13308

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Thursday 5 April 2001 ______

Mr Speaker (The Hon. John Henry Murray) took the chair at 10.00 a.m.

Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.

COMMUNITY SERVICES (COMPLAINTS, REVIEWS AND MONITORING) AMENDMENT (APPLICATION) BILL

Second Reading

Debate called on, and postponed by Mr Hazzard.

RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENCE BILL

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [10.02 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The right to self-defence is a basic right of all individuals in our society. It is fundamental to the maintenance of social order and wellbeing. Self-defence—of one’s property, oneself or another person—is a commonly accepted notion in our community, provided that the level of force used is reasonable in the surrounding circumstances at the time. However, what is considered reasonable has never been adequately set down in our laws. In an age where violence is escalating and home invasion is an all-too-common occurrence, enormous community concern exists among people about how far is too far to go when using physical force to defend themselves, their loved ones or their property.

The Government’s Home Invasion (Occupants Protection) Act 1998 has not allayed the concerns of the ordinary citizen of New South Wales, who still does not know where he or she may stand before the law when confronted with the need to defend himself or herself in the face of danger. This was highlighted recently in Maitland where a shopkeeper was charged with assault for attempting to make a citizen’s arrest of a youth caught stealing videos from his shop. The Government’s Act does not define the extent to which force may be used reasonably. When the then bill was first introduced, the Government chose to support it rather than the Coalition’s Home-Owners Defence Bill, which was far broader in scope and covered all situations, not just the home, in which an individual may be required to use self-defence.

If the Government had chosen to support the Coalition’s bill, the definition of reasonable force would already be codified and the Maitland shopkeeper may not then have suffered the indignity of arrest for attempting to use what he considered reasonable force to protect his property. For four years, under a Carr Labor Government, we have debated bill after bill on this issue—a clear indication of the need for comprehensive legislation to ensure that people are aware of their rights and obligations under the law. The Government has now supported the Workplace (Occupants Protection) Bill that passed through this House on 29 March 2001. But the Government has also indicated that it plans to introduce its own self-defence legislation this year that will make the home invasion and workplace legislation redundant. On 13 October 2000 in the other place the Hon. John Della Bosca stated:

[It] is the Government’s intention that next year we will bring the elements of the home invasion laws and this proposed law, along with the broader concept of self-defence and defence of property in general, into a single Bill to be presented to the House.

But this intention merely retraces the footsteps of the Coalition. If the Coalition's bill is supported, it will negate the need to continually introduce self-defence legislation, because our bill is comprehensive. The Right to Self- defence Bill is a single bill that clearly and simply states the law on self-defence in defence of the person, in 5 April 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13309 defence of property and in ejecting or preventing criminal trespass to one’s property. It also defines the amount of force that may be used to escape from an individual who is confining a person unlawfully.

Under this bill, persons convicted of a criminal offence will not be able to sue their victims for compensation as a consequence of actions taken by the victims to protect themselves or their property. This will ensure that we no longer encounter such ridiculous situations as that reported in the Daily Telegraph of 17 November 2000 where a man who broke into a house and attacked the home owner is now launching a civil action against his victim for compensation. Every individual has the right to use reasonable force to protect his or her property, themselves or another person when under attack. This was stated in the leading Victorian case of Zecevic v Director of Public Prosecutions (1987) 162 CLR at page 645, where the High Court said:

The defence of self-defence is embedded deeply in ordinary standards of what is fair and just. It sounds as readily in the voice of a schoolchild who protests that he or she was only defending himself or herself from the attack of another child as it does in that of the sovereign state which claims that it was but protecting its citizens or its territory against the aggression of another state.

In Zecevic, one general legal test was set for the defence of self-defence. This test stated that the jury must find that the accused believed on reasonable grounds that it was necessary in self-defence to act the way that he or she acted. Effectively this means that if a person is charged with murder or assault and claims they were acting in self-defence, they must show they believed at the time: first, that the resort to force was reasonable in the surrounding circumstances, which is a subjective test; and second, that it was necessary, in all the given circumstances, which is an objective test. Despite the Zecevic decision, the law of self-defence is still murky. Even the Government’s Home Invasion (Occupants Protection) Act goes nowhere towards clearing the waters.

Only last year Justice Badgery-Parker, in Regina v Munro [2000] New South Wales SC 1225 found that the Government’s law was the same as the common law relating to self-defence. In that case the accused person was found guilty of manslaughter for killing his neighbour with a cricket bat after the neighbour entered his house armed with the bat. In that judgment, the judge said:

The question is not whether the accused acted reasonably; it is whether he had reasonable grounds for the relevant belief. The relevant belief is not a belief that he had a ‘right’ to act; if it were, s 5 [of the Home Invasion (Occupants Protection) Act] might be relevant as creating a ground for that belief. But that is not the relevant belief. The relevant belief is a belief on the part of the accused person that it was necessary to act as he did in self defence; and the relevant question is whether he had reasonable grounds for that belief.

This decision cements the Coalition’s determination to ensure that although the Government is unable to develop effective legislation to ensure the law regarding the defence of self-defence is stated clearly, that such a law is passed by this Parliament. The Right to Self-defence Bill will do this. It inserts a new part 8B into the Crimes Act 1900. New section 344C is based on section 10.4 of the Criminal Code, as set out in the Criminal Code Act 1995 of the Commonwealth and replaces the common law in its application to offences punishable under the Crimes Act. New section 344C (1) provides that a person is not criminally responsible for an offence if he or she carries out the conduct in self-defence. New section 344C (2) sets out the situations in which a person may claim his or her action was necessary in self-defence of the person or of property.

The amount of force used should be a reasonable response to the circumstances as the person using the force perceives them. The bill provides that a sufficient levelif necessary a higher levelof force may be used to overcome an assailant. The criteria by which this is to be measured are the decision of the person at the time and how he or she perceived the circumstances in the agony and stress of the moment. Proposed section 344C (3) provides that a person may use force that intentionally inflicts death or grievous bodily harm only to defend himself or herself or another person. In October last year, shopkeeper Kolja Nikolic, a shopkeeper in western Sydney, was accosted by a man who demanded that he give him $20 or he would be thrown into the shop's deep fryer. When Mr Nikolic gave the man the cash, the thief threatened to return for more money. The police were called, and they informed Mr Nikolic that he had the right to protect himself if the man returned. When the thiefonly minutes after the call to policedid come back, walking around the shop towards the counter, threatening to belt the shopkeeper if he did not give him more money, Mr Nikolic pulled a gun from under the counter and fatally wounded him. The jury took less than one hour to acquit the shopkeeper of murder. The presiding judge, Justice Michael Adams, dismissed claims the shopkeeper could have used the gun as a baton, stating, "He might well have thrown a few frozen Chiko Rolls at him". Such a situation, where a person's life was endangered by the criminal actions of another, would fall under this subsection. Proposed subsection (4) prevents such use of force in the defence of property. Where there is no threat to the life of a person, there can be no justification for intending to kill or to do grievous bodily harm. If when 13310 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 April 2001

defending property a person accidentally kills or inflicts grievous bodily harm the defence of self-defence is still available. The question, of course, goes to the intent behind the force used. In 1998 a shopkeeper in Orange was faced with this situation when he shot dead a man during an armed robbery. Mr Cikaric's shop had already been robbed three times within a year, causing him to fear for the safety of his wife, who worked in the store. When a thief armed with a rifle walked in and demanded the day's takings, the shopkeeper produced a handgun and fired several shots. The thief was shot and died from his injuries. In this case, the Director of Public Prosecutions decided not to press charges against the store owner.

The bill makes it clear that the defence of self-defence is not available if a person is responding to lawful conduct that the accused person knew was lawful at the time the force was used. Proposed section 344C (5) covers situations where a person may be required to use force to protect themselves from a deadly attack by a child or an insane person, who are not criminally liable for their conduct. Proposed section 344D restates the current law in relation to the burden of proof. It provides that the prosecution bears the burden of proving that conduct was not carried out in self-defence when it has been established that the evidence points to a possibility that the action was carried out in self-defence. This is regardless of whether the defendant raises the plea of self- defence.

Finally, but importantly, proposed section 344E of the bill provides that a person who carries out conduct in self-defence is immune from civil liability resulting from his or her conduct. A criminal should not be allowed to claim damages from his or her victims for injuriespsychological or physicalsustained as a result of victims acting in self-defence of property or of the person. This goes against the grain of community perceptions of justice, and only serves to entrench rather than eradicate, criminal behaviour. Victims of crime face a difficult time coming to terms with the incident without then having to defend themselves in court against their attacker. It is a ludicrous situation, and an indictment on our society, that we have come to such a stage that a thief can legally waste the court's valuable time and money suing for $40,000 because his victims took action to protect their property.

The principle of self-defence must be upheld by the law and in the courts if the community is to feel they are afforded appropriate protection against home invaders and assailants. I have countless letters from members of the community supporting the Coalition's bill. I have received petitions from community members requesting the Government support this legislation. Clearly this is a burning issue that must be resolved. For years the Government has been playing games with the public's need to know where they stand when their property or their family is under attack. This bill will ensure that every citizen in New South Wales knows that when defending themselves the law is for them, not against them. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Yeadon.

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS AMENDMENT (PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEE) BILL

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [10.15 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time. For some years now, the Director of Public Prosecutions [DPP] has been the subject of community comment and concern. The comment has been because certain decisions taken by the DPP have not been seen to either represent or protect community interests and values. The concern has been because the function of the Director of Public Prosecutions is to uphold the rights of the community to be protected against criminals and criminal actions, and to feel secure in the knowledge that when criminals are caught, they will be judged before the law. However, increasingly this is not the case. A number of well-publicised cases where the DPP refused to move a matter to trial or to appeal against a sentence considered too lenient by the community highlights the need for accountability of this officeto Parliament and, through Parliament, to the people of New South Wales. I could cite any number of cases to illustrate my point. I could, for instance, cite the sentences handed down to the killers of Mark Evans, the truck driver who died when two young men recklessly threw rocks at passing cars from an overhead bridge. The sentencing judge took into consideration the youths' intellectual abilities and the fact they pleaded guilty, even though one of the accused changed his plea halfway through the 5 April 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13311 court proceedings. The two men received sentences of two and a half years, and five years and three months. "Not enough" screamed the headlines, on radio, television and print media alike. Even the Premier of New South Wales expressed outrage at such lenient sentences and by such miscarriage of justice. The DPP refused to appeal. I could cite also the sentences given to Michael James Ryan, who killed Arthur Wong and Susan Barnes when he deliberately drove his semitrailer down the wrong side of the road on 18 September 1998—for that, he will serve just five years and two months. Or I could cite the decision last year by the DPP not to send to trial Jeffrey Ian Gilham for the 1993 killing of his parents and brother, despite recommendations by the Coroner that the matter be referred to trial. I could go on and on. But the point is this: the Director of Public Prosecutions cannot be both judge and jury in the process of justice. Accountability of this office has been of concern for years now. The fact of the matter is that this office is funded by the taxpayers of New South Wales, and the responsibility of this office is to carry out public duty.

The Coalition is determined to ensure that when decisions are made by the DPPparticularly when they go against the tenet of community expectations and valuesthat the DPP is able to explain, and if necessary justify to an appropriate body, the reasons for such decisions. The Director of Public Prosecutions Amendment Bill will ensure this end is achieved. It will not remove the independence of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, but will make it accountable to a parliamentary oversight committee, in much the same way that the Office of the Ombudsman and ICAC is accountable now. The object of this bill is straightforward. It will amend the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1986 to establish a parliamentary joint committee, to be known as the Committee on the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The committee will recommend, on an annual basis, the amount to be appropriated out of the Consolidated Fund for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The committee will also: comment generally on the budget of that office; have the power to veto the proposed appointment of a person as Director of Public Prosecutions; monitor and review the exercise by the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Director's functions under the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1986 and any other Act. This bill is not a new bill. It was introduced in 1995 and 1997 respectively by the honourable member for Epping, Mr Andrew Tink, whose work on this issue has been commendable. At the time of that introduction the honourable member noted an important point. He said that the committee's process of monitoring and reviewing decisions made by the DPP would not extend to recommending that "the DPP makes a decision that relates to the institution or cessation of prosecutions or proceedings in a particular case, or to reconsidering any such decision" As the honourable member for Epping rightly stated, the powers and functions of the committee, other than the function of monitoring and reviewing the public funding of the office, are in other respects similar to the functions of the existing joint committees under the Ombudsman Act 1974, the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 and the Health Care Complaints Act 1993. However, what the committee will do is to ensure proper accountability of this office. It will provide an appropriate mechanism for debate surrounding legal policy matters between the DPP and the community. It will ensure that when decisions taken by the DPP are broadly considered lenient or inappropriate, that the committee can hear first hand the reasons such decisions were taken. If the committee, upon review of that decision, is of the opinion that there was not sufficient justification, the committee may recommend that the Attorney General ask the DPP to reconsider the decision made. Justice must be answerable to the victims, to society and to the law. This bill will help to preserve the proper process of justice in our society. Schedule 1 inserts a new Part 4A into the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1986. Clause 30A provides for the establishment of the committee of the office for the Director of Public Prosecutions as a joint committee of the Parliament. Clause 30B sets out the functions of the joint committee. Those functions include the recommending of the amount of money to be appropriated annually from the Consolidated Fund to fund the operation of the office, and commenting generally on the budget of that office. Under clause 30C notification of the committee’s recommendation of funding must be given no later than five months before the beginning of the financial year to which it relates. Such a function will not only ensure proper accountability of expenditure and operations, it will also ensure that the office receives sufficient funding to carry out the role of first prosecutor of this State. Funding of the office of the DPP has been in crisis now for some years. The current DPP has been quite outspoken about this issue. On 27 November 1999, the Sydney Morning Herald ran the headline "Criminal crisis is looming, says DPP". The 1998-99 annual report went further. In that report the DPP said: The straightened times to which I referred in the last annual report have become tighter. We are facing challenges of Olympic proportions. 13312 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 April 2001

While an additional $5.5 million was provided to the office in the last State budget, the effectiveness of the operation and current amount of funding provided to the office must have an ongoing avenue of review. The joint committee’s proposed function to comment generally on the budget of the office of the DPP will also ensure that funding is spent on criminal prosecutions, and not on numerous overseas trips or unnecessary bureaucratic administration. The 1999-2000 annual report showed that the DPP took seven overseas trips and visited eleven countries, costing the taxpayer more than three-quarters of a million dollars. That is the same office that only the year before cried insufficient funding to prevent a criminal crisis from looming. The Government cannot have it both ways. It can no longer refuse to allocate sufficient and recurrent funding to allow the DPP to do his job well, while at the same time providing no accountability for the way that money is spent. The community has a right to ask—and receive an answer—as to the validity of the State’s top prosecutor spending such an amount on overseas travel. Under this bill, such questions could be asked, and answered.

Clause 30B provides that the joint committee monitor and review the exercise by the Director of Public Prosecutions of his or her functions and report to Parliament on such matters relating to the DPP as the committee considers should be brought to Parliament’s attention. Those functions are in many ways similar to parliamentary oversight in England by the Home Affairs Committee of the House of Commons. As part of its review of the office of the DPP the committee will examine annual and other reports of the Director of Public Prosecutions and report to Parliament on those reports. When the honourable member for Epping first spoke on this bill, he pointed out that such a function will enable the standing committee to investigate and oversee the DPP by reviewing the legal policy issues which are raised, without getting into operational matters or directing the DPP.

The committee will also report to Parliament any changes that are considered appropriate to the functions, the structures and the procedures of the office of the DPP. In that way, the somewhat rampant decisions and policy directions increasingly taken by the DPP will at least be held up to scrutiny. People in New South Wales will no longer feel that the process of justice has been held up to ransom, or that their values are no longer represented in the criminal justice system. The process of justice through the courts, is, after all, intended to reflect the values of what our society considers to be acceptable behaviour. It is incumbent upon law officers to ensure that justice is not only done, but is also seen to be done.

Under clause 30B, the joint committee will also inquire into any question in connection to its own functions that is referred by both Houses of Parliament. This will ensure that the committee acts when requested by Parliament. Clause 30D will enable the joint committee to veto the proposed appointment of a person as Director of Public Prosecutions. This provision is no different to that given to the oversight committee for the Office of the Ombudsman. Once appointed, the DPP has the protection of judicial tenure. A joint committee will develop expertise of understanding of the roles, the responsibilities and the functions of the DPP. Regarding that, the honourable member for Epping said:

Importantly, if a parliamentary committee is to effectively exercise that function, which it has at law, to possibly veto Cabinet’s proposed appointment of a DPP, the committee should have some expertise and understanding about what the DPP does … as the ICAC and Ombudsman committees have such understanding about their relevant bodies through an ongoing relationship with the statutory office holder.

Clause 30E sets out the make-up of the committee, which will consist of three members of the Legislative Council, to be appointed by the council, and eight members of the Legislative Assembly, to be appointed by the assembly. Clause 30F outlines the circumstances in which a member of the joint committee ceases to hold office, and the stipulations for filling any vacancies. Clause 30G provides for a chairperson and vice-chairperson of the joint committee. Clause 30I outlines the mechanism by which the joint committee can report to Parliament when Parliament is not sitting. Clauses 30J, 30K, 30L and 30M outline procedural details of the committee’s operation, including procedures for evidence in public and in private.

Last month the Carr Government announced its intention to create a management board to oversight the Director of Public Prosecutions. In doing so, the Government is treading on dangerous ground. Such a plan will compromise the judicial independence of the DPP, because it will make the office beholden to Government and government process. Accountability must be to the people of New South Wales through their elected representatives, not to government bureaucrats on short-term contracts. It is important that the DPP is accountable to Parliament, but independent from Government. Politicians must not run the judicial process: the judiciary must.

Ultimately, if the DPP cannot control his staff or his budget because it is under the control of a management board that is really nothing more than government officials, the independence of the prosecutorial 5 April 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13313 system itself will be seriously compromised. However, under the Coalition’s Director of Public Prosecutions Amendment Bill, judicial independence will remain, accountability will be preserved, and justice will not only be done, but be seen to be done—in the eyes of the community, the victims and indeed, even the criminals. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Yeadon.

GRAFFITI CONTROL (SPRAY PAINT CAN DISPLAY) BILL

Bill introduced and read first time.

Second Reading

Mr RICHARDSON (The Hills) [10.28 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time. This bill was introduced in this House in October 1995, and was rejected in 1996 by the Government. I have reintroduced it not just because I am optimistic that the Government may have rethought its opposition to the legislation, but because I know from responses to radio interviews I did in 1996, and from talking to people during the past five years, that this an idea whose time has come. Graffiti is a blight on our urban landscapes. It costs more than $100 million a year in New South Wales alone: railways, buses—honourable members might remember what happened to Westbus at Northmead a couple of years ago when virtually all their buses were spray painted—the Anzac War Memorial in Hyde Park when the Government moved legislation to increase penalties for graffitists despoiling the memorial. Nothing is sacred to the graffiti vandal. In my own electorate the M2 noise barriers, and increasingly private property, fences and walls and so on, are being targeted. This latter fact has been recognised by the Government, which has given notice that it will be introducing legislation requiring local councils to clean up private property in exchange for $25,000 graffiti blasters. The bill is very straightforward. It would require retailers to keep full spray paint cans in locked cages or other locked display cabinets, or within or behind any counter that is attended by the owner of the business, or by any member of the staff of the business. The latter section was inserted in recognition of the fact that the provision of a locked cage or locked display cabinet may impose an unreasonable financial impost on small retailers. I emphasise that nothing in the legislation prevents any person from selling a spray paint can to another person, or the display for commercial purposes of an empty spray can. The bill does not restrict trade in any way. Approximately 90 per cent of spray cans used by graffitists are stolen. The best way to reduce graffiti in our community is to restrict the access of graffitists to their tools of trade. During debate on the bill I introduced in 1995 the then Minister for Fair Trading, Faye Lo Po', had some ill-thought objections to the bill. One of my constituents, Mr Bob March of Cherrybrook, was hopping mad when I sent him a copy of her speech. He forwarded to me a copy of his letter to the Minister, which states:

I wrote to my local member, Michael Richardson, about the graffiti problem in my area asking what he proposed to do about …

I put it to him that most of the problem is caused by spray cans that are stolen … In turn he sent me a copy of a bill that he had tried to introduce and a copy of your speech in reply which I read and the more I read the angrier I became.

You say in small shops that one person alone manages the checkout. Let me say as a tradesman and constant user of hardware stores all over Sydney, for both home and work projects, I have never yet seen a hardware store staffed by only one person.

You say that the problem cannot be remedied by reducing the availability of spray paint. I am not saying reduce the availability, I am saying simply to make it harder to steal. Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted. CRIMES (SENTENCING PROCEDURE) AMENDMENT (LIFE SENTENCE CONFIRMATION) BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 29 March. Mr HICKEY (Cessnock) [10.31 a.m.]: I move: That this debate be now adjourned. The House divided. 13314 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 April 2001

Ayes, 47

Mr Amery Ms Harrison Mr Orkopoulos Ms Andrews Mr Hickey Mr E. T. Page Mr Aquilina Mr Iemma Mr Price Mr Ashton Mr Knowles Dr Refshauge Mr Bartlett Mrs Lo Po' Mr Scully Ms Beamer Mr Lynch Mr W. D. Smith Mr Black Mr Markham Mr Stewart Mr Brown Mr Martin Mr Tripodi Miss Burton Mr McBride Mr Watkins Mr Collier Mr McManus Mr West Mr Crittenden Ms Meagher Mr Whelan Mr Face Ms Megarrity Mr Woods Mr Gaudry Mr Mills Mr Yeadon Mr Gibson Mr Moss Tellers, Mr Greene Mr Newell Mr Anderson Mrs Grusovin Ms Nori Mr Thompson

Noes, 37

Mr Armstrong Mr Kerr Mrs Skinner Mr Barr Mr Maguire Mr Slack-Smith Mr Brogden Mr McGrane Mr Souris Mrs Chikarovski Mr Merton Mr Tink Mr Collins Ms Moore Mr Torbay Mr Debnam Mr O'Doherty Mr J. H. Turner Mr George Mr O'Farrell Mr R. W. Turner Mr Glachan Mr Oakeshott Mr Webb Mr Hartcher Mr D. L. Page Mr Windsor Mr Hazzard Mr Piccoli Ms Hodgkinson Mr Richardson Tellers, Mr Humpherson Mr Rozzoli Mr Fraser Dr Kernohan Ms Seaton Mr R. H. L. Smith

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion for adjournment agreed to.

PAY-ROLL TAX AMENDMENT (COUNTRY EMPLOYMENT) BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 29 March.

Mr O'DOHERTY (Hornsby) [10.40 a.m.]: I support the bill introduced by my colleague the honourable member for Lachlan. This bill will provide relief for country businesses, provide employment in country areas, and provide for the economy of country areas in particular to begin to grow and take part in the process of driving growth in the New South Wales economy, which, we were reminded by the Premier yesterday, is the engine room of the Australian economy. Thus, what is good for New South Wales clearly is good for Australia. Conversely, when New South Wales is in slow economic times, so do Australia's figures represent slow economic times.

I made the point in debate last night, and I make it again today, that because of high tax rates and the anti-competitive nature of the New South Wales economy—due to the economic settings of the Carr Government, including rates of payroll tax and other business taxes—and because the Government failed to properly provide for ongoing capital works programs and instil confidence in the community after the Olympic Games, New South Wales had a very bad final quarter last year. The decline in the New South Wales economy by about 3.6 per cent was the primary factor contributing to the Australian economy having negative growth of about 0.6 per cent in one quarter. If New South Wales were doing better, the Australian economy would be 5 April 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13315 doing better. The Premier and Michael Egan stand condemned for failing to instil ongoing confidence in the community by better management of the New South Wales economy, especially in respect of jobs and construction. The bill introduced by the honourable member for Lachlan is one very practical way in which this Parliament can do something to support employment in country areas.

Before I continue I want to recognise the presence in the public gallery of two friends from my electorate, Martin Holborn and his carer Max Clothier. They are important members of a Hornsby community called Studio Artes. I did not know that Martin would be here today, but I am delighted to see Martin, a friend of mine for many years. He takes part in an extraordinary community called Studio Artes, which produces not only fine art work but fine young Australians. Martin is one of the trainers at Studio Artes who assist people with disabilities to make their way in the community. This is a program that deserves the support of every honourable member. I know that Studio Artes have made a submission to the Minister for Community Services for funding. I certainly support that submission. The Minister was kind enough to have the department grant Studio Artes approval to run Atlas programs last year. Martin and his friends at Studio Artes do a very fine job. They have a long way to go, but today I wish to recognise their achievements.

The people at Studio Artes know the importance of getting jobs. That is one of the reasons that that organisation conducts vocational training programs for people with disabilities. When they go out into the community seeking jobs they will be meeting New South Wales employers who face higher payroll tax rates than do employers in any other State of Australia. That is what this bill, introduced by the honourable member for Lachlan, is all about. It tells us, in particular, that this Parliament has to recognise that the rural and regional sectors of New South Wales are struggling more than they need to because their payroll tax rates are at a level that puts this State at a disadvantage compared with other States. That, no doubt, is one of the reasons that the aluminium smelter that was looking to set up in Lithgow eventually ended up in Queensland. That was a project that the Government promised it would see established in Lithgow. It made firm promises to the people of Lithgow. But, at the end of the day, the Government was not able to deliver that project to Lithgow. It went to Queensland, which, amongst other things, has a much more favourable rate of payroll tax than does New South Wales.

The Carr Government promised to bring down payroll tax to 4 per cent by the year 2000. On 1 January this year the payroll tax rate in New South Wales was 6.2 per cent. That was a reduction of 0.02 per cent. Gosh! Hold the front page! Let's have a party! We have reduced our payroll tax rate by 0.02 per cent, to 6.2 per cent. In Queensland it is 4.8 per cent, and in Victoria just over 5 per cent—and those States are talking about further reductions in their payroll tax rates. They continue to drive down their payroll tax rates because they understand that, particularly during the cycle that the Australian economy has entered, this is the time to ease the pressure on State taxes, so that that money will circulate in industry and commerce, where it creates jobs and promotes growth in the community. But for New South Wales the Carr Government is sticking with its 6.2 per cent. It is a matter of great personal shame that the Treasurer and the Premier have broken their promise and failed to reduce payroll tax.

I have just been handed by my colleague the honourable member for Southern Highlands the New South Wales quarterly survey of business expectations, outlining the March quarter performance and the June quarter outlook for 2001, a document published by the St George Bank. Businesses surveyed were asked, "What do you think should be the New South Wales Government's priority for the forthcoming State budget?" The number one priority of those surveyed was increased spending on education. We would agree with that. What was second? A reduction in payroll tax. Fighting crime was high on the list of priorities as well. But 16 per cent of businesses that responded to the St George Bank survey said that a reduction in payroll tax should be a key priority of the forthcoming State budget.

The other priorities, as I have mentioned, were education, fighting crime, and spending on infrastructure—all themes that the Coalition has been running on. These are all issues that the Opposition has been asking the Government to address. Why increase spending on education? Because education is about the future of Australians and about the future of New South Wales citizens, such as Martin Holborn and Mark Clothier and their friends at Studio Artes. We must reduce crime because people are starting to look inward as they feel they cannot wander the streets in safety. The confidence that people developed during the Olympic Games has been adversely affected. Confidence is seeping away partly because of crime rates and the community's response to them.

We must reduce the rate of payroll tax in this State because businesses know that, if that were to occur, the money could go into the pockets not of the Treasurer but of the workers: Businesses would employ more 13316 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 April 2001

people. Nowhere is increased employment more important than in rural and regional New South Wales. The New South Wales Opposition supports this bill because it is about creating jobs in those areas of the State that need them most. The bill provides for businesses in country areas to be granted a five-year exemption from payroll tax if they are a value-adding industry or employ additional workers aged under 25 years. That is a sensible measure, targeted specifically at country areas where jobs are needed most and at those under aged 25. It is also targeted at businesses that are value adding to Australia's primary industries.

As our economy grows and we look to becoming a tertiary economy, we must value add to our primary industries. These industries underpin the Australian economy—they always have and I suspect they always will—but value adding is where Australia is at right now. I recently visited the Illawarra, which is facing massive pressures as a result of BHP's decisions regarding the steel industry. BHP contracts out a lot of its work, which generates less direct employment. As a result, manufacturing in the Illawarra has become extremely specialised over the years: Employees have great expertise and the industry is very flexible and cost effective. As BHP is an international company, its contractors must be competitive internationally. As a consequence, the company has developed world-class expertise.

The Government's solution for the Illawarra is call centres. The Minister for Information Technology, who is at the table, has said that they will provide the answer. As far as information technology [IT] is concerned, call centres are at the bottom of the food chain—they are in amoeba class. The Minister knows that call centres are not at the cutting edge of information technology. Although they are important in generating employment, they do not create additional opportunities because they are not at the forefront of new technological developments. We need call centres but we also need industries that are at the cutting edge of technology. We need value adding.

Mr Yeadon: We are doing it.

Mr O'DOHERTY: There is no evidence of that. People in the Illawarra are asking for evidence of the Government's spending in the IT area. Where are the IT jobs in the Illawarra, apart from in the call centres? The Government should support the development of the MagLev project that will provide high-speed train movements from Wollongong to Sydney. The people involved in that project have a story to tell but the Carr Government is not listening to them. There are plenty of opportunities to do something, but the Government is not taking those opportunities. For a start, the Government could reduce payroll tax for industries in country areas that are into value adding and that employ additional workers under the age of 25, as the bill provides. If the bill is supported by the Government—I certainly hope it will be—I would like to see, following a period of evaluation, concessional payroll tax rates for under-25s extended to workers in their middle years. Country workers over the age of 45 or 50 who have not received ongoing training—it is perhaps 25 years since some of them completed their apprenticeships—find it very difficult to secure new jobs in emerging industries.

Mr Windsor: People like Kim Yeadon.

Mr O'DOHERTY: I would not be so unkind as to say that; I think Kim is much younger than that.

Mr Windsor: He is not 45.

Mr O'DOHERTY: I know someone who was 45 only yesterday but I am not telling because that is a state secret. That person shares a birthday with the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads, who was 44 yesterday. Workers in their middle years find it very difficult to secure jobs, especially when industries change—and industries do change. We live in a time of change and job classifications disappear all the time. Honourable members will be well aware of that phenomenon, which has been a characteristic of the Australian economy for more than a decade. I would like to see tax concessions extended to workers aged 45 or 50. I have discussed this idea with the honourable member for Lachlan and with my colleagues in the shadow Cabinet. If this bill is supported by the Government and we can demonstrate that it has achieved its desired outcomes, that provision should be extended to other workers. During debate on this bill on 29 March, the Minister for Information Technology said:

The Government is committed to assisting and supporting rural and regional business through its existing programs and initiatives and therefore …

Opposition members thought he was about to support the bill, but he continued—

… we will not be supporting the bill. 5 April 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13317

Perhaps it is a typographical error. But, no, Hansard—which always gets it right and does a fantastic job— reported the Minister accurately. He said:

The Government … will not be supporting the bill—

notwithstanding his earlier comment that:

The Government is committed to assisting and supporting rural and regional business …

The Government could demonstrate its support by voting for bill. Why does the Government oppose this bill? I cannot understand why the Government does not support a measure that would provide direct assistance to country employment. How do Country Labor members intend to vote on this legislation? If caucus solidarity holds true—it is a funny thing about the Labor Party: it always does—Country Labor members will vote against the bill. I call on the constituents of all Country Labor members to ask them why they do not support the Pay- roll Tax Amendment (Country Employment) Bill introduced by the honourable member for Lachlan, which will provide for job growth in country areas. Let us see how see Country Labor members line up. Shame on the Government. I suspect it will not support the bill because it is selfish about its power base and it is never prepared to admit when it is wrong—as it clearly is on this issue. I urge the Minister to think again and change his mind, but I suspect he does not have the capacity to do that. The Opposition supports a review of business taxation in New South Wales. We believe payroll tax rates should be reconsidered. The Victorian Government has just examined its taxation rates and now has several options to reduce payroll tax, land tax rates and stamp duties. We should conduct a similar review in New South Wales. Businesses are telling us that this State is not competitive compared with the rest of Australia. The Treasurer cannot continue to pretend that things will go gangbusters forever because they will not. He will not have another two years like the past two years. As the honourable member for Tamworth probably knows, the Government raised close to $1 billion more than expected in stamp duty. That is how well the New South Wales economy was doing on the back of a strong national economy, optimism about the Olympic Games and so on. However, that cycle is now over. We are entering a new phase and the Treasurer will not get that much additional revenue. However, he is maintaining the same level of government waste. For example, millions of dollars have been wasted on the conservatorium project that should have been spent on schools and other infrastructure projects that generate jobs. The Treasurer has sustained that expenditure despite having introduced no reforms—particularly in the taxation area—in the past five years. The Treasurer is now sustaining a large budget with a large income. What will happen when that income begins to fall as a result of reduced economic activity? Stamp duty and payroll tax income receipts will decrease and the State's goods and services tax revenue will be threatened unless the Treasurer does what the Commonwealth is doing: targets specific measures to stimulate economic growth. There is no better place to do that than in country areas. The Opposition has no hesitation in supporting this bill and we congratulate the honourable member for Lachlan on his initiative in introducing it. We would like to see this legislation supported by the Government and its provisions extended to other workers and areas. In the interests of rural and regional New South Wales, I ask the Government to reconsider its position. Mr WINDSOR (Tamworth) [11.00 a.m.]: It is a pleasure to speak to the Pay-roll Tax Amendment (Country Employment) Bill. I congratulate the honourable member for Lachlan on introducing this legislation. It is an area about which I have had some concern during most of my time as a member of Parliament. In fact, some years ago I introduced two very similar bills—an issue about which I will speak later in debate. I will refer also to the reaction at the time of Government and Opposition members to those bills. I was pleased that the honourable member for Hornsby said a moment ago that the Coalition intended to conduct a review of taxation and, in particular, payroll tax. Within the next few months the Opposition will have an opportunity to make certain statements in relation to payroll tax commitments that it may wish to make at the next State election. I state at the outset that there is a tremendous amount of hypocrisy in relation to this issue on both sides of the Parliament. People in opposition are supportive of these sorts of initiatives. I congratulate the honourable member for Lachlan on this good initiative. However, this sort of initiative was not supported when the Coalition was in government. This Government, when in opposition, referred to the possibility of supporting my legislation and a number of other things. I have letters from the then shadow Treasurer, Michael Egan, the then Treasurer, Peter Collins, and other correspondence from that time. In summary, the issues have not changed. The intention of the legislation is to encourage growth in regional communities, in particular, in those communities that have a high level of unemployment. My legislation was aimed at providing encouragement to those industries that were value adding. Both Treasurers and both Premiers and the honourable member for Lachlan, who introduced this legislation, have 13318 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 April 2001 been saying for years that we have to encourage industries in country towns to expand and grow and, where possible, we must remove the inhibitors to growth. Payroll tax has produced an artificial inhibitor to achieving improvements in employment. I am utterly amazed that the Premier opposes this legislation. The legislation, which is targeted, has the obvious benefits of enabling the growth about which the Premier spoke yesterday in Parliament. Positive initiatives have been in the areas of new investment and the growth of employment in country areas. Recently there has been growth in two abattoirs in Tamworth, but they are still burdened with this disincentive to employ.

The Hon. John Della Bosca, a member of the upper House, is promoting a package aimed at alleviating workers compensation costs. He is struggling to try to come to grips with that issue. However, I do not want to refer to that issue; I want to refer to the fact that he and this Government have recognised that they have to do something about reducing the cost structures of business across New South Wales, otherwise New South Wales and Australia will become uncompetitive on a global basis. Perhaps the Minister for Information Technology, who is in the Chamber, will ring the Premier and encourage him to change his mind in relation to this legislation. These issues must be reconsidered. The Government can make a worthwhile contribution to the growth of employment in country areas.

A number of reports, inquiries, et cetera, have been conducted and the reports have been given to this House, to the Treasurer, and Minister for State and Regional Development, and to the Premier. In fact, the Premier's Department withdrew a report that had negative populations occurring in some communities in country areas in 20 or 30 years time. A number of reports emphasise the need to encourage growth in those areas. The Minister for Regional Development said that he does not agree with the Federal Government's approach and that we need targeted intervention in the market. This piece of legislation is an ideal opportunity for members of the Government to put their money where their mouths are and encourage growth in employment and investment. The Government must positively discriminate in favour of country areas. I encourage the Minister to rethink his decision. The bill which I introduced in 1994 when the Coalition was in government had a name which is strikingly similar to this bill. In fact, many of the words in those bills are the same. The bill that I introduced was entitled the Pay-roll Tax (Country Industries Exemption) Amendment Bill 1994. The bill introduced by the honourable member for Lachlan is entitled the Pay-roll Tax Amendment (Country Employment) Bill. The response that I received in 1994 to that bill from the then Treasurer, the Hon. Peter Collins, QC, MP, was in the form of a briefing note to his parliamentary colleagues. At the time the honourable member for Lachlan was a Minister in the Coalition Government. I think he might even have been Leader of the National Party. That response states, in part:

Mr Windsor has introduced a Private Member's Bill proposing to exempt most country firms from payroll tax. Its stated purpose is to encourage regional growth by offsetting additional costs faced by "strategic" industries in the country.

Mr Windsor claims the Bill will help alleviate some of the major environmental and social problems faced by Sydney. I think the honourable member for Lachlan made a similar comment in his contribution. At the time it was described as a win-win situation—a win for the country in alleviating a government-driven cost burden against employment. It also sent a clear signal to investors in the city area that the bottom line might well improve through this positive discrimination in favour of country areas. The former spokesman for Treasury in the Opposition, the honourable member for Vaucluse, would know—and he is nodding his head in agreement—that enormous environmental and social costs can be achieved by doing what this Government is doing and what the former Government did in encouraging growth in Sydney. Bills, such as the one that has been introduced by the honourable member for Lachlan, become part of the jigsaw and change the equation relating to where people invest, employ and want to live. The social and environmental spin-offs are more than obvious. I am interested in seeing how the honourable member for Willoughby, the Hon. Peter Collins, votes on this bill, as he said that my bill was poorly targeted. Would he hold a similar view in relation to this legislation? The Opposition Treasury spokesman, the honourable member for Hornsby, made a number of comments and said that this is the sort of thing that we should have. I wonder whether the logic has changed. Then Treasurer Peter Collins also said:

The bill would pose administration difficulties for both tax-liable firms and the Office of State Revenue (OSR). By reason of the criteria used, it would nurture a tax avoidance industry and corresponding need for increased OSR staff to counteract avoidance.

I wonder whether the honourable member for Lachlan has considered those difficulties in relation to his bill. The former Treasurer's advice continued:

it is doubtful that the Bill would deliver regional development— 5 April 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13319

Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Minister for Transport would like to express a view on these things—

tax incentives did not work previously. It is even more doubtful that the Bill would solve Sydney's environmental problems. These problems are best dealt with directly.

The problems have not been dealt with; they still exist. Almost daily the honourable member for Manly talks about environmental concerns and the clamour in his area for more hospital facilities, and they are directly related to the environmental calamities that are occurring. This is an ideal way for the Government and the Opposition to join together to show that they are serious about creating employment in country areas, and to do something about the very real problem that exists. The former Treasurer said:

It is recommended that Government Members OPPOSE the Bill.

I modified that bill because there were some problems in regard to the supposed cost involved. In 1996 I introduced the Pay-roll Tax (Country Industries Exemption) Amendment Bill. The object of that bill was to amend the 1971 Pay-roll Tax Act to grant exemption from payroll tax to industries which are carried out in country areas of the State and are engaged in value adding the products of agriculture and grazing. The areas in which the exemption would apply included Cessnock and Maitland but excluded Newcastle, Wollongong, the Blue Mountains and other areas close to Sydney. The excluded areas were set out in detail in the definition of the word "country", which was defined with the assistance of Parliamentary Counsel.

That bill was debated in this House and the same arguments were put. The beauty of that bill, as far as Treasury was concerned, was that it was more targeted and involved a lower cost to government. I recall that the former members representing the electorates of Dubbo and Wagga Wagga supported the general concept. The Hon. M. R. Egan, who was then shadow Treasurer, made all sorts of noises and said that if Labor was elected to government it would look seriously at the legislation. It now has an opportunity to vote on similar legislation. [Extension of time agreed to.]

I am sure that the honourable member for Coffs Harbour, who has a great interest in payroll tax and a concern for country people, will remember the day vividly.

Mr Fraser: I do.

Mr WINDSOR: It was 30 November 1994, and an election had been called for early 1995. Following a debate about payroll tax relief and value-adding industries, and a number of private members statements, I received a letter from the Hon. J. J. Fahey, who was Premier at that time. Honourable members should bear in mind that Parliament had risen, there was no opportunity to pass the bill and we were coming into an election period. The Premier's letter stated:

Further to our conversation earlier today I am pleased to inform you that I agree to make—

A certain contribution—

available in pay roll tax assistance to value adding industries in the agriculture sector as part of the Government's ongoing commitment to assist rural industry during the drought.

That gave the Premier an out at some stage in the future. The letter continued:

As you are aware, the total quantity of pay roll tax collected from these value adding industries is currently unquantifiable.

It is still very hard to quantify. I do not know why the Minister for Regional Development has not employed people to assess its impact. What is the effect of value adding, what is the growth, what is its contribution, what proportion of value adding agricultural products occurs in country areas and what proportion occurs in city areas? If it does occur in city areas, why are there no incentives to bring it into agricultural production in those areas? Those sorts of initiatives should be encouraged.

The honourable member for Lachlan will be aware that Goodman Fielder had facilities in Melbourne, Sydney, Tamworth and Wagga Wagga, but I believe that the Wagga Wagga plant has recently closed. A major operation such as that, which value adds agricultural produce, can be located anywhere. Perhaps the chief executive and senior staff like to be located in capital cities such as Melbourne and Sydney. One way to encourage them to relocate the value adding portions of their Sydney and Melbourne operations would be to 13320 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 April 2001 change the bottom line. One way to change the bottom line would be to positively discriminate in favour of those businesses in Tamworth, Wagga Wagga and country New South Wales. That is the sort of thing we were trying to do, and I am sure the honourable member for Lachlan has the same aim with his bill. The Premier's letter continued:

I have been waiting for the Australian Bureau of Statistics to provide the necessary data for us to be able to assess the costs of the entire proposal and I have been informed that this data will not be available until next week.

When this data becomes available I will ensure that the Government consults with you on the appropriate definitions that will cover the value adding industries we are targeting.

That letter was obviously used as a political tool to attract votes at the next election, but history shows that the Labor Party won the next election. The Labor Party said, through the Hon. M. R. Egan when he was shadow Treasurer, that it would closely examine this legislation when in government. Six years later Labor has the opportunity to support this legislation.

The Institute of Chartered Accountants recently released a document which relates to the Federal Government positively discriminating for taxation zones in regional Australia, but it also elaborates on some of the initiatives that State governments could take when considering improving employment prospects, encouraging business and all those things that we talk about and know have to happen, whether at a Federal or State level. Doing something about payroll tax was one of the initiatives that was cited. This is the opportunity for something to be done. It would be a concrete move towards encouraging employment in those areas.

I encourage all members of this House to look very closely at the document put together by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in conjunction with the Local Government Association and the Shires Association. It is based on work carried out in the United States of America, the United Kingdom and other countries where there has been some intervention in the market, particularly in relation to the competition policies that exist at the moment, to encourage country areas to grow and expand, to value add and then export, rather than export the raw product, and thereby encourage employment growth within those communities. With this bill the State Government has the opportunity to get to first base and show that it is serious about those objectives. Mr WEBB (Monaro) [11.19 a.m.]: We would not be debating the Pay-Roll Tax Amendment (Country Employment) Bill today if the Premier and the Labor Government had adhered to their promise to reduce payroll tax in New South Wales to a substantially lower level. I am dismayed, as are many businesspeople across the State, by the hollow promise we hear regularly about reducing payroll tax by 0.1 per cent or 0.2 per cent. At present, payroll tax in New South Wales is 6.2 per cent. It is much higher than the 4.4 per cent in Victoria, and it is much higher than the comparative rates in Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory. Our neighbouring states are attracting businesses day in and day out because the New South Wales Government is unable to keep them here. The Premier is continually throwing his hands in the air and saying, "Sydney has reached its environmental limit. Regional growth in New South Wales, apart from a few centres here and there, will decline over the next 30 or 40 years." Indeed, in Albury recently he said that he would sooner live in Victoria. I reckon he should move there. If the Premier wants New South Wales to grow, if he wants New South Wales businesses to prosper and if he wants to give incentives and hope to the people of New South Wales he must support this bill. The Government must provide exemptions such as those provided in this bill to encourage economic growth. That would support and underpin not only the New South Wales economy but also the Federal economy. What happened to decentralisation? If Sydney has reached its environmental limit, one reason for that is the lengthy period of centralisation of businesses. As the honourable member for Tamworth said, there is economic advantage in locating businesses advantageously closer to production in country areas in terms of cost savings for transport, housing and many other areas. Value-adding primary industries and, in my electorate of Monaro, viticulture, horticulture, abattoirs, transport industries, dairy processing, timber production, call centres— including the call centre at Cooma—and many other industries could benefit from this bill. Providing concessions for businesses employing people under the age of 25 is a good idea, and earlier comments about workers over 45 should be embraced under this bill. If the Government supports this bill, perhaps it will move an amendment to that effect. That would be a major step in encouraging New South Wales businesses to increase production, accept sustainable development guidelines and get on with creating wealth and jobs, thus giving hope to people in country areas. The Federal Government is looking at the recently issued Chartered Accountants Association paper on the development of economic zones in New South Wales. Some years ago Albury-Wodonga became an economic zone, as did New England and Dubbo, and Queanbeyan has been nominated as a potential growth area in New South Wales. 5 April 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13321

Measures should be put in place to enable businesses to operate through economic zones. However, that is no good if the Government, on a whim, makes changes to the guidelines or pulls out every two, three or four years. The guidelines need to be in place for 10, 15 or 20 years and have the Government's support to give businesses and rural communities the confidence to make plans and investments. The Government should provide incentives such as payroll tax deductions and holidays in terms of costs and charges. The wealth of this country is not driven by governments, although they may think it is. Governments exist to help and support businesses and private individuals to create growth in jobs. The returns and the multiplier effects produce the wealth that the country needs to provide the services that are not provided by those businesses.

As well as the industries I referred to earlier, in the Monaro electorate we have the beginnings of aquaculture and commercial fishing industries, and they need support to enable them to grow. The potential for Australia and, indeed, New South Wales to produce fish for the world market can been seen in Eden, with Federal Government funding through the Eden adjustment package enabling boats to be built and new industries to commence, resulting in increased export capability and employment growth. This kind of amendment—if it were supported by the Government and enacted in legislation—would substantially support industries and the initiatives already in place. We talk about biotechnology and environmental engineering. We need to look at waste and effluent technologies, including an initiative at the Woodlawn mine in the Burrinjuck electorate. The company has signed contracts with many Sydney regional council organisations to dispose of their waste.

The amount of waste produced in Sydney will increase. It may come down on a proportional basis but many hundreds of thousands of tonnes of waste will be produced. Indeed, some 700,000 tonnes of waste from Sydney are pumped into the ocean every day. That waste will not disappear. Country New South Wales can deal with the waste that the metropolis of Sydney, with some four million people, will inevitably continue to produce, which causes environmental problems. Waste strategies may be in place, but they will not have an effect for a long time. Associated industries, such as transport, bus lines, areas of the ski industry and so on, could benefit from the provisions of this bill. Business competitiveness across the State adds to growth.

The honourable member for Tamworth, the honourable member for Hornsby and others have spoken about the Government's misdirection at the moment. The Government is stagnant because of its failure to adhere to its promises. That is why New South Wales is dragging the chain in terms of supporting the Australian economy. The Government needs to support such legislation and promote change. We must move on from here and work on opportunities for the future of New South Wales and, indeed, Australia. We must give hope to people living in rural and regional areas. The Government must provide incentives for businesses to create jobs. It must foster peoples' visions, rather than throw up its hands and say, "Move to Sydney, we will look after you there." People want to continue living in regional New South Wales. They have good ideas and resources, and they can develop, manufacture and process primary products for export not only across the State but across the country.

We must encourage young people in rural areas to dare to dream. However, it does not help young people when the Premier throws up his hands and says, "We have reached our limit. You'd better pack your bags and move to Victoria." It is the Government's responsibility to get involved in regional development. Supporting this bill and the direction taken in it would be a great bipartisan step towards the pathway of encouraging regional and rural growth, which underpins the New South Wales economy. Honourable members are fortunate to be in this House at the beginning of the twenty-first century, the beginning of a new millennium. I wonder what our ancestors would think if they were here to witness the problems and despair among our young people. Over the past hundred years our ancestors have had vision in terms of rail, roads, primary industries, and ports and shipping. I think the Government has lost the plot.

Mr Windsor: They didn't tax employment.

Mr WEBB: That is right. Instead of working against people by putting more legislative barriers in front of them, and instead of putting more regulations and disincentives in front of primary enterprise, the Government should support the bill and build for the future. The Government has the call on this and could be very much involved in getting behind a bill such as this and supporting regional growth. The bill contains many initiatives that should be supported.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted. 13322 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 April 2001

CRIMES (FORENSIC PROCEDURES) LEGISLATION

Debate resumed from 29 March. Mr HUMPHERSON (Davidson) [11.30 a.m.]: The Opposition opposes the motion and will not even waste the time of the House by seeking to amend it. I wish to make it clear at the outset that the motion is a nonsense and its content is lame in the extreme. On numerous occasions the Opposition has clearly questioned why this legislation, which was passed last year, did not go further. We wanted the opportunity to review DNA legislation to ensure that its shortcomings—and the shortcomings were clearly evident in the bill—were overcome and the legislation strengthened. Because of the Carr Government New South Wales now has the weakest DNA testing regime in this country. It is also far weaker than the regimes in countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States of America. Indeed, it is probably the weakest regime in the advanced world. It is laughable for the honourable member for Newcastle, who comes from the loony left of the Australian Labor Party, to claim to be hairy chested and tough on crime, when he fails to realise the enormous constraints the legislation places on New South Wales police who seek to use DNA testing powers and rely on DNA evidence. The legislation fails entirely to take into account the great opportunity provided by DNA testing to solve crimes and obtain profiles of released offenders, be they murderers or lower-level offenders. Under this State's DNA legislation none of the people who were released from the prison system prior to the beginning of this year can be tested. That is simply a nonsense. To ensure that crimes are solved and justice is done the community of New South Wales expects that the powerful tool of DNA testing will be applied to all those who may have committed crimes. The victims of crime and their families are entitled to have justice done. Under the Carr Labor Government's legislation those who have been convicted and are already in the prison system and those who committed crimes that do not carry sentences of five years or more but who may have committed other crimes cannot be DNA tested. It is, therefore, not possible to establish a connection between the crime for which the prisoner is serving a sentence and any other serious crime that that prisoner may have committed. If the police of this State are to be able to use one of the most powerful forensic tools available to solve as many crimes as possible, they ought to be given the ability to test those who have a history of offending. Obviously, that would include the majority of those currently in the prison system and many who have left after serving their sentences. Under this State's DNA regime literally hundreds of murderers, thousands of rapists and other serious offenders will be untested. If they have committed serious crimes such as murders, serious assaults or rapes they will remain free. Justice will never be done, and the victims of their crimes will never have the satisfaction of seeing the perpetrators tried, convicted and sentenced. Members of this place would be familiar with the names Fred Many and John Lewthwaite, murderers who were released from prison. If they had committed other murders or serious offences the availability of DNA testing would have enabled police to obtain their profiles and connect them to the crime scenes and to the victims. The Government wants to block police being able to make such a connection. It is ironic that the Commissioner of Police, the person charged with the responsibility of running this State's Police Service, agrees with the Opposition on this matter. The commissioner says the laws do not go far enough. Based on his experience in the United Kingdom, where DNA testing has been a resounding success, he says that laws should allow far more people to be tested. All released offenders who have been convicted and who have served time for serious offences ought to be tested and have their profiles placed on the offenders database where they can be matched against profiles from crime scenes already placed on the database. Thousands upon thousands of criminals in New South Wales are able to escape the DNA net because the Government is not serious about convicting criminals and ensuring that justice is done. Those who are serving time for offences that carry penalties of less than five years and those who have been served sentences for serious offences and who have been released should be DNA tested to ensure justice is done for as many victims as possible. Honourable members will be familiar with the broken window principle. The positive results of DNA testing were established in the United Kingdom, where murders that remained unsolved for many years have now been solved. A DNA profile was obtained from the scene of a break and enter offence and the suspect's profile compiled. That profile was matched against the DNA from a crime scene where a murder had been committed and the murder was solved. Under this State's legislation, if a suspect is convicted of an offence that does not carry a sentence of five years or more, that person's profile will not be matched against hundreds of crime scenes involving rape, murder and violent offences. That person cannot possibly be convicted using DNA technology. 5 April 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13323

The Australian Labor Party is weak on crime. If it were serious about standing up for the rights of victims and ensuring that justice is done, it would enable the powerful tool of DNA testing to be used far more extensively by police. It is now 18 years since DNA testing was first used in the United Kingdom to convict an offender of murder, and it has now been used extensively in the United States and the United Kingdom for six or seven years. Although it has been clearly established that it is possible to solve crimes with the use of DNA testing, the Carr Labor Government wants to constrain its application to the smallest proportion of the offending community.

The question is where the priorities of the Government lie. Does the Government give priority to preserving and protecting the rights of offenders and criminals? Why has the Government placed the rights of offenders and criminals ahead of the rights of victims? There are literally hundreds of thousands of victims— rape victims, assault victims—and their relatives, families and friends and the families and friends of murder victims who would derive some satisfaction and solace from knowing that those who perpetrated the crimes could be convicted. If the DNA legislation is used widely enough, it could well be that hundreds of people who have committed crimes would be behind bars in the near future. For reasons which are completely unclear, the Government does not want that to happen.

The honourable member for Newcastle is attempting to be hairy chested by clamping down on criminals. Does he agree with the Opposition that DNA profiling should be done of all offenders who are in prison, of everyone who has been convicted of crime, and of everyone who has done time in prison but has been released? If we are serious about clearing up crime and about offenders being caught and given appropriate sentences for their crimes, and if we are serious about victims having rights and about justice being done, the honourable member for Newcastle will agree that the DNA legislation should go much further.

Mr ASHTON (East Hills) [11.40 a.m.]: The honourable member who preceded me in this debate has referred to the honourable member for Newcastle being hairy chested. However, the reality is that the Opposition in both Houses decided that a date should be set for the expiration of the provisions and that, thereafter, the State of New South Wales would move back to a position of not being able to undertake DNA testing at all, let alone undertake the more hairy-chested version referred to by the honourable member for Davidson. The science of DNA was discovered in 1953 by Professor Crick and Professor Watson, who won the Nobel Prize for their discovery. DNA testing is a way of fingerprinting the whole body, if I may describe it that way. That scientific method has been used by police, particularly in recent years in New South Wales, but with no thanks being due to the Opposition. The first paragraph of the motion reads:

That this House:

(1) condemns the Opposition for its opposition to the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Bill , which would have deprived the New South Wales Police Service of the most important crime fighting tool this century ...

Simply put, the Government reminds the Opposition that Parliament is here not merely to test the Government and its legislation; Parliament is also here to test the Opposition. In the upper House the Opposition conspired with some of the Independents to knock out the legislation. They tried to add a clause which would have resulted in its expiration after a certain period. In other words, the legislation would expire and there would be no appropriate DNA testing at all. How ridiculous is it for the honourable member for Davidson, who preceded me in this debate, to claim that the Government is not doing enough when, in reality, the Opposition did not want to do anything?

The difference between the approaches taken by the Government and the Opposition is that the Government is doing something about fighting crime. Since DNA testing was introduced earlier this year, thousands of prisoners in New South Wales gaols have been tested. The legislation will result in proof that some criminals who are already in gaol may have committed more offences. It will also result in proof that persons who have been convicted under the present system may be innocent. I cite the recent case in Victoria in which, as a result of DNA testing and a measure of good fortune, a person who may have committed up to eight murders 20 years ago has been put behind bars. Going back 5,000 years, DNA testing could tell who the parents of pharaohs were. Why would the police not want that technology?

The honourable member for Davidson verballed the Commissioner of Police when he claimed the commissioner had suggested the legislation does not go far enough. The legislation goes much further than the Opposition wanted; the Opposition would have stopped it altogether. The sunset clause insisted upon by the Opposition reminds me of the Monty Python's Flying Circus parrot sketch because the Government says that with the Opposition amendment the bill would have been dead, but the Opposition claims it would have merely 13324 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 April 2001 expired. According to the Opposition, the legislation would have only expired, but the Government's contention is that because of the Opposition's attack on the legislation last year, with the help of some Independents, the legislation would have been dead, expired, demised. Either way, the parrot would have fallen off the perch.

Mr Hartcher: Who would have thought that a left winger would have thought like this?

Mr ASHTON: It does not matter that I am from the left wing. I believe in justice. I also believe in catching evil criminals, and so does the honourable member for Barwon, who was happy for his whole community to be DNA tested to prove the guilt of a criminal in the Wee Waa area.

Mr Hartcher: All of the Labor members opposite in the Chamber are from the left wing.

Mr ASHTON: The swamp fox might think this is funny, but a member of the Opposition frontbench was happy to implement DNA testing.

Mr McBride: The honourable member for Gosford wanted the whole of the Central Coast done, male and female.

Mr ASHTON: Yes. The point I make is that we have the embarrassing situation of a frontbench member of the Opposition saying that his home town could be DNA tested. Everybody queued up, and the perpetrator of a vicious sexual assault on an elderly lady in Wee Waa was apprehended. Let us remember that the Coalition is the same Coalition that opposed the Wood royal commission. Last week we heard that the Opposition said that we were not going to have a royal commission, we did not need one, and it was a hopeless idea and a waste of time.

The Opposition is now trying to criticise the Government by questioning whether the Government has carried through 99.9 per cent or 99.8 per cent of similar initiatives. This is the same Opposition which, when the matter came before the upper House, conspired to try to place a time limit on the legislation which would have eventually killed it. The only rider to the Opposition's limitation upon the legislation was that the legislation could be revisited whenever both Houses agreed. Let us pause to appreciate how stupid that suggestion is. In the current political climate getting the two Houses of Parliament to agree is virtually impossible. I commend the Parliamentary Secretary's motion.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [11.45 a.m.]: I move:

That the motion be amended by leaving all words after the word "That" with a view to inserting instead:

"(1) congratulates the Coalition for its support for DNA testing in the war against crime;

(2) calls for an extension of DNA testing in line with other States unlike this Government's piecemeal approach;

(3) endorses the Coalition's support for review of the DNA testing system after a period of operation to see if it can be improved." The Coalition has made a principled stand on the issue of DNA testing and does not seek to exploit the issue for political purposes. Unfortunately, that is what the Carr Government has done. Our position is clear: DNA testing is important; it is a valuable weapon in the fight against crime. The legislation the subject of the debate, which was introduced by the Carr Government, needs to be reviewed to ascertain whether it is an effective tool in the fight against crime. At present the indications are that the Carr Government's legislation is limited, inadequate, and flawed. That is why it is so enthusiastically supported by the left wing of the Australian Labor Party [ALP], which, being unable to stop the legislation altogether, is now content to have a flawed system in operation. The Coalition is anxious to ensure that DNA testing legislation is effective, strong and able to be used by the police at all levels in the war against crime. In moving the amendment, I have the support of the member for Davidson, who led during this debate on behalf of the Coalition. I commend the role he played in developing Coalition policy and in understanding the legislative process which underpins DNA testing. In the Legislative Council the Opposition urged that there be a review of this legislation, and that is a matter of public record. The reason the Opposition urged that a review be undertaken was to ensure that the groundbreaking legislation would be effective and create a real tool to be used in the fight against crime, rather than have it become piecemeal legislation that was adopted to placate the various sections of Caucus. As all honourable members know, the Government's proposed DNA testing legislation was taken to Caucus. The proposal was amended, not to more effectively continue the war against crime but to placate the 5 April 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13325 various sectional groups in Caucus. The legislation comes forward not through the police or the criminal justice system but as a result of the subterranean, internecine warfare which rages in the Labor Party constantly. That will be all too obvious this afternoon at 5.30 p.m. when representatives of the Labor Council come to Parliament House to talk to honourable members about workers compensation. We have seen it in recent days with WorkCover and in the magnificent stand that the honourable member for Liverpool has taken—

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Lynch): Order! I call the honourable member for Gosford back to order.

Mr HARTCHER: I am back to it, but your magnificent stand in Caucus on WorkCover deserves to be acknowledged.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! Flattery will get the honourable member for Gosford nowhere. I ask him to return to the leave of the motion.

Mr HARTCHER: I return to the motion. The Opposition supports DNA testing. We are determined to ensure that it is effective and also that it is reviewed. The present legislation was amended by Caucus and adopted piecemeal, not on any scientific basis, simply to get it through a Caucus meeting. It is inadequate. That is why DNA testing needs to be reviewed after a period of operation. Accordingly, the Opposition says a moral code that is recommended for all States has not been adopted in New South Wales because the left wing of Caucus would not let it be adopted.

Mr Ashton: I wish you were right.

Mr HARTCHER: Let the remark of honourable member for East Hills be recorded in Hansard. He said, "I wish you were right". In other words, the left wing did not want DNA testing. The honourable member for East Hills has made that admission in the Parliament. The Opposition wants DNA testing and is determined that it will be effective. We say that the Government's present system is inadequate and needs to be reviewed. It does not meet the minimum standards of the model code, the practice of other States or the standards laid down in the United Kingdom and the United States of America. Our system is given to us simply to get it through the parliamentary Labor Party; it is not designed to fight crime in this State. That is why the Opposition says proudly, "Review it, make it stronger, make it effective and don't let it be captive to the whims of the left wing of the Labor Party, don't let it fall captive to little deals done by the honourable member for Newcastle, the honourable member for Liverpool, the honourable member for East Hills and the honourable member for Miranda." They all wear their left-wing credentials but none of them are prepared to fight crime. They would rather run their own ideological agenda.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Lynch): Order! The speaking time of the honourable member for Gosford and his good sense have expired. I call the honourable member to order.

Mr HARTCHER: I commend the amendment to the House. [Time expired.]

Mr COLLIER (Miranda) [11.50 a.m.]: The honourable member for Gosford commented on factions. I want the House to imagine this scenario: The victim is sitting in the back of the court with family members. A barrister and a police witness are involved in the following exchange:

Question: Did you attend the crime scene? Answer: Yes, I did.

Question: What did you do? Answer: I took samples

Question: What did you take samples of? Answer: I took samples of human DNA.

Question: What did you do with those samples?"

And so it goes on:

Question: Did you match those samples with anybody? Answer: Yes, I did. I matched those samples with Joe Bloggs.

The jury sits there stunned. The magic question is asked: 13326 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 April 2001

Question: What is the likelihood that the DNA that you have collected and matched with Joe Bloggs belongs to somebody else? Answer: The likelihood that that DNA belongs to somebody else, other than the suspect, is something like 72 million to one.

Again the jury is stunned. That is powerful forensic evidence and evidence upon which any barrister worth his salt would say to the alleged offender "Mate, you should put up your hand." However, under the Opposition's proposal what may well happen is that the defence barrister may say:

I object, your Honour, to this evidence.

He is asked:

Why do you object?

The defence barrister answers:

Because, your Honour, the legislation is under review. The Opposition of the New South Wales Parliament has encouraged this review to take place and is looking at the effectiveness of DNA. If there is any doubt about the effectiveness of DNA as a forensic tool, your Honour, maybe we should not let in this powerful evidence

What is the effect on the victim? What is the effect on the victim's family? What is the effect on the criminal justice system? I find it extraordinary that the Opposition claims that it is in favour of DNA testing and admits it is a powerful forensic tool that it has been effective in the United Kingdom and the United States of America not only in convicting persons who were not known to have committed crimes but in helping to free people on death row. DNA is the twenty-first century equivalent of fingerprint evidence. To my knowledge, there was no review conducted of the use of fingerprint evidence after it was introduced. Fingerprint evidence was powerful, and the perpetrators of crimes were often identified and convicted on the basis of that evidence alone.

The Opposition is saying, "Let's review this. We know it works but let's stop it. Let's allow all the objections of defence lawyers in court. Let's expose victims of crime to extra trauma. Let's review this powerful forensic technique. We know it apprehends criminals. We know it convicts criminals, but let's review it." It takes time to prosecute many criminal offences and some may take more time that others. That is exactly what this Opposition wants to do: it wants to hold up DNA testing and review it after only a year. It takes time for things to work and for charges to be heard through the court system. The Opposition's amendment is an absolute disgrace. There is no point in honourable members talking about the left wing or the right wing of the Australian Labor Party or the Liberal Party. The Opposition says that it wants effective policing and that it supports police. If the Opposition is fair dinkum about supporting police it will not pursue its amendment. Mr MARTIN (Bathurst) [11.55 a.m.]: I move:

That this debate be now adjourned. The House divided. Ayes, 49 Ms Allan Mrs Grusovin Mr Orkopoulos Mr Amery Ms Harrison Mr E. T. Page Ms Andrews Mr Hickey Mr Price Mr Aquilina Mr Iemma Dr Refshauge Mr Ashton Mr Knowles Ms Saliba Mr Bartlett Mrs Lo Po' Mr Scully Ms Beamer Mr Lynch Mr W. D. Smith Mr Black Mr Markham Mr Stewart Mr Brown Mr Martin Mr Tripodi Miss Burton Mr McBride Mr Watkins Mr Collier Mr McManus Mr West Mr Crittenden Ms Meagher Mr Woods Mr Debus Ms Megarrity Mr Yeadon Mr Face Mr Mills Mr Gaudry Mr Moss Tellers, Mr Gibson Mr Newell Mr Anderson Mr Greene Ms Nori Mr Thompson 5 April 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13327

Noes, 38

Mr Armstrong Mr Kerr Mrs Skinner Mr Barr Mr Maguire Mr Slack-Smith Mr Brogden Mr McGrane Mr Souris Mrs Chikarovski Mr Merton Mr Stoner Mr Collins Ms Moore Mr Tink Mr Debnam Mr O'Doherty Mr Torbay Mr George Mr O'Farrell Mr J. H. Turner Mr Glachan Mr Oakeshott Mr R. W. Turner Mr Hartcher Mr D. L. Page Mr Webb Mr Hazzard Mr Piccoli Mr Windsor Ms Hodgkinson Mr Richardson Tellers, Mr Humpherson Mr Rozzoli Mr Fraser Dr Kernohan Ms Seaton Mr R. H. L. Smith

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion for adjournment agreed to.

COMPUTERS IN PRISONS

Mr HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [12.06 p.m.]: I move:

That this House calls on the Government to accept donations of computers into New South Wales prisons from private donors, where these computers will be used to promote rehabilitation of inmates and to reduce the rate of recidivism.

I gave notice of this motion in September 1999. Sadly, owing to the lack of opportunity for debate in this Parliament afforded by the Carr Government, it is only now that the Opposition is able to bring on the motion and have it debated in the Parliament. It is appalling that 18 months have passed since the motion was put on the agenda. This is an important issue because New South Wales prisoners deserve, and should have as far as the community is concerned, opportunities for education. It is important in the light of some estimates that up to 45 per cent of New South Wales prison inmates have a poor education, that many of them have been wards of the State, and that many of them have backgrounds of broken and disruptive families and foster care. Those circumstances are attributable to governments which, over many years, have not supported families. The result has been broken families, with the children who are the unfortunate victims of those breakdowns ending up in prison. For the record, I should note that I am now shadow Minister for Community Services, as I have been for the best part of nine months. During the period that I was shadow Minister for Corrective Services I observed that prisons had become the institutions of choice for people with disabilities. Following the Richmond report, there is every chance that a person with an intellectual disability is languishing in a New South Wales prison. Equally, for those with a mental illness the institutes of choice, since the Richmond report, have been New South Wales prisons. New South Wales prisons are a focus for many people who are disadvantaged because of what has gone on in society. Some prisoners in the prison system deserve to be there. The New South Wales Coalition does not give two hoots about serious criminals who will not again see the light of day. People who have committed violent atrocities on members of the community must be incarcerated and they should remain in prison. The Government voted down the bill that was introduced by the Leader of the Opposition which is attempting to deal with people like Baker and Crump. The Government does not want to see those people locked up, but members of the Opposition do. We have to recognise that some of the people who are in New South Wales prisons will come out of prison. The majority of people come out of prison within six to 18 months. Prison inmates who are imprisoned for five, 10 or 15 years must come out with better skills than they currently have. It is appalling that in the year 2001 the New South Wales Department of Corrective Services, under the direction of this Carr Government, still makes no assessment of the literacy or educational skills of prisoners in the prison system. There is no benchmarking. The Carr Government does not want to know how bad the situation is. When prisoners come out of gaol in six months or 12 months, or five, 10 or 15 years later there is no assessment of the skills that they acquired in their period in prison. If we do not talk about rehabilitation as an important and integral part of prison we will not be achieving appropriate outcomes for our community. 13328 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 April 2001

Some people tend to forget that once inmates come out of prison they will be sitting in coffee shops with us and they will be catching the same trains and buses. Inmates must feel comfortable about coming back into the community. They need not only self-esteem; they need skills and work opportunities. Computers—the cutting edge of technology—are available to ensure that upskilling process. When I was shadow Minister for Corrective Services I established, after visiting a number of gaols in New South Wales, that it is a hard ask if prisoners decide that they want to undertake a computer course. Often there is a lot of peer pressure on inmates not to be involved in educational courses. They take this gigantic step of wanting to be involved in an educational program, become involved and within six or 12 months they are moved to another gaol.

In many instances those educational programs cease or they are diminished and there is no continuity of education. Those inmates who want to get involved find that there are barriers preventing them from becoming involved. How can that be assisted by computers? It is not a hard ask; it is a simple process. Distance education operates via the Internet for people all over Australia. But New South Wales prisons have not yet progressed to the point where there is a sufficient number of computers or the desire to make that happen. That is something that I have heard from educational officers inside the prison system and from people outside the prison system. I acknowledge that the Government has moved a little way towards achieving that end. I congratulate the Minister for Corrective Services, who is in the Chamber on his new appointment. I am sure that he is interested in these topics.

There has been some improvement in this area. At least minimum security inmates have been allowed to use laptop computers in their cells. They cannot access the Internet but they can undertake some courses, provided that they have their educational visits. If the Minister were arrested today—and I am not suggesting that he would be and I hope that he will not be, but one of his predecessors was—he would be at the Metropolitan Remand and Reception Centre [MRCC] and he would be saying, "I want to establish what are my legal rights." He would not be able to do so as he would not have any access to computers in the MRCC, except for one hour a week.

I know that the Minister would want to determine his legal rights. However, he may have problems with computers. Perhaps he is a candidate for one of the basic information technology courses. When the Coalition is in government it will ensure, if the Minister is in gaol, that he is afforded those opportunities. People who are not found guilty of an offence and who are still sitting around on remand should have access to computers. They should also know what are their legal rights. Because of time constraints I cannot go into as much detail as I would like in relation to the provision of computers in prisons. But obviously the Opposition is concerned. Honourable members should not for one second entertain the view that the Coalition is supporting a blanket use of the Internet without checks and balances.

Mr Watkins: Exactly.

Mr HAZZARD: There is a oneness of spirit in this House, as there so often is on many issues. If there is a commitment to ensuring the provision of computers in prisons we will be able to handle the technology issues. We can ensure that inmates do not have access to Internet sites for inappropriate purposes. We do not want inmates to be able to intimidate witnesses or to communicate with other inmates. That would be inappropriate. We also do not want them to be able to organise crime. Technology is available which will enable us to do all these things, but we need the will to do it. This is not frontier stuff. Speaking of the frontier, the Northern Territory has been doing this for years.

Inmates in the Northern Territory established a web site called "Ending Offending", which has much of an Aboriginal influence and which I think the Minister should look at. He probably has not had the time to do so because of his onerous portfolio responsibilities. Alcohol and other drugs are issues at which those inmates look. They are actually warning other potential offenders and young people not to offend because they could end up in gaol. They talk about the prisoner education unit and about all the positive aspects of having the Internet and computer services available. As shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs I must point out that because Aboriginal people are locked up at 15 times the rate of non-Aboriginal Australians those inmates can benefit from this system to a great degree.

It is time that this Government, which says that social justice is one of its priorities, started responding to the Coalition's calls and implementing programs to enable these things to be done. I have correspondence from the Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales, the UTS Community Law and Legal Research Centre and the Law Society Human Rights Committee. Each of those groups supports my contention that there should be more computers in prisons. Computers should be available in cells. Inmates should be subject to certain 5 April 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13329 limitations relating to Internet access. The Minister must do that if he wants to ensure that prisoners come out of the prison system better people. He must look at this proposition in a balanced and sensible way. He has a bit more time to do that than did his predecessor, as he has far fewer portfolios. I ask the Minister to get serious about this issue and to determine whether something constructive can be done about it.

Mr WATKINS (Ryde—Minister for Fair Trading, Minister for Corrective Services, and Minister for Sport and Recreation [12.16 p.m.]: I thank the honourable member for Wakehurst for his generous comments. As the new Minister for Corrective Services I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak about one of the positive programs operating in the New South Wales correctional system. The honourable member for Wakehurst would know and recognise that at present all correctional centres have classrooms and provide courses that assist inmates to develop computer skills. Inmates in minimum security facilities can purchase and retain laptop computers, provided that they undertake approved tertiary studies.

All remand centres have hard copy printed case law reference libraries which can be accessed by inmates. At the Metropolitan Remand and Reception Centre at Silverwater inmates have access to both hard copy statutes and also to electronic CD-ROM versions of this material. I understand that library staff assist inmates undertaking legal research and they provide training on equipment. Staff will also undertake some research on their behalf. The Department of Corrective Services is keenly aware of the importance of computer literacy for inmates and the need for remand inmates in particular to have access to research material. When I visited Berrima corrective centre recently I had a discussion about fair trading with an inmate who was working on a computer.

Mr Hazzard: They have computers in their cells?

Mr WATKINS: This inmate was working in the library. I was discussing his fine work in putting fair trading information onto the computer. However, I am advised that the provision of second-hand computers from private donors is not the best way of achieving these aims. That is why I am advised that the Department of Corrective Services information technology section is currently undertaking a process of recycling surplus departmental computers. That means that computers are assessed for suitability of use and, where they are to be reallocated, they are thoroughly cleansed of all data and all licensed software programs.

In short, the process of increasing the number of computers available to inmates is being undertaken in a staged and structured manner. The process involves: one, the testing of computers to ensure they are in good working order and, when necessary, undertaking minor repairs to the system; two, scanning of the system for viruses; three, the complete cleansing of all data and licensed software from the system and, when necessary, the upgrading of the operating system to Windows 95; and, four, the installation of CD-ROM drives where practical and the installation of appropriate educational software for use by inmates.

I am advised that about 125 computers have been processed in this way and have either been distributed or are awaiting distribution. A further 15 computers have been returned to the technology group and are progressively being checked and cleansed before being supplied to the department's Adult Education and Vocational Training Institute. The training institute, which is responsible for co-ordinating the educational and vocational training provided to inmates, has surveyed correctional centres as to their requirements for additional computers for inmates. I am advised that the survey responses indicate that across the State some 113 computers could be used. That means that the departmental computers currently being reconditioned should amply meet the number of computers that can be accommodated in vocational and training areas of prisons.

I understand that as far back as December 1998 Corrective Services advised that second-hand, privately-donated computers raised extreme security concerns. It is what the honourable member for Wakehurst has suggested should be allowed. Those security concerns include, first, the general policy of prohibiting entry of electrical goods. I am informed that it has been departmental policy since the mid-1980s not to permit the entry of electrical equipment to correctional centres other than equipment supplied through approved contractors. This decision was taken following the discovery of drugs and other contraband such as syringes and weapons concealed in the back of televisions that had been left by visitors for the use of inmates. Since that time the department's policy has been to require the purchase of electrical equipment through approved contractors. Visitors are permitted to supply to inmates only underwear, socks, photos, newspapers and legal papers.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, there are particular concerns about security issues presented by computers. The Commissioner for Corrective Services, Dr Kelleher, is himself a PhD in information technology. He has advised that modern computers, which can have modems integrated into the motherboards, 13330 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 April 2001 present particular risks. As an example, if an inmate has authorised access to the Internet, via a computer and a phone jack or a smuggled mobile phone, the department runs the risk of sex offenders gaining access to paedophile chat rooms or inmates making drug deals or escape plans over the Internet. The risk also exists of inmates harassing victims by email. We do not want paedophiles using the Internet or especially inmates harassing a victim by email. Instead, by reconditioning surplus departmental computers, as mentioned earlier, the department is able to provide additional educational resources to inmates without running security risks or making unduly onerous calls on the departmental information technology staff.

New South Wales has a tougher inmate property policy across the board than many other jurisdictions and makes no apology for that. I presume the Opposition supports that. As stated earlier, in New South Wales donated second-hand televisions or radios or computers are just not accepted. Restrictions on what property can be brought to a prison are part of the fight against the importation of illegal and inappropriate material into the prison system. I appreciate the motivation of the honourable member for Wakehurst but I cannot agree with the details of his motion.

Mr HUMPHERSON (Davidson) [12.21 p.m.]: I support the motion of the honourable member for Wakehurst:

That this House calls on the Government to accept donations of computers into New South Wales prisons from private donors, where these computers will be used to promote the rehabilitation of inmates and to reduce the rate of recidivism.

Given the prominent use of computers in everyday life, it strikes me that it is somewhat archaic to object to offers from community-based groups and organisations to make second-hand computers available to at least educate and assist in the rehabilitation of offenders. The mention of 113 departmental computers satisfying the needs of a prison system with 7,500-plus inmates is amusing. It is laughable! The Minister did not readily respond to the obvious question: If the department is receiving donations is it not a fairly simple process to vet the computers through some central point and have them dismantled to ensure the carcasses are clear of anything inappropriate to be taken into the correctional centre system, to ensure that the motherboard and the hard drive are what they should be, and that no modem or anything akin to a modem is available? The Opposition is strongly against any possibility of inmates having access to the Internet via general search engines or by email, because of potential problems.

The motivation by the honourable member for Wakehurst is quite appropriate because the resources that go into rehabilitation, training and education are lamentably low in the State prison system, and that is evidenced by the extraordinarily high rate of recidivism. Basically six to eight of every 10 offenders who leave the prison system this year will commit and be convicted of a further crime and will go back to gaol. Computers are not the be-all and end-all but they can be a very useful tool to assist in developing self-skills and developing knowledge in a range of areas that can be used to obtain and retain employment upon release. If that can be done in a handful of cases it will make the exercise worthwhile. The rate of recidivism amongst prisoners leaving the New South Wales gaol system is ridiculous, with a 60 per cent to 80 per cent return rate. The costs of crime and incarceration could be reduced if we ensured that greater resources, at minimal cost to taxpayers, were directed into the prison system to be used in education and upskilling.

Many prisoners who leave the prison system are not prepared for it. That is a sad reflection on the prerelease programs and also a sad reflection on the lack of obligation and lack of incentive to be appropriately educated and prepared for release. Once they leave they do not have the adequate skills to find or retain employment. Given the range of employment available in the wider community, where computer-based skills and knowledge play such a substantial part, this is an area where many inmates could develop skills—working on their own in their cells—and have a greater chance of holding down employment. I find it extremely ironic to discover there are no constraints on prisoners buying typewriters yet there are extraordinary restraints on them having access to what is a modern typewriter—a computer. To have a computer with the most basic of facilities and the most basic word processing software, giving the ability to perhaps be a little creative, seems nothing more and nothing less than logical. I would have thought the Minister would be a little more open-minded about this, because surely there is an opportunity here, with bipartisan support, to reduce recidivism in New South Wales.

Mr MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [12.26 p.m.]: I support the motion calling on the Government to accept donations of computers into New South Wales prisons from private donors, where these computers will be used to improve the rehabilitation of inmates and reduce the rate of recidivism. The low security prison farm Mannus is located at Tumbarumba in my electorate. Mannus is a transitional farm where low-risk prisoners are held. The aim of that prison is to give those people skills for when they re-enter the community. 5 April 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13331

In supporting this motion I note that there are some 7,500 inmates in prisons in New South Wales. Those prisoners need access to modern technology. In giving them access to technology I am not necessarily saying that they should have free-range access to the Internet or to other forms of information outside the prison. There are ways to link computers to control access to in-house information only and at the same time enable prisoners to improve their skills in terms of modern technology. In this day and age access to a computer and computer skills are vital to almost everyone in the working world. If we are fair dinkum about giving prisoners a new start at life on the outside we must ensure that they have access to the computers that are to be donated.

Computers, televisions and radios that go into prisons can be controlled and vetted. As the honourable member for Davidson said, they can be stripped to ensure that they do not contain bits and pieces that will enable prisoners to access information that the Minister said he wants to deny them. I agree with that. These days, if we do not want prisoners to reoffend and re-enter the system we must provide them with skills that are relevant to today's world. I have been told that in the next five years we will experience the same level of change that has occurred in the past 100 years. Honourable members will note how far we have developed as a nation in terms of technology skills. I refer to the development of the aeroplane, the motor car and the computer.

Such developments will increase in the next five years, and the year after that we will experience the same level of change as in the previous five years. All developments will be linked to computer skills, and people from all walks of life will need to operate a computer, and operate it well. I understand that prisoners in the gaol at Junee, in the electorate of Lachlan, have access to computers that have been donated to the system, and that there are no problems with that. If the Minister is genuine about trying to bring about permanent change in the actions of prisoners and give them a decent start when they rejoin the community, which I am sure all members of the public want—we want these people to have a new outlook on life—he must provide opportunities for them to participate in everyday community activities.

For prisoners to secure a decent job that requires skills they must have a firm and thorough understanding of computer technology, whether it be in the mechanical field of repairing them or whether it be access to information and understanding how computers work. But that involves education, and that point must be made. These days, to access a decent paying job people need the qualifications of at least year 12 or a Higher School Certificate and/or university skills. If people do not have such qualifications their chances of accessing reasonable employment are very poor. However, the addition of computer skills means that people have access to a wider-ranging job field. I am talking about access to jobs such as warehousing or any job that relies on the use of a computer.

Mr HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [12.31 p.m.], in reply: I thank the honourable member for Wagga Wagga, the honourable member for Davidson and the Minister for Corrective Services for participating in this debate. The community wants prisoners to be punished fairly and appropriately. It wants prisoners who have committed crimes to receive the punishment they deserve, but it also wants to know that when inmates come out of prison they will be better people. That is the bottom line. We must look at every possible way of ensuring that at the same time as prisoners are serving their punishment, their just deserts for the act they committed, they are given opportunities to become better people, better members of the community, when they re-enter the community.

Some people outside the present system are advocating strongly for such measures as the donation of computers to prisons. The honourable member for Wollongong, who has just entered the Chamber, often refers to the concern that he and I share, as do honourable members on both sides of the House, about Aboriginal inmates and the disproportionate representation of Aboriginal inmates in the prison system. Computers and technology offer a great opportunity for us as a community to ensure that people in the prison system who have suffered disadvantage—and Aboriginal Australians suffer enormous levels of disadvantage—are given opportunities to obtain skills and self-esteem so that when they get out of prison they will not re-offend.

On a number of occasions I have spoken to women inside the Emu Plains and Mulawa facilities. The big focus for women is definitely self-esteem. Computers offer opportunities to develop all sorts of new skills in an environment in which they do not have many other opportunities, so it is worthwhile pursuing this matter. Groups such as Justice Action have advocated for the donation of computers to prisons. Sometimes honourable members may have slightly different views to those of Justice Action. Indeed, on occasions I have different views to those of Justice Action. However, we cannot detract from the basic message, which is about giving inmates opportunities to become better people.

We should not discount the views of any group, as I have seen the Government do, because it has differences in other areas. From my point of view, Justice Action is right in wanting computers in prisons. It 13332 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 April 2001 recognises the difficulty of Internet issues, which the Minister raised and I raised earlier. We recognise those difficulties but as a community we must be mature. The Minister should say to Mr Callahan, "I don't want to hear about the problems. I want to hear about how you can make it work. Don't give me the problems; give me how you can make it work." Honourable members may be interested to know that when the proposal for donating computers first arose, the education officers within a couple of the prisons actually accepted the computers; they were very grateful. Then from the senior hierarchy of the Department of Corrective Services came a memorandum instructing them to send them back. So back went the computers. It was all a bit silly. Hopefully, we have moved a little further down the path. We need people at the top to understand how computers can help. I am not reflecting on senior management; I am simply saying that we need some people in the top echelon who understand what computers can do to provide new avenues for prisoners to develop skills and be better people when they come out of the system. I think the message has got through to the Minister. I hope it gets through to the Government. I suspect that the Premier does not think that there are many votes in prisoners. Unfortunately, that has been the traditional way of looking at things, but the reality is that there are a lot of votes in prisoners. If we can reduce the number of people entering prisons on the cycle of back in, back out; if we can reduce the rate of recidivism; if we can reduce costs—it costs between $50,000 and $100,000 per year to keep each inmate in the present system; and if we can reduce the number of prisoners from roughly 8,000 at the moment to even one-third less, the money savings for the community will be enormous. We will have better people sitting next to us on trains and buses, not people who are committing crimes. I encourage the Government to take this motion seriously. Motion agreed to. FUEL PRICES Mr PICCOLI (Murrumbidgee) [12.40 p.m.]: I move:

That this House:

(1) notes:

(a) the stance of the Government over the issue of fuel prices;

(b) the reported comments by the Minister for Agriculture in the Griffith Area News prior to the 1995 election that: "Country petrol prices would be brought down by a reactivated New South Wales Prices Commission if a Labor Government was elected" and "the Fahey Government had not utilised the commission to regulate petrol prices and instead wiped its hands of it by passing it off as a Federal matter";

(c) the comment by the Minister for Fair Trading in the House on 22 September 1999 that: "we must remember that the regulation of petrol is primarily a Commonwealth responsibility"; and

(d) that the price of fuel in regional areas has skyrocketed; and

(2) condemns the Minister for Agriculture for his comments and Labor members who represent country electorates for their inability to influence Government policy. It is unfortunate that it has taken some 18 months for this motion to be debated. Part of the motion refers to "the comments made by the Minister for Fair Trading in the House yesterday", which was obviously not 4 April 2001. It is an indictment of the way the Government runs the Parliament that we have what is now a book of private members' business that has not been dealt with. It is only because of the Government's vacuum of ideas and policy that we are today afforded the opportunity to conduct some private members' business. This motion is of great significance to all people in New South Wales, particularly the people of country New South Wales. Petrol prices is a significant issue, as has been illustrated to the Federal Government. Some of the recent election results—for example, in Western Australia and in the Ryan by-election in Queensland—indicate to the Federal Government the significance of petrol prices for the people of Australia. It is of particular interest to country people, who have to travel much further distances to go to work or to go on holidays. Anything that people in the country do usually involves getting into a motor vehicle and driving somewhere. People in country areas do not have the option of using public transport, which many people in urban areas have. The motion deals with the hypocrisy of the Carr Labor Government. When the Labor Party was in Opposition in 1995 the current Minister for Agriculture visited Griffith in an effort to win that electorate from the National Party—which, I am pleased to say, did not succeed—by making all sorts of outrageous promises. One of those promises was that country petrol prices would be brought down by a reactivated New South Wales 5 April 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13333 prices commissioner if a Labor government were elected. Unfortunately, a Labor Government was elected at that State poll and that Labor Government has refused to come good on that election promise. It has essentially done nothing to alleviate country petrol prices. On the day on which the current Minister for Agriculture made that promise he also said that the Fahey Government had not utilised the commission to regulate petrol prices, and instead had wiped its hands of the issue by passing it off as a Federal matter. Over the last couple of years the State Government has passed off many issues as Federal matters. The very thing that the current Minister for Agriculture condemned the then Coalition Government for is exactly what the current Labor Government is now doing: passing off everything as a Federal matter. There is no doubt that petrol prices is both a Federal and a State matter. As I said earlier, some of the recent elections have been a clear indication to the Federal Government of the population's belief that it should take action on petrol prices. The Federal Government has done precisely that, with the removal of the 1.5¢ a litre Commonwealth excise on fuel prices and the removal of the whole process of indexation. I believe that it has spent about $500 million on a fuel price equalisation program for country motorists, and has done a number of other things. Unfortunately, fuel prices are still very high due to external factors such as the world price of oil and the value of the Australian dollar—which I do not think anyone would seriously argue the Commonwealth Government has the power to control. However, the Federal Government has taken action on the matters it has the power to control, particularly the excise on fuel. The State Government also received benefits from the excise that it formerly imposed on fuel prices. For example, this financial year the State Government received about $707 million in fuel tax payments. Over the last couple of months the State Government has attempted to argue that it no longer receives that money. That is rather surprising, given that it continues to return part of that $707 million to the five subsidy zones in the north of New South Wales. The New South Wales Government's argument is dubious to say the least. The Queensland Government would receive similar benefits. It managed to find the money to reimburse the entire 8.35¢ a litre excise that the Commonwealth used to impose on behalf of the States. During question time a few weeks ago the Opposition raised with the Premier the idea of at least matching the Commonwealth Government's 1.5¢ a litre refund to motorists. His reaction was something like, "Which hospital would you close; which school would you close?" When the same question was posed to the Prime Minister on behalf of the Federal Government, I did not hear him ask the same thing. As responsible members of Parliament we are all aware that when a government reduces its own revenue this has a budgetary impact. I did not hear the Premier or any member of the State Government question the sorts of cuts that the Federal Government would make. The entire motion can be summarised in one word: hypocrisy. Fuel prices is a significant issue for all of us. The Commonwealth Government has done its bit, although obviously other things can be done. The Commonwealth Government has made significant concessions that will have significant budgetary impacts for it. But the New South Wales Government has not done a thing. It could have at least matched the Federal Government's 1.5¢ per litre return to motorists, but it has refused to do so. I cannot understand that, nor can the motoring public in New South Wales understand it. The issue of fuel prices is significant for country people. Whilst the New South Government has so far refused to do anything about it, I take this opportunity to again remind the Government of its 1995 election promise that petrol prices would be brought down by a Labor Government. The Carr Labor Government has had six years in which to do that but has refused to do it. Perhaps the Government should look again at the allegation made by the current Minister for Agriculture when he condemned the Fahey Government for blaming the Commonwealth Government. It should also look at the blame game that has been played in the last 12 months, and particularly in the last six months, with respect to petrol prices and many other issues, with the New South Wales Government blaming the Federal Coalition Government. I again ask the Government to reconsider its position on fuel prices and do something to relieve the angst of country motorists. Mr WATKINS (Ryde—Minister for Fair Trading, Minister for Corrective Services and Minister for Sport and Recreation) [12.49 p.m.]: I move:

That the motion be amended by leaving out all words after paragraph (a) with a view to inserting instead: (b) congratulates the Government on its repeated attempts to force the Federal Government to meet its repeated promises to reduce petrol prices; and (c) notes that petrol prices have, contrary to the Federal Government's promises, continued to rise.

(2) condemns the National Party for its failure to support the Government and Country Labor in their endeavours to help country motorists. 13334 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 April 2001

While this Government has taken a leading role in the fight to lower petrol prices, it should be clear to everyone in this House that the regulation of the petrol industry is primarily a Commonwealth issue, given the national structure of the industry. Commonwealth legislation primarily determines the structure of the industry and the level of competition in it. In 1984 New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia, which had been controlling the price of petrol, relinquished wholesale price controls to the Commonwealth and all but Western Australia withdrew from retail price controls.

Mr Maguire: You don't mind that that happened?

Mr WATKINS: It happened; it is history. The Commonwealth regulated the maximum wholesale price of petrol until 1998. It still regulates the terms and conditions of franchise agreements in the oil industry under the franchise Act, which is the legislation's short title, and regulates the number of sites that can be owned and operated by the oil majors under the sites Act, which is also the short title. The fact that the Commonwealth Government has the greatest influence on petrol prices has been recognised by most commentators in the industry and by successive inquiries into the industry—for example, the New South Wales Parry report in 1995 and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [ACCC] inquiry into the Petroleum Products Declaration in 1996.

The New South Wales Government indicated in its 1995 consumer policy, which is relevant to the motion originally move by the Opposition, that the New South Wales Prices Commission would investigate complaints of excessive retail petrol pricing. That election commitment was fulfilled soon after this Government came to power. A commission of inquiry into retail petrol prices in rural New South Wales was conducted by Professor Tom Parry, the Chair of the Government Pricing Tribunal, which is now known as the Independent Regulatory and Pricing Tribunal [IPART]. A report from that inquiry was forwarded to the Premier in September 1995. The inquiry found that:

Given the Commonwealth's involvement in regulating the petroleum industry ... it is appropriate that the recommendations of this Report that are accepted by the State Government be referred to the Commonwealth ... [as] it is widely agreed by the major parties involved in the Inquiry that the Commonwealth is the appropriate jurisdiction. That happened in October 1995. The Acting Prime Minister replied on 14 November 1995 and indicated that the Industry Commission had examined petrol pricing in 1984 and that the ACCC would be asked to examine petrol prices surveillance arrangements in 1996. The various government inquiries into country petrol prices have found that they are generally influenced by higher freight costs; lower sales volumes, which mean that businesses need to increase margins to make a suitable profit; less diversity in revenue sources for country outlets; lower levels of local competition; general absence of wholesale and retail price discounting, which tends to occur in the city where there is greater local competition; and supply arrangements between the retailer and a wholesaler which can affect the wholesale price charged. The Commonwealth's legislation has a major influence on all these matters. That has been confirmed by its widely trumpeted petrol pricing reform package which was announced in 1998 but which has had limited impact on petrol prices. A joint release by the Federal Treasurer, Peter Costello, and the former Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism, John Moore, on 20 July 1998 stated:

The Government today announced a reform package for the petrol industry in moves designed to cut prices for consumers. These reforms will benefit all consumers but will be of particular importance for consumers in rural and regional Australia who have suffered from a lack of competition in the retail market. In other words, the Commonwealth accepted responsibility for the petrol industry and for bringing down petrol prices. The Commonwealth was also in favour of abolishing price surveillance immediately. In a joint statement, Costello and Moore said:

Price surveillance of petrol prices and the setting of maximum endorsed wholesale price has had an adverse effect on the retail petrol market. In the capital cities, the maximum endorsed wholesale price has acted as a target for prices at the end of the discount cycle. In the country, the maximum endorsed wholesale price has acted as a price floor underwriting the price paid by country consumers. Wholesale price setting was abolished in August 1998. The Commonwealth also intended to repeal the Petroleum Retailing Marketing Sites Act and the Petroleum Retailing Marketing Franchise Act. The Commonwealth package was inadequate because the Commonwealth Government did not take action to increase competition at the wholesale and retail levels of the industry. That just did not happen. The Commonwealth did not include adequate measures to encourage the presence of independent oil companies in the petrol industry. It also did not promote the ability of retailers to shop around for the cheapest wholesale prices. That could have made a difference. 5 April 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13335

Due to the failure of industry groups to agree even to a code of practice to set standards in the industry—this is referred to as the Oilcode—the Commonwealth Government withdrew its deregulatory initiatives in September 1999. The Commonwealth appears to have put the petrol price issue in the too-hard basket rather than tried to show leadership and actually reform the industry. That is what the Commonwealth promised to do, twice, prior to the two most recent Federal elections. To make matters worse, there is huge concern across Australia, as indicated by the honourable member for Murrumbidgee, who preceded me in this debate, about the impact of the goods and services tax on the price of petrol.

Despite the Commonwealth's promise that petrol prices would not increase as a result of the GST—we all heard that—the Commonwealth cut fuel excise by only a flat 6.7¢ per litre in July 2000 and assumed that there would be further savings of 1.5¢ as a result of tax reform. Those savings just did not eventuate. The Commonwealth's grand scheme for non-metropolitan and remote areas, which operates in addition to the 6.7¢ reduction in fuel excise, has also failed to adequately compensate consumers for the impact of the GST. The widely reported price increases in petrol in metropolitan and country areas since 1 July 2000 have borne out public concerns about the impact of the GST on petrol prices.

The Prime Minister's 1.5¢ per litre cut in excise at the beginning of March this year merely compensates consumers for excise indexation on 1 February 2001 but does not take into account the increased taxation on fuel which has resulted from the GST and from other post-GST increases in excise, for example, those that occurred in August 2000. At a meeting of the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs on 31 July 2000 the New South Wales, Queensland, Victorian and Tasmanian governments called on the Commonwealth to increase compensation for regional and rural motorists, who had been hit hard by the larger than promised GST increases on petrol.

Other matters that were the subject of calls for Commonwealth action from the New South Wales, Queensland, Victorian and Tasmanian governments included: that the Commonwealth help independent oil companies to move into regional Australia, promoting competition in areas where there is little, as that would have an impact on the price of petrol; that the Fair Prices and Better Access for All (Petroleum) Bill, which was introduced by Joel Fitzgibbon, would promote competition by allowing service station franchisees to buy up to 50 per cent of their petrol from any wholesaler they wished, should be made law—but it has not been; that the Commonwealth ensure that proposed new standards for petrol allow it to prevent fuel adulteration, such as the recent toluene substitution; that the ACCC must be given adequate resources to pursue illegal and uncompetitive practices in the petroleum industry; that the Commonwealth consider funding petrol-buying co-operatives, or petrol banks, across Australia; and that the Commonwealth address the shrinking problems in fuel deliveries. As I said earlier, petrol pricing is primarily affected by Commonwealth legislative powers. Given the failure of the Commonwealth to fulfil its promise to cut petrol prices, the New South Wales Government has been forced to do what it can. I only wish that I had more time to detail the extensive actions that this Government has taken in the recent months since I have been the Minister for Fair Trading to actually address this matter. I commend the amendment to the House. Mr OAKESHOTT (Port Macquarie) [12.59 p.m.]: If there was ever a speech abrogating responsibility, I have just heard it. Twelve months ago the Minister was going to do wonders for petrol, the petrol industry and consumers of petrol in New South Wales. He was going to intervene in such matters as regional petrol banks, and he has spoken in the House about banks. He was going to do absolute wonders for Country Labor in its fight to reduce fuel prices in regional New South Wales. In the past 10 minutes the House has heard the Minister completely abrogate his responsibility. The Minister has handed everything over to the Commonwealth; he has said that his hands are completely tied and that the issue of fuel prices has nothing to do with him. Unless the Parry report in 1995-96 and the words of the Minister for Fair Trading in 1995 were a complete sham, options are available to the State. The Minister has slunk back into his hole and completely avoided the issue. What happened to the options the Minister spoke about previously? Why in the past 12 months has this issue become too hard for the State Government? I hope the Minister has not slunk back into his hole because of effective lobbying by the major oil companies. I hope Country Labor and the Minister have not realised that there are some financial donors to the Australian Labor Party that are too important to lose as they try to fight the good fight for regional New South Wales. Where did regional petrol banks go? That was the big issue on the Minister's agenda because they would do a great deal for the industry. What happened to zoning issues? Port Macquarie is jammed between zones as one heads towards northern New South Wales and the Queensland border. Port Macquarie is geographically disadvantaged because it does not get access to the zoning rebates from the petrol subsidy that the Government supposedly does not get back from the Commonwealth. 13336 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 April 2001

What happened to terminal gate pricing that other States are using to get rid of price disparity, price discounting problems and problems faced by franchisees, who are the meat in the sandwich between consumers and the major oil companies? The Minister should be doing more than sidestepping the issue. About 12 months ago on at least two or three occasions in question time he was talking tough on the issue. He spoke about potential reforms that were on the agenda, but absolutely nothing has happened in 12 months other than an abrogation of responsibility. The Minister doing this extraordinary sidestepping is the Minister who loves to regulate. In the past 12 months this Minister has wanted to regulate hot water, beer bottles, banks and credit payments. Last week he considered regulating jumping castles and potentially regulating rock fishing. I read one press article that labelled the Minister "Nanny Watkins". In the past 12 months he has made a name for himself for being a great regulator. It is extraordinary that this debate has shown that for once the Minister does not want to do anything about regulating the petrol industry, an issue of great importance to regional motorists. There is more to this than meets the eye. Have the major oil companies got to the Minister? Has Country Labor dropped the ball with the Minister? What has happened with the Minister of today versus the Minister of 12 months ago? Has he gone weak and changed his position in a major way? Let us think about regional motorists and get on with the job. Debate adjourned on motion by Mr W. D. Smith. [Madam Acting-Speaker (Ms Beamer) left the chair at 1.05 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.] ELECTRICITY WORKERS IDENTIFICATION CARDS Ministerial Statement Mr YEADON (Granville—Minister for Information Technology, Minister for Energy, Minister for Forestry, and Minister for Western Sydney) [2.15 p.m.]: Today I have been advised that a number of residents, particularly the elderly, in the Hunter region, on the Central Coast and on the northern beaches have been targeted by bogus electricity workers trying to gain access to their homes. I know that all honourable members of the House will agree that this is a timely reminder that every householder should check the identity not only of electricity workers but of any officials before allowing them through their doors. EnergyAustralia staff carry identification cards which include their name, a photograph and employee service number, as well as the EnergyAustralia logo. Customers should always ask workers to show their identification card, no matter how convincing they may appear to be. Imposters are trying to enter customers' homes by claiming they need to carry out important work or inspections and that the work will be conducted free of charge. These are slick operators who gain people's confidence by addressing them by name, which they can obtain by reading people's mail. Customers in any doubt about the identity of someone claiming to be an EnergyAustralia employee can contact EnergyAustralia customer service centres. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Mr SPEAKER: I welcome the Mayor of Sutherland Shire Council, Councillor Tracie Sonda to the Parliament. I also welcome members of the Serbian National Defence Council, the St George Free Orthodox Serbian Church and the Serbian Orthodox Welfare Association are also present in the gallery. I trust that they all have a pleasant visit to this Parliament. PETITIONS North Head Quarantine Station Petition praying that the head lease proposal for North Head Quarantine Station be opposed, received from Mr Barr. McDonald's Moore Park Restaurant Petition praying for opposition to the construction of a McDonald's restaurant on Moore Park, received from Ms Moore. State Taxes

Petition praying that the Carr Government establishes a public inquiry into State taxes, with the objective of reducing the tax burden and creating a sustainable environment for employment and investment in New South Wales, received from Mr Debnam. 5 April 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13337

National Australia Bank Gymea Branch Closure

Petition condemning the National Australia Bank's decision to close the Gymea branch and calling on the Federal Government to pass laws that require banks to maintain minimum customer service levels, received from Mr Collier.

National Australia Bank Jannali Branch Closure

Petition condemning the National Australia Bank's decision to close the Jannali branch and calling on the Federal Government to pass laws that require banks to maintain minimum customer service levels, received from Mr Collier.

Cronulla Police Station Upgrading

Petition praying that the House restores to Cronulla a fully functioning police patrol and upgrades the police station, received from Mr Kerr.

Malabar Policing

Petition praying that the House notes the concern of Malabar residents at the closure of Malabar Police Station and praying that the station be reopened and staffed by locally based and led police, received from Mr Tink.

Randwick Police Station Downgrading

Petition praying that the House notes the concern of Randwick residents at the major downgrading and possible closure of Randwick Police Station and praying that the station be staffed 24 hours a day by locally based and led police, received from Mr Tink.

Redfern, Darlington and Chippendale Policing

Petition praying for increased police presence in the Redfern, Darlington and Chippendale areas, received from Ms Moore.

Inner East Sydney Policing

Petition praying that the House prevents the closure of Woolloomooloo, Paddington, Redfern and four other inner eastern suburbs police stations and praying for adequate police resources, including uniformed foot patrols, in the inner east area, received from Ms Moore.

Inner East Sydney Policing Community Consultation

Petition praying that broad community consultation take place prior to any changes being made to policing in the inner east, received from Ms Moore.

Surry Hills Policing

Petition praying for increased police presence in the Surry Hills area, received from Ms Moore.

Eastern Suburbs Police and Community Youth Club Closure Petition praying that the House stops the Board of the Police and Community Youth Club New South Wales Ltd from closing and selling the Eastern Suburbs Police and Community Youth Club, received from Ms Moore. Genetically Engineered Food Petition praying that the House suspends the commercial release and trials of genetically engineered crops, supports the implementation of mandatory labelling of food derived from genetic engineering and funds independent scientific research to investigate the potential risks to health and the environment, received from Ms Moore. 13338 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 April 2001

Non-government Schools Funding

Petition praying that the Government reimburse the $5 million in funding that has been withdrawn from non-government schools and reverse its decision to withdraw a further $13.5 million in funding in 2001, received from Mr Richardson.

M5 East Tunnel Ventilation System

Petition praying that the Government review the design of the ventilation system for the M5 East tunnel and immediately install filtration equipment to treat particulate matter and other pollutants, received from Ms Moore.

Kempsey and Macksville Pacific Highway Upgrade

Petition praying that the House improve safety on the Pacific Highway and fast-track the proposed bypassing of Kempsey and Macksville, received from Mr Stoner.

Local and Regional Roads Funding

Petition praying that funding be increased to allow local government authorities to maintain local and regional roads, received from Ms Hodgkinson.

Main Road 241

Petition praying for an increase in funding to local government authorities to allow them to properly maintain Main Road 241, received from Ms Hodgkinson.

Somersby Plateau Environmental Protection

Petition praying that the House support the protection of the environment on the Somersby Plateau, that no sandmining be permitted on the Somersby Plateau without the consent of Gosford City Council and that the proposed sandmine, to be located near the intersection of Peats Ridge Road and the F3, not be permitted to proceed, received from Mr Hartcher.

Manly Lagoon Remediation

Petition praying that funds be made available to assist in the remediation of Manly Lagoon, received from Mr Barr.

Animal Experimentation

Petition praying that the practice of supplying stray animals to universities and research institutions for experimentation be opposed, received from Ms Moore.

Animal Vivisection

Petition praying that the House will totally and unconditionally abolish animal vivisection on scientific, medical and ethical grounds, and that a new system be introduced whereby veterinary students are apprenticed to practising veterinary surgeons, received from Ms Moore.

White City Site Rezoning Proposal

Petition praying that any rezoning of the White City site be opposed, received from Ms Moore.

Bega Valley Shire Council

Petition praying that extension of the term of the administrator appointed to oversee the affairs of Bega Valley Shire Council be opposed, received from Mr R. H. L. Smith. 5 April 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13339

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS

Report

Ms Beamer, as Chairman, tabled the report entitled "Sick Building Syndrome", dated April 2001, together with minutes of evidence and associated documents.

Report ordered to be printed.

UNANSWERED QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

Privilege

Mrs SKINNER (North Shore) [2.33 p.m.]: Pursuant to Standing Order No. 101, I raise a matter of privilege and ask that the Minister for Health be required to answer questions numbered 1606, 1607, 1608, 1634 and 1635 placed by me on the notice paper on 28 February. I comply with paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 101 by advising that this matter has arisen suddenly, namely, today. Under Standing Order No. 141 the Minister is required to answer these questions within 35 calendar days. Given that the questions were placed on notice on 28 February, today is the appropriate day, but in published responses he has refused to answer the questions. In accordance with paragraph (2) I maintain there is a prima facie case, as it is fundamental that members of Parliament have the right to answers to questions that they place in accordance with standing orders. This was not done. This right has been breached because the Minister has refused to reply to the questions, stating in response to each of them:

The diversion of public resources necessary to answer this question is not justified.

This is absolute nonsense. This information is collected on a routine basis and is part of the Government's own data collection. If the Minister does not know that, I refer him to his own web site. I have just downloaded a number of things off his web site, in particular something called, "Collection overview". The in-patient data collection is a survey of all in-patients treated in New South Wales hospitals. The survey covers approximately 70 variables, and since July 1993 both public and private hospitals have been fully enumerated. I can go on. It goes on to list the penalties that apply if people do not provide this data to the Minister within the appropriate time. The data is provided in a format that would allow the Minister to answer my questions with the press of one button. He would be able to provide the data on waiting lists and waiting times for the most frequently performed procedures in our hospitals. I can table the collection data table that I downloaded from the Minister's web site. If he cannot answer the questions without spending resources, he does not know how his own department operates. Further, this information has been published before. It is published in public health bulletin volume 6, No. 5, and it lists all the procedures I had asked about in my questions upon notice. In this bulletin the Minister and the department provided all this information in years past. He suggests now that he cannot provide it because it would be too expensive and take too many resources—for one reason and one reason only. The procedures are the most commonly performed in our hospitals and they are not listed on the web site. They are not listed on the waiting lists. For example, how many people had endoscopies in 1993-94, the time when this was published? Nearly 21,000. The Minister says, "Hurry up, Gillian." This is very painful for him because—I am sorry—he is a fraud. He does not have the guts to answer the questions I put on the notice paper. As a member of Parliament I have the right to ask questions of relevant Ministers on behalf of the people of New South Wales. I remind this House that I asked a question in relation to these procedures, namely colonoscopies, and one doctor in Coffs Harbour who had people waiting for nine years for this procedure. On behalf of the people of New South Wales I wanted to know how many other patients have had to wait for nine years. This information is all there. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Transport and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will remain silent. Mrs SKINNER: They can try to howl me down and my voice might be a bit croaky, but I will not be silenced on this. Another question related to the readmission of patients to our hospitals. This is a very serious question because the Commonwealth Productivity Commission's report that was recently released demonstrated that New South Wales has the worst record in the country in relation to medical misadventure in hospitals. One of the ways to determine that is by looking at how often patients have to be readmitted to hospital after they have been treated. 13340 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 April 2001

I refer the House to the Government's own web site called, "New South Wales Health Statewide Data Standards Readmission within 28 days". It talks about all that data that is to be collected. People in hospitals who are responsible for running the administration of area health services collect this information. They fill in their forms and submit them to the Minister through his department and that information is tabulated into a form in which it can be provided with the press of one computer button. The Minister knows I have on my database waiting lists for every month he has deigned to provide them since 1995. I could print it out, but it would stretch to the end of the Chamber. If I can do that, the Minister can. Maybe the Minister does not know how to work the collection and manipulate the data, although he fiddles with it to come up with the results he wants.

The truth is that the Minister does not want the public to know about the serious plight of our hospitals. More than 58,000 people are waiting for elective surgery; of those, 9,000 have been waiting more than 12 months. In addition, many people are waiting for procedures not included on the waiting list, and it is those procedures about which I have asked questions—colonoscopies, endoscopies and so on. Doctors use these diagnostic treatments to determine whether people have serious illnesses such as cancer. If these treatments cannot be done, doctors cannot make decisions about the next step in a patient's treatment, which might be chemotherapy or surgery. Doctors are telling me that they believe the lives of their patients are at risk. Indeed, they have gone so far as to seek legal advice on who would be liable should the condition of a patient deteriorate.

Mr E. T. Page: Point of order: I would prefer the honourable member for North Shore to address the chair, rather than the people in the gallery.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.

Mrs SKINNER: I am happy to address Mr Speaker and honourable members. However, I am talking to the young people in the gallery because they want to know. It is on their behalf that I asked these questions. As the shadow Minister for Health it is my responsibility to keep the Minister honest. If the Minister refuses to answer questions—

[Interruption]

The rules of the Parliament are called the standing orders. Although the rules state that the Minister must answer my questions, he has refused to do so. It is absolute nonsense. If the Government does not support my motion, it demonstrates that members opposite, who one might predict will not support the motion, do not care two hoots about the standing orders of this House. Mr Speaker has a good record in terms of upholding the standing orders. The people in the gallery would like to know that they have a government that is not so cowardly that it cannot answer serious questions that go to the heart of service delivery in New South Wales, that is, the delivery of surgery services to very sick patients. Such questions let people know how many patients are waiting for these procedures, and how many patients have had things go wrong, resulting in readmission to hospital.

The Minister is collecting this data but he is refusing to provide it. He knows that the answers to these questions show that the New South Wales health system is in crisis. Government members can call out "time" as much as they like to try to shut me up. The truth of the matter is that these questions will not go away. Government members should be asking these questions on behalf of their constituents, and I am astonished that they do not do so. Why is the honourable member for Tweed not shouting? Tweed hospital has the worst record of any hospital in the State in terms of waiting lists, and Shoalhaven hospital is a disgrace. Government members are not standing up for the people in their electorates. They should speak to the Minister to ensure that he answers these questions.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member has addressed the Chair on what she claims is a matter of privilege. Unfortunately, the matter she has raised is not a matter of privilege. Under the standing orders the Chair is entitled to exercise a degree of control over the content of questions that are directed to Ministers. However, the Chair has no control over the content of Ministers' answers. If a printed answer is presented, that is acceptable under the standing orders. If the argument put forward by the honourable member for North Shore was accepted, the Chair would spend all day and all night checking the veracity of every answer provided by Ministers. I am sure members of the Opposition would prefer to be in their electorates rather than waiting for the Chair to check every answer provided by every Minister. The honourable member for North Shore has not established a prima facie case of breach of privilege. 5 April 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13341

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

______

REDFERN POLICE STATION CLOSURE

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: My question is directed to the Premier. How can the Premier justify closing police stations such as Redfern which, according to a confidential police memorandum, will be turned into nothing more than a shopfront operation with no active police officers, when only yesterday three officers were injured and three police cars damaged when the officers were pelted with stones, paint and bottles while trying to arrest a suspected criminal in Redfern?

Mr CARR: I do know better, but I refer the Leader of the Opposition to the comprehensive answer I gave yesterday and, as I recall, the day before.

DEPORTATION OF CRIMINALS

Mr MARKHAM: My question without notice is directed to the Premier. How is the Department of Corrective Services working with Federal agencies to deport serious non-citizen criminals once they have served their sentences in New South Wales?

Mr CARR: I am glad to be asked this question because it enables me to place before the House some interesting information not previously revealed to the House.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Wakehurst to order.

Mr CARR: Since April 1995 almost 700 overseas-born prisoners have been deported from New South Wales to their place of birth.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Gosford to order.

Mr CARR: The offenders include murderers, drug traffickers, armed robbers, serial rapists and other serious sex offenders. We make no apology for sending them back.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Gosford to order for the second time.

Mr Hartcher: You didn't send them back; the Federal Government sent them back. Mr CARR: What can one say about the swamp fox? These criminals pay for their crimes in gaol and when they complete their sentence we get them to the airport and send them out of Australia. Make no mistake: If they come into this country and commit a crime, they pay for the crime and they are sent back. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for The Hills to order. Mr CARR: These deportations are happening on a weekly basis. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Hornsby to order. Mr CARR: Almost every nation in the world has been forced to take back a convicted criminal from the New South Wales jurisdiction. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Hornsby to order for the second time. Mr CARR: The most recent deportation was yesterday, and involved a 48-year-old British-born woman. In 1988 Helen Collins was convicted of lighting a fire in a home as an act of revenge. The fire caused the death of a two-year-old child in Doonside. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Leader of the National Party to order. Mr CARR: Collins is now on her way back to the United Kingdom. Last weekend Edward Godfrey, a convicted 39-year-old serial rapist, was deported. He migrated to Australia as a child with his family more than 25 years ago. He has a disturbing record. He spent 17 of the last 19 years in prison in Australia. Immigration officials took Godfrey direct from Silverwater prison to Kingsford Smith airport. 13342 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 April 2001

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Leader of the National Party to order for the second time.

Mr CARR: Honourable members will recall one of the most famous deportees under this government. Scottish-born murderer Archibald Beattie McCafferty came to Australia at the age of 10. In 1974 he was sentenced to life imprisonment on three counts of murder.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will remain silent.

Mr CARR: While in custody, McCafferty was also convicted of killing another inmate. In 1991 he had his sentence redetermined. He was granted parole on 1 May 1997 and he was deported to Scotland. The Department of Corrective Services works co-operatively with the Federal Government's Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs to make the process work. The official reasons for deporting someone who is a permanent resident of Australia include, first, that they have the potential to reoffend; second, the serious nature of the original conviction; and, third, the perceived threat to the Australian community. No matter how often and how loudly the Opposition might whinge and complain about this policy, we will continue to adhere to it.

COUNTRY POLICING

Mr J. H. TURNER: My question is directed to the Premier. How much worse can the shortage of police in country New South Wales get when existing patrols are unable to cope with emergencies such as the case at Purfleet, near Taree, where only two front-line police could be spared to attend a riot and were forced to retreat when they were set upon by a mob using rocks, bottles and pieces of iron, to the point where the lives of the police were endangered?

Mr CARR: I stand by the answer on country policing I gave yesterday, when I rebutted figures produced by the Opposition about Scone that were simply wrong.

Mr SPEAKER: I call the honourable member for Wakehurst to order for the second time.

DISABILITY SERVICES

Mr McMANUS: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services. What is the latest information on improvements to disability services in New South Wales?

Mrs LO PO': I thank the honourable member for Heathcote for his question. No member of the backbench is more diligent in dealing with disabilities than the honourable member for Heathcote. People with disabilities are some of the most vulnerable people in our community. No job in government is more important than working to achieve the best quality care and support for people with disabilities. In 1995 this Government formed the Ageing and Disability Department [ADD] . This was the first time in New South Wales that responsibility for disability policy and funding was brought together in a single department.

The department was formed to help lever better outcomes for people with disabilities. It has helped the Government achieve some notable successes, including the closure of the Hall for Children; supporting people in licensed boarding houses; and developing new models of housing support and care, to name just three. The Department of Community Services [DOCS] is a major provider of accommodation for people with disabilities. The Government is committed to developing alternatives to large residential services for people with disabilities. Last year's budget allocated an additional $65 million for disability.

To achieve new accommodation options for people with disability, now is the time to give one department the job of working to achieve better standards of care and support. The division between policy and planning within ADD and service provision in DOCS was right in 1995. It has achieved a lot over the past six years. Members will be interested to hear that disability services will be consolidated within a new Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care. Operational disability services currently located within the Department of Community Services will be merged with disability policy and funding staff located in the Ageing and Disability Department to form the new, enlarged Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care.

Mr Andrew Cappie-Wood, the Director General of Housing, will temporarily act as the temporary chief executive officer of the new department until recruitment for the new chief executive officer position is completed. The existing heads of the Home Care Service, the Ageing and Disability Department and the 5 April 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13343

Executive Director of DOCS disability services will each become senior officers within the new, enlarged organisation. This is a logical progression for the Ageing and Disability Department and the Department of Community Services. Last year's administrative separation of disability from child protection services within DOCS has paved the way for this further change. These changes reflect our commitment to ageing, disability and child protection programs. Each area has grown enormously, and is deserving of the increased status and focus that these new arrangements will provide.

The emphasis on ageing will be further upgraded in the new department. The Home Care agency has also been incorporated into the new department. The agency and the department share, in part, the common client group of frail aged and people with disabilities. Home Care will bring their expertise in community-based care. The Department of Community Services will retain all of its existing program areas other than disability. These include child protection, child care services, adoption, supported accommodation, community grants programs and disaster welfare.

The department will also be given an enhanced role in early intervention and prevention. In the medium term, it will take responsibility for the Families First program currently being run by the Cabinet Office. It will also have an enhanced community renewal function through taking responsibility for the strengthening communities unit currently in the Premier's department. The Department of Community Services has record funding and record staffing levels. We are now setting up a new organisation to give greater emphasis to the interests of older people and people with disabilities. I am confident that these changes will greatly enhance the level of service to older people, abused children, and people with disabilities and their families. The new arrangements will be recommended to the Governor next week.

REDFERN POLICE STATION CLOSURE Mr O'DOHERTY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services. Is it a fact that the South Sydney Interagency, representing 30 local groups, including the Minister's department, St Vincent's de Paul and the Uniting Church, has made a desperate plea not to close Redfern police station, saying that centralised policing has failed interstate and is anti-community? On behalf of that community, will the Minister fight in Cabinet to keep the police station open? Mrs LO PO': The honourable member should direct the question to the Minister for Police. FLOOD-DAMAGED VEHICLE SALES Ms SALIBA: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Fair Trading. What is the Government's response to the report that flood-damaged vehicles are being sold in New South Wales? Mr WATKINS: I thank the honourable member for Illawarra for her question, which allows me to warn New South Wales car buyers of a potential trap for the unwary. Over the past few days the Department of Fair Trading has been made aware that hundreds of motor vehicles damaged in recent floods in northern New South Wales are about to hit the New South Wales car market. Anyone purchasing a motor vehicle over the next few weeks—especially those seeking a bargain—needs to be aware of the risk that they may be buying a lemon. Fair Trading is concerned that a minority of unscrupulous dealers might not disclose that the cars they have on sale have been partly—or fully—immersed in floodwaters. Of course, the majority of car dealers are honest, hard-working, upstanding members of the community, and they know that car buyers deserve to know what they are paying for. Today I have advised the Motor Traders Association (MTA] of Fair Trading's concerns. As usual, the MTA has agreed to co-operate with Fair Trading in every possible way. The risk of water damage applies to both new and used vehicles. In fact, flood-damaged cars might run reasonably well for one or two years. However, Fair Trading inspectors have advised me that eventually vital electrical and computer systems are likely to malfunction. Instead of getting a bargain, buyers are left with a bomb. In short, in many instances people who are buying these cars face long-term mechanical trouble with the vehicle. That is why it is vital that the dealers make appropriate disclosures. Several thousand flood-damaged cars have recently been auctioned in Brisbane. In the coming months vehicles trapped in northern New South Wales flood areas are also likely to be auctioned and sold to individuals and dealers from right across Australia. My message today is clear. Anyone buying a car over the next few weeks should ask the seller if the vehicle has been trapped in recent floods. Additionally, Fair Trading inspectors will be out and about and it will take action if full details about flood damage are not provided to car buyers. Under the current Motor Dealers Act there is no specific requirement for dealers to inform buyers about a vehicle's history. However, Fair Trading can, and will, take action under the Fair Trading Act if misleading 13344 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 April 2001

representations are made at the point of sale. As members would no doubt be aware, the Motor Dealers Act is currently under review. I have therefore asked Fair Trading to consider whether new disclosure clauses should be inserted in the Act. The problem of water-damaged cars crops up from time to time. Cars might have fresh water damage, especially from floods in country areas, or damage through salt water immersion. Sometimes vehicles are damaged before they even reach Australia. Less than a decade ago a large consignment of motor vehicles sitting on Japanese docks were immersed in salt water when a typhoon hit. The result of that was that the cars were either flooded with massive waves or they ended up at the bottom of the harbour.

In subsequent weeks, those cars were brought to the surface, dried out and exported to Australia and sold here. Following the latest reports, Fair Trading stepped up action to make sure that car buyers are protected. That is why recently a south-western Sydney dealership which was selling large numbers of four-wheel-drive vehicles affected by salt water was ordered to display written disclosures on all vehicles for sale, or face fair trading action in court. People who want to rip off car buyers should be warned that similar action will be taken against them. It is only fair that car buyers have all the necessary information before they make a purchase. After all, the purchase of a motor vehicle is the second most important purchase a family will make. It has the greatest impact on a family's budget and families deserve to get what they pay for.

My advice to car buyers is first to ask questions of the seller. Purchasers should ask the seller whether the vehicle, especially any of those that may be purchased within the next month, has been affected by floodwaters. Second, purchasers should contact officers of the register of encumbered vehicles [REVS] on 9833 6333 to inquire about the vehicle they intend to purchase. People who are intending to purchase a motor vehicle should also ensure that an independent mechanical inspection is carried out. Purchasers should not just take the word of the retailer about the vehicle's condition: they should ask for an independent mechanical inspection.

If prospective purchasers think that they may have purchased a motor vehicle that has been affected by floodwaters, they should contact Fair Trading on 13 32 20, especially if they feel that there may have been misrepresentation related to the purchase of that motor vehicle. I say again that currently the Government is examining both the Motor Dealers Act and the Motor Vehicle Repairs Act which have been under consideration for some time. In deciding upon an appropriate framework, the Government is considering a number of different aspects of the industry. It is worthwhile repeating that the purchase of a motor vehicle is one of the most important financial undertakings that families make.

This weekend there will be families in every constituency who will be buying a car which they hope will keep them safe and a car that they hope will not become a major cost burden on the family budget. There could be nothing worse than purchasing a dream car and subsequently discovering in the months ahead that the vehicle has been affected by floodwaters which will cause major electrical damage and other presently concealed problems. Prospective purchasers should exercise care, contact Fair Trading and, most importantly, before a contract is entered into, ask the dealer whether the vehicle was affected by floodwaters.

STATE TRANSIT AUTHORITY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER SALARY PACKAGE

Mr O'FARRELL: My question is directed to the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads. How can he justify boosting the annual salary of the head of the State Transit Authority by 22 per cent to $225,000 when, according to his own annual report, the number of complaints received by State Transit jumped by nearly 19 per cent, with bus and ferry passengers complaining about late services, overcrowding and cancelled routes? Does this mean that the more complaints that are received, the more he will pay public transport bureaucrats?

Mr SCULLY: One can see the Opposition's morning tactics meeting: "What are we going to ask today? What about something from the Daily Telegraph? No, not from the Telegraph, let's try the Herald." So members opposite get the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald and say, "Let's surprise the Minister today. Let us ask him a question of which he obviously has no forewarning. Let us ask him about the pay given to the chief executive of State Transit." Well, Mr Speaker, I am happy to answer this question. As many honourable members would be aware, the chief executive's appointment came up for renewal earlier this year. An independent panel determined his pay and conditions. The panel comprised the chairman of State Transit—

Mr O'Farrell: Appointed by you.

Mr SCULLY: That is not so. It might surprise the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to know that the chairman was the incumbent in that position when I was appointed as the Minister for Transport. The panel also consists of the Director-General of the Department of Transport and the deputy Director-General of the 5 April 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13345

Premier's Department. The pay of the chief executive of State Transit went from $204,000 to $225,000, which is well within salary band level 6. The panel acknowledged that Mr Stott had done a good job during the Olympic Games. Opposition members may not be aware of the role of the chief executive.

Honourable members may recall that a very big task was undertaken last year, the Olympic Games. The biggest task undertaken during the Olympic Games was transport. Opposition members talked it down. Do honourable members recall that every single day the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Barry O'Farrell, and the Leader of the Opposition were on their feet and almost begging for poor transport? They were hoping that there would be poor transport; in fact, the rumours were that they had fingers crossed, hoping that the transport system would not be equal to the task. Barry O'Farrell said something that I think he repeated today:

My gut feeling is that even though I live close to a railway station, I am catching a bus to the Olympics.

After John Stott was brought in as the State Transit Authority [STA] chief executive to assist the private bus industry to resolve a number of difficulties that were being experienced in the period leading up to the Olympic Games—and he did a sterling job—Barry O'Farrell was asked about transport performance, which included the buses and trains. He very begrudgingly, very uncomfortably, very ungraciously and almost with tears in his eyes—in fact he was known to have complained throughout the corridors of this Parliament about how disappointed he was in the performance of the transport agencies—said, "It's a gold medal performance from all the agencies involved."

Mr Stoner: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. The Minister is arguing and basking in the past glory of the Olympics. He is ignoring the purport of the question asked by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.

Mr SCULLY: The point of order is quite pertinent because it shows how ignorant members of the Opposition are about the process. The Opposition has now brought in a new policy agenda. It is hard to extract policy from the Opposition. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Wakehurst to order for the third time. Mr SCULLY: The point of order is significant because, unlike members of the Government, who not unreasonably adhere to the position that remuneration reflects past performance— Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to order. I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to order for the second time. Mr SCULLY:—members of the Opposition have now put themselves into the position of asserting that, for the purposes of determining salary and remuneration, chief executive performance will not be past performance but future performance. Instead of having a panel comprising a chairman of the board, the Director-General of the Department of Transport and deputy head of the Premier's Department, the Opposition will have star gazers, astrologers, crystal balls, tea leaves and tarot cards. They will be rolling the tea leaves around and saying, "Well, the performance is going to be great over the next year. Let's give him a good salary", or, "Let's throw the cards in the air and see what happens." What a wonderful policy mechanism! I understand that around the shadow Cabinet table that is what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition actually puts to the Leader of the Opposition. This Government has a lot of confidence in Robyn Kruk. She does a very good job as deputy Director-General of the Premier's Department. Mrs Chikarovski: Point of order: The other day the Minister for Transport said that the performance measure he used had an analog display, and that as the level of consumer complaints about ferries was so high there would be no fare increases. The level of complaint as reflected in the annual report is increasing and he is accepting that as a measure of performance of the transport department. If it is good enough to measure the performance of the department, why is it not good enough to measure the performance of the head of the department? Mrs Skinner: To the point of order: On past occasions, Mr Speaker, you have called people from this side to order for being noisy. I could hardly hear a point that the Leader of the Opposition made during that point of order because of the noise, particularly coming from the Premier, whilst the Leader of the Opposition was speaking. I ask you to be fair and to ask members of the Government to be quiet when members on this side are making points of order. 13346 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 April 2001

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.

Mr SCULLY: I have acknowledged that there are some difficulties with Sydney ferries at the moment.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will remain silent.

Mr SCULLY: The Government has taken decisive action in the past few days. It has put a freeze on fare increases for Sydney ferries until such time as their performance has improved. In January when the performance was being assessed against the previous year, which is traditionally the case, unlike this new soothsaying astrological star movement opposite towards crystal ball gazing performance assessment that the Coalition will put into effect.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will remain silent.

Mr SCULLY: I am not sure that the astrological expertise will get great consultancy from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Pittwater to order. I call the honourable member for Davidson to order.

Mr SCULLY: I want to ask Nick, "Did you ever do this sort of stuff when you were Premier?" He would probably say, "No, I don't believe we did. We actually looked at past performance when we were assessing a new contract."

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. I place the honourable member for Baulkham Hills on two calls to order.

Mr SCULLY: In terms of the performance during the Olympics, I think they probably took that into account. This House ought to know how the former Coalition Government performed on Sydney buses compared with how we have performed. The Leader of the Opposition wandered down to Wynyard and handed out new flyers and said she was concerned about overcrowding

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Wakehurst to order for the fourth time.

Mr SCULLY: The Coalition Government's strategy on overcrowding was absolutely terrific! They handled overcrowding by reducing the bus fleet by 174 buses, and cutting patronage by 8 per cent. They said to people, "We don't want you to go on our buses. You're banned, sorry." In 1988 the former Coalition Government had 1,646 buses and when it was justly defeated six years ago it had 1,472 buses. That is how they dealt with patronage and overcrowding, but it gets worse! When their performance on Sydney buses is examined Coalition members deserve a pay cut. We have 348 wheelchair accessible buses and they had none! I do not even know who is the shadow Minister for the Environment, but the Coalition says it is environmentally conscious. The former Coalition Government had just over 100 compressed natural gas buses, but we have 250 with another 154 on order. This Government is fair dinkum about environmentally friendly buses. How many buses are airconditioned?

Mr Oakeshott: How about passenger friendliness?

Mr SCULLY: Okay, passenger friendliness. They had no closed circuit television cameras on walls when they were in government but we are putting them on all walls. They had 124 airconditioned buses and we have 631. The list goes on and on. If the Opposition wants to talk about performance, I am happy to be held to account. This Government has a damn good performance in terms of Sydney buses. When the Leader of the Opposition said she is worried about overcrowding, she has to be called to account. When the Coalition was in government more than 100 buses were cut, patronage was dealt with by cutting the numbers. They did not have a sense of commitment to security and passenger comfort. This question will be dealt with in the way it deserves. BOGONG MOTH TRAPS Mr NEWELL: My question without notice is to Minister for Local Government, Minister for Regional Development, and Minister for Rural Affairs. How is the Government helping innovative regional companies create jobs and investment out of bogong moth plagues? 5 April 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13347

Mr WOODS: The honourable member hails from Tweed Heads where the magnificent Black Watch boats that are exported all over the world are now built.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call honourable member for Hornsby to order for the third time.

Mr WOODS: The Black Watch boat company now manufactures in New South Wales. They used to manufacture in Queensland.

Mr Carr: We got them here.

Mr WOODS: That is right. The Premier visited them and opened the new facility. That is a good news story for New South Wales, and I have another one. It is seven months since the Olympics and Paralympics and one of the more unusual images during the Olympics was the millions of bogong moths that at one stage invaded the stadium. For a little while during the closing ceremony the moths shared the limelight with the world-famous Australian opera singer, Yvonne Kenny. The international media carried stories about the bogong moths.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will remain silent.

Mr WOODS: The Leader of the Opposition would do well to listen about moths. People want moths that eat their clothes and do other things to go away. At that time they were the world's most famous moths with 3.5 billion viewers. Quick thinking by Olympic organisers and a New South Wales country business fixed the problem. A company called No Bugs Pty Ltd that is based in Forster on the State's mid north coast came up with an ingenious product—an Australian first—to handle the invasion of bogong moths. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I place the honourable member for Coffs Harbour on two calls to order. Mr WOODS: They saved the day with 53 specially designed bug eaters. It is a trap that attracts and captures moths. Using a black light to attract the moths, and a fan to blow them into a water tray, No Bugs reckons they caught millions of moths. The invention is clean and green: No poison, no pesticides. Mr SPEAKER: Order! If members of the Opposition continue to interject I will place all members of the Opposition on three calls to order. Mr WOODS: The traps are cheap—$200—and they were a great success. Hats off to Ray Webber and Jenni Timbs who are the Aussie battlers behind this project. No Bugs perfectly illustrates the innovation of country New South Wales. The New South Wales Government is working in partnership to help those industries grow to create jobs and investment in Forster, where No Bugs is located, in the Tweed where Black Watch boats are made, in Tamworth where the Premier went recently, and right across New South Wales. The company previously manufactured the product in the United States of America. It is now in Forster. The company is offering its unique product to a range of industries. Tomato farmers in Ballina are using the Bug Eater to monitor what types of bugs are attacking their crops, which has allowed them to limit their spraying to specific types of bugs. That saves farmers money and provides better quality tomatoes for consumers. No Bugs is also an alternative to those noisy and messy bug zappers. Those zappers are not recommended for use in restaurants or in other food preparation areas. Asian cuisine manufacturers Witwood Food Products, of Chester Hill, is one company using the product as a safer alternative to bug zappers. The bug eater is unique in that it does not electrocute or poison the moths. They are trapped, and can be disposed of properly later. The company now produces 9,000 traps each year. No Bugs employs 10 people and plans to double its work force within two years, with the assistance of the State Government. It expects to export the product to East Timor and New Zealand. It is confident of expanding its export markets, taking advantage of the low Australian dollar. The company believes it can take the trap all over the world. In fact, over the past year, it has received expressions of interest from more than 40 countries. Currently, the company is negotiating with a Filipino company to take the trap to South-East Asia. Australian retail giant Harvey Norman, with 121 stores nationally and overseas, has recognised the genius of this product. No Bugs recently signed a deal with the Harvey Norman chain that will see Harvey Norman become the exclusive national retailer of this bug trap. Selected Mitre 10 stores are also looking at stocking No Bugs. Soon, everyone will be able to buy their own No Bugs bug eater. In fact, No Bugs has declared war on the army lawn grub, which is wreaking havoc on the North Coast. Army lawn grubs are destroying household lawns all over the North Coast. No Bugs tackles the problem before it starts, by attracting and killing moths before they become lawn grubs. 13348 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 April 2001

The bug eater also catches sandflies, fleas, Christmas beetles and mozzies. We are extremely happy to be helping innovative country businesses like No Bugs. In fact, in the past nine months we have helped 66 country businesses through the Regional Business Development scheme. It is estimated that the scheme has secured and generated over 2,200 jobs with around $314 million invested. Since April 1995, through the Department of State and Regional Development, we have assisted more than 600 businesses in country New South Wales, resulting in $5.2 billion in investment, creating 24,000 jobs.

Mr Fraser: Name them.

Mr WOODS: The honourable member for Coffs Harbour said, "Name them." All Gold Foods Pty Ltd, Stanbridge, undertook a food processor expansion of operations including the establishment of a pasta plant. The investment was $30 million dollars, for 30 new jobs. Windsor Farm Foods Group Ltd, Cowra, which processes vegetables, honey and jam, for an investment of $10.5 million produced 60 new jobs. Bingara of Cypress Pine, Bingara, for an investment of $229,000, created 12 new jobs. Black Watch Boats, Tweed heads, which is involved in boat building, received an investment of $2.7 million dollars, with 45 new jobs. Bidgeebong Wine Management Pty Ltd, Tumbalong, had an investment of $10.6 million, with 12 new jobs.

Southern Oil Refineries Pty Ltd, Wagga Wagga, with an investment of $13 million, saw the creation of 15 new jobs. Peel Valley Exporters Pty Ltd, Tamworth—where we went the other day with the Premier—had an investment of $5.96 million, for 60 new jobs. Namoi Cotton Co-operative Ltd, with an investment of $17.5 million, created 10 new jobs. I could go on if the House likes. Jeld-Wen Australia Pty Ltd, Oberon, with an investment of $22 million, secured 95 jobs. Inland Packaging and Storage Pty Ltd, Narrabri, received an investment of $850,000, with six new jobs. Melban Pty Ltd, Howlong, received at investment of $4 million for relocation of an offal processing facility, with 20 new jobs. Alman Industries Pty Ltd, Gunning, received an investment of $2.9 million, securing 40 new jobs. Byron Aviation Engineering Pty Ltd, Tamworth, with an investment of $330,000, created 10 new jobs.

We have helped 600 businesses in country New South Wales since April 1995. This story about the bug eaters one of those success stories for New South Wales. It is in stark contrast with what the Coalition told small business about the GST. The Coalition told small business that the GST would be good for them. They are now learning the real story. It is no wonder small business is turning against the Coalition, given the lies that they were told about the GST.

PRISONS SMOKING POLICIES

Mr HUMPHERSON: My question is directed to the Minister for Corrective Services. Why is the Government allowing prisoners and staff to smoke in gaols, in contradiction of health regulations for government buildings and commercial premises? Does this mean that New South Wales taxpayers will be liable for millions of dollars of compensation due to staff and prisoners being exposed to passive smoking?

Mr WATKINS: The management of prisoners in New South Wales is a most difficult issue. We have collected in New South Wales over 7,000 prisoners. They are amongst the most difficult of our community to control, to educate and to assist in addressing their offending behaviours. This is a challenge that is recognised by those on both sides of the House. We have increasingly a prison system that is providing important therapy to the offending behaviours of the 7,500 prisoners who are in our gaol system. I am concerned, most importantly, that our prison population is secure, and that they do not escape from our gaols into the community. That is why I am very pleased to report that we are currently enjoying the safest period in the past 23 years of this State. Currently we are enjoying the lowest rate of escapes in 23 years. For that, I cannot claim credit; I have been Minister for Corrective Services for just six to eight weeks. The people most responsible for that excellent outcome in New South Wales are the previous Minister for Corrective Services and the hard-working men and women of the Department of Corrective Services, led by Commissioner Kelleher. Those who are most knowledgeable about the prison system in Australia—they do not include the shadow Minister for Corrective Services—and those most supportive of developing a modern corrective services system would acknowledge that New South Wales has under Commissioner Kelleher and the men and women of Corrective Services, a well-trained, professional outfit. I am proud to be the Minister for Corrective Services in New South Wales. Mr HUMPHERSON: I ask a supplementary question. In view of the Minister's response, will he ask Commissioner Kelleher, who is a smoker, to revoke his instruction to gaol governors to turn a blind eye to smoking in gaols because it is a good management tool for inmates? 5 April 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13349

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a supplementary question. It did not arise from the Minister's answer.

Mr Hartcher: The Minister is on his feet and is willing to answer it.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a supplementary question. I call the honourable member for South Coast.

Mr Fraser: Point of order: It has been longstanding practice in this House for members of the Opposition to walk out of the Chamber if questions are ruled out of order. I ask you to draw standing orders to the attention of those Government members who are creating a ruckus and I ask you to call them to order.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for South Coast has the call.

LITTORAL RAINFOREST PROTECTION

Mr W. D. SMITH: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning. How is the Government protecting the coastline?

Dr REFSHAUGE: We need to protect large areas of the coast from development. We need to ensure that those who are effecting the sea changes do not do that at the expense of our bountiful natural assets. Today I am announcing a further tangible example of the Government's commitment to protecting the coast. We are adding six new rainforests, including additions to two existing rainforests under our policy to protect littoral rainforests under State environmental planning policy 26. This policy, which was introduced by the then Labor Government in 1988, has only ever been added to by Labor governments. This amendment will see almost 19 hectares added and will bring the total area that we are protecting under the policy to 664 hectares. Littoral rainforests, which are coastal rainforests, are a unique and vulnerable natural asset of the coastal zone. They are well adapted to living in the harsh conditions of the coastal zone, with its salt-laden and drying winds.

It is estimated that more than three-quarters of the littoral rainforest that is growing in New South Wales has been destroyed or severely downgraded. Because it is confined to the coast it has suffered greatly in the past from clearing, development and sandmining. That is why a Labor government brought in a policy to protect it in 1988. This is our second addition to the policy. We are the only Government ever to have added areas to the policy. In 1997 we added more than 28 hectares to the policy. This time we are adding almost 19 hectares. Much of this land is particularly special because it contains plants that are vulnerable, rare or endangered. The additions are: 12.8 hectares at Blue Angle Creek, Gerroa, near Kiama; 1.1 hectares at Barlings Beach, Tomakin, Eurobodalla; 1.2 hectares at Tara Downs; half a hectare at Coast Road, Ballina; 1.8 hectares at Hendersons Lane, Ballina; and 0.6 hectares at Amber Drive, Ballina.

I am grateful to councils, landowners, community groups and individuals who have worked in partnership with the Government in nominating those areas for protection. Identifying and protecting these biodiversity-rich rainforests is an essential part of the Government's commitment to the coast and coastal communities. While our policy does not absolutely prohibit development in the rainforest areas, it stipulates that rigorous environmental analysis and periods of public comment must be part of the assessment of any potential development. I am sure that honourable members will be pleased to see these littoral rainforests being preserved.

Questions without notice concluded. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Bills: Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow at 4.15 p.m., prior to the calling of private members' statements, the introduction up to and including the Minister's second reading speech on the following bills:

Police Legislation Amendment (Special Constables) Bill Summary Offences Amendment (Minors in Sex Clubs) and Theatres and Public Halls Repeal Bill; and Companion Animals Amendment Bill

notice of which was given this day for tomorrow. 13350 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 April 2001

Precedence of Business

Mr WHELAN (Strathfield—Minister for Police) [3.35 p.m.]: I move:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow for Government Business to take precedence on Thursday 12 April 2001 with the routine of business commencing at 11.00 a.m. at that sitting.

In other words, on Thursday 12 April, question time will be at 11.00 a.m. That has arisen as a result of a request by a number of members on both sides of the Chamber.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Division, by leave, called off.

Motion agreed to. CONSIDERATION OF URGENT MOTIONS Princes Highway Upgrade Mr SCULLY (Smithfield—Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads) [3.40 p.m.]: I do not wish to detain the House any longer than necessary. The motion I have moved is urgent because the Federal Government continually refuses to declare the Princes Highway as a road of national importance. People living in South Coast electorates deserve a better deal than they are getting from the Federal Government in road funding for the Princes Highway. I urge the House to give this urgent matter precedence today. Police Officers Random Drug Testing Mr TINK (Epping) [3.41 p.m.]: My motion is urgent because one of the key findings, one of the key recommendations, in the first report ever issued by the Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service was the random drug testing of police. My motion is urgent because to this date, almost five years after the report was released, not one random drug test has been conducted in the Police Service. My motion is urgent because, as the shadow Minister for Sport and Recreation advises, the random drug testing of rugby league players and sportspeople of all types, is commonplace. The rugby league can organise random drug testing; the Minister for Police cannot. The motion is urgent because the approach of the Minister for Police to the problem is a dead-set joke. My motion is urgent because if the Minister for Police is not prepared to carry out his responsibilities in this matter he should step down and let somebody who is prepared do the job. The Premier has been repeatedly caught out on this issue. Only 10 days ago the Premier said to the public at large that random drug testing is taking place in the Police Service. The motion is urgent because one of the issues to be asked is: Does the Premier know what is going on in the Police Service? Is the Minister misleading him about what is going on in the Police Service or is the Premier lying about what is going on in the Police Service? Probably the last two at least are right. If urgency was granted we might get to the bottom of some of these issues. The worst thing, and the reason this motion is most urgent, is that the Minister the Police is arguing that it is too costly to randomly drug test police. It is too costly not to randomly drug test police! It is a fundamental finding of the royal commission. It is in the interest of police that these tests take place. No-one who goes into a workplace with a firearm strapped on his waist wants to work with a colleague who is under the influence of drugs. It is self-evident. For one thing it is physically dangerous to be in the company of someone who is armed and under the influence of drugs. For another thing, if an urgent situation arises and a firearm is discharged, even the person who is not under the influence of drugs will go through all the hoopla and rigmarole before the Police Integrity Commission, an Ombudsman's investigation and a coronial inquest, solely on the issue of drugs. This Government, which says it stands for ordinary men and women in the State's work force, owes it to the ordinary men and women in the work force, in the Police Service and elsewhere, to ensure that there is random drug testing in the Police Service so that police have a safe working environment—not to mention a safe environment for members of the public and passers-by who might happen upon a crime scene where firearms are discharged by somebody under the influence of drugs. That is why this motion is urgent. That is why it was a fundamental recommendation of the royal commission. It was so urgent that it was part of the interim report of the royal commission and a fundamental reason why the motion ought to be debated today. 5 April 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13351

The Minister said on radio yesterday and this morning that there is targeted drug testing of police. Whenever a shooting takes place the police are brought in for testing. They have the equipment and personnel to carry out the tests, so cost is not a factor. The only questions, and they are urgent questions for the House, are whether the Government has the will and resolve to do what the royal commission recommended, whether the Premier is lying about his knowledge of the state of affairs of testing, and whether he, unlike the Minister for Police, has the capacity to get on with it. Frankly, the first question of importance for the House is whether the Premier should take over the running of the police portfolio in relation to random drug testing, just as he has been required to take over the police portfolio in Cabramatta. The Minister for Police ought to stand aside and let somebody else get on with police reform.

Question—That the motion for urgent consideration of the honourable member for Smithfield be proceeded with—agreed to.

PRINCES HIGHWAY UPGRADE

Urgent Motion

Mr SCULLY (Smithfield—Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads) [3.46 p.m.]: I move:

That this House:

(1) recognises the Government's $380 million commitment to upgrade the Princes Highway; and

(2) condemns the Federal Government's refusal to declare the most important road in south-east New South Wales as a road of national importance with appropriate Federal funding.

This is a significant and important motion. The Government has long recognised the importance of the Princes Highway as a major road transport corridor. The development of the Princes Highway is the Government's highest priority in the Illawarra and South Coast regions, as identified in the Action for Transport Plan 2010. The Government has made a commitment to commence the $380 million Princes Highway upgrade over 10 years, with $35 million allocated in the 2000-01 State budget to improve this vital link. Construction of the Oak Flats interchange is well under way and a contract has also been awarded for a major bridge on the north Kiama bypass. Today I am pleased to announce two new major State-funded projects on the Princes Highway. The Roads and Traffic Authority will build a new Trunketabella Bridge north of Bodalla at a cost of $1.46 million. This is yet another important project under the State Government's $429 million country timber bridge program.

Mr Brogden: Point of order: My point of order relates to the Minister's capacity to deliver a ministerial statement when making announcements for the Government. Question time has just concluded and Ministers have an opportunity at the beginning and at the end of question time to make ministerial statements. The Minister refused to take the opportunity on both those occasions. The proper forms of the House do not allow him to make a ministerial statement.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No point of order is involved. The House has determined that the urgent motion of which the Minister gave notice is to proceed.

Mr SCULLY: A new four-span wide, two-lane, 61-metres long, 11-metres wide bridge will be constructed over the existing crossing, which was built in 1897 and widened in 1956. Motorists' safety will be improved by lanes that are half a metre wider. Cyclists safety will also be enhanced by shoulders two-metres wide which will replace the existing one-metre shoulders. I am pleased to inform the House today that the New South Wales Government will provide $10 million to upgrade the Princes Highway between Yellow Pinch and the Merimbula bypass. Road safety and travel conditions for motorists and their families will be significantly improved by this project. A 2.7 kilometre section of the highway will be straightened and widened, replacing the existing winding and narrow section. The newer and safer highway will address this section's crash history, removing a number of tight bends. The project will also complement other local improvements on the Princes Highway which have been completed in recent years. These include the new $900,000 Harts Creek Bridge and road approaches south of Pambula, and $780,000 in road pavement improvements between Harts and Jiguma creeks. Work on the Princes Highway between Yellow Pinch and the Merimbula bypass will be undertaken by the Roads and Traffic Authority road services, Bega, and is expected to be completed by the middle of next year. That is the Carr Government's record—$380 million committed. Major works are under way to improve road safety, create jobs and reduce travelling times for motorists in the Illawarra and the South Coast. 13352 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 April 2001

Now let us look at the Federal Government's record. In 1998 I wrote to the Federal Minister for Transport and Regional Services requesting that the Federal Government recognise the Princes Highway as a road of national importance. Honourable members representing the electorates of South Coast, Illawarra, Wollongong, Keira and Kiama have also been consistent in their support for the declaration of the Princes Highway as a road of national importance, or RONI. The Pacific Highway to the north and the Great Western Highway to the west are both RONIs. The Princes Highway is the major coastal spine road from Sydney to the Victorian border, and it is a road of national importance. The Federal Government's response has been underwhelming. For three years there was nothing. This year the Federal Government provided one-off funding towards the North Kiama bypass, which is welcome. But now the Prime Minister has revealed his hand. On the Nowra ABC television channel he admitted that the Federal Government will provide no further funding for the Princes Highway and will not support its declaration as a road of national importance.

Mr Orkopoulos: Shame!

Mr SCULLY: It is shameful. It is a huge slap in the face for the residents of Illawarra and the South Coast. I am sure that voters in the Federal electorates of Throsby, Gilmore, Eden-Monaro and Cunningham will want to know about the contempt in which they are held by the Howard Government. Obviously, the Federal Liberal members who cover most of those electorates will soon be made aware that the electorate holds them in contempt. John Howard knows that he is going down and he is cutting his members loose, just like the life rafts on the Titanic.

Joanna Gash and Gary Nairn should resign now. In the face of the Prime Minister saying, "You are not getting any more funding", I say to Joanna Gash, "Leave now because you will be defeated as soon as the Federal election is held." She will have to face her voters, eyeball to eyeball, and say, "You are getting nothing for the Princes Highway." She cannot pretend that it is the Federal Minister or the Treasurer who has said the wrong thing; it is the Prime Minister who has said the wrong thing. The Prime Minister has the full authority of government behind him, and he has given a commitment to the communities across the length and breadth of the Princes Highway that they will get absolutely nothing. That is appalling.

[Interruption]

The Liberal and National members representing the electorates of Bega, Monaro and Murrumbidgee are saying that I should not call on Federal Government funding. There is no question about diverting the $380 million; that is locked in. How much funding has the Federal Government committed? The State Government has committed $380 million, and the Federal Government has committed $34 million. The Pacific Highway is a State road. Why is the Federal Government putting in $600 million? The Great Western Highway is a State Highway. Why is the Federal Government putting in $100 million? The Princes Highway is a State Highway. Why is the Federal Government putting in only a piddling, embarrassing, weaselly, pathetic, paltry $34 million? It is an insult—that is all it is.

Why should the good people of the North Coast and western New South Wales get $700 million of Federal public money, and the people of the South Coast get virtually nothing? The Federal Government had to be almost whipped and flogged to the starting gate to provide $34 million. Members opposite are saying that the Princes Highway is not a road of national importance. When the Deputy Prime Minister—a National Party member—approved the funding for the north Kiama bypass he said that that section of the Princes Highway is a RONI. The honourable member for Bega might correct me, but I believe the Princes Highway is several hundred kilometres long and runs all the way to the Victorian border. With a road that runs for hundreds of kilometres, how can a seven-kilometre section around Kiama be a road of national importance?

I have been around for a while and I have seen some bizarre policy prescriptions. Kidman Way, which runs from Cobar to Bourke and beyond, is not a RONI but a road of National Party importance [RONPI]. The Federal Government provided tens of millions of dollars for that road. I must say that the State Government also committed funds to that road. If the Federal Government committed funds to sealing a road in western New South Wales, I do not understand how it can conceivably say that a seven-kilometre section of the Princes Highway is a road of national importance. However, the whole arterial spine of the South Coast will not be a road of national importance. I encourage my colleagues on this side of the House to challenge the honourable member for Bega, the honourable member for Murrumbidgee and the honourable member for Monaro.

I would have thought that members opposite, in a bipartisan way, would be saying to me, "Thank you for the $380 million commitment that is locked in" and, "We will join with you in a bipartisan way to challenge 5 April 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13353 and attack those miserable sods in Canberra for denying the people of the South Coast their rightful share of Federal road funding." Where is the money, John Howard? That is what I want to know. Why does the Prime Minister not declare the Princes Highway to be a road of national importance? It is a gross act of hypocrisy to suggest that the Princes Highway is not a candidate for declaration as a road of national importance, just as the seven-kilometre section of road around Kiama, the Great Western Highway and the Pacific Highway have been declared roads of national importance. I think the case has been made. The Government will continue to provide funding. I would like to hear members opposite not being apologists for the Federal Government but joining with the New South Wales Government in a bipartisan way to seek Federal funding in addition to what the State Government has already committed.

Mr R. H. L. SMITH (Bega) [3.56 p.m.]: I move:

That the motion be amended by the addition of the following paragraph:

(3) calls upon the Government to expedite the upgrading of the Princes Highway so that all work is completed within three years. The Minister for Roads and Government members are hypocrites. Only a couple of weeks ago Opposition members, together with the Federal member for Gilmore, Joanna Gash, fought to get the State Government to construct a road linking Nowra with the Canberra area. During the last election campaign the Government promised that a road would be constructed—the promise was on the front pages of all the newspapers. We had to drag the Government kicking and screaming to fulfil that promise. First, I would like to correct the Minister. He said that the State Government had committed funding of $380 million for the Princes Highway. However, it is not $380 million; it is $380 million over 10 years. That means $380 million for 700 kilometres of road. What an absolute joke! It is a pittance for a State Government road. Government members forget that in the early 1990s the Federal Labor Government wanted to change the way road funding was provided to the States; it wanted the State Government to decide the priorities for that funding. Do honourable members know how much Federal road funding the State Government receives? It receives $124 million—not for 10 years but for one year. The Minister for Roads receives road funding of $124 million directly from the Federal Government, but is prepared to spend only $38 million a year on 700 kilometres of the Princes Highway. Earlier the Minister reannounced the Trunketabela bridge project. That project was included in last year's budget but nothing was done. The Yellow Pinch deviation between Merimbula and Bega has been announced but has not been completed. It is not a new announcement. I point out to the Minister that there is no railway on the far South Coast from Bombaderry to the Victorian border. B-doubles cannot get into the area and freight cannot be transported economically because the bridges are unsafe. The Premier talks about cheese being exported. However, cheese cannot be transported from the factory economically because the bridges are unsafe. The Minister is simply not putting sufficient money into this road. In my electorate, not one major section of the highway from Wollongong down the coast has been upgraded. The last major deviation was at Myrtle Gully, and that was commenced under the former Coalition Government. The present Government has done a great deal of resurfacing and maintenance, but absolutely no major reconstructions or deviations. I will point out a few of the black spots in my electorate. In Narooma, a truck cannot get onto the bridge without crossing the double lines at the northern end of the bridge. That is a disgrace. Truck drivers break the law every time they go onto the bridge. They simply cannot turn the corner at the northern end of the bridge without crossing the double lines. I refer also to the bridge at Pambula. The Pambula area has flooded regularly for as long as I can remember. It is not a flood that happens once in every 20 or 50 years; it floods regularly. The floods cut off people from their hospital, from work, and from their high school. What has the Minister done about the matter? He has announced that he will build a low-level bridge there. He does not even intend to build a bridge that is above flood level. The people of my electorate are upset because the Minister is spending no money on the Princes Highway, his highway. I wish to refer to a few other roads in my electorate that need attention. The Minister may or may not be aware that some serious accidents have occurred north of Ulladulla. Mr Brown: We need more money. Mr R. H. L. SMITH: The honourable member for Kiama does not seem to understand that it is a State Government road. Put your money into it, mate. A number of deaths have occurred on roads on the northern side of Ulladulla. The honourable member for Kiama was aware of a bus turning over in the area only a month or so ago, but he said nothing about it. I have written to the Minister and to the Premier to ask whether seatbelts will be put in school buses that travel the highway. However, I have not received a reply. Are seatbelts to be put in school buses? Is the two-for-three policy on school buses to be changed? 13354 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 April 2001

The Minister does not answer; he will not even look at me. These are serious questions that the Minister, the Premier, and Government members must answer, because the people will not continue to put up with their silence. The former Coalition Government carried out a number of road upgrades. Basically, the Carr Labor Government has carried out no upgrades for the entire five years it has been office. The former Coalition Government was in office for seven years. It spent millions of dollars on the Merimbula bypass. It also constructed the Tilba bypass, something that had been needed for years and years. We also constructed the Yellow Pinch deviation, to which the present Government is now linking two sections. The Minister reannounced that today.

Mr Scully: Thank you.

Mr R. H. L. SMITH: But Minister, you have not done it yet. Let us go back to Trunketabella. The Minister has announced it again. It was referred to in last year's budget, but the work was not even done last year. I say to the Minister: "Don't worry about the announcements, just do the work." McLeod's Hill is another major multimillion-dollar deviation that was constructed during the term of the Coalition Government. As I said earlier, the Myrtle Gully deviation, a major development that the honourable member for South Coast would remember, was started under the former Coalition Government. The honourable member for South Coast should name a few projects that have been undertaken since the present Government has been in office; he will find that extremely difficult to do.

I could refer to a number of other areas. I again stress that the Bega area does not have a railway; the Princes Highway is our life blood. It is the number one highway, the main State Government road along the coast between Sydney and Melbourne. It is of vital importance to the people who have to get their goods in and out of the area, and it is also a major tourist area. Tourists come to the area in droves, particularly from the southern suburbs of Sydney. The Minister should visit Victoria, have a look at a few of the Victorian roads and talk to Victorians about their roads. The Princes Highway needs a massive injection of funding. The Minister should lead the way. It is his road—

Mr Brown: $380 million.

Mr R. H. L. SMITH: No, that is over 10 years. The Government should be putting in something like that over a year. The Government now receives $124 million from the Federal Government. The last Labor Government changed the rules. If the Minister wants a RONI, he should go to the Federal Government to ask for one. I will certainly support that.

Mr Scully: Finally! You have taken 9½ minutes to get to that.

Mr R. H. L. SMITH: You did not even read the motion. I corrected it, and said you should fix it up in three years. I had no objection to the rest of it.

Mr Scully: Good! Just support it then.

Mr R. H. L. SMITH: I have no problem with a RONI.

Mr Scully: You have spoken about us. Tell us about the Feds.

Mr R. H. L. SMITH: We will vote for the motion. We agree with the motion, provided you fix up the road within three years. Put your money in! An NRMA report said it was a shocking road. The NRMA condemned the Minister. The Minister raced around constructing bypasses and goodness knows what, just to try to take some of the criticism about that road away from him. [Time expired.]

Mr W. D. SMITH (South Coast) [4.06 p.m.]: I wish to correct a matter referred to by the honourable member for Bega which clearly misled the Parliament. The Government has never made an election promise to build Main Road 92. Prior to 1996 the Prime Minister came down on his white horse and declared Main Road 92 a road of national importance [RONI]. It was clearly an election stunt to get Joanna Gash across the line— and it worked. However, the Government never promised to build Main Road 92. There has been a good, co- operative effort between the Government and the Federal Government to have that road built. The Government is putting in $34 million towards Main Road 92. The Government has acknowledged that the road will form an excellent east-west link between the areas of Canberra and the Shoalhaven. But it has been a co-operative effort. It is the sort of effort we are looking for from the Federal Government with regard to the Princes Highway. 5 April 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13355

If the Government can help the Federal Government with the construction of Main Road 92, which we have done, why can the Federal Government not help us with the Princes Highway by declaring it a road of national importance and providing equal funding? The Princes Highway is the most important road in south- eastern New South Wales. It is the main artery for local residents and tourists, and for the transportation of goods up and down the coast. Everyone is dependent on the highway for access to schools, shops, medical care, higher education, beaches and recreational areas. The Carr Government has committed $380 million to upgrade the road between now and 2010. Today the Minister announced funding of $11.5 million for new projects. The honourable member for Bega must be happy with that, but he does not seem to be happy with it. Instead of saying, "Thanks a lot", he is full of criticism and negativity.

The Federal Government is not prepared to acknowledge its responsibility to fund the Princes Highway as a road of national importance. It needs to do that. It is the most important road in south-eastern Australia, and it should be recognised as a RONI—just as the Great Western Highway has been recognised as a RONI. Why John Howard cannot do the right thing and recognise the Princes Highway in the same way is beyond me. His position on this issue cannot be defended; it is so inconsistent that it is not funny. Given the Carr Government's $380 million commitment over 10 years for upgrading the highway, the Howard Government's record is woeful.

Part of that plan involves funding of $200 million to build a four-lane dual carriageway to Kiama. I congratulate the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads on that achievement. The remainder will be developed as a high-standard, two-lane road with overtaking opportunities, town bypasses and so forth. Other major projects to begin in 2000-01 include planning work for the proposed $30 million Wollongong northern distributor, planning for overtaking lanes between Milton and Ulladulla, and planning for the northern approaches to Wagonga Inlet bridge in Narooma.

Isn't the honourable member for Bega doing well out of the Government? He is faring extremely well. In fact, the Government is making the honourable member for Bega look very good to his constituents. Today the Minister announced two further projects. The first is at Trunketabella Creek, which is north of Bodalla. That project is worth $1.46 million and will commence in a few weeks. The second project is the reconstruction of the highway between Yellow Pinch and Millingandi, which is worth $10 million. Again the honourable member for Bega does not seem to be very happy. Work started in February 2001 on the north Kiama bypass project, which is worth $135 million. The first stage, which is worth $36 million, is a 940 metre four-lane bridge across Terragong Swamp east of Swamp Road. In excess of 25,000 cars a day use the highway, which needs a major upgrade to deal with congestion and delays.

When the project is completed, a 7.3 kilometre dual carriageway bypass will link with the Kiama bypass in the south and with the Princes Highway in the north near Dunmore. The Federal Government has contributed $34 million to construction of the bypass and that is certainly welcomed. That was achieved through the co-operative efforts of the State Minister for Transport and the Federal Minister for Transport. We seek similar assurances and a similarly co-operative effort from the Prime Minister in declaring the Princes Highway a road of national importance.

Mr WEBB (Monaro) [4.11 p.m.]: I participate in this debate to clarify certain matters. I support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Bega. The State Government should expedite the planned works to bring about their completion within three years. It is all very well to make a commitment of $380 million, but when it is remembered that that amount is to be expended over 10 years it is barely a commitment at all. A great deal has been said about roads of national importance [RONI]. I certainly agree that the Princes Highway, although otherwise defined, is a road of national importance. In the early 1990s the Federal Labor Government changed the road funding allocation methods from funding for specific roads to giving the State Government a bucket of money. The Federal Government did that by providing $124 million in the form of untied grants. The State Government can spend that money in whatever way it wishes.

If the State Government wants to match the $38 million a year that it has already committed to the Princes Highway by allocating part of the $124 million in untied grants that it has received from the Federal Government, then so be it; that is fine. The Federal Government is committing money to these roads, and it is up to the State Government to allocate funds and spend the money in whatever way it wishes. Some years ago the New South Wales State Government proposed a RONI status for the Princes Highway, but the Federal Labor Government rejected it. From a historical perspective, the facts have to be correct. It should be remembered that these issues do the rounds. I do not disagree that the Princes Highway is an important road. It is certainly a vital tourism route and regional link in south-eastern Australia. But the State Government seems to bring down the shutters and put on the earmuffs when the far South Coast is mentioned. 13356 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 April 2001

Members of the Government do not know where the far South Coast is. For them, the South Coast stops at Milton. It is all very well to make a recommitment to funding for the Yellow Pinch and Merimbula areas, but what about Pambula bridge? The honourable member for Bega referred to that. The bridge is regularly subjected to floods and was damaged quite severely in February last year. It causes major delays and problems for emergency services vehicles, hospitals, schools and general transport. The effects of the delays caused by that bridge are experienced not only on the far South Coast of New South Wales but well into Victoria. Where is the evidence of the Government's commitment when it plans to simply build another low-level bridge which will also be submerged during floods? It must be remembered that the Princes Highway on the far South Coast of New South Wales is a State road; it is a State responsibility. There is no doubt that the allocation of $380 million for that road is welcome. But when it is remembered that the allocation will be spent over 10 years, one has to ask oneself about the commitment the State Government is making. Why does the State Government not apply some of the additional $124 million that it received from the Federal Government to upgrade the road? Why does the State Government not get on with the job and use some of the $124 million that the Federal Government has committed to the replacement of timber bridges and bring roads up to freight transportation standards? Why does the State Government not use some of the funds allocated by the Commonwealth Government to speed up the progress of roadworks? The progress of roadworks is very slow in the far south-eastern corner of this State. Work that has been undertaken on Harts Bridge is certainly welcome and it has made things better, but there are problems at Hardacre Road and other areas of the road system where the State Government has permitted development without having provided adequate access and egress for the highways. The Federal Government announced a recovery package. Those funds went directly to local government authorities, which applied the funds to roadworks in their areas and to the improvement of local connections. Why did the funds go directly to the local government authorities? That happened because the Federal Government did not trust the State Government to disburse those funds. I suspect the Federal Government thought that the State Government would take some of that money and use it for other purposes. That has happened in the past. My understanding is that if the current Federal Labor Opposition wins government, RONIs will not be continued. What is the point of seeking to have the Princes Highway categorised as a RONI when the Federal Labor Opposition has made a commitment to abandon the scheme? Instead, the Federal Labor Party will construct roads to ports. The multipurpose wharf at Port Kembla, which was constructed with a $40 million contribution from the Federal Government, will certainly create a significant regional transport outlet for export products from areas on the far South Coast and the South Coast of New South Wales. Pursuant to resolution debate interrupted. CENTENARY OF THE FIRST MEETING OF COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENT Motion, by leave, by Mr Whelan agreed to:

(1) That this House, noting the intention of the Commonwealth Parliament, at the invitation of the Victorian Parliament and the Victorian Government, to meet in Melbourne on 9 and 10 May 2001 to mark the centenary of the first meetings of the Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament at the Royal Exhibition Building on 9 May 1901 and the first sittings in the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly Chambers of the Victorian Parliament on 10 May 1901, resolves that a delegation of members should join with members of all other Australian State and Territory Parliaments, to be present at the historic centenary sittings of the Commonwealth Parliament in Melbourne.

(2) That the official delegates of the Legislative Assembly be as follows:

Speaker Premier Leader of the Opposition Deputy Premier Leader of the National Party Mr Rozzoli, former Speaker Mr Collins, former Leader of the Opposition Mr Armstrong, former Leader of the National Party Mr McGrane, representing the Independent members Clerk of the Legislative Assembly SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That the House at its rising this day do adjourn until Tuesday 10 April 2001 at 2.15 p.m. 5 April 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13357

POLICE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (SPECIAL CONSTABLES) BILL

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr WHELAN (Strathfield—Minister for Police) [4.18 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I am pleased to introduce the Police Legislation Amendment (Special Constables) Bill. This bill will repeal the Police (Special Provisions) Act, thereby abolishing the office of special constable. The origins of the Police (Special Provisions) Act, formerly the Police Offences Act, go back several hundred years. The office of special constable was created in England in the seventeenth century as a means to respond to emergencies, such as dispersing mobs. Special constables were appointed by magistrates and, as a general rule, acted under their direction. Special constables filled the need for a civilian force capable of dealing with civic disturbances, such as riots, before the introduction of a permanent police force. In 1829 Sir Robert Peel established the Metropolitan Police Force in London. The establishment of a permanent body of police, which was responsible to a Commissioner of Police, was looked upon with great distrust by the citizens of England, who were more comfortable with the idea of their localised police constables who answered to magistrates.

Although the establishment of the Metropolitan Police Force meant that special constables lost their pre-eminent position, the office never went entirely out of existence. Indeed, legislation in 1830 and in 1831 strengthened this ancient office and, on 10 April 1848, an army of special constables was sworn in to defend London and other areas from demonstrators agitating for parliamentary reform. In 1855 New South Wales enacted the Police Act. This legislation was based on the English legislation and it allowed for the conscription of special constables. At that time the regular police force in the colony of New South Wales was in its very early stages. Special constables were appointed by magistrates in New South Wales to deal with local outbreaks of lawlessness or, as the legislation still terms it, tumult or riot. In the nineteenth century it was an accepted role of the magistracy to be responsible for maintaining public order, particularly in rural and remote New South Wales.

In 1901 the New South Wales Parliament enacted the Police Offences Act. This Act prescribed a range of offences that special constables could enforce. They included washing clothes under a public pump; suffering swine, horse or goat to wander about the street; and allowing rain to drop from eaves of houses on footways. The majority of these offences, intended to be enforced by special constables, have now been repealed or, believe it or not, transferred to other legislation. In 1999 all the remaining provisions of the Police Offences Act were repealed except for part iv and certain machinery provisions, which were retained and renamed the Police (Special Provisions) Act. The result of this is that the office of special constable remains.

Let me provide another example of the outdated notion of the special constable. Until 1964 women who worked for the Police Force were appointed as special constables, rather than police officers. The times have certainly changed. However, this legislation has not. The power of magistrates to appoint special constables under the current Police (Special Provisions) Act is substantially the same as the Police Act of 1855 and the Police Offences Act of 1901. It is now time to repeal this last remnant of nineteenth century policing legislation. The office of special constable is anachronistic and problematic in a modern society. Magistrates no longer have the role of ensuring the peace of the community, nor do they conscript citizens as special constables to combat riots and tumult. It is the New South Wales Police Service that is charged with the prevention, detection and investigation of crime.

The Police Service Act 1990 charges police with the duty of protecting persons and property, and providing essential services in emergencies. A special constable has all the powers, authorities, advantages and immunities of a police officer of the rank of constable. Special constables are effectively a law unto themselves. There are few restrictions on how, when, where or why they may exercise the office of constable. Although the doctrine of the independence of the office of constable is also applied to police officers, in reality the modern Police Service is subject to a substantial degree of regulation, direction and oversight. Under clause 9 of the Police Service Regulation 2000, police officers are bound to comply with all lawful orders from those in authority over them, and they are required to perform police duties where and as directed.

Furthermore, police officers must complete an 18-month diploma course, they must undertake mandatory continuing police education, and their skills are continually upgraded regarding officer safety and 13358 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 April 2001 weapons training. Police are subject to extensive oversight and accountability mechanisms, and officers can be dismissed under section 181D of the Police Service Act. None of these things apply to special constables; they have all the powers of police with few of the prerequisites for exercising those powers. The office of special constable is transferable. Section 107 of the Act states that any article provided to a special constable shall be delivered to his successor. Some agencies have interpreted this as a perpetual appointment with successive employees using the one special constable badge. In practice, this makes it impossible to identity the exact number and identity of special constables actually operating in New South Wales. It is for all these reasons that this bill, which is designed to repeal the Police (Special Provisions) Act 1901 and abolish the office of special constable, is being introduced. The bill provides for those special constables who are currently situated in positions at the direction of the Commissioner of Police to become members of the Police Service. All other special constable positions will be abolished from 1 January 2002. There are many special constables in New South Wales who are performing essential and important services. These include officers of the RSPCA and the Animal Welfare League, who perform an enforcement role under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979. The abolition of the office of special constable is in no way intended to prevent the enforcement of these valuable laws and others like them. However, the office of special constable is an inappopriate vehicle to provide these officers with the powers they need to enforce particular offences. Rather than having all of the powers of police irrespective of need, special constables used by other agencies should be equipped with specific powers that have an appropriate nexus with their employment and the actual functions they perform. As a result of this bill, agencies external to the Police Service which currently use special constables may need to amend their own legislation if they require their officers to exercise additional law enforcement powers which are not already in that agency’s legislation. This will bring their legislation up to date, and will clarify the functions and powers of persons currently performing regulatory and compliance roles. This bill proposes to do just that for special constables operating within the Police Service. These fall into three categories: those performing security duties; members of the police band; and police officers from other jurisdictions. I am advised by the Police Service that there are 105 special constables performing security duties for the Police Service at the moment. These special constables perform security duties at major police installations in the Sydney metropolitan area and to government agencies such as the Premier’s Department, the Governor’s office, the Department of Public Prosecutions, and the Independent Commission Against Corruption. These persons are to all intents and purposes under the commissioner’s direction, but they are not actually members of the Police Service. This disadvantages the officers themselves, as they do not enjoy the same terms and conditions as other Police Service employees, and makes it difficult for the commissioner to effectively control their performance and behaviour. The bill provides for all special constables to become administrative officers (special constable). Schedule 1 creates a mechanism under which the commissioner can appoint persons to the positions as administrative officers (special constable), within the Police Service. Under section 81AA administrative officers (special constable) will retain their current functions relating to the security of buildings owned or occupied by the Crown, the Government or public authorities as specified by the commissioner. Where the commissioner determines that law enforcement powers are required to perform their duties, section 207B will provide the commissioner with the power to appoint administrative officers (special constable) such that they retain their current powers. These officers will also retain the use of firearms for pursuit of their duties, and under section 81AA(3) will be subject to the same drug and alcohol testing regimes as police officers. This is important given that they will continue to have access to firearms whilst on duty. Under the 1901 Act, there are no controls for special constables who carry firearms. As a result of this bill, administrative officers (special constable) will be required to meet the same training and integrity tests as police officers who access a firearm as part of their duties. They will also become subject to the same disciplinary processes as administrative officers. Administrative officers (special constable) will continue to provide the security and protection functions for the buildings they currently guard. However, they will come within the same pay and conditions as other administrative employees of the Police Service. This represents a positive increase on the conditions they currently enjoy. I am advised by the Police Service that the improvements in conditions will include an increase in sick leave from 10 to 15 days per year, access to family and community service leave and enhanced long service leave for part-time staff. Item 7 of schedule 1 to the bill outlines these conditions of employment, and will ensure that these employees rates of pay, leave and superannuation benefits are the same as or better than those they currently enjoy. Item 7 of schedule 1 also provides for the transfer of those special constables currently employed within the police band. I am advised that there are currently 28 special constables performing as musicians in the police 5 April 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13359 band. I understand that the main reason for these officers being given special constable status was to allow them to wear the police uniform whilst performing. Clearly, the wide-ranging special constable law enforcement powers are not required to play a musical instrument. Under this bill, these officers will become members of the Police Service, and will be employed on conditions applicable to other administrative officers. Police band members will retain their existing leave and long service entitlements as well as the right to continue contributing to the superannuation funds to which they have been contributing as special constables. Under section 218A(3), these new administrative officers will continue to be able to wear a police uniform while carrying out ceremonial police band functions, or other police band functions approved by the commissioner. It is a great band. Item 7 of schedule 1 includes savings and transitional provisions which will ensure that the repeal of the Police (Special Provisions) Act 1901 will not affect the validity of past actions by special constables.

The bill also provides for police officers from other jurisdictions who have been appointed by the commissioner as special constables to become temporary members of the Police Service. Currently, police officers from other jurisdictions who work in close proximity to State borders, such as Albury, Tweed Heads and Broken Hill, are sworn in as special constables in New South Wales. This is a reciprocal agreement with other States and Territories, which allows for the continuous pursuit of offenders across State borders.

In addition, overseas and interstate police are from time to time sworn in as special constables for the purpose of assisting with special events or investigations. During the Olympic Games, for example, police from New Zealand were sworn as special constables and used in conjunction with New South Wales police for anti- terrorist duties. Officers assisting New South Wales police in special investigative task forces are also sworn in as special constables for the period of their service on the task force. In the best interests of the people of New South Wales, this bill will continue these reciprocal arrangements with other law enforcement agencies.

New section 207B will allow the commissioner to appoint persons who are members of the Australian Federal Police or members of a police force of another State, Territory or country as recognised law enforcement officers. The bill provides that these officers are only to be appointed where the commissioner is satisfied they are subject to an appropriate disciplinary system. The commissioner may appoint recognised law enforcement officers subject to conditions, and will specify the term of appointment for which the position is to remain valid. This will ensure that interstate police operating in border areas in New South Wales retain the ability to work with their New South Wales Police Service colleagues to police cross-border areas.

New section 207D will confer on recognised law enforcement officers the functions, powers, immunities, liabilities and responsibilities of a police officer of the rank of constable. This replicates their current powers which spring from their special constable status. Under new section 207C recognised law enforcement officers will be required to swear an oath of office. New section 207E provides the commissioner with a broad discretion to revoke the appointment of a recognised law enforcement officer if the commissioner is of the opinion that the person is not suitable to be a recognised law enforcement officer.

In addition to the provisions relating to these three new classes of Police Service employee, schedule 2 to the bill contains a number of mechanical provisions to amend a variety of Acts to remove references to special constables, and to allow recognised law enforcement officers and administrative officers (special constable)to continue to possess firearms, handcuffs and extendable batons, and to exercise security functions, for the purposes of their duties. These provisions will ensure that those special constables who are currently under the direction of the Police Service are able to continue to operate their law enforcement and building security functions. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr R. H. L. Smith.

SUMMARY OFFENCES AMENDMENT (MINORS IN SEX CLUBS) AND THEATRES AND PUBLIC HALLS REPEAL BILL

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr WHELAN (Strathfield—Minister for Police) [4.33 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time. 13360 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 April 2001

The purpose of this bill is to repeal the Theatres and Public Halls Act 1908, and to make consequential amendments to the Summary Offences Act 1988. It is more than 90 years since the Theatres and Public Halls Act was introduced, and it is clear from the debate on the original legislation that its principal object was to exercise control over and improve the condition of licensed halls for the purpose of ensuring the safety and convenience of the public. More particularly, the legislation was designed to regulate the management, erection and construction of theatres, public halls and places of entertainment. In its original form, the Theatres and Public Halls Act 1908 provided for the licensing and inspection of theatres and public halls to ensure they met certain safety and fire standards.

However, since its introduction early last century, most of the provisions of the Act have been repealed and other more specific legislation dealing with building standards and fire safety have been introduced. The Act therefore no longer serves its principal purpose of protecting public safety against poor construction and fire hazards in theatres and other public buildings. One rather quaint provision of the Act which has survived the last century is section 27, which allows the Attorney General to issue notices to prohibit or regulate public entertainment if the Attorney is of the view that it is "fitting for the preservation of good manners and decorum to do so". This section has its origin in the eighteenth century in England and was introduced by Robert Walpole to prevent political satire of him in plays being staged at the time by Henry Fielding.

In more modern times, the section has been rarely used, and there has been just one occasion in the last decade where the Attorney General has been asked to issue notices. In November 1998 notices were issued to prohibit the holding of public entertainment such as striptease and live sex shows in the presence of minors at four clubs in Kings Cross. The Kings Cross clubs had lost their licences for various offences and were therefore no longer regulated by the provisions of the Liquor Act 1982. The Liquor Act contains a range of provisions directed to preventing minors from entering or remaining on licensed premises, such as hotels and nightclubs. A significant limitation of the notices issued under the Theatres and Public Halls Act is that they do not give the police the clear authority to enter unlicensed sex clubs and to remove children and young people from these dangerous environments. The scheme set out in the Summary Offences Amendment (Minors in Sex Clubs) and Theatres and Public Halls Repeal Bill will provide a more effective means of dealing with the problem of children being encouraged to attend live sex shows in seedy establishments at Kings Cross and elsewhere. It will give the Police Service the capacity it needs to act against the owners and managers of sex clubs, and to remove children and young people from those premises. I turn now to the detailed provisions of the bill. Clause 3 provides that the Summary Offences Act 1988 is to be amended as set out in schedule 1, and clause 4 of the bill repeals the Theatres and Public Halls Act 1908. Schedule 1 inserts a new part 3A "Minors in Sex Clubs" into the Summary Offences Act 1988. Proposed section 21A of this new part sets out the relevant definitions, including the definition of "live sex entertainment". "Live sex entertainment" is defined to mean live public entertainment of a sexually explicit nature, such as striptease or actual or simulated sexual intercourse—whether or not involving audience participation. Proposed section 21B provides that a senior police officer may apply to the Minister for premises to be declared a sex club. The Minister may make such a declaration if satisfied that the premises are used solely or substantially for live sex entertainment, and there is no effective prohibition, such as under the Liquor Act 1982, to prevent minors entering the premises. Proposed section 21C sets out the means for notifying that a declaration has been made. This may be done by a number of methods including publishing the declaration in the Government Gazette or in a local newspaper; or serving notice on the manager of the club. Proposed section 21D provides that employees, managers and those entitled to any of the proceeds of the operation of declared sex clubs must not permit minors to enter or remain in those clubs. The penalty for doing so is 20 penalty units, or $2,200, and there are limited defences available to people charged with this offence. Proposed section 21E requires managers of declared sex clubs to continually display notices at each entry point to the clubs, stating that minors are not permitted to enter. The regulations will be able to prescribe the size and content of these notices. The key amendment to the Summary Offences Act is that which is set out in proposed section 21F. This will allow a police officer to enter a declared sex club without a warrant, whenever he or she believes on reasonable grounds that a minor is present in that club. If the police officer is refused entry, or is unreasonably delayed, the officer will be empowered to break into the premises. Once in, the officer may remove the minor from the premises, and anyone who obstructs the police will be liable to a penalty of 50 penalty units, or $5,500. It is important to appreciate that one of the main benefits of this bill is the conferral on the police of a clear power to remove children and young people from declared sex club premises. This power will help ensure that children and young people are removed from environments where the drug culture and prostitution flourish. 5 April 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13361

The repeal of the outmoded Theatres and Public Halls Act, and its replacement with more specific and targeted offence provisions, is designed to ensure that children are not being allowed into sex clubs, whether or not those clubs are licensed or comply with relevant planning laws. This will not only help us to protect children and young people from exposure to graphic adult entertainment, but also from serious criminal activities such as drug dealing and prostitution. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr R. H. L. Smith.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Order of Business: Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders

Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to postpone the introduction of the Companion Animals Amendment Bill until after private members' statements.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

______

MONA VALE ROAD UPGRADE

Mr BROGDEN (Pittwater) [4.40 p.m.]: Honourable members will recall that, some three years ago— on 5 June 1998—there was a terrible accident on Mona Vale Road, Mona Vale. That accident, which was chronicled by the media locally and in the statewide press, resulted in the death of two people—a young girl and an older man. It is probably one of the most horrific accidents that I have seen. A truck hit a home and effectively destroyed that home. Three years on little has been done by the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] to improve that situation. Honourable members will recall that, after persistent calls by me and the local council, the RTA undertook a safety audit of that road. That safety audit comprehensively revealed that the RTA had failed year after year to undertake basic maintenance of and repairs to that road.

Finally, the Minister agreed to request the RTA to undertake three major projects on that road. The first of those three projects was the widening of the road and the construction of a barrier immediately west of the Baha'i Temple. The second project was a major upgrade of the intersection at Powderworks Road and Mona Vale Road and the installation of a set of lights. The third project was an upgrade of the intersection of Lane Cove Road and Mona Vale Road and, yet again, the installation of a set of lights. Ancillary to that were a series of road closures and other minor upgrades. In total, the RTA committed $10 million or more for the upgrade of that road. Yet three years later the only project that has been completed is the construction of the barrier and the widening of the road near and around the Baha'i Temple.

The other two major project upgrades—the intersection of Powderworks Road and Mona Vale Road and the intersection of Lane Cove Road and Mona Vale Road—are yet to be commenced. The RTA work depot, which is right next to the temple, is a ghost town. The RTA seems to be paralysed. It is not moving forward on this project. Everywhere I go in the Pittwater community people keep asking me, "What is happening in relation to Mona Vale Road?" They want to know what is being done. They want to know when the project will move forward. They want to know when the first stage will be completed . Sadly, we are yet to see any commitment from the RTA and from the Minister.

Late last year I wrote to the Minister for Roads asking that I be provided with an on-site briefing. I wanted to talk with officers from the RTA on site to find out what was happening. They would then be able to inform me about the progress of the project. I was denied that opportunity by the Minister. He refused to give me an opportunity to meet with officers from the RTA and to discuss the progress of this project. Without question, this project is the most significant issue in my electorate. He ignored my request and told me that I was not allowed to meet with these public servants. I wrote again to the Minister on 7 February this year to request an on-site briefing. Some two months later, the Minister still has not replied or told me whether I will be provided with a simple on-site briefing. The community has an expectation that, on issues as important as this, the Government and the Opposition will work together. I want to work with the Government to fix this project, but it will not provide me with a simple on-site 13362 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 April 2001 briefing to discuss the matter with RTA officers. Frankly, other than being rude, it is a slap in the face for the people of Pittwater that their elected representative has not been given an opportunity to meet with RTA officers. The latest slap in the face was the suggestion by the RTA that the speed limit on Mona Vale Road be dropped from 80 kilometres an hour to 70 kilometres an hour. Why are we being subjected to a reduction in the speed limit? The Government should be doing work to make the road safer so that people can travel safely at 80 kilometres an hour. I make one final plea: I ask the Government to give me an opportunity to meet with RTA officers to discuss this important matter. [Time expired.]

ROCKLEY SESQUICENTENARY

Mr MARTIN (Bathurst) [4.45 p.m.]: Last Saturday, 31 March, I was a guest of the Rockley and District Community Association at the Rockley village sesquicentenary celebrations. Rockley village is one of the first villages founded during the gold rush days of the last century. My electorate of Bathurst has the good fortune to have a number of these famous villages within its boundaries. People would be well aware of the villages of Sofala and Hill End. Rockley can be included as one of those important early goldmining villages. The village of Rockley has been listed by the National Trust as an historical village.

The earliest known inhabitants of the Rockley area were the Wiraojuri people. Surveyor Evans first visited the area in 1813—the year of the crossing of the Blue Mountains. So there has been a European influence in Rockley from the earliest time—before the formation of the city of Bathurst which was Australia's first inland city in 1815. A number of land grants were made during the 1820s. In 1829 Captain Watson Augustus Steel was given a grant of 1,920 acres which he named Rockley after his birthplace in Wiltshire, England. Eventually, Steel and other land-holders requested that an area be set aside to be purchased by tradesmen who would then service the needs of the district. The village of Rockley was formally gazetted on 22 July 1815.

The celebrations last Saturday, which were an outstanding success, were blessed by a magnificent autumn day. One cannot get anything better than an autumn day in the central western area of New South Wales. The organising committee, under the leadership of Artie Nightingale and Colleen Toole, did a magnificent job. Many months of hard work were rewarded by an appreciative crowd numbering many hundreds of people. It is hard to get a handle on the number, but there were many hundreds of people. Many locals—a lot of these locals have been in the area since the earliest white settlers—people from all over Australia and many people from overseas attended this event. Advance Energy, the local retail electricity distributor in the area, was the generous sponsor of the sesquicentenary committee. I was pleased to be able, on behalf of the Premier, to hand to the organising committee a cheque for $10,000 from the Premier's Department to mark in a tangible way the sesquicentenary. That money will be spent on improvements to the school of arts, one of the many well-preserved historic buildings in the village, which is now used by the school and by local clubs for social functions, and as a meeting place for people in the village and the district. On the day the official party included the Mayor of Evans Shire, Norm Mann, representatives from Advance Energy, Senator Sue West, Peter Andren, MP, Reverend John Butterworth and Artie Nightingale. The master of ceremonies was John Lloyd Green from Prime Television. Also in the official party were Jessica Fitzpatrick and Courtney Hooper, the joint school captains of Rockley school in the year 2001. A comprehensive program was organised by the committee on the day. It covered everything from photographic exhibitions to inspections of the Mill Museum, which houses many of the relics of the early days. Mr R. H. L. Smith: Was the honourable member for Bathurst in the official party? Mr MARTIN: The honourable member for Bathurst was there. He handed over the cheque. It would not have been a show without the honourable member for Bathurst. The Rockley Studios and Fine Art Gallery was open. There was a grand parade and opening ceremony. Children were involved in Maypole dancing. Rockley Public School was open for inspection during the day, as were the two historic churches—St Patricks Catholic Church and St Peters Anglican Church. There were blacksmith demonstrations, shearing competitions, woodchopping competitions and yard dog demonstrations. Those sorts of activities are very much a part of the history and culture of a village such as Rockley. I conclude once again by congratulating the Rockley community, which is very much a self-help community. It has preserved a magnificent replica of our goldmining era—a romantic era in our history. Rockley community is to be congratulated on the success of last Saturday's celebrations. [Time expired.] COURT DELAYS 5 April 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13363

Mr ARMSTRONG (Lachlan) [4.50 p.m.]: This evening I wish to talk about a matter that occurred in Young, believe it or not, in April 1997—last century! In April that year a Mr Tyler was charged with dealing in prohibited substances, namely drugs, and was arrested on a local farm property. In January 1998 he came before the court in Young and 22 witnesses from many parts of New South Wales were called. For two days they stayed around the court but none was called to give evidence. Young court sat a second time and this time half a dozen or so witnesses were asked to come forward. Again none was called to give evidence. In Young court a third time, in March 2000, defence lawyers objected to witnesses presented by the prosecution and the court was adjourned, as the judge needed time to consider the objections of defence lawyers to the prosecution witnesses. The matter was again scheduled for hearing in December 2000 in Sydney. My information is the matter still has not been resolved and that the defendant still has not come before the court to face the accusations made against him.

I use this as an example. In recent times we have heard so much about the war on drugs and the problem with drugs, and we have heard so many protestations from the Government about what it is doing about drugs. It does not matter how many penalties are brought in and how much legislation is changed or how much publicity the Government generates; unless it delivers it has no effect. This person was charged with drug dealing in April 1997 and it is now 2001. I wonder what that person has been doing in the meantime. It is not for me to cast aspersions but it is a hell of a risk because memories become surprisingly grey over time. I suspect as far as the law sending a message to the community, a person who has been charged would think the law was surprisingly soft.

I say to the Government this afternoon, and to the Attorney General in particular, unless Parliament and the Government is prepared to enforce the laws of this State and conduct the process in a reasonable time, it makes a mockery of the process. There is a responsibility on the judicial system to ensure that the process is conducted in a reasonable time. There is a responsibility on the police to round up the witnesses and have them there. On the evidence I have, the witnesses have been present on at least three occasions but have not been called into the court. Again, what sort of a message does that send to the broader public? People give up their time and they invariably lose income, because compensation for witnesses is very small in this day and age. Again, it sends a bad message to the broader community.

Most honourable members would realise a certain amount of cynicism exists in the community regarding the effectiveness of the law in dealing with offenders, particularly drug offenders. Cases like these only fuel that cynicism. I ask the Minister for Community Services to ensure the message I have given this afternoon is delivered to the Attorney General and to the Government because it is important that we establish in the community at least a fair timetable so that persons charged under the laws of this State will be dealt with expeditiously and promptly. That will not only deal with those who have offended but it will send the right message to those who might be going to offend. Therefore, we will have some credibility in the community when we say we are toughening up on drugs.

ST MARYS BAND CLUB

Ms BEAMER (Mulgoa) [4.54 p.m.]: I congratulate the St Marys Band Club on its recent renovations that were officially opened by my colleague the Minister for Gaming and Racing on Saturday night. The St Marys Band Club has a very long and proud history. The St Marys brass band was formed in 1882. After a period of trepidation the band came together as a club. The real genesis of the club dates back to 1952, when Brian King and Ern Keller met together to discuss reforming the band and making a club. The late Ern Keller is well known to people around the St Marys district, and many of my colleagues, including the Minister for Community Services and the honourable member for Londonderry, have gone to brass band competitions held in his honour. Brian King is also a notable figure in St Marys history. He was the longest serving mayor of Penrith. No doubt with Ern Keller's love of band music and Brian King's love of a beer the two would have made an admirable start to a club.

St Marys Band Club began trading in 1956 with a charter to promote the playing of instruments. In 1964 the pipes and drums band was formed. The Minister for Community Services was present when the Minister for Gaming and Racing was piped in to one of his favourite tunes. Although it might be normal for the people of Charlestown to see the Minister wearing his kilt, it was very noticeable to us. It was a great accompaniment to the band to see the Minister's knees. He was piped in to the tune of Scotland the Brave. We were held by a rendition of Amazing Grace, and the band left playing the wonderful tune Waltzing Matilda. It is different to hear bagpipes playing Waltzing Matilda, but they did a sensational job of it. 13364 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 April 2001

The general manager, Larry Collins, gave the history of the club and was also talking about renovations starting in 1999. The people decided they wanted a club to get enjoyment away from the stresses of life. It started with a problem, as many things do, when it was discovered its car park was a contaminated site. It was an old petrol station and remedial work had to take place on it. Newing Constructions eventually finished the job. The club recognises that today it has to attract new customers and to do it in a way that makes it friendly to the community. So, part of the renovations include a coffee shop and a children's area, and families can enjoy themselves in these areas. I congratulate the club on these renovations. They show it is friendly to the community.

I express also my pleasure with the board and Alan Howle, the President, who addressed the celebrations. He has been a resident of St Marys since 1963. His first recollection of going into the St Marys Band Club was as a new resident wanting a nice friendly place for a drink. He always associated the club with smiling faces and a huge welcome. Alan thought the renovations would overstretch the club, but he was happy to admit he was wrong. Today, on the Great Western Highway, this marvellous club, proud of its genesis in 1882, spends a lot of time serving its members and nearby residents. It gives money to St Marys Public School for sporting facilities and also for a computer upgrade, as well as to its local sporting clubs such the soccer clubs. I have a vested interest in the club, because when I moved into the district my cousins played for the St Marys Band Club in the early 1970s. The club also supports basketball, euchre and fishing and golf clubs. I pay tribute to the former boards who had the vision to see that the promotion of sport and the playing of music would benefit the whole of the community. I congratulate the club on its recent renovations and its marvellous celebrations of it. [Time expired.]

Mr FACE (Charlestown—Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development) [4.59 p.m.]: I thank the honourable member for Mulgoa for raising this matter in the House today. On Saturday night at the opening of the extensions to the club I was accompanied by my colleague the Minister for Community Services and her husband, Sam. I was pleased to open the extensions. As I said the other night, Alan Howle and his board of directors must be congratulated.

The St Marys Band Club has existed for 46 years but can trace its origins back to 1882, when the St Marys brass band came into existence. In 1954 one of the most competitive pipe and drum bands in New South Wales and, indeed, in Australia—the St Marys pipe band—was established. At the opening Alan ripped off his band tie and said, "You had better take this with you", and I wore the tie with pride in the House yesterday. At the opening was a magnificent period photograph of the band in front of the Parkview Hospital, opposite the club, and the old garage where the Great Western Highway is now. Obviously, the photograph was taken some time in the early twentieth century.

The club realises—many clubs do not realise this—that it is successfully serving families, the bands and the community as originally intended. Many clubs have lost direction, but the opening of the extensions to the St Marys Band Club is a great tribute to that club. I had a wonderful night; it was a great tribute to the band and to the people of St Marys. No-one could ever have envisaged the development that has taken place in that area. I visited the Mount Druitt-St Marys area as a child when my grandparents moved to Mount Druitt during the Depression. In the late 1940s and early 1950s no-one would have believed that the western suburbs would explode to the extent that they have. The area has been well served by the St Marys Band Club. I thank the honourable member for Mulgoa for bringing this matter to the notice of honourable members.

BAULKHAM HILLS SCHOOL BUS SERVICES

Mr MERTON (Baulkham Hills) [5.01 p.m.]: I am sure all honourable members will agree with me that one of the greatest concerns of parents is the safety of their children. So it is with a great deal of disquiet that I again raise in the House my concerns relating to the bus service provided to schoolchildren in my electorate of Baulkham Hills. Mr Jim Miles of Kellyville contacted my electorate office this morning to express his anxiety about the afternoon Westbus services for students from Crestwood High School who live in the Kellyville area. Mr Miles stated that his daughter, Kirra, is in year 9, and on Tuesday no bus had arrived at the school by 4.00 p.m. to transport her home. Yesterday afternoon she managed to get on a bus as a standing passenger, only to be informed by the driver that she must vacate the bus as he could not take standing passengers.

Following Mr Miles' call, my electorate secretary contacted the school to try to find the cause of the problem. She spoke with the deputy principal, Ms Janine McDermott, who expressed the disappointment of the school community with the service provided by this bus company. Ms McDermott indicated that the school had 5 April 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13365 received advice on 28 March that there would be three buses arriving at the school at 3.06 p.m., with a fourth bus due at 3.11 p.m. to transport students to their homes. She said that teachers on bus duty were not returning to the staff room until 4.15 p.m. because of the unreliability of the bus service. She stated that the third bus has been arriving at school chock-a-block—to use her expression—and the fourth bus has been either not arriving at all or not turning up until 4.00 p.m.

Ms McDermott expressed concern that some students have walked down to Windsor Road in an effort to get on an ordinary bus service, only to be refused by drivers who inform them that they can only use their passes on the school bus service. The students are left stranded. I can understand the frustration of the school staff, parents and students. Ms McDermott declared that the school has been endeavouring to rectify the situation, but is simply told that the matter must go to the planning department. I would have thought that the answer was simple enough. Westbus should supply the fourth bus and ensure that it arrives at the school on time.

I ask the Minister for Transport to get the department to act immediately to ensure that the four buses are available to pick up students before 3.15 p.m. to transport them to their homes. It is essential and it is a right of students throughout New South Wales, particularly in areas where no other form of public transport is available, to have buses that arrive at school at the stipulated time so that students can get home at the time their parents expect them. Many parents are concerned when their child does not arrive home at the appointed time, because in this day and age there are many concerns about the safety of young people on our streets. This is an important matter, and I ask the Minister to look into the situation to ensure that the right number of buses arrive at the school at the appointed time.

ABERMAIN PUBLIC SCHOOL

Mr HICKEY (Cessnock) [5.06 p.m.]: I draw to the attention of honourable members the issue of demountable buildings at Abermain Public School. The parents and citizens of Abermain public school have visited my office many times in relation to the demountables in their schoolyard. They want the situation addressed. Abermain Public School is in the unenviable position of being forced to utilise 25-year-old demountable buildings. The parents feel that this is a little unjust. I trust that honourable members of this House understand the Government's commitment to providing the State education system with the highest quality service for the public good.

When perusing the capital works budget for education in my electorate, I was disappointed that Abermain missed out on funding to construct purpose-built education facilities on its grounds. If the Government is committed to offering the best educational service to families, we simply cannot rely on having great teachers with a great syllabus; we must provide the best facilities that are conducive to students learning. My office has made representations to the Minister for Education and Training on this issue, and each time the request is deflected by his staff.

Lines such as "the department is investigating the issue" or "the needs of Abermain Public School have been noted and are being considered for nomination for future capital works programs" have been used ad nauseam when representations are made to secure an allocation of funding, or even a commitment to fund the works necessary to provide adequate facilities on the site. The school receives strong support from its parents and citizens association, and when I peruse the file for Abermain school I am dismayed to see such remarks as "We feel that the Department of Education and Training has fobbed us off again". These remarks have been relayed to me by the parents and citizens.

Abermain Public School only wants to be treated the same as its city counterparts, and the parents and citizens association feels that the department sees the school as out of sight, out of mind. The school's main building is 91 years old and the community is proud of this piece of local heritage. However, the residents see the demountables that have been on the site for 25 years as an eyesore and not in the least appropriate for imparting knowledge into the minds of youngsters. Also, the main school building requires maintenance works. I note with amusement that the parents and citizens, and the local community, wanted the demountables listed as heritage items as they have been on the site for so long. When the buildings were placed on the site they were to be temporary structures.

I know that Canberra's old Parliament House was temporary for 60 years, but I have no intention of allowing these buildings to break that record. The school needs to fulfil adequately the accommodation needs of nine classes ranging from kindergarten through to year 6. My predecessor, Mr Stan Neilly, made representations 13366 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 April 2001 to the Minister regarding this issue, and I note the reply received from the Minister's office that "the desirability of upgrading Abermain Public School is noted. The school will be considered for inclusion in a future capital works program". However, I point out that this was in early 1997. I ask the Minister to consider applying the relevant pressure to those in his department who hold the purse strings to allow the trickle of funds necessary to supply the Abermain community with what it has been promised.

The community wants to see some level of construction with regard to the demountables. However, we must acknowledge that education generally is being addressed by the Government. The Carr Government's commitment to computerisation of schools is without question. The Minister's announcement only last week shows that the Government is keen to address many issues in the education system. I ask that the Abermain Public School be included as soon as possible in the capital works programs, to rectify the situation there and to have the issue of the demountable buildings addressed so that the parents and citizens association is able to continue its work. The association raises a considerable amount of money and spends a lot of time addressing important issues, and I believe its needs should to be addressed. [Time expired.] COWRA HEALTH SERVICES Mr R. W. TURNER (Orange) [5.11 p.m.]: I raise the issue of health services in Cowra, specifically at Cowra District Hospital. On 13 February I called a public meeting in Cowra, which was attended by more than 500 people. At the meeting we discussed the health crisis in Cowra in general, and more specifically the obstetrics crisis. The meeting was attended by five of the doctors who practise obstetrics in Cowra, including Dr Adamski, who has been extremely vocal in his criticism of the health system. Dr Adamski had withdrawn his services some months before the meeting. He said he did not know whether he wanted to return to the profession because he was getting used to not having to get up at 2.30 in the morning. However, Dr Adamski has reinstated his services. Dr Andrew Watt, who threatened to withdraw his services on 31 March, has also withdrawn his resignation. A letter from Dr Adamski addressed to Catherine Nowlan, the Health Services Manager at Cowra District Hospital, states:

Dear Catherine

As a result of ongoing discussions between NSW Department of Health, the local Area Health Service, The Rural Doctor's Association and local GPs, the State Government has made some progress towards resolving issues regarding:

• Indemnity • Utilisation of District Hospitals • Sustainability of rural procedural general practice.

There remains much to be done to ensure that Medical Indemnity costs and payouts do not continue to rise, and to ensure the viability of District Hospitals and to ensure the retention and recruitment of Procedural GPs.

Specifically, the proposed TORT reforms need to be legislated. Cowra District Hospital Theatre utilisation needs to be significantly increased through the introduction of either a urological or orthopaedic list, or both, and, a dental list, in addition to the existing services of ENT, gynaecology and general surgery. In the interests of retaining and even attracting Procedural GPs, the Area Health Service must give serious consideration to the payment of an On-Call allowance for:

1. 1ST On-Call to A&E. 2. Anaesthetics On-Call. 3. Obstetrics on-Call.

In Anticipation of TORT reform, a significant increase in surgical cases at Cowra and possible On-Call payments for obstetrics and anaesthetics, Dr Adamski intends to recommence his anaesthetic and obstetric practice, and the other procedural GPs of Cowra will continue to provide procedural services.

The failure to secure these necessary changes will once again put these essential services at risk. The letter more or less sums up the situation in Cowra. The people who attended the meeting were absolutely adamant that they did not want obstetrics services, or indeed any other services, withdrawn from Cowra. They are very proud of the services that they have in Cowra and are extremely aware of the slow erosion of those local services and their transfer to Orange, Bathurst and Sydney. One lady was so adamant about giving birth to her fourth child in Cowra hospital that she said she would rather give birth to the child on the laundry floor than go to Orange. Fortunately, she gave birth to a healthy baby in hospital. The residents feel very strongly about the health services in Cowra hospital, and indeed other hospitals throughout New South Wales. They do not want services withdrawn. Whether they are hospitals the size of Cowra, Orange, Bathurst or Dubbo hospitals, or smaller hospitals such as those at Canowindra and Molong, they want those services retained. The residents are concerned not only about being able to attend those hospitals for post-operative care but also about being able to have friends and relatives visit them during their stay in hospital. If patients are taken to hospitals outside their district, people are not able to visit as often as they 5 April 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13367 would like. Whilst a health crisis in Cowra has been averted for the time being, the premiums for obstetrics services and other specialist services in country hospitals need to be drastically reduced. [Time expired.] WYONG DISTRICT NETBALL ASSOCIATION

Mr McBRIDE (The Entrance) [5.16 p.m.]: On Saturday 7 April the new $360,000 clubhouse for the Wyong District Netball Association at Baker Park, Wyong, will be opened by the association founder, Carole Field, on the occasion of the fortieth anniversary of the association. This occasion is another triumph for Wyong District Netball Association, which for 40 years has provided quality sport and facilities for young girls and women in the shire. Wyong District Netball Association is one of the best run sporting associations on the Central Coast, if not in the whole of the State. Over the last 40 years the association has been responsible for the funding and construction of 21 all-weather courts and the old clubhouse. The association hopes to increase the number of courts to 30, so that it meets the requirements to bid for an all-age championship, with a final number of 32 courts. The association also has plans for a show court near the new clubhouse in the future.

Over the past 40 years the association has overcome fire, flood, vandalism, theft and slow-footed government bodies, in particular local government. The association has achieved, through its own fundraising, hard work, commitment and the dedication of its army of volunteers over the last 40 years a user-pays facility valued at more than $1.5 million. The association is operationally totally self-funding and has raised the funds for almost all capital works, with the exception of a contribution made by the Department of Sport and Recreation of $76,000 for the present club and some $15,000 in the past—that is, a contribution of about $90,000 for a facility that is worth $1.5 million.

More than 7,000 people, including more than 2,000 players, use these facilities every Saturday during the competition season, and the courts are in use every day of the week from February to September. The association is, and has always been, run entirely by volunteers. As I said, the establishment of the new clubhouse cost $360,000, of which $76,000 was funded by the Department of Sport and Recreation. Club members also go out to schools and into the wider community, running free clinics and providing facilities and equipment free of charge for schools, special schools, people with disabilities and other interested groups.

Wyong District Netball Association is a fabulous, successful example of the community spirit and sense of family that are a hallmark of the Central Coast. Saturday at Baker Park is like a village market day. Colourfully dressed players are everywhere, supported by coaches, umpires, family, guardians, carers, mums and dads, and many children. The games on Saturday are run like a Swiss clock. Players must meet dress code standards, the rules are both enforced and obeyed, and competition is fierce, but the game is always played in the best possible spirit. The year 1961 saw the introduction of netball competition in Wyong and the start of a rich history. Two rounds were held, then semifinals and finals. The inaugural premiers were the Emeralds.

Other teams were Magpies, Checkmates and Tanettes. The association's facilities have been developed from two grass courts and a kitchen table with a cowbell. Along with increasing membership, the players improved to such a high standard that from 1974 Wyong regularly provided members for State and Metropolitan North representative teams. The Murray sisters, Liane, Melinda and Michelle, are the association's most prolific representatives. Michelle, the association's only Australian player to date, will unveil the official plaque on Saturday. In 1988 the association won its first age championships with its under 12s representative team. The team was coached by Lana Turner, who is a former Wyong junior representative player. A further three State championships were won in 1999 and 2000, which is an enviable record for what is basically a small country association.

Those achievements have all been made possible by the generous support of the district's dedicated and hardworking volunteers in capacities such as committee members, coaches, umpires, players, supporters and sponsors. I congratulate all the officials, all the office-bearers, all volunteers and all the supporters who have contributed over the past 40 years to the success of the teams. I especially mention some of the families who have been involved over the years, including the Field family, the Harrisons, the Carrolls, the Earlys, the Beasleys, the Smiths, which is a large family within Wyong—in fact there are two large Smith families in Wyong—the Dobells, the Ungers, the Murrays and other famous families within the Wyong area.

In conclusion, I also especially mention the current secretary, Chris Miles, who has been an office- bearer for 23 years. Chris has an outstanding history in netball. She holds just about every licence, award or coaching certificate that is available. She has also coached representative teams and has acted as a representative co-ordinator. She also has assisted and encouraged young players over her 23 years as an administrator. She is 13368 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 April 2001 an outstanding woman. She has made an enormous contribution to society. I congratulate her on behalf of all people who live in the Wyong area, and also on behalf of other women. GORDON SPEED CAMERA

Mr HUMPHERSON (Davidson) [5.21 p.m.]: A fixed speed camera on the eastern arterial road at Gordon, which was installed in the first instance on 31 July last year, has drawn a number of concerns from my constituents. Since its installation, the camera has been in and out of service. My constituents have put a view to me, with which I concur, that there seems to be a predominant predisposition to seek revenue from speed cameras. I understand that since last year, funds derived from infringement notices as a result of the installation of fixed speed cameras have doubled and that over half the revenue from infringement notices in this State is derived in one form or another from cameras.

The camera to which I refer was subjected to some community backlash and was vandalised on a couple of occasions. It was inoperative from 4 October to 18 October last year. It was repaired and, after being reinstalled, was vandalised again. I understand that it was firebombed in some fashion and was out of service from 30 October until recently, although I am not sure about whether it is operational now. During the 2½- month period when it was operational, 2,759 infringement notices were issued as a result of detection by that camera, according to New South Wales Police Service statistics. Simple arithmetic would demonstrate that the camera is raising revenue at the rate of $1.8 million a year. The camera to which I refer is installed at a place on the arterial road where the roadway goes into a dip. At the bottom of the dip, there is a narrow bridge that crosses Rocky Creek. The irony of this matter is that the need for this camera would probably be removed entirely if the bridge was replaced and widened. The bridge is an extremely old timber bridge and is somewhat rickety, with very dubious foundations. Because the camera is able to raise revenue at the rate of $1.8 million a year, commonsense dictates that revenue for the first year should be directed towards replacing the bridge. Thereafter, the speed camera would not be required at all. I put that proposition to the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads. If he wants to demonstrate that the installation of speed cameras is not a revenue-raising strategy in Gordon, he should direct that the revenue should go towards the replacement of the bridge. I have raised the matter of replacement of the bridge on previous occasions during budget debates. Replacement of the bridge would entirely remove the need for a speed camera to slow vehicles down at that particular point in the road. It is little wonder that the community has a great deal of underlying resentment against speed cameras, as opposed to police officers who stop motorists and issue infringement notices. I have received frequent complaints about people who have received infringement notices three weeks or more after an infringement. That is of little assistance in changing their driving habit at the time of the breach. The cameras have replaced the very positive impact of being stopped by a police officer with a feeling of resentment and a feeling of simply being used. In many cases, people who have received infringement notices are not even aware of exactly what the circumstances were, and where the breach was committed. If there is a desire on the part of this Government to slow down traffic on some parts of the eastern arterial road and in other parts of this State, why does the Government not provide a camera and technology that monitors speed, activates a camera and stores the image? Technology is available to indicate to approaching drivers that they are travelling at a speed which is in excess of the speed limit, so why does not the Government use it? If the Government is serious about slowing down more drivers rather than allowing motorists to travel through a known hazard point at a speed which is in excess of the limit and issuing a retrospective infringement notice, why does the Government not erect a digital sign which shows the motorist's speed or a light which flashes as the motorists approaches the point at which the car has exceeded the speed limit? If that were to happen, consequential changes in driving habits would occur at the time which may prevent an accident from occurring. In contrast, the present use of speed cameras leads to drivers being notified of an infringement retrospectively. Generally I question the policy, practice and intent underlying the installation of fixed speed cameras. It seems to me that these cameras are installed solely for the purpose of raising revenue. They are not achieving what the Government's objective should be, namely, to slow down all drivers at points in the road network where speed is a problem. BLACKTOWN RAM-RAIDS Mr GIBSON (Blacktown) [5.26 p.m.]: I participate in this debate because the main street of Blacktown has experienced ram-raids. Ram-raiders, or smash-and-grab robbers, use motor vehicles to gain entry to premises and to flee the scene. This is a comparatively recent phenomenon in New South Wales, particularly in Blacktown. Ram-raids are characterised by the violence of the criminal's entry. Stolen vehicles are used to 5 April 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13369 ram their way into shops and other premises. As with other crimes involving the misuse of motor vehicles, ram- raiding raises serious road safety issues. The amount of damage caused in each incident also makes repairs particularly expensive. Ram-raiding attacks usually impact at the front of buildings. They are carried out at great speed to avoid the effects of any alarms systems that have been fitted. Most of these attacks are over within a minute or two. There is a view that ram-raiding, in a sense, is a victimless crime. This is complete tommy rot. Criminals who use ram-raids for theft also commit a number of offences of a violent nature. Ram-raiders use stolen cars and drive them in a dangerous manner. Ram-raiders cause massive property damage to gain access to premises. And the record shows that ram-raiders will stop at nothing to avoid being captured.

I wonder whether there is a strong connection between ram-raiders and people who drive around in motor vehicles to snatch handbags from other people who are either walking along the footpaths or waiting at intersections. In both cases, a getaway vehicle is used. There is an idea that ram-raids are specific to high-class city shopping areas where fashion and high-tech goods are stored. But that is not the case because the ram- raiders are also hitting the poorer suburbs and the little shopkeepers as well. Part of the ram-raid phenomenon is the high speed of the highly dangerous getaways, which often involve high performance cars that are stolen for the express purpose of committing robberies.

It was not without good reason that the police in Sydney bought several high performance Subaru WRX vehicles to combat this type of crime. The police need faster cars to give chase when necessary. It must be remembered that the costs associated with ram-raids are not just the costs associated with the loss of stock and the stolen goods. There is also the cost associated with restoration of the damage to buildings and fittings, including replacement of doors, glass windows, door frames and internal fittings such as counters, benches, display cases and so on.

In the United Kingdom, ram-raids comprise only 3 per cent of burglaries, but the restoration and repair of the damage to premises from ram-raids is approximately five times greater than is the case for the average burglary. I suggest that the same ancillary costs would apply to ram-raid robberies in New South Wales. The whole idea behind dealing effectively with ram-raiders is to prevent them from breaking into premises and to provide deterrence by ensuring that the criminals who undertake ram-raids arc caught and dealt with appropriately.

In general, the best way to deal with ram-raiders is to put in place countermeasures that slow them down. Time is the crucial factor in most ram-raids and criminals do not want to put themselves at risk of being caught. The best way to deter them is to put resources into physical barriers. The more barriers that are created the more they will be slowed down. There is also a need for owners to train their staff to observe whether anybody is casing the premises, et cetera, which can act as a deterrent to these people. The bulk of countermeasures that are commonly discussed comprise physical offensive measures that make the premises to be protected more resistant to criminals ramming through the doors or windows. They include strengthening potential entrances; the installation of roller shutters and grilles; the use of posts, bollards and other blocking devices; the modification of the overall design of the premises; and the use of high-quality door frames and locks, steel reinforcements and anti-thrust bolts.

Mr George: They have those in Cabramatta.

Mr GIBSON: That is right. Glass panels and windows can be improved through plastic film, and the use of laminated glass can assist. Static anti ram-raid posts and bollards, as well as telescopic, retractable anti ram-raid posts provide a simple, secure and cost-effective method of protecting premises. Large concrete plant containers can be used, although they create other problems. Other specific countermeasures include the installation of surveillance cameras, intruder alarms, forensic spray and the use of security patrols. In the end effective laws need to be in place. Laws have been revised and updated to reflect the criminality and dangerousness of ram-raids so that offenders are dealt the full force of the law. That can be done by the police and by work in this Parliament. [Time expired.]

[Private members' statements interrupted.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Private Members' Statements: Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders Motion by Mr Stewart, on behalf of Mr Whelan, agreed to: 13370 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 April 2001

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to permit up to seven additional private members' statements at this sitting. PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS ______[Private members' statements resumed.] RIVERLANDS CENTRE DETOXIFICATION FACILITY Mr GEORGE (Lismore) [5.33 p.m.]: This afternoon I acknowledge the official opening of the Riverlands Centre in Lismore on 12 March by the Special Minister of State, John Della Bosca. It has been said that the Riverlands Centre is an apt metaphorical name for the $3.2 million drug and alcohol detoxification centre. A long and meandering path finally led to the much-needed centre and there were rapids along the way. Support for the project had helped smooth its way. The tremendous support from members of Parliament during the preparation and design of the centre was duly acknowledged on the day of the opening. However, one former Coalition member of Parliament who dedicated a great deal of time to building the centre was not recognised on the day. I refer to the former member for Lismore, Mr Bill Rixon, and I place his contribution to the centre on record. The centre features a methadone dispensary, outpatient counselling and medical consulting rooms for local general practitioners. The striking building was designed by local architect James Kerry Lyon, who took his inspiration from Aboriginal mythology, creating passages that echo the winding path of the region's rainbow serpent. Local builder Bennett Constructions delivered the project on time in a professional manner. The centre is the first of its kind in rural New South Wales and offers 16 beds for five-day to seven-day residential detoxification treatment. Four beds have been allocated for use in the Magistrates Early Referral Into Treatment [MERIT] scheme, which attempts to steer minor offenders away from court and into treatment for drug-related crimes. I am concerned that people who leave the detoxification unit may not have a caring family, loving friends or somewhere to go. Fletcher Roberts represented the Aboriginal community on the day of the opening. I will read into Hansard as much of his address as I can because it sends a lot of messages to us. He said:

Mr Della Bosca and special guests.

This morning I want to welcome you to Widjabul country that is part of the Bundjalung area. I am pleased to be taking part in the ceremony this morning because this new drug and alcohol rehabilitation service is important for the people in this region … whatever racial group we belong to. Of course, I have been invited here to speak from the Aboriginal perspective. Some of you may not know that Aboriginal people initiated an alcohol rehabilitation centre in this area in 1979 … that is Namatjira Haven near Alstonville that continues to serve the community today. Today, I am going to quote to you the words of the first manager, Eddie McGrath. These words were published in the Northern Star back in 1980 but have an important message for us today. Eddie, who was a reformed alcoholic himself, said: "I was the biggest European hater going … I thought I was justified, after all Capt Cook took my country. Because I was losing … I hated everyone. Now I have got a lot of white mates I met in Alcoholics Anonymous. They lost wives, families and they lost businesses, cars and friends … everything." Eddie said: "Grog was my problem, it wasn't Capt Cook." On the wall of his office Eddie had a sign that begins "I am responsible …" Eddie had a brightly coloured poisonous sea snake that some of the young blokes had caught on the beach. It was in a bottle on a table … He considered that the spirit in the bottle was more dangerous than any snake. Eddie knew how hard it was for people who were alcoholics to beat the grog. He said these people often let you down and often did not succeed … but he didn't look on this as failure but as disappointment. At that time research had shown that about 40% of the people going through the program had stayed sober away from the haven. I do not know what those percentages are today, but I would think that 40% is significant. Like Namatjira Haven, a service like this will have its successes and its disappointments.

It seems to me that alcohol was the biggest problem then in 1979 when Namatjira opened its doors but today drugs have taken a greater hold on our community … black and white. Alcohol and drugs do not discriminate in race … We as Aboriginal people still face discrimination but it is worth considering that in places such as a drug and alcohol centre such as this discrimination often disappears and people work together and share the struggle to overcome alcohol and drugs. 5 April 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13371

I admire Fletcher Roberts for the address he gave on that day. I congratulate the people involved in the detoxification centre. [Time expired.] HUNTER VALLEY RESEARCH FOUNDATION

Mr PRICE (Maitland) [5.38 p.m.]: On 22 March the Hunter Valley Research Foundation, which involves the whole Hunter region, including my electorate of Maitland, held its thirty-eighth annual Sydney luncheon at Parliament House. The honourable member for Wallsend usually hosts that function but in his absence the honourable member for Swansea and I hosted the luncheon. The function was interesting. The Director of Research and Chief Executive Officer, Dr W. E. J. Paradice, gave a brief dissertation on the progress of the foundation during the past 12 months. He highlighted some of the findings of its ongoing research in terms of the economic benefits to the community and the improvements that were applicable in employment. He said:

At the end of January total employment is still up from 12 months previously, an increase of around 8,000 jobs to 254,200 people. He also said:

It has been claimed that the new jobs are only part-time jobs, yet in the 12 months to January 2001 full-time employment increased by over 13,000 to 186,000, while part-time employment fell. In fact, it appears that the increase in the number of people unemployed and the increase in the unemployment rate, which is now at 11.5% is almost directly related to a fall in part- time employment. That has some significant connotations. It means that the Hunter region is holding its own or, given the present circumstances, is probably marginally ahead of most similar regions throughout the country. Some 77 of the 317 businesses surveyed employ less than 10 people. That is a good representation of the cross-section of employers and employees in the Hunter. I quote again from the speech of Mr Paradice:

The picture as of last week suggests that while things are weaker than they were 12 months ago, they do not appear to have deteriorated further over the last quarter. Trading performance, our surrogate for turnover, is not as good as last March but appears slightly better than our December and September surveys.

However our profitability index continues to be negative, which has been the case since the GST was introduced. The negative index summarises the fact that there are more businesses reporting poor or very poor profitability compared with those reporting good or very good profitability. To give you an idea of the relativities, in our March and June surveys last year, about 20% of all businesses reported poor or very poor profitability. Our three surveys since the GST was introduced now record at least 30% of businesses reporting poor or very poor profitability.

I would suggest that many businesses may not have passed on the full price impact of the GST: rather they have felt it necessary to pay for some of their own increasing GST related costs by reducing their own profitability. It may also be that many of the businesses which are remitting payments for the first time see money going out of their bank account which they would like to see stay there to assist their own cash flow. This survey indicates one of the dampening problems associated with business growth in all regions of Australia, but particularly in the Hunter. As the report indicates, we in the Hunter have been saved by a number of significant continuing projects or projects that are on the horizon and may continue. Three steel mills of various sizes may come to fruition—certainly, one of those will. Also pending is the development of the CSIRO energy centre, which is paying for the Steel River site. In addition are some $14 million worth of new facilities for the John Hunter Hospital and more than $250 million worth of investment by Energy Australia to improve electricity infrastructure. All of this demonstrates that Newcastle and the Hunter region are still on the rise and, compared to other areas, are marginally in front. I congratulate the Hunter Valley Research Foundation on its continuing work within the Hunter and, nowadays, in the Central Coast area. This is a well-respected organisation, and it is well deserving of the praise and business that it attracts. I am glad that the Government still sees fit to financially support the foundation's operations. I look forward to hearing more and better reports as time goes on. Mr FACE (Charlestown—Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development) [5.43 p.m.]: I thank the honourable member for Maitland for bringing to the attention of the House the valuable work of the Hunter Valley Research Foundation. The foundation not only continues to play a valuable role through its massive research, research that is of benefit to the Hunter, but it is also sought out by a number of Sydney-based councils and other bodies throughout Australia to do work for them. That is evidenced by the attendance of four mayors from Sydney local government bodies at the foundation's most recent luncheon. The foundation's contracting for that work provides a money flow that enables the foundation to continue its valuable work, which has been going on for many years. 13372 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 April 2001

The reason for the setting up of the Hunter Valley Research Foundation was the damage visited upon Maitland and Singleton by the 1955 flood and the need for a flood remediation organisation. That led to a rowdy meeting in the Maitland town hall. It is interesting that the foundation, in its entire history, has had only two directors. Cyril Renwick, the founding director, served that body for many years. Cyril was himself a product of the Hunter, and his father was an Anglican priest of the Newcastle diocese. The current director is W. E. J. Paradice. Their long service demonstrates the solid nature of the Hunter Valley Research Foundation, which has been chaired by a succession of eminent community members, including the former Treasurer of this State, the late Ken Booth, and a former Lord Mayor of Newcastle, John McNaughton, to name but two. Again I thank the honourable member for Maitland for noting the important work that the foundation continues to do in the Hunter region.

DRUG ADVICE PHONE-IN

Mr DEBNAM (Vaucluse) [5.45 p.m.]: I wish to talk about a three-day drug advice phone-in that I was involved in last week. This was a community project set up and operated by a number of people. We titled it "Worried about Drugs? Let's talk!" and distributed a number of fliers throughout the electorate and the eastern suburbs. I want to cover some items that the fliers covered, mention briefly the people involved and report the results of the phone-in. The idea was to conduct a phone-in over three days, Thursday, Friday and Saturday of last week, from 8 a.m. to 11 p.m. My electorate office was used as a call centre. Basically, the phone-in offered the local community the opportunity to ring in and talk confidentially to a drug and alcohol counsellor about drug problems faced by the community, and perhaps about drug problems being faced by the family and friends of those involved with drugs. This was a joint community initiative of the Point Zero Youth Service, Rabbi Popple Mendel Kastel of the Great Synagogue, Reverend Tom Henderson-Brooks of St Andrews at Bondi Beach, and myself and my staff.

It is fair to say that every member of this House would realise that our community is struggling to understand and cope with drug problems across New South Wales, Australia and, indeed, the world. The primary objective of the three-day phone-in was to encourage local families to think and talk about drugs. As we all know, many families are either not aware of the problem of a family member, or perhaps are aware of the problem but do not know what to do about it, and therefore seek to ignore it to some extent. The phone-in basically provided an opportunity for any local parents, grandparents or teenagers to ring in and confidentially discuss drug issues with a counsellor.

The basic objective was to encourage callers to then have the courage to talk about those issues with their family, in a family environment. The phone-in received a great range of telephone calls from teenagers, some obviously through parents and grandparents. A number of people rang in to give drug activity information for referral to police. Those were referred to Waverley police station. Without going into detail, over that period the phone-in received a huge range of information. Some information was provided in written form, while other information was provided over the telephone. This exercise satisfied our original objective. I want to thank a number of people who participated in this joint venture. They included Rowena Shirley and Lewis Rangott from my electorate office. Shirley Provera and James Freeman assisted. One of counsellors was Rachel Newhouse, who was not only heavily involved in the planning of the exercise but did most of the counselling. Others were Major Brian Watters from the Salvation Army; Dave Wilkins, Greg Heath, Garth Popple from We Help Ourselves; Tom Henderson-Brooks from St Andrews Bondi Beach; and Rabbi Mendel Kastel from the Great Synagogue. Telstra gave us a hand by providing a couple of extra lines. I hope that the cost of those services prove to be heavily discounted when I get the bill next week. We will, no doubt, consider doing this exercise again next year. I think we will reduce its duration from three to two days. We will reduce the hours of the call-in, so that they will be from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., instead of from 8 a.m. to 11 p.m. This phone-in provided a genuine service to the community. We can also use the exercise to promote other counselling lines that are available throughout the community but are not generally known about. Honourable members should seriously consider conducting this exercise in their electorates. It really promotes discussion within the electorate and it promotes our main objective—to get families talking about the drug issue and, if possible, doing something about it to support anyone in difficulty. We were fortunate in that the national drug strategy released its booklet the week we were doing the phone-in. Those booklets arrived in the community a few days beforehand, and that helped to promote the whole idea. We have learned from this exercise that we are simply not doing enough to educate people about the drug issue. As a Parliament, we should allocate funding for serious advertising to inform people about the dangers of drugs—especially marijuana—and to inform them about the treatment that is available. The message 5 April 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13373 is very clear: This Parliament is simply not allocating enough money to provide treatment places throughout New South Wales. DEATH OF VINCENT JOSEPH MARTIN, A FORMER MEMBER OF FEDERAL PARLIAMENT

Ms ANDREWS (Peats) [5.50 p.m.]: It is with much sadness that I pay tribute today to Vince Martin— a great Labor Party stalwart and a former Federal member of Parliament. Vince passed away at Woy Woy on 10 March after a long battle with cancer. To his wife, Jean, and his family I extend my deepest sympathy on the passing of a truly remarkable Australian. Vincent Joseph Martin served as the member for Banks from 1969 to 1980. Vince was born on 14 May 1920 to Joe and Elsie Martin. He had two brothers—Jack, who died a few years ago, and his younger brother, Paul, who now resides at Brisbane but who was at his brother's thanksgiving mass.

Vince obtained his intermediate certificate at Marist Brothers Darlinghurst, leaving school at 14½ years of age. There were strong family ties with this school, which was affectionately known as Darlo. Vince's father also attended Darlo. Two of Vince's sons, Tim and Greg, also attended that school. Vince entered the State public service and eventually worked his way into the taxation department, becoming a Commonwealth public servant when the Commonwealth Government took over the taxation department during the Second World War. Vince was responsible for establishing a credit union for taxation department employees and he remained a strong advocate for the credit union movement throughout his life.

Vince came from a strong Labor Party background. Therefore it seemed only natural to him, after joining the work force, to become a union member and take out membership in the Australian Labor Party. Vince was secretary of the Panania branch of the Australian Labor Party from 1949 and he remained in that position for over 20 years. Throughout his adult life and right up to his last days Vince held a number of honorary positions within the Labor Party. In 1968 Vince won preselection for the Federal seat of Banks and in 1969 he was elected to the House of Representatives. The highlight of Vince's political career was being a member of government when Gough Whitlam was Prime Minister.

During his term as member for Banks, Vince faced many preselection battles. They ended in 1980 when Vince lost a very close preselection. During his term in the House of Representatives Vince held the prestigious offices of Chairman of Committees and Deputy-Speaker. Having had the opportunity to get to know Vince well over latter years I firmly believe that he would have represented the constituents in his electorate very well. I am sure that Vince would have left no stone unturned to assist anyone who came to him for help. He never lost his concern for those in our community who were not so well off or who relied on people like him to take up issues on their behalf.

When I was elected the member for Peats in 1995 Vince was a tower of strength to me and he remained a tower of strength right up to the very end. He willingly took on the position of President of the Peats SEC. During that time he managed to consolidate the ALP branches within the electorate and he always allowed delegates to speak their minds. I was appreciative of Vince's support and advice, which I always found to be sound and responsible. As an indication of the high respect in which Vince's colleagues held him, Paul Keating, former Prime Minister of Australia, paid his last respects at Vince's thanksgiving mass, which was held at St John the Baptist Catholic Church, Woy Woy, on 15 March 2001.

Among the many mourners on that day were a number of retired and present Federal and State parliamentarians. They included Les Johnson, a former Federal Labor Minister; Leo Macleay, a former Speaker and the current member for Watson; and Daryl Melham, the current member for Banks. State Parliamentarians included Kevin Stewart, a former Minister for Health; John Della Bosca, Special Minister of State; Pat Rogan, a former member for East Hills; and Kevin Greene, the member for Georges River. A large number of rank and file members of local branches of the Australian Labor Party also attended his funeral.

During his years at Woy Woy Vince was an active member of the Woy Woy branch, holding a number of positions within that branch. He always worked tirelessly during every campaign on behalf of ALP candidates. Also among the mourners was Vince's long-serving electorate office secretary, Kath Creighton. I understand that Vince asked his family to include me in his thanksgiving mass. I therefore had the honour of reading the second reading, which was taken from the second letter of Paul to Timothy. The reading included the following words:

I have fought the good fight to the end; I have run the race to the finish; I have kept the faith; all there is to come now is the crown of righteousness reserved for me … 13374 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 April 2001

I believe that that reading epitomises Vince's attitude to his entire life. He was a man of deep religious belief and he never strayed from his Catholic faith. He devoted many years of his life to the St Vincent de Paul Society and in that way he helped those people less fortunate than himself. The mass of thanksgiving had a strong Labor theme to it. In fact, a sentimental touch was the rendition of the theme music for the True Believers—Gustav Holst's Opus The Planets—during the quiet periods of the service. Vince married Jean Phillips on Jean's twenty- first birthday, 8 November 1941. Unfortunately, Jean and Vince did not make their sixtieth anniversary, but all in all, 59 years was not a bad innings Vale Vince Martin. [Time expired.]

Mr FACE (Charlestown—Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development) [5.55 p.m.]: I thank the honourable member for Peats for bringing to the attention of the House tonight the passing of Vince Martin. Vince made a major contribution to community and public life, especially in the Bankstown area. I got to know Vince through my relationship with his great friend, Vince Durack. I also know Kevin Stewart, who was one of the many mourners. Whilst I did not know Vince all that well during his time in the Federal Parliament, I got to know him in recent years because of two things. First was his lifelong contribution to St Vincent de Paul, in which he played a major role in Sydney, in the Bankstown area and on the Central Coast. Second was Vince's other love, the registered clubs industry.

Vince was not backward in coming forward. From time to time he would give me advice about what should or should not be done for the future of that industry. Vince had an interest in the industry and he made a contribution to it. He brought issues to my attention because of that interest. Many people attended the thanksgiving mass, including Les Johnson, of whom I was speaking only the other day. That attendance was a testament of the way in which Vince was respected by both his Federal and State colleagues. Like the honourable member for Peats, I extend my condolences to his family. Vince made a tremendous contribution both in public life and in the community generally.

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

Mr R. H. L. SMITH (Bega) [5.57 p.m.]: Tonight I speak about a subject that is near to the hearts of all members of Parliament: the safety of our children. In February this year a tragic accident occurred just north of my electorate. A 15-year-old boy was killed and several other school students were injured when the school bus in which they were passengers was hit by an oncoming vehicle. The vehicle that collided with the school bus impacted midway down the driver's side of the bus, dislodging the fuel tank and causing the bus to flip onto its side. The bus travelled a short distance in this position before coming to rest across the Princes Highway, blocking traffic in both directions.

Many of the children who were travelling on that bus when this tragedy occurred are still traumatised and have trouble boarding their bus to school every morning, remembering full well that their friend was killed and that that could happen to anyone. The accident to which I am referring occurred at Wandandian, which is near Milton on the South Coast of New South Wales. The tragic and sudden death of a fine young athlete and outstanding student shocked the close community, so much so that I have been inundated with calls and letters urging me to bring these matters to the attention of the Carr Government.

This school bus, like most school buses, was not fitted with seat belts. Children were tossed about like scraps of paper inside the bus when the impact occurred. Some children said they were airborne. Under present government policy, primary school children are allowed to sit three to a seat, which is made to take two, and they are allowed to stand in the aisles so long as the bus does not travel at more than 80 kilometres an hour. The practice of overcrowding on school buses must stop. We must look after our most precious resource. By law we must wear seat belts when we travel by private car, yet we crowd hundreds of children into school buses five days a week and simply hope for the best. In 1994 the New South Wales Parliament Staysafe committee, of which I am a member, released report No. 26 on its inquiry into passengers entering and leaving school buses and the safety of areas surrounding school bus stops, which statistically are where most accidents happen. The non-compulsory installation and wearing of seat belts together with other interior safety factors on school buses is leaving a disaster waiting to happen. In 1996 the Department of Transport engaged an independent safety consultant to examine the aspect of child passengers standing in school buses. The report estimated that the elimination of standing passengers would add approximately $140 million a year to the cost of the school student transport scheme. What price do we put on the life of a child? If your child were killed, would you be happy with this ruling? It is ludicrous to suggest that it is all right for children to ride standing in school buses as long as the bus travels at only 80 kilometres an hour. 5 April 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13375

It is all very well to say that the bus driver has better control travelling at 80 kilometres an hour, but what good is that when the vehicle heading straight towards it is catapulting out of control? It must be remembered that on country roads the speed is 100 kilometres an hour, which presents a totally different situation to a school bus travelling in a built-up area at 60 kilometres an hour. At present we put the safety of schoolchildren travelling on school buses down to good luck. We put our children on school buses every morning, kiss them goodbye and just hope that nothing happens. I urge the Premier to instruct the Staysafe committee to inquire into all aspects of school student transport in New South Wales with particular emphasis on the interior safety of buses through the compulsory installation and wearing of seat belts, as is the case with private motor vehicles and coaches, and the scrapping of the policy allowing three primary school children to occupy a school bus seat designed for two.

CHARLESTOWN INFANTS SCHOOL SITE

Mr FACE (Charlestown—Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development) [6.02 p.m.]: I raise a matter concerning educational facilities within the Charlestown electorate. I have conveyed my concerns on this issue to the Minister for Education and Training, who I am sure will take them on board as well as those of the community. However, I must bring those concerns to public notice because of pressure being applied on me from various directions about the future of the Charlestown infants school site, as it is known. This site has been vacant for many years as a consequence of the shrinkage in school population following the building of a host of other schools in the Charlestown area in the early 1960s. Additional schools were constructed during that era because of the burgeoning population and the belief—albeit a mistaken belief—of the area director of education at that time, a person by the name of Gelfus, that all children should be able to walk to school. That was an admirable thought, but over the last decade and a half a host of schools in my electorate have become half empty of students. That problem has been rectified to some extent through urban consolidation and various community changes. Nevertheless, the old infants school site will not be used in any shape or form as an educational facility. The infants school was consolidated with the primary school and that facility will suffice the needs of the student population for a long time. Therein lies the problem: the infants school site must be disposed of. For several years it has remained dormant, although it has been used by the area office with the knowledge that part of the site would be sold eventually, but Lake Macquarie City Council and the Department of Education and Training could not agree on the sale. Therefore, at present the site is occupied by an area office of Education that does not represent the area where the Education area is physically located. I understand the area education superintendent for that area desires to move the office to a location more conducive to attending to all the schools she presides over. I have no argument with that proposal and now request that the entire site be scoped for sale so that the council can acquire a valuable site for several reasons, one of which is to provide a new youth centre in the area together with other ancillary facilities. Whether the department wants to sell off other parts of the site by negotiation, as was put to it recently by another body in Charlestown that would seek to release other development sites, is probably an academic argument at this stage. I am somewhat disgusted with the community reaction as I had received money to construct, for the young people of my electorate, a skateboard facility to be erected on this site if it had been acquired by the council. The question of selling the land has been ongoing for several years and the funds that were provided to erect the skateboard facility have been retrieved. So often we hear community outcry about young people being on the street because they have no facilities to keep them occupied, yet when I received money from the Minister for Sport and Recreation to provide this skateboard facility, to my amazement everybody said, "I don't want it near my place." The skateboard site could be near the swimming pool, the bowling club, tennis courts and every other site rejected, but now the young people of Charlestown electorate will not be able to participate in skateboarding. They will continue to congregate in the mall, to the annoyance of many people. Therefore, that factor alone presents an important reason to resolve the future of the infants school site. This matter needs to be addressed urgently. Under the current arrangement with the Minister for Education and Training and Treasury, some of the proceeds from the sale of the infants school site could be put towards the redevelopment of what is now an infant-primary school site, which for many years was a primary school site, and reduce the debt on its school hall. The proceeds could be used also for other education facilities within the Hunter region. Recently I convened a meeting with education authorities, the council and the department's property office, during which I believe meaningful dialogue took place. I hope we receive an easy and expeditious result to this long-standing problem. [Time expired.] WARRINGAH COUNCIL FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITIES 13376 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 April 2001

Mr BARR (Manly) [6.07 p.m.]: I have raised in this House on previous occasions the concerns of my constituents about the activities of Warringah Council. I regret to say that concerns remain and I am approached constantly by residents of my electorate who are upset by the council's goings-on. As the Minister for Local Government brought to the attention of this House some months ago, Warringah Council has experienced severe financial difficulties. In November last year the Minister revealed that the council had an operating deficit of $11 million following a 22 per cent blowout in expenses from $76 million to $92 million. Warringah Council did not have enough cash reserves to cover possible retirement of staff. This situation has generated significant media attention.

Less attention has been directed to the manner in which Warringah Council dealt with its financial situation. After shuffling the figures the debt apparently has been reduced, but the council is still left with a large hole in its budget. As part of its cost cutting it is reducing community services. Council cuts in the name of budgetary restraint have included the closure of the Harbord community library for a measly saving of $11,000, the planned dismantling of 38 children's playgrounds to avoid maintenance costs and the closure of Kiah Child Care Centre. There has also been niggardly penny pinching extending to the council resolving to take general revenue of around $25,000 in funds that were raised by the North Balgowlah Community Centre to upgrade its hall. Serious questions are being raised also about the administration of the council's sports fields rectification levy, for which four different sets of figures have been provided.

Despite this apparent desperation for funds, Warringah has recently renewed its policy of providing one of the lowest section 94 levies in Sydney. Residential and commercial developers pay negligible amounts towards the cost of open space, roads and other infrastructure and services associated with their developments. Last year's comparative indicators show that Warringah has a non-rate income that is less than a tenth of the average for councils of its type. Most outrageously, despite the budget black hole, Warringah continues with plans to spend $10 million upgrading its civic centre. Council partly argues for the upgrading because of the bad land deal that saw the council sell off an office building called the Cameron Building for a low price and for the past two years the council has been leasing it back from the new owners. Council now claims that this situation is not suitable and wants to centralise all its staff in one place.

The civic centre plans include a child care centre, which is meant to replace the Kiah centre. The relocation of the child care places is a potential three-card monte—it allows council both to sell off some valuable real estate and to use the section 94 funds for the construction of the new building. The few new child care places gained will work out to cost up to $450,000 per place. Even these are placed in doubt by plans for the new centre specifying that it must be designed so as to be easily converted to offices. The people of Warringah are naturally suspicious that child care places are being used as a pawn in a complex game with the main aim of financing more office space for the council. In the face of its financial difficulties, council is also persisting with expensive projects that are opposed by the community, such as the hard surfacing of netball courts at John Fisher Park. This plan, which is to cost council $814,000, was subject to community consultation by consultants from a firm called ERM.

In all, 367 submissions were received opposing the development, four were received indicating conditional or unconditional support for it, and legal advice was provided in favour of both arguments. After five months of delay the consultant's report has now been released and nobody is surprised it overrides the clear wishes of the community and supports the council's preferred option of developing the park. I could go into great detail about the manifest flaws of this report but time unfortunately does not allow it. Warringah Council is at odds with its community. The budget black hole has been used as an excuse to cut community services and to manipulate council funds, while pet development projects like the civic centre and the development of John Fisher Park continue unabated. I call upon the Minister for Local Government to maintain his close monitoring of the council.

Mr FACE (Charlestown—Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development) [6.11 p.m.]: I will refer the comments of the honourable member for Manly to the Minister for Local Government. As the honourable member said, the Minister is monitoring the council and what the honourable member has raised tonight will be of assistance to him.

Private members' statements noted.

House adjourned at 6.12 p.m. until Tuesday 10 April 2001 at 2.15 p.m. ______