pools of effluent a day is being pumped from three ocean outfalls.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Raw sewage.

Mr IAN COHEN: In general it is a relatively low level of treatment, although it is improving at some outfalls. But regardless of the level of treatment, these outfalls are expelling our valuable resources. I have spoken to Services Sydney, a private company that has some creative solutions for Sydney's water problems.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: What is the Government doing?

Mr IAN COHEN: Frank Sartor described it as a boutique solution, which is an interesting way to describe it.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! I remind all members that interjections are disorderly at all times, particularly interjections from members who are already on two calls to order. Members will allow Mr Ian Cohen to proceed without interruption.

Mr IAN COHEN: The point will be reached at which there is a higher level of treatment of sewage, and that will make it more readily available for reuse in the community. The systems adopted by Australia in this regard are lagging far behind those that are being implemented by many other countries. European rivers pass through half a dozen sets of kidneys on their way to the ocean.

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: Is it any wonder? We have had a Labor Government in office for 10 years!

Mr IAN COHEN: I would like to think that Coalition members would be better in government than Labor members, but the people of New South Wales have very little choice at the moment. And they will have no choice until the Greens grow and increase their numbers in this Chamber.

The Hon. Don Harwin: You will not grow until you decide to do your preference deals with the Coalition.

Mr IAN COHEN: I am interested in the presumption of the Hon. Don Harwin, who is a student of politics and political systems. The Greens might not support the Government because it is not worth supporting, but that does not mean that we should support the Opposition, which also might not be worth supporting. Opposition members forget that there is the exhaustion option.

Funding should be directed to investment in water conservation and reclamation programs and away from the expansion of water supply infrastructure such as dams. Such programs should include installation of water efficiency devices and landscaping, leasing and rebate incentives, price reform, on-site water harvesting and reuse, and community education and consultation programs. There is a great need for water demand management. Significant amounts of water can be saved each year while still allowing the community to enjoy the same quality of life.

In many circumstances demand reduction can be the cheapest and most reliable way to reduce water consumption. Encouraging the public to use water-efficient products is a significant step towards better demand management. The Greens applaud the Minister for noting this issue but in itself it is not enough. There must be a major shift in focus from practices such as deep pumping and water extraction to recycling of effluent for non- drinking purposes.

People should be encouraged to install dry composting systems and on-site grey water systems technology, where appropriate. People should also be encouraged more to install water tanks. I manage two composting toilets on my property, which would probably achieve a 10-star rating. That involves very simple technology. I have suggested this technology on previous occasions in this House and on each occasion I was howled down as an extremist. Nevertheless, the system is very simple.

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: How do you manage them?

Mr IAN COHEN: I put sawdust in them and clean them out every six months. That is what I mean by management. They need a bit of hands-on management. 15250 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 April 2005

The Hon. Rick Colless: Hands on?

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: What about a shovel?

Mr IAN COHEN: A shovel is a good idea. All I hear from members of The Nationals and the Opposition is, "I have not done this so I cannot speak about it." Well, I have done it and I can speak about it, and today I am talking about dry systems. Obviously those who implement such a system should receive a huge subsidy. This decentralised system encourages local employment and it is a system that works. I know that Opposition members will say, "Keep quiet", because they do not understand the issue. It is incredibly important to identify creative ways of reducing water use in the New South Wales domestic system. The simple, cheap methods that I have described work. I suggest that we reintroduce the great Australian outhouse. Renters could put them on wheels and take their toilets with them when they move.

Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes: Carry your own hole!

Mr IAN COHEN: Absolutely. I am encouraged by the down-to-earth conservation theology of Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes. We should also encourage the widespread installation of water tanks to catch rain run-off. It is interesting to note that Waste Services NSW is not seeking to do away with ocean outfalls altogether. When there is heavy rain in the city the overflow should go to the ocean outfalls. Nevertheless, during dry spells people could use both rainwater and grey water to flush the toilet, water their gardens, wash their cars and so on.

The current water allocation regime has caused a conflict between the needs of extractive users and the environment. In October 2004 Bob Carr announced that Sydney's dams could be topped up from the Shoalhaven River. Taking water from the Shoalhaven risks blocking its tidal entrances and increasing salinity. Algal blooms and other problems have proliferated in the Hawkesbury as a result of water extraction, and increasing extraction from the Shoalhaven River could produce similar problems. Moreover, extraction is still reliant on rainfall but in this case it is rainfall in the Shoalhaven rather than in the Sydney catchments. Sydney Water argues that under its new plan it will extract water after heavy rainfall when the river level is high. But then the river system might not receive the flushing it needs to remain healthy. That is a critical point. Furthermore, the cost of pumping a large amount of water across catchment areas is extremely prohibitive.

In October last year Bob Carr announced plans to spend $4 million on drilling for underground sources of water. But the effects of extracting vast amounts of bore water have not been investigated and could disturb the ecosystems that rely on this water. The long-term viability of groundwater recharge beds is threatened by inappropriate land use and overly exploitative irrigation practices. I would like to think the New South Wales Government will note what is happening in Western Australia, where there are major problems with bore water. In Western Australia for generations groundwater has been extracted for garden use but lower rainfall is causing major problems, particularly around Perth, where the long-term water supply may be in jeopardy. We are talking about the future viability of our water supply and about establishing systems that will allow our society to balance its water use. There is a fear that our water supply will be over-exploited, particularly in light of the continued inappropriate use of sewage effluent.

I recently attended a forum hosted by the Shoalhaven Greens. The Hon. Don Harwin also referred to this forum. Several local members of Parliament, councillors and 120 oyster farmers, fishers, tourism operators, canoeists and other river users attended that forum. We heard the sad story of a tourism operator who is selling his canoes cheaply because his canoe trip business has disappeared. The water levels in the river where he takes canoeists are too low—rocks are protruding above the surface—and he cannot continue to operate. That is just one more innovative young tourism operator who is going to the wall. If an eco tourism activity is being impacted to that extent, one can only imagine what is happening to the ecosystem in that area.

All speakers at the forum and contributors from the floor expressed strong concerns about the likely damaging effects of the Government's inter-basin water transfer proposals. Councillor John Finkernagel said that he did not want the Shoalhaven River to end up with algal blooms and other problems that are present in the Hawkesbury-Nepean River system after water extractions for Sydney's water supply. John Tate from Riverwatch claims that the current Shoalhaven River flow of 90 megalitres per day is not adequate to maintain the health of the river. Pater Stanton from the Lake Yarrunga Task Force argued that the maximum compromise between the needs of the Shoalhaven River and its users and Sydney's water needs should be a draw down at Tallowa Dam of no more than one metre, with no pumping in the first three days after flooding rains so that the river can receive the flush it needs. 7 April 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15251

Speakers from the floor expressed strong dissatisfaction about the lack of comprehensive community consultation and pushed for that to occur. In line with my promise on the night, I am trying to organise for representatives of the Shoalhaven to meet the Minister for Energy and Utilities to discuss these matters.

The Hon. Don Harwin: Don't bring John Finkernagel. He voted for the water plan in council and then came to your forum and said something completely different.

Mr IAN COHEN: I acknowledge the Hon. Don Harwin's interjection and take note of his wise advice. John van der Merwe of Services Sydney Pty Ltd claimed that water transfer was so expensive it made more sustainable alternatives and water management options competitive. He advocated major sewage re-treatment by his company that would return water to rivers for environmental flow and agricultural use. More than 200 people attended the meeting, which was held on a Friday night. On 22 October 2004 Jeff Angel from the Total Environment Centre appeared on Stateline and said:

We do think it's wrong to have these inter-basin transfers and as a result deprive the Shoalhaven of important flood flows which do have ecological purposes.

It's not as if the river is always at one single level of water flow.

We need the peaks and troughs … the Australian environment requires for a healthy ecology and rivers.

Quentin Dempster then questioned the Minister in the following terms:

But if it doesn't rain in the Shoalhaven, where are we?

The Minister replied:

But you've got to look at it in the long term. When there is rain and excess flows we will be able to harvest it.

Jeff Angel then pointed out:

It doesn't secure the water supply because it depends on rain.

This debate has been going on for a long time. Although the Government has stepped back from the proposed Welcome Reef Dam on the Shoalhaven, we are still trying to address water-guzzling practices in Sydney. Dams are not the way to go; we must change the culture of water use and the attitudes of water users in Sydney. We should consider introducing water usage base levels, and if industrial or private users exceed those levels they should be charged for their extra usage. Frugal users, who install water tanks and conserve water, should receive water credits. That is an important incentive. We should credit minimal water users in our community so that they derive some benefit from taking the trouble and going to the expense of installing water tanks and using freshwater carefully. During the drought I have heard many stories about people collecting bath and shower water in buckets to use on their gardens.

Australians are very resourceful when dealing with these situations. It is important that the Government promotes further research and development of advanced wastewater recycling technology such as ozonolysis, membrane filtration and reverse osmosis. It should also encourage on-site and locally based waste water treatment and reuse where applicable. The Minister refuses to accept but I recommend the 10-star composting toilets. I understand that he is tied into being popular when elections come along and he does not want to sound like a crazy person recommending something outside the realms of what he believes is acceptable.

I support the bill. It is one small aspect of a major campaign that has been ongoing for many years. I hope that the Minister looks at all the different methods of water efficiency in our society and gives due consideration to the perspectives of Services Sydney Pty Ltd in relation to allowing maximum recycling of wastewater. It would have the dual impact of reducing the use of ocean outfalls—reducing the pollutant that is going into the ailing marine environment for that particular product—and reusing that product inland as part of a productive reuse program. We should embark on a twenty-first century resolution to the massive problems that are affecting our waterways—the Shoalhaven River in one respect, the Nepean and Hawkesbury rivers systems in another—which have suffered from very well advertised problems in recent times.

I hope the Minister directs Sydney Water and is not directed by Sydney Water, as previous Ministers have been for a very long time. As a result, real dinosaur technology has been continued, particularly in the transfer of water between catchments and in the end-of-pipe solutions that are not appropriate for the twenty- first century. Having said that, the Greens support this modest initiative of labelling various appliances to help 15252 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 April 2005 educate people about the importance of water usage. They will learn that the flushing of toilets is part of a massive misuse of water in our society. I hope that the labelling will have the manyfold impact of not only saving water but making people far more mindful of how they use their water. I hope, as I have suggested, that Parliament House, which has great potential for water savings, and other government buildings are audited to reduce the use of water. The Greens support this legislation.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [5.33 p.m.]: On behalf of the Christian Democratic Party I support the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards (New South Wales) Bill, which gives effect in this State to a nationally consistent water efficiency labelling and standard scheme. In order to fulfil this purpose the bill applies the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Act 2005 of the Commonwealth as a law of New South Wales. This bill also makes provision to help ensure that the Commonwealth Act and the applied law of this State are administered on a uniform basis by the Commonwealth as if they constituted a single law of the Commonwealth. The Christian Democratic Party commend the bill to the House.

As has been pointed out by Mr Ian Cohen, this nation is facing a number of desperate water supply and reticulation problems. The international community is also facing a water crisis. Water is deemed to be scarce when supply for personal use is less than 1,000 cubic metres per person per year. The Middle East is the most concentrated region; there are predictions that water—not oil—will be at the centre of any future Middle East wars. We have already seen conflict between Jordan and Israel over the one single source of fresh water to both those countries. Twenty-six countries with a total population in the Middle East of 232 million people already face water scarcity. The Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, Koichiro Matsuura, says the average supply of water worldwide per person is expected to drop by a third over the next 20 years. The United Nations estimates that if present water consumption trends continue, in less than 25 years five billion people will be living in areas where it will be virtually impossible or difficult to meet the very basic water needs for sanitation, cooking and drinking. Water resources will steadily decline because of expected climate change, pollution and population growth.

A noticeable trend is that, as time passes, water supply is decreasing and demand for water is increasing. Thus, at a national level, from 1985 to 1997 total water use in Australia increased by 65 per cent. Use for irrigation in that time grew by 76 per cent, urban/industrial consumption increased by 55 per cent and rural use grew only by 2 per cent. Obviously, such increases must meet the limit of supply at some stage. Severe drought affects some part of Australia about once every 18 years, with intervals between severe droughts varying from 4 to 38 years. Australia, being one of the driest countries on earth, will not be able to escape the pressure of an increasing population and a finite supply of water. Already Sydney is using 106 per cent of the annual sustainable yield of its water supplies.

In the Sydney Water service area, which retails an average of 1,700 million litres of water per day to a population of 4.15 million people, the residential sector is the biggest user of water—61 per cent of all water supply is used by residents in their homes. This includes 825 litres per day for single dwellings, 495 litres per day for units and apartments, including outdoor water usage and outdoor water usage is about 27.3 per cent of this and showers 24.3 per cent. The safe yield of Sydney's drinking water storages is 600,000 megalitres per year. Sydney's population of approximately 4.2 million people used 635,000 megalitres of water in 2002-2003. Sydney's water consumption has been above the safe yield for the past three years and for six of the past ten years. Daily per capita water use was 416 litres in 2002-2003.

Average residential consumption is 245 kilolitres per year, with 285 kilolitres per year in houses and 179 kilolitres per year for residents in units or flats. Sydney's population is expected to increase to 4.5 million people by 2011 and almost 4.9 million by 2021. Sydney Water notes that a shortfall will be created between supply capacity of about 540,000 megalitres per year. The Sydney water catchment has been in drought for close to three years now. The Hawkesbury-Nepean River Management Forum noted security of supply problems in Wollongong and Nowra. We have already heard from previous speakers about the Shoalhaven River. The initiatives underlying this bill, as exemplified in the national legislation, are a great step in the right direction to save water and help the environment. They are a good step, albeit only a very small one. Nonetheless, great things can be achieved by taking small and consistent steps.

The bill seeks to facilitate a system which will provide consumers with the ability to make environmentally friendly and sound decisions. Specifically, this bill seeks to implement an efficiency labelling and standards scheme for water appliances known as Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards [WELS]. The WELS scheme will involve the introduction of national mandatory water efficiency labelling and minimum performance standards for domestic water-using devices. The measures established in the WELS scheme hope 7 April 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15253 to reduce water consumption in New South Wales by almost 29 billion litres annually. This translates to a net savings to New South Wales consumers of about $225 million over 18 years. This is not the answer, or even one of the answers, but it is part of one of the answers. WELS is a national initiative.

The Commonwealth developed, in consultation with the States and Territories, legislation for its implementation. In fact, the Commonwealth's Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Bill 2004 was passed by the Senate on 8 February 2005 and is awaiting assent. In order to ensure that this legislation is effective at a State and Territory level, each State and Territory will introduce legislation that mirrors the Commonwealth legislation. A Commonwealth Water Efficiency Labelling Regulator will be set up to register products, ensure compliance and enforce the scheme. Manufacturers will fund 90 per cent of the cost of administering the scheme through registration fees collected from the registration of water appliances. As the scheme is a Commonwealth initiative, the cost to New South Wales has been estimated at approximately $15,000 annually.

The scheme will require that manufacturers label appliances with relative water efficiency information. The water-using products covered by WELS initially will include such things as showerheads, washing machines, dishwashers, toilets, taps, flow regulators and urinals. These particular products were identified for inclusion in the scheme following an initial strategic study conducted in 2003 by some consultants for the Department of the Environment and Heritage. Additional products such as evaporative cooling units, water heating and storage units can be brought into the scheme over time, subject to cost-benefit analysis and public consultation. Once a product is registered under the scheme, compliance with the scheme will be obligatory.

The scheme will institute minimum standards for toilets. One of the consequences of this is that the importation of inefficient toilets will be prevented. However, it is not envisaged that this will impact negatively on Australian manufacturers, because they are already subject to a plumbing standard limiting production to efficient dual flush systems. It has been suggested that the application of minimum standards to any additional products would be subject to the evaluation of the success of mandatory labelling and would require cost-benefit analysis and public consultation. Further, it has been noted that minimum standards may not be required if the market responds positively to labelling and causes the market for inefficient products to shrink.

One area of focus for the Federal Department of the Environment and Heritage is the National Urban Water Efficiency Program. WELS falls under that program. The web site for the program indicates that WELS "is drawing upon the experience of the mandatory energy efficiency labelling system in place across Australia, which has seen an energy efficiency improvement for refrigerators and freezers of 50 per cent over a 13-year period, and projected improvements of 70 per cent over 25 years". These are amazing projections, and it is suggested that similar improvements may be possible for some water-using products over time.

Preventative measures are being established to minimise non-compliance. The Commonwealth Regulator will have discretion to resolve non-compliance without resorting to enforcement action by doing such things as conducting routine inspections and performance feedback seminars and web site guides. Breaches of registration, labelling or performance of products can attract a fine of 12 penalty units, or 60 penalty units if dealt with by a court. A six months imprisonment penalty can be applied for failure to provide documents when appearing before an inspector.

In recent years, my wife and I have installed two large tanks, one of 20,000 gallons and one of 1,500 gallons, and connected them to our home. We have replaced all of the guttering so that we might more effectively collect all rainwater. We recycle all grey water and use it on the gardens. We pump from a reticulating sump tank all runoff from our land to the gardens. We have replaced all outlet taps and showerheads. We self-manage, with council permission, our toilet system, with our gardens benefiting from 90 per cent soakage. In spite of drought, our family home is now self-sufficient in water, even though recently, under council instructions, we have had to connect to a town supply, at a cost of some $15,000.

In my strong opinion, one of the most powerful ways in which we might bring about change to assist the environment is to vote with the almighty dollar. In this context, many of us have the power to influence the future of our environment. By supporting products that are creative, with the intention of mitigating risks to the environment, we create a demand for those products. Given the way that the economy works, if supply generally increases to meet the demand for water-friendly products, this will lead to an increase in the production of those products and a consequent decrease in inefficient products and the total use of water. Hopefully, people will vote for the environment by choosing environmentally friendly products. The Christian Democratic Party supports the bill.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.44 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions and for their support of the bill. I will respond to the assertion by the Hon. Don 15254 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 April 2005

Harwin that the Carr Government continues to disregard the opportunities for large-scale water recycling in New South Wales and that, as with the water efficiency labelling scheme [WELS], large-scale water recycling remains the strategy championed by the Coalition only. Since the Coalition lost government, water recycling in Sydney has increased from 6.2 billion litres a year to 14 billion litres a year. In that time, major water recycling schemes have been implemented at Rouse Hill and Sydney Olympic Park. These projects were the first residential water recycling schemes in Australia. Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Canberra are considering such projects for their States.

In addition, the New South Wales Government's Metropolitan Water Plan includes major water recycling works. They include BlueScope Steel, Liverpool golf course, and Hoxton Park and Rouse Hill stage two new residential release areas, which together comprise eight billion litres of water a year. The Government is undertaking detailed planning of a large-scale water recycling system for western Sydney, where approximately 80 billion litres will be recycled for use in residential properties, in urban and agricultural irrigation, and to provide environmental flows. This will create the largest water recycling scheme in Australia—eight times larger than the current largest scheme, the Virginia water recycling scheme in South Australia. The Government has established a working group to investigate a new scheme at Kurnell to serve industries including Caltex, Continental Carbon and others in the Botany Bay area, utilising the water from the Orica ground water treatment plant. These water recycling initiatives are expected to increase the level of recycling from the current 2.5 per cent to between 15 and 20 per cent over the next 25 years.

Far from the Coalition being the champions of water recycling, the New South Wales Labor Government is doing 10 times more for water recycling. The Hon. Don Harwin pointed to the Shoalhaven water recycling scheme as the type of scheme the Government should be implementing. In fact, the Shoalhaven water recycling scheme was a joint partnership between the State Government and the council.

The Hon. Don Harwin: And the Commonwealth Government.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG: I acknowledge the Commonwealth's support. This is certainly a partnership of three levels of government.

The Hon. Don Harwin: Absolutely!

The Hon. HENRY TSANG: Large-scale water recycling is not a strategy that is being championed by the Coalition alone. The State Government contributed $25 million of the $69 million to the project, as well as policy and technical advice. The Shoalhaven water recycling scheme recycles about four billion litres of water each year. The Metropolitan Water Plan proposes to take water from the Shoalhaven while it is at high flow. This is water that is currently being lost. Like recycling, the water efficiency initiatives, including WELS, constitute an important part of the New South Wales Government's Metropolitan Water Plan. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Postponement of Business

Government Business Orders of the Day Nos 4 and 5 postponed on motion by the Hon. Michael Costa.

PHOTO CARD BILL

Second Reading

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA (Minister for Roads, Minister for Economic Reform, Minister for Ports, and Minister for the Hunter) [5.50 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. 7 April 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15255

Leave granted.

The purpose of this bill is to make provision for the New South Wales Photo Card Scheme.

The bill authorises the RTA to introduce a voluntary New South Wales photo card for people in the community who do not hold a drivers licence or an existing proof of age card or another form of identification such as a passport or a New South Wales photo birth card.

Many people in the community often have a need to produce some form of personal identification to secure goods and services.

Businesses and government services also rely on a photo identification document to provide assurance that the person they are dealing with is who they say they are.

The New South Wales drivers licence has gained increasing utility in the community as a photo identification document.

While the drivers licence is designed specifically to achieve driver management goals, the broad utility of the New South Wales drivers licence card as a trusted and reliable photo identification document has placed an obligation on the Government to ensure that people who are unable to obtain a drivers licence are not unfairly disadvantaged.

The photo card will benefit those people in the community who may have a need for a photo identification document but who do not currently hold a drivers licence, may not be medically fit to hold a drivers licence, may be older than 25 years of age so have not been able to obtain a Department of Gaming And Racing proof-of-age card, or who do not hold a passport or cannot obtain a New South Wales photo birth card.

The voluntary photo card will make it easier for older people and people with disabilities who require photo identification but have not had the opportunity to obtain a valid photo identification document. The card will replace the existing proof-of-age card and will contain security and design features that will assist service providers in establishing evidence that a photo card holder is at least 18 years of age.

The bill is required to enable the Roads and Traffic Authority ("RTA") to produce photo identification cards under different eligibility requirements. These include requirements that only New South Wales residents may apply for the voluntary card and that a resident may not hold both a New South Wales photo card and a New South Wales drivers licence.

The eligibility requirements and the customer enrolment and proof of identity processes used by the RTA to establish entitlement to the photo card are consistent with New South Wales and national strategies to prevent identity fraud.

The RTA will apply stringent proof of identity checks on each individual and will implement new technical capacity to ensure that the photo image management regime is of the highest integrity and security.

The bill will also enable the re-use of latest, valid photo images for the purposes of the government licensing service. Business rules will be consistent across both schemes.

The bill contains general regulation making powers in relation to the administration and development of future RTA photo or other identification services delivered on behalf of the New South Wales Government.

The bill is designed to enable the RTA to adapt the photo card to incorporate future developments in security technology that will help prevent identity fraud.

Future proofing the security and integrity of all RTA processes and systems linked to the issuing of photo cards, drivers licences and other photo licence cards, is a critical strategy to prevent criminal exploitation of weak entry points in the circular path of identity crime.

The RTA is at the forefront of national strategies to protect the integrity of these systems, which in future may include the use of biometric indicators and anti-tampering and anti-forgery technologies.

It would appear desirable that any technological solutions in these areas should be developed nationally to ensure compatibility and interoperability between jurisdictions.

In developing the New South Wales photo card, the RTA has sought a co-ordinated and co-operative national approach to maximise work being undertaken to prevent identity crimes.

The bill authorises the RTA to refuse an application for issue of a photo card in the circumstances when the RTA, forms the opinion that the applicant is not a 'fit and proper' person to hold such a card. Any future or additional grounds for refusal for an application of a photo card will be in accordance with regulations permitted under this bill.

The bill also provides the RTA with the power to cancel a photo card. Grounds for such cancellation action will be prescribed by regulation and will include fraudulent use of a photo card and misuse of a photo card.

The bill entitles the RTA to maintain a photo card register in conjunction with other information registers kept by the RTA and gives the RTA the power to correct any mistake or error or omission in the register of photo cards.

The bill provides safeguards on the release of information that will be contained in the photo card register.

Enforcement and offences constitute notable features of the bill before the house, and include requirements to produce the photo card to authorised officers. An authorised officer may seize a photo card in circumstances where the photo card is used in contravention of any provisions in this bill or any other act or law. 15256 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 April 2005

An authorised officer may be a police officer or a person appointed by the RTA or a person or class of person prescribed by the regulations made under this bill.

The $40 fee for the card represents costs associated with production of the card and is not based on the five-year tenure of the photo card. Given the voluntary nature of the card, there will be no concessions available. However, in the instance where an elderly holder of a New South Wales drivers licence is directed to surrender his or her drivers licence on medical or age grounds, the fee for the photo card may not apply.

It is important to note that the identity crime working group has directed the RTA to investigate the possible application of new technologies to drivers licences and other card issuance processes and to the security features on the card to prevent tampering and forgery. These may add significant additional costs to future photo cards and it is important that the RTA is able to resource these improvements.

To this end, the Government has endorsed the retention by the RTA of fees associated with the photo card. This will enable the RTA to implement any additional security features that future technology is likely to make available in the fight against identity fraud.

The new photo card will be delivered under strict identity fraud prevention guidelines. The RTA will continue its work with New South Wales Police and the New South Wales crime commission to ensure that the most secure systems and processes

Surround the issuance of photo identification documents. These measures will also ensure that individual privacy and customer acceptance and convenience issues are at the forefront of service delivery.

The photo card will provide real benefits to a large section of New South Wales residents.

I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY [5.50 p.m.]: The Opposition will not oppose the bill. However, I will highlight some concerns with the bill, particularly privacy. The bill is designed to enable members of our community who previously have not had access to photo identification to obtain such identification. The Opposition is pleased that the legislation has been brought before the House. The National and the Liberals went to the last election with a policy to introduce a type of photo card for people who do not have a drivers licence, provided that privacy was guaranteed. It is pleasing to see the Government introduce a policy that was proposed initially by The Nationals and the Liberals. I was thinking about the difficulties faced by the many people who do not drive a vehicle. The Premier of this State does not have a licence because he does not drive a car. I cannot imagine what it must be like for him when he uses an airport outside of New South Wales where he may not be well known, goes up to the counter and says, "I'm flying to Sydney." The people at the counter would look at him and think, "Who is this man? Is he an actor? He looks famous, but I can't quite figure out who he is." He has presence. He practices and practices his theatrics. The legislation will be worthwhile for people like the Premier who do not have a drivers licence. I cannot imagine how difficult not being able to drive a car must be for him at times.

Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes: What about when he wants to get a video from the Video Ezy shop?

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: That is right. He might want to get a video from the video shop.

Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes: On the history of the American Civil War.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: Or on any number of other things. The Premier's problem is now solved. All he has to do is go along to his local Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] office, if he so chooses. Privacy groups have raised some concerns about the card and we respect them, but I note a press release issued yesterday by the Greens harks back to the debate of 20 years ago when the Labor Party proposed the introduction of a compulsory identity card—the Australia card—a national database of Australians' identities. The conservatives in Australia were opposed to such a card. I remember hearing a lot of passionate debate from the conservatives, pushed by people from other countries who had lived under fascism or communism and who had chosen to live in Australia. Their view, and I support the proposition, was that the Government should not control national photo identification. But the photo card proposed in the bill is not compulsory. It is for the convenience of people under the age of 18 or those do not want to drive a car, or even the Premier, who is unable to drive a car and does not have a licence. Like a lot of other people he will now be able to obtain official photo identification.

Almost 9,000 people in New South Wales do not currently hold a drivers licence, but the photo card will give them access to a photographic form of identification. It is becoming increasingly difficult for those in the community without a drivers licence to prove their identity. Some tasks, such as taking a flight, opening a bank account or posting an international package can become problematic and time consuming without 7 April 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15257 identification. Without a drivers licence groups such as the aged or the disabled—or even the Premier—are disadvantaged. Other forms of identification, such as the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages identification card, can be difficult for non-metropolitan residents to obtain because it is available only in Sydney. Similarly, it is available only to residents who are born in New South Wales. The application for the card is completely involuntary. It is not compulsory.

Over the next three years the card will replace the RTA proof-of-age card, which is insufficient because it is available only to young people—not the Premier. The new card will be more effective and more widely available. The photo card will be available to all residents of New South Wales who are over the age of 16. The security features of the photo card will be similar to those of a New South Wales drivers licence. It will feature a hologram, watermark and magnetic strip. Also it will be adaptable to include future technologies such as biometrics. I understand that with these future security measures the card will be subject to the same privacy scrutiny as a drivers licence. Information will be kept on a separate database to ensure that it is subject to the same privacy and data protection laws as a drivers licence, which is vital to guarantee that privacy concerns are allayed.

I highlight an issue raised by the Opposition spokesman on roads, the Hon. Don Page. The Opposition is concerned that a five-year photo card will cost $40, indexed to the consumer price index. The RTA has stated that because the card is involuntary, no concession will be available. However, older members of the community concerned about this failure to offer concession rates have approached the Opposition. In this day and age the cost of living in New South Wales is growing and every dollar counts. The $40 cost is significant, although I understand that a person required to surrender his or her licence on medical or aged grounds will not be required to pay the fee. This exception does not cover disabled people who are unable to obtain a drivers licence in the first instance. I assume that the $40 fee will apply to those persons.

I will now deal with the privacy issues in the bill. The Australian Privacy Foundation has approached the Opposition with concerns surrounding privacy of the new card. They were in contact with us this afternoon because the Opposition was not aware that the bill would be debated in the upper House until today. However, I understand the shadow Minister for Roads, Don Page, has consulted with the Australian Privacy Foundation and he is aware of their concerns. We have received a detailed response from the Government about these concerns. I reiterate some of the concerns raised by the Opposition and restate the Opposition's position on these matters. I am aware that members of the crossbench, particularly the Greens, have also been approached by the Australian Privacy Foundation [APF]. Some of the foundation's concerns will be the subject of amendments that will be moved during the Committee stage.

The APF argues that the bill does not include provisions to limit information that will be held by the Roads and Traffic Authority for the purpose of issuing the card. Additionally, there is inadequate limitation upon whom information can be shared with. The APF argues that the legislation allows for a total population centralised identity system that will be run by one government agency for drivers and non-drivers over the age of 16. This is a matter of concern to the foundation because of the potential for the misuse and misappropriation of information, the risk of corruption within the RTA, and the need for increased security.

The APF has expressed concern about a number of other matters, including the fact that, over time, there will be increased pressure to collect more information about people, increased pressure to share information across government agencies, and an increase in the power of the RTA to deny a person access to a photo card and to restrict that person's ability to prove his or her identity. The foundation has also pointed out that although the photo card is voluntary, people may feel compelled to have one because of pressure on them to carry one for a number of reasons.

I reiterate the Opposition's position on the general issues of privacy and security. The bill provides a number of safeguards. Clause 15 provides safeguards in relation to security of information on the register, clause 18 provides a further safeguard dealing with the purposes for which photographs may be kept and used, clause 19 provides for circumstances in which photographs can be released, and clause 24 provides for the inappropriate use of the card. The Government has assured the Opposition that current laws, including the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998, the Commonwealth Privacy Act 1988, the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Regulation 1999, and the Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Regulation 1998, already limit the collection and use of data.

I have received correspondence from the Minister's office stating that Privacy New South Wales was consulted during the preparation of the bill and has no concerns about the privacy aspects of it. The Opposition 15258 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 April 2005 believes that that is a very important assurance that the legislation safeguards against the fraudulent use or misuse of the photo card for other than required purposes. The legislation makes it an offence to obtain or attempt to obtain a photo card by making a false statement, to unlawfully possess a card, to manufacture false cards, to improperly use a card, and to alter or tamper with a card. The Opposition is concerned about the effect of clause 7, which deals with the grounds for refusal to issue a photo card. Clause 7 (3) states that the authority may refuse to issue a photo card on such grounds as may be prescribed by the regulations. This is another example of the overuse of regulation by this Government.

I am becoming increasingly suspicious, and am very concerned, about a government that likes to include numerous ambiguities in regulations because they are not subject to the same scrutiny in Parliament as clauses of a bill. Regulations are an unknown factor and are difficult to analyse. As always, I will carefully watch for changes in regulations in relation to the refusal to issue a photo card, particularly as the photo card is directed primarily to use by elderly and disabled people. The Opposition will also maintain contact with the Australian Privacy Foundation when the regulations are enacted to find out whether implementation of the regulations results in the emergence of privacy issues. I am satisfied by assurances I have received from the acting Privacy Commissioner and staff from his office who have been involved in the drafting of the bill that privacy is not a matter of immediate concern.

The acquisition of a photo card is voluntary. I believe that the photo card will be of benefit to all people, especially elderly people and people who have a disability. During debate on the bill in the other place, the honourable member for Wagga Wagga, Mr Daryl Maguire, referred to intellectually disabled people in his electorate who regularly collect paper for recycling from his electorate office and other government buildings in Wagga Wagga. It is good to hear that a group has been able to engage in such worthwhile activity. This legislation will benefit such groups because it will facilitate easy access to government buildings. I commend the honourable member for Wagga Wagga for citing an excellent example of the practical effect of the bill and highlighting the advantages it will produce. Should members of that group or similar groups wish to avail themselves of the opportunity of photographic identity by obtaining a photo card, they can be assured that the card has the same privacy features and security measures as drivers licences.

In conclusion, I thank members of the Australian Privacy Foundation for contacting the Opposition to express their concerns and for their contribution to the effectiveness of this legislation. As I stated at the outset, the bill is being introduced for the convenience of the citizens of New South Wales. The photo card was first proposed by the Nationals-Liberal Coalition. I congratulate the Government on adopting the Coalition's policy. It makes me happy that the Premier will have formal identification to make his life easier, given that he does not drive.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [6.05 p.m.]: It is my pleasure to speak to the Photo Card Bill on behalf of the Christian Democratic Party. The purpose of the bill is to authorise the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] to introduce a New South Wales photo card for those who do not hold a drivers licence, a proof-of-age card, or other formal identification, such as a passport or a New South Wales photo birth card. I commend the underlying purpose of the bill.

Last year the Licensing and Registration (Uniform Procedures) Amendment (Photo ID) Bill was passed. That bill was aimed at improving customer service by giving an applicant for a licence the choice of reusing an existing photograph on other licences held by the RTA. That bill raised similar questions in my mind relating to the loss of privacy and the risk of forgery and corrupt conduct, although on a lower scale than this bill.

As I said in debate on the Licensing and Registration (Uniform Procedures) Amendment (Photo ID) Bill, the RTA has instituted a system that has eliminated the requirement to present a photograph in hard copy form. As many of us have experienced when applying for or renewing a drivers licence, one now need not submit a hard copy photograph. The RTA has a digital system whereby officers can take a photograph of an applicant. The image of the applicant is then stored on a database to be used by the RTA for purposes related to the issuing of licences. My understanding is that the RTA is the only government authority on a statewide basis that has the facilities and equipment necessary to take photographs on the spot. Standardisation and convenience are the hallmarks of this arrangement. In my opinion the underlying purpose of the bill is as stated in the second reading speech:

to help those in the community who have a need for a photo card ... to provide New South Wales residents who do not hold a drivers licence with a document that will assist them to establish their entitlement to rights and privileges in the community. 7 April 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15259

We can easily recount the advantages of such a system. People often need to present personal identification to secure goods and services, and this card will facilitate the identification of people who, for some reason or another, do not hold a drivers licence. The bill will enable the RTA to adapt the photo card to incorporate future developments in security technology that will help prevent identity fraud. The introduction of biometric indicators upon community consultation has been flagged in the second reading speech. Of course, such measures will mitigate, in leaps and bounds, some of the security issues we have faced to date. This is an important consideration, especially in the social climate that we live in today. On a practical and cost-effective level, it makes sense for the RTA to maintain a system that holds information about the identity of people, given its current infrastructure.

However, I have some questions about how some provisions in the bill will work. Those questions resonate in some of the concerns expressed by the Australian Privacy Foundation. First, as I said, the intent of the bill seems to be to remedy a disadvantage at which some people are placed by being ineligible for a drivers licence. However, the RTA is able to refuse an application for a photo card to be issued in circumstances where the RTA forms the opinion that the applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold such a card. The bill also provides the RTA with the power to cancel a photo card. Grounds for cancellation will be prescribed by regulation and will include fraudulent use and misuse of a photo card. Some of these factors seem to work against the intent of the bill.

People who want a photo card may effectively be banned from having one, and will be implicitly blacklisted as social outcasts. Consequently, the intent of providing equitable access to services for all people will not be upheld in its truest form. In this context, it must be kept in mind that the role of the RTA, as implied by its name, is to exercise functions connected with roads and traffic in New South Wales. Therefore, the purview of the RTA is to improve road safety, to test and license drivers, and to register and inspect vehicles. It also manages the New South Wales road network to achieve consistent travel times. Allowing the RTA to refuse a photo card on unspecified grounds would effectively make the RTA a social arbiter. Another agency connected with the RTA that is equipped with the functions, powers and capacity to determine such questions may be a more effective body. Clause 14 (2) (f) gives the RTA the power to record "such other information as the Authority may include on or otherwise as part of a Photo Card". There are no limits on which information can be placed on the database. In my opinion it does not seem necessary for the RTA to keep information other than that which is necessary to establish the person's age and/or identity.

As indicated by the Australian Privacy Commission, the bill allows for the establishment of a total population, centralised identity database. Clause 14 of the bill provides that the authority is able to maintain the register of information pertaining to photo cards on one database. Such information could be kept on the same database as that held for New South Wales drivers. Thus, it can be envisaged that one database will hold information on everyone in New South Wales—drivers and non-drivers, except those who, for some reason, have been disqualified from holding either a photo card or drivers licence.

Clause 19 is interesting. It allows the RTA to disclose photographs or any other information about cardholders held on their database to NSW Police, for any reason at all, and to the NSW Sheriff, for the purpose of any fine recovery proceedings. The only requirement is that such a release is in accordance with a protocol to be approved by the Privacy Commissioner. Whether that protocol is abided by in practice will be another issue, and how to monitor compliance with this protocol also presents a problem. Interestingly, as the Privacy Commission pointed out, the RTA can disclose information to other interstate driver licensing authorities for any reason at all. This begs the question as to why driver licensing authorities in other States and Territories should need information about people who do not drive.

Further, clause 19 allows disclosure so long as it is as provided under any other law or in accordance with regulations. It is often hard to monitor the content of regulations, as they are passed in less conspicuous circumstances than Acts. The broad range of laws that could prescribe disclosure is also difficult to monitor. This provision easily foreshadows the relative ease with which RTA officers will be able to pass on sensitive information. This is a concern for me. I am not aware that there will be a checks and balances system in relation to supervising and/or ensuring that RTA officers do not exploit the system. News of the abuse of governmental powers by government officials usually arises in less than clear circumstances.

The model poses increased risks to the personal safety of people who hold either drivers licences or the new photo cards. As I recall, the RTA has a history of shonky licence inspectors and staff members who have been bribed for information. However, the RTA is now to have the database for everyone in New South Wales, 15260 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 April 2005 drivers and non-drivers alike. This system, of course, may be open to abuse. Photos and details may be accessed by unauthorised persons for illegitimate reasons. Making photographs and other such details readily accessible without guaranteeing control on such access may be dangerous. I believe also that the maximum penalty prescribed by the bill, $5,500, is inadequate to deter corrupt conduct by RTA employees. More effective controls on the conduct of RTA officers must be instituted.

In February 2005 the Australian Privacy Commission disseminated a review of the bill. One excellent point made by the commission was that although the bill provides that the photo card will not be mandatory for all non-drivers in New South Wales, it may become compulsory by social sanction, if not by law. As the commission articulated:

Those people who decide not to possess either a driver's licence or Photo Card will likely find themselves increasingly frustrated in their attempts to access government services or interact with a variety of businesses. Eventually, even people with strong objections to holding Photo ID will be forced by circumstance to give in. And so a "voluntary system" becomes compulsory by force of social and economic sanction, rather than by force of law.

It would also be especially useful for the Government to consult with the Australian Privacy Commission, which is the peak organisation protecting privacy interests, before the bill is passed in its current form. The bill highlights a growing issue that must be considered in the context of public consultation: the need for a national identification system. The Christian Democratic Party supports the bill.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [6.16 p.m.]: Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes addressed the bill in detail, and I join him in supporting it. The introduction of a photo card is a positive step, although I know that the Privacy Commission and other organisations have expressed some fear that the card might be abused. The value of the card will far outweigh that fear. If problems arise, the legislation can be reviewed.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [6.17 p.m.]: The Greens clearly support the introduction of a photo card. We congratulate the Council of Social Service of New South Wales and the Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Association on their work in making this card a reality. They identified their members' clear demand for the card. We congratulate the Government on responding to that demand. However, we cannot believe that the Government has not responded to the clear calls by privacy experts to alter the Photo Card Bill to make sure that the operation of the card does not seriously compromise the privacy of New South Wales citizens. Over the past few months the Australian Privacy Foundation, which is crammed full of privacy experts, lawyers and academics from across Australia, has lobbied the Government, the Opposition and the crossbench very hard to highlight some of the dangers inherent in the bill.

The foundation has suggested a workable solution to achieve a card without privacy dangers, which I will outline in the Committee stage. The Minister for Economic Reform has completely ignored the foundation's concerns and failed to respond to its numerous letters. That is regrettable, but, not surprisingly, that failure characterises his arrogant style. The bill will allow for an all-purpose identity card. There has been almost no debate and no public consultation, yet the Government has introduced the most fundamental attack on our personal freedom since the failed Australia Card in the 1980s.

A central database will be created to record the personal details of everyone in New South Wales. The bill places no limit on how much information the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] can collect about people, and it places few limits on who can access the data. Clearly there is a big problem with that. I very much hope that the Coalition will consider the bill carefully, because at the moment I understand, from what it did in the lower House and from comments made tonight in this House, that the Coalition is just going along with the Government. Given the strong stand the Coalition took against the Australia Card in the 1980s, I find that surprising.

The bill places no limit on how much information the RTA can collect about people. The bill even makes it a crime to not tell the RTA every time one moves home, even if one does not have a drivers licence. One of the biggest privacy risks comes from the proposal to create a unique identifier for every person. This is one of the key aspects of the bill that the Greens believe needs to be addressed. It can be addressed in a way that does not limit the possibility of having a photo card.

We can remove the unique identifier and still have a photo card—a key issue that all honourable members should understand. The unique identifier allows both the Government and businesses to track, link and profile people's movements and transactions. A centralised database poses greater security risks to people and is more likely to increase the risks of identity theft and fraud. The Federal Liberal Government recognised the 7 April 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15261 risks of centralising vast amounts of personal data. It is well known that this is a gift to organised crime, which is why I am surprised that the Government has gone down this track. I am surprised that the Opposition is supporting the Government relatively unquestioningly.

This is not just a gift to organised criminals; it is a gift to terrorists and other people intent on doing harm. This Government was keen to take up the issue of terrorism and it introduced four separate pieces of legislation relating to this matter. Here we have something that is real and that makes it much easier for people who are up to no good to access important information about others, yet the Government is not prepared to tidy up this bill in such a way as to afford greater protection and limit opportunities for abuse. The Government is offering us only one database, which means one database to hack into—how much easier is that?—or one clerk at the Roads and Traffic Authority to bribe.

I trust that members of the New South Wales Liberal Party recognise that and consider supporting the Greens amendments in Committee. I have been told that at the moment they are not prepared to support our amendments. I hope that they reconsider their decision. This is a serious issue. I repeat: We can have a photo card without having a unique identifier. The Government seems intent on creating this great honey pot of data, despite the obvious risks involved for the people of New South Wales.

I refer next to advice provided to the Government by Privacy NSW in relation to this bill. Yesterday in the lower House reference was made to an email from the Acting Privacy Commissioner. That email states that the Acting Privacy Commissioner has no problems with the bill, which I am sure would have made the Government very happy and which is why Government members were quoting from it. The Acting Privacy Commissioner said there were no problems with the bill so honourable members might well then ask why we are worried. The email states:

Privacy NSW was consulted during the preparation of the legislation and I have no concerns with the privacy aspects of the bill as presented to the Parliament.

That significant advice obviously carries some weight, something which Don Page noted in his speech. It is important to put that advice into context. The Greens question the integrity of that advice when it is compared with advice from other privacy experts across Australia, represented by the Australian Privacy Foundation, which puts so much energy into trying to raise the alarm in relation to this bill. All honourable members would be aware of the Government's running down of Privacy NSW over the past two years by failing to support a permanent Privacy Commissioner, as promised. The Government cut its budget and gutted it of expert senior staff.

In that context can honourable members confidently rely on the advice of the Acting Privacy Commissioner that he has no problem with the privacy aspects of the Photo Card Bill? We must think carefully about this issue because not all advice is as objective as it may seem. Has Minister Costa been compromising New South Wales' privacy independence by heavying the acting commissioner on this issue now that he knows the Government's kneecapping job is starting to be effective and that that is possible? It is a scenario that we could well imagine after witnessing his behaviour in this place day in and day out and after we have heard reports from his colleagues about their problems with him.

The Greens are very concerned about this issue. Can we be assured that this is fearless and independent advice when it was provided by the Acting Privacy Commissioner, Mr John Dickie, who may understandably be nervous considering he has been on a series of short-term temporary contracts and can be removed by the Attorney General at any time? I very much doubt whether Privacy NSW, when it was a strong and feisty agency, would not have had grave concerns about this card when the former roads Minister, Carl Scully, first floated the idea. I think it would have had some wise advice about how to introduce the card in a form that did not compromise privacy to such a degree and that did not open up to fraud to varying degrees the database required for this card.

Maybe times have changed and advice has changed. That would explain the discrepancy. Considering what has been done to Privacy NSW over the past two years, it is not surprising that that is so. Today I moved a motion in this House calling for papers from various agencies to try to flush out this issue. I look forward to receiving the results. I put it to all honourable members that it is important for us to be given an opportunity to look at these papers in the context of this bill. I ask all honourable members to think carefully about whether a two-line email from the Acting Privacy Commissioner is enough to call off debate on the privacy aspects of this bill. I put it to them that it is not, and that there is a clear advantage for the Government in gaining that advice from the Acting Privacy Commissioner. 15262 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 April 2005

In recent times the Government tried to abolish Privacy NSW and transfer its functions to the Ombudsman. I want to share with honourable members news that has caused the Australian Privacy Foundation to ask whether anybody is home in the Privacy Commissioner's office. The part-time Acting Privacy Commissioner, Mr John Dickie, generally has been very quiet about privacy law and policy. However, the Australian Privacy Foundation learned just this week that he stated on record he believes there are no privacy issues arising from the Photo Card Bill. I share the foundation's surprise at that view.

The Photo Card Bill has been criticised by privacy experts as proposing an Australia card style regime with comprehensive analysis of the bill published two months ago by the foundation. If passed, the bill would create a centralised database aimed at holding the personal records of every resident in New South Wales and create an identity card with a unique identifier. The purported objective of providing non-drivers with convenient evidence of identity could easily be met by a far less intrusive system. The foundation suggested detailed amendments to achieve that. The foundation spokesperson, Nigel Waters, commented on these developments and said:

That an Acting Privacy Commissioner cannot see any of the obvious privacy implications in this Bill is flabbergasting.

He went on to state:

There is a plan to introduce an all-purpose identity card in NSW, but the very person supposed to review such proposals seems to be asleep at the wheel.

He then said:

As the Acting Privacy Commissioner seems to be either unwilling or unable to provide independent and expert advice on such a critical issue we have lost faith. Neither Mr Dickie nor the NSW Government appear to take privacy seriously.

I urge all honourable members to consider those comments because I understand and appreciate how they may have been influenced by the comments in the email from Mr Dickie. Here we have some clear rejection of Mr Dickie's position in relation to this bill.

The Government's history of not taking privacy seriously is worthy of comment and analysis. The Government has worked to marginalise and weaken the Privacy Commissioner's office, now known as Privacy NSW, ever since it was embarrassed by the former Privacy Commissioner's public reporting into the Aquilina affair a few years ago. The Government has left the position of Privacy Commissioner vacant for almost two years, and there is still no visible action to fill it permanently. It is difficult to believe that the Government is serious about privacy when it does not fill the position but simply has an acting commissioner on three-month contracts. One wonders what the Government is up to—clearly something is going on. The Government does not take such decisions lightly. It has a game plan here. I do not think it is a game plan that has the interests of the people of New South Wales at heart.

In 2003 the Government attempted to abolish the Privacy Commissioner's office, but it was thwarted by the combined efforts of the Opposition and crossbench members of Parliament in the upper House. Then, in 2004, the Government starved the office of funds and expertise by abolishing the four most senior staff positions and dictating its own restructure of responsibilities. The result was a mass exodus of 9 of the 12 staff within just a few months, leaving Privacy NSW with virtually no corporate memory or privacy experience. The Government's report of the five-year review of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 is now months overdue. It seems that the Government, from the Premier down, has simply jettisoned, downgraded and treated with disdain the whole issue of privacy. This sequence of events fuels suspicion that the Government still plans to simply abolish the office outright, leaving the people of New South Wales without an effective privacy watchdog.

We should remember that the role of the Privacy Commissioner is supposed to be independent of the government of the day. But independence cannot be assured unless the person in the role has job security as envisaged in the Act. I emphasise that point. With these sorts of positions, job security is vital if the person is to be in a position to provide objective advice. If they had the threat of losing their job hanging over their head, by far the majority of people would be extremely circumspect in the advice they offered to the government of the day and to the people of New South Wales. With regard to the position of Privacy Commissioner, the Act provides for a fixed term of up to five years, appointment by the Governor, and removal only by the Governor on the basis of misconduct or incapacity. 7 April 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15263

Mr Dickie, the Acting Privacy Commissioner, has no job security. His appointment was originally only for three months. Although he has now been in the job for more than 18 months, his contract has never been for more than a few months at a time. As an acting commissioner, he is appointed by—and can be removed at the whim of—the Attorney General. In other words, he is reliant on the Government for his livelihood. We could expect that he could well be looking over his shoulder all the time, just to make sure that he still has a job. He would be considering all the statements he makes, because he may well consider that anything that is out of step with the Government may result in his not having a job. Nigel Waters, the foundation spokesperson, summed up Mr Dickie's untenable position as follows:

The Privacy Commissioner's functions under the Act include reviewing government proposals and publicly commenting on matters of concern. But how could anyone feel comfortable speaking out when their employment can be cancelled at any time?

I believe Mr Waters' comments are right on the money. On 2 May it will be two years since the former Privacy Commissioner, Chris Puplick, resigned. How will this occasion be marked at Privacy NSW? Acting Commissioner John Dickie will be overseas at that time; he is on a six-week holiday. The foundation has learned that no-one has been appointed in Mr Dickie's place. Moreover, his absence coincides with that of the next most senior officer.

Debate adjourned on motion by Ms Lee Rhiannon.

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly agreed to:

That this House at its rising today do adjourn until Tuesday 3 May 2005 at 2.30 p.m.

ADJOURNMENT

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister for Lands) [6.37 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

TRIBUTE TO MR EDWARD EAGAR

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [6.37 p.m.]: Edward Eagar was born in Killarney, Ireland, in 1787. His parents were landed gentry so he was well educated. He trained as a solicitor and became an attorney to His Majesty's Courts in Ireland. In 1809 he was charged with forging a bill of exchange, and he was convicted and sentenced to death. He pleaded for clemency and was gaoled for 18 months until he was transported to Sydney. The chaplain sought Edward Eagar's repentance. Edward committed his life to Christ, repented, and the chaplain sent with him to Australia a letter to Reverend Samuel Marsden that said, "Edward Eagar has really become a new creature."

Edward Eagar arrived as a convict in chains in 1811 and was assigned to teach children. He soon commenced Bible classes in the Windsor district. He was then given charge of the local school. In 1812 he met with two newcomers, Thomas Bowden and John Hoskin, and they formed the first membership of the first Methodist church in Australia, known as Wesley Mission, on 12 March 1812. Edward wrote to the Methodist Conference in England to "send us a Minister lest we die in our sins". The Minister, Reverend Samuel Leigh, arrived in 1815, and Edward Eagar introduced him to Governor Macquarie. Reverend Leigh was the first Methodist minister in Australia, and he is remembered by the Leigh Memorial Church in Parramatta.

Edward Eagar assisted in founding the Sydney Benevolent Society, and subsequently the Royal Women's Hospital at Paddington, the British and Foreign Bible Society, and the Australian Religious Tract Society. He established the Society for the Protection and Civilisation of Distressed Islanders of the South Seas. He also planned the first mission to Aborigines. Honourable members would be interested to know that he put up 10 per cent of the funding capital to establish the Bank of New South Wales, now known as Westpac, but he was angry that he was not allowed to become a director of the bank because he had been a convict.

In 1818 Edward Eagar was granted a full pardon. However, Judge Jeffrey Bent did not let him forget he had been a convict and had been discarded from practice as a lawyer. He lost a court case because pardoned convicts did not have a right to own property, to sue, to give evidence in court or to have other civil rights. Other emancipated convicts also saw their rights denied. So Edward Eagar took up their case with the British 15264 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 April 2005

Government. He fought for trial by jury and for freedom to trade commercially. This was the first Australian attempt to change government policy. Dr William Redfern, after whom Redfern is named, and Edward Eagar sailed to London in 1821 to argue the case in the Court of St James on behalf of other emancipated convicts. Edward Eagar fought the case for 20 years, and eventually won.

Edward Eagar was Australia's first liberal political agitator. He left his wife and three sons behind, taking his daughter with him to London. He was never to return. But in London his personal life once more slipped below his Christian standards. He married a 16-year-old girl and they had 10 children. His Sydney wife, Jemima, moved into a new house in Macquarie Street—just down the road from Parliament House—with William Charles Wentworth, with whom she had a son. At the time Wentworth was our most famous citizen. He was the first European to cross the Blue Mountains and the most powerful member of the Legislative Council. Edward Eagar's son Geoffrey became the first accountant of the Bank of New South Wales, a leading public servant, a member of the Legislative Council and eventually Treasurer of New South Wales—described as the best Treasurer of the nineteenth century—and a long-serving Cabinet Minister. He never forgave his father for leaving his mother.

When Edward Eagar died in 1866 he was described as a "gentleman", but a study of his life reveals that he wrestled constantly with God. He grappled with his internal conflict between good and evil—between doing the best and being overcome by the worst. Many men in Sydney today, particularly those who have been convicted of crimes, know about that inner wrestling with God in their hard times. That is why I named Wesley Mission's eight-storey building for homeless people after Edward Eagar. In the remade old chapel in Darlinghurst, with its ancient sandstone façade dating back to 1847, and its concrete tower apartment block rising to the skyline, there is a place for people who have been in gaol. It says to them: the old can become new and the worst can start again. Edward Eagar's sin was obvious but his confession was genuine. His early devotion to Christ and the church was real. He did much to establish this community but, in wrestling with his issues, he gave up too soon.

HOLI MAHOTSAV FESTIVAL

The Hon. KAYEE GRIFFIN [6.42 p.m.]: On Sunday I had the pleasure of representing the Premier at the Indian community's celebration of Holi, which, as the festival of colours and harmony, stands out as one of the most energetic and exciting festivals of India. Holi is the most colourful and vibrant of India's innumerable festivals. Held in the Indian spring on the day after the first full moon in March, Holi is meant to celebrate good harvests and the fertility of the land. It is seen as a symbolic commemoration of shedding inhibitions and caste differences by extending a hand of peace and throwing brightly coloured powder—called gula—and water over each other in celebration of harmony and friendship.

Sydney's version of the Holi festival was held in Tumbalong Park, Darling Harbour. It was hosted by the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, the Institute for Indian Art and Culture, which I have spoke about here before. As one of the largest non-government organisations in the world, the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan actively promotes a better understanding of Indian culture in New South Wales. The Bhavan aims to use educational and cultural programs to continue the best of Indian traditions while at the same time meeting the needs of modernity and multiculturalism. For people unfamiliar with Indian culture, viewing the Holi festivities without any explanation might be confusing. However, after watching people enjoying the festival and attending the formal celebrations and speeches, I learnt a lot about the celebrations.

Holi began as a harvest festival—an ancient festival of the Aryans—that is mentioned in 4,500-year-old Sanskrit texts. These days Holi has different associations that vary from region to region. Several different legends relate to the celebration of Holi. The most popular among these legends comes from the north and is the story of the arrogant king who installed himself as a god-like figure. When his pious son Prahlad worshipped the Lord Vishnu instead, his father saw it as an act as defiance and tried to slay Prahlad, failing each time due to divine intervention. The King's sister, Holika, was ordered to kill Prahlad. Holika, who was said to be immune to burning, seated the boy on her lap in a fire. However, it was Holika who perished, despite her immunity to fire. It is believed she sought Prahlad's forgiveness before her death and that he honoured her by naming the day after her. Traditionally, in areas where this tale is believed, on the day before Holi, effigies of Holika and all things negative are burned. Wood and rubbish left over from the dark, cold days of winter are collected days in advance to light the bonfire.

Holi also marks the celebration of the barley harvest. I understand that divinations for the coming harvest are cast by interpreting the direction of the flames. In the south the popular story of the origins of Holi is 7 April 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15265 woefully tragic. Legend says that Kamdev, the god of love, aimed an arrow at Lord Shiva. For this foolish prank he was burned to ashes. When his wife pleaded for his return, Lord Shiva restored him but not in human form. Hence in this part of India Holi is not such a cause for celebration, and songs of lamentation fill the air instead. In the north-west the tale is one of joy and romance. This association is based on India's most charming figure, Krishna, who is said to be an incarnation of the Lord Vishnu.

Krishna indulged in endless pranks—drenching women with water, breaking pots of butter and so on— that regularly angered the townspeople. But through his charm, wit and displays of divinity he invariably won their favour. Krishna is the quintessential youthful form with which youngsters identify: the spirit of fun and flirtation, banter and merriment. In his image, they celebrate Holi by dousing each other with coloured water and powder. The festival is also associated with the immortal love of Krishna and Radha. The young Krishna complained to his mother, Yashoda, that Radha was very fair yet he was very dark. Yashoda advised him to apply colour to Radha's face and see how her complexion changed. The Zholi tradition of festival goers throwing coloured powder and water over each other stems from this legend. The colour also symbolises vitality, and participants generally wear white to display the colours that are thrown.

Despite other religious connotations, I understand that for most of India the festival is less about spirituality and more about spontaneity. Holi is known as the great uniter. I understand that one of the reasons for this is that, unlike many festivals in India, where the richer people celebrate with more pomp and ceremony than the poor, Holi brings people together as equals. The festivities at Tumbalong Park included dances from northern Indian states, yoga, jazz and folk music, with a special area for the throwing of powder and water. It is a tribute to our culturally diverse community in New South Wales that we can participate in activities such as Holi. I was pleased to be a part of the Indian community's celebration of this very special day on their calendar.

GOVERNMENT WASTE AND MISMANAGEMENT

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [6.47 p.m.]: Tonight I draw the attention of the House to more of Bob Carr's broken promises and to the duplicitous and dishonest lengths to which the Government will go to cover up failures and shortcomings. The Carr Government has spent more than $1 billion on private consultants and advertising, despite promising in Carr's original election platform to slash such spending. In order to lure the people of New South Wales to vote for him in 1995, Bob Carr made pre-election promises to cut spending on private co nsultants by more than half, stating:

Labor will impose a $50 million whole-of-Government limit on annual consultancy costs …

When the people of New South Wales elected Carr to government he not only made New South Wales the highest-taxing State in the country but also went on a spending spree with private consultants and advertising campaigns. In fact, since 1995 this Government has spent more than $955 million on consultants and $797 million on advertising. This long-forgotten promise is just another example from the bottomless pit of Bob Carr's waste and mismanagement that I continue to highlight in the House. I will refer to those costs in more detail later.

No-one disputes that the New South Wales public are entitled to receive the best advice and that some consultants are used well by public servants. However, there should always be transparency and accountability when using consultants. The Government is not into either of those things. One example of the Government's failure in this regard concerns the consultant Frontier Economics. Former Treasurer Michael Egan said he would limit government spending on this consultant to $14 million over five years. However, before his retirement from the House he admitted to a parliamentary committee that the Government has actually paid $15.7 million to Frontier Economics. To make matters worse, Mr Egan subsequently confessed that he had made a mistake and that the Frontier Economics fee had blown out to $18.1 million. The Government has even reclassified the Frontier Economics contract, changing its classification from "consultant" to "contractor" so as to avoid adding the fee to the Government's annual list of consultants' expenses.

More light has been shed on this dishonest practice and attempt to hide the extent of the consultants by recent admissions by the Director-General of the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources that the department had paid a firm of auditors $176,000 in fees for internal audit work last year. The director- general admitted that these fees had not been declared in the annual report on the consultants list because the firm had been classified as a "contractor" and not a "consultant". When asked to explain the difference between a "contractor" and a "consultant", the director-general gave an obtuse answer and read from a Premier's Department circular. I will quote the section she quoted:

For the purposes of these guidelines a consultant is a person or organisation engaged under contract on a temporary basis to provide recommendations or high-level specialist advice or professional advice to assist decision making by management. Generally it is the advisory nature of the work that differentiates a consultant from other contractors. 15266 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 April 2005

As I said, the Department insisted on calling this consultant a contractor when the type of advice was clearly that of a consultant. Indeed, a number of other departments had engaged the same consultant for similar sort of work and did not use the ruse in identifying the consultant as a consultant. When the director-general of the department engaged the consultant, part of the role that that consultant was given was to justify the $2.1 million the director-general had spent on a mate's business—BSR Consulting—even after BSR ceased to be an approved government contract supplier. The director-general paid the $2.1 million to BSR Consulting to provide information technology services to the department. It turns out that BSR Consulting is the business of Jennifer Westacott's old colleague from the Department of Housing, Sharon Kennedy, who is a 20 per cent shareholder. When the ICAC became interested in this matter the independent consultants Deloittes were called in to investigate and justify the expenditure. These are really quite appalling examples of this Government's mismanagement and its ability to dishonestly avoid accountability and transparency.

INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT AND FURTHER EDUCATION FUNDING

Ms SYLVIA HALE [6.52 p.m.]: In February this year I visited Individual Development and Further Education [IDAFE], a service provider caring for young people with intellectual disabilities. IDAFE aims to improve the quality of life of young people with an intellectual disability and their families. IDAFE teaches school-leavers basic living and pre-vocational skills to enable them to participate independently as valued members of the community. IDAFE provides outstanding quality care on a miniscule amount of money. Much of its work would not be possible without the dedication of the parents and volunteers who donate their services and their time to raise funds. Private enterprise would be hard-pressed to be half as efficient as IDAFE, and may not be half as caring. Even so, IDAFE's funding will be cut under the Government's so-called reforms to the Post School Options [PSO] and the Adult Training, Learning and Support programs. IDAFE is still awaiting funding for the five new school leavers who have been placed with the service.

The Hon. John Ryan: They are doing something with nothing.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: Indeed, they are. Withholding and cutting funds is an astonishingly shortsighted, penny-pinching Government strategy. When individual funding is cut, service providers will not be able to afford the staff or the resources to provide the same number of hours of care. This means that parents will be forced to care for children who had previously been funded to attend IDAFE or similar providers. Many parents or carers will, as a result, be forced to leave their jobs, and families may end up living below the poverty line, with significant ongoing medical expenses to meet. Ultimately, the taxpayer will pick up the tab via the carer's pension. Not surprisingly, under this level of pressure, family break-up is common. Many of the parents at IDAFE are single parents. The irony is that, if the funding cuts push families to breaking point and they are no longer able to care for their children, the children will be institutionalised and costs will blow out phenomenally.

A person with a profound intellectual disability living in an institution costs the Government upwards of $100,000 per year. But, in a loving and functioning family assisted by PSO or Adult Training, Learning and Support funding and suitable programs, the same person can have an incomparably better quality of life at a much lower cost to the taxpayer. It is financially reckless and morally reprehensible to cut funding for providers like IDAFE. Yesterday I was contacted by IDAFE, whose workers are at their wits end. Already struggling to make ends meet after the funding cuts, IDAFE has not yet been paid the money the Government owes it.

The Department of Disability Services has accepted and placed with IDAFE a whole new cohort of 2004 school leavers. They commenced their programs on 7 February, but the department has not forwarded a penny to pay for their programs. Providers such as IDAFE are being forced to fundraise and subsist on charity just to pay wages and bills. Those working in the sector feel as though the Government is deliberately obstructing the service providers even at the risk of forcing them to close. And it is not just the recent funding cuts that are so cruelly unfair. The Government has other ways of short changing our neediest citizens.

As the parents and workers at IDAFE explained to me, the funding model is based on a definition of "disability" that does not take intellectual disability into account. Funding is graded according to the level of physical disability only. A person in a wheelchair with no intellectual disability is classified as profoundly disabled and receives the highest level of funding. Yet a person with few physical handicaps but who is profoundly intellectually disabled is ineligible for the same level of funding. This is true of many of the young people who attend IDAFE. As one mother said, they might be able to walk, but they would walk in front of a truck because they do not understand the danger. Another said many of these young people, classified as only moderately disabled, would starve to death locked in a supermarket because they would not know how to open a jar. 7 April 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15267

Some are fully grown adults who may need two people to lift them to change their nappies, which many wear. But, because they are classified as only moderately disabled, they are funded for only one carer. The Government has deliberately cut funds in areas that do not make headlines. As a consequence, it is the most disadvantaged people in our society who are hardest hit: people with a disability, the mentally ill, their carers, public housing tenants, the poor and the homeless. It is time the Government treated the vulnerable and the voiceless with respect and gave them the funds they so desperately need and deserve.

CLOTHING OUTWORKERS PROTECTION

The Hon. IAN WEST [6.57 p.m.]: In the so-called modern and sophisticated world of today, why must we still put up with the dangerous and often illegal antics of sweatshop exploiters? Today there exists a positive and responsible path that can be taken by anyone who wants to stay in business as a clothing manufacturer in New South Wales. We have a coalition of employers, employees, retailers, manufacturers and consumers—the Ethical Clothing Trades Council of New South Wales—that administer the home workers' code of practice. These groups have established an economically viable and morally justifiable framework for anyone operating in the industry. The council has developed world-leading best-practice mechanisms designed to reward honest players and prevent them from being undercut by unscrupulous exploitative marketeers.

That is why the Australian Retailers Association continues to support the "New South Wales Behind the Label" strategy. That is why retailers such as Best and Less, Big W, Country Road, David Jones, Gowings, K-Mart, Lowes, Sportsgirl, Sussan, Target, Woolworths and others have signed up to the Ethical Clothing Code of Practice. That is why manufacturers such as Australian Defence Force Apparel, Billabong, King Gee, Rip Curl And Yakka have signed up. That is why the New South Wales Government has worked with the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union of Australia [TCFUA] and Asian Women At Work and brought in the Behind the Label strategy. The union movement, together with the Government, retailers and manufacturers, has been working to expose dodgy operations and protect the vulnerable.

It is the role of Government, parliamentarians, unions and employers to protect the people of New South Wales and to expose and prosecute exploitation. There are at least 50,000 outworkers in New South Wales who need to be protected from such exploitation. That is why the Government, unions, retail employers, and manufacturers all have the same objective in relation to ethical clothing. So why would a clothing factory employer ignore the responsible path and embark on a sequence of dangerous and illegal actions that threaten the health and safety of their workers?

The Goldbridge factory operation in Bexley is a case study in flouting laws designed to protect workers. This House already knows that Goldbridge moved out of an industrial factory and relocated to a concealed garage in a residential area. For four years Goldbridge violated WorkCover’s safety laws requiring such a factory to be registered with WorkCover. This illegal unregistered factory was packed with flammable fabric and cardboard. Workers spent their days locked inside the factory behind an array of bars and double- locked doors. Some people have claimed that the TCFUA entered the illegal factory under the Industrial Relations Act. They could have, but they did not: they entered under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

This House already knows that section 78 (1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 clearly permits the union to enter such factory premises without giving prior notice. Supporters of Goldbridge have also cited section 78 (2) (a) of the same Act in defence of Goldbridge. Section 78 (2) (a) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act describes what a union should do after it has entered factory premises. This House needs to know that Goldbridge has been engaging in hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of transactions with bogus companies that cannot be found. Goldbridge engaged in transactions with at least 16 other firms that purported also to be garment subcontractors. A number of those 16 other firms have been exposed on the public record as running bogus operations involving phoney addresses.

How many other clothing workers in New South Wales are caught up in a web of black market sweatshop operations? What risks to life and limb are those workers facing? Do the supporters of Goldbridge want to go in to bat with these other bogus operators as well? I will name five companies that do not seem to exist as their invoices claim, and I will give the rounded amounts paid to them, as well as the other companies that have been dealing with Goldbridge: Jenny Ngo Fashions, just under $70,000;Vu Clothing, more than $33,000; Blue Rice Pty Ltd, more than $31,000; Luu Henry Clothing, more than $58,000; and Hung Clothing, more than $51,000. Other companies include T. Lan Paul Fashion, Ean Paul Fashion, Li Jian Di Victor Lia, Siprasong Enterprises, S. L. Clothing, V. V. L. Huon Clothing, Keo's Trading, Tacmont, Kang Mei Deng Company, Shuk Yee Cheung, and Jia Hwa Company. 15268 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 April 2005

I am concerned not only that Goldbridge has broken laws in this State that protect workers and businesses but that it has paid out more than $680,000 to various parties for 160,000 units of clothing. Goldbridge would have had to receive more money than it paid out to remain in business. Goldbridge payments of GST on the amounts received was $46,000 or, at most, 7½ per cent. In addition, Goldbridge's company statements about how much its workers earn are quite ludicrous. That is, of course, unless Goldbridge is evading other responsibilities. Also, there is no evidence of pay-as-you-earn tax by the owner of Goldbridge in respect of their employees. [Time expired.]

ASSYRIAN NEW YEAR CELEBRATION

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN [7.02 p.m.]: Last Sunday I was honoured to accept an invitation to celebrate the 6755 Assyrian New Year at Fairfield. This celebration commemorates the most important festival in the ancient Assyrian and Babylonian Empires. The Assyrian New Year celebrations began on the first day of Nesan, which we now know as April. Today, Assyrians all over the world celebrate this day as their national festival. It coincides with the beginning of spring in the Northern Hemisphere. This is a time when nature wakes from her winter slumber and the trees, plants, fields and flowers begin to bloom again. This represents new life, which the ancient Assyrian philosophers regarded as the act of creation.

The Assyrians are a remarkable people—they were the first to accept the teaching of Jesus Christ in the First Century AD and have an unbroken link with him from when he delivered the sermon on the Mount in their native language, Aramaic, which is known in the linguistic world as the Syriac language. They come from the ancient land of Mesopotamia, which comprised what is now Iraq, Syria, parts of Western Iran and Southern Turkey. Two great cities, Nineveh and Babylon, were the capitals of their empire. Babylon was conquered by the Persians in 539 BC and Assyria fell in 612 BC. The Persian Empire fell to the Muslim Arabs in AD 637. The population of Mesopotamia was estimated to be about 8 million at the time, of whom Christian Assyrians comprised 80 per cent.

The Assyrians were persecuted by the occupying Arabs and today, after 1,600 years of Arab occupation, only 2 million remain from what was Assyria and Babylonia. Many were converted to Islam and forced to deny their identity by having to refer to themselves as Arabs. More recently, in the middle of the nineteenth century, the Kurdish tribes under Badr Khan Beg massacred hundreds of thousands of Assyrians and destroyed many Assyrian villages in southern Turkey and the Northern Iraq region. These massacres continued around the end of the nineteenth century by Kurdish tribes in the same region. During the First World War and in the immediate post-war years the Turkish, Kurdish and Persian forces in Iran and Turkey committed unconscionable acts of genocide against more than 750,000 Assyrian Christians.

The recent liberation of Iraq and the end of the oppressive regime of Saddam Hussein has created a unique opportunity for the United Nations to provide the dispossessed indigenous people of Iraq—the Christian Assyrians, Chaldeans, Syriacs and Mandeans—with a protected homeland. Voting irregularities in the recent Iraqi elections have caused a great deal of grief among the Christian Assyrian minority. They only have one seat in a Parliament of 275. It is little wonder they feel cheated by the current arrangements and vulnerable as an unprotected minority group. I would hope the United Nations, at the urging of the partners in the coalition of the willing—the United States of America, Great Britain and Australia—will provide a protected administrative region for the Assyrians, who are the indigenous people of this ancient land.

I am currently in the process of collecting a petition from the Assyrian Universal Alliance calling on both the Government of New South Wales and our Federal Government to provide a protected administrative area for them and so prevent the inevitable mass exodus of Christians from Iraq. I have also been made aware of the contribution of the Assyrians to the allied effort in both World Wars. In 1915 they joined the Allied cause and declared war on Turkey. For two years, with logistical support from Russia, they held the enemy in check on the Eastern front and were victorious in 14 separate engagements. In 1918 the Eastern front collapsed as a result of the Russian revolution. The Assyrians paid dearly for their defiance and their gallant defence. Over two-thirds of their people were massacred in unforgivable and unforgettable acts of genocide against them.

In 1921 the Assyrian forces joined a newly formed British unit in northern Iraq and were known as "the Iraqi Levies". In 1941 the Assyrian Levies, supported by the Royal Air Force [RAF], defeated the Iraqi army, which was allied to Germany. They were awarded the title "RAF" as a result of their contribution to this victory. In 1941 the Assyrian parachute company, attached to the British Royal Marine commandos, fought in Albania and Greece while the RAF Levies fought in Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, Greece, Albania, Italy and Cyprus. The RAF Levies were proud and fearless allies in the fight for freedom against oppression. It is an interesting 7 April 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15269 coincidence that their uniforms are similar to our famous Australian Light Horse units—and their fighting ability in the deserts and mountains of Iraq and Turkey was just as legendary.

I acknowledge the tireless efforts of Mr Gabriel Kiwarkis, a former Australian soldier and current President of the Assyrian RAF Levies Association, for his meticulous research of their contribution to the allied victories in both World Wars. I will be supporting Mr Kiwarkis in his bid to have this contribution acknowledged with a memorial display within the Australian War Memorial. I also call on the New South Wales Government to promote the linkage of the Assyrian people with the teachings of Jesus Christ within the curricula of the New South Wales education system. All Australians should know of their important linkage to our Christian faith, of their persecution over the centuries, of their sacrifice for the allied cause, and of their proud contribution to our Australian multicultural society.

I congratulate Mr Younatin Afarin, the President of the Assyrian Australian National Federation, and Mr Hermiz Shahen, the Secretary of the Australian Chapter of the Assyrian Universal Alliance, for the success of their 6755 Assyrian New Year Festival, and I thank them for their invitation to share the celebration with them. I also acknowledge the contribution of my good friends Mr Paul Azzo, Andrew Rohan and Zaya Toma for the protection of their people in Iraq and the recognition of their forefathers in the fight against oppression in both world wars. The fate of the Assyrian people under their leadership and guidance is in good hands.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 7.07 p.m. until Tuesday 3 May 2005 at 2.30 p.m. ______