1188

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Wednesday 10 April 2002 ______

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

The President offered the Prayers.

APPROPRIATION (BUDGET VARIATIONS) BILL

RACING LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (BOOKMAKERS) BILL

Bills received.

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

Motion by the Hon. Michael Egan agreed to:

That the bills be read a first time and printed, standing orders be suspended on contingent notice for remaining stages, and the second reading of the bills be set down as orders of the day for the next sitting day.

Bills read a first time.

COMMITTEE ON THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION

Membership

The President reported the receipt of the following message from the Legislative Assembly:

MADAM PRESIDENT

The Legislative Assembly informs the Legislative Council that it has this day agreed to the following resolution—

That Barry Robert O'Farrell be appointed to serve on the Committee on the Independent Commission Against Corruption in place of Michael John Richardson, discharged.

Legislative Assembly JOHN MURRAY 9 April 2002 Speaker

REGULATION REVIEW COMMITTEE

Membership

The President reported the receipt of the following message from the Legislative Assembly:

MADAM PRESIDENT

The Legislative Assembly informs the Legislative Council that it has this day agreed to the following resolution—

That Kerry Arthur Hickey be appointed to serve on the Regulation Review Committee in place of Graham James West, discharged.

Legislative Assembly JOHN MURRAY 9 April 2002 Speaker STANDING COMMITTEE ON STATE DEVELOPMENT Extension of Reporting Dates Motion by the Hon. Michael Egan agreed to:

That the reporting date for the reference to the Standing Committee on State Development relating to Local Government Boundary Changes in Inner Sydney and Eastern Suburbs be extended to Friday 10 May 2002. 10 April 2002 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1189

Motion by the Hon. Michael Egan agreed to:

That the reporting date for the reference to the Standing Committee on State Development relating to Rhodes Peninsula be extended to Friday 31 May 2002.

TABLING OF PAPERS

The Hon. Carmel Tebbutt tabled the following papers:

Law Reform Commission Act 1967—Report of the Law Reform Commission for the year ended 30 June 2001 Legal Profession Act 1987—Report of the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner for the year ended 30 June 2001

Ordered to be printed.

BILLS UNPROCLAIMED

The Hon. Carmel Tebbutt, according to sessional order, tabled a list of all legislation not proclaimed 90 calendar days after assent as at 9 April 2002.

PETITIONS

Local Government Boundary Changes

Petition praying that the House conduct a public inquiry into the proposed local government boundary changes and ensure that a plebiscite takes place before any boundary changes are made, received from the Hon. Duncan Gay.

Stem Cell Research

Petition praying that the House support adult stem cell research and oppose the creation and use of embryos for stem cell extraction, received from the Hon. Duncan Gay.

Freedom of Religion

Petition praying that the House reject proposals to reform the Anti-Discrimination Act that would detract from the exercise of freedom of religion, received from Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS UNDER STANDING ORDER 18

Debate resumed from 9 April.

The PRESIDENT: I will now hear debate on the point of order taken by the Minister on 19 March.

The Hon. JOHN JOBLING [11.13 a.m.]: Madam President, thank you for taking the course of action you did and for allowing the House to debate this matter. As the Presiding Officer, it is imperative that you ensure that all the facts are before the House when you consider the point of order. The obtaining of an opinion is an important first step for members to consider the matter. We note that on this occasion an opinion has been obtained from Mr Knight, the Crown Solicitor. In considering the application of Standing Orders 18 and 19 the House must deal with a number of matters. The application of the standing orders was put forward by way of a point of order taken by the Leader of the House. The opinion that is before the House is just that: an opinion. It is the opinion of a learned person, but at this stage it is no more than an opinion relating to the application of certain standing orders.

Standing Order 19 is very unusual. My research indicates that in the past 100 years that standing order has been used by this House on only two occasions to seek the production of papers. The first of those occasions was in 1905, when the House sought to have tabled all papers relating to the case of an imprisoned female child. The second occasion was in 1947 and 1948, when the House called for papers relating to the release from prison of Clifford Tasman Thompson. It is therefore apparent that the use of Standing Order 19 is quite unusual and that it is not called upon in haste. In his advice the Crown Solicitor notes that Standing Order 19 provides: 1190 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 April 2002

The production of Papers concerning the Royal Prerogative, or of Despatches or other Correspondence addressed to or emanating from His Excellency the Governor, or having reference to the Administration of Justice, shall be asked for only by Address to the Governor.

The question to be asked is: What does Standing Order 19 mean? The House has an opinion before it that canvasses a number of issues but does not specifically draw what I believe to be firm conclusions. On the last occasion on which the Crown Solicitor offered advice to this House it was based on an 1842 opinion expressed in Tasmania. That advice was used by the current Leader of the House as the basis of the argument for non- production of papers. The advice was tested as an opinion—and I again stress that it was in opinion—in the case of Egan v. Willis, Evans, Cahill and Ors. Three courts found that the opinion was not correct, that it was flawed by reason of the passage of time and the many events that had transpired since the advice was provided.

It is clear from the advice that the Crown Solicitor encountered a number of problems. He considers the application of Standing Order 19, and then deals with Standing Order 134, setting out the procedure by which an address to the Governor may be made. He also states that Standing Order 18, by contrast, provides that any papers may be ordered to be laid before the House and that the Clerk shall communicate any such order to the Premier's Department.

The matter to be considered by this House is the interpretation of Standing Orders 18 and 19. In his advice the Crown Solicitor indicates that he found very little assistance in the historical material relating to Standing Order 19. The Crown Solicitor obviously had limited time to consider the matter, and therefore when considering his opinion one must question the depth of his research and whether the conclusions he draws are correct.

When the Crown Solicitor refers to having not revealed an equivalent standing order for the Legislative Council in the compilation published in New South Wales Parliament in 1868, he is going back a fair way. He makes reference to Standing Order 26 and the order for papers to be communicated to the Colonial Secretary— which rather dates the validity of the historical record in this case. In his advising to us he concludes that Standing Order 19 appeared in the standing orders approved in 1895 and has remained in that form since then. As I said earlier, Standing Order 19 has, to my knowledge, been used only twice in the past 100 years. In his advising the Crown Solicitor indicates there is no equivalent of Standing Order 19 in the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly. Be that as it may, each House is a sovereign House, so no conclusion can be drawn from that fact. He says:

There appears to be no precise equivalent in other jurisdictions, material requested by Address being restricted to matters relating to the Prerogative except in the Legislative Council in South Australia, which refers to both the Royal Prerogative and to Despatches and Correspondence.

So, we are dealing with a standing order that is unique to this House. Therefore a great deal of care must be taken in the interpretation and understanding of that standing order and how it is to be applied. References are made in paragraph 3.2 of the advice to a quotation from the fourth edition of Erskine May, a somewhat dated volume, having been published in 1859, dealing with a practical treatise on the law, privileges, proceedings and the usage of Parliament. That edition of Erskine May states:

PARLIAMENT, in the exercise of its various functions, is invested with the power of ordering all documents to be laid before it, which are necessary for its information. Each house enjoys this authority separately, but not in all cases independently of the Crown.

It then refers to trade, finance, general and local matters, ordered directly or indirectly, and states that certain other matters in the exercise of the royal prerogative are obtained by addresses to the Crown. When one looks at the distinction between the two classes of returns, it seems from the advising that the principle is not always clear. This is indicated by the Crown Solicitor in his advising to the House. The question then is whether it applies to Treasury or whether it applies to matters that are to receive their orders from the Crown.

A great deal of the advising contains references to matters that—while they applied to the English system at a time when that version of Erskine May was written—have no application in the New South Wales Parliament and the Legislative Council in particular. References to returns from the Commissioner of Customs and of Inland Revenue, the Post Office and the Board of Trade would be perceived to affect the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth Government. Therefore, one must exercise a deal of care when reading and extracting from parts of this advising. Paragraph 3.3 refers to the administration of justice, which falls within Erskine May's description of matters for which addresses were required. It deals then with the addition to the administration of justice, the 10 April 2002 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1191

presentation of treaties to foreign powers and the despatches to and from governors of the colonies. Again, I suspect quite reasonably that these are of a Federal nature and do not affect the matter that comes before us under Standing Order 19 as applied in the Legislative Council of New South Wales. It is interesting that paragraph 3.4 of the advising sets out the difficulty that confronted the Crown Solicitor, Mr Knight. He says:

It is not entirely apparent to me, in the time available, the basis for the distinction drawn by Erskine May in the second paragraph of the passage—

That is quoted in paragraph 3.3 of the advising. The matter is unclear and we have not received clear and unequivocal advice as to the interpretation and meaning. The Crown Solicitor goes on to argue in paragraph 3.5 the context of Standing Order 19 under three categories of paper. This begins to make the matter even more difficult. The words used by the Crown Solicitor are:

It does not appear to me that there is any class to be derived from those three categories.

He goes on to say:

The phrase "Administration of Justice" does not appear to have been considered in the context of Standing Order 19.

That is an important statement. This is a very old standing order. Times have changed. Clearly the words "[it] does not appear to have been considered in the context of Standing Order 19" raise the question of whether one can accept the advising without question or whether the advising should be further questioned and the matters further considered. In a moment I will put to the House a proposition that may assist us in resolving this matter.

In paragraph 3.7 and particularly in paragraph 3.8 a deal of references are made to Kalick. Various views are cited from Chief Justice Mason and Justices Brennan, Toohey, Deane and McHugh showing that the action taken to prevent the institution of a prosecution is as much an interference with or an impairment of the administration of justice. This is then discussed at further length, and they come to some conclusions that raise the question of precisely how this matter fits in with Standing Order 19 and its application in this House.

I contend that that submission deals more with perverting the course of justice by interfering with a police investigation. Some of the conclusions drawn do not affect what we have to consider today. When looking at this opinion one has to conclude whether the arguments are based on proposed or existing actions and whether seeking papers after the event falls into affecting the administration of justice. It seems to me that it probably does not. The reference by Justice McHugh in relation to Rogerson that is quoted in paragraph 3.10 deals with making a full statement to an officer. It states briefly:

Nor without more is it an offence at common law to make a false statement to an officer of the law in the course of an investigation into an actual or suspected crime. The cases and textbooks to which the Full Court referred to in Todd and such additional material, as I have examined myself, give no support for a contrary conclusion.

The interesting part is the next sentence:

The absence of any contrary statement, prior to the twentieth century, in reported cases …

Again, I suggest that the law, its interpretation and the role and actions of Parliament have changed considerably since the nineteenth century. Therefore I urge great caution in relying on matters that are being quoted from the nineteenth century. Again I draw attention to the opinion that was offered to us and relied upon and which proved not to be so in the case of Egan v Willis and Cahill and Ors. One then comes to a matter of language, which is discussed in paragraph 3.13 of the advising. In relation to the administration of justice, paragraph 3.13 states:

Unlike the other two categories referred to in Standing Order 19, the Papers must be Papers "having reference to" Administration of Justice, not Papers "concerning" the Administration of Justice. As a matter of language, a Paper could "have reference" to a topic but not "concern" it. Potentially, then, Papers might "have reference to" the administration of justice even though they do not "concern" it. However, I suspect in substance there is little difference in the two expressions …

Madam President, I know you are well aware that suspicions that papers may "have reference to" or may "concern" the administration of justice and the substance that there is little difference between the two expressions is a narrow premise on which to draw a conclusion or to base evidence. Therefore, I contend that great care must be taken when relying on the opinion offered, in view of the opinions proffered to us about the doubts raised in paragraph 3.13. In paragraph 3.14 the Crown Solicitor states:

There are, I think, several potential interpretations of the phrase "having reference to the Administration of Justice". 1192 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 April 2002

He then proceeds to explain two views. He expresses the first view as what he calls a narrow view of a paper, and then expresses a broader view of the paper and deals with how he perceives those views. He argues at some length for both cases. However, at the end of the day I contend that there is no valid, clear conclusion on which I suggest, with deference, you could confidently base your opinion or make a determination. It is extremely unclear. In paragraph 3.15 the Crown Solicitor states:

It is apparent, however, that not all material dealing with the detection and punishment of offences will relate to the administration of justice. As described in Rogerson, material touching upon or concerning police investigations will not necessarily relate to the administration of justice.

Again, we have a conundrum in determining what material is acceptable, what material is not acceptable and precisely how we determine those matters. It is not clearly understood, and no explanation can be found, as to the intent of Standing Order 19 from 1856, or even later in the 1890s. That matter is critical. The Crown Solicitor's points in paragraph 3.17 are reasonably telling. The paragraph states:

I have not seen the Papers which may be included in the categories of papers sought by the proposed motion.

That must qualify any opinion that comes before this House because without having seen the papers it is difficult to identify the problem. Therefore, any advising is based on an assumption without knowledge of the exact facts and without an examination to assure the advising person that the advice is sound. So paragraph 3.17 raises a number of questions. In the advice the Crown Solicitor deals with a number of matters in the transcript. I note his comment that the transcript is in fact a public document. Indeed, he questions whether it is necessary for the transcript to be the subject of a call for production. Obviously, there is no valid reason that the transcript referred to in paragraph 9 should not be produced. It is important to note that the Crown Solicitor concludes that two views exist, and there is no clear resolution as to which view is in fact correct. Under "Conclusions" the Crown Solicitor makes four dot points. Although the points are strongly qualified, they are not of a strong and clear nature. That leads to the question of whether we can rely on the conclusions in the advice. I am pleased that we have obtained at least the Crown Solicitor's advising. However, in the interests of the House, of future determinations and of what honourable members will draw from any rulings Madam President may choose to make—I know Madam President will consider that the rulings she makes will be made on behalf of all members of this House—on the role and interpretation of Standing Order 19 relating to the Legislative Council and the members therein, it is important to obtain a second opinion. If the meaning of Standing Order 19 cannot be clearly understood by either a broad or a narrow interpretation, it may be unwise for Madam President to rely on only one advising. It would be wise for Madam President to obtain a second opinion. To that end, I contend that Madam President should consider not ruling on the point of order today. Instead, she should obtain a second opinion from Senior Counsel Bret Walker, who was the adviser to the House in the case of Egan v Willis and Cahill. He is familiar with the roles and performance of this House. In the interests of fairness and correctness, I hope that Madam President will seriously consider that option and choose to take that course. As I have pointed out on a number of occasions in this debate on the point of order, serious errors were made in the past. The advising was found to be incorrect. The Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal and the High Court upheld the view of the Parliament as opposed to the advising given to the House at that time. Bret Walker is a learned gentleman who is equally familiar with how the Legislative Council operates, and I earnestly entreat Madam President to consider seriously my request to obtain a second opinion. The question is: Where do we go from here, and what other options are available to us? I can find no reason whatever for the matters referred to in paragraphs 1 to 5 of the Crown Solicitor's advice not to be dealt with under Standing Order 18. In my opinion they do not relate to the administration of justice but, in fact, to the administration of the Department of Corrective Services. I contend that the matters referred to in paragraph 6 relate to administration within the Department of Gaming and Racing. If the advising we have received is correct, the matters referred to in paragraphs 7 and 8 might well fall within Standing Order 19. We will determine that matter shortly. I believe that the transcript referred to in paragraph 9 is already in the public arena and, therefore, might reasonably be requested under Standing Order 18.I do not believe paragraph 10 falls within the administration and could well be dealt with under Standing Order 18. I perceive paragraph 11 to relate to a matter under the local government administration. Paragraphs 6 and 12 fall within and relate to the administration of gaming and racing. If one were to accept our advice, it might well be argued that paragraph 13 pertains to paragraph 19 but I would not necessarily agree with that. I note further, in clarification of paragraph 10, that there is no problem in obtaining the material in paragraph 10 under Standing Order 18. I can understand that there will probably be an argument that it falls under Standing Order 19, but in view of our advice it is clear that the distinction is an artificial one. 10 April 2002 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1193

Having dealt with the various matters of possible contention that perhaps were referred to in the Treasurer's point of order, it would seem to me that as well as obtaining a second opinion as suggested by Madam President, the matter might also be referred to the Standing Committee on Law and Justice with the two opinions. It is important to clearly understand what this very ancient and very infrequently used standing order means. The committee should take a considered view and advise the Parliament on how it believes Standing Order 19 should operate so that we can debate the matter and will not be in this position in the future. That seems to be eminently sensible. When the Parliament accepts that, the matter will be referred to the Standing Orders Committee to redraft Standing Order 19, if that is the will of the Parliament, and, if need be, give an interpretation of how Standing Order 19 applies.

In conclusion, it is our contention, based on the examination of the advice presented to us by Mr Knight, Crown Solicitor, and looking at our notice, that there is nothing in the notice and requests tabled in this House as item 60 by the Leader of the Opposition that calls on or impinges on the administration of justice as referred to in Standing Order 19. We contend, therefore, that the notice is in order and should proceed accordingly. I request that Madam President look at a second opinion and consider referring the matter to the Standing Committee on Law and Justice. I commend the notice and oppose the point of order.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [11.43 a.m.]: In relation to the suggestion by the Hon. John Jobling of obtaining a second opinion, I have made inquiries about whether that should be in the form of a briefing paper by the Clerks, which would be helpful. But on further consideration I believe it should be an opinion by, for example, Mr Bret Walker, SC, who was of great assistance to the House on a previous occasion. There is no doubt that it is a major problem that there are no precedents for the operation of Standing Order 19, but that does not mean it is invalid or should be scrapped. There must have been some wisdom in the drafting of Standing Order 19 in 1895. If other Parliaments do not have that standing order they may not have the wisdom that members of the Legislative Council had in 1895. Standing Order 19 provides:

The production of Papers concerning the Royal Prerogative, or of Dispatches or other Correspondence addressed to or emanating from His Excellency the Governor, or having reference to the Administration of Justice, shall be asked for only by Address to the Governor.

I am sure that honourable members would not want to deliberately embarrass or create tension for the Governor, so a second advice could be very important before we take any action. I support the proposition of the Opposition.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS [11.46 a.m.]: There are some matters in this debate that are fairly clear. The first is that this debate relates to a point of order that was taken by the Leader of the Government in relation to a notice of motion item 60 on the business paper moved by the Leader of the Opposition seeking production of various papers. What currently confronts us is the need for a ruling as to whether that motion is valid in part or in whole, or whether it is invalid. It is also clear that the two relevant standing orders of this House are, Standing Order 18, which allows this House to demand production of these papers by its own motion, and Standing Order 19, which refers to documents "concerning the Royal Prerogative, or of Despatches or other Correspondence addressed to or emanating from His Excellency the Governor, or having reference to the Administration of Justice, shall be asked for only by Address to the Governor". There being two rules that still exist and operate in terms of the functioning of this House, it is necessary to give some function to both of them. They do not exist for no purpose whatsoever.

As the Hon. John Jobling stated, it is true that this is an old rule. In fact, it is not a rule that is replicated in many other jurisdictions but the fact is it is still there. Because it is there, it may be necessary to go back to old rulings and old descriptions in order to ascertain its true meaning. The Hon. John Jobling raised a point that may have some force as to whether it is appropriate to have Standing Order 19, but that is not the issue: the issue is what does it mean? Notwithstanding the fact that the Hon. John Jobling criticised the reference to Erskine May's Practical Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, Fourth Edition, 1859, it provides considerable guidance about the purpose of the rule. If the extract at paragraph 3.2 of the advice is read, it is clear that the purpose is to distinguish between those functions where Parliament can seek the documents directly and those that are in the special prerogative of the Sovereign, the administration of justice being one. Paragraph 3.2 states:

PARLIAMENT, in the exercise of its various functions, is invested with the power of ordering all documents to be laid before it, which are necessary for its information. Each house enjoys this authority separately, but not in all cases independently of the Crown. Accounts and papers relating to trade, finance, and general or local matters, are ordered directly, and are returned in obedience to the order of the house whence it was issued; but returns of matters connected with the exercise of royal prerogative, are obtained by means of addresses to the Crown. 1194 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 April 2002

The distinction between these two classes of returns should always be borne in mind; as, on the one hand, it is irregular to order directly that which should be sought for by address; and, on the other, it is a compromise of the authority of Parliament to resort to the Crown for information, which it can obtain by its own order. The application of the principle is not always clear: but as a general rule, it may be stated that all public departments connected with the collection and management of the revenue, or which are under the control of Treasury, or are constituted or regulated by statute, may be reached by a direct order from either house of Parliament; but that public officers and departments the subject of her Majesty's secretaries of state, are to receive their orders from the Crown.

It states in the next paragraph:

Addresses are presented for treaties with foreign powers, for despatches to and from the governors of colonies, and for returns connected with the civil government, and the administration of justice. Where returns relate to the expenditure of money upon any Crown property, they are to be obtained by order and not by address.

That is the clear distinction to draw aside those matters that are within the prerogative of the Crown. The administration of justice rests with the Crown. We do not sit here and try individuals and administer justice. We pass laws and entrust courts to adjudicate in respect of individuals who may have transgressed our laws and to dispense the justice that we have entrusted the courts to administer. That being the principle, honourable members must ask themselves: Does this motion offend Standing Order 19? It is a very simple issue. We are not talking about the merits of the House getting these documents; it is simply a question of the form by which it gets the documents, whether by a direct order under Standing Order 18 or whether it has to address the Crown, bearing in mind the principle to which I have referred.

The Hon. John Jobling said he could see no objection to paragraphs 1 to 6. I would agree. Paragraphs 7 and 8, however, are a different proposition. He said those are matters to which Standing Order 19 could apply. Interestingly, the Hon. John Jobling said he would give us his view of what Standing Order 19 ought to be. But he never got that far; he only reached the point of expressing an opinion that Standing Order 19 may apply to paragraphs 7 and 8. I would agree that it does. I would invite you, Madam President, to rule those two paragraphs out of order. In relation to paragraph 9, I would agree that those matters are now matters of public record, and there ought to be no reason that they could not remain as part of the request. The Hon. John Jobling contended that paragraph 10 related to documents which did not refer to the administration of justice. Clearly, that statement cannot be taken seriously. Paragraph 10 seeks documents relating to police interviews in relation to the murder of John Newman. That clearly relates to the trial for the murder of John Newman. It falls within the Rogerson category, which has been referred to, of documents that clearly contemplate legal proceedings, which in this instance have been brought and have occurred. We would say that paragraph 10, for reasons similar to those advanced in relation to paragraphs 7 and 8, also invites a ruling that it is out of order and that the documents ought to be requested under Standing Order 19. I then move on to paragraphs 11 and 12. I would agree that those paragraphs do not offend Standing Order 19 and can, on their face, be requested under Standing Order 18. In respect of paragraph 13, the Hon. John Jobling conceded that Standing Order 19 may apply to this particular request. I would agree that it does. For that reason, a request ought properly be made under Standing Order 19. I would not contend that the remaining paragraphs—that is, paragraphs 14 to 17—breach Standing Order 19, and can remain under requests. In other words, I think we have agreement—at least implicitly on the part of the Hon. John Jobling—that paragraphs 7, 8 and 13 may offend Standing Order 19; and I will go further and say they clearly do. On paragraph 10 there is no concession, but we would say, for the reasons I have given, that it offends Standing Order 19 and ought also be ruled out of order. But, that aside, the other requests could be accommodated under Standing Order 18 and the House could in due course deliberate on the merit or otherwise of those documents being requested. For those reasons, Madam President, I would urge you to make a ruling to bring this matter to a head. The area of difference does not seem to be great. If at some other time the Hon. John Jobling wants to give a reference to the Standing Committee on Law and Justice or to some other standing committee to look at this particular issue, that matter can be dealt with independently and separately from this particular matter. The PRESIDENT: Order! I intend to rule on the point of order today. I have examined the terms of the motion and listened to the arguments put by the Hon. John Jobling, Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and the Hon. John Hatzistergos today. Given also the advice received from the Crown Solicitor, I am of the view that several paragraphs do call for papers which refer to matters affecting the administration of justice. I intend to go through each relevant paragraph and give my ruling. Paragraph 1 refers to documents provided to the Minister for Corrective Services in relation to the Chinese New Year event at Long Bay Correctional Centre. These documents do not fall within the category of 10 April 2002 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1195

administration of justice. Paragraph 2 would appear to refer to all other documents which might exist in relation to the Chinese New Year event at Long Bay Correctional Centre. These documents do not fall within the category of administration of justice. Paragraph 3 refers to the records of visitors to the prison. Unless these documents are sufficiently connected to the execution of the court's sentence to refer to the administration of justice, they do not fall within the category of administration of justice.

Paragraph 4 refers to the records of other functions attended by Phuong Ngo while in custody. These documents do not fall within the category of administration of justice. Paragraph 5 refers to the records of visitors to the prison. Unless these documents are sufficiently connected to the execution of the court's sentence to refer to the administration of justice, they do not fall within the category of administration of justice. Paragraph 6 refers to documents which relate to funding requests to the Casino Community Benefit Fund. These documents do not fall within the category of administration of justice.

Paragraph 7 refers to drug trafficking reports. To the extent that they contain material sufficiently related to prospective court proceedings, they have reference to the administration of justice, and may only be called for by Address to the Governor. Paragraph 8 refers to the full police brief of evidence for the trial of Phuong Ngo. These documents have reference to the administration of justice, and may only be called for by Address to the Governor. Paragraph 9 refers to the transcripts of all court hearings for the murder of Mr John Newman. These transcripts are publicly available and do not fall within the category of administration of justice.

Paragraph 10 refers to all records of certain police interviews in relation to the investigation of Mr Newman's murder. These documents have reference to the administration of justice, and may only be called for by Address to the Governor. Paragraph 11 refers to documents held by Fairfield Council relating to development and rezoning approvals. These documents do not fall within the category of administration of justice. Paragraph 12 refers to documents held by the Department of Gaming and Racing relating to the Mekong Club while Phuong Ngo was the director. These documents do not fall within the category of administration of justice. Paragraph 13 refers to police reports relating to Phuong Ngo's alleged gang involvement. To the extent that they contain material sufficiently related to prospective court proceedings, they have reference to the administration of justice, and may only be called for by Address to the Governor.

I therefore rule paragraphs 7, 8 10 and 13 out of order and direct the Clerk to amend the notice of motion accordingly.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

______

CENTRAL COAST TO SYDNEY FERRY SERVICE

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: There being only a small number of Ministers in the Chamber in a fairly pathetic performance by the Government, I will ask the Minister Assisting the Premier for the Central Coast a question. Will he confirm that the honourable member for Peats, Marie Andrews, in a letter to Premier Bob Carr, said that she did not want the fast ferry from Ettalong to Sydney because it would attract more conservative voters to her electorate rather than old-style Labor voters? If not, will he give an undertaking to the House to get written confirmation from the Premier that neither he nor his department has received such a letter?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The honourable Leader of the Opposition has again asked me a question about this matter in connection with fast ferries or ferry proposals for the Central Coast. I refer him to the general answer I gave yesterday for the details. I now refer to the specific issue in the question, which as far as I can gather is about rumoured or alleged correspondence between the honourable member for Peats and the Premier. The Leader of the Opposition would be aware that Ministers and honourable members are not necessarily privy to the private or electoral correspondence between other members, other Ministers and the Premier. It would not be my business to ascertain what correspondence has passed between the honourable member for Peats and the Premier. It would not be within the purview of the Parliament to be calling that type of document into this House by way of a question directed to me. I simply say to the Leader of the Opposition that I am not aware of the correspondence, and I do not intend to make myself aware of it. 1196 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 April 2002

MURRAY BASIN MINERALS EXPLORATION

The Hon. TONY KELLY: My question is to the Minister for Mineral Resources. What has been done to encourage the further development of the mineral sands deposits in the Murray Basin?

The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: I again commend my colleague the Hon. Tony Kelly, the convenor of Country Labor, for his keen interest in and support for the creation of jobs and extraction of resources in New South Wales. The development of mineral sands resources in the Murray Basin will greatly benefit New South Wales. It will create jobs and investment in the State's Far West at a time when more traditional mineral resources in this area are depleted. The New South Wales Government is keen to encourage investment in and development of mineral sands deposits. Today I advise the House of the Government's latest assistance to this fledgling industry. The New South Wales Government will reduce royalties on mineral sands production. New mineral sandmines in this State currently pay a standard royalty of 4 per cent. As part of its commitment to encourage development in the Murray Basin area, the New South Wales Government is changing the way in which the royalty is calculated. These changes mean that any royalty paid by mineral sands operators in the Murray Basin will now take into account the costs associated with expenses incurred in concentrating these minerals.

Royalties will now also better reflect transport costs, depreciation on plant and equipment and the costs of fuel and energy that are involved in refining mineral sands, and stockpiling costs. The changes also mean administration, laboratory and metallurgical expenses associated with upgrading mineral sands will be taken into account in royalty calculations. This Government initiative brings mineral sands royalties in line with most base metal mines and goldmines in this State. The New South Wales Government's support will certainly bolster the viability of the recently announced BeMaX project. It is anticipated that the Government's changes will mean that BeMaX could save $11 million during the life of the mine. This change will do much to remove the difference between the New South Wales royalties and those of South Australia and Victoria, those States having a much smaller portion of the Murray Basin of mineral sands deposits. BeMaX is leading the race to become New South Wales' first Murray Basin mineral sands producer. The company plans to spend more than $80 million developing the Gingko mine, which will create up to 100 jobs during construction. When fully operational, it is anticipated that the mine could produce 440,000 tonnes of mineral sands concentrates per year. Up to 65 new jobs will be created when the mine is operating.

A significant number of jobs will also be created in industries supporting the project, particularly in materials and product haulage to and from the mine. The region stands to benefit enormously from the direct and indirect spin-offs from this project. The New South Wales Government recognises the great benefits that this development will have for the Far West of our State. At this time I express my appreciation of the direct participation of Country Labor and particularly that of my colleague the honourable member for Murray- Darling, Peter Black, who was the driving force behind securing all the facilities that the Government could provide for the project. The Government is working with BeMaX and other companies to develop a new mineral sands industry in the State's Far West. It is appropriate to add that the bulk of the $20 million mineral sands industry is located in the State of New South Wales.

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE RESIGNATION

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Police. Why has Commissioner Peter Ryan, a man who was handpicked by this Government to reform the New South Wales Police Service, tendered his resignation? When did the Minister become aware of his decision? Does the Minister support this move?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Two days ago, Police Commissioner Peter Ryan's solicitors wrote on his behalf to the Director-General of the New South Wales Premier's Department, Dr Col Gellatly. The correspondence listed the major expectations of Commissioner Ryan's contract. He had responsibility for pursuing reform of the force through implementation of the Wood royal commission recommendations, ensuring the security of athletes, organisers and spectators of the Sydney 2000 Olympics—the best ever Olympics—and putting in place a succession plan so that a new commissioner and senior executive could be selected from the ranks of a rebuilt, reinvigorated management team. The correspondence from the commissioner's solicitors confirmed these major expectations have been substantially achieved.

Given those facts and the commissioner's previously stated intention to not seek reappointment beyond his contract, the commissioner's solicitors asked the Government to consider ending his contract and they 10 April 2002 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1197

suggested terms. The Crown Solicitor has advised the Government on the legality of this move and the process required to facilitate the commissioner's request. The Crown Solicitor has advised that it is open to the Government to mutually agree with the commissioner to end the contract, to release him from office, and to pay him an amount equivalent to 12 months remuneration. I now confirm that a deed of release was concluded today between the commissioner and the Government. We have mutually agreed to the commissioner's terms. Peter Ryan, the State's eighteenth Commissioner of Police, will leave office on 17 April. He leaves with the gratitude and respect of the State's community, which he has served with dignity and determination.

Peter Ryan will leave the force in much better shape than it was in when he took on the job of commissioner in August 1996. He led the New South Wales police force during the most turbulent and difficult time in its history. Commissioner Ryan was called upon to manage the 13,570 men and women of the force to perform their core daily function—to police crime, to rebuild morale in a work force that was demoralised by revelations of entrenched corruption, and to implement the 174 recommendations of the Wood royal commission. As commissioner, he has transformed the police force from the corruption-prone organisation it was before the Wood royal commission to one that is today more corruption resistant.

With the Government, Commissioner Ryan developed new police powers, including anti-knife powers, anti-gang measures and drug house laws. To combat police corruption after the Wood royal commission, he set up the Police Integrity Commission, a body with all the cohesive and investigative powers of a standing royal commission. Last year's Operation Florida confirms that this approach is working. The commissioner's joint investigations conducted with the Police Integrity Commission have stung corrupt police. Commissioner Ryan's co-ordination of security arrangements for the Sydney Olympic Games— [Time expired.]

MITCHELL HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT ASSAULT

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG: My question is directed to the Special Minister of State, representing the Minister for Education and Training. My question relates to an incident that took place on 13 March at Mitchell High School, a school with a good reputation. At least two young people who had no permission to be at the school entered a classroom and assaulted a student and a teacher. While school signs state that trespassers will be prosecuted, why has the school or the Department of Education and Training taken no legal action against these perpetrators? Why were teachers at the school not informed of the incident for nearly two weeks? When will a plan be drawn up by this school to deter or to deal with any future incidents? While the school's reputation is important, if action is not taken how will the school discourage further incidents of this nature?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The honourable member directed the question to me as Special Minister of State. I point out to the House and to the honourable member that the Minister for Police represents the Minister for Education and Training in this House. I am sure that the Minister for Education and Training will be happy to provide a response to the honourable member's question.

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE RESIGNATION

The Hon. RON DYER: I ask the Minister for Police a question without notice. Will the Minister indicate what are the future management arrangements following the departure of the Commissioner of Police?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The Hon. Ron Dyer has asked an important question. I hope that all honourable members remain silent as it is important for the public of New South Wales to understand the arrangements that will be put in place following the departure of our successful Commissioner of Police. Commissioner Ryan leaves the force with a succession plan he put in place—

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind members that interjections are disorderly at all times. The Minister may proceed.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Commissioner Ryan leaves the force with a plan he put in place with Senior Deputy Commissioner Moroney, Deputy Commissioner Madden and Deputy Commissioner Scipione. Ken Moroney will be appointed Acting Commissioner pending the relevant checks as part of the police promotions process. Commissioner Ryan should be rightly recorded as the man who, more than any other police commissioner, reformed policing in New South Wales. It is appropriate on this occasion that I place on the record some of Commissioner Ryan's major achievements. As I said earlier, he had responsibility for pursuing reform of the force through the implementation of the 174 Wood royal commission recommendations. 1198 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 April 2002

Commissioner Ryan continued the anti-corruption drive in the force by establishing and closely working with the Police Integrity Commission, a body with all the powers of a royal commission, and he developed new police laws, such as knife laws, anti-gun laws and anti-drug house laws. The Government will also be introducing new bail provisions, which will come before this House. He also had responsibility for developments in forensic science, including the expansion of DNA testing, and he was a major driver of the development of the national CrimTrac system. As I said earlier, Commissioner Ryan was also responsible for security at the best Olympic Games the world has ever seen. I have indicated that one of the key functions of the commissioner was to put in place a succession plan for the new management team to take over.

Over the last five months, Commissioner Ryan and I worked to introduce stage three of the restructure process. The process will ensure that we maintain support for front-line police by reducing the number of regions from eleven to five and by ensuring that the 1,000 or so regional police are moved into local area commands. All that has been done with the co-operation and support of Commissioner Ryan.

It is pleasing to note that the New South Wales police force has such depth of talent in Ken Moroney, Andrew Scipione and Dave Madden—people who will be able to take forward the Government's reform process and from 1 July achieve its desire for increased visibility of policing. I look forward to working with the new team to ensure that all projects commenced during the period of Commissioner Ryan, or the period in which I have been Minister, are completed. The New South Wales community will get a police force the likes of which it has never seen before, a police force that is corruption free, corruption resistant and that has as its objectives increased visibility and increased support for front-line police. It is appropriate that I place on the record the community's thanks to all those involved in delivering such a police force.

NEW SOUTH WALES BILL OF RIGHTS

The Hon. PETER BREEN: I am glad that we are now getting a corruption-free police force. That is a great step forward. My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer, representing the Premier. Can the Premier indicate when he will be responding to the report of the Standing Committee on Law and Justice into the issue of a bill of rights? Is it a fact that the Government would normally respond to a committee report within six months? In particular, does the Government agree with recommendation one of the bill of rights report to the effect that the Parliament establish a scrutiny of bills committee? Does the Premier agree that a scrutiny of bills committee would serve the useful purpose of providing scrutiny and analysis of private members' bills, such as the proposal of the Leader of the Opposition for a mandatory life sentence for the murder of a police officer?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I am not sure what progress has been made in the preparation of a formal response to the committee's report. I know in some cases that formal responses are prepared for committee reports. I will ascertain whether one is being prepared in relation to the recommendations regarding a bill of rights. Nevertheless, I would have thought that some of the Premier's public announcements made it very clear that the Government did not support the establishment of a bill of rights in New South Wales. I certainly support that view. I think a bill of rights has all sorts of potential minefields, not only for good government but also for the rights of citizens. However, I will take the honourable member's question on board and obtain a response from the Premier.

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE RESIGNATION

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Police. If Commissioner Ryan is as good as the Minister indicated to this House, why has the Minister used taxpayers' money to pay him to go? Why did the Minister not get on his knees and beg him to stay? Will the Minister tell the House how much this dirty deal has cost the taxpayers of New South Wales? We need the total cost to the Government to get rid of Bob Carr's personally chosen man. Will the Minister provide those details to the House now? Will he also provide details of what Commissioner Ryan asked for? The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I welcome the honourable member's question. I do not welcome the structure of the question but I think there was a sensible point underlying the question, which was: Is the public of New South Wales entitled to understand the process involved in the appointment of the most successful commissioner that this State has ever had? The Hon. Duncan Gay: And costs.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: And costs. I am happy to table all the documents associated with that. 10 April 2002 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1199

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Will you table them in the afternoon?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I will table them as soon as they are available, and not at the convenience of the Leader of the Opposition. Having said that, it gives me an opportunity to respond to the second part of the honourable member's question, which is why the commissioner decided to seek other enjoyment in life. As I said in my initial statement, the commissioner approached the Government about this matter; it was not the other way around. Clearly, the commissioner decided to resign after nearly six years in a difficult job. I do not think anyone would deny that, post the Wood royal commission, Commissioner Ryan has had one of the most difficult jobs in handling one of the largest police forces in the world. It was Commissioner Ryan's decision to resign. We respect that decision, and the Government wishes him well in all his future endeavours.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind members that interjections are disorderly at all times.

LITHGOW SILICON SMELTER

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: My question without notice is to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. Will the Treasurer provide the House with details regarding the New South Wales Opposition's tactics of destabilisation concerning the Lithgow silicon smelter project? The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I very much regret to inform the House that the New South Wales Opposition is clearly out to destroy a $4 billion project planned for this State. Make no mistake about it, the New South Wales Government has been working and continues to work hard to secure the Lithgow silicon smelter project for New South Wales. New South Wales is an attractive investment location, and we want to improve that reputation and performance. But the Opposition is clearly doing its level best to ruin New South Wales' hard-fought reputation. The Government's position on the Lithgow project is well known to members. But let us make these points very clearly yet again for the benefit of the Opposition, an Opposition that is deliberately destabilising this investment project. Should the project receive final development consent approval, and Australian Silicon Ltd invests, the people of Lithgow will see $140 million invested in a new silicon smelter, creating 100 to 120 jobs with an annual spend of $32 million. The people of Cowra will see $8 million invested in a new quartz mine, creating 10 to 12 jobs with an annual spend of $4 million. The people of Moruya and Mogo, in an area with double-digit adult and youth unemployment rates, will see $25 million invested in a new charcoal production facility, creating 50 to 55 jobs with an annual spend of $13 million. The people in the Murray-Darling Basin will see 20,000 hectares of new plantations to serve as a future source of charcoal and to begin to tackle salinity at its source, in the recharge areas of the dryland salinity zone. And the people of New South Wales and Australia will see a project built in New South Wales that will earn around $4 billion over the life of the project. But all that is at risk because the Opposition and, it seems, some crossbenchers are out to destroy this $4 billion project. Do not forget that this is the same new-look but recycled, incompetent Opposition team that in just 12 days has embarked on a spending spree of almost $3 billion. Yet, they are out to destroy a $4 billion project. The Hon. Don Harwin: Point of order: The question clearly related to the plan at Mogo; it had nothing to do with any spending by the Opposition. I ask you to direct the Minister to address the relevant aspects of the question, instead of what he is embarking upon at the moment. The PRESIDENT: Order! Sessional orders require answers to questions without notice to be relevant to the question asked. Although a question about economic development may be broadly interpreted, I remind the Minister that his response must be relevant to the question. The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: In other words, we not only have a big-spending, big-taxing Opposition, but we have an Opposition that is out to block a project that means jobs for regional New South Wales. The Hon. Duncan Gay: You can't tax in opposition. You're the fiscal thief!

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: No. But you showed how a National-Liberal party coalition could tax in government. The former Coalition Government put up tax rates by more than $1 billion a year in its seven years in government. This destructive, incompetent agenda is being driven by a Treasury spokesman who is also Leader of the National Party. It is an absolute disgrace. [Time expired.] 1200 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 April 2002

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: I ask a supplementary question. I ask the Minister to further elucidate on his answer.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: The company has advised the Government that should it gain development approval for the Moruya plant, it intends to begin construction of the smelter later this year. I also stress that a full and impartial evaluation of every aspect of the development application for the charcoal plant is taking place. It needs to be kept in mind that the high value added silicon metal will be used for a range of purposes. These include photovoltaic cells in solar energy, electronic circuitry, biomedical applications, and the hardening of aluminium, which in turn will lead to lower vehicle weight, lower petrol consumption and, by definition, less air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transport sector.

But the Opposition has decided to destabilise this project, a project of State and national significance. We know that the Liberal and National parties are capable of the unexpected, but destabilising the Lithgow silicon project at the expense of the mainstream interests of the State will cause untold damage to New South Wales as an investment location. The honourable member for Bega, Russell Smith—who relies on the support of the timber industry in his electorate for his existence in this Parliament—said on 4 February:

I am delighted at today's announcement … that the Coalition has agreed to back my calls for the proposed charcoal factory to be relocated to Bombala. This decision followed my meeting in Sydney with the Leader of the Opposition Kerry Chikarovski and John Brogden.

The honourable member for Bega's call was supported the next day by the then shadow Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning and now Leader of the Opposition. Subsequently, the honourable member for Monaro, Peter Webb, hopped onto the bandwagon but he said he did not want to see the project lost to another State. In response, the company has ruled out Bombala as an option and has said that if it had to move the charcoal plant from the Moruya site it would go to Victoria. In other words, a $4 billion project would go to Victoria and not New South Wales. [Time expired.]

PROFESSOR TED STEELE AND THE UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer, representing the Attorney General. Is the Minister aware that Professor Ted Steele, who recently won an unfair dismissal case against the University of Wollongong in the Federal Court, will now face an internal university tribunal to investigate the same matter? What will the Attorney General do to ensure that the internal University of Wollongong tribunal will maintain the tradition of academic freedom of speech and will not effectively overturn the decision of the Federal Court?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: As the Deputy Leader of the Government points out, that is not necessarily contradictory. I will refer the question. I do not know whether it has much to do with the Attorney General; it probably has more to do with the Minister for Education and Training.

MANNING AND HASTINGS RIVERS COMMERCIAL FISHING CLOSURE

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: Given that the Taree and Hastings River fishermen's co- operatives have produced compromise proposals in relation to the closure of most or all of the Manning and Hastings Rivers to commercial fishing, has the Minister given these proposals favourable consideration? Or will the closures of the rivers to commercial fishing go ahead, as announced by the Minister before Christmas?

The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: It is quite obvious that the honourable spokesperson for the Opposition on fisheries does not understand how the community consultation process took place. As I have said on a number of occasions in this House, the decision is for the local community. There was a period with an independent chairperson, submissions were received, and every one of those submissions was considered. The majority of people who made submissions and attended the meetings had made their decisions. On each occasion I have accepted the recommendation of the community.

That is a community-owned resource. The community will decide how it best harvests it. If I were to do what the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner is suggesting, I would be interfering in a community-based consultation process. If on a whim the Minister of the day decided to take this action and then not to take that action, the Minister would be interfering—and I am sure that if that happened, members of the Opposition would be the first to cry foul. The Opposition cannot have its cake and eat it too. We allowed the community to make the decisions, and the Government accepts the decisions in good faith based upon broad community consultation. 10 April 2002 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1201

This was one of the most consulted issue in the life of this Government; we consulted with the community over two years. Each area had an independent chair and every issue was factored in. Now the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner suggests that process is unfair because someone does not like it.

The policy of the Opposition is simple: it wants to allow the re-entry of commercial fishers into those 29 recreational fishing havens that the Carr Labor Government has announced it will go ahead with. The honourable member wants to allow commercial fishing back into those 29 local fishing havens along the coast, to deny to the people of the regions the opportunity for economic development, better recreational fishing and more jobs. She wants to disband the two recreational fishing trusts, the fresh water trust and the salt water trust, which are injecting more than $9 million into creating better recreational fishing. That is the policy of the Opposition. We hear only whingeing, whining and complaining from the Opposition. The honourable member does not understand that this is a community-owned resource. The Government owed it to members of the community to discuss and consult with them before making decisions that they broadly accept.

The Carr Labor Government has made sure it factored in every issue the community raised. We consulted for two years. More than 9,000 submissions were made and more than 4,000 people were involved in this decision-making process. Each region had its own independent chair and we have accepted the recommendations of each sector. The issues that the community did not support, the Government did not act upon. I reiterate to the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner that she cannot have her cake and eat it too. We promised we would consult with the community. We did that for two years and asked for submissions and attended meetings. Does the honourable member expect us not to do what they asked us to do? The decision has been made, and any sector that did not agree with certain submissions should have argued as much before the independent chairs. I am not about to reverse the decisions of the community.

POLICE SERVICE EXAMINATION QUESTIONS

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: My question without notice is to the Minister for Police. What is the latest information on pre-qualifying assessments?

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Will you join Peter Ryan?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: You wish I would, but that is not going to happen. I will be here. I was surprised and disappointed that the Leader of the Opposition was not made the shadow police spokesman. What has happened? I share the concerns expressed to me by frontline police about the pre-qualifying assessment [PQA] process. For those who are not familiar with the process, PQAs are a set of pre-qualifying examinations that do not lead to promotions but enable police officers to apply for promotions. They win them the right to be fully assessed. Many police have told me that they believe the current PQAs, and particularly the marketing method of mandatory and supplementary questions, is unfairly structured. I am advised that applicants for sergeants positions must answer a total of 50 questions, including the compulsory questions. There are 60 questions for inspectors posts and 70 for superintendents posts. I am advised that 84 per cent of the 1,138 police who have so far sat for the first round of PQAs, which began this week, have failed.

The scaling of marks means that even police who score more than 90 per cent in the overall test are still failing. They are failing because they do not answer all eight mandatory questions correctly. They are failing despite hours and hours of studying hundreds of pages of material. Clearly the marketing system is unfair. Recently members of the Opposition claimed that the open-book tests used as part of the PQAs were making the system too easy. The failure rate clearly suggests the opposite. The community wants police on the streets. I want police on the streets. We do not want them doing hours and hours of study that is not necessarily beneficial to them or the community.

Despite claims previously by the Opposition on this issue, this is not about corruption. It is about a system that is too cumbersome and unfair. PQAs have meant so far that more than 900 police will be precluded from applying for the current round of promotions positions that have already been advertised. I believe the system should be overhauled so that it recognises the genuine efforts of applicants. That is why I have asked Deputy Commissioner Dave Madden to review the PQA marketing method immediately, and it is why I have asked former police Minister Peter Anderson to independently review the PQAs.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Is he in the hunt for the commissioner's job as well? 1202 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 April 2002

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: At least he has had something to do with policing. The Leader of the Opposition cannot even get a guernsey as the Opposition spokesman on police, and he is a former police officer. What does that say about him? It does not say much. Not only that, he was part of the gang of five that threw out the previous leaders—

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Anderson was the Minister when corruption reigned supreme.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: And that was at a time when the Leader of the Opposition was teaching integrity at the academy! That is very tricky ground. I am advised that a tripartite committee comprising New South Wales police, and representatives of the Police Association and the police ministry will meet on Friday to address the concerns of applicants. Applicants will be required to provide correct responses to six of the eight compulsory questions. A pass mark of 80 per cent will remain for supplementary questions. Police management will also inform affected candidates before the closing date for the current round of promotions. I am also advised that police who fail PQAs because of the marking scale will not have to wait 12 months before reapplying. I want the changes in place before the next round of PQAs in August.

FREIGHTCORP CHINESE ROLLING STOCK PURCHASE

The Hon. IAN COHEN: My question is directed to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. Does the Treasurer recall that on 27 June 2001, in relation to the sale of FreightCorp, he stated in the House that the Government would give a high rating to the purchase of railway rolling stock within New South Wales and that FreightCorp's existing contracts would be referred to the purchaser of FreightCorp? Given that the tender for the delivery date of the Chinese rolling stock that has since been purchased was from May 2002, does this mean that he was aware of negotiations with the Chinese about the major purchase of Chinese-manufactured rolling stock at the same time as he spoke in the House? Were the contracts for rolling stock from Goninan, an Australian firm based in Newcastle, cancelled before Corrigan took over Freightcorp? Will the Treasurer inform the House why he allowed a suspended FreightCorp contract for 196 wagons to go to China with an order for a lower quality product, a decision that has cost Goninan and the New South Wales economy $30 million, and Newcastle workers 200 direct jobs, including 20 apprenticeships?

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: Good question!

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Someone on the Opposition bench said that this is a good question. It is not. Most of the so-called facts in the question are in fact wrong. The contract that will see Chinese wagons being provided to an Australian company that has won the right to provide the wagons but which is sourcing the product from China is worth $15 million. That contract was entered into by FreightCorp, not under its current private owners but by FreightCorp under public ownership. It was a matter I could have intervened in if I had felt it appropriate, but I am not going to say to China—a country that has just joined the World Trade Organisation and which imports some $6 billion of Australian goods and services each year—that it cannot tender for a $15 million contract in Australia. That would be ludicrous.

If any region of Australia depends on free trade for its prosperity, it is the Hunter. Indeed, I was greeted by a demonstration of people at Bathurst who were complaining about this $15 million contract going to China. I thought it was interesting because on that very day I had been informed by Blayney Frozen Foods that it had just entered into a contract with China, whereby China was purchasing some 300,000 pallets—I do not think it was three million pallets, although it might have been—of corn from that area. It struck me as ironic that in a region where people were demonstrating against a $15 million contract going to China an Australian company had just signed a massive contract with China for the export of Australian goods.

The Hon. IAN COHEN: I ask a supplementary question. Does the Treasurer support the concept of production workers in China, who earn $2.11 an hour, competing with Australian workers, who earn $15.80 an hour?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: We now know where the Greens stand: Do not trade with China! If the Greens want to adopt a policy of not trading with any country with lower wage rates than those in Australia, then Australia would import nothing from New Zealand or, indeed, from about 95 per cent or 96 per cent of countries in the world. If they want to plunge this country into recession and poverty, they should turn their backs on free trade, as George W. Bush seems to be doing. The Hon. Ian Cohen has a soul mate in the President of the United States of America. 10 April 2002 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1203

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE RESIGNATION

The Hon. JOHN RYAN: My question is addressed to the Minister for Police. In light of a previous answer relating to the departure of Commissioner Ryan, will the Minister inform the House of the total estimated cost of the agreements the Government has entered into with Commissioner Ryan which are associated with his departure? If the Minister is unable to offer an answer now, is that an indication that he does not know the total amount involved in the settlement agreements? If the Minister knows the amount but will not tell the House, what is his reason for keeping that information from the public?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: This is an example of a question on the run. It is similar to the Opposition making policies on the run, which is what we have seen since the new leader took over. I have already indicated that I am happy to table the documents relevant to this matter.

The Hon. John Ryan: When?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I will do that as soon as I get them in my hot little hands. As for the total cost of the agreements, that is outlined in the deed of release.

The Hon. JOHN RYAN: I ask a supplementary question. The Minister said that the information is in the documents. Is the Minister telling the House that he does not know the cost of the agreements included in the documents?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Certainly, I am aware of the cost. However, as I have already indicated, I want the community of New South Wales to see all the documents involved. The process was open and transparent, and I have no difficulty tabling the documents.

INDEPENDENT ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: My question is directed to the Minister for Juvenile Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth. Will the Minister inform the House of the support provided to young people in rural and regional New South Wales for entertainment activities?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: This question is particularly appropriate, given that this week is Youth Week. It is true that on the many occasions that I have met with young people across New South Wales the issue that is raised constantly by them is the need for low-cost, safe entertainment options for young people. The availability of entertainment and recreation options is not only about having fun, although young people see that as important. They also see it as a key to preventing social problems and isolation, and as a significant part of the development process, the maturation process, that young people need to move through as they become adults. This is particularly the case for young people in rural and regional communities.

Previously I have reported to the House about the activities of the Independent Entertainment Network [INDENT], which is funded by the New South Wales Government and managed by musicNSW. The aim of INDENT is to support young people to organise and manage their own entertainment events. It recognises that often, unfortunately, events organised by adults are not necessarily appropriate or what young people want to do. Young people need to have an input into events, because they know what they like to do. INDENT grant recipients comprise a committee of young people in partnership with a local support organisation, such as a youth service or a local council, to give them the practical support they need to organise their event, including access to phones, photocopiers and computers.

The INDENT strategy was developed in consultation with young people to best address their needs, and it puts young people in the driver's seat to stage the kind of events they want to see. Since the Premier officially launched INDENT in October 2000, with a financial commitment of $750,000 over three years, INDENT has supported more than 100 all-ages events throughout New South Wales. All the events are drug and alcohol free, and a transport subsidy is also available in regional areas. Today I am pleased to inform the House of the next round of one-off grants for INDENT partnerships, all of which are for young people in rural and regional areas.

The one-off grants will go to the Bega Big Day Out, A Bright Idea at Evans Head, Fever at The Entrance, Bowl-Over at Maclean, the Festival at Bowraville, Richmond Valley at Casino, MusicOz at Wollongong, Oasis at Wyong and the Yalloroi Committee at Warialda. From a dance party on the Central 1204 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 April 2002

Coast, festivals on the North Coast and a CD launch on the South Coast, the latest round of INDENT one-off grants sees more New South Wales young people taking matters into their own hands to create their own entertainment. These nine one-off grants will add to the 60 all-ages events already planned for 2002 in Marrickville, Parramatta, the Hunter, Newcastle, Bathurst, Deniliquin, Albury, Narrabri, Muswellbrook, Port Macquarie, Forster-Tuncurry, Byron Bay and Kyogle.

Another activity that the Government supports for young people in rural and regional New South Wales is Youth Week. More than 108 councils and shires, or just under 75 per cent of participating councils, from outside Sydney are taking part in Youth Week this year. A number of them are participating for the first time. I congratulate all the young people who are getting involved in organising their own events, whether it be through INDENT or through Youth Week, and I congratulate the local communities on supporting them to do this.

OUT OF SCHOOL HOURS CARE

The Hon. ALAN CORBETT: My question is addressed to the Minister for Juvenile Justice, representing the Minister for Community Services. Is it a fact that in 1987 the New South Wales Labor Government made a commitment that out of school hours care services would be required to be licensed under the then proposed Children (Care and Protection) Bill 1987? Is it also a fact that 15 years later these services are still unregulated and unlicensed? Why is New South Wales the only State in Australia where out of school hours care services are either unregulated or not moving towards regulation? Does the Minister intend to take the necessary steps to implement regulations for these services and to legislate for this by including school-age children's services in the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I understand that there are standards relating to out of school hours care but that those standards are voluntary. Therefore, I will refer the question to the Minister for Community Services, and I undertake to obtain a response as soon as possible.

POLICE OFFICER MURDER SENTENCES

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: My question is addressed to the Minister for Police. Now that the Premier has ruled out supporting the Opposition's policy of compulsory life sentences for criminals convicted of killing a police officer in the line of duty, will the Minister tell the House whether he supports the Opposition's proposal, which would guarantee that people who murder police officers are gaoled for life?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Madam President—

The Hon. John Della Bosca: It should be to the Attorney General.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: No, he is the Minister. He is the Government's man in this place.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Do you want me to answer the question?

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Yes. It would be a change.

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The Hon. Charlie Lynn has asked a very emotional question. Many people in the community have approached me about this issue, and I have had discussions with a range of people on it. As I said last weekend, it is emotionally attractive to go down the path proposed by the Opposition. However, I have been advised by people who are more legally qualified on these matters than I am that this approach has enormous pitfalls and there are issues of practicality. The Government is firmly committed to looking at toughening up penalties. We are in the process of trying to develop a guideline judgment. The Attorney General is the appropriate person to answer this question, and accordingly I will refer the matter to him. Although this proposal is emotionally attractive, practically and legally it is fraught with great difficulties.

WESTERN SYDNEY INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROJECTS

The Hon. HENRY TSANG: My question without notice is to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. Will the Treasurer provide the latest details of the Government's plan for technology projects in Western Sydney? 10 April 2002 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1205

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I am pleased to report that two of the Government's biggest information technology [IT] projects, worth $45 million, have moved to the heart of Parramatta creating 60 new jobs. These major IT projects will make access to Government easier, cheaper and faster for business and the community. By the end of the year, more than 60 IT and computer professionals will be based in the Government's IT Project Development Centre in Smith Street, Parramatta. The two new IT projects are a $32 million Government Licensing Project to develop a new online system for the State's 1.5 million business and occupational licensing services over the Internet, estimated to save taxpayers $70 million; and a $13.8 million human services better service delivery program to simplify and streamline government services to people in need, whether they are looking for housing, health, crisis accommodation or counselling.

Currently 600,000 people renew their licenses by post or over the counter every year and wait for a response. This new system will allow them to finish the entire process online. For example, a real estate agent or a nurse will be able to apply for their professional licenses online instead of having to write to various government agencies and wait, in many cases, several weeks. This will save time and money, particularly for those needing more than one license to run their businesses. At the end of last year approximately 30 staff moved to Parramatta to work on the IT projects, and by the end of this year another 30 will be working on site. These new staff will be highly paid IT professionals drawn from Western Sydney and other parts of New South Wales. Western Sydney has the highest concentration of Australian-owned IT companies in Australia, as it is the home of some 1,500 IT companies generating approximately $2.7 billion a year.

The Hon. John Ryan: Point of order: My point of order relates to the anticipation rule. We are about to debate the Appropriation (Budget Variations) Bill 2002. Included in that bill is reference to an amount of $1.79 million to improve measures for the collection and processing of various State taxes. I suspect that is exactly the material about which the Treasurer is speaking, and if so he is anticipating debate. We are interested in this matter, but we ought to hear it during debate on the Appropriation (Budget Variations) Bill 2002.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: The point of order is ludicrous. The Hon. John Ryan is simply attempting to prevent me from giving an answer of some importance to the House.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The question was a reasonably general one, and the Minister's response has also been of a general nature.

The Hon. John Ryan: It is a second reading speech.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: The Hon. John Ryan knows it is a bogus point of order; he should not be so silly. He can be quite an intelligent fellow on occasions, but on all other occasions he can be a really silly little nerd. He should behave himself.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind members yet again that interjections are disorderly.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: He was referred to as a silly little nerd.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I plead truth as a defence. The projects will use IT to make it easier and more convenient for people to deal with the Government no matter where they live in the State. They are part of our e-Government, electronic service delivery program, which has seen 1,500 New South Wales Government services made available over the Internet. Moving the projects to Western Sydney is a sensible decision and a strong example of the Government's commitment to the region's growth. [Time expired.]

ASYLUM SEEKERS DETENTION

The Hon. MALCOLM JONES: My question is to the Special Minister of State, representing the Minister for Corrective Services. Will the Minister provide advice to this House about asylum seekers suspected of criminal activities and currently held in New South Wales prisons being returned by this Government to detention centres to be held in the community of the detention centres with other asylum seekers, including children?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: This question deals with serious matters and I cannot respond to it. I am sure that the Minister for Corrective Services with provide the House with a comprehensive answer as soon as practicable. 1206 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 April 2002

POLICE SERVICE EXAMINATION QUESTIONS

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: My question is to the Minister for Police. Does the Minister recall that one of his first major initiatives as police Minister was to introduce a new system of police promotions, including pre-qualifying assessment tests, as part of a reform package to start on 1 January this year? Earlier in question time did the Minister attempt to explain why just three months later he has been forced to scrap his new promotions system by blaming the marking system, even though he released the questions? Who advised the Minister to implement this failed system, or was it his own incompetent idea?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I have already answered this question but this gives me an opportunity to reiterate that there certainly is a pre-qualifying assessment system in place. My understanding is that the Police Association and the police force support the broad concept of a pre-qualifying assessment process. The difficulty with the last process was the way the marking was structured, and that is why we have taken action to change the process and put in place a new pre-qualifying assessment process for the August round. As I said, I do not think any system that fails candidates who receive a mark of 90 per cent for answers to supplementary questions but who answer incorrectly one of the mandatory questions is a fair system. It is appropriate that we do have a fair system in place. Front-line police have complained and, as usual, the Government and I—a responsive government and a responsive Minister—have listened to those complaints and have taken appropriate action to ensure that a fair and equitable system is put in place, not a system that is onerous on police officers, who have the important function of protecting our community—as has been demonstrated in recent times.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I ask a supplementary question. Given that the Minister provided the questions and has now amended the marking system, and that the answers to the questions were also available to police for several weeks, what else can he do to rectify his abysmal failure in this regard?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The answer is simple: I will do anything that is required of me to ensure that our front-line police officers, who risk their lives every day, have an opportunity to advance through the police force, based on a fair system of assessment and a fair marking system. I make no apology for that. If there are other problems, in conjunction with police management I will look at correcting them.

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE RESIGNATION

The Hon. JOHN JOBLING: My question is to the Minister for Police. Precisely when did the Minister first become aware of Commissioner Ryan's intention to leave? When did the Government become aware? When did the Minister tell the Premier?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I have a very simple answer to that question: I was made aware of it two days ago.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: What about the Government?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The documents will be tabled. The Government was made aware of it, as I said in my earlier answer, when Commissioner Ryan's solicitors wrote on his behalf to the Director-General of the New South Wales Premier's Department, Dr Col Gellatly, two days ago.

SCHOOL SECURITY

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I ask a question without notice of the Minister for Police. Can the Minister update the House on the latest improvements to safety and security in our schools?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I thank the honourable member for a very, very important question, one that gives me the opportunity to outline some recent developments that have emerged from a forum held last Friday to look at safety within our school system. This was a very important forum that brought together for the first time not only educators but also senior representatives of the Police Force and members of the community to discuss the problem of safety in schools. The forum followed the horrific incident that occurred at Kingsgrove. I will not go into the details of that because there are issues related to it.

One of the major components of the forum was to assess the environment in which our schools operate. There was overwhelming support for the proposition that our schools are among the safest places for our young 10 April 2002 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1207 people. That is a principle that I think we have to acknowledge: our schools are very safe places for our young people. Not only that, where there are crime problems that cause difficulties for people who attend school, in many cases they are crime problems that impact because of the social and criminal context in which the schools are located. It is a very important issue. I am very pleased to say that we reached unanimous agreement at that forum on an 18-point action plan to deal with the potential problems of violence in schools.

The core of that process is Task Force VAR, which was established by the Minister for Education and Training and me. It will be a permanent task force to provide an intra-agency approach to identify problems. There will be four subgroups that will work through the task force. Those four subgroups will cover physical security, curriculum and programs, transport, and investigation. We will also expand Task Force VAR—which, it must be remembered the Government, in its foresight, put together before the Kingsgrove incident—to include the non-government sector.

The task force will liaise with forum participants, such as young people, on a needs basis. The Department of Education and Training will also undertake a range of measures, but I will let the Minister for Education and Training outline them. The core action is the establishment of a new safety and security directorate within the Department of Education and Training. That directorate will provide a link to Task Force VAR and co-ordinate crime prevention, safety, and security programs. We will set up an action response group, headed or advised—we are working through the details of this—by an inspector from the New South Wales Police Service to provide critical incident advice and support schools.

In addition, there will be public reporting of the activities of these groups, and there will also be an independent oversight by Professor Andrew Gonczi from the University of Technology, Sydney. An audit-based form of research will be undertaken by a number of experts in the field to consider schools and individuals at risk. Following the audit, a new priority action program will be trialled in public schools identified as having a concentration of at-risk students, using an interagency approach based on early intervention principles, including the strategic provision of services like appropriate officers from the Department of Community Services, the Department of Juvenile Justice, New South Wales Health, the Department of Housing, and the Department of Sport and Recreation, as well as police youth liaison officers. [Time expired.]

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

Questions without notice concluded.

[The President left the chair at 1.04 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]

COURTS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Bill received and read a first time.

Motion by the Hon. Ian Macdonald agreed to:

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

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders

Motion by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business Item No. 59 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to a reference to General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1, be called on forthwith.

Order of Business

Motion by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe agreed to:

That Private Members' Business Item No. 59 outside the Order of Precedence be called on forthwith. 1208 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 April 2002

GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE No. 1

Reference: Inner City School Closures

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [2.34 p.m.]: I move:

1. That General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 inquire into and report on the circumstances, processes, effects and short-term and long-term consequences of the proposed closure and restructuring of government schools in inner Sydney, and in particular:

(a) the validity, relevance and veracity of the demographic and other evidence advanced or used in support of the proposed restructuring,

(b) the effectiveness and integrity of the public consultation processes used to develop the plan and to determine the closures of the schools,

(c) the accuracy and probity of the asset valuation process and the implications of conducting it before any assessment of educational needs was completed,

(d) the role and functioning of the School Closures Committee and the validity of its findings,

(e) the risk to the future provision of school education arising from the loss of education sites in the inner Sydney area,

(f) the impact of State government funding policies, enrolment policies and investment infrastructure for public schools on the attractiveness of public schools,

(g) the impacts on availability of local comprehensive public education as an option for residents of inner Sydney,

(h) the impacts on the educational and social needs of children and young people with high welfare needs, and

(i) the development of appropriate measures to ensure that children forced to move schools are not disadvantaged.

2. That the Committee report by 27 June 2002. As most honourable members will be aware, the motion relates to a plan that has come to be known as Building the Future, which was first announced by the Government in March last year. The plan was the subject of a review following a consultation program and decisions taken by a number of schools in a process that was announced in June last year. Honourable members will be aware also that during the course of last year the initial proposal was to close a number of inner city schools. Some of the schools were subsequently excluded from closure, particularly Chatswood High School. To this day, Marrickville High School and Dulwich High School have no idea what their future will be in 2003 or 2004, because no final decision has been made. The concerns expressed by people associated with other schools, such as Hunters Hill High School and Erskineville Public School, have not been addressed adequately by the Government in all its proposals. Representatives of those two schools have consistently argued that the Government's process is flawed and that they deserve an opportunity to present their case to the Parliament and have the matter examined by a parliamentary inquiry. People associated with the Hunters Hill High School contend that despite the process of review that took place last year, their demographic figures were not given appropriate consideration by the review committee, which relied instead on demographic figures provided by the Government. In their eyes, the figures provided by the Government were flawed. Given that this issue concerns the closure of a significant high school, it is appropriate for this Parliament to undertake its own review. That is the position adopted by the parents associated with the Hunters Hill High School and that position is strongly supported by the community.

Not a week goes by without a parent or someone from the Erskineville Public School community writing to me to express dismay at the proposed closure of their school. When Erskineville Public School closes and merges with schools at Redfern and Waterloo to become a new primary school in Cleveland Street, the needs of the Erskineville community will be ignored. The people contend that the only way their very small children will be able to access the new primary school will be by travelling on buses or using private transport. Their fear is that the heart of Erskineville will be gutted, because the school represents a significant centre for the community.

Those people have not accepted the Government's view that declining enrolments in the Erskineville Public School will result in a lower standard of education. They contend that their school, small though it may be, is successful and has achieved successful outcomes. They want to challenge the Government's proposals and they want to see the original terms of reference of the Government's inquiry appropriately reviewed. That can 10 April 2002 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1209 only be done by a parliamentary committee. Representatives of the schools contend that the review process was flawed at the outset. The Opposition contends, and has always contended, that the process was flawed from the beginning. At no stage was any evidence given to explain the action taken by the Government in the light of its awareness of decreasing enrolments in recent years in some of the schools.

The Government did not talk through its strategies with schools at Vaucluse, Dover Heights, Maroubra, Marrickville, Dulwich Hill, Chatswood—although Chatswood has now been exempted from the process— Hunters Hill, or any of the other schools that were reviewed before it decided on the schools to be closed. All the evidence that we and the parents at Hunters Hill have seen points to the fact that Hunters Hill was selected for one clear reason: the value of the real estate. That value was highlighted in a confidential memorandum from the Ryde district superintendent that was prepared 12 months before the Building the Future plan saw the light of day.

The Opposition contends that the Government did not take appropriate action. It did not work with local communities. It did not give schools an opportunity to present alternatives or to challenge its reasons for some school closures or the reconfiguration of schools at Balmain, Glebe and Leichhardt. The Government did not go to the heart of the issue: why enrolments were declining. The Government made no effort to work with communities. The schools and communities at Marrickville, Dulwich Hill, Erskineville and Hunters Hill have put together plans to take their schools forward—plans that will revitalise and make their schools the centre of the local community. All of that has been ignored by a government that is intent on its original agenda.

A parliamentary inquiry would give schools such as Hunters Hill an opportunity to prove that the demographic figures relied on by the Government do not stand up to appropriate scrutiny. I want to be able to hear from expert witnesses. This reference to a parliamentary committee will give us an opportunity to test the validity of the arguments presented by the Government and by local communities. We will have an opportunity to examine what local communities have done and we will be able to examine what strategies have been put in place to enliven schools and their communities. But we must act now because some of these schools are dying by attrition.

Marrickville and Dulwich are two schools that have been threatened with a merger—first on one side and then potentially on the other side. However, as no final announcement has been made by the Minister, there has been a halving of year 7 enrolments at those schools. The Government is concerned about year 7 enrolments at those two schools, but the Minister has made no announcement about its proposed merger. Parents who are trying to decide which school to send their year 7 students to have ended up choosing neither school. Many parents have chosen other schools in the region. Enrolment figures in some of the Catholic high schools in the region reveal that other schools have benefited from the Government's inability to work with these communities, find an appropriate solution, or give schools in the region an opportunity to flourish in their communities.

It is not only the schools I have referred to that have been affected; all the schools that have been earmarked for change are suffering as a result of this Government's decisions. Government members might talk about some increase in enrolments but that has occurred only in some of the selective classes. Comprehensive education options for students in inner Sydney areas have been weakened and reduced. Parents are now looking at other options. Between 1995 and 2001 this Government presided over a 2.5 per cent growth in school enrolments and a 17 per cent growth in enrolments in non-government schools. Rather than seeking to address the issue, the Government is giving students further reasons to leave public education. I stand for choice in public education, but students have to have a real choice, which means having strong and vibrant public schools. That is what parents are asking for.

Parents in these school communities have asked members of the Legislative Council to examine these issues. I do not wish to take much more of the time of the House as I know that every honourable member is familiar with the impact of the Building the Future plan. I am sure that every honourable member would have been lobbied by parent groups and community representatives right across the region. The School Closures Review Committee report that was released in September last year sums up the issues that are at the heart of these ongoing concerns. That report states:

A number of disconcerting aspects arose from the review including:

1. Widespread assertions that genuine consultation with school communities had not occurred prior to the announcement of the proposed school closures— that is something to which I have referred earlier today— 1210 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 April 2002

2. Student populations at each school had been declining over a number of years with little evidence that any local or departmental efforts have been made to arrest this.

3. That each school with perhaps the exception of Erskineville Public School had suffered from inadequate building maintenance and had been allowed to deteriorate to an unacceptable level.

4. The community perceptions that schools nominated for closure had been deliberately allowed to run down so as to achieve their closure in a de facto way.

5. That the local resurgence of interest proposal for increased and better use promotion marketing has accelerated as a consequence of the announcement of proposed school closures.

If that is a positive move forward for some school communities, it is an unusual side effect. I am aware of how strong many of the communities that are affected by these closures have become. No doubt the Government will remind people that the review process supported the closure of a number of schools. I indicate for the benefit of those honourable members who have not read the review that a significant minority statement was supported by the Parents and Citizens Federation of New South Wales, the Teachers Federation, and local government representatives. The Government had the numbers—as it always would on such a committee—but when the evidence was presented to representatives from the Teachers Federation, the Parents and Citizens Federation and local government they took a different position. We owe it to them to review the circumstances that led to the implementation of the Building the Future plan. We owe it to those communities and to other communities in the future to ensure that the process is right. We must establish once and for all the importance of working with schools and communities and identifying problems in those schools. Schools must not be presented effectively with a fait accompli, as happened in this case. The first question that was asked of the new Minister for Education and Training last year was whether some of those schools would be able to be kept open. Basically, the Minister said that it was a done deal. The Minister would not have had time to be briefed—as honourable members were briefed—after receiving responses from parents, teachers and school communities. The Minister said it was a done deal. We do not believe that is fair for some of the schools and their communities who are still working hard to keep their schools open. It is unfair that no decisions have been made about Marrickville and Dulwich schools. We think it is unfair that Hunters Hill, which experienced a growth in year 7 enrolments last year, is now faced with closure because of its real estate value—a dollar grab by this Government. We certainly do not think it is fair for communities such as Erskineville, which has developed a very strong community focus around its school but will now see the school gutted. Many other schools, including Glebe, Leichhardt and Balmain, are unhappy with the way in which the process is moving forward. We need to consider a number of issues. For example, we should consider the support that has come to one of the schools with regard to priority funding. That support will disappear as a consequence of the Building the Future program. If the Government got it wrong on demographics, if the Government is going to leave the new growth communities around Green Square, Alexandria and Zetland without an appropriate primary school and appropriate spaces for the future, we owe it to those communities to make sure we have checked the figures and the reliability of the demographics. More than anything else, we want to give those school communities an opportunity—perhaps it will be their final opportunity—to have the Government's future plans clearly stated, and to see if the Government can be persuaded by the strength of their arguments presented publicly before the parliamentary committee. I urge the House to support the motion. The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [2.51 p.m.]: I certainly support the motion that General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 conduct an inquiry into the Government's conduct in selling off public school assets. When the Government released the "Building the Future" document, many parents, teachers and students reacted with horror and justifiable outrage. My own babysitter was in tears about it, because she loved her school, Hunters Hill High School. I am a resident of Hunters Hill. I understand that the plan is for the high school to be closed and the land to be sold, probably for residential development. That will again mean fewer schools and more people, which is the demographic trend I have observed. I have worked with the local parents and citizens in their campaign to save Hunters Hill High School. Kathy Prokhovnik, Phil Daniels, Stefania Newling, Jacqueline Grant, De Brierley Newton and other members of the Hunters Hill High School parents and citizens association have been diligent in trying to protect the education of their children. The academic results of the school are very good. Indeed, Peter Semmler and Jeff Shaw, who have done very well, are former students of Hunters Hill High School. People affected by the closure regarded the "Building the Future" document as Treasury-driven. 10 April 2002 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1211

I must confess that, having been a member of the committee that inquired into the tendering out of group homes, I came to the conclusion that this tendering out was initiated by a saving of $14,000 per resident. The social and community services industrial award, rather than the public service award, determined the wages paid to the carers, and the money was saved and then returned to Treasury. The idea of competitive tendering for people's lives was simply an initiative of the Minister, effectively a rationalisation for budget changes, probably beyond the control of the relevant Minister.

I must confess that when I saw the "Building the Future" document, based on its fairly lame demographic changes, which I thought were poorly researched, I wondered whether this was rationalisation for a change to the education budget. I could not help but note the decrease in the education budget of $201 million since the Government came to office. I have seen the hypocrisy of the Government in taking figures at the bottom of the trough when its spending was at its lowest and then drawing the increase from the bottom of the trough as if it were an increase in real terms, when in fact prior to that there had been a huge fall in real terms. The extra money that was spent on the Olympics would seem to correspond with the money taken from the schools capital works budget. Building the future by cannibalising certain schools in the inner-city area seems to be a cunning piece of window-dressing for a fire sale of public assets—effectively a land grab. I believe that the relationship between the big property developers, who want a reasonable slab of inner-city land, and the Government is pretty unhealthy. With dinners being touted at $3,300 a plate for an intimate relationship with the Government, as reported in the Sunday newspaper, it certainly gives cause for considerable anxiety as to the proper processes.

Infrastructure spending on schools as a percentage of the total education budget was around 5 per cent in 1994. It dropped to 3.1 per cent in 1997-98, and with the announcement in the last budget of $1.1 billion it is now up to 4.9 per cent. Not only is Hunters Hill High School to be closed, a number of other schools are also to be closed, including Cleveland Street High School, Alexandria, Erskineville, Waterloo and Redfern public schools, Balmain High School and Marrickville High School, and changes are taking place in Leichhardt. Many meetings have been held about the closures, and those meetings have been characterised by a very poor attendance by Government members. A great deal of passion and concern has been expressed by parents, citizens and students.

The education bureaucrats who attended the meetings effectively wanted to treat the issue as a matter that had already been decided. They pretended it was a consultative process and reassured parents that some of the bus timetables would be rejigged a little so that their children would not be grossly inconvenienced by having to travel a lot further. However, this was quite unsatisfactory to the parents. Of course, it was something of a divide-and-rule strategy. Some schools were to gain a feature and some parents wanted a particular feature while others did not. The idea was eventually presented as a fait accompli—we will have some winners and some losers, so there will not be a united front, and we will go from there.

The Government is very secretive and it is difficult to get information out of it. I believe that changes in our society should be very open. We should have discussions about where our society wants to go, where we want to put our resources, and what we want to do. The Government simply does not work that way; it is all done secretively. It is perhaps worked out in the Cabinet Office. It may be there that decisions are made and the Ministers then front up for the decisions. Plans—either threadbare or otherwise, which look like visions—are then put up more for public relations purposes than for reality, and the public tries to find out what is going on.

The saga of the freedom of information requests by De Brierley Newton of Hunters Hill High School is extremely discouraging. First it was said that there were no documents on the sale of Hunters Hill High School. It was then said that there were too many to process, and it would be frightfully expensive through the freedom of information process. Finally, De Brierley Newton went to the Ombudsman because she was unhappy about the process. The Ombudsman's report was delayed, the department then wanted more time, and finally it wanted to provide a report to the Ombudsman with the request that the Ombudsman not pass the report on to the parents and citizens and De Brierley Newton. That is an unsatisfactory situation, given that our money is used for our education.

The Government does not seem to understand that the community has a right to this information and a right to determine what happens in our education system. If you think education is expensive, try ignorance. If we do not educate our children we are condemning them to unemployment and we are condemning Australia to a Third World economy. We must look at education in that light. This motion seeks to set up a committee. Some members have complained that there are currently too many upper House committees. If, however, there was more transparency in the operation of government, we would not need such inquiries. Criticism has been levelled at the cost of committees. But what is the cost of secrecy? It is not only the cost of managing the information, the spin and the committees; it is the cost of having suboptimal decisions because those decisions are made in secret and forced through against perfectly legitimate objections from the general community. 1212 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 April 2002

At another time I will introduce a bill that will address government secrecy, and the Opposition has a bill relating to freedom of information. If both those bills are passed it will lead to some improvement, but it is a culture that needs to be attacked. I am worried that if there is more movement on private funding policies there will be a flight to the commercial-in-confidence excuse for not having an open government process and not telling us where our taxes are going. The Hunters Hill Parents and Citizens Association eventually faxed to my office a copy of the Ryde district office strategic plan for secondary education from 2000 to 2005, which was obtained by the Ombudsman as part of his struggle to get information. The document was not publicly available.

One wonders why a document such as the Ryde district office strategic plan for secondary education would not be available to the citizens of the Ryde district. That document showed that 40 per cent of Hunters Hill High School year 7 enrolments are drawn from the Balmain and Drummoyne areas. The enrolments come from 18 feeder private schools. While the document acknowledged that more students in the Ryde district attend private secondary schools than government schools, it was noted that for an area with a relatively high socio- economic demographic, public school facilities such as toilets, classrooms and playgrounds compared poorly with many private schools. Such is the state of public education in New South Wales: Run it down as much you can so that people who care about their children's future and who are lucky enough to be able to afford to send their children to private schools will have an incentive to do so.

Of course, those who have the wealth will have the choice and those who do not have the wealth will have to choose the substandard accommodation. They will say: Please give me the run-down school, give me the school with no facilities. That is what choice is all about—a middle-class slogan for buck passing the costs of education. I received a private education but I believe that quality public education is a fundamental right— that is the Australian Democrats' position—and I would like my son to have the benefits of a public education. I attended Woolwich primary school many years ago, but it was sold to a developer. For some reason the developer did not want it—I think there were too many easements across it—and it was picked up by the Illawarra Retirement Trust after some energetic work by Clive Harcourt Norton of the local Anglican Church, who has turned it into a retirement area for older people. That is very good news for the older people in the area, and I congratulate Clive Harcourt Norton, but there is now a shortage of primary education facilities in the area.

Hunters Hill primary school is full. Its grounds are quite small and it is having difficulty coping with the load. So much for the idea that the area has an old demographic. There are still a lot of children in the area, and if there was high-rise development on the Hunters Hill peninsula it would be even worse. Has the Government learned from this or observed what has happened? Not on your nelly! It is not very forward thinking to consider selling a high school when the primary school is overcrowded. There may have been demographic shifts and a fall in inner-city enrolments, but it must be acknowledged that a large number of high- rise buildings are being constructed along the foreshore.

Many old, single-storey homes are being replaced by three-storey blocks of units, particularly around Gladesville and spreading across Tarban Creek into Hunters Hill and Boronia Park. Children in those areas should be able to play football in their school playgrounds. I read in today's newspaper that the Blair Government has a problem with selling off schools, and that is causing great anxiety. People want to keep their school grounds because they are good for exercise, health and morale and they are probably helpful in reducing adolescent crime because activities are now based on the use of school grounds for exercise and outdoor culture, which is a major feature of the Australian ethos.

I return to the report that the Ombudsman obtained from the Ryde district office. That report acknowledged the need for reform, but recommended that instead of closing down the school, Hunters Hill High School should become a senior campus, surrounded by the local government areas and probably by Balmain and Drummoyne. This issue was not even open for public discussion when the public consultation progress took place. The local schools got together and worked on alternative plans with a great deal of sensible co-operation, and some of those were an absolute credit to the intelligent thinking of the concerned citizens of Hunters Hill and other areas in the inner city whose schools are threatened with closure, and they do not seem to have been recognised in any way in the Government's response. There is clearly a need for a further inquiry into how the Government conducted its decision-making process in its reforms to the public education system in Sydney. This motion addresses that issue and must be supported. I urge all honourable members to support this wise motion.

The Hon. RICHARD JONES [3.05 p.m.]: I support the motion. This debate is really about real estate values. I have been advised by real estate agents in Hunters Hill that the land is worth between $60 million and $70 million, not the much lower figure that has been quoted by some parties. So if Hunters Hill High School 10 April 2002 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1213 closes it will bring $60 million to $70 million into the coffers of the Department of Education and Training. I have some figures that were published a few weeks ago in the Sydney Morning Herald to show that the expected enrolments in Hunters Hill are about three or four times what was anticipated. Information from the parents and citizens association and others indicate clearly that Hunters Hill High School would have a bright future and should not be closed.

This is all about the $60 million or $70 million real estate value that can be squeezed out of that property. It is wrong for this Government, or any government, to regard schools as real estate, just as it would be wrong to sell off Centennial Park, the Domain or the Botanic Gardens, which also have a very high real estate value. The new Minister for Education and Training should step in at this point—not just wash his hands of the whole affair as he evidently has done—and change the decision of his predecessor, ensuring that Hunters Hill High School does not close. Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [3.07 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the motion that General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 inquire into and report on the circumstances, processes, effects and short and long-term consequences of the proposed closure and restructuring of government schools in inner Sydney. The motion outlines nine specific matters to be considered by the committee. There has been discussion for some time about the need for an inquiry, some background material, and whether General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 could cope with the inquiry because of its review and monitoring role with regard to workers compensation. However, this matter is so serious that the committee should take on board this reference and try to complete an inquiry that will make the proposed deadline. I have an interest in this matter, particularly in regard to Hunters Hill High School, because my four children attended that school and three graduated from the school with the Higher School Certificate. Our family was very involved with Hunters Hill High School when our children were teenagers. Of course, they are now in their 30s. An inquiry is necessary. In our democratic society the Government's decision to close these schools, particularly Hunters Hill High School, must be open to examination. There are serious concerns about how decisions were made, who made the decisions and whether some of the decisions have been covered up. Some decisions seem to indicate that departmental staff decided that Hunters Hill High School should not be closed, yet somehow the Government's final decision is to close the school. Was there a conflict in the advice provided, and where are the documents containing that advice? Although time is not available now, I could detail the actions taken by Hunters Hill High School parents and citizens to get documents through freedom of information processes. They found many obstacles to accessing the information. They were told that there were no documents, yet the documents are available. Throughout the whole process there have been misunderstandings or conflicts, and an inquiry is necessary to clear the air and bring all the facts into the open. The parents of students at Hunters Hill High School believe that the Government and the bureaucrats lied to them. First, the parents and citizens were forced to participate in a consultation process that in their view was a sham, and secondly they appeared before the School Closures Review Committee. The committee's decision was made on the casting vote of the Government-appointed chairman. So the review committee itself was divided over the future of Hunters Hill High School. Hunters Hill High School is an excellent school with high academic standards. There is still a strong demographic demand for secondary school places in Lane Cove, Drummoyne, Ryde and Hunters Hill. That is why there is a great deal of suspicion that the real factor behind the decision to close Hunters Hill High School is the value of the real estate on which the school is sited. As honourable members know, the Government sold large areas of land around the psychiatric centre at Gladesville. That land was used to build luxury town houses. I have visited the school on a number of occasions; it is on the waterfront with a hill at the rear. The land on which it is built would be among the most expensive land in the area and its sale would raise a great deal of revenue for the Government's coffers. If the only factor in deciding to close Hunters Hill High School—and an inquiry might reveal this—is that the Government, with good intentions, needs the money from the sale of the land to develop other inner-city schools that are run down and a disgrace, does that still justify closing a well-run and professional institution such as Hunters Hill High School? An inquiry is necessary to put the spotlight on whether there has been maladministration or whether there has been a deliberate cover-up in relation to Hunters Hill High School. Building the Future [BTF] was given as an overall plan which involved closing some schools and developing other schools. Under BTF, 250 community meetings were held, and according to advice I have received there was almost universal opposition to the BTF plan. A series of rallies held in 2001 opposed the plan. The Department of Education and Training [DET] conducted a series of focus groups regarding BTF. The results have never been released, but rumours and 1214 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 April 2002 evidence from inside the department suggest that every group was opposed to BTF. The department received 1,400 submissions opposing the plan, yet none of those submissions has been made public. Hunters Hill High School parents and citizens were asked to pay a $5,000 deposit to see these documents. The department allocated a mere nine working days to examine, analyse and deliberate on the 1,400 school submissions. In that time, supposedly, it was able to write, produce and distribute letters, glossy brochures and a thick response document to media and schools outlining the closures resulting from implementation of the BTF plan.

The only reason given by the Government for closing Hunters Hill High School was that students did not come from the local area but from Balmain, Glebe and Leichhardt. Yet in the glossy BTF brochure the DET placed Hunters Hill High School in the inner west, which meant that the students were local. With the establishment of semi-selective schools under the BTF plan, students now travel out of the area. Indeed, Leichhardt and Balmain boast that students entering year 7 come from more than 100 primary schools. Of course, this means the death of the local public school. The cost of buses to transport these travelling children will continue to blow out as all out-of-area children receive a free bus fare. Also, the amount of traffic generated by these travelling schoolchildren adds enormously to the peak hour crawl.

Hunters Hill High School is a viable and successful school. In 2001 it had an enrolment of 425 students, which is well above what the DET considers a non-viable level. For example, the Conservatorium of Music had only 160 students at that time. If the Government closed every high school that had an enrolment of 425 students, very few high schools would be left. Hunters Hill High School was mentioned in the top 150 schools in the 2001 Higher School Certificate [HSC] but has been condemned to closure. In comparison, Malvina, Glebe, Balmain, Leichhardt and Chatswood schools were not mentioned in the top schools list, yet the Government is spending millions to bring them up to standard under BTF.

Enrolments in Hunters Hill High School were increasing. In 2001, before the closure was announced, the school enrolment for year 7 was more than 30 per cent above the previous year's enrolment. The school had more than 80 expressions of interest to enrol in 2002 if the school did not close. Obviously, once statements about the school closing appear in the media that affects potential students. And even with those media reports there were 80 expressions of interest. Students in year 10—they would be in year 11 in 2002—could not complete their HSC at Hunters Hill High School and were forced to travel out of the area to attend a similar years 7 to 12 co-educational comprehensive school. The school of choice was Mosman, which is the closest years 7 to 12 non-specialist, non-selective co-educational school.

The then Minister for Education and Training, both before and during his press conference to announce the BTF plan, said that the closure of Hunters Hill High School was non-negotiable. The new Minister has a different vision and more enthusiasm than the previous Minister, Mr Aquilina. In effect, Mr Watkins said that although he had new ideas, his hands were tied and he was locked into the previous Minister's decisions. Why is that the case? I believe the Government should encourage the new Minister to review the matter, and it should give him a blank cheque, so to speak. He should not be bound by decisions made by the former Minister. If the new Minister is bound by those decisions, obviously that reduces his ability to move in new directions.

I urge the Government to remove the chains from the new Minister so that he can improve the situation, rather than be criticised for decisions made by the previous Minister. Let the new Minister stand on his own two feet and implement his own policies, which he must be able to defend. How could the School Closures Review Committee be fair and impartial if two of its members were employees of the Department of Education and Training and are bound by the code of conduct to support government policies? I have already mentioned the real estate. Hunters Hill High School sits on 6.6 hectares of land adjacent to Lane Cove River. Much has been made about the value of this land, which has been estimated by the DET as variously between $30 million and $60 million.

Initial research by the Hunters Hill High School parents and citizens group placed the value of the land at approximately $2 million per hectare. The school has five hectares of land that is able to be developed minus reclaimed or protected bushland valued at $10 million. It is a big ask to make $30 million to $60 million from a development. The plan is in trouble if, as it has been suggested, the entire BTF plan—which cost originally $110 million, and now $100 million—depended on the sale of the Hunters Hill High School. Why will all the money from the proposed sale of the Hunters Hill High School under the BTF plan go to the Port Jackson electorate, not the electorate in which the school is situated? The former Minister for Education and Training promised $4 million to Malvina High School in 1998 and as at June 2001 not a cent was spent on that school. It is a matter of public record that promises of money made in 1998 to Chifley regarding junior and new senior schools have also not been met. Peter Board High School was closed and has still not been sold. 10 April 2002 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1215

It has been said that demographics justified the decision to close the school. However, a departmental demographic study last year forecast enrolments in 2002 for year 7 of between 746 and 867 students. Instead, there are close to 1,000 students in the schools covered by the study. By the time those students reach year 12 there will be more than 6,000 students in local secondary schools in the Ryde and Port Jackson areas. The problem is that most of them will be in the Ryde district, where schools are already overcrowded. There are already more students enrolled in 2002 than the Government predicted for 2012. The Government's prediction that students from Hunters Hill High School would go to the Sydney Secondary College or Malvina also proved incorrect. Those students wanted a co-educational comprehensive school for years 7 to 12 and not a junior/senior, specialist or selective school. Rather than boost the enrolments in the BTF plan, most year 10 students from Hunters Hill High School forced from their school chose Mosman and now travel for more than an hour each way to their closest co-educational comprehensive high school for years 7 to 12. If the Government closes Hunters Hill High School, there will not be enough secondary school places in local public schools. Previous speakers mentioned freedom of information [FOI] requests. The Labor Government has always boasted about its FOI credentials and that it is an open government. It may not have been intimately involved in the obstacles being put in the way of attempts to get information under FOI, but FOI should be genuine and not politically controlled. It is deceitful for anyone to say that FOI is available and then to obstruct it from operating openly. All requests for details of the demographics used in the decision to close schools, particularly Hunters Hill High School, and details of meetings held to discuss the closure of the Hunters Hill High School under the Freedom of Information Act have been ignored or treated with contempt. The Deputy Director-General of Schools, when asked for records of meeting and consultations on the future of secondary schools in the Ryde district or documents that discussed the future of Hunters Hill High School, answered: "The Department of Education and Training does not have documents." A decision was taken to close the school and the Department of Education and Training claims that it holds no records of meetings, memos, files or emails about the decision. Have documents been deliberately destroyed or are they being withheld? If so, by what process and under whose direction were they destroyed? The public servants responsible must be questioned before an inquiry for the truth to emerge. It took the Department of Education and Training more than five months to respond to the Ombudsman's request concerning documents. Why was the department able to stall and to treat the Ombudsman with such contempt? Why should the Hunters Hill High School parents and citizens group have to be involved in this conflict and seek to have matters determined by a court? Why should that pressure be put on parents who are simply trying to do the right thing for their children and the children of the future? The person now dealing with the Hunters Hill High School FOI request is none other than Mr Michael Waterhouse, once chief of staff to Minister Aquilina and now the department's Director of Legal Services. Does he have a conflict of interest? These important matters need to be considered by this inquiry, which should cover all schools in the inner city area and not be restricted in any way. Its first priority should be to investigate Hunters Hill High School. I move the following amendment to the motion of the Hon. Patricia Forsythe:

That the question be amended by inserting after "inner Sydney", the words "especially the closure of Hunters Hill High School,". It has been suggested that this debate be adjourned so that the Minister for Education and Training who is involved in other matters in the Legislative Assembly can give a considered response. Debate adjourned on motion by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile. STANDING COMMITTEE ON LAW AND JUSTICE Government Response to Report Entitled "A NSW Bill of Rights" The Hon. Ian Macdonald tabled an advice from the Director-General of the Cabinet Office relating to the Government's response to a report of the Standing Committee on Law and Justice entitled "A NSW Bill of Rights". BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders

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

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business Item No. 23, outside the Order of Precedence, relating to a reference to the Standing Committee on Social Issues, be called on forthwith. 1216 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 April 2002

Order of Business

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

That Private Members' Business Item No. 23 outside the Order of Precedence be called on forthwith.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL ISSUES

Reference: Department of Community Services Child and Family Services

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [3.28 p.m.]: I move:

1. That the Standing Committee on Social Issues inquire into and report on the child and family services of the Department of Community Services, with particular reference to:

(a) the adequacy of systems for dealing with notifications and reports of child abuse and neglect and requests for service,

(b) the availability of appropriate out-of-home care placements for children and families at risk,

(c) the effectiveness of departmental restructures carried out between 1988 and 2000 in attempting to improve client service delivery,

(d) the adequacy of resources and allocations by Treasury to provide child and family services,

(e) the staffing of the department’s child and family services, including:

(i) the impact on staff morale of recent departmental restructures,

(ii) the level of, and reasons for, staff turnover in client service positions,

(f) the implementation of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998, and related legislation, including the level of consultation undertaken in developing and implementing the Act, and

(g) the role of research and consultation in developing legislation relating to child and family intervention.

2. That the Committee report in relation to paragraph 1(f) by the first sitting day in June 2002 and in relation to all other matters by the first sitting day in October 2002.

I moved a similar motion on 23 June 2000, at which time a small number of members had the opportunity to voice their opinions on the matter. The motion was not fully debated and a vote was not taken on it. In the intervening period the Government has had the opportunity to examine the matters outlined in the motion, but nothing has been done. In the 21 months since I moved a similar motion nothing appears to have changed either inside the Department of Community Services or outside in the real world in relation to this matter. Essentially there needs to be a proper bipartisan inquiry into the effectiveness of the Department of Community Services in the discharge of its duty of care to the children of this State. After eight attempts at restructuring in the past decade, after two Ministers and three directors-general in the past four years, it is time to assess honestly and thoroughly where and why things have gone wrong so consistently and so often.

Why are the children in the care of the State up to 40 times more likely than other children to end up in a Juvenile Justice facility, and later adult gaols? Why do so few complete their secondary education? Why do so many experience abuse in multiple foster placements or, even worse, placement at a young and vulnerable age in a refuge? Why can they not access publicly funded tertiary child psychiatry or counselling facilities to help deal with their emotional pain, including the trauma of coming into care? The Government will no doubt argue that there is no need for a committee to look into these matters. It would argue that the Community Services Commissioner effectively oversees the operation of DOCS. But honourable members would recall the difficulties we had in getting the commissioner that power. In an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 15 July 2000 I noted:

In March, the Child Death Review Committee cited the cases of four-month-old Dillon, who died in the back seat of his mother's car, and Jordan, who was also aged four months, and died in similar circumstances.

Like many other deceased children identified in the report, both had been the subject of repeated notifications to a department unable to respond effectively. The television program 60 Minutes last Sunday, 7 April, carried a similar story of two children who had been reported to the department as being at risk but who were now dead. That is unsatisfactory. No-one disputes that 10 April 2002 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1217

DOCS deals with difficult situations. But general demoralisation and difficulty need to be brought out into the open and addressed. It is not a matter of blaming public servants. I do not think it is even a matter of blaming the Government. It is a matter of identifying the problems, resources and procedures in an open way, adopting a whole-of-government approach to review what is done by DOCS, the Police Service, the Department of Education and Training and the Department of Health, and examining how those departments and the non- government sector interact. We must remove the mystery and make practical suggestions about how to fix the problems that are identified.

This House spends endless time debating penalty increases that will supposedly send a message. Who are we sending that message to? Presumably, it is to the people who are thinking about committing crimes. Supposedly, as they are about to throw a punch or shoot a gun, they think, "Gosh, I will go to gaol for longer now if I do this!" Of course, there are plenty of studies to show that that is not the thinking of people who are contemplating committing a crime, and that an increased penalty makes no difference. The cost of gaoling such people would be better directed to kindergartens, better child support services and so on. To the credit of the Minister for Education and Training, the Standing Committee on Social Issues has an inquiry into the possibility of early intervention where children have problems. Obviously, the position that I have taken in this House, as I have stated on numerous occasions, is that the money being put into prisons should be directed to setting blueprints for children's lives and looking at research that says the younger the child the more basic to its nature are the impressions and influences on it. Thus, good child care, good parental role models and support at a young age will help to address those issues. But, while our gaols are expanding, community services are not. That is perhaps the essence of the problem. I do not claim to be an expert, but interlocking and holistic factors need to be analysed carefully, openly and publicly. The arguments against having such an inquiry are the same arguments used by another New South Wales government—and rejected by the current Government when it was in Opposition—when it proposed the establishment of the Wood royal commission into the New South Wales Police Service. For the good of the children of New South Wales, those arguments must fail. A report of the child death review team late last year once again illustrated the inadequacies in DOCS. The review team found that of the 21 children who met violent deaths, 13 had been reported to DOCS as "at risk of harm". The Commissioner for Children and Young People, Gillian Calvert, was reported as saying that case reviews had found there were inadequate risk assessments by DOCS once the child was reported to that department. She went on to say, "DOCS needs to look at what it is doing and make some changes to the way it is doing its business." That is the point of my motion. It is not a witch-hunt against the Minister or the Director- General of Department of Community Services. It is a review of the way DOCS does its business. I recognise that it is a difficult business but it is a very important business. If just one of those kids at risk can have a chance at life or a chance at a better life, then the inquiry will have been worthwhile. It is important that we go ahead with this inquiry and look into these matters openly and holistically. I tried to have this motion taken up by the Standing Committee on Social Issues. Perhaps in my remaining idealism, I had a vision of this House agreeing with one voice that the matter would be referred to a Government-dominated committee that would say, "Yes, we acknowledge there is a problem; it is difficult, there have been many changes to the department; it is difficult to change a culture; each managerial reorganisation makes it more difficult; some of those reorganisations and changes happened before we were in government, or they were management changes of the previous government." In other words, it would admit that everyone was a bit at fault and would think to the future, rather than to point-scoring or to the past. But, despite the passage of 21 months since such a reference was suggested, the Government has not moved on the matter. I informed the Government on Monday, just two days ago, that I wanted to bring on this motion in the hope that the Government would support it, because I believed this time I would have the numbers. But the Government could not make a decision to support my motion. I am very disappointed about that. I believe the Hon. Jan Burnswoods, from my dealings with her, has looked at issues fairly and ensured that report conclusions have reflected the evidence presented to committee hearings that she has chaired. It is worrying that the Government has not seen fit to accept this reference motion, even when faced with the reality of the numbers in this Chamber, and adopt a bipartisan approach. That the Government has been unwilling to do so is very discouraging. The Opposition is keen to move an amendment to propose a select committee constituted by two Government, two Opposition and two crossbench members. As long as the inquiry is conducted fairly and 1218 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 April 2002 properly, I do not have a very strong opinion as to which committee should conduct the inquiry. Fortunately, there is sufficient depth in the staff support for committees of this House that the selected committee does not make as much difference as one might at first believe. I believe either committee would be able to undertake this investigation properly. It is unfortunate that the delay in bringing on this matter has meant that it is being debated now within one year of an election. It gives me no pleasure to say that if the inquiry had been held when first suggested, in the middle of 2000, it would have been held at a less electorally-sensitive time and, hopefully, in the interim fewer children would have suffered from or been killed due to inadequacies in the system of managing them.

We have to be honest in our approach to problems in our society. Openness may not solve all the problems that we have, but it will solve a large number of them because intelligent co-operation becomes possible. This is one area in which such co-operation is possible. Although DOCS has a great number of problems because of the nature of the matters that it deals with, at the same time the subject that it deals with means it has a great deal of public sympathy. Everybody wants the children of our country to be brought up as happily as possible. Everyone wants them to have a good life. Nobody wants them to be criminals. Nobody wants them to fail at school.

If people are not good parents, others would like to help and contribute, and a framework is needed to enable that to happen. The idea that the community in general wants to beat up the Department of Community Services [DOCS] because of some generalised hatred of politicians, government and public servants is very cynical. Genuine goodwill exists, and discussion of problems—which may take the form of drug abuse by parents or a foster parent's need for anger management techniques as a result of bad upbringing experiences— may prevent the sins of the father being carried on to the children. The cyclical nature of these problems needs to be broken, and an open discussion of the problems is important.

I seek support for the motion, with or without amendments. I have discussed with members of the Opposition the nature of the amendments they are considering. Because the amendments retain the substance of the original motion, I believe they are in line with the adoption of a bipartisan approach. Unfortunately, I am not sure whether the Government supports a consensus approach. But whether the amendments are accepted or not, it is very important for this motion to be passed by this House, for the inquiry to be held, and for the children of New South Wales to get a better deal in the future than they are getting currently. I refer in particular to children who experience severe difficulties and who come to the attention of the Department of Community Services and other agencies that also deal with the management of children's problems.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [3.41 p.m.]: The Greens are very pleased to support the motion moved by Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans and congratulate him on his initiative. The motion concerns a matter that increasingly is a worry to more and more citizens of New South Wales. During his speech Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans placed great emphasis on the need for a bipartisan approach to the issue—or perhaps a tripartisan approach would more correctly reflect the composition of this House. I hope that the Government will see its way clear and adopt a bipartisan approach. The proposal for an inquiry is not based on a desire for a witch-hunt or a desire to attribute blame to Department of Community Services [DOCS] workers or management personnel in any way; rather it is aimed at ensuring that the children who come under the care of DOCS from time to time or for long periods are provided with the very best facilities and services. I believe that the Government is committed to the provision of a high standard of support for children, but often the constraints of politics result in the adoption of an adversarial approach. I suggest that that occurs much too often.

I strongly suggest to the Government that this is a time for adopting a bipartisan approach so that members of all parties can come together to negotiate the establishment of very clear terms of reference and proceed with the inquiry. There is nothing to fear from holding an inquiry. Throughout life, we all review our actions as individuals, and organisations often examine their practices with a view to improving their modes of operation. The same is true for government departments. The time comes when a substantial review is required, and that is all that is being asked for by the motion. We need a review whereby DOCS can be thoroughly examined to ensure that it is working in a way that delivers the best facilities and services to children who come under its care. The figures are extremely alarming on what happens to children who are being cared for by DOCS. I recognise that many DOCS workers are stretched to a point at which they can no longer deliver what is needed to respond adequately to the many cases that come before them. Many individual DOCS workers have told the Greens that they concede that something has to change.

If the Parliament is given the opportunity of working with the department and if a positive attitude is adopted by the Government, a great deal can be achieved. Young people in the care of DOCS need their 10 April 2002 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1219 situation addressed, especially when it is acknowledged that children under DOCS care at some time in their lives are 40 times more likely than other children to end up in juvenile justice centres and adult prisons. Those figures must ring alarm bells in the minds of honourable members and signal that we have a responsibility to examine the matter, to find out why that trend has emerged and what needs to change to reverse it. Clearly something needs to change, and as members of this Parliament we have a clear responsibility to find a way forward. The establishment of a review creates a way forward for dealing with this problem. I continue the theme alluded to a number of times by Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans, namely, the need for the adoption of a bipartisan approach. Honourable members have a chance by voting in favour of this motion to do some good and address these problems.

The Government is repositioning itself with a view to the election being held in the near future. That is understandable. And I understand the Government's fear of an inquiry at a time when we are well into the election part of the parliamentary cycle. However, the Government should bear in mind that the public is becoming fed up with politicians and their battles. This motion gives honourable members an opportunity to make it clear to the public that on certain issues politicians adopt a consensus approach and are willing to work with anybody who demonstrates the same commitment. It would be so easy for the Government to do so, thereby winning itself some brownie points instead of fearing that, if the motion is passed, the inquiry will be held too close to the election and will be misused by the Coalition. If establishment of the inquiry becomes an adversarial issue, perhaps it will be misused by the Coalition and the Government may be subjected to criticism as a result; but currently members of this House stand on the cusp of making progress with the problems sought to be addressed by the motion. It has not happened on many occasions in this place that honourable members have had the chance of pulling together.

On behalf of the Greens, I very much welcome the opportunity presented by this motion to support an attempt to resolve these problems. It would be very exciting if the motion is passed with the unanimous support of this House. In conclusion I emphasise that the underlying purpose of the motion is not in any way to conduct a witch-hunt of DOCS workers or management personnel. I recognise that DOCS workers are often placed in impossible positions. The Greens believe that as much as the inquiry will deal with the children who are under DOCS care, it will deal also with the conditions under which DOCS workers operate. I will be pleased to vote in support of the motion.

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment) [3.47 p.m.]: The Government is concerned about this proposal for an inquiry into the Department of Community Services [DOCS]. As a result of a number of discussions I have had with the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans about his concerns I know that his motives in moving this motion are well-intentioned, but the Government remains concerned that in one of the most difficult areas of public policy an inquiry such as the one proposed in the motion will divert significant resources away from child protection work. DOCS already has more than 19 watchdog agencies overseeing its work; it is one of the most scrutinised areas of government.

Casework decisions must be reviewed and endorsed by the courts, and deaths are reviewed by the police, the Coroner and the child death review team. A lot of discussion and certainly some misinformation has been presented about DOCS workload and DOCS capacity to deal with child protection reports. The Government takes this opportunity to put some of the facts on the record. DOCS received 107,000 calls last year. Each and every one of these was assessed, but not all were child protection reports nor required further investigation. DOCS further investigated 55,000 alleged cases of child abuse and these investigations resulted in 10,000 confirmed cases of child abuse.

It is true that awareness of child abuse in the community has never been higher, and of course that is a good thing. Child protection reports are coming into the Department of Community Services [DOCS] in unprecedented numbers, with a 47 per cent increase last year. The Government has gone to enormous lengths to raise awareness in the community about child abuse and to ensure that it is reported. The Department of Community Services is investigating and confirming more cases of abuse than ever before. That is confirmed by reports from the Productivity Commission, the Council on the Cost and Quality of Government, and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.

The one in 10 figure that has been touted by the Opposition on numerous occasions is complete nonsense. It has no basis in fact. It is disputed by the figures that I have already quoted and it is disputed by the figures in the annual report. Child protection services are being carefully monitored with the introduction of major reforms and a significant increase in reports. It should be acknowledged that the Government has 1220 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 April 2002 provided significant additional resources for child protection services. That contrasts with the Coalition's record in government, when it abolished 1,000 front line jobs and closed 23 offices—statistics that honourable members should keep in mind. Where is the Opposition's motivation coming from on this issue, given its record when it was in government?

This Government increased the child protection budget to a record $121 million per year—more than two and a half times what it was when this Government came into office. We increased the child protection budget from $49 million annually in 1994 to $121 million this year. As I said earlier, that is more than two and a half times what it was when this Government came into office. We have provided an additional 190 case workers for the Department of Community Services in the past year alone. Not all calls to DOCS are child protection reports; not all reports require further investigation; and not all investigations confirm that abuse or neglect has taken place.

Many people know that DOCS cannot remove children from their parents on the basis of a phone call. The community would be highly outraged if it tried to do that. DOCS has to have enough evidence of abuse to satisfy a court that intervention is warranted. Although those reporting suspected abuse are usually well- intentioned and genuine in their concern for a child's welfare, the fact is that it may not be possible to justify the removal of a child on the evidence available after an investigation. That is not an indication of a failure on the part of DOCS. Quite the reverse, it shows that the system is working. It is a vital safeguard that our legal system requires clear evidence to justify State intrusion into the private lives of families in New South Wales. That is one of the checks and balances that ensures that DOCS does not overstep the mark and become overzealous in responding to child protection allegations.

Guided by the law and the courts and professional risk assessment tools, DOCS caseworkers make judgments on a daily basis about whether it is necessary and justifiable to remove a child. People realise that every DOCS caseworker wrestles with the difficult responsibility of whether a child should be removed from his or her family. It is an inherently difficult job. We do not often hear about the success stories—the dozens of children who are saved every day by DOCS workers; or the 8,000 children who sleep safely each night because DOCS has removed them from abusive parents—and nor do we hear the other side of the story when DOCS is criticised.

In one of the cases featured on 60 Minutes this week it was not reported that DOCS officers had been unable to substantiate abuse or neglect of the child and had in fact made more than 10 home visits and 17 phone calls to try to locate the family. Instead, it simply reported that DOCS failed to protect that child. As I have already indicated, the commencement of an inquiry will divert significant resources away from child protection casework at a critical time with escalating numbers of child protection reports coming in and new legislation and new systems being introduced. The impact and likely value of an inquiry at this point will need to be carefully weighed by members, especially considering the many avenues for scrutinising DOCS that are already in place.

The Government is committed to open and accountable services and DOCS is no exception. It is already one of the most closely scrutinised areas of government. The Government believes that there are multiple avenues for monitoring and reviewing the performance of the Department of Community Services. If honourable members are serious about achieving a real outcome and they want to support an inquiry—if their claims for bipartisanship are genuine—they will support a reference of this matter to the Standing Committee on Social Issues, the best committee to undertake such an inquiry.

If such an inquiry is to occur, it should be undertaken by the Standing Committee on Social Issues, which has the expertise, the experience and the history of dealing with issues in this area. On numerous occasions that committee has produced reports on related issues. The Government has closely considered those reports and taken on board the committee's recommendations. If there is to be some debate—and I understand there may well be—about where such an inquiry should be conducted, if one is to occur, it is the Government's view that the Standing Committee on Social Issues is the best committee to undertake that task.

The Hon. IAN COHEN [3.56 p.m.]: The Greens support the motion by the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans and we congratulate him on his work in this area. The Department of Community Services [DOCS] is faced with a crisis. It has been faced with a crisis for a long time. I listened with interest to the contribution of the Minister. She said that many vulnerable children in our community are protected by the Department of Community Services—a statement that I believe is worth acknowledging. However, this motion is not an outright attack on the Department of Community Services, but it acknowledges that the department is in crisis and has been in crisis for a long time. 10 April 2002 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1221

Children have died unnecessarily and there is a severe shortage of resources and front line workers to deal with the huge increase in child abuse notifications stemming from the establishment in 2000 of the DOCS phone helpline. Every year the Child Death Review Team publishes a report on child deaths in New South Wales. Every year risk assessment by DOCS is identified as a problematic area. The last Child Death Review Team report, which was published in November last year, contains some shocking information.

For example, Ainsley, a four-year-old child—the only child in a family—died from multiple injuries inflicted by her widowed mother's de facto husband, who had a criminal history and suffered from mental illness. Ainsley's extended family reported its concerns about her safety and wellbeing to DOCS on five occasions before her death. Department of Community Services officers failed to investigate the reports or visit her home.

Molly, a seven-year-old, had been exposed to multiple abuse and spent time in foster care to escape family violence. The Department of Community Services had seven volumes of files on repeated domestic violence in her family, as well as reports of parental drug and alcohol abuse and sexual assault. Her father had a history of violence and criminal activity and had been charged with sexual assault of a teenage girl. Molly was meant to be in supervised care, yet she was found battered and dead. Conner, the 10-month-old son of heavily drug-dependent parents, was on the high-risk files of DOCS, the police, the parole service and the local hospital. His father, who was on bail for serious criminal offences, had a history of violent behaviour, grievous bodily harm and breaches of apprehended violence orders. Conner's bruised body was found in the lounge room where the couple was staying. All these deaths could have been prevented by proper investigation, risk assessment and appropriate steps to protect the child. Gillian Calvert, the Commissioner for Children and Young People, said at the time the report was released to the Sun-Herald:

Thirteen of the 21 children who died of abuse or neglect had been reported as "at risk of harm" to DOCS. As in previous reports, the case reviews found there were inadequate risk assessments by DOCS once a child was reported to them. DOCS needs to look at what it's doing and make some changes to the way it is doing business.

What went so terribly wrong in these cases and in similar cases? Lack of resources, inadequate procedures, or a range of other things? An independent inquiry could get to the bottom of that kind of thing. An inquiry could make recommendations for change, as suggested by Gillian Calvert. An inquiry could make recommendations that could help save children's lives and prevent others from being exposed to unnecessary and devastating violence. If the inquiry were to save one life or even prevent one injury, that would be a good thing and, for that reason, it should be supported.

Another issue that keeps raising its head and should be addressed by this Government, but seemingly never is addressed, is staff shortages. In late March this year the Public Service Association again focused on that issue. It claimed that less than one in 10 child abuse cases were investigated as Department of Community Services workers struggled to meet a 100 per cent increase in child abuse reports. This was backed up in the 60 Minutes report that was aired last Sunday.

The union estimates that 700 new caseworkers are needed to restore service levels to those existing prior to the establishment of the DOCS helpline. The Government should take child abuse more seriously than it does. If it were truly serious about the issue, it would immediately employ a significant number of new caseworkers to deal with the massive increase in child abuse notifications. I commend the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans for moving the motion. The Greens hope the inquiry will lead the way forward to deal with the current crisis in DOCS and that it will save the lives of young people and create a better quality of life for vulnerable young people. Hopefully, the inquiry will address the appalling lack of adequate DOCS staffing, and that will have a flow-on effect in many other areas.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [4.01 p.m.]: As has been indicated by a number of members, the Opposition intends to move a detailed amendment to this motion to allow for the establishment of a select committee to inquire into and report on the Department of Community Services. I wish to address some of the points raised by members in the debate. Firstly, I acknowledge the work of the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield- Evans in moving the motion. I also acknowledge his contribution to the debate, as well as the contributions of other members. This House is about wanting to move forward, and wanting to be positive and proactive in the support of the Department of Community Services.

Ms Lee Rhiannon spoke about not wanting to see a blame game and not wanting to see the department simply attacked. I am sure the Government would agree with that. We want to find a way forward. When the Minister said that since coming to office the Government had increased the department's budget by 2½ times, 1222 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 April 2002 she stated the very reason why we need to establish this inquiry. Treasury officials would be the first to say that the Department of Community Services must not be allowed to be a black hole. Treasury would say that it is a black hole, that no matter how much money is given to it, more is always sought. I believe that we as a Parliament have an obligation to undertake a review of the department, its work and its systems, to see whether we can find a more effective and efficient way of using its resources. Governments cannot go on simply increasing the resources of the department without being able to assure themselves that the funding is being spent appropriately and efficiently. I was surprised to hear the Minister say that this would mean diverting resources at a critical time. What critical time? Why is this a more critical time than any other time? When will it not be a critical time? Perhaps the Minister meant that it was critical not to do it in the year before an election. To properly assess the work and role of the department, I believe it is appropriate that this inquiry be established. It is a question not of diverting resources but of supporting the Parliament in its endeavours to better understand the adequacy of the Department of Community Services' systems and support network, the appropriateness of home care placements, and the adequacy of the resources available to deal with the many reports that come to the department. One need only look at the annual reports of the department to understand that in 2000-01 child abuse reports to the department increased to 107,000, compared with 33,000 in 1995-96. The Minister gave an explanation about this, saying they were not all abuse cases, that ultimately there were only 10,000 confirmed cases. But the fact is that many cases were initially defined as child abuse reports. If the Minister is correct in saying they were not all child abuse cases, the impact of the 1998 legislation, which increased the number of bodies that had to make mandatory reports, should be the subject of review. The impact on schools and teachers of the guidelines and what needs to be reported to the department, the Children's Commission and others as a consequence of the definitions of child abuse should also be part of such a review. It requires a specialised select committee to look at the vast number of issues. The Minister said that the figures that are being used are not correct. Our sources include officers of the department, including front-line officers, officers of the union that supports these workers, and officers of DOCS. The Government may say the figures are wrong, but the reality is that people are providing us with that information. Indeed, three weeks ago at an alternate dispute resolution conference conducted by the department, it was said that 39 out of 40 cases are not being investigated. The figure was later denied, but subsequently, in an email addressed to staff some days after the initial denial, the figure was confirmed. If we are debating complex issues and definitions of which case fits into which category, how many cases there are, and how many are going unreported, is it not appropriate that we have this select committee? Governments cannot afford to continue to provide resources without properly testing the validity of many of the underlying assumptions that are made.

Whether today or yesterday in the other place, the Government refereed in its defence to actions of a government 14 years ago, in 1988. After seven years, if the best the Carr Government can do in its own defence is to rely on actions taken 14 years ago, it is damned by its own words. If after seven years the Government believes the department was underresourced, it should have taken the appropriate action. If the Government says that a 250 per cent increase in the budget amounts to action, why are we not seeing a 250 per cent improvement? Why are we seeing so many more cases reported than at any time in the past?

Why do we have the sort of figures that Ms Lee Rhiannon quoted about the future for young children who are in substitute care? Why is their future so problematic? Why are these additional resources not providing them with the adequate security and support that would enable them to prosper and flourish in the way we would wish for all our young people? Why are so many of those young people becoming statistics in the juvenile justice system? Why are so many of them homeless? Why are so many of them dropping out of school? Why are the levels of care being provided and the support systems simply not appropriate?

These are enormous questions. I agree with the Minister that they are among the most complex issues of public policy. The best thing we can do is not to go down the blame path but to recognise that everyone in this Chamber, and I suspect right across Parliament, wants a better outcome for young people at risk in their families and in their communities, and for young people who have been removed from their communities and families. That is the big responsibility that the Department of Community Services [DOCS] accepts in its role of child protection. On any criteria one has to say it does not get it right. Last weekend the Director-General of the Department of Community Services effectively shifted blame from her department to the families who report on children at risk. That was one of the greatest derelictions of duty I have ever seen from a senior government official in this State. She does not deserve the title of director-general of the department. 10 April 2002 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1223

She was effectively calling on people to kidnap children. Until she used those words I had been watching that 60 Minutes report and thinking to myself that we have to find a better way to manage our young children at risk, that as a community we have to reassess our priorities, and that involves more than the department. Last year 21 children who died in New South Wales had been known to a government agency to be at risk. Year after year there has been that sort of figure, and it cannot continue. A select committee of Parliament is the appropriate way to deal with the issue. I agree with my colleagues that we do not want this to be just a blame game. This is in the interests of not only this Government but also the next Government. Therefore I look to this inquiry as being positive and beneficial to the future of governments and their policies. I urge the House to adopt the motion as amended as proposed by the Opposition. I move:

That the question be amended by omitting all words after "That" and inserting instead:

"a select committee be appointed to inquire into and report on the following aspects of the Department of Community Services:

(a) the adequacy of systems to receive, investigate and assess reports of children and young people at risk of harm,

(b) the ability of systems to receive and respond to requests for assistance concerning children, young people and families,

(c) the availability of appropriate out of home care placements for children and young people,

(d) outcomes for children and young people in out of home care,

In respect to matters (a)-(d) above, the Committee is to examine:

(i) the training and morale of DOCS employees

(ii) the adequacy of resources allocated for child and family services

(iii) the role of research and consultation.

2. That the Committee table an interim report by 26 September 2002 and a final report by 5 December 2002.

3. That the Committee consist of the following members:

(a) two Government members nominated in writing to the Clerk of the House by the Leader of the Government,

(b) two Opposition members nominated in writing to the Clerk of the House by the Leader of the Opposition,

(c) two crossbench members nominated in writing to the Clerk of the House by the crossbench.

4. That the Committee have leave to sit during any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, to make visits of inspection within New South Wales, and other States and Territories of Australia with the approval of the President, and have power to take evidence and to send for persons, papers, records and things, and to report from time to time.

5. That the Chair, Deputy Chair or other member acting as Chair at a meeting of a Committee has a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equality of votes, a casting vote.

6. That should the House stand adjourned and the Committee agree to any report before the House resumes sitting:

(a) the Committee have leave to send any such report, minutes of proceedings and evidence taken before it to the Clerk of the House,

(b) the document be printed and published and the Clerk forthwith take such action as is necessary to give effect to the order of the House,

(c) the document be laid on the Table of the House at its next sitting.

7. That on receipt of a request from the Committee for funding, the Government immediately provide the Legislative Council with such additional funds that the Committee considers necessary for the conduct of its inquiry.

8. The above provisions have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the standing orders.

This amendment is a reasonable one that will help the Department of Community Services. It provides for the committee to examine all aspects of the assessment of children at risk of harm, the ability of the system to respond to requests for assistance and the availability and appropriateness of home care places for children and young people. It will address issues to do with the training and morale of DOCS employees and the adequacy of resources. This amendment has been moved, as crossbench members have said today, to find solutions to what 1224 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 April 2002 has become an almost intolerable problem in our community. Each year we are getting in excess of 100,000 notifications. Notwithstanding the work of the department, notwithstanding the resources that have been provided by governments, too many young children slip through the net and, sadly, too many of them die.

The Minister said that this department, more than any other, is reviewed and overseen by other agencies. She cited the Child Death Review Team as one example. For all of the reviews, we still do not have it right. Perhaps we have not brought together the evidence from all the groups and tried to develop a comprehensive plan for the future of young children at risk of harm in the State. That is what this is about: addressing the long-term, systemic problems that seem to place at risk the work of the Department of Community Services. Staff morale seems to be low all the time. In the years that I have been dealing with this department I do not believe that anyone has said that staff morale is good. It is always low. There are always departmental officers willing to share with oppositions information about problems. Senior management and front-line staff often seem to be in conflict, and that is not in anybody's interest. We have to find a way to lift the morale of the staff and give them better support. This is not about blame shifting, unlike what I thought the director-general did the other night when she tried to put the blame on the families who reported concerns about two children who had died. Many families do not have such a capacity to do more and I think it was an enormous injustice to the families of those two young children, when they had made allegations and sought support from the professionals in the field. I have been conscious of the sort of comments that have come from both the past and present Community Services Commissioner. I conclude with some words from the present commissioner, Robert Fitzgerald, who criticised the Government's failure to proclaim sections of the 1998 Act by saying:

The failure to proclaim these sections significantly disadvantages children with disabilities in residential care and other children in voluntary care placements. It also significantly hampers the work of the Children's Guardian.

The Community Services Commission also has serious concerns about the capacity of the current system to adequately deal with the alarming rise in care and protection orders.

So does this House. We have to find a way for the department and the community to deal with the alarming rise in care and protection orders. We must get the system right. Too many young people are dying and too many young children at risk are not being supported adequately. It is not about this government department of itself; it is about many complex issues. However, at the heart of the matter is that the Department of Community Services must take responsibility because it has been charged with the responsibility and it has a duty of care. It has a responsibility to protect and support young children at risk of harm and young children in substitute care. The department has enormous responsibilities, and we must ensure that it is able to carry out those responsibilities more effectively and efficiently than it has hitherto. I strongly urge honourable members to support the motion as amended by the Opposition. The Hon. RICHARD JONES [4.20 p.m.]: I support the motion calling for an inquiry into the Department of Community Services [DOCS]. Major concerns relating to the adequacy with which the department deals with notifications and reports of abuse and neglect have been raised by honourable members in this place and in the other place and by people in the wider community for some time. We can no longer ignore their calls for action. The problems experienced by DOCS that have been publicised recently are unacceptable. It is obvious that there are grave and systemic errors of practice occurring. Despite recommendations directing the department to change, it seems that little has happened. In 1982 Professor Laurence made numerous recommendations regarding the death of a young child, Paul Montcalm. Among those recommendations were the proper training of staff, offering staff a career structure to progress through and making staff feel valued by giving them more input into decision making— recommendations that we read in report after report. Sadly, these recommendations go back a long way. Laurence also made a recommendation about keeping better records. He said that the system in 1982 was absolutely ad hoc and led to unnecessary deaths. Yet children continue to die at alarming rates. Some 729 children died in New South Wales from 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001; 78 of those children had been reported to DOCS as being at risk, or had siblings who had earlier been reported to DOCS. Nigel Spence of the Association of Children's Welfare Agencies said that if troubled families were better supported, fewer at-risk children would die. Gillian Calvert from the Child Death Review Team said that there was inadequate risk assessment by DOCS once a child was reported to it. The review team's report also found that police and health officials fail to recognise the impact of parents' behaviour on children. Obviously, DOCS should be protecting children. It is quite clear that the department is not protecting children; in fact, the department is in crisis. Reports detail that inadequate child abuse investigative procedures and systemic failure across government departments have contributed to children's deaths. 10 April 2002 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1225

On 3 April Helen Syme, the Senior Deputy Chief Magistrate, criticised the State's child sexual assault investigatory procedures, claiming that "proper training appears to be the exception rather than the rule" among specialist child abuse investigation teams. In addition, figures revealed to 73 child and family caseworkers attending a DOCS conference in Sydney indicated that 39 out of 40 child abuse reports are never investigated. Last year in New South Wales 21 children died after being reported. They should have received the assistance and attention of DOCS or other agencies. It was clear that they were at risk. One-third of those children were known by DOCS or another human service agency to be at risk. In the past year there has been a 45 per cent increase in child abuse reports, to 107,000. It is quite clear that the Government has failed to intervene and prevent child abuse.

The simple fact of the matter is that up to 90 per cent of all child abuse reports never get investigated because of a lack of resources. Only 30 per cent of cases needing immediate investigation are responded to. Cases for which a response is needed in 48 to 72 hours may be attended to if time permits, and cases for which a response is required in between three and 10 days are not followed up at all. Some 16 per cent of calls to the DOCS helpline are never answered. This means that another potential 30,000 child abuse and neglect reports do not get action. In 1995-96 there were 33,000 child abuse reports, there were 107,000 last year, and there may be up to 130,000 this year. In relation to the 21 children who died last year, many of their parents abused drugs and alcohol, had been involved in domestic violence and crime or had mental health problems. The children were aged between one month and seven years.

The Association of Children's Welfare Agencies [ACWA] and the Council of Social Service of New South Wales [NCOSS] support an inquiry. They have advocated that the Government refer the issues of concern to the Community Services Commission [CSC]. Quite frankly, the Community Services Commission is not in a position to do this, and it knows that. The CSC has told my office that the Government has not referred anything to it in more than a year, and that the Government has also failed to fix the jurisdictional problem allowing it to oversee DOCS. There is a jurisdictional question mark hanging over its head which the Government has not been prepared to rectify. It says that the inquiry should focus on children and young people at risk, requests for assistance and the capacity of DOCS and other agencies to respond effectively.

ACWA and NCOSS say that the inquiry should investigate the capacity of DOCS to receive, investigate and assess reports of children and young people at risk of harm; the factors contributing to the increased numbers of reports and requests for assistance; the capacity of DOCS to receive and respond to requests for assistance concerning children, young people and families; and the extent of the follow-through and the effectiveness of the response made by DOCS, other relevant government departments and community agencies to reports of children and young people at risk of harm and requests for assistance. The terms of reference I have seen outlined by both the Hon. Patricia Forsythe and the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans effectively address these criteria. I support the motion.

The Hon. ALAN CORBETT [4.25 p.m.]: I support an inquiry into the Department of Community Services. I support the move to try to provide solutions to some very ingrained problems. I have spoken to the Children's Commissioner, Gillian Calvert. Surely she would be one of the first people consulted on this issue. Gillian has recommended that the inquiry should be undertaken by the Standing Committee on Social Issues for a number of reasons. First, she mentioned the expertise of the members of the committee. I have investigated the sorts of inquiries undertaken by the social issues committee. The committee has conducted one inquiry into juvenile justice, children's advocacy, parent education and early intervention for children with learning difficulties, and a number of inquiries into adoption.

Currently, the committee is undertaking an inquiry into disability services. Members of the committee have a long history and a depth of experience which may not be seen in members appointed to a select committee. Secondly, Gillian made the point that the social issues committee has high status in the community and therefore the report may carry more weight. It is important that a bipartisan approach to this matter is adopted. The Government has made it clear that it will co-operate with and be involved in a bipartisan way if the inquiry proceeds. We also have an established committee structure. I simply wanted to put on the record that members of the social issues committee have a lot of good experience.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [4.28 p.m.]: The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans has moved a motion to ask the Standing Committee on Social Issues to inquire into and report on child and family services of the Department of Community Services. The honourable member feels very strongly about this issue and has worked on it for a considerable period. I will move an amendment to the Opposition's amendment because the 1226 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 April 2002

Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans has assured me that the Opposition's amendment would improve the wording of the terms of reference of the inquiry he has in mind. However, my difficulty is that the Opposition's amendment seeks to have the inquiry conducted by a select committee, rather than the Standing Committee on Social Issues, as proposed by the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans.

For a number of reasons that I will explain, I believe that any inquiry into the Department of Community Services should be undertaken by the Standing Committee on Social Issues, as originally proposed by the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans. The honourable member is a member of the social issues committee, which I have the honour of chairing. I move:

That the amendment of the Hon. Patricia Forsythe be amended as follows:

No. 1 Paragraph 1. Omit "a Select Committee", insert instead "the Standing Committee on Social Issues".

No. 2 Paragraphs 3 to 8. Omit the paragraphs.

I believe that the Standing Committee on Social Issues is the appropriate committee to conduct the inquiry. I note that the Hon. Alan Corbett, who spoke briefly, pointed out why he believes the social issues committee is the relevant committee to conduct the inquiry. The Hon. Alan Corbett mentioned a number of inquiries in relation to children conducted by the committee which produced excellent and unanimous reports, an important point that needs to be made. I also serve with the Hon. Alan Corbett on the joint parliamentary Committee on Children and Young People.

Together with the Hon. Peter Primrose we have spoken at some length with Gillian Calvert, Commissioner for Children and Young People, about her role in relation to these issues. I know that Gillian Calvert on a previous occasion expressed her belief that the social issues committee is the appropriate committee to deal with issues of this kind. The members of that committee have taken note of a number of points made by Gillian Calvert as children's commissioner about this very vexed and difficult issue of deaths of children. Gillian chairs the Child Death Review Team and has tried on a number of occasions to correct the frequent misunderstandings that exist about the truly terrible statistics on the death of children. Several times in this debate so far Opposition speakers and the Hon. Richard Jones, and on previous occasions particularly members of the Opposition, have pointed out deaths of children known to the Department of Community Services [DOCS].

Today we have been told about the 21 child deaths for which the Opposition claim DOCS is responsible. Gillian Calvert has made the point many times, and I will repeat it specifically in relation to these 21 children, that the House is being seriously misled. Of course DOCS deals with the overwhelming majority of young children who die because it is the department that deals with high-risk families. These families in almost every case have had contact not only with DOCS but with the health department and other health bodies, the police and welfare agencies, non-government as well as government. To argue, as some honourable members who have spoken to this motion have tried to do, that DOCS is somehow solely responsible for these deaths because it has known about the cases is seriously misleading. DOCS has a huge workload, about which I will say more later, but it cannot solely be blamed. The report states:

The most that can be concluded is that the Department of Community Services by the very nature of its work and its statutory responsibilities has contact with the most vulnerable socially and economically disadvantaged families in New South Wales. These families have a higher incidence of violence, alcohol and drug use and disruption than families in less disadvantaged circumstances. A major point of discussion has been which committee will deal with the matter. It has been suggested that almost any existing committee might do so or that a select committee of one kind or another should be established. I notice that the media release issued today by the Association of Child Welfare Agencies [ACWA] and the Council of Social Service of New South Wales [NCOSS] in fact does not support the motion moved by the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans. Of all the non-government agencies with which our committee deals they are most informed about the issues in relation to looking after vulnerable children, and specifically children's deaths, and they should be listened to. The last clause of today's media release today states, "We do not support a parliamentary inquiry at this stage." I make it clear that what ACWA and NCOSS are supporting is an inquiry but, in their case, they want it conducted by the Community Services Commission. I stress that they do not want the inquiry conducted by a parliamentary committee because of the amendment moved by the Opposition that it be conducted by a select committee rather than the Standing Committee on Social Issues. ACWA and NCOSS argue that it is incredibly important that the inquiry should not: be an inquiry into DOCS in general; be an inquiry into the helpline alone; have a major focus on out-of- 10 April 2002 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1227 home care; be used to delay reforms to the out-of-home care system; and have the intentional or unintentional effect of delaying the implementation of the out-of-home care chapters of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998—chapters 8 and 10. All honourable members should seriously take note of the concerns raised by ACWA and NCOSS.

This inquiry could have the effect of putting DOCS under increased pressure. Indeed, when this motion of the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans first appeared on the notice paper 21 months ago and was moved, I think the Hon. John Tingle said he could not support it because it would actually make the existing problems in DOCS worse by putting DOCS under pressure. If we claim to be concerned about morale in DOCS we must ask whether this kind of inquiry will help. The Minister pointed out that DOCS is already subject to 19 separate watchdog bodies. No government department in New South Wales is as watched, monitored, looked over, examined and inquired into as DOCS. If there is to be an inquiry—and by the mood of the House there is no doubt that will happen—it must be conducted sensitively. Without being immodest, given that I am the Chair of the Standing Committee on Social Issues I think I can say that our record proves that we are able to do that.

The Hon. Doug Moppett is an excellent Deputy-Chair, and the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans, the mover of this motion, is our other non-Government member. The committee has a mix of people that I believe can deal adequately with an inquiry such as this. Probably more importantly, we have an excellent staff with qualifications directly related to the issues about which we are talking. The staff work specifically for the social issues committee and have dealt with a number of inquiries that touch on some of these issues. In particular, we are in the process of completing two inquiries: an inquiry into disability services, which has dealt to a very large extent with children with intellectual disabilities; and an inquiry into intervention for children with learning difficulties. That has involved us dealing with all of the departments that deal with children.

In the past, as the Hon. Alan Corbett pointed out, the Standing Committee on Social Issues has produced reports on parent education, children's advocacy and adoption. The other crucial point about those reports that needs to be made is that they have all been unanimous. Despite the varying nature of the membership of the committee and the representation on it of different parties, the social issues committee, with the help of its excellent staff, has found it possible to produce unanimous reports. I believe the Government takes note of those reports. Not all of our recommendations are accepted, but I think we have a good track record in having the matters on which we report dealt with. Our reports are listened to, taken note of, and action does follow. If an inquiry of the kind proposed in the motion is to be undertaken, I believe the Standing Committee on Social Issues is best equipped to do that.

It is perhaps unfortunate that this motion is being considered at this time. It was moved some 21 months ago and was debated last year, but that debate lapsed for lack of support for the motion. That was due, at least in part, to a feeling that an inquiry into DOCS might have unintended consequences and that an inquiry might do more harm than good. Now, of course, we are faced with having an inquiry at probably the worst time of the electoral cycle, that is, the period immediately leading up to an election. For instance, if the Standing Committee on Social Issues had embarked on this inquiry 21 months ago, or even a year ago, there may have been less tendency on the part of people to play politics, with at least half an eye being kept on the forthcoming election.

Now that we are only 11 months out from an election, a standing committee with a membership that dates back to the beginning of the Parliament, and with a staff specifically credentialled to work with it, is much more likely to be able to deal with difficult political issues than perhaps an ad hoc select committee, which would find it far more tempting while dealing with the issues to focus more on the election than on the seriousness of the issues themselves. Finally, as I have said before, the Standing Committee on Social Issues is in the process of concluding its inquiry into disability services—a reference given to it by this House. The most controversial part of that inquiry was that part which had to be done in 1999. That was the inquiry into the Government's decision to tender out the operation of DOCS group homes.

The fact that the social issues committee was able to produce, in the necessary 10 weeks, a unanimous report on an issue as politically fraught as that one was I believe is a very good recommendation for the social issues committee to undertake an inquiry into DOCS in the most proper, thoughtful, considered and sensitive way. I fear that a select committee would find it much more difficult to deal with such an inquiry and to have members with the necessary expertise. It would be much more difficult for the Clerks to find staff with the necessary expertise to serve the committee. Also, it would be much more difficult for such a committee to try to deal with issues in a way that is not dominated by the forthcoming election. 1228 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 April 2002

Might I conclude by noting that, since the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans himself regarded the Opposition amendment to the terms of reference as an improvement, my amendment would keep the terms of reference as suggested by the Opposition but would be a return to the proposal originally put forward by the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans of having the Standing Committee on Social Issues, of which he is a member, conduct the inquiry.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [4.44 p.m.]: I intend to be brief, and therefore will not canvass the substantive motion. However, I want to express my support for the motion originally moved by the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans on 20 June 2000. I canvassed those matters at that time, so I will not do so again now. I support also the Coalition amendment of the terms of reference proposed by the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans, because I regard the amended motion as much tighter and perhaps more up to date, as well as containing the correct date.

I support also the amendment moved by the Hon. Jan Burnswoods. I agree with the honourable member that the Standing Committee on Social Issues is the more appropriate committee to deal with this reference. I am not commenting on the substantive terms of reference, because I totally support the inquiry; I just want to say that on the last occasion when I spoke in favour of the motion I said that the Minister was doing a great job. At that stage she was a relatively new Minister. However, down the track I have to be honest and say that I became a little bit disappointed because the same issues continue to crop up. I think this sort of inquiry would help to speed up processes to address those issues. Even though it is now late in the political cycle, whatever party is elected, whatever Minister assumes this portfolio, will have a recommendation on which to act. So it is beneficial at this time to have such an inquiry regardless of the timing of other aspects of it.

I fully support the inquiry—there is no doubt about the need for it—and I will now turn to whether a select committee or a standing committee is better equipped to deal with it. It is not because I am a former member of the Standing Committee on Social Issues that I say I think the social issues committee would be a more appropriate choice. The Hon. Jan Burnswoods has given the House her opinion on that matter, and I certainly agree. From my recollection, that committee's recommendations have always been bipartisan and had little, if any, party political content.

I have great faith in the committee Chair, the Hon. Jan Burnswoods. I think she has been doing a great job over the past few years, as did previous chairs the Hon. Max Willis, the Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith and the Hon. Ann Symonds. They all did a great job. All of them, regardless of their Coalition or Labor background, have been substantially impartial. But I want to say a few words about the other members of the committee: the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans, the Hon. Amanda Fazio, the Hon. Doug Moppett and the Hon. Ian West. I have every faith in the committee membership, particularly having regard to the committee's good track record. They have shown their ability and good standing in conducting their inquiries.

At this time we do not even know the membership of the proposed select committee. We know that it would constitute two Coalition members, two Government members and two Independent members but, with great respect to all of my colleagues in this Chamber, sometimes members have special interests, particular idiosyncrasies and distinctly different skills and expertise. I am not talking about the Hon. Malcolm Jones, who is interjecting, or any other member for that matter, because we do not know who will constitute the select committee. I favour the social issues committee, not because I do not have faith in other honourable members but because we know how that committee is established, we know its membership, and we know that it has demonstrated its expertise, interests and skills.

We should allow the social issues committee to continue with this inquiry as part of its functions merely because it has demonstrated that it can do a good job. A select committee could be constituted by some members in whom I do not have the greatest faith, notwithstanding whether they are members of the Coalition or the Labor Party or are Independents. There is also the infrastructure of the committee itself. The social issues committee was established by a Coalition Government. It is the most pertinent committee to look into social issues. It has the proper resources, expertise, skill and knowledge to look into these kinds of matters. That would make good use of the expertise those people have. I am not suggesting that a select committee is not given the same staff and resources as provided for a standing committee.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: But you have to find them.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: That is the point. I know that many standing committee inquiries and other investigations are under way. It will take up a lot of resources to establish another select committee, and 10 April 2002 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1229 that is another matter that should be taken to account. People have told me that one of the factors in favour of a select committee is that the Government is obliged to respond to a select committee's recommendations within six months, but that is not true: The Government is also obliged to respond to standing committee recommendations within six months. Perhaps only honourable members of this House understand the difference between a general purpose standing committee, such as the Standing Committee on Social Issues, the Standing Committee on Law and Justice and the Standing Committee on State Development, and a select committee. People also think that because a committee comprises two Government members, two Coalition members and two Independent members, it is not Government controlled. As I have pointed out on previous occasions, the committees are not controlled by the Government because the committees adopt a non-partisan approach—at least that is the case with the Standing Committee on Social Issues. In conclusion, I indicate my support for the motion and for the amendments.

The Hon. JOHN TINGLE [4.51 p.m.]: Let us be very careful of what we are doing because this may be one of the most important decisions that this House has to make in terms of what we decide and the effect of that decision. For a long time I have believed that there has been an urgent need for an inquiry into the Department of Community Services [DOCS], but my belief goes back even further than the establishment of the Government's current community services organisation. In my journalism career I was aware that Family and Community Services [FACS], Youth and Community Services [YACS] and various predecessors of DOCS experienced the same types of problems that are being experienced now, but perhaps not in such sharp focus and not in the public arena. Perhaps they were happening and people did not know about them. We have to be very careful to ensure that we do not politicise this matter; it is much too important to become a political weapon with which to bludgeon the Government about the head, or by which anyone attempts to score points. It is not within the province only of the present Government that the crucial problems of child abuse and maltreatment of children generally exist.

If members of this House get this right, we will have a chance to do something that will bring the problems gradually to an end. That will not happen overnight, but in order to achieve that outcome the inquiry will have to engage in much more than witch-hunting and it will have to do much more than find out who is responsible for certain actions, who let the system down, who did not follow up reports, and who did not do his or her job. In the end result, the important outcomes are deciding how we stop these problems from occurring again and determining what safeguards are needed to be built into the system to protect children who are basically vulnerable and defenceless without the provision by us of bulwarks to prevent treatment of them in the manner discussed in the media over the past few weeks. My feeling is that a mindset has developed in DOCS— it also existed in FACS and YACS, as some honourable members may recall—and the mindset is a siege mentality. DOCS workers seem to feel that, whatever they do, they cannot win. If they do, they are damned, and if they do not, they are damned.

I have spoken to many of them and I think that the present DOCS organisation has had the problem compounded by the fact that it has no fewer than 19 watchdogs looking over its shoulder. The various departments and agencies to which DOCS has to report and be responsible to include the Coroner and the various children's accidental deaths teams. In any one case involving child abuse or the death of a child there may be five or six different agencies to which DOCS workers have to account. I believe that if nothing else is achieved by this inquiry, we should look for a single funnel through which DOCS workers can report back to all the agencies that appear to have a legitimate reason for looking into what DOCS does and what is happening to children. I have no quarrel with that process, but let us cut some of the workload from DOCS. When that has been done, we will be able to say, "There will be no more excuses such as being so tied up in paperwork that you cannot do your job." I believe that the great majority of people who work in DOCS do so because they really care and because they want to do something to protect and defend children. Our job is to find out whether they are not able to do that as effectively as they should, simply because they are overworked, the system does not work properly, or somebody has let somebody else down.

I do not know what the answers are, and I think that not many honourable members of this House do, but this has been a burning issue for me for many years. A couple of years ago, when the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans first suggested an inquiry of the nature proposed by this motion, I drew up a proposal for an inquiry of my own because I felt that his proposal was too narrow. I do not think that such an inquiry should be narrow. It should look beyond the political scene, beyond the repercussions for the Government and the Opposition, or anybody else, and it should just think about the children. That should be the only thing that honourable members are concerned about—finding out ways to erect a bulwark around the children. Like the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho, I have a problem deciding which committee is the correct one to which to refer this inquiry. I make no apology for my belief—I thought of this in the original proposal I submitted a couple of years 1230 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 April 2002 ago—that the inquiry should be conducted by a select committee. I would have preferred a joint select committee, but I know that we will not get away with that. The reason I believe the inquiry should be conducted by a select committee is that the committee should comprise members who have some background in, knowledge of, experience in and some feeling for, what we are trying to do. I really believe that the committee should be an assemblage of the good minds and relevant backgrounds and experience that can be brought to bear to address this problem.

The curious part about this is that I am also persuaded that the Standing Committee on Social Issues has many of the required talents among its membership—there is no question about that. The members of the committee also have the necessary experience. For most of the day I have been absent from the Chamber attending to a legal matter and while endeavouring to catch up with the debate I have asked myself whether the membership of a select committee would be any more expert and any better able to conduct this inquiry than is the membership of the present Standing Committee on Social Issues. And I am not sure that it would be. I have to make my decision on which committee is the best one and which type of committee will have the best people to do the best job in accordance with the terms of reference. I still think that the terms of reference are too narrow and that the terms of reference could be expanded to cover other matters, such as the DOCS mindset, the history of the problem and why it has arisen. However, it is too late to change the terms of reference. All that remains is for honourable members to agree upon the committee to which the matter is to be referred.

As I have said, I would prefer the matter to be handled by a select committee. Perhaps the Standing Committee on Social Issues is as good a committee as we will get anyway, but the questions I put to the Chair of the Standing Committee on Social Issues, the Hon. Jan Burnswoods, are whether, given the current workload of the committee, the committee will be able to pick up this inquiry and run with it fairly quickly, and whether the committee can report back within the time frame that is allowed. This is not a matter that can be put off until all the other business of the committee has been concluded.

The Hon. Rick Colless: You have got to have the will.

The Hon. JOHN TINGLE: I would like to think that every honourable member of this House has the will to do something about this matter and I would be shocked if they did not, particularly after the highly colourful segment that was shown on the television program 60 Minutes last Sunday night. Many people have suggested that the committee should report by December at the latest to be able to obtain a response from the Government. This may be heresy, but I do not give a damn about the response from the Government because that is not what I am looking for. I am looking for a finding, a report, recommendations and some concrete idea of what can be done to end what is an obscenity in our community. I believe that the committee, however constituted, must be able to tackle those issues almost from day one, and having tackled those issues from day one, it should not hurry the procedure. Children are dying and therefore there is an element of urgency about the inquiry.

But let us not spoil the ship for a ha'p'orth of tar. Let us not under any circumstances deal with this matter in such a way that we feel we have to hurry because this Parliament is coming to an end. Certainly it is important for an interim report to be presented by September, and that may pave the way, if the inquiry is not concluded before the Parliament ends, for a committee to investigate the matter in the next Parliament, pick up the ball, run with it and complete the role that the committee has set out to fulfil. I have to be honest and declare that, failing some answers being provided by the Government, I still do not know which way I will vote on this issue. I still like the idea of the inquiry being conducted by a select committee but, as I said, perhaps the Standing Committee on Social Issues is the best committee we will get. If it is, would it be able to start the inquiry immediately, would it be able to complete the inquiry in time, and would it be able to put other work aside to concentrate on this inquiry and get the job done to give kids a little bit of protection and peace?

The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD [5.00 p.m.]: I support the motion moved by the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans. I support also his bid for this matter to be referred to a select committee as opposed to the Standing Committee on Social Issues.

[Interruption]

I understand that the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans is now of the view that this matter should be referred to a select committee. I am sure he will make his views clear when he replies to the debate. We must ask whether things are wrong in the Department of Community Services [DOCS]. Is the Department of Community Services handling its workload? Are children suffering needlessly and are they dying tragically? An 10 April 2002 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1231 appropriately run inquiry will certainly answer these and other important questions in the community. The 2000- 01 report of the Child Death Review Team reveals that there were 21 deaths among children who were known to DOCS or other government agencies. Eight of those dead children were specifically in the care of the Department of Community Services.

It has been suggested that the child death figure for the last 12 months may be as high as 40. The 1995- 96 Department of Community Services annual report shows a shocking 33,000 reports of child abuse. But the 2000-01 report shows over 107,000 reports of child abuse. These figures do not indicate that the situation is under control. It has been suggested that child abuse reports for this year may exceed 130,000. According to the Minister, the helpline receives between 3,400 and 6,800 calls a week—somewhere around 170,000 and 350,000 calls a year. We are not really sure. The figure that has been referred to is somewhere between 170,000 and 350,000 calls a year, which is a hell of a gap. I refer to an advertisement that I ran in 1999 at my own expense. That advertisement, which cost me over $3,000 back in 1999, was run to assess the need for a public inquiry into the Department of Community Services. The advertisement reads:

Public Enquiry?

Department of Community Services (DoCS)

Abuse or Neglect?

One Nation ... is assessing the need for a full public inquiry into DoCS.

I remind honourable members that this was an advertisement that I ran at my own expense in 1999 and that it cost me over $3,000. The advertisement continues:

WE WANT INFORMATION FROM YOU

If you know anyone who has been harmed while under the Department of Community Services, or if you worked for DoCS and have any relevant information, please let us know.

All submissions will be kept confidential.

Please write a one page summary of your experiences with DoCS. Attach any supporting material and post it to:

David Oldfield

The relevant address and phone numbers are then listed.

The Hon. Richard Jones: What did you get?

The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD: I received a number of submissions and a number of phone calls. Many people wished to remain anonymous. I was able to meet with some people. I intended, through running that advertisement, to solicit people so that I could assess whether there was a need for a public inquiry into DOCS. It was clear during that assessment period, which went on for quite some time, that members of the community have many concerns about DOCS. I have already referred to the number of child deaths, the number of reports that are received through the helpline and the listed number of reports of child abuse in the annual reports of the Department of Community Services.

Regardless of the advertisement that was placed by me and what is known by many honourable members in this House, it is quite clear—and it is to be hoped—that an inquiry will delve into these issues and resolve community concerns one way or the other. Nothing will be resolved without an inquiry. Nothing will be resolved if we have a toothless type of inquiry without resources, within which members do not resolve to come to a truthful conclusion rather than one which is politically based.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [5.04 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the motion moved by the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans in the following terms:

That the Standing Committee on Social Issues inquire into and report on the child and family services of the Department of Community Services, with particular reference to—

The motion then lists a number of issues to be dealt with by that committee. Honourable members would be aware that the Opposition is seeking to amend the motion to refer the matter not to the Standing Committee on Social Issues but to a select committee. The Christian Democratic Party supports the amendment moved by the 1232 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 April 2002

Hon. Jan Burnswoods to abbreviate the committee's terms of reference. The only issue on which we disagree is whether the issue is to be referred to a select committee or to the Standing Committee on Social Issues. A strong argument that was put forward at the crossbench briefing this morning—the argument was put forward also by other people—was that the committee must make its report to the Government within six months.

After speaking to the Clerks and after examining the Legislative Council standing orders I have established that there is no requirement for a select committee to respond to the Government within six months. However, such a response is required if a standing committee is to report to the Government. Those honourable members who want this matter referred to a select committee have everything back to front. As I said earlier, a standing committee has to make its report to the Government within a six-month period. That is why I support a reference to the Standing Committee on Social Issues. If general purpose standing committees or standing committees such as the Standing Committee on Social Issues or the Standing Committee on Law and Justice investigate matters that are critical to the Government or they recommend improvements or changes to government policy, it has been my experience that the Government, in the main, treats those recommendations with respect and implements them. Standing committees conduct inquiries and base their recommendations on evidence, not on any conditions or on the biases of individual committee members. The staff members who have been working with the Standing Committee on Social Issues, the Standing Committee on Law and Justice and other standing committees, and who have a great deal of expertise, assist those committees to operate efficiently and assist committee members to produce reports as they are required. Opposition members, Government members and the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans have all accepted that the committee that is required to inquire into this matter must produce an interim report by 26 September and a final report by 5 December. Because of the imminent State election I am sure that an interim committee report on 26 September would be a most important and critical report. It would be difficult for the Government to respond to a committee report that was delivered on 5 December as it is not likely that the Parliament would be sitting at that time. The Chairman of the Standing Committee on Social Issues, the Hon. Jan Burnswoods, would have to determine from this motion the priorities with which that committee would deal in its interim report. Subparagraphs (a) and (b) of paragraph 1 of the motion refer to some of the priorities that should be dealt with in the interim report. Even though there is disagreement about which committee should undertake this investigation, all honourable members agree that there is a problem. There has been some breakdown in the reporting of cases of possible child abuse. It is recognised that there have been child deaths. However, I do not believe that that is the fault of the Minister. This motion should not be seen as an attack on the present Minister for Community Services. The committee should not be permitted to conduct a witch-hunt or to try to nail somebody as a result of the inquiry. The committee should try to come up with recommendations to enable the Department of Community Services to operate more efficiently for the safety and protection of children in this State. If somebody in the management area of the department made a mistake two years ago which resulted in the death of a child, that fact would have been established by the Coroner or by other inquiries that were held. I support the amendment moved by the Hon. Jan Burnswoods, which will retain the Opposition's terms of reference and the same timetable but will omit the words "select committee" and replace them with the words "Standing Committee on Social Issues". We could spend a great deal of time discussing what we have heard over the years about the Department of Community Services and the problems within that department. However, in view of the time I do not think that that is necessary in this debate. Those issues have been covered by other honourable members who have also referred to the membership of the Standing Committee on Social Issues. The Chairman of that committee is the Hon. Jan Burnswoods and the Deputy Chairman is the Hon. Doug Moppett—both of whom are experienced committee members. The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans, who is the initiator of this debate, is a member of that committee. I think we would all be confident that the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans would be a valuable asset to that inquiry. The two Labor members of the committee, the Hon. Amanda Fazio and the Hon. Ian West, would also be valuable assets to the inquiry. From my observations those members have efficiently assisted other committees to carry out their functions. As I have said, the main issue for debate is which committee should hold the inquiry. It seems that the Standing Committee on Social Issues would be preferable. The Opposition may argue that it is a government- controlled committee, and I suppose it could be argued that that is a fact. From my observation, however, standing committees have always acted in honourable fashion, and I do not see any reason why that state of affairs should change. 10 April 2002 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1233

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment) [5.11 p.m.]: I wish to speak briefly to the amendment moved by the Hon. Jan Burnswoods. Members have raised a number of concerns about the timely way in which the Standing Committee on Social Issues could deal with such a reference. I thought it worthwhile, therefore, to advise members that it is the Government's preference for such an inquiry to be conducted in a timely fashion—I am sure that would be everyone's preference. Indeed, it is clearly reflected in the Coalition's amendment with regard to the committee's reporting dates.

I am advised by the Chair of the Standing Committee on Social Issues that the committee currently has four inquiries under way, two of which will be finalised by 1 June: one on Internet censorship and the other on disability services. I have been advised that should this motion be carried the Standing Committee on Social Issues would certainly be able to complete the inquiry by the dates required by the Coalition's amendment, that is, by 26 September for the interim report and by 5 December for the final report. It is my understanding that the process for the calling of submissions, which is the initial step in any committee inquiry, would commence immediately. The committee has assured me that it would be able to meet both the interim reporting date and the final reporting date.

I wish to address a matter raised by the Hon. Alan Corbett. Any member may attend a hearing of a standing committee to ask questions. A member who has a particular interest in an inquiry before a committee but who is not a member of that committee may attend to ask questions. Although the Hon. John Tingle indicated that it was not necessarily the Government's response that he was particularly concerned about, on behalf of the Government I indicate that the Government's formal response to the committee's report would be done in a timely manner. We would make every effort to respond within the six-month requirement.

I reiterate my comment that if members of this House are genuine about wanting an inquiry that will achieve real outcomes and provide a process that can grapple with the very difficult issues that members have raised and are concerned about, the appropriate committee to conduct the inquiry is the Standing Committee on Social Issues. It has conducted a number of inquiries into related issues, and its members have vast experience and understanding of these issues. We do not yet know who would be the members of any select committee that may be appointed. There is already in place infrastructure and a secretariat to support the Standing Committee on Social Issues. Its members also have the necessary experience, knowledge and understanding of this very difficult issue, which certainly has the potential, through an inquiry process, to become a political football. I believe that everyone genuinely does not want that, and in my view the best way to ensure that that does not happen is by having the Standing Committee on Social Issues conduct the inquiry.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [5.14 p.m.]: Before debating the substantive issues I would like to place on record my regret that this very important issue, which concerns most people in the community, has only been seized upon as an issue in response to a segment on the television program 60 Minutes, a program that I do not hold in very high regard. We are dealing with emotional issues concerning children, where failures are blown up by the tabloid media. I use the term "tabloid" not just in relation to the print media but also in relation to programs such as 60 Minutes.

I note the length of time that this motion of the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans has been on the business paper, but we must ensure that there is not a knee-jerk reaction to this issue. Many speakers in this debate whose contributions have been valuable have said that the one thing they do not want is for this issue to become a political football. They want the focus of any inquiry that is held to be the identification of any improvements that can be made to the way DOCS deals with issues. They do not want the focus simply to be on the failures that occur within the system.

I concur with the comments made earlier by the Minister for Juvenile Justice that only the failures of DOCS are highlighted. We do not hear about the success stories and the good work the department does with families in keeping them together and in managing to ensure that the supports that are often lacking in the community today are put in place to ensure that families stay together and children are brought up in reasonable circumstances. We only hear about the sensationalised issues that are latched onto by programs such as 60 Minutes.

We need to be aware of the circumstances in the community these days. The pressures that families now face are greater than they have ever been. I am talking not just about economic pressures, but about the fact that we live in a seven-day-week society. No longer is the time of parents taken up only from Monday to Friday and on Saturday morning for the shopping, leaving the rest of the week for them to have a break and an 1234 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 April 2002 opportunity to recharge their batteries and spend some good, quiet time with their children, building a bond and providing quality parenting. These days people are very lucky if they have that. The majority of people are stressed, they are pushed, and they are busy seven days a week. Parents are lucky to be able to make available adequate time to care for their children. We need to recognise that often the needs of nurturing children are put aside when all these other stresses are taken on board.

In order to stop some of these failures occurring in DOCS, we also need to support the measures that have been put in place to strengthen families in general. Through programs such as Families First I am sure that in the future we will be able to reduce the number of families in crisis that have problems parenting, involving allegations of child abuse and notifications to DOCS. But we cannot simply latch onto the sensational side of things.

I have been involved with this issue for almost 20 years. I was appointed by a former Minister for Youth and Community Services, the Hon. Frank Walker, to the Ministerial Advisory Council on Family and Children's Services. At that time there was a particularly sensational case involving child abuse in which a mother had locked her child in a house in Woolloomooloo and set fire to the house. At that time an inquiry was held into the way in which child abuse allegations were dealt with. We need to recognise that this is an ongoing issue.

Apart from the stresses in the community about which I have spoken, there are also issues of family breakdown and insufficient extended families to help with the provision of support and care. Twenty years ago the reporting mechanisms for notifications for child abuse were totally unsatisfactory. We now have the technology to log and record calls. In some ways, I do not know whether that creates a vexed issue, because we now know the volume of calls coming in. But there is no real way of knowing how many of the cases are serious and how many notifications, when investigated, are found to be valid.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: It is the same for the police, with the police line.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: Yes, I agree with Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile. It is not a measure by which we can judge the demands placed on front-line staff. Calling for a select committee rather than referring this matter to the Standing Committee on Social Issues is a recipe for disaster and will ensure that the issue is politicised. Opposition members have been saying that they are concerned about children's welfare. Where were their voices in their caucus when, under the Greiner and Fahey governments, the resources of the Department of Community Services were slashed? Where were they when 23 community service offices, almost one-quarter of the total number in New South Wales, were closed? Where were their concerns then?

They were members of a government in which the current Leader of the Opposition worked as a ministerial adviser. That government axed 77 child protection worker positions throughout New South Wales. They did not care because they were then working on an economic rationalist model and wanted to cut government spending. The cost to the community of those cuts was immaterial to them. It has taken a long time to build up the system and recruit people to bring us back to square one. The Hon. Patricia Forsythe stated that these issues have existed for 14 years, since 1988. That is not correct. Those cutbacks were not all made in 1988.

The current Government has committed record funding to the community services budget. We now spend $121 million a year. We have improved the number of front-line staff: 90 specialist staff are dealing with these issues. If everybody in this Chamber is genuine about making a non-political attempt to investigate the problems that may exist in DOCS and may impinge on the ability of front-line workers to manage child abuse effectively, the best way to do that is to refer the inquiry to the Standing Committee on Social Issues.

By referring it to a special select committee the Opposition is showing that it wants this to become a political football in the run-up to the next State election and that its real concern is political point scoring and not the care of children at risk in our community. It is disingenuous of Opposition members to claim otherwise. It needs to be recognised as well that before the Labor Party under Bob Carr was elected in 1995 the Coalition Government was cutting and squeezing the public sector until the bitter end.

The other matters I would like to refer to have been raised in part by other honourable members, but I would like to mention the Association of Children's Welfare Agencies and the Council of Social Service of New South Wales joint press release that came out today. The release noted that the Community Service Commission undertook an inquiry into out-of-home care in 2000, and that a further inquiry would largely duplicate that work. 10 April 2002 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1235

The current priority is to implement the out-of-home care sections of the Act and give these reforms a chance to take effect. They are saying that any inquiry into this area should not be an inquiry into DOCS in general, should not be an inquiry into the help line alone, should not have a major focus on out-of-home care, should not be used to delay reforms to the out-of-home care system and should not have the effect, intentional or unintentional, of delaying the implementation of the out-of-home care chapters of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act, chapters eight and 10.

I stress that these two independent bodies whose main concern is the provision of community welfare services in New South Wales, to children in particular, have asked us to consider their learned opinion that they do not support a parliamentary inquiry at this stage. Judging by the comments of other honourable members during this debate I expect that that request will not be acceded to and that we will have an inquiry. Therefore, I urge honourable members to make sure that the inquiry is an effective inquiry and does not make a political football out of this harrowing issue.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe said we needed a specialised committee to look at this. We already have a specialised committee in this Parliament to look at these issues: the Standing Committee on Social Issues. I also point out to honourable members that if they vote to have a select committee deal with the issue, we will have the same resources servicing that committee. That committee will comprise members of this Chamber, and they will still have to make time available. There will be no magic fund of money to support the committee, so the resources of the existing committee staff and secretariat will be cannibalised to support this committee. Rather than this matter being dealt with by the Standing Committee on Social Issues secretariat, whom I consider to have highly developed and specialised skills, it will be dealt with by people who, in the past, may have been dealing with regional development issues or law and justice issues. That is another reason to reject the call for a select committee.

Last year the DOCS help line received 107,000 calls. Each and every one of those was assessed but not all were child protection reports or required further investigation. DOCS did investigate a further 55,000 alleged cases of child abuse, and those investigations resulted in 10,000 confirmed cases of child abuse. So, we need to be aware that this problem is being exploited for potential political advantage by the Opposition. We need to look at the facts behind some of the cases referred to in the media and raised in the 60 Minutes program. One example of what was not said is set out in a letter dated 5 March from the Ombudsman to a family member. The Ombudsman said:

Our assessment was that (DOCS) review was thorough, had considered the appropriate issues, and had reached reasonable conclusions … there was insufficient evidence to suggest the department had acted inappropriately. The department responded with home visits until the child and mother were seen and had then concluded there was insufficient evidence at that time to warrant further significant action.

Further to this, the grandmother of the child in question has contacted DOCS and confirmed her support for the actions of DOCS in this case. Another matter about which we need to set the record straight has been bandied about by a few people. That is the claim that the Director-General of the Department of Community Services, Carmel Niland, said that people should start kidnapping children if they think they are at risk. I think she was saying that the community needs to have some responsibility for children at risk and that as individuals we should act on our concerns about children whom we know or come across. Sometimes it takes a bit of effort and courage to do that. I do not get scared very often but a couple of years ago in my then line of work I spoke to a woman who I thought was taking the discipline of her child a bit too far. I ran into a shop and closed the door because I did not want to be belted in the head by the mother in the same way she was belting the child. That is the sort of thing that Carmel Niland was talking about. You do not stand by and tut-tut if you see somebody abusing a child or if you know of a child being abused. As a community member you have a responsibility to do something about it. If you feel that immediate intervention is needed, you say something to the parent. If you think it can wait a while, you report it to DOCS or the police or some other appropriate authority. There was no general request that people start some vigilante kidnapping campaign but, rather, that as community members we reconsider how we respond to these issues. I would still intervene in a case like that, although I would now make sure that I was well out of arms-length when I did so. As I said, we have responsibilities. It is no good saying, "It's none of my business. Seeing a child in that state made me feel uncomfortable but I don't want to get involved. It crossed my mind and I wish I had done something." We can do something.

Collectively, members of this Chamber can do more for the children of New South Wales who are at risk. We can ensure that any problems relating to abuse allegations are investigated and reviewed by this 1236 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 April 2002

Chamber in an impartial and professional manner. This is not the time to make this issue a political football. Law and order has been on the agenda during previous State election campaigns, and I would hate to think that child abuse will be trotted out during the next State election campaign in order to sway voters. The issue is beyond that, and as members of Parliament our response should also be beyond that. We should be saying that this issue is important.

I do not quite agree with the trigger for the timing of this debate, but that is only my opinion. However, if we want to help the families of New South Wales, and if we want to conduct an inquiry that will result in positive recommendations that can be implemented in a way that will ensure greater quality of life for young children in our community, we should refer the terms of reference to the Standing Committee on Social Issues. As the Minister said, that committee has the capacity to conduct such an inquiry. Any members of the House who are interested in this issue can attend hearings and ask questions of witnesses. They can have input in that way or simply talk to members of the committee. In the past the committee has always been open to discussion with other members during inquiries. I think the best way to proceed is to refer the matter to the social issues committee.

We would be serving the families and young people of New South Wales badly if we did not use this opportunity to conduct an impartial inquiry into the Department of Community Services, and I think the social issues committee can do that. A select committee would simply kick the issue around and sensationalise it once again. Therefore I urge honourable members to support the amendment moved by the Hon. Jan Burnswoods. As a member of the Standing Committee on Social Issues I look forward to inquiring into this issue. I hope that any recommendations will be unanimously supported, as are most of the committee's recommendations, and will have a lasting impact on the wellbeing of young people in New South Wales.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [5.32 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions and their overwhelming support for an investigation into the Department of Community Services [DOCS] by the Parliament. After 21 months of trying to get such an inquiry, I think it is wonderful that honourable members recognise the need for it and are willing to proceed with it. I first became aware of problems in DOCS when there was a fuss over the Children of God. That was a very long time ago; I am not sure whether it was in the late 1980s or early 1990s.

The department has undergone a number of reorganisations, from Family and Community Services to Youth and Community Services and now the Department of Community Services. Once great changes are made, it is often difficult to achieve an objective. Perhaps we need to move outside the department and look at the whole thing in a broader social context. I hope that can happen.

The Hon. John Tingle has taken a great interest in this matter because of his background in talkback radio. For all the faults of talkback radio, people do talk about their lives. Sometimes there is credibility in the rawness of that, although I do not think that should be the total determinant of social policy and decisions. I have had problems in attempting to establish this inquiry. When I tried previously the Hon. John Tingle wanted the terms of reference to be broadened. I remember that Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile wanted the terms of reference to be narrower so that the inquiry would not get out of control. Some members wanted the International Convention on the Rights of the Child to be referred to in the motion; other members did not, saying they would not vote for an inquiry if the convention were included. In the end I fell two votes short, which was extremely disappointing.

I make no apology for keeping this matter on the notice paper. Although this may sound horrible, I thought I would reactivate the matter if a crisis arose or there was some publicity. Again, 60 Minutes was the trigger on this occasion. I am sorry if that is politically cynical, but I thought it was what I had to do. I have to take action when the opportunity arises. In the past the Council of Social Service of New South Wales [NCOSS] was not keen to go ahead with an inquiry. However, I note that it is now keen for it to go ahead, but not a parliamentary inquiry. It wants an inquiry undertaken through the Community Services Commission. However, I do not agree with Alan Kirkland on that. Suffice it to say that an inquiry is necessary. A parliamentary inquiry has powers to subpoena and so on that another inquiry might not have.

Social problems have been exacerbated by globalisation, the rising gap between the rich and the poor and the change from full employment and larger families in the 1950s. If parents were unhappy or disturbed or one parent was missing from a family, more extended family members were available to look after the kids. There was more of a sense of community in those days. Now unemployment, structural poverty and the incidence of drug-affected parents are increasing. Unemployment is becoming institutionalised; there is no 10 April 2002 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1237 family memory of parents working. Gambling problems are rising, and there are problems with violence, particularly among fathers, which are sometimes alcohol related. These days boys lack male role models, especially when their mothers are the single parent. Paedophile inquiries have meant that men are no longer working among young children; therefore children who do not have a natural father have difficulty in terms of finding male role models.

The importance of kindergartens is increasingly being recognised, as shown by the Standing Committee on Social Issues inquiry into early intervention in education. I am coming to the conclusion that the younger children are, the more important it is that they be given resources, stability and role models. It seems that more basic things are imprinted first and other things are imprinted later. If by the age of five, children do not know who they are or have uncontrolled aggression it will be very difficult to address that later. Disturbed children may become disturbed adults, and I am afraid we are quick to demonise them, to call them monsters, to increase sentences and so on.

Recently I was asked about bullying in a suburban school in Sydney. Of course, the child being bullied needs support. The school is trying to enforce no bullying in the school. It turns out that the bully comes from a family without a father, and aggression is rewarded in the group with whom he has grown up so he does not have good behavioural norms. He also needs counselling to ensure that he does not continue bullying other children and go down a bad path.

I have raised these subjects because of my interest in preventive medicine and preventive social policies and to show how all these social factors, which are broader and more holistic, fit into the department's operations. These issues are not directly controlled by DOCS, and an inquiry must not become a witchhunt into the department. It must be a systemic look at the problems of children and the care of children. As such, when I drafted the terms of reference I included the role of research and consultation because we need long-term studies on what makes kids grow up well and what does not, the idea of flexible out-of-home-care placements, the mechanics of notification procedures within the department, and the relationship between DOCS and the Department of Health, the Police Service the Department of Education and Training and the non-government sector.

I have had a lot of support for my motion. I am disappointed that the Government is still making excuses but it has been pointed out to me that it is doing so because it does not want the inquiry. I am encouraged that the Hon. Jan Burnswoods is now keen to conduct the inquiry. A great deal of emphasis has been placed on who controls committees and whether this matter should be referred to the social issues committee.

After the last election when standing committees were set up I said that committees should reflect the composition of the House and should not simply be dominated by the Government. It might be highly idealistic to say that committees should look at matters in a bipartisan way and not politicise them, but in a proportional representative Parliament a committee should have proportional representation so that there is a range of opinions to compromise and negotiate for the good of society. In that sense I have no problem with a select committee attacking the Government but I would rather say that it reflects the composition of the Parliament. I note that the Opposition's amendment establishes a select committee to deal with the matter.

I thank Kath McFarlane, who is now an assistant to Brad Hazzard, for drafting this motion. I also thank Brad Hazzard for his input in simplifying my motion and stratifying it into three stages, which is quite valuable. I support the Opposition amendment as being consistent with the general thrust of my original motion. The Opposition's change is not huge but it is for the better. I believe that the welfare sector had a lot of input, and that is very important for credibility.

I am not concerned whether the inquiry is conducted by the social issues committee or a select committee. I am on the social issues committee and I anticipate that I would be on the select committee. It is not my intention to gain political advantage out of this matter, because I have been trying to bring it on for debate for 21 months, so it is certainly not my fault that it is now just a year before an election. I think it is more important to deal with the matter than to score political points.

I make a plea to all parties to think of the kids, because that is what we are here for. I ask honourable members to support my motion. The Hon. David Oldfield asked me to point out that he spent his own money on this matter in 1999, so there has been a wide basis of support for this motion. As I said, it does not matter which committee deals with the matter, but that will be determined by the amendments. I ask honourable members, whatever happens with the amendments, to support my motion. 1238 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 April 2002

Question—That the amendment of the amendment be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 19

Ms Burnswoods Mr Kelly Mr Tsang Mr Corbett Mr Macdonald Mr West Mr Costa Reverend Nile Dr Wong Mr Della Bosca Mr Obeid Mr Dyer Mrs Sham-Ho Tellers, Mr Egan Ms Tebbutt Ms Fazio Mr Hatzistergos Mr Tingle Mr Primrose

Noes, 19

Mr Breen Mr Gay Ms Rhiannon Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Harwin Mr Ryan Mr Cohen Mr M. I. Jones Mr Samios Mr Colless Mr R. S. L. Jones Mrs Forsythe Mr Lynn Tellers, Mr Gallacher Mr Oldfield Mr Jobling Miss Gardiner Mr Pearce Mr Moppett

Pair

Ms Saffin Dr Pezzutti

The PRESIDENT: Order! There being 19 ayes and 19 noes, there is an equality of votes. If the amendment of the amendment were agreed to, the motion would revert to its original form. Therefore, I cast my vote with the ayes in order to preserve the status quo.

Amendment of amendment agreed to.

Amendment as amended agreed to.

Motion as amended agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders

Motion by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business Item No. 59 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to a reference to General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 to be moved, be called on forthwith.

Order of Business

Motion by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe agreed to:

That Private Members' Business Item No. 59 outside the Order of Precedence be called on forthwith. GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE No. 1 Reference: Inner City School Closures Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [5.53 p.m.]: I had almost completed my remarks in support of the motion moved by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe. Supporting the need for this inquiry is the whole issue of various 10 April 2002 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1239 documents. Honourable members would be aware that an editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald of 16 March stated:

Hunters Hill High School, which faces closure next year under a controversial plan, was proposed as the centre of a new collegiate structure of schools in the area, an internal government document shows. It also reveals that the site finally chosen— Malvina High School in Ryde—has little playground space and poor public transport links.

The document was written in April 2000, less than a year before the Education Department outlined sweeping changes to schools in inner Sydney under its Building the Future project. Of concern is the whole issue of documents including, apparently, some official departmental documents that support retaining the Hunters Hill High School. For that reason, an inquiry is needed to bring all of these facts into the light of day. The committee can make recommendations for the future. The Government and the present Minister should not be bound by any previous decisions concerning the closure of any school, especially the Hunters Hill High School.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.55 p.m.]: The Government does not oppose the motion. It would not advance this matter any further for the Government to debate the merits of the motion at this stage. If this House determines that there shall be an inquiry, then the Government will co- operate.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [5.56 p.m.]: The Greens are pleased to support this motion, and congratulate Ms Forsythe on bringing it forward. I spoke with Ms Forsythe at many of the meetings held throughout Sydney last year to save the Sydney public schools that the Government is attempting to close. The closures proposal is a tragedy. This is another matter that highlights the problems that Labor is having. It is moving away from fundamental issues that any party needs to address when in government: that is, that quality public education needs to be available for all children, irrespective of where they live.

The Greens are committed to this inquiry for a number of reasons. At the top of the list are the school communities that are associated with the schools slated for closure. The parents, the teachers and the students themselves all need our support at this time. That is why this inquiry is so badly needed. The Greens are committed to the inquiry also because only the public school system is available to all children, irrespective of the economic status of their parents, the religion or lack of religion of their families, whether they have a disability, or even their geographic location. Public education is the only school system that is available to all children in the State.

The Greens are strongly opposed to the Government's plan to sell off public schools. There is no reason at all to sell off public assets to fund the public school system. To do so is a very fundamental mistake. Indeed, it is dangerous because as the years roll by public assets will be run down, in this case assets in the public school system. Effectively, we are seeing a cannibalising of public schools. That is because the Government has failed to provide the necessary funding to enable schools to maintain student numbers and not lose those students to the private school system. The Government talks about raising $150 million from the sale of these schools. But each year the Government gives about $40 million to private schools for capital works. That is another indication that the Government has got the system of delivery of education in the State so wrong. Clearly, the Government had other ways in which to raise the money that it says is so desperately needed.

We have a problem before us because the Government is pushing hard with its deeply flawed, ill- conceived and poorly thought-out "Building the Future" document. Any decision on closure has been made in total ignorance of the inevitable shift in demographics in this city. The tragedy of the decision to sell off schools is that when they are sold off, we will not be able to get them back. That public asset will not be able to be re- created.

There is a real estate crisis in Sydney and another great crime in society is that real estate prices are making survival very difficult for people who are just trying to get a roof over their heads. In years to come when the number of children increases dramatically in Marrickville and Hunters Hill and after the Government has been successful in closing inner city schools, how will it be able to buy back the land to build more schools? Such a project would be out of the reach of any government in decades to come. That is why the Greens argue that we have a responsibility to safeguard public assets and that the Government has no right to sell them off. Conversely, it is the responsibility of members of Parliament to safeguard those public assets for future generations.

The Greens also argue that by closing inner city schools we deny a future generation of children their rights to access to quality, comprehensive public education. That is why the suggested inquiry is so important. I 1240 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 April 2002

strongly urge all honourable members to support the motion because the voices of people who attend protest meetings, attend parents and citizens association meetings or telephone schools to express concern about where their child might go to school must be heard. Those people have a right to know what is going on and to retain the hope that comprehensive public education will still be available across the board in Sydney. I compliment the mover of the motion. The Greens will be pleased to support it.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [6.02 p.m.], in reply: I welcome the positive comments made by honourable members who have participated in the debate and because the Government has indicated it will not oppose the motion, my concluding comments will be brief. I imagine the reasons the Government is not opposing the motion are that it has recognised the numbers in support of the inquiry in this House and, to give it some credit, it still believes that it has its facts and demographics right. I can say with absolute confidence that by the time General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 has conducted the inquiry there will be a large body of evidence in support of the retention of many of the schools, so I earnestly urge the Government to keep an open mind on the issues.

I acknowledge and certainly do not oppose the minor amendment that has been moved by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile to refer particularly to demographic evidence relating to Hunters Hill High School. That may well be because he has spoken to people associated with Hunters Hill High School and is well aware of their concerns relating to demographics. I have had discussions with people from the Balmain, Glebe and Leichhardt communities who also have strong views about the invalidity of demographics that are being used by the Government. The reliability of the demographics used by the Government to ground its Building the Future plan will be challenged. An examination of the School Closures Review Committee report is interesting because, aside from the minority report to which I referred earlier, the committee obviously had difficulty in dealing with some individual schools. The committee stated in relation to Erskineville Public School:

The School Closures Review Committee is certainly sensitive to the Erskineville school community's views. However, on balance, the majority of the Committee supports the closure of Erskineville Public School and recommends that it proceed with due regard for the careful transition of students to other schools.

Having previously met many of the people associated with the schools, I may say that the force of their arguments will be compelling. Of course, that is a matter for the committee to determine. I thank all honourable members who participated in the debate. I acknowledge the spirit in which the Government has decided not to oppose the motion. I urge all honourable members to support the motion.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion as amended agreed to.

ROAD TRANSPORT (GENERAL) AMENDMENT (OPERATOR ONUS OFFENCES) BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 9 April. The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.06 p.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contributions to this important legislation. I note that a couple of amendments will be moved in Committee. I commend the bill to the House. Motion agreed to. Bill read a second time. In Committee Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to. Schedule 1 The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [6.07 p.m.], by leave: I move Opposition amendments Nos 1 and 2 in globo: No. 1 Page 3, schedule 1 [1], line 8. Omit "7". Insert instead "21".

No. 2 Page 3, schedule 1 [1], line 10. Omit "7-day". Insert instead "21-day". 10 April 2002 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1241

These amendments provide the extension of the time for deemed notice from seven days to 21 days. As all country members of the Legislative Council understand, many areas of the State have only one or two postal deliveries per week and some have none in any particular week. By virtue of the provisions of the bill people could be deemed to have received an infringement notice although they actually did not receive a notice and could not possibly have received it. They could incur an additional penalty if they do not know they have to pay the original penalty, and they could lose their drivers licence or motor vehicle registration. The Opposition believes that the Committee should insist on the passing of the two minor and fair amendments I have moved. The amendments merely delete "7" and "7-day" and substitute "21" and "21-day".

The Opposition believes that the Committee should pass the amendments to send a clear message to the anti-country majority in the Legislative Assembly that we, the members of the Legislative Council of New South Wales, support country people, particularly those who live in the more remote parts of the State, such as pastoral areas in the Far West, and that they should not be deemed to have basic postal services that do not exist. This Committee should force the Carr Labor Government to face the reality of the sparseness of services in less populated areas of the State and not dare to deem that people receive mail that they have not actually received.

I am sure all honourable members would be aware that, because of this problem—the infrequency of postal services in remote parts of the State—the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act was amended years ago so that the electoral law took into account the reality of postal services that are available to rural dwellers. The State's electoral laws were amended to provide for a general register of postal voters which made it less likely that remote electors would miss out on the opportunity to vote in general elections or by-elections for this Parliament because of the difficulty—indeed, the virtual impossibility—of meeting all the usual time frames for applying for and receiving postal ballot papers, given the problem of postal services in such areas.

It would have been gravely inconsistent for this Parliament to have amended the law to afford rural electors decent access to the electoral processes of the State. But to deem, in another piece of legislation, that postal services are available when they do not exist at all—how will the Labor Government explain such an inconsistency to people in the Murray-Darling electorate, for instance, where remote electors are now quite familiar with the provisions of the general register of postal voters, a register that is replicated in the Commonwealth's electoral laws? The Opposition is asking honourable members to make this small but significant amendment to the bill, on behalf of electors in the more remote parts of New South Wales.

Sydney dwellers do not normally have to think twice about whether serious legal consequences might flow from the week's mail because, in the overwhelming proportion of cases, these days the mail turns up in a reasonably timely fashion. But that is not the case in many parts of this State outside the capital city. Members of the National Party and Liberal Party have proposed a simple, fair and straightforward amendment. I urge honourable members to support the amendment, thereby bringing the Carr Labor Government to its senses on a matter that is important to country electors. If the amendment is rejected I assure honourable members that Opposition members will write to every elector on the general register of postal voters to let them know that the Carr Labor Government says they get postal services that do not exist. The city centric focus of this Government will be clearly exemplified by its vote on this simple amendment.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.12 p.m.]: The Government opposes these amendments. The Police Service reports that between July 1999 and June 2000 about 17,500, or 1.06 per cent of the total number of infringement notices out of 1.7 million, were not prosecuted because the responsible driver could not be identified within the required six-month period. It has been reported by police that a significant number of motorists are unscrupulously manipulating the existing process to avoid paying speeding, red light and parking offence penalties. This bill supports road safety outcomes by extending the time in which a prosecution may be commenced for speeding, red light and parking offences from six months to 12 months. That will provide the Infringement Processing Bureau [IPB] with more time to identify the responsible driver and it will reduce the opportunity for the current process to be manipulated by unscrupulous operators and drivers.

The bill will streamline procedures for registered owners and operators to nominate other persons as drivers of the vehicle at the time of the offence in two ways: first, by clarifying that a penalty notice is served seven days after it is posted, and to make that date admissible in evidence. That will clarify and enforce the date by which a statutory declaration is required to be submitted. Second, it will require more detailed information in statutory declarations to assist the IPB to determine whether the statutory declaration is satisfactory and true. The additional required information will be prescribed in regulations. Deeming that the penalty notice is served seven days after it is posted does not reduce the period of 21 days in which the person may lodge a statutory 1242 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 April 2002

declaration; rather, it provides 28 days. That is unlikely to adversely affect people in regional and rural areas who receive an infringement notice. Australia Post advises that its service obligations require it to deliver a minimum of 91 per cent of all post within four days in any part of New South Wales, including regional and rural areas.

The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: Are you going to change the electoral laws?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: That can be challenged when a person proves via a statutory declaration that he or she did not receive a notice within seven days. That will become quite evident to the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner when she looks at new section 43 (4) of the bill. All the matters referred to by the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner come within that provision. The community condemns speeding and red light camera offences as unsafe and irresponsible behaviour. Drivers who are guilty of excessive speeding have a mandatory licence suspension. Speed and red light cameras are proving to be important measures to promote driver education about speed and road safety and reduce death and injury on our roads—something that has been said a thousand times in other ways and in other places.

The success of speed and red light cameras in promoting road safety outcomes for the whole community should not be allowed to be undermined by the actions of unscrupulous drivers who seek and are able to manipulate the existing system to evade fines, demerit points and licence suspensions or cancellations that would normally apply to their offences. The proposals in this bill will restrict the ability of traffic offenders to evade prosecution, promoting important road safety outcomes consistent with the Government's commitment to improving road safety.

The Hon. RICHARD JONES [6.16 p.m.]: I support the amendments moved by the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner. I note that the honourable member for Murray-Darling said during debate on this bill in the other place that some areas in far west New South Wales have no postal deliveries and that other places receive mail once a week or once every two weeks. All honourable members, on behalf of their country cousins, should support this sensible amendment. I would have thought that members of Country Labor would support these amendments.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [6.07 p.m.]: The Greens support the views expressed by the Government in relation to these amendments. We are concerned that the Coalition's proposed amendment will undermine the intent of the bill.

The Hon. John Ryan: Revenue raisers.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I agree that it is revenue raising, but I think the Hon. John Ryan would have to agree that an education factor is involved. Many people say that when they are fined for going through a red light or speeding they have learned their lesson and will adjust their driving behaviour. That is why the Greens support this legislation. We are concerned about the time frame within which a penalty notice can be served. The bill requires a penalty notice to be served on a person seven days after it is posted. That will not reduce the period of 21 days in which a person may lodge a statutory declaration. So that provision does not discriminate against country people. I know that people across the State periodically have postal problems but, overall, Australia Post is excellent. The Greens do not support these amendments.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [6.18 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party sees merit in these amendments. In the Government's defence, the Hon. Ian Macdonald virtually conceded the point made earlier by the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner when he said:

Australia Post advises that its service obligation requires it to deliver a minimum of 91 per cent of all post within four days in any part of New South Wales, including regional and rural areas.

We are talking about the 9 per cent of mail that is not delivered. The Government admitted that 9 per cent of mail does not get delivered in four days and that it might not be delivered for a number of days or it might not be delivered at all. All honourable members have experienced major problems during election campaigns trying to get how-to-vote cards to every country centre. Australia Post seems to have some strange ways of delivering mail to country centres. It could be presumed that mail goes from Sydney directly to country centres. However, instead of going to Bourke mail sometimes goes to Albury and to other places and it is difficult to trace. The Opposition's amendments will not undermine the bill. The purpose of the bill is to increase from six months to one year the period during which prosecutions for traffic offences may be undertaken. I am sure 10 April 2002 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1243 all honourable members support that provision, which will ensure that people who are guilty of speeding are not able to evade any penalty that has been imposed on them. The amendment moved by the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner will ensure that this system is less irritating for vulnerable people living in country areas.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [6.19 p.m.]: With regard to the last point raised by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, the Opposition does not oppose the bill; we are simply seeking to make straightforward amendments to assist the minority. Why should the significance of those people be reduced? We are talking about people possibly losing their licences and their car registrations. The amendment is a very simple measure to help a few people, and one would think that this Chamber would be interested in supporting them.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [6.20 p.m.]: I support the amendments because I believe it is important that country people are looked after. This may well become a revenue-raising bill. There is no doubt about the fact that the percentage of speed camera offences will rise dramatically. I have now become a member of the $250-night-out club. My wife was caught on the way out to dinner and I was caught on the way back because a camera had been installed on a stretch of road where the speed limit had been changed. We were said to be travelling 11 kilometres over the speed limit on both occasions, because the speed limit had been lowered by 10 kilometres. I thought it was a bit rough, but when people's livelihoods are at risk these measures are very important. I would like to believe that the Government was not interested in the revenue aspects of this, but I am afraid I cannot.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [6.21 p.m.]: With regard to be last comment of the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans, I ask him to explain what is wrong with revenue raising for the taxpayer.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [6.22 p.m.]: It is a question of the punishment fitting the crime; how severe the penalty should be for the infringement. I have nothing against raising revenue. As a person who wants social justice, I believe that revenue must be raised. However, that does not mean that on every occasion we should impose the maximum penalty.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

Title agreed to.

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

[The Deputy-President (Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile) left the chair at 6.24 p.m. The House resumed at 8.15 p.m.]

MOTOR ACCIDENTS COMPENSATION AMENDMENT (TERRORISM) BILL

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

FIRST HOME OWNER GRANT AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [8.15 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.

Leave granted.

This bill contains amendments to the First Home Owner Grant Act to implement three changes to the administration of the grant.

The primary purpose of this bill is to formalise changes to the First Home Owner Grant announced by the Commonwealth Government last year. 1244 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 April 2002

At the start of the GST, the Commonwealth introduced the First Home Owners Grant Scheme to provide $7,000 for first home owners. This scheme is administered by State and Territory revenue offices.

On 9 March 2001 the Commonwealth introduced a further $7,000 grant for first home owners building a new homes rather than buying an existing dwelling. The additional $7,000 grant for new first homes was to end on 31 December 2001.

On 9 October 2001, the Commonwealth announced that the grant would be extended until 30 June 2002, but at the reduced amount of $3,000.

The Commonwealth remains responsible for funding both the $7,000 first home owner grant and the additional grant of $3,000 for new first homes.

The Commonwealth has relaxed the eligibility criteria for the additional grant, loosening the timing restrictions on the start and finish of building work.

The other eligibility criteria for the additional $3,000 grant are identical to those for the additional $7,000 grant that applied between 9 March 2001 and 31 December 2001.

The Office of State Revenue has been administering the grant on the basis of the Commonwealth’s announcements. To ensure that no applicants were disadvantaged by Commonwealth delays in formalising the revised guidelines, OSR has reviewed any prior applications that were rejected but would have been eligible under the new guidelines.

These amendments to the First Home Owner Grant Act authorise the extension of the additional grant for new homes at the reduced rate of $3,000, and revise the guidelines in accordance with the Commonwealth’s announcements. Apart from formalising current administrative practice, the amendments will provide a legislative basis for applicants' rights of review and for compliance audits by OSR.

The second amendment creates a specific offence for knowingly giving false or misleading information in an application for the grant.

The Act currently contains an offence for knowingly giving false or misleading information to an authorised officer. However, most applications for the grant are not made to the Chief Commissioner or other authorised officers but to authorised financial institutions.

The new offence will have a maximum penalty of 100 penalty units, consistent with the existing offence. Similar provisions exist in other States’ grant legislation.

The final amendment authorises the Chief Commissioner of State Revenue to recover amounts from third parties in certain circumstances.

The Chief Commissioner of State Revenue is currently authorised to recover grants that are required to be repaid by the applicant, penalties imposed on the applicant, and amounts paid in error to another person. These amounts can only be recovered directly from the applicant or the other person.

In relation to taxation laws, the Chief Commissioner is also authorised to collect amounts of tax from third parties who owe money to, or hold money for, a taxpayer. These provisions, sometimes referred to as "garnishee" provisions, are an effective means of recovering amounts payable where direct recovery from the taxpayer has not succeeded. In practice, the "third party" is usually the bank with which the taxpayer holds an account.

At present, there is no equivalent "third party" provision in the grant legislation. The proposed amendment of the First Home Owner Grant Act mirrors the existing provision in the Taxation Administration Act and will be consistent with the current practices of the Office of State Revenue for recovery of money payable to the Chief Commissioner.

The provision requires the Chief Commissioner to notify the applicant and the third party in writing and indemnifies the third party in respect of the payment.

The effect of all these amendments is to clarify the rights and obligations of applicants for the grant.

I commend the bill to the House. The Hon. JOHN RYAN [8.16 p.m.]: The Opposition agrees with this bill, which largely continues the arrangements for the Commonwealth's very successful first home owners scheme, which has been enormously popular. It has underpinned an enormous amount of economic activity, particularly in newly developing suburbs in the western suburbs of Sydney and in regional and rural areas of the State. It is to be very much welcomed. There is little doubt that growth in Australia would have been a great deal more difficult post September 11 had it not been for the continuing boost in the building industry, which was largely funded by the incentives granted under this scheme. However, over time it has been necessary to change the scheme. One of the necessary changes is the scheme's phasing out. The scheme was not intended to last forever. Some provisions in this bill are meant to address the misallocation of funds or fraud. They are to be welcomed, because nobody wants to see people who should not benefit under the scheme gaining an unmerited benefit. It is meant to be limited to first home owners. In view of the fact that the bill largely continues a scheme that seems to have agreement all round, the Opposition agrees with it and commends it to the House. 10 April 2002 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1245

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [8.20 p.m.], in reply: I thank the Hon. John Ryan for his support for the bill. His comments are a mixed bag. Governments have generally supported the scheme with a great deal of commitment. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

APPROPRIATION (BUDGET VARIATIONS) BILL

Second Reading

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [8.21 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The practice of seeking approval for supplementary appropriations to cover payments not provided for in the Annual Appropriation Act has now become entrenched.

This Government, in presenting further Appropriation bills, has sought, as far as possible to ensure the Parliament has the opportunity to scrutinise anticipated additional funding requirements prior to expenditures being incurred.

However, it is not always possible to seek Parliament's authority in advance for pressing expenditure needs and the Parliament has previously established procedures to provide for this eventuality.

Each year Parliament makes an advance available to the Treasurer to meet unforeseen expenditures. In addition, section 22 of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983 enables the Governor to approve of payments to cater for the exigencies of the Government, in anticipation of appropriations by Parliament.

The introduction of the Appropriation (Budget Variations) Bill 2002 in this session enables the Government to: account to the Parliament on how the Advance to the Treasurer has been applied for recurrent and capital expenditure; seek an adjustment of the Advance prior to the end of the financial year; seek appropriation to cover expenditure approved under section 22 before year end; and seek additional appropriations for payments which are intended to be made in the current financial year, and in respect of which, no provision was made in the annual Appropriation Bill.

The Appropriation (Budget Variations) Bill 2002, in respect of the 2001-02 financial year, seeks appropriations of $288,834,000 in adjustment of the Advance to the Treasurer, $338,250,000 for services approved by the Governor under section 22 of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, and additional appropriations of $469,083,000.

The appropriation required for the Treasurer’s Advance is detailed in schedule 1 annexed to this bill, along with a full account of how the Advance has been applied this year.

The Treasurer’s Advance payments in 2001-02 include $5.25 million to establish the Community Solutions Crime Prevention Fund to undertake crime prevention activities in Miller, Kings Cross and Redfern/Waterloo.

Other items include $2 million to reduce the cost to some farmers of transporting grain and $5.8 million for eradicating fire ants.

The additional appropriation required under Section 22 of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983 relates to the provision of funds to meet certain expenditures required by the exigencies of Government. This amount includes:

An appropriation required in relation to the First Home Owners Grant Scheme of $142.3 million. This amount will, however, be repaid to the State by the Commonwealth;

An appropriation of $40 million for further rail maintenance on non-metropolitan infrastructure; and

Appropriations for natural disasters, including $40 million for the February-March floods in Northern New South Wales, and $95 million for the December-January bushfires. This sum is in addition to the $11 million allocated for bushfires in the 2001-02 Budget, and makes the total cost of fighting bushfires this year $106 million.

There is also $19.95 million appropriated to cover capital expenditure for natural disaster advances.

An additional appropriation of $469,083,000 is required to allow the immediate start of important public projects in 2001-02.

The majority of these projects were originally included in the forward estimates for the period between 2002-03 to 2005-06.

The stronger than anticipated growth in the State economy has improved the estimated budget position for 2001-02. This has enabled the Government to bring forward expenditure, or fund pressing new projects. 1246 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 April 2002

An additional $70 million has been provided for maintenance and minor works to schools.

The Transport portfolio has been provided with $43.7 million to accelerate the acquisition of land for the Parramatta-Chatswood rail link and for some rail capital works that will improve operations efficiency and workplace and passenger safety.

The funding also allows the State Transit Authority to bring forward major Sydney ferry projects including completing the refurbishment of the Manly ferry fleet and re-engineering the Jet Cat fleet.

The program of installing closed circuit television cameras on wharves will also be undertaken more quickly.

NSW Health has been provided with $27.5 million to purchase new hospital equipment including CT scanners for rural hospitals.

The Department of Housing has been provided with an additional appropriation of $25 million for capital grants and a further $105 million to more rapidly tackle backlog maintenance in public housing.

The Rail Infrastructure Corporation will be provided with $100 million to help finance its obligations for the construction of the Parramatta Chatswood rail link.

The Ministry for the Arts will be provided $39.1 million for works on the Sydney Opera House and the acquisition of land for a performing arts centre at Eveleigh.

The bill also seeks appropriations to adjust certain payments made during the 2000-2001 financial year either from that year's Advance to the Treasurer, or approved in that financial year by the Governor under section 22 of the Public Finance and Audit Act.

Each of the payments made has been included in the 2000-2001 audited financial statements of the agencies making those payments.

The practice of introducing further appropriation bills has enhanced accountability for the expenditure of public moneys from the Consolidated Fund.

It is further evidence of the Government's commitment to transparent and full financial reporting to the Parliament and the community.

I commend the bill to the House. The Hon. JOHN RYAN [8.21 p.m.]: The object of this bill is to appropriate additional funds from the Consolidated Fund for recurrent services for capital works for two financial years—2000-01 and the current financial year. For the current financial year the Government is seeking three additional appropriations amounting to approximately $1.1 billion. It wants an additional $228.8 million for recurrent services relating to the Treasurer's Advance, an additional $338.3 million for capital works pursuant to section 22 of the Public Finance and Audit Act and a further appropriation of $469.1 million to be used for recurrent services and capital works. In addition, some retrospective adjustments are made to the budget for the 2000-01 financial year. For that year, the Government is seeking an extra $115.8 million relating to the Treasurer's Advance and a staggering $929.1 million for capital works and services in accordance with section 22 of the Public Finance and Audit Act.

A pattern is beginning to emerge with the way the Carr Government addresses the budget. Each year honourable members observe the Treasurer announce what appears to be a well-funded, fiscally responsible and conservative budget that will, allegedly, leave a generous budget surplus with which to retire State debt. However, about six months later another budget is delivered, usually in circumstances like this, when the Government's actions are not subject to much scrutiny, and suddenly an extra $1 billion is added to the ticket! For example, clearly, when a cash surplus of $200 million is announced, additional unexpected expenditure of $1 billion will have a significant impact on the budget bottom line.

Indeed, had it not been for the substantial buoyancy in the New South Wales economy, particularly in relation to additional receipts, stamp duty and so on, the Government would have been caught short. Had the Government been caught short, instead of the Treasurer ranting and raving, telling us what a terrific bloke he is to retire State debt year by year, he would have had to admit that the budget he expected to be in surplus would now have a cash debt. However, as I said, because of the enormous buoyancy in the New South Wales economy and because revenues have picked up unexpectedly in most instances to rescue the Government from a problem it would otherwise have, the Treasurer has not been in that situation. Lest honourable members think the Opposition has fabricated this view, I shall read to them an Access Economics report on the New South Wales economy. It stated:

Taxes grew more than expected (again) … (with New South Wales to) … benefit from a nearly $1.2 billion windfall in tax collections and Commonwealth grants. Stamp duties in particular are up yet again … insurance tax collections are on the rise in the wake of premium increases. 10 April 2002 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1247

As for insurance premiums, the New South Wales Government, having cried poor about the potential impact on the budget bottom line of the collapse of HIH, is now in a position to benefit from increased stamp duty of about $40 million as a result of enhanced premiums that insurers have announced since the September 11 events and the collapse of HIH Insurance. The Access Economics report confirms the pattern of revenue windfalls, underpinning the increases in government spending that have been evident for several years now. It must be pointed out that that pattern is unsustainable. Access Economics also found that the current New South Wales fiscal reporting obligations are outdated and fall well short of the standard suggested by the International Monetary Fund's Manual on Fiscal Transparency or the discipline imposed by the Commonwealth's Charter of Budget Honesty Act.

After seven years in office the Government is clearly a high-taxing, poor service regime. This year it will rake in more than $34 billion in taxes and charges. Unfortunately, the Government takes with one hand but does not give back with the other hand. Services in our community are in a terrible state. There are complaints about services in education, police, health and roads, just to name a few. The Carr Government has sponsored substantial amounts of waste, some of which I shall point out. For example, the budget for reconstructing the Conservatorium of Music in Sydney has blown out by more than $75 million; and the electricity industry has incurred significant losses, including State-owned Pacific Power's out-of-court settlement relating to a bungled contract deal that has cost the State more than $600 million.

The Minister for Transport in another placed flagged that construction of the M5 East would cost about $530 million. However, when it was completed the total cost of the project had blown out to $800 million. The Treasurer works under the pretence that he is a conservative financial manager, but every year he manages to overspend his budget by about 4 per cent or $100 million. Although this bill has the advantage of additional transparency, it documents that fact beyond question. For seven consecutive years the Carr Government has outlaid about $1 billion more than predicted in its budgets. That equates to close to $7 billion in overexpenditure. The Carr Government is deliberately suppressing its budget so that it appears to be conservative, but it knows full well its history and pattern of expenditure—a pattern that it has sustained for seven years. The Government exceeds its budget by approximately 4 per cent every year.

The Government has been able to do that only because of the financial climate fostered by the Federal Howard Government, which has given the New South Wales Government the revenue to cover its mismanagement. For example, the amount of stamp duty collected by the Carr Government in the past year has almost exceeded the budgeted level by $500 million because property prices have increased. This year New South Wales Treasury expects stamp duty to exceed the budget by more than $600 million. It will be interesting to see exactly how much the stamp duty actually exceeds the budgeted amount. So whenever the Government has a political problem caused by its failure to manage properly, it has the luxury of being able to spend the problem away.

I draw attention to one case in point that occurred today. The announced resignation of the Commissioner of Police will result in additional expenditure of $500,000 from the police budget. If the report given to us today by the Government is true, that the police commissioner is leaving the New South Wales Police Service of his own volition and for personal reasons, why is it necessary to give him an extra $500,000 to speed him on his way? By any stretch of the imagination it could not be suggested that it is a performance bonus for his excellent achievements. When the documents are finally tabled I suspect that we will discover a confidentiality clause relating to any action taken by the commissioner. In fact, $500,000 simply buys his silence.

As the Leader of the Opposition in another place pointed out, and I agree, that is an abject waste of public resources that could well have been better used in other places. I have no objection to the Commissioner of Police leaving. I have no particular personal rancor with the service that he has given to the people of New South Wales. But he signed an agreement with the Government that stipulated that if he were dismissed he would receive an extra year's salary in lieu of the dismissal, and that if he left of his own volition he would only take his last pay packet with him. In my view that agreement ought to be observed.

This bill also contains two appropriations totalling more than $4.5 million for a police recruiting campaign and the funding of various restructures that have been announced during recent weeks and months by the Government in order to boost the flagging numbers in the Police Service and to attempt to fulfil its election promise of providing more police. Had the Police Service been managed properly it probably would not be necessary to dip into the budget for approximately $5 million for panic measures; normal recruiting procedures should have been adequate. 1248 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 April 2002

We are, in fact, panic-buying these police officers with a $2.5 million recruitment program. If the Police Service had been properly managed and catered for in the past three or four years, it would not have been necessary to again establish a temporary academy at the University of Western Sydney, however welcome that might be to the university. The Opposition's point is that management of this sort cannot go on, because the buoyant economic conditions we are experiencing now will not last forever. Eventually the Carr Government will be in a position of spending at one level and receiving revenues at another, and if those unexpected windfalls do not continue it will be caught short. Instead of reducing debt, the Government will be increasing it, particularly in cash terms, as a result of its mismanagement. The Government may attempt to make the point that the expenditure provided in this bill is for unforeseen and unexpected items that are attributable to circumstances beyond its control. To a small extent the Opposition agrees. For example, the bill provides $40 million to cover the repair of rail infrastructure damaged in the February-March floods in northern New South Wales, and $106 million for costs associated with the December-January bushfires. The Opposition does not quibble that those funds should be made available, particularly in the current economic climate, under those circumstances. However, one need only closely examine the amounts that have been appended and annexed in the schedule to this bill to discover that there is expenditure that should have been included in the normal budgeting pattern, such as budget refurbishments, or that could have been accommodated in the budget by unexpected windfalls. For example, the Public Finance and Audit Act allows Ministers to move allocations within their portfolios. One good reason for that is that on the odd occasion that a program comes in under budget, it ought to be possible to fund another program that unexpectedly goes over budget. I find it hard to believe that if government expenditure has been properly financed and managed, there are not opportunities to fund unusual expenditures in that way. This bill provides for a raft of unforeseen expenditures. We have absolutely no idea of what possibilities existed for savings or for some of these projects to be funded by unexpected windfalls. I cannot believe that there were no windfalls. I should point out—because I suspect no other honourable member will—that among the cost over-runs listed in this bill is an amount of $17 million within the Department of Corrective Services, including $1 million for inmate transfers and $4.5 million to re-open Cooma gaol and convert Berrima gaol to a women's prison—all costs no doubt associated with our ever-increasing prison population. I hope that the additional money being spent on prisons is worth it, because if putting more people in gaol is supposed to reduce crime, we need to ask why crime rates are increasing at the very same time that we have recorded increases in the number of people being sent to gaol? If one is supposed to reduce the other, they cannot possibly be occurring simultaneously unless there is some sort of disaster occurring within our community that, I would suspect, is beyond the control of any Government. Finally I refer to the Treasurer's gross and unseemly political campaign in regard to funding a recent increase in the New South Wales Social and Community Services [SACS] award. In November the people who worked under the SACS award received substantial increases from the Industrial Commission which were long overdue and much merited and justified. It is a disgrace that a person who works in a nursery earns more money than a person who looks after children with high support needs in a respite care facility. To some extent that industrial award addressed that outrageous state of affairs. Additionally, believe it or not, the SACS award did not cater for the substantial number of people in the industry who have university qualifications. In no industry would people with those sorts of qualifications be expected to accept the sorts of salaries, which were maximum salaries, that were paid under the then SACS award. The new award attempts to address that and sets new salary levels for people who have tertiary degrees to give them an income that is perhaps close to what a schoolteacher with similar qualifications might expect to receive. However, I am sure that honourable members are starting to receive correspondence from any of the 230 non-government agencies within our State telling them that whilst the New South Wales Government has increased funding for these services to some extent to cover the SACS award increases, it has decided for gross political purposes not to fund those services that are covered by the Commonwealth State Disability award [CSDA]. I do not quibble with the fact that I think that the Commonwealth Government is to some extent being intransigent in not funding those particularly well-justified awards. However, some complications and difficulties need to be addressed, and in this circumstance the State Government is a far greater sinner than the Commonwealth.

The sorts of organisations that are having difficulty in continuing to fund services are the Windgap Foundation, which provides services to people with disabilities in the eastern suburbs of Sydney. The new 10 April 2002 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1249

SACS award, for example, cost that organisation $350,000 to $390,000 per year after it commenced in November last year. After the organisation complained to the Treasurer about its lack of funding the Treasurer advised that he has provided adequate funding and it is up to the Commonwealth to do the same.

A number of facts ought to be made clear in this debate. First of all, unlike the States, the Commonwealth Government has provided annual consumer price index [CPI] increases to non-government organisations that have been funded under the CSDA. However, I can show that any number of non-government agencies funded from the Department of Community Services are still receiving the same level of funding they received when the service was originally set up and grants were given. Year by year they wonder how on earth they are going to continue to keep cutting the pie, given the various increases in the CPI. Every now and again they get a one-off grant, but there is no doubt that the State has not been as diligent as the Commonwealth in providing funding to cover cost of living increases. To some extent these organisations have been lucky because cost-of-living increases have not been particularly severe in recent years.

The Treasurer also failed to point out in his dishonest campaign that he is a signatory to the relevant agreement with the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth quite rightly points out that the Commonwealth-State agreement specifically provides that there will be no increases of any kind to these particular arrangements outside the annually announced cost-of-living index. For the benefit of the House I will read on to Hansard the specific clause that relates to the CSDA agreement. Clause 8 (10) reads:

Indexation of Commonwealth funds to be transferred to States will be calculated each year by reference to the Commonwealth indexation parameter called Wage Cost Index 2 and announced in the Commonwealth Budget. This parameter is composed of 90% measure of the change in wage costs (safety net adjustment) and 10% measure of changes in non-wage costs (Treasury Measure of Underlying Inflation).

Clause 8 (11) states:

Once the level of Commonwealth indexation to apply to a particular year has been announced in the Commonwealth Budget, there will be no subsequent adjustment of that level of indexation during the course of the year.

If the Treasurer is going to argue about this arrangement, he should not have signed the agreement in the first place. The Treasurer agreed to it, and I think the Commonwealth Government has a fairly strong argument that someone who signs an agreement is obliged to commit. However, further to that, these particular agencies are funded about 75 per cent by the State and 25 per cent by the Commonwealth. The Treasurer has not pointed out that this very agreement is under renegotiation at this time. Of course, it is highly likely that the amounts included in that agreement in forward years will be adjusted to take into account things such as New South Wales Social and Community Services Award increases.

This is not a problem that is going to exist for a long period of time. The Commonwealth has in fact made adjustments according to the consumer price index up until now, unlike the State Government. But, ultimately, the State Government is responsible for 75 per cent of the cost of the program. If it only funded those organisations covered by the CSDA, if it wanted to make an asinine point, why not at least fund those organisations pro rata to the level of its responsibility? Why not give them 75 per cent of the funds they need? That would tide most of those organisations over to 30 June. It is highly likely that under the new arrangements there would be funding forthcoming and the Treasurer could then honestly argue that the New South Wales Government had done absolutely the right thing, and he would be in a position to argue strongly with the Commonwealth that there ought to be some increase to cover the 25 per cent of circumstances not covered.

When I say 25 per cent, of course the whole of these projects are covered 25 per cent by the Commonwealth, but not all of those who derive incomes from these projects are covered by the New South Wales SACS award, so a level of funding even less than that might be appropriate. If the State Government funded organisations that it manages and supervises on a pro rata basis, I am more than sure that an arrangement could be reached and the New South Wales Government could strongly argue with the Commonwealth that it has responsibilities according to future agreements, which are due to start very soon. I agree with Suzanne Becker, the General Manager of Windgap, who emphasised in bold type in a letter she recently wrote to me:

It is unfair that governments constantly put Windgap and other NGOs in a position of constantly having to beg for money, especially in a situation which is completely outside of the NGO's control. This is not a fair partnership between an NGO and government, which was supposed to be engendered in the funding agreement principle and any concept of mutual obligation. Most of these organisations do not have an agreement with the Commonwealth; they have an agreement with the State Government. If the State Government has been unable to cajole the Commonwealth into providing additional funds, I believe the State Government has a responsibility to fund those organisations to some extent, 1250 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 April 2002 at least pro rata relative to the level of its responsibility, if not more. After all, it is the State Government which made this agreement with the Commonwealth, and it ought to appropriately honour its commitments to those individual NGOs. The State Government cannot just farm off responsibility to the Commonwealth for some party political gain, because some very vulnerable individuals are involved in this game of politics that the Treasurer is dishonestly playing.

There are some wonderful servants of the community who, in many instances, manage these organisations on a volunteer basis and are losing sleep over having to make very difficult decisions as to what services they may have to cut in the short term in order to meet this disgraceful, dishonest and disreputable campaign being conducted by the Treasurer of New South Wales in relation to the funding of those organisations. This campaign ought to stop, particularly in view of the fact that the Government has benefited by $600 million in stamp duty alone. That is several times over the amount of money required to make up the shortfall in New South Wales.

If the Government can generously, easily and without question fund the frolics of the Minister for Police, with half a million dollars being spent today, how much more of an obligation does it have to fund these organisations, which provide wonderful services for people of New South Wales who are completely vulnerable? In my view, the first cheques that any government writes should be for people with disabilities. These are people who cannot help the position they are in. They are not able to find money by their own enterprise. They need these resources to give them the same quality of life that the rest of us enjoy. It is disgraceful that they are being exploited for some political purpose. Other than making those points, the Opposition supports the bill.

The Hon. RICHARD JONES [8.45 p.m.]: I was really surprised to hear the Hon. John Ryan say that the Opposition supports the bill after he had just delivered a tirade against the Treasurer and the Government for their management of the finances of this State. The net figure provided by this bill is almost exactly $1 billion, because $142.3 million will be repaid by the Federal Government. It is interesting that this budget bill has been boosted by $469 million of additional income during the year, enabling a number of projects that were to be completed or started between 2002 and 2006 to be brought forward. Bringing much of that expenditure forward will result in many of those projects becoming evident over the next few months. One of those, of course, is the new Cabramatta police station. I will go through some of the impacts of the bill, starting with the Hornsby by- election, which cost $210,000 of taxpayers money. Honourable members in the other place should be aware that if they resign, there is an enormous cost to the community.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: I am sure the Auburn by-election was costly too.

The Hon. RICHARD JONES: Maybe $210,000 or $215,000, that is true. What I am saying is that members who resign from the other place must realise that that is a fairly expensive exercise. Some in the community say that members who resign should pay the by-election costs from their own pockets, perhaps out of their superannuation. I note that in the schedule of payments to the Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Citizenship—Minister for Ethnic Affairs, as he previously was—there is an advance of $112,000 for "Monitoring the operation of the Drug Detection Dogs Act". It will be interesting to learn how that Act will be monitored, given the huge uproar in the community. We will just have to wait and see what happens.

Interestingly, the Minister for Agriculture, and Minister for Corrective Services has received $5.8 million from the Treasurer's Advance for the Fire Ant Eradication program. In the middle of a parliamentary inquiry into feral animal control, this was brought up as a problem in New South Wales. It is good to see that the Queensland and New South Wales governments are involved right now in trying to prevent fire ants from getting out of control. If they get out of control, many areas, many economic enterprises and many people in country areas will be devastated. I hope that $5.8 million will go a long way towards eradicating fire ants before they get out of control, as foxes and cane toads have. That is a good initiative.

The Hon. Doug Moppett: It is a tall order. The Hon. RICHARD JONES: It is a tall order, but I just hope we can manage to eradicate fire ants. If we do not, there will be devastation. The Attorney General, Minister for the Environment, and Minister for Emergency Services is advanced $2 million for the Dunphy Wilderness Fund. That has been welcomed by the conservation movement because it will allow land to be bought to provide very important wildlife corridors. The Minister for Education and Training receives a further appropriation of $56 million for "maintenance projects in schools". We wrote to the new Minister about this, asking whether he was aware that a 10 April 2002 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1251 number of country schools in particular have unflued gas heaters. Some years ago, under Minister Virginia Chadwick, a program was undertaken to ensure that all gas heaters in schools were flued, because unflued heaters pose health problems for schoolchildren. But this money was given to schools under global budgeting arrangements, and some schools spent the funds elsewhere, resulting in many schools in this State still having unflued heaters.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: Under freedom of information legislation they cannot tell you which schools they are.

The Hon. RICHARD JONES: They cannot tell you which schools?

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: No. I have tried that avenue.

The Hon. RICHARD JONES: It is incumbent on the new Minister to ensure that every single school, particularly in rural New South Wales, has properly flued heaters, because this is a serious health problem. The Hon. John Ryan mentioned a $70 million blow-out in the cost of the Conservatorium of Music, but the amount is actually $70,000 and it is for a Stuart piano.

The Hon. John Ryan: No, that is a different item.

The Hon. RICHARD JONES: This bill says $70,000, not $70 million. That amount is for a new piano and is surely not an unreasonable amount. The Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries has been allocated $4.1 million for the buy-out of commercial fishing licences and that is an interesting item. I hope that the fishers feel that the amount they are being paid is adequate compensation. Inevitably in the not-too- distant future many commercial fishers will become bankrupt unless they are bought out now, so it is good to buy them out sooner rather than later. Hopefully, the creation of new marine parks and their no-take zones will result in fish stocks being conserved for many years to come and resources being provided for those who wish to use them.

The schedule also contains an interesting allocation of $105 million to the Minister for Housing for backlog maintenance funding for the Department of Housing. That is a vast amount of money and it is obviously clearly needed. There is a backlog in the provision of housing for people who are desperate as a result of the huge increase in the cost of Sydney's housing. A number of people have fallen through the crack and desperately need help. I hope that during the next round of budget negotiations the Minister for Housing will entreat the Treasurer to allocate more funds for the provision of housing for people who have been on waiting lists for a very long time.

Earlier I mentioned the provision of a new police station at Cabramatta which will cost $4 million. In a sense, that is a political allocation as a result of the furore surrounding the inability of the Police Service to check heroin dealing in Cabramatta. The honourable member for Cabramatta and some of her comments have been receiving some very bad press in local newspapers. No doubt the Liberal Party will be examining that electorate very carefully from the point of view of the next election. The First Home Owners Grant Scheme has been allocated $142,300,000. As I mentioned earlier that amount will be repaid, so that figure is not net. This budget provides an additional $1 billion and is certainly a boom-time budget, but unfortunately we will not always have boom times.

The Hon. Doug Moppett: That is the worry, isn't it?

The Hon. RICHARD JONES: It is a worry because if the Government always budgets for a boom and there is a slump in the housing industry, stamp duty and other revenue will be reduced and the heightened expectations of people—in this case heightened by $1 billion—will be dashed. If expenditure is reduced by $1 billion, $2 billion or $3 billion, a lot of people will miss out. If I had been the Treasurer I would have been a bit more prudent in determining expenditure and would not have primed the economy of New South Wales by expending an additional $1 billion. It may have been preferable to allocate that amount to paying off more of the State's debt and keeping expenditure at a reasonable level, bearing in mind that over the next two or three years the State may not necessarily receive such high revenues. If the housing industry contracts, as it surely must at some point in time, the economy may also contract.

Obviously I do not oppose the legislation but I believe that the Treasurer and the Treasury should be somewhat more prudent when determining expenditure. If there is a significant amount of additional revenue at 1252 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 April 2002 the end of the financial year, I believe that by and large it should be put aside for a rainy day, so to speak. I acknowledge that there are always items of unexpected expenditure and I must admit that some of the unforeseen expenditure items listed in the schedule to the bill have been very welcome. However I do not think that the economy should be primed to the extent that when a slowdown occurs, contraction of expenditure occurs in areas of vital importance, thereby reducing people's expectations. While I do not oppose the bill, I ask the Treasurer and the Treasury to be more prudent in the future.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [8.53 p.m.]: I do not wish to unnecessarily take the time of the House, but it seems prudent to comment on a bill that allocates significant amounts of money. When I examined the bill, my initial reaction was to reflect on a period when debate on the appropriation bills related to an annual budget. It seems to me now that the State budget effectively lasts for nine months and that the Appropriation (Budget Variations) Bill is designed to cover the remaining three months of the financial year. This Government perhaps cannot budget and it appears to be intent on spending money after having taxed the people of this State—New South Wales has the highest rate of taxation—to a point at which the Appropriation (Budget Variations) Bill is of great significance.

Having said that, I offer congratulations on the allocation of $70,000 for the acquisition of the Stuart piano for the Conservatorium of Music. The Government has spent $140 million on the Conservatorium of Music project and that has made the conservatorium the most expensive high school in New South Wales, probably in Australia and possibly in the world in terms of the number of students who attend it. I have never denied that the conservatorium is housed in an historical building but it is worthwhile pointing out that a great deal of the budget allocation for the Education portfolio has been absorbed by that one project.

I was pleased to attend the opening of the Conservatorium of Music, together with some other honourable members of this House. However, the Hon. Ron Dyer will acknowledge that as I looked around the conservatorium on its opening day and observed the many pianos in a variety of concert rooms, classrooms and the recital hall, I remarked that I could not see a Stuart piano anywhere. I commented on the opportunity that had been missed to utilise a perfect setting in which to showcase the only Australian-built piano—a piano that is world class and is regarded as the best modern piano.

The Stuart piano is designed and constructed in Newcastle and is a very good example of Newcastle technology and engineering and the expertise of the University of Newcastle. Given my own connections with that university, I feel enormous pride in that achievement. At the opening ceremony, it struck me that the Government had missed an opportunity. I therefore note with some pride and pleasure that provision for the purchase of a Stuart piano has been included in the Appropriation (Budget Variations) Bill, and that is a positive aspect of the legislation.

In view of the fact that a significant amount was spent on constructing the Conservatorium of Music, it is a little odd that the money for the piano had to be found from the Treasurer's Advance. I acknowledge that the Treasurer understands the worth and value of a Stuart piano and I acknowledge what he has done to promote the Stuart piano to various Australian embassies and consulates overseas. He has persuaded people of the significance of having a Stuart piano—if, indeed, they need a piano—to showcase Australia's outstanding industries.

I acknowledge also that the bill provides $500,000 for dedicated school security services. The allocation relates specifically to an amount that was earmarked for the six-week school holiday period over the Christmas break for a number of schools in high-risk areas. While I acknowledge that initiative, I hope that next year it will not require a separate appropriation. I hope that the Government now understands that some schools in some areas require extra security services and that for a little money spent, a significant amount is potentially saved.

This State cannot afford to have its schools severely damaged by vandalism, or, even worse, by fire. I would be fascinated to know the outcome of the additional security services evaluation and how much may have been saved at schools where those services are available. This is an important short-term initiative and it was the way in which the Coalition's Virginia Chadwick managed school security. Additional security always used to be in place over the Christmas vacation.

I am pleased that, given the agitation from the Opposition and others, the Government and the Minister for Education and Training have acknowledged that there is a problem. In spite of that, matters are still being handled by short-term measures. Despite seven years of this Government's administration, a proper audit of 10 April 2002 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1253

schools has not been carried out. I continuously hear of schools whose individual needs are not being met by school security measures. Last week the Government announced a long overdue audit of crime and violence in some schools and it is time that this Government took school security seriously and invested funds in an audit of school security.

The Government should also work with schools to find out the measures that may meet their needs. The requirements may be as expensive up front as an improved fence system—and I do not mean a barbed wire fence, such as might be found in gaols—or other measures that will protect school property. Although I acknowledge that the allocation of $500,000 for security measures is important because other measures will not be in place for next year's vacation periods, the Government must find a better long-term and more permanent solution to the problem of school security. An amount of $56 million has been allocated for the maintenance of schools project and I presume that is part of the $70 million that was announced approximately a month ago. Schools were informed that $70 million would be spent on various maintenance programs throughout the State by June.

I have had reports from schools in various parts of New South Wales relating to this issue. At a principals meeting a few weeks ago in an area west of the Blue Mountains—I will not be more specific than that—one principal said that he had been allocated a certain amount of money for painting the school. The principal's view was that the school did not need to be painted but that he had been told to paint the school and to spend the money before June. I have been told that the Government has been throwing money at schools in other areas to give them a facelift. It is doing other things so that people believe this budgetary allocation is being spent on schools. The budgetary allocation is not being properly used by this Government.

I am sick of going into schools and seeing power cords from a number of computers strung across a classroom ceiling and connected to the only power point in that classroom. The Government is spending some money on improving school wiring systems but in general, in the lead-up to the next election, it is wasting money on giving schools a facelift, a bit of a makeover, or a slapstick job at the end of the day. Principals from schools right across New South Wales are saying that is what they believe is happening. The Government is wasting its $56 million budgetary allocation. I refer now to the statement in the Governor's Speech about the provision of computers in schools.

The Government promised to provide an additional 90,000 computers in schools—25,000 computers by June next year and an additional 11,000 in the forthcoming budget. The Government is intent on supplying schools with computer hardware. It takes into account the requirement for additional computers but it does not take into account school wiring systems, their capacity to access the Internet, the capacity of teachers to teach information technology and the capacity of schools to undertake appropriate maintenance. This week the Government announced that it would allocate $6 million to about 181 high schools and other schools to double their wiring capacity. That might mean that eight computers as opposed to four computers at each school will access the Internet and nine schools will have access to fibre optic cables—a small step into the twenty-first century that is welcomed.

The Government said that it is moving steadily forward in the information technology area. However, it got it wrong in the first place. It undercabled schools and chose the least cost options. We are now paying the penalty. I will not quibble about and I welcome the money that has been allocated to advance and improve schools and TAFEs in New South Wales, but it is the end result of inadequate planning and an inadequate commitment by this Government in recent years to capital works. The Government is trying to catch up in the last year before an election, which will not wash well with the public of New South Wales.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [9.03 p.m.]: The Australian Democrats, who support open government, approve of the Appropriation (Budget Variations) Bill, which is open to public scrutiny. However, it is our belief that it would be better if budget variations were examined systematically by general purpose standing committees.

The Hon. Richard Jones: They are estimates committees.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: General purpose standing committees are estimates committees. It is interesting to see where the extra money is going in the run-up to the next election. The Premier's Department will receive an additional $17 million and $4.2 million will be spent on crime prevention. The Department of Corrective Services will receive $17 million. 1254 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 April 2002

[Interruption]

That allocation has to be compared to the $1 million that is going to health.

The Hon. Michael Egan: An amount of $8 billion or $8,000 million goes to health.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: We are really only looking at budgetary increases. Admittedly, we are not really looking at the overall picture. If someone had budgeted prudently these additional budgetary allocations would not have been required. We are looking only at increments to correct the perceptions of various departments. I have no problem with the allocation of $24 million for Internet training, $56 million for school maintenance and $14 million for minor capital works. Given the school maintenance problem alluded to earlier by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe, it is good to see these budgetary allocations.

I do not pretend that I am able to analyse these budgetary allocations in the context of the total budget, which is why I said that these things should be systematically examined by general purpose standing committees. At least this bill is a step towards the open government about which I speak in this place. I notice that police have been allocated an additional $33 million. I would like to think that would result in more money being spent on crime prevention, but as I am not looking at total spending I am not able to comment on that. It appears as though police and corrective services are getting more money than crime prevention, but one has to look at the overall picture. An amount of $100 million has been allocated for rail infrastructure increases and $42 million has been allocated to improve JetCat ferries. I said earlier that these issues should be referred to the estimates committees, but it is good that these budget variations are made public.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [9.56 p.m.]: I draw attention to a couple of line items in the Appropriation (Budget Variations) Bill.

The Hon. Richard Jones: And the fire ants.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: I noticed the budgetary allocation for fire ants. It is good to see that allocation for fire ants because they present a huge threat to primary industry in New South Wales. I note that these issues will be further debated at estimates committee hearings, which will be held shortly. I note the budgetary allocation of nearly $43 million for land maintenance, the upgrade of ferries and the re-engineering of JetCats. The so-called re-engineering of the JetCats is one of the great scandals of the Carr Labor Government and, in particular, the incompetent administration of the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads, Mr Scully.

The Hon. Richard Jones: They are losing $2 million a year.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: They are losing $2 million a year, but they cannot do what they are meant to be doing, so they have to be re-engineered. It is probably time that the Government was re- engineered or thrown out.

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: Fat chance.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: I want it recorded in Hansard that the Hon. Ian Macdonald said, "Fat chance."

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: Fat chance that we will be thrown out.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: What arrogance the honourable member is displaying!

Ms Lee Rhiannon: Say it again.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: It is an example of arrogance.

Ms Lee Rhiannon: He does not understand.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: He does not understand; it is a bit over his head. An amount of just over $4 million has been allocated for the buyout of commercial fishing licences. There has been some debate about the priority of the Carr Government in buying out commercial fishing licences. Some people 10 April 2002 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1255 believe that a few of the larger commercial fishing enterprises wish to be bought out. They are quite happy to leave the industry as long as they are fairly compensated, but the Carr Government has chosen to reject some of their applications and buy out smaller, peripheral and latent fishing licences.

If this Government's overall objective is to have a sustainable fishing resource, it seems to have missed the point altogether of restructuring the industry. I will pursue that matter in other forums, but I would like to mention tonight that there is a problem in particular on the far North Coast where fishers in the Richmond River area would like to be bought out. The Government has told them that it is not interested in buying out their businesses, which is very disappointing.

I think that is very disappointing, and I look forward to further examination of some of these items during estimates committee hearings. I note the CT scanners for rural hospitals and radiotherapy equipment for south-western Sydney, and I look forward to receiving more details on the break-up of where the CT scanners are to be allocated and how much of that $27.5 million is allocated to country hospitals as distinct from south- western Sydney.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [9.10 p.m.]: The Greens will support the bill. While we part company with the Government's ideological approach to economic matters, we are pleased to be able to speak to the bill. The Greens have often been critical of way in which the Government hides matters and makes it difficult for members of Parliament to play their part—

The Hon. John Ryan: There are plenty of sins hidden in it.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I agree with the Hon. John Ryan that there are plenty of sins hidden in the bill, but at least it is a start and the Greens are always willing to pay a compliment where it is due. The bill gives us the opportunity to scrutinise the Government's expenditure to some extent. It provides for additional expenditure in areas where it is needed. I believe that in any budgetary process it is important to have a mechanism to provide for the flexibility of additional expenditure that might be required. With regard to public education, the Greens particularly welcome the allocation of $56 million for urgent maintenance measures. The Government should allocate funding for such measures rather than selling off public assets to pay for maintenance in schools. Public education appears to do quite well in this bill.

Funding of $23 million has been allocated for better Internet access in public schools, which is vitally important. As we all know, technology is galloping ahead at a great rate. Our children simply must have the Internet at their fingertips, and if they do not have the equipment they need it simply cannot occur. However, the poor cousin of our public school system, the TAFE system, is still well and truly left out. There is a lack of funding for TAFE teacher salary increases. As the years go by, it is becoming increasingly apparent under this Government that it plans to fund salary increases by so-called efficiency measures. However, this translates into a massive load on the teachers who remain in the system.

The ultimate effect of the reductions that are put in place to supposedly run these institutions more effectively is that the quality of teaching is reduced. That is not a reflection on the teachers who remain, but there is only so much one can do. The load that teachers carry is simply unacceptable. The Greens are also pleased to see funding of almost $144 million for the Parramatta to Chatswood rail link, which is a favourite of the Greens. I imagine that the rail link will be the last major public transport project we will see. However, we welcome it very much and we are pleased to have been able to support the project.

While the Greens support the bill and many of the projects and activities that have been funded under it, we remain opposed to the underlying economic and political philosophy of the Government. Because of the way that approach plays out, we are seeing a roll-down in public infrastructure. It is an issue of real concern. I believe one of the chief responsibilities of any government should be that it keeps public infrastructure well maintained, constantly improved and upgraded. But we are seeing the reverse of that; we are seeing a downgrading of so much of our infrastructure. Future generations will the pay the price for that. At times this leads to a crisis in public confidence.

People simply do not feel confident about going out when they cannot be sure about trains reaching their destination, a lack of lighting in public places, and matters of that nature. There can be negative impacts in a number of ways when the Government does not carry out its responsibilities in this area. The Greens believe it is time to reconsider our economy, to ensure that the distribution of economic resources is fairer and more just. We believe it is time for wealth to be redistributed. They are words that one does not hear much these days. The 1256 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 April 2002

Greens have a deep commitment to social justice, and wealth redistribution is something that is clearly needed— and we can achieve it. Clearly the Government has the powers through taxation and government charges to ensure wealth distribution, so that public services and infrastructure are no longer the poor cousins of the private sector.

The Hon. Michael Egan: Which taxes do the Greens want us to put up?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I will give you a list of them. We have some very impressive ones, particularly some eco-taxes. A topic of discussion over the Treasurer's dinner on Thursday night with some of his friends could be increasing taxes on the big spenders in this place. That would be an easy way to even things out.

The Hon. Michael Egan: They would probably only thank me for the premium property tax.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Perhaps some of them will rethink whether they will come to dinner, because they may not be too sure whether they will get such a warm welcome. I urge the Treasurer to look at the Sydney Morning Herald web site, which has an interesting story about his dinner tomorrow night. The Greens will be pleased to support the bill.

The Hon. DOUG MOPPETT [9.16 p.m.]: On previous occasions when the Appropriation Bill has been introduced in the House I have spoken in favour of the current practices that surround the introduction of the bill. I can recall former practices when appropriation bills were introduced at a time when it could be argued that if they were not passed on that night the salaries of public service employees would be stopped the next morning and it was all retrospective. Along with other reforms that are being introduced, we should at least be thankful that departments are now required to review their expenditure and to bring forward recalculated estimates so that an appropriation can be made. The extra appropriations form a significant part of this bill. I have no problem with that in principle; in fact, I applaud the fact that it takes place.

I am also on record as saying that the exercise of the prerogative of the Treasurer to make advances and also of the Government to make appropriations subject to approval by Parliament under section 22 is a good, flexible way of dealing with the day-to-day problems of managing community expectations against available resources. Once again I wish to say how much I appreciate the improvement that has been made to public accountability through these measures. I would like to draw attention to an item that members have not yet addressed, perhaps because of its obscurity. The explanatory note on page 2 of the bill refers to an amount of $929,149,000 for capital works and services, in accordance with section 22 (1) of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983. If one were to read that literally, one would raise one's eyebrow and say it is a little strange, taken together with a section 22 appropriation of $1 billion for capital works.

However, more assiduous members would have looked to schedule 2 and recognised that it is virtually one item, which is the appropriation of money to debt retirement. All the citizens of New South Wales should be thankful that the current prosperity that has been engendered by sound Commonwealth fiscal management has enabled the people of New South Wales to enjoy an almost unprecedented surge in business activity, the result of which has been strong positive flows to Treasury. We have to give credit where it is due. The opportunity has been taken in this bill to retire State debt by a substantial amount. Everyone voting on this bill tonight ought to be aware of that as it is very significant.

I said I would return to some remarks about the Treasurer's Advance and section 22 appropriations. I approve of them in principle but I do not think it can be said to be an unqualified approval. The exercise should not be unmitigated. It should not develop into expectations that the State's needs will be met on the run with hip shots at whatever turns up whenever it turns up. There has been considerable debate in other places. General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1, which Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile chaired in its inquiry into appropriations and expenditure, pointed to a comfortable level that should be struck in relation to the gross turnover in the budget. One cannot take figures out of the context of the total budget and say that $500 million is a lot of money. Yes, it is a lot of money but in State expenditure terms it remains inside the comfort zone that the Auditor-General should say is a substantial sum of money that was not included in the original budget, but which does not breach the safety standards that should be applied.

However, I am concerned that this is developing into a pattern. Each time we have debated this bill, Treasurer's Advances and section 22 appropriations have been close to the limit. This is something that honourable members on both sites should be alarmed at, because if it becomes part of the settled way of financing the activities of the State, sooner or later the flexibility that is intended by these two facilities will be 10 April 2002 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1257 gone, because there will be an assumption that they will be used up by sloppy forward budgeting in the expectation that all one has to do is knock on the Treasurer's door and he will make an advance or prepare a slightly more significant submission through Cabinet to the Governor-in-Council to sign off under section 22. It would be a great shame if every year it was fully extended to the limits of probity and fiduciary responsibility.

There should be years when the Treasurer's Advance is very small, when those exigencies have not turned up. After all, that is what it is there for—bushfires or something totally unanticipated. It is a great shame to think that it has become part of the normal pattern of financing government operations. Nevertheless, despite the enormous total of these figures, I tend to agree with the sentiment that the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield- Evans mooted, which I was not able to hear in full, that greater detail of the nature of these advances and section 22 appropriations should be provided for closer perusal if the general purpose standing committee so chooses. For some advances the committee might say that is sufficient explanation; others would be worthy of scrutiny as we do the budget appropriations later in the year. When one is looking at weighty sums of money like this there is good reason to raise questions. It is all very well to point out, as the Hon. Richard Jones did, the enormous importance of responding instantaneously to the challenge of fire ants and to the banana sigatoka threat.

The Hon. Michael Egan: We are very good to Queensland.

The Hon. DOUG MOPPETT: I agree with you. Both of those are of enormous benefit. It is good neighbour stuff.

The Hon. Michael Egan: I am not sure they reciprocate.

The Hon. DOUG MOPPETT: No, but I think we have to recognise that these are bread and butter responsibilities. We should not look at the control of noxious animals, particularly insects on the scale of fire ants, and the protection of an industry like the banana industry as benevolent acts but part of the core responsibilities of government. I believe some closer scrutiny is needed of what that money will amount to, what is going to be done in this fire ant program, and what is the nature of the sigatoka banana campaign.

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: You certainly will not find out from me tonight.

The Hon. DOUG MOPPETT: No. If I had that forlorn hope, it has now comprehensively been dashed.

The Hon. Michael Egan: And I could have helped you once but I have forgotten. I will have to reacquaint myself.

The Hon. DOUG MOPPETT: Right. The point I was making was not that I sought the information now but that I am sure members of this House would like the opportunity to do so. They are probably aspects of this large sum of money that would be less likely to be questioned, but other items would bear some greater scrutiny by an appropriate committee, and we have the committees with their various standing responsibilities. I think the Treasurer could give a fuller explanation than is contained here and we would not have to barney about it when debating the bill at its second reading.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [9.26 p.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contributions to this debate. They have all made some very sensible comments.

The Hon. Michael Egan: They made a lot more sense than Mr Souris in the other place. The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Yes, I was intending to talk about Mr Souris but I want to comment on a couple of remarks made by the Hon. John Ryan. He said—something that was contradicted very clearly by the Hon. Doug Moppett in his praise for the Government for its debt reduction strategies—that if expenditure continued at this rate, talking about this particular appropriation, it would definitely lead to an increase in debt. However, this year the budget is still in surplus and underlying net debt within general government has gone from $12 billion in 1995, the last year of the Coalition Government, to this year's figure of $5.3 billion and a projected figure for 2005 of $4.8 billion. So there has been quite a cutback in debt over the past few years. The Hon. Doug Moppett saw through the arcaneness of various economic figures and came to the conclusion that it was a good thing that we have been moving towards greater debt reduction. The Hon. John Ryan is again a little confused. Some extra income is being reflected in these appropriations due to the strong nature of the economy, and this was referred to again in the excellent 1258 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 April 2002 contribution of the Hon. Doug Moppett. What the Hon. John Ryan failed to mention was that whilst the economy has been wheeling along, creating this extra revenue for the Government, at the same time the Government has taken policy decisions that have led to cuts in various taxes. For instance, the payroll tax rate has been cut from 6.4 per cent to 6.2 per cent, effective from 1 January 2001. On 1 July 2000 the Government completed phasing out the $43 third party motor vehicle registration levy. We have removed the surcharge on motor vehicle registration fees and transfer fees. We have introduced first home plus stamp duty concessions for home buyers, effective from 1 July 2000. We have decreased the insurance stamp duty rate from 11.5 per cent to 10 per cent, effective from 1 October 2000. With the exception of some minor changes to parking space levies there were no tax rate increases or new taxes in 2000-01. In fact, the Government has been reducing taxation.

[Interruption]

Obviously the Hon. John Ryan is a little embarrassed about this, because he is starting to get a little aggressive. He knows that when the Coalition was in Government a member in another place, Mr George Souris, increased taxation dramatically. Indeed, many of the tax rate increases were more than 100 per cent. I will not detail those increases now because it is getting late in the evening and I do not want to overburden members opposite. Honourable members must remember that this bill provides for an increase of $142.3 million in funding for the home owners grant, $135 million for natural disasters and $70 million for education maintenance. These are legitimate extra expenditures. I note that most honourable members are content with what the Government is doing in these areas.

The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans referred to the health budget. He correctly said that health funding has increased, but the increase is far in excess of the figure he mentioned. In fact, the increase was something like $27 million, and included an allocation for CT scanners for rural hospitals. That was a great victory for Country Labor. Members opposite always get upset when Country Labor is mentioned. Honourable members should not get too caught up in the rhetoric about the Treasurer's Advance, which represents only about 1 per cent—

The Hon. Richard Jones: No, it's 3 per cent.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: No. It is $250 million over $30 billion. In fact, the Treasurer's Advance is a very small percentage of overall expenditure, so it is a bit inordinate for members opposite to get a little carried away with it. They are clutching at straws. They always get a bit upset about the budget until it is explained to them. I simply refer them to the contribution to this debate of the Hon. Doug Moppett. In his speech—it was probably the best speech this evening—the honourable member wholesomely praised the Government for its debt reduction strategy and its thriving use of policies and initiatives to get the economy moving. The extra revenue is being devoted to important social justice areas.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

BAIL AMENDMENT (REPEAT OFFENDERS) BILL

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AMENDMENT (SEXUAL ASSAULT COMMUNICATIONS PRIVILEGE) BILL

Bills received.

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

Motion by the Hon. Carmel Tebbutt agreed to:

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

Bills read a first time. 10 April 2002 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1259

ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment) [9.36 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

This Bill is a step in the consolidation of the Government's reform of the environment protection laws in this State.

These laws have been fundamentally overhauled since the Carr Government was elected in March 1995. The newly-elected Government embarked on a comprehensive reform program to ensure that we have the right tools in New South Wales to tackle the environmental problems that confront us as we go forward into the 21st century.

As happens with the implementation of any major reforms, the need for some minor adjustments and improvements to these new laws has become apparent. This bill addresses that need.

Before turning to the bill itself, it is timely to remind the House of the significant laws that we can now draw upon to protect the environment in New South Wales, thanks to the Government's reforms.

The cornerstone is the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997. Coming into force in July 1999, it replaced five important but outdated environment protection Acts. In their place we now have modern provisions that enable environmental problems to be vigorously addressed. Importantly, the new provisions are not blunt instruments. They have the flexibility to allow creative solutions to these problems.

The Protection of the Environment Operations Act reflects the reality that protecting the environment is an enormous task. It is a task that requires a determined, joint effort by State and local government, and by the very people whose activities impact on the environment.

The Government recognises that the Act has required adjustments by all sectors. I place on record our appreciation of the energy and commitment with which they have taken the new scheme on board. The partnership between the Environment Protection Authority and local government has been particularly important in ensuring that the potential of the legislation is fully realised.

The Contaminated Land Management Act 1997—which came into operation in 1998—is another critical element of the new environment protection package. It demonstrates this Government’s strong commitment to the better management of contaminated land issues, and we are seeing significant tangible results.

The Government is successfully tackling the community's serious concerns about pesticide use and management through education programs and implementation of the Pesticides Act 1999. Introducing the Bill for the Act just over a year ago, the Minister for the Environment expressed confidence that it would provide the level of protection that members of the community are seeking for themselves, their families, their crops and livestock and the environment. It is showing every sign of doing so.

Under this Government, New South Wales has also gained a piece of legislation that comprehensively covers the land transport of dangerous goods. The Road and Rail Transport (Dangerous Goods) Act 1997 is part of a national scheme that ensures harmonisation between transport modes, helps to reduce unnecessary costs, duplication and inconsistency.

The Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2001 and the Waste Recycling and Processing Corporation Act 2001—which recently commenced—are particularly important. They build on the successful features of the laws that they replace. They also take advantage of lessons learned from those laws over the past few years. They will ensure that we have a modern, effective and cost efficient waste management system and will encourage innovation in the waste industry.

These two Acts are the most recent additions to a suite of major environment laws that is already serving this community and our environment very well. The Government does not, however, rest on its laurels. This bill illustrates its determination to make these laws even better.

I now turn to the substance of the bill itself.

The bill amends the following Acts:

the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997

the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997

the Radiation Control Act 1990 and

It also makes associated amendments to regulations under 2 of those Acts. 1260 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 April 2002

The Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 and its associated regulation will be amended to allow contaminated site auditors who are accredited under the Act to be accredited for any period up to three years. Currently there is no flexibility in the accreditation period. It has to be for 12 months. The amendment will increase consistency with the equivalent scheme in Victoria (the other main auditor accreditation scheme in Australia) and reduce administrative burdens on auditors and regulators alike.

The amendments to the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 are generally minor but desirable or necessary in light of recent experience in administering the Act day to-day. They are all aimed at ensuring better implementation of the policies that underpin the Act.

The Minister for the Environment’s statutory review of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act—to be conducted after December next year—will be the time to consider whether more significant changes are required.

A number of the amendments in this bill relate to existing offences under the Act and regulations. The scheme of offences is strong and effective, but a few modifications and clarifications are required.

Some of the current offences relating to offensively noisy vehicles and vessels will be brought within a framework similar to the existing, successful regime in the Act for dealing with littering from vehicles. This will be achieved by the bill's amendments to the noise control regulation as well as to the Act. local councils' capacity to deal with these vexing and common noise problems will be improved as a result.

The bill includes minor changes to the Act and associated regulations to assist in the enforcement of laws that are directed at getting smoky vehicles off our roads. The smoky vehicle program is extremely important in the battle for better air quality.

The scheme of water pollution offences will be simplified by replacing the current three separate offences with one general offence of polluting waters. Importantly, however, this will not weaken the current scheme or expand its scope.

The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 introduced several useful regulatory tools such as the clean-up notice and the prevention notice. The bill makes it clear that a person who has not carried out pollution clean-up or prevention work by the time required by one of these notices is still obliged to carry out that work. The person should not be able to escape their obligations just because the specified deadline has passed.

I have already referred to the importance of the partnership between local councils and the Environment Protection Authority under this legislation. This partnership embraces the taking of enforcement action. The Bill will remove any doubt that a council can prosecute in the Land and Environment Court for an offence under the Act or regulations if the Court grants leave and the other requirements of section 219 of the Act are met.

Finally on offences, a new offence will deter the making of false or misleading statements and representations to the effect that the Environment Protection Authority endorses or approves goods or services. These sorts of statements are completely inconsistent with the EPA's statutory role and could prejudice its effectiveness as a regulator.

Amendments relating to investigatory powers under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 will help to ensure that decisions to issue penalty notices or prosecute are made on the basis of sufficient relevant evidence. They will also place all regulatory authorities under the Act in a better position to determine whether or not they are—to use the language of the Act—the "appropriate regulatory authority" for an activity.

This determination is a critical one. Only the "appropriate regulatory authority" for an activity can exercise certain powers in relation to the activity. The determination turns on the type of activity involved. Occasionally it can be a difficult determination to make. The amendments deal with the reality that occasionally mistakes will be made. For example, an authority might issue a prevention notice in the mistaken belief that it is the "appropriate regulatory authority" for the activity concerned.

The Bill will fix an anomaly in the licensing scheme under the Radiation Control Act 1990 and increase consistency between that scheme and the Act's accreditation and registration schemes. The investigatory powers of inspectors under the Radiation Control Act are out of step with modern investigatory powers, such as exist in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act. The Bill will bring them into step.

The Bill will also bring the Radiation Control Act into line with other environment protection laws by enabling breaches of the Act or regulations to be dealt with by the issuing of a penalty notice. This will mean that the response to a breach can be better tailored to the particular circumstances of the breach. Prosecution is not always the appropriate response.

The Bill's amendments to the Road and Rail Transport (Dangerous Goods) Act 1997 are simply to ensure that a breach of the Act can be fully investigated. As the Act stands, some of its investigatory powers can only be used to find out whether the Act is being complied. Use of those powers to investigate compliance in the past is precluded. Offenders who have managed to complete their misdeeds prior to detection could therefore escape investigation. This is obviously unsatisfactory.

In summary, the Bill will make minor but useful changes to our environment protection laws. It irons out some creases in those laws to make their operation smoother and more efficient.

I commend the Bill to the House.

The Hon. JOHN RYAN [9.36 p.m.]: This bill makes minor amendments to the environmental protection laws affecting air pollution, the control of radioactive devices and noise pollution from sea vessels and motor vehicles. The policy behind most of the provisions is well supported by the community and reasonably unremarkable. The bill also makes a number of sensible administrative changes that clarify the rights of council inspectors to issue appropriate infringement notices and carry out inspections under environment 10 April 2002 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1261 protection laws. For the most part, the Opposition does not object to the changes, but it has a couple of general concerns about matters raised in the bill.

The Opposition is concerned about the impact of this bill on local government. First, the Government has been keen on passing an ever increasing amount of responsibility to local government authorities. Local government is already financially pressed and tightly constrained. The Opposition is concerned that if these responsibilities are not supported by financial assistance from the State Government in terms of funding for training and equipment, local councils will have to either cut vital services or not undertake these new responsibilities at all or as well as they should. Additionally, there is the problem that, with 170 different local councils empowered to issue notices under these amended laws, there may not be an appropriate level of consistency. There may be an overly zealous council officer in one part of the State and a less zealous council officer in another part of the State, resulting in the capacity for inconsistency in the application of this legislation.

This bill deals with motor vehicle emissions in a number of provisions. The Opposition notes the new provisions relating to the detection of air pollution from motor vehicles, which entrench what is known as the smoky vehicle observation test. First, I point out the Government's absolute hypocrisy about increasing penalties in this regard. On one hand the Government imposes harsh fines of up to $20,000 for individuals who cause air pollution with a smoky vehicle, yet on the other hand it has the temerity to build and operate a new 35-metre smoke stack at Turella to aggregate the combined exhaust from the thousands of cars that use the new M5 tunnel and blast it unfiltered into a neighbourhood environment. Second, I point out the Government's lack of implementing the much-promised emission test for older motor vehicles. The Opposition understands that this bill will effectively extend the observation test and change the method of issuing infringement notices from requiring an officer to stop a vehicle and issue a notice to issuing a notice based on the observation of a number plate and sending a notice through the mail. The Opposition is concerned about the Government's complete failure over seven years to deal with motor vehicle emission testing. The roads policy of the Australian Labor Party [ALP] for the 1999 State election contained the promise that:

Vehicle emission performance and evaporative emission checks will become a part of registration inspections from the beginning of 1996. That was some time ago but under its Action for Air plan in May 1996 the Carr Government announced plans to introduce a compulsory vehicle emissions test. The ALP's policy on roads, "Priorities-Safety and Efficiency", which was announced in March 1995, contained the election promise to which I have referred. The first part of the scheme was designed to introduce non-compulsory testing facilities. We have had some implementation of that program: One can go to all of two Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] offices in all of New South Wales to have a vehicle emissions test. That is the record of the Carr Labor Government in that regard for its seven years in office.

In 1997 the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads announced that by 2000 annual emissions testing would be performed on all passenger and light commercial vehicles that are at least four years old. That policy was enunciated in a media release by the former Minister for the Environment, the Hon. Pam Allan. By 1998 the deadline had been extended to 2001. So the Government has quite clearly failed with vehicle emissions testing. It has failed to meet its own standards that were set out in a 1995 election policy document formulated by the then Carr Opposition. It failed again in 1997 when the former Minister for the Environment put forward the policy. It has continued to fail, by extending the implementation of its deadline to 2001, which indicates the Government's weakness on vehicle emissions testing. Instead of providing the people of New South Wales with a legitimate, scientific and detailed procedure for testing smoky vehicles, the Carr Government falls back on the extension of the smoky vehicles test, which is at best subjective. The drivers of smoky vehicles will not be pulled over, but the registration number of their vehicles will be taken down and infringement notices will be sent to them through the mail to begin the enforcement process. The Opposition does not believe that is good enough. We note that the environment movement is not particularly pleased with the Government in that regard either. On 6 January 2000 the Sydney Morning Herald reported:

The State Government has been accused of reneging on a commitment to clean up Sydney's air by introducing compulsory testing of car exhausts.

The director of the Total Environment Centre, Mr Jeff Angel, says NSW is falling well behind schedule to introduce a compulsory testing program for cars older than four years from the start of 2001.

He says NSW should follow the lead of Western Australia, which abolished the sale of leaded petrol in January 1. 1262 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 April 2002

That again demonstrates that the Government has failed in this regard. The article continued:

The Carr Government announced plans to introduce compulsory vehicle emission tests in May 1996. In October 1998, the Transport Minister, Mr Scully, introduced a voluntary testing program and said a compulsory program for cars older than four years, to be run by private operators, would start from early next year.

Such a program would cut carbon monoxide emissions from cars by 25 per cent and oxides of nitrogen by 9 per cent, the director of the Environment Protection Authority, Mr Neil Shepherd, said.

We will in the foreseeable future be faced with considerable urban growth in the city in which we live. Government figures reveal that 50,000 new residents are expected to move to Sydney each year. Additional demands will be placed on our roads, which will not be able to cope because of the Government's failure to provide adequate infrastructure. The Government must do something about vehicle emissions testing. It should not just permit an officer from time to time to issue an infringement notice to the owner of a smoky vehicle. We need a system that is properly regulated and rigorously implemented by the Roads and Traffic Authority. I want to briefly comment on the so-called boom box provisions included in this bill. As one of the few members in this place who knows the difference between Britney Spears and Grinspoon, I want to make a couple of observations about this bill.

The Hon. Carmel Tebbutt: I know the difference.

The Hon. JOHN RYAN: I said I would be "one of the few". I am a bit concerned that these provisions may be a great deal harsher than they need be. For a start, the new clauses do not provide much guidance to enable us to tell the difference between what amounts to a breach of the law and just having, what some might believe to be, bad taste. I recall the Minister for Police making disparaging comments about some kids in Rockdale apparently causing a massive public outrage by driving past him in cars fitted with loud sound systems. I am not exactly sure that the problem is as big as he made out. I accept that these individuals are provocative. They are possibly damaging their own hearing, but I have not seen much evidence of them causing enormous public disturbance. I accept and acknowledge that it would be problematic if one of these vehicles operating a loud sound system was being driven through a suburban street late at night when people were trying to sleep, but I have not found that to be usually the case.

I recall an occasion when I saw a car parked in a car park and its sound system was belting out some loud R and B or rap music. Around the car there were kids who were either talking or riding skateboards. While the scene was hardly what I call domestic bliss, it did not look like the dark, sinister and criminal activity I have often heard described by the police Minister. To the contrary, it could be described as a few kids enjoying some reasonable healthy good fun. I think people need to get a grip on the difference between a judgment of taste and real nuisance activity that might deserve to be called criminal. Young people have always been provocative, and tastes change.

For example, I am sure that in the 1960s individuals of the vintage of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile might have had their parents express concern when he and the Hon. Elaine Nile abandoned his Kawasaki 80 motor bike, or whatever it was that he used to ride, and slipped away to enjoy the clear sound of "West Side Story" or songs with a 12-bar boogie-woogie riff on an eight track HMV stereo, mounted in a mate's FJ Holden. I am sure that even the Minister for Police and his mates in the 1970s used to drool over the sounds of groups such as Babies or Meatloaf as they blared from the dash-mounted Pioneer cassette player, enhanced with the latest Dolby surround sound. Today's kids are no different. I know it was once fashionable to lift up the bonnet of your mate's fully worked Torana and feel the hum of the V8, twin carb, dual extracted double overhead camshaft door handles. Now kids are more likely to lift up the boot lid of their HSV Commodore and show their fully "sick" multiple 15-inch MTX sub-woofers with matching MTX 1,500 watt RMS amplifier mounted in a sealed environment.

I recognise that that sort of behaviour might be immature, and honourable members might consider such music to be in bad taste, but it hardly represents criminal behaviour meriting a $1,000 court-imposed fine. What concerns me more is the vague manner in which these offences are described. Persons who might be subject to these new penalty notices, according to the relevant Act which is being amended, will be subject to them if they are the owner of a vehicle from which, "the sound system" is "used in such a manner that it emits offensive noise". I know that some honourable members would determine that an offensive noise amounts to hearing something like "Nobody likes a Bogan" by Area 7—I might even find it unpalatable music—but if it were to be played loudly by a group a kids at a street corner from a motor vehicle stopped briefly at some traffic lights, I would hardly suggest that it amounted to criminal behaviour. 10 April 2002 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1263

I am sure that the scrutiny of bills committee that has been recommended by the law and justice committee could well recommend the amendment of provisions such as these to ensure that they more closely describe the offences we are trying to prevent. I make the point that perhaps this place would be improved if more young people who would be able to make an assessment of legislation that affects them were members of it. Notwithstanding, I accept that it is politically popular to have a crack at young people driving their cars with loud sound systems. Some people might even regard young people on sight as being offenders, but I am not one of them. I am a great supporter of young people. As a father of two teenage kids I have at least had the opportunity to see and appreciate what they enjoy and to join them in some of their activities. I would be more inclined to make more positive comments about young people even though I accept, as a teacher with 10 years' experience and decades of experience in youth activities, that young people, as they have been at all ages, are inclined to be a bit provocative. We need to curb the political exercise of simply exploiting that provocative behaviour by making what I regard as draconian laws to curb their activities. In every other respect the legislation is unremarkable and can be supported.

The Hon. RICHARD JONES [9.49 p.m.]: I support the Environment Protection Legislation Amendment Bill, which contains some very useful reforms especially that proposed by item [1] of schedule 5.1 relating to "Visible emissions: diesel and spark-ignition vehicles". The Hon. John Ryan referred to this when speaking about the M5 East smoke stack. It is an outrage that the Carr Government has not filtered that single stack. It is now obvious that sometimes the tunnel itself is quite polluted, that visibility in the tunnel is poor, and that people are having asthma incidents in the tunnel as a result of breathing pollution.

Clearly, the political decision to have one stack instead of three was a mistake. That there is an 800- metre tunnel from the roadway to the stack obviously inhibits the removal of pollution from the tunnel itself. At some point Minister Carl Scully will have to make the decision to filter that stack and the stacks on other tunnels being built in Sydney. In its two reports the committee tried to point out the problems related to diesel fumes and particulate matter. I wish to put on the record some information that I have gathered from around the world on this topic. I quote first from the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment in California:

In 1998, the California Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) completed a comprehensive health assessment of diesel exhaust. This assessment formed the basis for a decision by the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to formally identify particles in diesel exhaust as a toxic air contaminant that may pose a threat to human health. The American Lung Association of California (ALAC) and its 15 local associations work to prevent lung disease and promote lung health. Since 1904, the American Lung Association has been fighting lung disease through education, community service, advocacy and research.

The fact sheet asks, "What is diesel exhaust?" The article explains that it is:

... a complex mixture of thousands of gases and fine particles... that contains more than 40 toxic air contaminants. These include many known or suspected cancer-causing substances, such as benzene, arsenic and formaldehyde. It also contains other harmful pollutants, including nitrogen oxides...

The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment states:

The microscopic particles in diesel exhaust are less than one-fifth the thickness of a human hair and are small enough to penetrate deep into the lungs, where they contribute to a range of health problems.

These are the same particles that are being emitted from the M5 East smoke stack. The article continues:

Diesel exhaust and many individual substances contained in it (including arsenic, benzene, formaldehyde and nickel) have the potential to contribute to mutations in cells that lead to cancer. In fact, long-term exposure to diesel exhaust particles poses the highest cancer risk of any toxic air contaminants evaluated by OEHHA. ARB estimates that about 70 percent of the cancer risk that the average Californian faces from breathing toxic air pollutants stems from diesel exhaust particles.

On a number of occasions I have asked the Environment Protection Authority what it will do about diesel pollution in the city of Sydney, but it has done absolutely nothing but monitor it. Buses in the city of Sydney are emitting vast amounts of diesel particulate matter, yet nothing has been done about that. Filters are available to be put on those vehicles, but they have not been installed, and the Environment Protection Authority has done nothing to ensure that the filters are put on not only buses but also a number of other vehicles. When driving in the city of Sydney or in the country one can still see large numbers of diesel vehicles emitting vast amounts of soot into the air. Clearly, some of those vehicles are illegal because they emit visible soot for more than 10 seconds.

The Hon. Rick Colless: What if a vehicle loaded with rams is going uphill? 1264 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 April 2002

The Hon. RICHARD JONES: They should not be emitting that amount of pollution, whether going up or down a hill or on the flat. They are polluting the air and killing human beings. The OEHHA states further:

In its comprehensive assessment of diesel exhaust, OEHHA analyzed more than 30 studies of people who worked around diesel equipment, including truck drivers, railroad workers and equipment operators. The studies showed these workers were more likely to develop lung cancer than workers who were not exposed to diesel emissions. These studies provide strong evidence that long-term occupational exposure to diesel exhaust increases the risk of lung cancer. Using information from OEHHA's assessment, ARB estimates that diesel-particle levels measured in California's air in 2000 could cause 540 "excess" cancers (beyond what would occur if there were no diesel particles in the air) in a population of 1 million people over a 70-year lifetime.

It states further:

Exposure to diesel exhaust can have immediate health effects. Diesel exhaust can irritate the eyes, nose, throat and lungs, and it can cause coughs, headaches, lightheadedness and nausea. In studies with human volunteers, diesel exhaust particles made people with allergies more susceptible to the materials to which they are allergic, such as dust and pollen. Exposure to diesel exhaust also causes inflammation in the lungs, which may aggravate chronic respiratory symptoms and increase the frequency or intensity of asthma attacks …

ARB's Diesel Risk Reduction Plan, when fully implemented, will result in a 75 percent reduction in particle emissions from diesel equipment by 2010 (compared to 2000 levels) and an 85 percent reduction by 2020. The plan calls for the use of cleaner- burning diesel fuel, retrofitting of existing engines with particle-trapping filters, and the use in new diesel engines of advanced technologies that produce nearly 90 percent fewer particle emissions, as well as the use of alternative fuels.

Why is it that California has these risk reduction measures and New South Wales does not? How come California can reduce its particle levels by 85 per cent by 2020 when New South Wales is doing nothing about this issue? Why is the EPA doing nothing about this? Why is the Carr Government doing nothing? Why does the Opposition not have any plan either? Opposition members ridiculed the pollution measure, yet it has no plan or policy to improve Sydney's air quality. And Sydney is where most people in this State live. Nothing is happening. Can we please have some policies from the Opposition to reduce air pollution in the city of Sydney, where hundreds of people are dying every year from particulate matter, mainly from diesel vehicles? It really is about time something was done about this problem. Though we have been agitating on this matter for some years now, absolutely nothing has been done. Many hundreds of people die every year as a direct result of this type of pollution. California is taking action to reduce its diesel pollution by 85 per cent. We could do exactly the same thing in this city. It is the number one environmental problem in Sydney, as has been demonstrated by polls. More people are concerned about air quality than they are about any other environmental issue. Yet there are no policies on either side of politics. Only the Greens and the Democrats have decent policies, as do some Independents, but we have nothing from the major parties. I do hope that when Andrew Humpherson has reviewed the policies of the Opposition, he will produce a really good policy on air pollution in the city of Sydney. I hope the Hon. John Ryan will help him in the development of that policy. There is no doubt that diesel vehicles are causing the majority of problems with air pollution in this city. According to the National Road Transport Commissioner, Ms Virginia Hickey, Australia's vehicle fleet is the major contributor to air pollution. Despite representing only 10 per cent of all vehicles, trucks contribute between 60 per cent and 80 per cent of fine particle emissions from all vehicles. Trucks make a significantly disproportionate contribution to air pollution. That information was contained in an article published last year. I have also an article entitled "Local Government Action to Reduce the Effects of Diesel Emissions in Urban Environments", written by Keith Loveridge. Some interesting observations are made throughout the article. He says:

Up to 1050 Australians could die every year from lung damage caused by fine particulates from diesel exhaust (Brand 1999). It is believed, however, that up to 1,000 Sydney people die every year from particulate matter pollution. It is said that every year 500 people die in Oslo from the same cause. Keith Loveridge quotes Danish research that shows that bus drivers may face a 60 per cent increased risk of developing lung cancer as a result of air pollution inside their cabs, according to the New Scientist 1995, and that children and the elderly are particularly vulnerable to diesel exhaust, as they are among the largest percentage group using public transport. Yet these old buses are still trundling around our streets, with State Transit saying they are not polluting the environment. We can see that they are polluting our air and that they are very dangerous vehicles. Why are they not being converted to compressed natural gas as quickly as possible?, Quoting Gong and Waring in 1998, Keith Loveridge says:

Diesel exhaust is around 40 times more carcinogenic than cigarette smoke on a weight/volume basis. We are virtually forcing people in the streets of Sydney to do the equivalent of smoking cigarettes because the Environment Protection Authority [EPA] is doing nothing about diesel pollution whereas it could be following 10 April 2002 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1265

the Californian example. According to a National Environment Protection Council's study in 1997, diesel- fuelled vehicles contribute approximately 80 per cent of all vehicle-produced particles in major centres. Australian diesel fuel has a very high sulfur content—up to 5,000 parts per million—with an average level measured in 1996 of 1,500 parts per million.

These high sulfur levels are responsible for the elevated levels of dangerous particulates. The current European maximum allowable level of sulfur in diesel fuel is 500 parts per million. Why is New South Wales lagging behind in the reduction of sulfur levels? According to the New Scientist, Japanese scientists have found a compound in diesel exhaust, 3-nitrobenzathrone, to be the most carcinogenic chemical ever discovered, yet this is being emitted in the streets of Sydney as a result of this Government's inaction. The article states:

In Australia, the total economic cost of particulate pollution has been estimated at around $8 billion per annum. Around $4 billion of this figure may be attributable to particle emissions from road vehicles, principally those that run on diesel.

Not only is the high level of particulate matter in diesel fuel killing people—perhaps up to 1,000 lives lost in the city of Sydney alone—it is also costing the community a great deal of money. I urge the EPA and the Carr Government to follow the California example before the next State election and reduce particulate levels by 85 per cent by 2020.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Richard Jones.

ADJOURNMENT

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment) [10.02 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn. Mr ARTHUR HANKIN TRIBUTE The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [10.02 p.m.]: I wish to pay a tribute to a friend and colleague who recently passed away. Arthur Hankin was a remarkable Australian. He was one of the most famous participants in Australia's advertising industry. Although he suffered serious illnesses for the past decade, one of his many notable creative campaigns is running strongly in the media currently, as it was Arthur Hankin who created MLC's nest-egg campaign. His advertising campaigns spanned the decades, from helping to install the Australian Women's Weekly to its iconic place in our publishing industry, through to the current nest-egg campaign. Arthur was a colleague during many intensive National Party election campaigns. In his view, every day presented opportunities for an entire minicampaign, whether or not he was being paid for his creative work. Bred and born in inner Sydney, Arthur was a fierce advocate of the private enterprise philosophy. He adopted, and was adopted by, the National Party and was the creative director for many of its media campaigns while from time to time lending himself to individual Liberal candidates in electorates such as Bligh and Wentworth—John Barraclough, Michael Yabsley and Peter King are cases in point. Indeed, the New South Wales Parliamentary Library's recent Federation series of analyses of State election campaigns features one of Hankin's anti-Wran press campaigns. When Mr John Singleton's advertising agency won the New South Wales Labor Party account, I suspect John Singleton put out the feelers to get his old and famously cantankerous friend to come on board Labor's campaign. After all, Arthur had created one of the best negative political advertisements—the "Dear Barrie" ad, a television commercial which helped to bring about the defeat of the Unsworth Government and the end of the Wran era in 1988, and to usher in the Greiner-Murray Government. But Arthur stayed true to his political convictions: He was a subscribing member of the National Party and went on to play a pivotal role in many more of its State and Federal election campaigns. When Arthur Hankin died Mr John Singleton—who delivered a wonderful and appropriately happy eulogy at the funeral—placed an advertisement in the Australian Financial Review paying a tribute to "Hank", his friend and colleague, as "the last of the great Australian copywriters". Arthur was a great communicator who was able to successfully shrink-wrap the English language, effectively transmitting complex messages to mass audiences, whether using the written word in wonderful full-page press advertisements on billboards and posters, classic images for television or pithy radio scripts. All of Arthur's scripts and designs had to be written with a particular brand of green pen with black ink. All of the scripts—and the scores of drafts that were consigned to the bin, leading to the final superlatively 1266 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 April 2002 satisfactory effort—could be written only on notepads of a certain size. Text had to be produced in strictly prescribed fonts: Times Roman and Franklin Gothic Bold were Arthur's favourites. Indeed, one of his pens, pads and scripts featured in a television commercial—one that was too controversial for its time—although John Howard would have loved it for the 2001 campaign.

One of the best political posters produced in an Australian campaign was the famous "Joh" poster, featuring Joh Bjelke-Petersen, whom Arthur helped on his way to political stardom. The Queensland National Party Premier was depicted in a Rottweilian-style portrait that was accompanied by one word, "Joh", which Arthur, the copywriter, had correctly assessed was the only text needed. The poster was based on a portrait which featured on the cover of Hugh Lunn's biography of Sir Joh. Those colour posters were instant collectors' items, even without Sir Joh's autograph, and he autographed tubes of them.

Arthur was thought by many to be a difficult man. He was insistent and he required high-level maintenance, but he was deeply respected by those of us who had the privilege of working closely with him and who were happy to immerse ourselves in his creative aura while working through the night in television production studios and various other work settings. To Arthur, a television set with a video cassette recorder was the equivalent of an arm or a leg to other people. He was always in pursuit of excellence. Unlike some in his industry though, he had a keen respect for the budgetary stringencies facing his clients, especially a membership-based client such as the National Party.

Arthur allocated large slabs of his life to the promotion of the National Party and its philosophy, particularly in the wake of its change of name, and to its leaders, including at various stages of their public lives the Right Honourable Doug Anthony, the Right Honourable Ian Sinclair, Charles Blunt, Tim Fischer and the young candidate for Gwydir, John Anderson, together with other candidates of all shapes and sizes, aptitudes and dispositions, both male and female. Our only difference of opinion was over the doomed "Joh for PM" campaign, but that was when we decided to agree to disagree. On behalf of the National Party of Australia and on my own part, I pay the utmost respect to the memory of Arthur Hankin and offer condolences to his wife, Pam, and his children, Evan, Clenton, Alicia and Andrew.

STEM CELL RESEARCH

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [10.07 p.m.]: I place on record my concern over the proposal to use fertilised embryos for stem cell research. I believe that inadequate consideration has been given to the use of adult stem cells, particularly in the light of evidence that has been brought forward as recently as the past few days. I instance the example of a boy who has leukaemia and whose doctors were able to extract adult stem cells from his bone marrow. His doctors have been able to achieve a successful response in the treatment of his leukaemia and did not need to use the embryos that had been fertilised through the in vitro fertilisation [IVF] program.

One problem with the so-called debate currently is that people—particularly scientists who want to use the embryos—have tailored the debate so that it becomes a choice between the use of embryos to help people who have serious diseases, or not helping them. That approach has split those interested in the debate into two groups, namely, those who want to help people who have serious diseases and those who do not.

I point out that that is not the central issue in the debate at all. Everybody, whether Christian or non- Christian, Catholic or Protestant, is concerned to help people who suffer from serious diseases and the issue is what is the best way in which to help those people. It is not the case that the issue is whether or not people want to help. Over the past few weeks the debate has become very emotional, as evidenced by the 60 Minutes program on Channel Nine. The program depicted a whole series of people, including quadriplegics such as a person whom we all know as Superman, Christopher Reeve. As we all know, Christopher Reeve is a wheelchair-bound quadriplegic who obviously would do anything to restore his health and strength. He was included to create an emotional context, and the suggestion was that if people are not in favour of using fertilised embryos they do not want to help that man. But the question should have been framed in terms of discovering the best way in which to help a person with that type of disability. The program created a very emotional context for the debate.

The debate that was part of the 60 Minutes program and other debates that have taken place in the media have for some reason all been characterised by a very heavy bias or prejudice. That has prevented a serious discussion of the best way in which to find stem cells to assist people, particularly by choosing the option of using adult stem cells. As I said earlier, there have been some remarkable discoveries in the last few 10 April 2002 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1267 weeks. On 10 April the Sydney Morning Herald published an article about a person suffering from Parkinson's disease. The article states that researches were able to isolate and nurture adult stem cells from the patient's brain before they re-injected those cells. The article states:

But they are mystified that the trembling and rigid muscles that mark the disease have not recurred.

There are ways of assisting people in such tragic circumstances—something about which all of us are concerned. The point I make tonight is that some people favour nurturing adult stem cells in those who have had accidents from diving into swimming pools—people who have seriously damaged their spines and who have become quadriplegics. They want to help those people and other people who have Parkinson's disease. Current experiments have revealed various options that are available to help those people—options that I believe should be considered in the future. I know that this matter has been taken up by the Federal Government, which I am sure will introduce legislation at a Federal level. If a conscience vote is taken on such Federal legislation I hope that the Federal Government is able to shift debate onto the use of adult stem cells to meet current needs.

CALTEX EMPLOYEE ENTITLEMENTS

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE [10.12 p.m.]: Caltex produces 70 per cent of the State's fuel. In the past two months Caltex has been affected by serious industrial action involving more than 350 workers and four unions. The industrial action has involved hundreds of workers and their families going without pay because they were not prepared to work in unsafe working conditions or accept a wages rort deliberately designed by management to avoid paying workers their entitlements. Last month Caltex employed 125 contractors for scheduled shutdown maintenance work in the plant that produces diesel fuel for New South Wales. Although the workers were only employed for a three-week shutdown period, Caltex refused to pay casual rates. Instead it paid only permanent rates with no loadings for either wages or superannuation to compensate for entitlements.

The additional problem for contractors who have been receiving social security is that as they were designated permanent workers they might have to wait up to 13 weeks for their social security payments to recommence once the three weeks work is finished. Despite the fact that it is barely two months since workers signed their most recent agreement with Caltex, management also chose this time to change workers' hours from three shifts to two. The changes, which were made without consultation, resulted in the afternoon shift finishing work at 1.45 a.m. To make matters worse, Caltex refused to pay for the night shift meal break. That was extraordinarily provocative behaviour from Caltex, whose management had not raised any of these issues during the period of negotiation over the recent agreement.

In addition to the arrangements that Caltex had put in place, other contractors on site have not been paid their workers superannuation, tax or other entitlements. Against this background of serious industrial unrest, shutdown workers were exposed to a number of serious gas leaks, resulting in four workers being taken unconscious to hospital. At least three of the workers had been subjected to dangerous levels of hydrogen sulphide gas which had been inhaled during the shutdown maintenance work. This gas induces nausea and severe headaches, and in sufficient quantities is fatal. I am told that as late as this afternoon there have been even further problems with a fire at the Kurnell site. The workers' request that management arrange a WorkCover inspection was refused, so the unions arranged for an inspection. While the unions consulted WorkCover, Caltex consulted its lawyers, Freehills, resulting in an appearance in the State Industrial Commission.

The provocative behaviour of Caltex management throughout this dispute was remarkable. While the four unions involved sought every opportunity to negotiate and resolve the safety and industrial issues, every day saw management become increasingly adversarial, in the midst of which it also substantially increased the price of fuel to the public. It is impossible to separate this hostility from the Howard Government's aggressive anti-union agenda. The Federal Government's approach to industrial relations is like a drunk in a bar, swinging at everyone and screaming, "Bring it on." The result is the same: unnecessary blood on the floor for someone else to clean up. That is an attitude that provokes disputes. In contrast, the workers at Caltex—permanent maintenance workers, contractors and shutdown workers alike across four different unions—have demonstrated great discipline and solidarity.

Regardless of what happens at Caltex in this dispute there is no doubt that the next few years under the current Federal Government will see industrial relations in this country deteriorate even further as more employers are encouraged to undermine workers' wages and conditions and deunionise their workplaces. There is no doubt about the Howard agenda. There is equally no doubt that the trade union movement in this country 1268 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 April 2002 will never accept the Americanisation of our industrial relations system. I congratulate the members of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union and other unions who have sacrificed their wages rather than allow their conditions to be undermined. The courage and commitment of these workers guarantees that the hard-won conditions they are defending will remain intact for their children and for other workers into the future.

WOOLLAHRA MUNICIPALITY AND LEMNOS SISTER CITY RELATIONSHIP

The Hon. JAMES SAMIOS [10.17 p.m.]: Tonight I inform the House of the Lemnian Association sister city relationship which is being established between the association on behalf of the island of Lemnos and the municipality of Woollahra. Woollahra municipality borders the entrance to one of the world's great natural harbours in Sydney. Lemnos, with the Gulf of Mudros, is among the best natural harbours in the Mediterranean and Agean seas. The Gulf of Mudros is protected from northern winds from the Dardanelles and is navigable by large ships.

During 1914-16 it constituted the main base for the allied campaign in the Dardanelles, serving as an anchorage for about 400 ships and as many as 30,000 allied soldiers who camped there. According to correspondence that was forwarded to me from the Lemnian Association dated 29 January this year, the board of directors of the Lemnos club unanimously resolved to endorse and proceed with the proposal made by the club's director, Steve Prassas, to establish a goodwill relationship between the island of Lemnos and the municipality of Woollahra. That letter from the association states:

We believe this will reinforce the already strong bonds between Lemnos and Australia established with the ANZACS during the Gallipoli Campaign of 1915.

This bond is well documented, demonstrating the co-operation, support and friendship given to the ANZACS and the Allies by the people of Lemnos during World War I.

Honourable members would know that the island of Lemnos, which is located in the centre of the north Agean Sea, is the eighth largest Greek island. It has a land surface of 477 square kilometres and a circumference of 259 kilometres. A letter dated 13 February addressed to Mr Steven Prassas from John Fraser of the Returned and Services League of Australia, Rose Bay Sub-branch, states:

Your proposal of Woollahra Council's plan for a relationship with the Greek island of Lemnos was presented to the Sub-Branch committee meeting on Monday.

After being given a brief history of the assistance and support which was given to Australian and allied troops prior to the landings at Gallipoli, it was unanimously passed that you will have the backing of the Sub-Branch in your endeavour to get this project off the ground.

For the interest of honourable members I will refer to the three important cemeteries that are on the island of Lemnos. They are the East Mudros Military Cemetery, the Portianos Military Cemetery, West Mudros, and the West Mudros Moslem Cemetery. I note that there are some 95 members of the Australian Imperial Forces buried at the East Mudros Military Cemetery. That cemetery covers an area of about two acres and is bounded by a high wall and planted with pines, cypresses, rosemary and euonymus. It contains two obelisks erected respectively by the French and British troops. The initiative taken by the Lemnian Association is to be commended. It will strengthen the dialogue between Lemnos, Greece and Australia. It will also remind people of the great contribution that was made by the Australian Military Forces during the First World War. [Time expired.]

WILDLIFE COMMERCIALISATION

The Hon. RICHARD JONES [10.22 p.m.]: Every Tuesday morning I listen to the ABC and to what I call the Sally Loane snuff show. She often has Michael Archer as a guest and almost every Tuesday she talks about how great it would be to eat wildlife. I should like to refer to an article written by Geoff Russell and published in Australian Science under the heading "Eating Wildlife? A gourmet recipe for extinction." This is an interesting article because it contains facts and figures of which honourable members would not be aware. Geoff Russell states:

It comes as a shock to many of us to realise that our hard hooved domesticated livestock are really very unsuited to Australian conditions. Especially those of us brought up to believe that Australia "rode on the sheep's back". It is perhaps understandable that some people react by suggesting we switch to eating wildlife. Museum luminaries Tim Flannery and Michael Archer have both argued for such a lifestyle change in recent years. 10 April 2002 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1269

Such suggestions may make wonderful dinner party conversation. They demonstrate that you aren't a bunny hugging softy. Unfortunately, they don't stand up to even occasional scrutiny. Consider … we currently kill about 20% of our kangaroo population annually and get a mere 1500 tonnes of meat for human consumption. That's about ½ a kg per animal. Even if we add in the additional meat sold as pet food, each kangaroo yields only 2 kg per animal. Even if we stop leaving kangaroos shot for the skin trade to rot in paddocks, we still have to realise that they are small animals. The biggest of our kangaroos, the male reds, have an average live weight of only 65 kg, with the female a mere 25 kg—

They are killing 70 per cent females now in any event. The article continues:

Take out the bones, skin and the other inedibles, and there just isn't much left. Grey kangaroos are even smaller at about 2/3 of this weight. In comparison, cattle yield a thousand times the meat—really. We get 1,700,000 tonnes of beef each year. To get this from kangaroos we would need, at present efficiency rates, to be killing 200 times the entire kangaroo population annually.

Nor is finger-lick'n possum a real option. We currently put 330 million chickens in sheds each year and raise a 2 kg bird in 7 weeks using 3.2 kg of feed [plus a stack of antibiotics, of course]. Try that trick with brush tailed possums. First, they are solitary animals which fight when housed in groups. Second, they take about 8-12 months to get to a 2 kg liveweight, and lastly they eat a big heap of food getting there.

If significant numbers of Australians were to regularly eat kangaroos, or possums, or ducks, or any other of our native species you care to mention, then those animals would be wiped out in no time.

Many people forget that we have had widespread "wildlife utilisation" for most of our history and that many of our wildlife protection laws arose because of the damage that was done to our wildlife during that period. For example, the 1885 Game Act in SA outlawed the use of the punt gun, a device mounted on a boat which could reputedly kill 150 pelicans with one shot. The sale of wild ducks was banned in 1928 in SA to protect the population, and even earlier in Victoria.

Our current choices of domestic crops and animals aren't an accident. They have been purpose bred and selected for thousands of years. The modern corncob is much larger than its ½ inch ancestor and the animals are bigger, and easier to herd and manage. Jared Diamond's book "Guns, Germs and Steel" gives a solid history of food and the imperatives behind the change to farming and away from wildlife utilisation—which is really just a fancy word for hunter-gathering. With 20 million people in Australia, there is no going back. Wildlife can never provide serious food for such a population.

Make no mistake, I strongly support Michael Archer's call to increase the size of Australia's protected areas, but I think there is a far more efficient way of doing this than eating wildlife.

A quick glance at the Australian Year Book tells us that about 65% of Australia is listed as agricultural and 95% of this is used for grazing—and we export about half of the animal products produced. The other 5% [of the 65%] is cropped and we export about 90% of that [mostly wheat]. It is therefore obvious that if you want to maximise the number of people fed while also minimising the land used to do it, then you won't eat animals—wild or domestic. You will be a vegetarian.

That is a strong push for commercialisation of wildlife by Michael Archer, who is, of course, a palaeontologist and knows little about wildlife, although he claims to. He sometimes talks about the system in South Africa working well. I have a press release from the National Council of SPCAs in South Africa. They are calling for help from the world community to save African wildlife from commercialisation. The press release states:

Business is booming in the bushveld as South Africa's wildlife becomes the latest lucrative source of income …

The consequences for the animals are devastating and often fatal.

The article refers to zebras and rhinoceroses dying following inhumane methods of capture. It also refers to the devastation of hundreds of thousands of wild animals involved in the commercialisation of wildlife in South Africa. This is what Michael Archer proposes for New South Wales. It will not work.

RAMONES INDUCTION INTO THE ROCK AND ROLL HALL OF FAME

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [10.27 p.m.]: Tonight I wish to speak about the induction of the Ramones into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, which has elected the Ramones as its first punk band and the group has taken its place among the musical greats. The group joins other artists such as Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers, Isaac Hayes, Brenda Lee and Gene Pitney, who have been installed in 2002. Artists are eligible to be inducted into the Hall of Fame after at least 25 years have passed since their first record was released. The induction ceremony in Cleveland, Ohio, was held on 18 March, almost a year after the Ramone's lead singer, Joey Ramone, died of cancer. The Ramones were at the forefront of punk music in the 1970s, but their election has been regarded as a snub to the Sex Pistols, who were nominated but not selected for the accolade. The four members of the Ramones all adopted the same last name and were famous for their fast and furious three-chord thrash. In 1974 the Ramones began more than 20 years of rebellion against corporate rock and influenced the likes of Bruce Springsteen, U2 and Green Day.

It is particularly fitting that the Ramones have been inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame as it is almost one year since the passing of Joey Ramone, the lead singer of the legendary punk band, who passed 1270 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 April 2002 away on Sunday 15 April 2001at the age of 49. The towering frontman, who was born Jeffrey Hyman, had been fighting lymphatic cancer, a disease that attacks the body's ability to fight infection. Along with his cohorts Johnny, Tommy, and Dee Dee—all of whom adopted Ramone as their surname—Joey was credited with helping found the modern punk movement. Mixing the griminess of the New York streets with a love of bubblegum pop, 1960s girl groups, and the Stooges, the Ramones inspired everyone from the Sex Pistols to Blink-182 to stake their turf on four dirty chords and an often inane hook.

With his trademark rose-coloured shades, black leather jacket, shoulder-length hair, ripped jeans, and alternately snarling and crooning, hiccuping vocals, Joey was the iconic godfather of punk. He gave voice to some of the most revered songs in the punk canon: Blitzkrieg Bop, Gimme Gimme Shock Treatment, Rock & Roll High School, I Wanna Be Sedated and Sheena Is a Punk Rocker. His profile was indelible.

The image of Joey's body—left foot forward, right foot back, left hand strangling the microphone, fist pumping in the air as he shouted the band's unofficial mantra, "Gabba Gabba Hey!"—is forever imprinted in the mind of anybody who attended one of the band's 2,263 shows. It is my eternal regret that I did not attend the Ramones' first show in Sydney; I have been sorry about that ever since. Joey was born in the Forest Hills section of Queens, New York, on 19 May 1951. He founded the Ramones in 1974 with Johnny, Dee Dee and Tommy. Originally the drummer, Joey switched to vocals two months after the band played its first show in March 1974 at New York's Performance Studio.

The group soon became a fixture at the dingy New York punk club CBGB, home to downtown bands Talking Heads, the Patti Smith Group and Blondie. In 1975 the Ramones became the first punk act to sign a record contract. Their self-titled debut, recorded for $6,000, was released in 1976 and featured such rock landmarks as Judy is a Punk, Now I Wanna Sniff Some Glue and Beat on the Brat. Destroying the 1970s progressive rock idea that rock had to be played by learned musicians in full command of their instruments, the Ramones pioneered the do-it-yourself ideal that inspired thousands of punk bands with lots of energy but dicey chops to pick up instruments and rock.

The influence of the Ramones on the Australian independent music scene should not be underestimated. Two bands that strongly promoted the ethos and musical trends of the Ramones were the Exploding White Mice from Adelaide, who at the time were regarded as the loudest band to play in Australia, and the Hard-Ons, who came from the suburban area of Sydney around Penshurst and commanded a massive overseas audience when they played on the European concert circuit. The Ramones 1977 album Ramones Leave Home featured a quintessential mix of gutter-punk anthems and homages to classic pop songs, in which Joey sang "I don't want to be a pinhead no more/I just found a nurse that I could go for," which was from the unofficial Ramones' anthem Pinhead. I could say a lot more about the Ramones, because I think it is a most important band and probably one of the most influential of the past 25 years. I was so distressed at the passing of Joey Ramone that I named my dog Joey Ramone in his honour, as I purchased the puppy only a few days after Joey had passed away. I commend members who have not heard Ramones' songs to listen and learn.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 10.32 p.m. ______