Legislative Assembly

7238

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Thursday 8 May 2008

______

The Speaker (The Hon. George Richard Torbay) took the chair at 10.00 a.m.

The Speaker read the Prayer and acknowledgement of country.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE AMENDMENT BILL 2008

Bill received from the Legislative Council and introduced.

Agreement in Principle

That this bill be now agreed to in principle.

The Justices of the Peace Bill was introduced in the other place on Wednesday 9 April 2008. The second reading speech appears on page 6601 in Hansard for that day. The bill is in the same form as introduced in the other place. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Daryl Maguire and set down as an order of the day for a future day.

CRIMES (ADMINISTRATION OF SENTENCES) LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2008

Bill received from the Legislative Council and introduced.

Agreement in Principle

That this bill be now agreed to in principle.

The Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 was introduced in the other place on Thursday 10 April 2008. The second reading speech appears on page 6803 in Hansard for that day. The bill is in the same form as introduced in the other place. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Daryl Maguire and set down as an order of the day for a future day.

GAS SUPPLY AMENDMENT BILL 2008

Bill received from the Legislative council and introduced.

Agreement in Principle

That this bill be now agreed to in principle.

8 May 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7239

The Gas Supply Amendment Bill was introduced in the other place on Wednesday 2 April 2008. The second reading speech appears on page 6246 in Hansard for that day. The bill is in the same form as introduced in the other place. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Daryl Maguire and set down as an order of the day for a future day.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Notices of Motions

General Business Notices of Motions (General Notices) given.

GROWTH CENTRES (DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS) AMENDMENT BILL 2008

Agreement in Principle

Debate resumed from 7 May 2008.

Mrs KARYN PALUZZANO (Penrith) [10.06 a.m.]: I am pleased to speak in support of the Growth Centres (Development Corporations) Amendment Bill 2008. The bill is an important step in the Government's commitment to delivering land supply targets identified in the State Plan and the Metropolitan Strategy. In December 2004 the Government announced the new land release plan for the south-west and north-west growth centres as a key plank of the Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney. The growth centres will accommodate 30 to 40 per cent of Sydney's long-term housing growth, and will eventually accommodate 181,000 new homes, serviced by $7.5 billion of infrastructure.

The Growth Centres Commission was established by the New South Wales Government to ensure that new development proceeds with infrastructure and services planned, funded and linked to the sequence of land release. The commission is responsible for working with infrastructure agencies, industry, local councils, landowners and the community to make the plans for the growth centres a reality. The key responsibilities of the Growth Centres Commission are preparing plans for the funding and development of regional infrastructure; developing precinct plans for each precinct within the north-west and south-west growth centres; recommending to the Minister for Planning new precincts for staged land release; implementing regional infrastructure in consultation with State agencies to support new development, and negotiating with Government, landowners and developers to facilitate timely and sustainable development.

In December last year the Minister for Planning announced the rezoning of the first two precincts in the growth centres—Oran Park and Turner Road. This will result in the rezoning of 12,000 lots in the south-west, together with town centres and employment lands. This is more than just a rezoning; these precincts were delivered complete with development control plans and section 94 plans. This would typically take up to a further two years to complete. In addition, local and regional infrastructure needs have been completely aligned. All the relevant State infrastructure agencies sat at the table with the commission and with council to work through the requirements. All this was achieved in just 18 months, saving time and money. This was a significant achievement for the Growth Centres Commission and an important first step in delivering on its land supply targets. The bill is an important step for the Growth Centres Commission because it will provide a new constitutional model for the corporation, one that is better suited to the critical implementation phase of its land release program.

In its initial start-up phase the Growth Centres Commission was greatly assisted by the dedicated members of the Growth Centres Board. They provided invaluable assistance in setting up the policies, systems and procedures to ensure that corporations were able to meet the challenges of land supply programs. Having established those systems, procedures and protocols, the commission no longer requires the added guidance of an independent board. In its current implementation phase the commission will work in close co-operation with other government agencies that are essential to the delivery of land and infrastructure. The bill will achieve this by providing that the Growth Centres Commission be managed by its chief executive. The chief executive will report to the Minister for Planning through an advisory committee of senior public servants who are charged with the responsibility of delivering the New South Wales Government's land supply targets.

Importantly, the Growth Centres Commission will continue to work in close cooperation with the six councils that are included in the north-west and south-west growth centres, including Baulkham Hills, 7240 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 May 2008

Blacktown, Hawkesbury, Camden, Campbelltown, and Liverpool councils. The commission has two local government liaison committees made up of representatives from these six councils. The committees are an important way of ensuring that the commission has an effective working partnership with local government and that it remains in touch with the views of the local community. The operation of the local government liaison committees will not change as a result of the bill; they will continue to operate under the new arrangements. The Growth Centres Commission has made significant progress in meeting essential land supply targets for Sydney's growing population. The Growth Centres (Development Corporations) Amendment Bill 2008 will assist the commission in continuing to meet these targets in an effective and timely manner. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr RAY WILLIAMS (Hawkesbury) [10.11 a.m.]: On behalf of the Opposition I thank the inaugural members of the Growth Centres Commission for the work they have done. I will address some comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary during the agreement in principle speech to the Growth Centres (Development Corporations) Amendment Bill. The member for Monaro said that the bill was an important step in the Government's commitment to delivering land supply targets identified in the State Plan and the Metropolitan Strategy. I will also address some comments made by the member for Penrith.

The Growth Centres Commission was set up to assist the rollout of development across New South Wales. The member for Penrith said that the rollout had proceeded in an expeditious way. I do not disagree with that. I have personally witnessed the rollout of development in the areas of north-west Sydney and north Kellyville, which occurred in 18 months. That is extraordinary. However, the member for Penrith suggested that the expeditious manner of the rollout had saved money. There is no way that development could proceed in an expeditious way at a lower cost. In fact, it has come at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars to New South Wales taxpayers because of the number of professionals who have been employed to catch up with land development.

In the past 13 years not one significant development has been rolled out by the State Government in the north-west sector, or perhaps across Western Sydney. Every area that is under development or almost completed was approved and signed off prior to 1995. That is remarkable. When I talk about significant development, I do not mean 1,000 to 1,500 housing lots. The Balmoral release in the north west of Sydney and the Second Ponds Creek release, which have been approved and are ready for development, are small housing areas. There has not been one significant rollout under this term of government of land releases of 10,000 to 30,000 blocks of land. That is disgraceful because housing is fundamental to the growth of the country. It is a fundamental basis of the economy that people have a place to live. Private property underlies personal wealth. If people are unable to purchase land, then demand outstrips supply. We have seen over the past decade, when there have been no significant land releases, that land, no matter where it is, has been sold at a premium price.

I refer to the significant disparity between the on-cost of capital works, such as water and sewerage supply. In Victoria and Queensland the costs are significantly lower than in New South Wales. At the moment, with levies and section 94 contributions, the on-cost for a block of land in the north-west of Sydney is approximately $160,000. In parallel, at the moment the on-cost for a similar sized block of land in Queensland is $50,000. The Government must explore the significant problems and drawbacks relating to on-costs. It is one reason that developers have turned their backs on New South Wales. Another reason is that there has not been a significant land release for development for some time. For many years the Government has sat back and reaped the rewards of the housing boom, which has now stopped.

On the back of that housing boom the Government received many billions of dollars, not only in taxes but also in money that was collected through government land sales. Landcom was one of the largest developers specifically in north-west Sydney. It owned enormous tracts of land, which it sat on for a long time. Land, primarily dairy farmland, in and around Stanhope Gardens and Kellyville was compulsorily acquired or purchased back in the 1970s. The Government sat back, waited and then rolled out the land.

The land that was purchased under the Wran Government was to be used mainly for affordable housing. It was a good policy. The Government had the foresight to purchase land ahead of time to be rolled out later for affordable housing. Unfortunately, some of the land that was purchased in the 1970s was not rolled out until the mid-1990s, or later, when the land was anything but affordable. That made a mockery of the policy. Is it any wonder that we are now in a position of high land prices and unaffordable infrastructure costs? The Government set up the Growth Centres Commission and then sat back and did nothing about exploring the vast opportunities of greenfield development in the north-west and south-west areas of Sydney. The many thousands of acres of cleared land are not used for anything other than growing grass. The land is only 50 minutes from the great metropolis of Sydney. Yet the Government ignores its development and overdevelops other Sydney suburbs under its Metropolitan Strategy. 8 May 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7241

The amendment bill will allow the Growth Centres Commission to become a chief executive government development corporation. The commission has worked with local councils to represent the needs of local communities and to achieve outcomes in local areas. It signs off on all State environmental planning policies and development control plans, which are contrary to local government local environmental plans and development control plans. It is all very well for the Government to set up the Growth Centres Commission and the Growth Centres Board, but they are ignorant about the needs of local areas. Unless they work hand in hand in a bipartisan arrangement with local councils, we will see poor outcomes. I hope that the bill will not remove this most viable and fundamental aspect, that is, the partnership with local councils where land is being developed. To remove local councils from the process of formulating future development control plans will be detrimental to the orderly and appropriate development of new growth centres.

It is ridiculous that the commission, under the guidance of the chief executive officer, will now be in a position to implement all proposed housing and new development requirements across the north-west and south-west of Sydney. Communities will vent their outrage if they are not given a say about their local areas. Local councils provide the information necessary to coordinate an appropriate and sustainable development control plan. In the past all local councils decided what was written into the development control plans. This information was taken into account by the growth centres corporations and reflected in the final outcomes of the local planning instruments. I hope that process will continue well into the future. While the Growth Centres Commission has thus far had professional representation in terms of planning, it would be fair to say—and not in a derogatory sense—that these professional planners may be ignorant about their local areas, and that is where local councils and good planners within local government areas play a major role.

The development control plans do exactly as their name suggests: They control development through carefully controlled planning. Development control plans determine appropriate setbacks from streets and adjoining properties, control housing lot sizes, the size of homes, and the fact that the development is consistent with and considerate of environmentally sensitive areas, which is very important. It is one thing to have development; it is quite another to have sustainable development. In the Baulkham Hills shire we have been very successful in this area—and when I say "we" I do not take accolades myself but pass those on to my fellow councillors and certainly the council administration staff and professional planning people in the Council of the Shire of Baulkham Hills. They look at the sensitivities of an area. If an area should be constrained, if a conservation area should be kept for the future, that should happen. We should pay for the area, and maintain it as some parkland so it can be kept for recreational use, not impact on it through development.

Unfortunately, recently we have seen poor planning where local councils have been overridden by the Minister. I speak of the Penrith development through Jacfin, where the council refused the application on the basis that there was a vast conservation area within the development, but the Minister, under section 3, approved it and moved the conservation zone. I find that absolutely remarkable. We need to ensure we are not going to end up with those sorts of deplorable outcomes. We need to empower councils, not take power away, because they know the areas specifically and the sensitivities of those areas.

To date there has been only one area in the north-west that has been rezoned and put on exhibition under the Growth Centres Commission. That area is North Kellyville. It will provide another wonderful housing development within the Baulkham Hills shire and also my electorate of Hawkesbury. That will allow new families the opportunity to purchase a home in a friendly, tree-lined, leafy environment synonymous with the Hills and the Hawkesbury areas. It will be sought after, as has been the case with all the development in the Hills and the Hawkesbury. It is and will remain a special place while the local councils continue to have their say in the way development is rolled out.

Eighteen months ago the State Government and the Minister proposed a conservation zone around the North Kellyville area. It was known as a landscape and rural lifestyle zone. The original intention was to have no development within half a kilometre of the creek lines bordering the development, which is extraordinary because within that half a kilometre there was perfectly developable land. Unfortunately, these types of decisions are made by planners who sit in ivory towers, not by people who witness and get firsthand knowledge of the areas, the sensitivities of the areas and the benefits of those areas. The decision was fought extensively by the community because the landscape and rural lifestyle zone was known as the green zone. The local community fought it, and for very good reason. Within the green zone areas land users were unable to do anything other than pursue their existing rights on the property. Poultry, horse and hydroponic farms were going to border new development. It is absurd to think that a new heavy-density housing area could be situated next to that type of rural activity. We fought it—and we were successful in fighting it—but we should not have to have these sorts of fights. 7242 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 May 2008

We must ensure that the growth centres work with local councils. Instead of fights ensuing, instead of great brawls breaking out in the press, instead of wasting time when we actually could be getting on with the job at hand, which is providing housing for the families of New South Wales. The governments and growth centres should work with local councils to avoid the very problems we have seen. Currently, through their local councillors, communities have a clear say in how their area is developed, how their environment is protected, how their parks and playing fields are implemented and where their community centres are located. They do this through the development control plan process. Councillors amend those plans from time to time and it is good that they do amend the plans. Councillors amend the plans as changes come about in the community, and they should always maintain the flexibility to be able to do that.

It will be interesting to see the role that the new chief executive officer of the growth centres will play in the future regarding the metro strategy. If new releases regarding the metro strategy come under the guidance of the growth centres—which they do—local councils must ensure that their role is not diminished. When dealing with complying development and the onslaught of 600,000 new residential properties across every suburb of Sydney local residents may find that, if the proposals go through from the Minister for Planning, the only time they will know that an apartment block is going up will be when the bulldozers move in next door. That is quite frightening. At the moment, regardless of how housing densities are achieved, local residents have their say. They go to their local councils or local council representatives and they are represented in a way that achieves a good outcome on behalf of the residents and the areas. [Extension of time agreed to.]

I think that everything I have said is extremely important. It is extremely important on behalf of local communities; it is important in relation to the role that councils play; it is important in relation to the role that the growth centres play—indeed the chief executive officer will want to ensure that he has councils and residents on side as they proceed with more development across Sydney. The member for Penrith mentioned the cost-savings that have occurred. Development should have continued appropriately after 1995; the Government should have said, "There is development out there, it is going to happen, it is going to go so far." Unfortunately the Government has been very constrained by its own departments. When governments are fighting with their own departments, such as the Department of Environment and Conservation, which clearly do not want to see any further progression of development, they will not achieve orderly and consistent rollout of development. These departments, to which I often refer as the unelected green decision-makers, have restricted the orderly rollout of housing.

Rather than resist departmental stonewalling, the Government has allowed development to go ahead but has failed to implement appropriate planning for the future housing growth of New South Wales. Now that the Government has recognised a great shortfall in housing, it has had to look at ways to speed up the process. This has been done under the growth centres, and very successfully. Once an area is designated for release it would normally take up to five years for the approval process to go through council, be gazetted, and for the land to come on to the market. Under the growth centres, and from what I witnessed in the North Kellyville area, that has been stripped to 18 months, which is extremely good. But at what cost? Has it been done cheaply? No, it has not been done cheaply, because everything costs money and professional planning people cost significant amounts of money. The Government has spent a significant amount to ensure that orderly housing is rolled out in a short space of time.

As I said before, councils play a significant role but more and more of them are having their powers diminished. It was good to see a local Penrith councillor, Councillor Mark Davies, speak up on behalf of his local area when the Government overruled Penrith council. We must not diminish the role of local councils; the councillors live in the local area and represent the people there. Councillor Mark Davies spoke against the Jacfin development, which should not have gone ahead, and other significant areas such as Sweetwater in the Hunter. Ironically, the Department of Environment and Conservation fought long and hard with the Sweetwater developer because of the protected species and the conservation areas within that region, once again dragged in by the Minister under part 3A.

These are not good outcomes. The process is expeditious but it can be environmentally damaging. As I said, the Department of Environment and Conservation has restricted proceeding with the orderly rollout of development since perhaps 1995, and it has done so in the name of the environment. Consequently, we have a massive restriction on housing. Government, councils and environment departments must work together to achieve sustainable development. Building 600,000 new apartment blocks in every suburb of Sydney is not sustainable for anybody. It is not sustainable in terms of public transport, traffic gridlock or our health services and hospitals. But greenfield development can be sustainable. We do not have to rape the entire countryside of New South Wales to roll out orderly housing. We need only to look around the Rouse Hill area where the next 8 May 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7243

stage will be rolled out. It is a mere 45 kilometres from Sydney's central business district—not even halfway to the Blue Mountains. The area has rolling hills with nothing but grass and grazing land. It is not significant agricultural land and it is perfect for housing. That is how housing and development should have proceeded 12 years ago, but unfortunately it did not.

Ms JODI McKAY (Newcastle) [10.31 a.m.]: I am pleased to speak in support of the Growth Centres (Development Corporations) Amendment Bill 2008. The bill introduces important changes to the Growth Centres (Development Corporations) Act 1974, aimed at streamlining procedural matters relating to development corporations. These are necessary and essential changes because the existing Act has antiquated provisions that date back to 1974, when the legislation was enacted. The changes introduced by the bill are largely housekeeping matters designed to cut red tape. The Act currently provides for the establishment of development corporations in growth centres. Under current provisions a development corporation is established with a governing body—a board. The chief executive of the development corporation is, along with other appointees, a member of the board. Four development corporations are currently constituted under the Act: the Hunter Development Corporation, the Festival Development Corporation, the Cooks Cove Development Corporation and the Growth Centres Commission. The Hunter Development Corporation of course takes in the Newcastle electorate, which I represent.

The bill will enable a corporation to be constituted by one of two methods: a corporation governed by a board or a corporation governed by a chief executive. The availability of these two models will allow development corporations to be constituted in a manner that best reflects the mission and goals of the particular corporation. The Hunter Development Corporation is responsible for land releases and master planning sites in the Hunter area. The Honeysuckle Development Corporation and the Regional Land Management Corporation were dissolved to form that organisation. I take this opportunity to talk about some of the good work that is being done by corporations such as those in the Hunter region. The Honeysuckle Development Corporation has taken over about 70 hectares of land on the waterfront at the port of Newcastle. Significant growth and significant life has been put back into that industrial land. It has brought people back to the inner city. We have seen commercial and residential development and we have seen people coming to play on our harbour, which has not happened in a long time.

The Regional Land Management Corporation was formed to look after a number of parcels of land after the closure of BHP. The most prominent, the former 110-hectare BHP site at the port of Newcastle, has undergone significant remediation work. The master plan process has been completed and the expressions of interest process will work towards determining the final use of that site. The Regional Land Management Corporation has played a significant role in guiding those processes. It is important that we get the right mix for that site in terms of jobs and investment, and indeed continue the diversification of the port of Newcastle. Both organisations conducted their processes and reached an outcome, and the community seemed very happy with their achievements. But it reached the point where we needed to combine them into a single organisation: the Hunter Development Corporation. There must be flexibility under the Act to ensure that corporations achieve the objectives that the community expects them to meet into the future. That is one of the reasons why I am speaking on this bill and supporting its provisions.

I agree that a board should govern the Hunter Development Corporation at this point. It is important that local people have input in the decisions being made by the corporation. I very much support the work that is being done by the chair of the Regional Land Management Corporation, Ron Robson, and his team, and also the former chair of the Honeysuckle Development Corporation, David Lemarchant—both local people who have given so much effort and expertise during their time with the corporations. The new chair of the Hunter Development Corporation is Paul Broad, who is also doing a great job. He has my support and that of all members in the Hunter region. The Growth Centres Commission will be governed by its chief executive. This is appropriate now that the corporation has moved from its start-up phase to the implementation phase.

The bill also includes a number of changes that streamline the procedural requirements applying to the making of orders under the Act. The Act currently contains complex provisions in relation to the making of orders. Such orders are necessary to establish, dissolve or amalgamate corporations, as we have seen with the Hunter Development Corporation. At present, in order to identify all relevant information about a corporation it is necessary to search in a variety of places. For example, the name of the corporation is to be found in the order that established it. However, the land to which it applies is to be found in a schedule to the Act. The bill amends the Act so that all relevant details of a corporation are identified in one place. Schedule 1 to the Act will clearly identify the name of the corporation, the land to which it applies and what type of corporation it is—one governed by a board or by a chief executive. Having all the relevant details of a corporation clearly identifiable in one place will increase transparency. 7244 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 May 2008

The bill will also allow a single order to be made that constitutes or dissolves the corporation, changes its name, alters the land to which it applies, and/or changes its constitutional arrangements from a board-governed to a chief executive governed corporation. Currently, a variety of orders and amendments to schedules to the Act will be required to achieve these outcomes. In closing, I point out to the member for Hawkesbury that the Growth Centres Commission is not responsible for signing off on State environmental plans. These instruments are made by the Governor on the recommendation of the Minister for Planning following a very lengthy public, agency and council consultation process. The development control plans are made to give effect to the State environmental plans. It is important that that matter is clarified, particularly for the information of the member for Hawkesbury. These changes will reduce red tape by minimising unnecessary administrative steps and streamlining procedures under the Growth Centres (Development Corporations) Act 1974. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms LINDA BURNEY (Canterbury—Minister for Fair Trading, Minister for Youth, and Minister for Volunteering) [10.39 a.m.], in reply: I thank members for their contributions to debate on the Growth Centres (Development Contributions) Amendment Bill 2008. This bill is an important step in the Government's commitment to delivering land supply targets identified in the State Plan and the metropolitan strategy. The bill will ensure that the Growth Centres Commission is better able to respond to the challenges of delivering land supply targets in the north-west and south-west growth centres, which as members know are both important areas. The bill provides a new constitutional model for the Growth Centres Commission that better reflects the commission's current role in implementing the land supply program. To ensure that the Government continues to roll out adequate supplies of zoned and serviced land the commission will be managed by its chief executive, who will continue his crucial intra-government coordination role, working in close cooperation with an advisory committee of senior public servants.

Mr John Turner: Point of order: The Minister has been in the House long enough to know that she should reply to and address issues that were raised in the agreement in principle debate. At the moment the Minister is making a further agreement in principle speech.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The Minister is within the ambit of the debate before the House. I will allow her to continue at this stage.

Ms LINDA BURNEY: These revised arrangements will not result in any reduction in the accountability requirements applying to the chief executive of the Growth Centres Commission. Indeed, he will be required to continue meeting accountability obligations under the Public Sector Employment and Management Act, the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act and various other legislative requirements. As a public sector executive the chief executive is also required to comply with the New South Wales Government's code of conduct and ethics for public sector executives. The code sets out extensive provisions governing the conduct of chief executives, including disclosure of pecuniary interest requirements, use of official information, use of public funds, provisions dealing with bribes, gifts, benefits and hospitality, and so on.

In addition, the Growth Centres Commission has its own code of conduct, conflicts of interest policy, and gifts and benefits policy, which apply also to the chief executive. There will also be no reduction in accountability to the local community. The Growth Centres Commission will continue its two local government coordination committees, which include representatives from the six councils in the growth centres area. These committees have provided, and will continue to provide, an opportunity for the views of councils and local community to be taken into account in future planning for the north-west and south-west growth centres. The bill also includes other minor housekeeping amendments to the Growth Centres (Development Corporations) Act that are designed to simplify procedural requirements and reduce red tape. These sensible amendments update cumbersome provisions dating back to 1974. The amendments to the Growth Centres (Development Corporations) Act made by the bill will ensure that the Growth Centres Commission is better able to concentrate on the task of delivering crucial land supply targets in the north-west and south-west growth centres essential to meet the needs of Sydney's growing population. I again commend the bill to the House.

Question—That this bill be now agreed to in principle—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill agreed to in principle. 8 May 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7245

Passing of the Bill

Bill declared passed and transmitted to the Legislative Council with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.

DIVIDING FENCES AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2008

Agreement in Principle

Debate resumed from 11 April 2008.

Mr JOHN TURNER (Myall Lakes) [10.43 a.m.]: Opposition members do not oppose the Dividing Fences and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2008, which we believe will streamline the Dividing Fences Act, the principal Act, which has been around for a long time. Pardon the pun, but nothing divides neighbours more than the erection and the cost of the erection of dividing fences. When I practised law there were a number of divisive actions under the Dividing Fences Act. At that stage the Act was contentious in its interpretation. There have been a number of changes over time but the latest seem to me to be commonsense changes, with the exception of one proposal concerning retaining walls.

Subject to clarifications I will be seeking concerning retaining walls, I hope that the bill contributes to speedy and, more importantly, conciliatory resolutions of disputes about dividing fences. Unfortunately, there is room in the bill for the human factor, and notwithstanding these amendments there will still be disputes. The bill will allow an adjoining owner to seek contributions for the preparation of land involving trimming, lopping or removing vegetation for the purposes of the provision of a dividing fence. It is possible that that provision could create some dispute. A neighbour might obtain some benefits from having vegetation growing, such as privacy, shade or the like. Although it is quite permissible for an owner to trim, lop or remove his or her vegetation, subject to council regulations, the adjoining owner has no say in what he or she does.

When resolving disputes relating to the building and contribution of fences it does not help if one neighbour is already alienated before the matter of the fence is considered. At this juncture I refer to fences under the principal Act that are hedges or similar vegetative barriers, where the trimming and lopping provisions fit in with these types of fences. Would the trimming and lopping of these types of fences be classed as maintenance to a fence for which a co-contribution might be needed, or would it simply be considered general maintenance for purposes other than a dividing fence? I am not quite sure why the provision states that if an owner wishes to carry out the activities of trimming, lopping or removing vegetation for purposes other than a dividing fence he or she is solely responsible for those expenses.

I would have thought it was blatantly obvious that the person performing those activities would be liable. But, as I said, it could be a grey matter associated with fences that are hedges or other vegetative matter. When the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment replies to this debate she might be able to explain why that provision had to be included if the vegetation is solely on the land of an individual and no request for a fence has been made, or the vegetation is not deemed to be a fence. I view as sensible those changes to the legislation that allow the land board to order a specific amount for each party to be paid instead of a percentage. There will always be disputes as to who pays and how much is due from each party. Having a specific amount makes it clear and unequivocal as to what is expected from each party.

Another sensible change is the recovery process by way of being able to register the matter as a judgement in the appropriate court. One matter that is of concern relates to retaining walls. Retaining walls have stayed out of the Dividing Fences Act and I note that, subject to interpretation, they will remain out of the amendments. However, they now come into play under this bill in the sense that an adjoining owner can seek a contribution to carry out work on a retaining wall where a wall is necessary for the support and maintenance of a dividing fence. This could be a backdoor way of bringing retaining walls into play.

The scenario could be that a person who has the benefit of a retaining wall with, say, a flimsy fence on top, allows the retaining wall to fall into substantial disrepair to the extent that the flimsy fence might be in jeopardy of falling down. That person might be able to seek a contribution from an adjoining neighbour who might not have the benefit of the retaining wall to the extent that the owner has, and that contribution could be a substantial amount of money for the repair of the retaining wall or the erection or re-erection of a fence. The Parliamentary Secretary's agreement in principle speech did not spell out the ramifications of this change and how and when the provisions would come into effect. I note that the Parliamentary Secretary said:

The proposed extension of jurisdiction to allow an order regarding a retaining wall and vegetation is specifically limited in the bill. The proposed amendments will authorise an order to be made for fencing work to be carried out provided it is associated 7246 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 May 2008

with a retaining wall. But this order is limited only to the extent that such work is for the purpose of any foundation or support necessary for the support and maintenance of a dividing fence. A limited power to make an order regarding a retaining wall will ensure that the new power cannot be used for any purpose other than the erection of a sufficient dividing fence and allow for a fair contribution to fencing costs.

This provision will be a significant headache for the land board in its administration of the Act. To what extent do we allow an order or work to be carried out for the "foundation or support necessary for the support and maintenance of a dividing fence"? The supports or foundations of the retaining wall could be completely derelict, and the wall might even need to be replaced if it could not support the fence. Therefore, if it were proposed that a fence was supported by the retaining wall, which had to be removed and rebuilt because the foundations or supports were found wanting, the adjoining landowner could be up for a proportion of the cost of the new retaining wall. This is fraught with danger, and I would like a fuller explanation from the Minister about that aspect of the bill. The amendment allowing the chairman of the Land Board to sit alone is also sensible and is supported, as is the fact that this bill will not refer to rural properties. I look forward to the clarification of the matters I have mentioned, particularly in relation to retaining walls.

Mr NINOS KHOSHABA (Smithfield) [10.51 a.m.]: I support the Dividing Fences and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2008. I will deal with two of the main objectives of the bill. The first objective that I will address is the proposed addition to the powers of the local Land Board and a Local Court of limited jurisdiction over a retaining wall. The purpose of the new power is for the first time to allow a dividing fence dispute to be settled under the Dividing Fences Act 1991 when the dividing fence in question is located on or near a retaining wall. The second measure I will deal with is the benefits that will flow from the proposed amendment to the Access to Neighbouring Land Act 2000.

While there are good reasons that all aspects of the construction and maintenance of a retaining wall should not be governed by the Dividing Fences Act 1991, those reasons do not apply to the limited power contained in the bill. This point may be illustrated by an examination of the reasons the Act did not apply originally to a retaining wall. It appears that the rationale for the exclusion of retaining walls from the operation of the Act was expressed in the New South Wales Law Reform Commission Report "Dividing Fences" of December 1988. The report indicates that there are significant differences between a retaining wall and a dividing fence that in some circumstances may require separate legislative treatment. Those differences arise because retaining walls serve purposes quite different from fences. They are usually substantial and expensive structures that repose within the subsurface of the land of one adjoining owner, and are therefore required to withstand considerable lateral stress. They also interfere with the cross-flow of subterranean water and so must normally include weep holes and often drainage works. The foundations or footings often encroach substantially upon the downward adjoining land.

These characteristics of a retaining wall mean that it is not appropriate for all aspects of the rights and obligations affecting a retaining wall to be governed by the Dividing Fences Act 1991. In particular, it would usually not be appropriate for a neighbour to call for a contribution of half the cost of the construction or maintenance of a retaining wall, as is the norm for a dividing fence. This is so where a retaining wall has been built by the party who has excavated and so necessitated the provision of support for adjoining land. The proposal will not affect the existing law applicable to the construction and maintenance of a retaining wall, except to the extent required to allow the Dividing Fences Act 1991 to apply effectively to a dividing fence that is located on, or otherwise affected by, a retaining wall.

Laws of general application, such as requirements for development approval, will not be overridden by the amendments. Under the proposals an adjoining owner will be entitled to seek a contribution for the cost of the construction or maintenance of part of a retaining wall only to the extent that work on the retaining wall is necessary for the support and maintenance of a sufficient dividing fence. The owner of a retaining wall may be bound by the obligation to maintain support for adjoining land found in section 177 of the Conveyancing Act 1919. The measures found in the bill will not disturb the operation of section 177, which provides a right to sue in negligence for the breach of the statutory duty of care to maintain support for land. While a fencing order made pursuant to these proposals may authorise limited work on a retaining wall, such an order or work will not override the statutory duty of care.

Another main aim of the bill is the reform of the law regarding the payment of legal costs associated with an application for an access order under the Access to Neighbouring Land Act 2000. The introduction of a principle that as a starting point the applicant for an access order should pay the costs of the application will tend to protect the neighbouring owner who is required to provide access from being overburdened in circumstances where the applicant is a well-resourced developer. The implementation of the proposal will allow 8 May 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7247

the party providing access to have a better prospect of obtaining an order for costs. This in turn will mean it is more likely that the party providing access will be in a position to argue effectively for access order terms that are appropriate for them. Responses to consultation on the operation of the Act indicates that the party giving access is often unrepresented at the hearing of an access dispute. The implementation of the proposal will serve to redress the balance of fairness in circumstances where an individual faces a developer in a Local Court in an access dispute.

The need for expert reports to be obtained—for example, engineering or surveying—may impose a significant burden on a party investigating the fairness of a proposal for access. With a greater likelihood of obtaining a costs order for the party giving access, it will more likely be a practical possibility for such persons to obtain any expert reports necessary for the access proposal in question to be adequately assessed. The retention of the discretion of the court to make an appropriate costs order for the circumstances of each case will continue to encourage both parties to an access dispute to behave in a reasonable fashion. It will also encourage them to settle disputes to the maximum extent possible. If either party is unreasonable in the demands that are made, such conduct may be reflected in an adverse costs order. For example, if a party giving access requests an unreasonable amount of compensation in exchange for access leading to an otherwise unnecessary dispute, that conduct may properly result in an adverse costs order. The retention of an appropriate discretion will ensure that the implementation of the proposal will not mean that the applicant will automatically assume responsibility for the costs of the application. The bill is an important measure and I commend it to the House.

Mr JONATHAN O'DEA (Davidson) [10.57 a.m.]: I do not oppose the Dividing Fences and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2008. As well as dealing with large and abstract pieces of legislation, Parliament has often passed small but eminently practical pieces of legislation, and this is such a case. The original Dividing Fences Act centred on payment for the erection or repair of dividing fences that are often the cause of disputes between neighbours. Dividing fences are part of the essence of everyday life—the very boundaries of the Australian dream of home ownership. However, fences can also be personally divisive and the cause of vicious neighbourhood disputes.

The bill attempts to remove certain flaws in the current legislation and to simplify the processes involved. The Dividing Fences Act 1991 addressed how the cost of a dividing fence is shared between adjoining landowners where an owner wants to erect a dividing fence or wants work done on an existing dividing fence. The Act defined a fence as a "structure, ditch or embankment, or a hedge or similar vegetative barrier enclosing or bounding land". However, this amendment bill expands the definition to include retaining walls that are necessary for the support and maintenance of the fence.

The amendment also clarifies that an adjoining owner may seek a contribution for the preparation of land involving the trimming, lopping or removal of vegetation. In renovation-obsessed New South Wales it is important to note that an owner who wishes to install a more expensive fence of a higher standard than a sufficient dividing fence is liable for the expenses as well as for any work on retaining walls or vegetation that is not necessary for the support and maintenance of a dividing fence. This bill addresses a number of flaws in the legislation and allows the local landlord or the local court to resolve disputes more fully. Matters incidental to dividing fences that previously could not be adjudged leading to homeowner frustration and hindered dispute resolution can now be resolved.

One aspect of this bill that requires clarification is the situation where vegetation acts as a fence. The definition of fences includes hedges and other vegetative barriers, while the amendment allows for the trimming, lopping or removal of vegetation for the preparation of land for the construction of a dividing fence. It is important that this provision is not misused to remove existing hedges or vegetative barriers and replace them with inorganic fences against neighbours' objections. John Hensley, one of my wonderful neighbours, reminded me recently of the many beautiful natural hedges and vegetative fences on the North Shore and elsewhere in New South Wales. Therefore, it is important to request clarification from the Government in this regard.

The bill will simplify the making and payment of orders under the Act by enabling a local land board to make an order specifying a fixed amount that an adjoining owner is required or liable to pay under the principal Act. The bill enables such an order to be enforced as a judgement of the court when the chairperson of the local land board certifies the order's particulars and the certificate is filed with a court of competent jurisdiction. This means that parties seeking to enforce an order for payment no longer need to commence fresh proceedings in a local court. This sensible amendment will reduce the time and effort previously wasted by two sets of proceedings overlapping. 7248 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 May 2008

The amendment to the Crown Lands Act 1989 enables a chairperson of a local land board alone to constitute a quorum for the purpose of dealing with an application under the principal Act where the area to which the application relates is in the Sydney metropolitan area or a predominantly residential area of a city or town. Additionally, as mentioned earlier, the bill removes the requirement for parties to obtain a judgement from a local court to enforce an order of the local land board. Therefore, instead of requiring first a local land board comprising three members and then a local court to decide dividing fences disputes, the proposed legislation enables such cases to be determined by an individual chairperson of a local land board. While this may be appropriate in cases that lack complexity, we must be careful not to remove oversight and openness of decision making.

Although I do not oppose these changes, we must be careful that appropriate safeguards exist to ensure that our dispute resolution systems are impartial and open to appeal. I am reminded of the urban myth involving a local politician in Wollongong who was asked to assist with a dividing fence dispute by arranging for a new fence to be constructed. The politician asked two parties to provide quotes—a local builder and a developer mate. The first to quote was the local builder. He took out his tape measure and pen, worked out some calculations and said, "I reckon the job will cost about $1,800—$800 for materials, $800 for my workers and $200 profit for myself." Next to quote was the developer mate. Without lifting a finger the developer mate said, "$2,800." The local politician was surprised and said, "You didn't even measure like the other guy. How did you come up with that figure?" He said, "Easy. $500 for me, $500 for you and we hire the local builder."

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I have never heard the urban myth referred to by the member for Davidson. I am sure other members have not heard it either. The member will temper his remarks in the future. He will not make thinly veiled references to members of Parliament.

Mr Jonathan O'Dea: There was no reference to a member of Parliament.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! It was clear that the member was referring to another member in his comments.

Mr BARRY COLLIER (Miranda—Parliamentary Secretary) [11.03 a.m.]: I am pleased to support the Dividing Fences and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2008. The bill amends the Dividing Fences Act 1991, the Crown Lands Act 1989 and the Access to Neighbouring Land Act 2000. The proposed amendments firstly update legislation to take into account that many dividing fence disputes now involve retaining walls and vegetation. The bill simplifies and reduces the recovery costs of expenses associated with a dividing fence order. The proposed amendments also allow a chairperson of a local land board to sit alone on some matters, and that unless determined by a local court, costs associated with an access order to land should be paid by the applicant.

In order to resolve a fencing dispute between neighbours where a retaining wall provides support for the relevant fence, construction or maintenance on the retaining wall may be required. The Dividing Fences Act does not give a local land board or a local court any power to deal with a retaining wall. Furthermore, the Act does not provide a clear power to clear vegetation, including trees, for the purpose of constructing a dividing fence. The experience of the senior chairperson of the local land board shows that often it is difficult or impossible to settle a dividing fence dispute where a tree or substantial vegetation stands on or near the boundary that affects the subject fence.

Schedule 1 [1] to the bill amends the definition of "fence" to provide for a retaining wall to be treated as part of a fence for the purpose of the principal Act where the wall is necessary for support and maintenance of the fence. As a result, such a retaining wall also becomes a dividing fence for the purposes of the principal Act where it separates the land of adjoining owners. Schedule 1 [2] to the bill amends the definition of "fencing work" in the principal Act to clarify that fencing work comprising the preparation of land for the purpose of the provision of a dividing fence includes the trimming, lopping or removal of vegetation. The proposed amendments will allow for a fencing dispute between neighbours to be resolved where a retaining wall provides support for the relevant fence and where a tree or substantial vegetation stands on or near the boundary and affects the subject fence.

The proposed addition to the powers of a local land board and a local court of a limited jurisdiction over retaining walls and vegetation is a worthwhile reform that for the first time will allow certain dividing fence disputes to be settled. It is important to emphasise that the bill is framed so that an order relating to a retaining wall and to the removal of vegetation will not override obligations imposed by legislation that protect vegetation and provide for a development application. This may mean in practice that an applicant will need to 8 May 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7249

obtain any necessary development consent before serving a fencing notice or seeking an order under the Act. Alternatively, before any relevant order is made by a local court or local land board the question of any required development consent will need to be resolved. If necessary, this may mean that the proceedings will be adjourned so that the parties may request any required development consent.

The existing legislative protection for vegetation similarly is not disturbed by the measures contained in the bill. A fencing order authorised by the amendments affecting vegetation can be complied with only if the relevant landowner also complies with all legislation protecting vegetation. These include the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995, the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Heritage Act 1977. One reason for placing careful limitations on the proposed new powers regarding retaining walls and vegetation applicable to dividing fences is the nature of the expertise and jurisdiction of the local land board.

The natural limit to jurisdiction under the Dividing Fences Act 1991 currently is the nature of a dividing fence that is inherently inexpensive. The current expertise and procedures of the local land board are geared towards the making of fencing orders as currently defined. The Supreme Court case of Alwiah v Watts & Another (2004) NSWSC at page 948 indicates that the local land boards are the preferred jurisdiction for fencing disputes. For these reasons the bill limits the additional powers relating to retaining walls and vegetation. This bill makes important changes to the Dividing Fences Act and other related legislation. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr WAYNE MERTON (Baulkham Hills) [11.07 a.m.]: I am pleased to speak to the proposed dividing fences amending legislation. Of course, issues around dividing fences are sure to bring out most lawyers in this Chamber, and today that has proved to be the case. I recall almost unbelievable disputes concerning dividing fences over many years of legal practice. Fortunately, many disputes, about people's initial ideas, instructions, thoughts, dreams and aspirations, were not taken before a court of superior jurisdiction for determination. That would have been an unrealistic financial exercise. The dividing fences legislation has existed for quite a while. Whilst this bill amends the 1991 Act, from memory—I stand to be corrected—the original Act was enacted in 1912. As a suburban legal practitioner I recall that one of my early experiences with the Dividing Fences Act was in the Seven Hills area where the developers were moving in. The chap who sought my advice owned a five-acre block at Seven Hills—of course, land in that area would no longer exist in that form. His neighbour was a developer who had decided he was going to build homes on his property.

The farmer was faced with the prospect of 10 to 15 homes being constructed along his property's side boundary. Although the farmer had three or four cows grazing on his block and was very satisfied with his three or four strands wire fence, the developer found it very difficult to sell houses that had a wire fence across their back boundary, and decided he wanted to erect a 1.5 metre by 500 metres paling fence. The farmer did not want to pay half the cost because he was satisfied he had an adequate dividing fence for rural purposes. The developer disagreed and pursued the matter in the Local Court. When the case was heard sanity prevailed. The magistrate ruled that because the area was predominantly rural and, despite some residential development, the nature of activity in the area also was rural, the rural-type fence was consistent with land use and was adequate under the terms of the legislation.

Time moves on and disputes relating to dividing fences more frequently involve retaining walls. Without revealing one's age, it is appropriate to point out that while retaining walls have been around for a long time, they are being erected increasingly in more recent times not only because building blocks are smaller and require excavation but also because sites need to be stabilised to allow the construction of foundations and concrete slabs to proceed, and because retaining walls are being used to mark the boundary between two properties. As the member for Davidson pointed out earlier, the bill provides a number of practical solutions to problems confronting everyday Australians—or, as Labor members describe them, working families.

The bill amends the Dividing Fences Act 1991 and seeks to achieve four aims, three of which relate to the powers and jurisdiction of a local land board and the Local Court concerning dividing fences. The proposed amendments to the Dividing Fences Act 1991 relate to expanding the jurisdiction under the Act. The changes include power to make an order relating to a retaining wall and to vegetation. The proposed new power is limited in its scope to matters incidental to a dispute involving a dividing fence. The first proposal is designed to permit a local land board or a Local Court to make a fencing order requiring construction or maintenance work to be done on a new or existing retaining wall, but only to the extent necessary for the settlement of a dividing fences dispute. It also relates to any tree or vegetation, but only to the extent necessary for settlement of a dividing fence dispute. It authorises an adjoining owner to include in a fencing notice matters relating to a retaining wall, tree or vegetation. A fencing notice under the Act allows an adjoining owner to claim a contribution for a share of fencing costs. 7250 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 May 2008

The first main proposal allows a local land board and the Local Court to fix a fair contribution between adjoining owners for the cost of the fencing work carried out when this affects a retaining wall, tree or vegetation. The second main purpose of the bill is to allow a local land board to make an order for the payment of a fixed amount by an adjoining owner under the Dividing Fences Act. This new power adds to the existing power to make an order for a proportion of fencing costs to be paid by each adjoining owner. An order for the payment of a fixed amount, after being certified by a local land board, may be enforced as a judgement debt in a court of competent jurisdiction. The third main proposal is to allow the senior chairperson of local land boards a discretion to sit alone or to direct a chairperson of a local land board to sit alone in a residential dividing fence hearing. This is in circumstances in which the fence is located in either the Sydney metropolitan area, or in a residential area of a regional city or town—in such places as are represented by the member for Lismore and the member for Tweed, who are present in the Chamber.

In general, the lack of complexity of the subject matter of such disputes means that only the chairperson is required to sit in order for the dispute to be dealt with. I do not contend that dividing fences matters are simple and straightforward: As I have indicated, some dividing fences cases are quite difficult to resolve. The nub of the legislation is the current definition of dividing fences in section 3 of the Act that currently excludes "a retaining wall" from the definition of a fence. In other words, the 1991 legislation provides that a retaining wall is not part of a dividing fence, and I can understand that. If a property owner builds a retaining wall on land that is lower than the adjoining block, the dividing fence is erected on top of the wall. Disputes have arisen because the fence would not be able to stand without the retaining wall, and if a dispute exists over the retaining wall, there can be no dividing fence. That is why the Act is being amended to include a retaining wall as part of the definition of a fence for the purposes of the legislation.

Currently no order may be made in relation to a retaining wall by a local land board or the Local Court. Parties have successfully argued in cases similar to the example I have given that the problem did not concern the fence but, rather, the retaining wall. That places magistrates in a quandary because any order made in respect of a fence would be to no effect if the order did not include the retaining wall. The bill is good practical legislation to address a problem that occurs frequently. The bill also provides for disputes to be resolved when a tree on a property boundary is involved. Many members of the House would be aware of neighbourhood disputes arising from one neighbour refusing to address the nuisance caused to a next-door neighbour by a tree. The bill attempts to address that situation. Presently the jurisdiction of the local land board and of the Local Court does not permit any order made in respect of dividing fences to include the removal or trimming of relevant vegetation to be made.

The bill addresses that difficulty by providing power for the local land board and the Local Court to make an order and affecting a tree, but only to the extent necessary for the settlement of a dividing fence dispute. In other words, the power to make orders in respect of a tree or vegetation is limited to settlement of a dividing fence dispute. Some disputes involving trees and hedges are quite complex because sometimes the tree involved could be 1.5 metres in diameter. In such circumstances the court is called upon to determine the extent to which the tree should be trimmed, such as to the height of the dividing fence, or whether it will be allowed to remain decorative, albeit while encroaching on someone else's land. The bill will not override other general laws that are applicable to the construction and maintenance of the retaining wall, including requirements for development approval.

Amendment of the Dividing Fences Act 1991 will enable an adjoining owner to seek a contribution for carrying out work relating to a retaining wall when the wall is necessary for the support and maintenance of the dividing fence, and will enable orders relating to the work to be made under the principal Act. In other words, the local land board or the Local Court has jurisdiction to fix contributions by the parties for work that must be carried out. An adjoining owner may seek a contribution for the preparation of land involving the trimming, lopping or removal of vegetation for the purpose of the provision of a dividing fence. It clarifies that an owner who desires to carry out such work for a purpose other than a sufficient dividing fence is liable for the expenses of carrying out the work that are attributable to work done for that other purpose.

In some cases the owner might want to do additional work that goes far beyond what is necessary to constitute a dividing fence. In many cases an owner has a normal two-metre high paling fence but the neighbour next door wants a colorbond fence, and both parties have argued for years about what should happen. Normally both owners decide to pay half the costs of a normal paling fence and the owner who wants the colorbond fence will pay any additional costs for that colorbond fence. As I recall, the general test under the current law is the type of fence predominantly existing in the area. The world changes. The days of paling fences being the predominant common fence are probably gone in many new areas and colorbond fences are now the order of the day. 8 May 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7251

Mr Michael Daley: Come on, mate. You are better than this.

Mr WAYNE MERTON: We do not need any interruptions. Members opposite must understand the practicalities because this is Government legislation. I support the bill, although it is unusual for me to support government legislation.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The member for Baulkham Hills and the member for Maroubra will not engage in dialogue across the Chamber. Members will listen intently to the member for Baulkham Hills.

Mr WAYNE MERTON: I enjoy dialogue. The member for Maroubra is quite a nice fellow and on his better days he is good, but this is not one of them. The Opposition supports the legislation as it is an attempt to overcome a problem that exists in neighbourhoods. At the end of the day if neighbours can resolve matters, that is the way it should be. It is the function of the court to deal with such basic matters as dividing fences. As insignificant as dividing fences might be to us, sometimes they can trigger great dissension between neighbours, which can cause unfortunate situations in local communities. The Opposition supports the legislation.

Mr STEVE WHAN (Monaro—Parliamentary Secretary) [11.22 a.m.], in reply: I thank members who contributed to the debate, and I thank the Opposition for its support of the Dividing Fences and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. In particular, I thank the member for Myall Lakes, who led for the Opposition, the member for Smithfield—this morning we discovered that he is a bit of a demon fast bowler—the member for Davidson, the member for Miranda and the member for Baulkham Hills. I shall address some of the issues raised in the debate. The member for Myall Lakes questioned the inclusion of retaining walls in the legislation. The Act will provide discretion for an appropriate order to be made. The land board may site a fence near a boundary rather than on the retaining wall if it decides that that is appropriate.

Contributions to the cost of the fence will be limited to work on a sufficient dividing fence and will not include work only on a retaining wall. Work on a retaining wall is not generally encouraged or authorised by the amendments. The amendments only allow for certain work relating to a retaining wall. The main purpose of the Dividing Fences Act is to allow for a contribution for fencing costs to be obtained in fair circumstances. These amendments will not allow for a contribution to a retaining wall related to fencing work to be obtained under the Act unless the relevant work on the wall is needed for the support and maintenance of a dividing fence. A fencing order relating to a retaining wall will only be authorised to be made if the relevant retaining wall is necessary for the support and maintenance of the dividing fence.

The member for Davidson talked about the need for land board decisions to be impartial and open to appeal. The member for Baulkham Hills raised issues about one member of the land board sitting alone. Whether a member sits alone is at the discretion of the chair of the land board, based on the complexity of the case. Generally, these matters are reasonably simple. I understand that the land board hears 50 to 60 fence issues per year, so it is not a massive number. Members of the land board are experienced and can often make a judgement based on the history of the case, before it even gets to them, as to whether the issue is complex or is simply a matter of asking someone to pay their 50 per cent share of normal fence costs.

Some cases may have gone through a community justice centre before they come before the land board. The chair of the land board has discretion as to whether a matter will be heard by a member sitting alone, based on the complexity of the case. The member for Davidson mentioned the need for hearings to be impartial and open to appeal. I understand that decisions of the land board are open to appeal to the Supreme Court, if necessary. Members referred to hedges. Hedges will be covered by the amendments. Controls on the application to vegetation also apply to hedges. While it is necessary for the power of the land board to be appropriately limited as it relates to vegetation, it is unnecessary to limit the definition of "vegetation". Other provisions of the bill limit the powers of the land board to make orders regarding vegetation.

The trimming, lopping or removal of vegetation may only be made the subject of a fencing order under the proposals if the relevant work is to be carried out for the purpose of preparation of land for the provision of a dividing fence. I welcome the member for Baulkham Hills' description of this bill as good practical legislation. It is necessary. All members would be aware that sometimes dividing fence disputes can be problematic and dispute resolution is necessary. The land board, which has existed for more than a century, offers a cost-effective way of resolving disputes between neighbours. Land board members are experienced legal practitioners, and they are well placed to make judgements on these matters. 7252 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 May 2008

The reforms will streamline processes and take into account the fact that vegetation and retaining walls are increasingly becoming aspects that must be taken into account. Importantly, the reforms will also ensure that vexatious claims and non-compliance with land board orders can be dealt with by the appropriate authorities in a more streamlined and simple way without the need to revisit cases. This will not only reduce the cost to property owners but ensure that the resolution of fence construction and the payment for such works proceeds in a more timely fashion. Many dividing fence issues are simple matters; they are only made complex through relationships that are normally strained between neighbouring owners. Providing land board chairpersons with the discretion to sit alone on these more straightforward matters should help parties to resolve their issues more quickly.

The final amendment comes out of a standard five-year review of the Access to Neighbouring Land Act 2000. This matter arose when submissions indicated that it would be fairer if there was a requirement for the applicant to pay the legal costs of the owner of the land subject to the access order, because the applicant is usually the beneficiary of any order. The amendments offer practical assistance and commonsense reforms to issues surrounding the construction of a fence dividing one person's property from their neighbours. I commend the bill to the House.

Question—That this bill be now agreed to in principle—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Passing of the Bill

Bill declared passed and transmitted to the Legislative Council with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.

BOARD OF ADULT AND COMMUNITY EDUCATION REPEAL BILL 2008

Agreement in Principle

Debated resumed from 6 May 2008.

Mr ANDREW STONER (Oxley—Leader of The Nationals) [11.30 a.m.]: I lead for the Coalition on the Board of Adult and Community Education Repeal Bill 2008. The purpose of this bill is to repeal the Board of Adult and Community Education Act 1990. According to the Minister for Education and Training, following a period of discussion and consultation with the adult education sector, in June 2007 the Board of Adult and Community Education unanimously agreed to disband and be replaced with the New South Wales Advisory Committee on Community Education. The Board of Adult and Community Education was designed to promote the provision of adult and community education in New South Wales, allocate government funds to adult and community education providers, and advise the Minister of needs and trends in adult and community education.

The New South Wales Advisory Committee on Community Education, which will replace the board under this legislation, will carry out the same functions. It will consist of nine members and meet twice a year. Unlike the former board, the committee will include a representative from New South Wales community colleges, something the Coalition welcomes. It must be noted, however, that the aims of the advisory committee do not include the former board's aim of allocating government funds to adult and community education providers, which reflects the policy of this Government to reduce the level of funding for community colleges. Indeed, the Carr and Iemma Labor governments have overseen an effective halving of funding to the adult and community education sector from approximately $9 million per annum in 2002-03 to $4.3 million this year.

Such a diminution in resources for adult and community education providers has stretched the sector and made its role very challenging. They have a valid role, particularly in regional and rural communities where access to a university, a TAFE or other forms of learning can be limited. They have a legitimate role as many members of the community want to access adult and community education. They may not undertake it for vocational reasons or it may not directly relate to their industry need. However, that does not make education any less legitimate, particularly for older citizens who may want to catch up with technology and use the Internet to communicate with their families or to pursue a particular hobby. Education is life long and we ought to back the adult and community education sector much better than this Government does. 8 May 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7253

The New South Wales Community Colleges would eventually like a reinstatement of a Board of Adult and Community Education, given the Coalition's level of support for that sector as opposed to this Government's level of support. Until such time, community colleges do not oppose the abolition of the board by this Government and its replacement with the advisory committee. I note that the Legislation Review Committee considered this bill and on 5 May 2008 stated:

While the Committee notes that the Board of Adult and Community Education agreed unanimously to the disbanding of the board, the Committee also notes that the proposed clause 4 (b) removes the right to remuneration or compensation as a result of the loss of office when the Bill repeals the Act and disbands the Board. Accordingly, the Committee considers this may unduly trespass on personal rights of Board members, and refers this to Parliament.

Given the concern expressed by the Legislation Review Committee, I ask the Minister to address that concern in the Government's reply to the debate. Assuming that that concern will be adequately addressed, the Liberal-Nationals Coalition does not oppose the bill.

Mr DAVID HARRIS (Wyong) [11.35 a.m.]: I have pleasure in supporting the Board of Adult and Community Education Repeal Bill 2008, which is about supporting community and adult education. Such education is worthwhile. As the Leader of The Nationals said, it is an important part of our community. As an educator I always promoted the concept of life-long learning and that all learning is important. When one gets older learning is still as relevant as when one started school. The Iemma Government has an unparalleled record in vocational education and training. This State has the nation's premier vocational education and training provider—that is, TAFE NSW. TAFE NSW has a fantastic reputation, not just in New South Wales but across the country and internationally, with respect to the quality courses it delivers to a wide range of people in our community. Along with that important organisation is a growing network of trade schools, a new initiative of the Iemma Government. I have one in my electorate of Wyong. The Wyong trade school was set up this year and it is delivering courses for students in years 11 and 12 in electro-technology and aged care nursing. There are skills shortages in those areas. The Government is addressing that issue.

The Government has also delivered an efficient adult and community education sector. For 17 years the Board of Adult and Community Education supported and promoted the sector and responded to its changing needs. In 2006 members of the board determined that a new mechanism was required to link the sector to government departments and non-government agencies. It unanimously agreed to disband and the board recommended the establishment of an advisory committee. Last month a successful first meeting of the New South Wales Advisory Committee on Community Education was held. Last year I attended the launch at Ourimbah campus. The Hon. John Della Bosca, the Minister for Education and Training, addressed a large audience of people involved in the industry from the business sector, the university and the secondary school sector. It was during Adult Learner's Week. He said:

Today is the start of Adult Learners' Week, a fitting time for the NSW Government to affirm its commitment to community education in NSW.

He continued:

The time is right to recognise the important contribution adult and community education providers make in enriching their communities and to set out future directions for the role that community education can play in achieving the goals of the NSW State Plan.

That significant announcement highlighted the importance that community education is all about enriching local communities. The chair of the committee, Dr John McIntyre, established the agenda for the work of the committee by outlining the issues that face the sector: credibility in policy, client focus, capability, collaboration and certainty in funding. It is an encouraging start for a sector that has significantly improved its services delivery in recent years.

Since 2003 adult and community education has increased the hours of the vocational education and training it delivers by a massive 65 per cent. As the Leader of The Nationals said, a large number of people in the community are turning to an ever-growing list of courses, dealing with art and craft, learning skills, cooking, mechanics and photography—a wide range of activities. More courses are being added, including business skills and computing skills. The new Advisory Committee on Community Education will work to continue the excellent work of that sector. The New South Wales Government values the roles that community colleges play in the vocational training landscape of the State and in their local communities, and supports the agenda of the New South Wales Advisory Committee on Community Education. 7254 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 May 2008

I advise members that a meeting was held this morning at which Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes of the upper House told the story that he has enrolled in his local community college. He had helped set up the community college on the Central Coast. He is about to commence a watercolour painting course, something that he has enjoyed doing for a long time. He said it is now time for him to hone his skills and use the course to ensure that he has an activity that helps him reduce the stress levels of working at Parliament House. It also adds a vital skill to his life. He certainly leads a varied and rich life. Members of this House could take advantage of community college courses and recognise the fantastic courses that are offered. I commend all members of the public to look closely at the courses offered by community education. If one course takes their interest, they should join in and continue that very important life-long learning role. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr THOMAS GEORGE (Lismore) [11.41 a.m.]: The Opposition will not oppose the Board of Adult and Community Education Repeal Bill 2008. I am proud to say that I am a product of the adult and community education colleges, known as ACE colleges. I attended my first computer course, and there has been only one, at the college in Casino. The adult and community education facilities at Lismore and Murwillumbah do a fantastic job, and I pay tribute to them. The purpose of the bill is to repeal the Board of Adult and Community Education Act 1990. In June 2007 the Board of Adult and Community Education unanimously agreed to disband. The board is to be replaced with the New South Wales Advisory Committee on Community Education.

The board was designed to promote the provision of adult and community education in New South Wales. It is important for country and regional areas to have community education resources available because in remote areas they provide outreach education. That is greatly appreciated by those communities as it provides them with an opportunity to attend classes in their own area. The board allocates government funds to adult and community education providers and advises the Minister of needs and trends in adult and community education. The board's replacement, the New South Wales Advisory Committee on Community Education, will consist of nine members and will meet twice a year. Notably, it will include a representative from the organisation Community Colleges New South Wales, which the board did not include. That is very important.

It must be noted that the aims of the new advisory committee do not include the existing board's aim of allocating government funds to adult and community education providers—most probably because the New South Wales Government funding for Community Colleges New South Wales has effectively been halved since 2002-03. It is of major concern to all the colleges in my area that that cut in funding has restricted the available courses and left very little work for the board in funding allocations. The cut affects the services provided in rural and regional New South Wales. The shadow Minister, the Leader of The Nationals, highlighted the concerns of the committee of the removal of the right to remuneration or compensation as a result of a loss of office when the bill repeals the Act and disbands the board—and I ask the Government to address that concern. Accordingly, the committee considers that may unduly trespass on personal rights of board members and refers that concern to Parliament. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, the member for Maroubra, to address that issue in his reply. As stated by the shadow Minister, provided that that issue is properly addressed the Opposition will not oppose the bill.

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

ZOUCH STREET RAILWAY BRIDGE, YOUNG

Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON (Burrinjuck) [11.45 a.m.]: On 9 May 2007 I foreshadowed my motion. I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that the roadway across the Zouch Street Railway Bridge in Young is continually failing because of the flexing of the bridge structure forcing the Roads and Traffic Authority to carry out repairs every two to three months;

(2) expresses its concern that the Roads and Traffic Authority has been unable to come to an agreement with State Rail about permanently fixing this problem;

(3) calls on the Minister for Roads and the Minister for Transport to direct their departments to achieve an immediate solution to this interdepartmental squabble; and

(4) notes that until this bridge is repaired it will continue to be a traffic hazard for all vehicles and particularly heavy transport using the Olympic Highway through Young.

8 May 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7255

As a result of the wording of my motion members can tell how frustrating an issue this has been for the local community. Recently I received most joyous advice from the Young Shire Council that the Rail Infrastructure Corporation will replace the Zouch Street bridge in the 2008-09 budget year. This is great news not only for the residents of Young and the district, but also for all travellers on the Olympic Highway. That is a very busy stock, grain and other transportation route. Therefore, I seek leave to amend paragraphs (2) and (3) of my motion to read:

(2) expresses its concern that the Roads and Traffic Authority and the Rail Infrastructure Corporation have taken more than 15 years to come to an agreement about permanently fixing this problem;

(3) calls on the Minister for Roads and the Minister for Transport to explain why they failed for many years to resolve this interdepartmental squabble; and

My amendment is not beyond the scope of the original motion; it brings it up to date.

Leave not granted.

It has taken some 11 months for this issue to come on for debate. Unfortunately, the Zouch Street bridge saga stretches back considerably further than just 11 months. The Zouch Street bridge in Young is located in the heart of one of the most fantastic towns in the State. Young is also known as the cherry capital of Australia. Travellers on the Olympic Highway from Cootamundra enter Young and then turn into Boorowa Street. The Olympic Highway then turns left into Zouch Street to continue its journey north. Just after the roundabout with Lovell Street, Zouch Street crosses the Blayney to Demondrille railway line. That is where the bridge that is the subject of this motion is located. It is barely 100 metres from the now closed, but still magnificent, Young railway station that was opened in 1885. I encourage members who have not seen that beautiful railway station to travel to Young to look at it—it is really something else.

The Young railway station is a magnificent building and an excellent example of railway buildings of its era. Funding for its refurbishment is a continuing issue within Young, but it is not the subject of today's debate. While the Young railway station is a great example of rail architecture, the same cannot be said about the Zouch Street bridge. The bridge is of timber construction and is topped with a bitumen surface laid over a timber base. This is the crux of the problem. With increasing age and wear the bridge is flexing more and this movement is causing the failure of the road surface at increasingly shorter intervals. Driving over the Zouch Street bridge is more akin to a corrugated dirt track than a major highway in regional New South Wales. On 1 March 2006 the former member for Lachlan, who had Young in his electorate before the seat was abolished, stated:

Young and Lachlan shires are starved for roads funding. The Zouch Street Bridge, a major bridge in Young, runs over the railway line. The bridge is owned by Rutherford Structure Corporation but the surface is a road.

For 15 years, give or take, the Young Shire has been trying to have a cement top put on that bridge. Some time ago a new bitumen top had to be put on the bridge every 18 months. It is now every six months, because of the increased traffic.

For more than 15 years this bridge has been in need of significant work. Is there a better example of the failure of either the Carr or Iemma Labor governments to address the crumbling infrastructure problems in regional New South Wales? I doubt it. The Zouch Street bridge needed major repairs when Premier Carr came into office in 1995. In 1994 the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] recorded that the annual average daily traffic volume over the Zouch Street bridge was 7,983 movements. The growth in regional traffic, particularly heavy vehicles, has significantly increased the pressure on the Zouch Street bridge. On 14 February this year I took the shadow Minister for Transport, Ms Gladys Berejiklian, on a tour of parts of the Burrinjuck electorate with transport issues.

We visited the Zouch Street bridge, but it was difficult to hold a conversation because of the large number of heavy vehicles and other traffic using the bridge. We were standing on the edge of the bridge and, quite literally, every time a truck went over it we would be shaking and trying to hold a conversation. It was not happening for anybody. Honestly, you feel like the bridge is going to collapse underneath you every time a truck travels over it. Zouch Street bridge should have been replaced years ago, or at least had major work undertaken to provide a stable base for the road pavement. It is an important project for the residents of Young and the many users of the Olympic Highway. Last year I received an email from Margaret Young of Gladesville in Sydney. Ms Young has informed me that she visits Young frequently and has held concerns about the Zouch Street bridge for many years. She said:

It is noted that you commented on the state of disrepair of the bridge over the rail line in Young, New South Wales.

7256 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 May 2008

When will something happen to fix the problem in the long term?

The bridge has been falling apart for as long as I can remember (24 years) and was closed some years back for safety reasons. Will it take a death of a driver or pedestrian to bring the matter to a head?

I understand that neither the RTA nor the New South Wales Railway want to admit to ownership of the problem. Young Council cannot continue to fill potholes and wish for the best.

I was hit in the stomach some weeks back when a panel of metal was dislodged on a windy day. I approached the Rural Fire Service nearby who had the council come immediately and repair the panel.

Please put some pressure on the appropriate authority to take action now.

Goodness only knows what the visitors to Young think of the place when they see the state of the bridge.

I agree with Ms Young's comments. It is important to ask why this vital project has been delayed for so long. The minutes of the south-west regional consultative committee meeting between the RTA and local councils held in Wagga Wagga on 15 March 2006 provide an indication of why the delays occurred. At that meeting Neil Macartney of the Roads and Traffic Authority informed councils that the Minister for Roads had announced in late 2005 that the timber bridge replacement program would not proceed. The Young council representative queried how this would affect the Zouch Street bridge. He received a reply that the timber bridge program did not cover the Zouch Street bridge because it was over a railway line on a State road. Mr Macartney then observed that there was ongoing discussion between the Roads and Traffic Authority and the Rail Infrastructure Corporation to agree to priority of funding.

The discussions have obviously been ongoing for the past 15 years. It is just a bridge. Its replacement will not cost that much. One million dollars will be budgeted by the Rail Infrastructure Corporation in 2008-09. That is great news. While Zouch Street bridge is just a bridge, it is also a symbol of the failure of the New South Wales Labor Government. Two State government departments have been unable to agree as to who would pay for the project. State government departments failing to agree is nothing unusual. That is one of the reasons that Ministers are paid large amounts of taxpayers' money to make decisions. Unfortunately, successive Labor Ministers for roads and transport failing to act to address infrastructure problems in regional New South Wales is also not unusual. For the past 13 years the New South Wales Labor Government has ignored the continued requests by Young Shire Council and the local member of Parliament. All that was needed was a ministerial direction that the problem be fixed.

This failure speaks volumes about the disinterest of the New South Wales Labor Government in solving rural infrastructure problems in regional New South Wales. I first raised the Zouch Street bridge as one of my commitments to the people of Young during the March 2007 election campaign. Young was redistributed to the electorate of Burrinjuck when the electorate of Lachlan was abolished. Since then I have been very vocal about this project, raising the situation in Parliament, in the media and in public. I am pleased that the bridge will finally be replaced. Over the years Young council has worked hard to push for the replacement of the Zouch Street bridge. Council is keen for the project to proceed. It has already advertised for an expression of interest for the pavement reconstruction of the bridge abutments on Zouch Street. Costs for this work are estimated to be in the range of $104,000 to $188,000.

It is now incumbent on the Roads and Traffic Authority to agree to make allowance for the pavement reconstruction in the 2008-09 budget, which is just around the corner. I have written to the Minister for Roads to strongly urge him to provide funding to Young Shire Council in the forthcoming State budget. Today I urge him to allow the road approaches to the Zouch Street bridge to be upgraded when the bridge is replaced. I hope that it does not take another 15 years for him to make a decision—but a Coalition Minister for Roads will be in charge of the portfolio by April 2011 anyway. It is important that when this bridge is upgraded the road approaches to it are simultaneously upgraded. The heavy vehicles traversing this dangerous bridge and the traffic volume cannot be underestimated. There are thousands of vehicular movements on the bridge every day. It could easily become a deathtrap if there is a nice new bridge but appalling roads leading to it. It is important that the Minister accedes to this request.

Ms SONIA HORNERY (Wallsend—Parliamentary Secretary) [11.55 a.m.]: For the benefit of the House and the member for Burrinjuck, I would like to start with a little history and some facts about the maintenance of railway bridges across New South Wales. The New South Wales Government's Rail Infrastructure Corporation, known as RIC, advises that there are approximately 463 overbridges—road bridges crossing over railway lines—in regional New South Wales. Of these bridges, 74 are private overbridges on the section of railway that was leased to the Commonwealth in 2004. These bridges are the responsibility of 8 May 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7257

Australian Rail Track Corporation, better known as ARTC. The remaining bridges—approximately 389—are owned by the New South Wales Government. Fourteen of these regional overbridges are on private roads. These are managed and maintained by the Australian Rail Track Corporation on Rail Infrastructure Corporation's behalf through the country regional network management agreement with Australian Rail Track Corporation. The remaining 375 State-owned regional overbridges are public overbridges.

From September 2004 until December 2006 Australian Rail Track Corporation was responsible for inspecting, maintaining, renewing and asset managing the 375 public road overbridges in regional New South Wales on Rail Infrastructure Corporation's behalf, once again through the country regional network management agreement. In January 2007 the direct management of these assets reverted to Rail Infrastructure Corporation. In July 2007 Rail Infrastructure Corporation engaged Transfield Services Australia via a public tender to assume all of the responsibilities relating to public overbridges previously performed by the Commonwealth's ARTC. I am advised that Transfield Services' responsibilities cover all aspects of public overbridge management, including inspection, maintenance, renewal, forward planning and asset management. Transfield Services is engaged on a three-year contract and has been carrying out this service for Rail Infrastructure Corporation since July 2007. Since assuming this role Transfield Services has carried out repairs to more than 80 public overbridges under a program approved by the Rail Infrastructure Corporation.

The company has also established a bridge management system to program all inspections, record defects and track status repairs. This is a good example of the public and private sectors working together to get the job done. Overbridge repairs and renewals are planned and prioritised primarily on condition and available funding. However, the location of the bridge is also considered. For example, generally speaking, a bridge in a built-up area will receive a higher priority than one in a more sparsely populated area. The Rail Infrastructure Corporation is required, under legislation, to maintain public road overbridges to their original functionality and capacity. Replacement of existing bridges is carried out once the structure becomes uneconomical to repair. In this way we are protecting the interests of New South Wales taxpayers.

Maintenance works are programmed from information gained through overbridge inspections carried out as per the engineering standards of the Rail Infrastructure Corporation. These works require cooperation between agencies and councils. The Rail Infrastructure Corporation talks to the Roads and Traffic Authority about these projects and they both talk to local councils. The Iemma Government is committed to building and maintaining quality infrastructure across the State, in particular infrastructure in rural and regional communities. When it comes to bridges generally the Rail Infrastructure Corporation is responsible for maintaining the bridge structure and the local road authority is responsible for maintaining the asphalt road service. However, several formal agreements with local road authorities deal with specific maintenance responsibilities. Once a bridge becomes uneconomical to repair it is then replaced with a new bridge with the same functionality designed to meet current Roads and Traffic Authority standards.

The New South Wales Government's Rail Infrastructure Corporation, or RIC, is the owner of the Zouch Street bridge and is responsible for maintaining the structure to its original design capacity and functionality. The road authorities, the Roads and Traffic Authority and Young Shire Council are responsible for maintaining the road surface on the bridge. For non-locals, this road bridge is located on the main highway that runs through Young. Consequently, the type and frequency of vehicular traffic using this bridge has changed considerably since the bridge was originally constructed. The bridge is structurally sound and meets local capacity requirements for current traffic. But I am advised that the inherent flexing nature of timber structures, combined with the gradual increase in truck movements, including B-doubles, has resulted in the road surface developing potholes and requiring regular repairs. The bridge is inspected at two-year intervals, with the last inspection having been done in June 2007. No safety issues were identified at that time.

Rail Infrastructure Corporation and Roads and Traffic Authority officers have had discussions regarding the most suitable treatment of the road surface to sustain the current level of traffic. I understand that the road service is inspected every six months. This financial year the Roads and Traffic Authority is planning to carry out temporary road surface repairs on the bridge and its approaches. The bridge was inspected last June. Concept designs for a new bridge are currently being developed by the RIC—so I was listening to what the member for Burrinjuck was saying. These designs are being discussed with the Roads and Traffic Authority and the local council to ensure that all stakeholder issues are considered when designing a replacement bridge. This will put the RIC in a position where it is able to proceed with detailed design and construction once funding is available.

Mr JOHN WILLIAMS (Murray-Darling) [12.03 p.m.]: I thank the member for Burrinjuck for moving a motion relating to Zouch Street railway bridge and for highlighting concerns about the shire's liabilities in that 7258 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 May 2008

regard. All members would be aware of the Zouch Street timber bridge. For the past 13 years this Government has failed to live up to its election promises and mid-term commitments to maintain a vital part of our State's road infrastructure. In many remote rural and regional areas timber bridges form the backbone of the road infrastructure. There are more than 2,300 timber bridges across New South Wales. Under Labor, program funding for the replacement of these timber bridges has been progressively cut, and in recent years it has been permanently shelved.

In September 2006 the Coalition made a policy announcement that, if elected in March 2007, it would provide $60 million over four years to upgrade timber bridges in country New South Wales. The Coalition made a commitment that the Country Timber Bridges Program would be an important part of The Nationals' plans to rebuild country infrastructure after 12 years of Labor neglect. The Government finally bowed to pressure from The Nationals and in October 2006 announced that it would provide new funding for timber bridges. That funding never eventuated. At the time the New South Wales Leader of The Nationals said:

Country people have every right to treat this announcement with some scepticism after Labor axed the Country Timber Bridges Program in 2008.

That scepticism proved justified, with the Government failing to provide much-needed funding to councils to maintain and replace ageing timber bridges. In November 2006, Australian Local Government Association President Councillor Paul Bell welcomed the announcement by the New South Wales Government of a $600 million investment in a three-year timber bridge partnership for council. Like the Zouch Street railway bridge, some timber bridges are in a serious state of disrepair, weight limits have been imposed, and some have been closed to traffic. Every day school buses, heavy trucks, farm machinery and cars travel on these dilapidated timber bridges. These substandard bridges not only jeopardise safety but also impede the efficient movement of freight, which costs time and money.

Wakool shire has 39 wooden bridges, most of which are in immediate need of replacement, with greater than 50 per cent of them having been constructed prior to the 1930s. Wakool shire spent a considerable amount of money shoring up the worst of these bridges but it is only a short-term solution; they need to be replaced. Traffic loading design states that these bridges should handle loads of only 44 tonnes but they are now handling loads in excess of 80 tonnes. Council has replaced approximately one bridge each year with previous government funding. Structural elements reveal 8 per cent deterioration each year, with bridges falling from fair condition to poor condition over a period of two years. Inspections reveal that at least 50 per cent of the structural members of most bridges are in poor condition.

Council carries out an annual bridge inspection program whereby all bridge elements are inspected and their conditions assessed. Timber components are sounded and drilled, as necessary, to determine condition and rating. The bridge replacement program must be accelerated to replace all these bridges within a five-year time frame in order to mitigate current exposure to risk liability and injury claims. Brian Ebery, Wakool Shire Council's engineering services manager, informed me that as the New South Wales Government announced its program in December 2006 works on timber bridge replacement effectively could not commence until the 2007-08 financial year. Since then council has almost completed one bridge and it will complete a second bridge prior to 30 June at a cost of slightly under $2 million.

Wakool Shire Council is still haggling with the Roads and Traffic Authority over the estimated cost of the second bridge this year, as it does not appear to want to meet its 50 per cent share of costs. That will leave approximately $3.75 million of work to be completed by June 2009—the scheduled completion date of the program—which in the case of this council is impossible to fund. Wakool Shire Council would have some chance if the program were extended for a further 12 months, with a completion date in June 2010. But that would occur only if council deferred other essential maintenance work such as its resealing programs and other routine maintenance such as the patching of roads. [Time expired.]

Mr PAUL McLEAY (Heathcote) [12.08 p.m.]: The member for Wallsend has already outlined the sensible and logical way in which the Roads and Traffic Authority and the Rail Infrastructure Corporation work together to keep New South Wales rail overbridges in good working order. This Government is committed to spending on rural and regional infrastructure and ensuring that budget allocations are spent wisely and on the most appropriate projects. In fact, in the 2007-08 budget a record $2.6 billion was allocated to rural and regional New South Wales roads. Almost three-quarters of the roads, capital and maintenance program budget was earmarked to be spent outside the Sydney metropolitan area, with $2.6 billion—or 72 per cent—committed.

Ms Katrina Hodgkinson: Because that is where most of the roads are. 8 May 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7259

Mr PAUL McLEAY: That is true, but there is a bit of a myth. People think the budget is Sydney focused but 72 per cent has been committed in areas outside Sydney.

Mr Daryl Maguire: What about Kapooka bridge?

Mr PAUL McLEAY: We can talk about that. I will refer to Kapooka bridge in a moment.

Mr Daryl Maguire: That is why it has been sitting there going to dust for years.

Mr PAUL McLEAY: Hold your horses; I will get to Kapooka bridge. The member for Burrinjuck used a particular pronunciation of Zouch Street bridge.

Ms Katrina Hodgkinson: That is what the mayor calls it.

Mr PAUL McLEAY: The mayor is wrong. The member for Burrinjuck can let the mayor know that my Country Labor colleagues tell me it is pronounced differently.

Mr Daryl Maguire: So you're attacking the mayor now?

Mr PAUL McLEAY: Yes; the mayor is wrong. When it comes to pronouncing the name of that bridge, I will take the word of the Hon. Mick Veitch over that of the mayor any day. The bridge is named after Henry Zouch, a French Canadian who became the Assistant Commissioner of Police during the goldfield riots. He did a fantastic job keeping the peace there. I have visited Young many times—I love the place. In order to get a picture of the bridge in my mind I searched Google Earth. It looks like it will need an inspection from time to time but otherwise the bridge appears to me to be in a reasonable condition. However, I will leave it to the experts.

I shall tell the House what we are doing with other public overbridges. In the renewal program for this year $1.8 million has been allocated for Ironbark Road, Werombi; Siding Road, Werombi; and Lakeside Road, Kendall. I am advised that detailed designs have been completed for all three jobs and work is expected to be completed by the end of this financial year. The member for Burrinjuck suggests some disagreement exists between the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] and the Rail Infrastructure Corporation regarding the Zouch Street overbridge in Young. There is no disagreement. She suggested also that the bridge is a hazard. The RTA advises that the surface is being maintained via routine maintenance and will be kept safe in trafficable conditions.

Mr John Williams: What about the bridge collapse?

Mr PAUL McLEAY: The bridge did not collapse.

Mr John Williams: It will.

Mr PAUL McLEAY: The bridge has not collapsed. The member for Burrinjuck raised the issue once before in this House and during the supposed 15 years of tragedy the former member for Lachlan raised the issue only twice: once in his speech on the 2006 budget and then, most appropriately, in a one-line reference in his valedictory speech. That shows the importance and priority the Opposition has given to the Zouch Street bridge. I commend the Government for continuing to maintain the State's infrastructure. Keep up the good work.

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI (Murrumbidgee) [12.12 p.m.]: I support the member for Burrinjuck in her campaign to have the Zouch Street bridge—however it is pronounced—at Young in her electorate replaced. The member for Burrinjuck is a great campaigner for her electorate and this is just another example of the grassroots projects for which she has been fighting hard. We all appreciate the difficulties that the people of Young are having with this bridge and the risks faced by those who cross it daily. There are bridges in a similar condition in the electorates of many members—particularly those who represent country areas.

Mr Daryl Maguire: Kapooka bridge.

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: The member for Wagga Wagga refers to the Kapooka bridge, which many of my constituents cross along the Olympic Way on their way to Albury. My electorate has a couple of bridges in a similar condition. The Carrathool bridge, which spans the Murrumbidgee River and not a railway line, is at 7260 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 May 2008

least 100 years old. It is an old timber bridge on which the RTA spent approximately $6 million refurbishing. After spending that money we still have a one-lane timber bridge. RTA officials tell me off the record that it would have cost about half that amount to erect a brand new bridge at Carrathool.

We continue the fight to replace the Carrathool bridge because it is subject to weight limits. So farmers who truck produce across the Murrumbidgee River using the Carrathool bridge have to make the roughly 124-kilometre round trip via either Hay or Darlington Point. The bridge's width is also an issue. In my electorate many farmers own more than one property. So when transporting machinery between their properties on either side of the river they again have to make the 124-kilometre out-of-the-way journey. Like the Zouch Street bridge in Young, Carrathool bridge is a big problem in the Murrumbidgee electorate. However, we face a problem also with the Narrandera bridge. Again, different agencies argue over who owns the road. There was a meeting a month or so ago between the Narrandera Shire Council, the Roads and Traffic Authority and the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Authority—the bridge crosses a main irrigation canal. No authority was willing to take ownership of the bridge.

Even though I believe the bridge has a plaque with the inscription "MRA"—which stands for Main Roads Authority, or whatever it was called—the RTA says that such signs do not necessarily mean that the bridges in question are the property of the RTA. I find that argument quite extraordinary. This narrow bridge is on the main road between Leeton and Narrandera and is used by a lot of traffic, including trucks carrying feed and so on. Two weeks after the meeting a truck accident on the bridge claimed the life of the driver. The RTA has since moved the 80-kilometre speed zone further out of town and reduced the speed zone on the bridge from 100 kilometres per hour.

The RTA made that minor change to deal with the problem but the bridge needs to be widened and improved. Unfortunately, nothing can be done about the death of that truck driver. The motion of the member for Burrinjuck addresses the importance of investing in road and bridge infrastructure across her electorate. The Zouch Street bridge in Young is just one example; members have similar examples in our electorates. I have listed a couple of bridges in my electorate and the member for Murray-Darling has significant issues with timber bridges in his electorate. At the heart of this motion is the need to invest in road and bridge infrastructure. I support the member for Burrinjuck 100 per cent.

Mr ALAN ASHTON (East Hills) [12.17 p.m.]: I assure the House that I will be very brief—for reasons that will become obvious. I am not decrying the seriousness of the motion of the member for Burrinjuck, but the first issue we must resolve is the pronunciation of the Zouch Street bridge in Young. You say tomato and we say to-mah-to—let's call the whole thing off!

Mr Barry Collier: We're going to shortly.

Mr ALAN ASHTON: Yes. If I were a Minister someone would run up now and give me a piece of paper.

Ms Katrina Hodgkinson: Is that it, Alan?

Mr ALAN ASHTON: I will get a piece of paper. The member for Heathcote and I researched Henry Zouch and resolved the pronunciation of his surname in light of his French-Canadian background.

Ms Katrina Hodgkinson: He Australianised it when he got here.

Mr ALAN ASHTON: He obviously did. The trouble is that "Zouch" is of German origin, which would not have been popular at the time.

Mr Barry Collier: Barry Jones eat your heart out!

Mr ALAN ASHTON: I intend to talk about Anzac Day this afternoon so I will give the history lesson then. My electorate has four overbridges across the East Hills railway line and I have also made representations to the Minister to ensure that they are in good condition; it is a very important issue. I do not decry the member for Burrinjuck for moving this important motion, but I cannot vote for it. It is quite reasonable for the member for Burrinjuck to draw this matter to the attention of the House. Is the member for Murray-Darling directing some remarks to me? It is probably upsetting him that the former member for Murray-Darling, Peter "Blackie" Black, is visiting Parliament, but the member does not have to do an impression of him. 8 May 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7261

Mr John Williams: I am putting in a protest.

Mr ALAN ASHTON: A protest about what?

Mr John Williams: I did not receive an invitation to his farewell.

Mr ALAN ASHTON: The member for Murray-Darling would have been most welcome. We were laughing at everybody and he also would have been included. His interjections are most helpful. As the member for Wallsend said, there are approximately 463 railway bridges in country New South Wales, and I point out that there are railway bridges in metropolitan areas as well. Anyone who has driven around the East Hills electorate from the boundary to Padstow and through to the Padstow Heights area will have encountered at least four railway bridges, not counting other much larger overbridges associated with highways. Overbridges are always an issue. No member of the House could mention overbridges without referring to deaths that have occurred. I was a member of a parliamentary committee, on which the member for Wagga Wagga also served, that examined the condition of all types of bridges in country areas.

[Interruption]

The member for Wagga Wagga suggests I am stealing his thunder. The committee made recommendations for action to be taken. There is no doubt that if a bridge is not in a safe condition and is not wide enough, the Roads and Traffic Authority bears the Government's responsibility of ensuring that maintenance is appropriate and that bridges are safe and maintained to a trafficable standard.

Mr Daryl Maguire: There you go: the Kapooka bridge.

Mr ALAN ASHTON: I do not question that it is in need of maintenance. It would be useful if Hansard could record the photocopy of the bridge shown to me by the member for Wagga Wagga. I accept the offer of the prop from the member for Wagga Wagga in the spirit in which it has been given. There are many railway bridges throughout the State. I drive over some of them frequently and I know the condition of the one at Padstow. For quite some time I have been asking for the railway bridge to be widened. Arranging for that to happen has been very difficult because the Government already has funded the new rail line and the new railway station. Some capital works cost millions of dollars.

I note that the member for Burrinjuck stated that the upgrade work will cost from $104,000 to $188,000 and I acknowledge that, in the context of capital works expenditure, that is not a massive amount. I am sure the Young Shire Council has sought funding and has applied for loans through the Roads and Traffic Authority. The difficulty I have in supporting the motion is simply that there are so many overbridges everywhere in New South Wales, and each one is a priority. Although I have no problem with the motion moved by the member for Burrinjuck, for the reason I have given I am unable to support it.

Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON (Burrinjuck) [12.22 p.m.], in reply: I thank all members who contributed to the debate: the member for Wallsend, the member for Murray-Darling, the member for Heathcote, the member for Murrumbidgee, and the member for East Hills. I also thank the member for Wagga Wagga for his interjection about the Kapooka bridge. From the response of the member for Wallsend to my initial contribution to the debate, it is quite clear that she has not been to Young—or, if she has, it must have been a very long time ago. I invite her to visit Young because I am sure she would really enjoy it, especially if she visits during the Cherry Festival. If she does so, she will be able to take home to her wonderful part of the world some beautiful jams and cherry pies. It would be a great experience for her. She is a Parliamentary Secretary: I am sure she would enjoy a trip to the country.

The member for Murray-Darling referred not only to the Zouch Street bridge in Young but also to bridges in his electorate. He has experienced some significant problems caused by withdrawal of the timber bridge replacement program by the Government in 2004 after a portfolio reshuffle. The program became a ministerial responsibility of the member for Fairfield, who is now the Minister for Small Business, Minister for Regulatory Reform, and Minister for Ports and Waterways. One of the worst things the Minister did was strip regional New South Wales of that timber bridge replacement program. His action set back for decades the agenda for replacement and repair of timber bridges throughout New South Wales. Country areas really needed that program to continue. Over the several years that the program has not been operating, the condition of the 7262 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 May 2008

bridges has reverted to scratch. That has cost the Government more money than it would have cost to continue the program. The member for Heathcote also contributed to the debate. Probably the only genuine part of his speech was his reference to interagency arguments.

Mr Paul McLeay: You cannot take criticism.

Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON: The member for Heathcote said he could not possibly believe the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] and the Rail Infrastructure Corporation [RIC] would be unable to agree. I advise him to have a chat with Gerry Bailey, Adrian Hanrahan or any councillor on the Young Shire Council—even former councillor the Hon. Michael Veitch—because they will tell him that it has been a longstanding issue. Clearly the member for Heathcote was trying to politicise the situation. There is no political element to the issue. This has been a significant issue for many years. As I mentioned at the outset of the debate, Ms Young's letter stated that the bridge has been falling apart for 24 years—and that says it all. The member for Murrumbidgee listed bridges in his electorate that needed attention.

Mr John Williams: Carrathool.

Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON: I acknowledge the interjection and endorse the comments made about Carrathool. I recognise that the member for East Hills clearly shares the frustration felt by local members who are attempting to have bridges over railway lines upgraded and repaired. Clearly this is an issue not just in my electorate and in country electorates but also in urban electorates. If the member for East Hills has in his electorate a bridge in a condition similar to that of the Zouch Street bridge, I wish him luck because organising repair and upgrade work is like pulling teeth from chickens. I am pleased that I have been able to assist in obtaining $1 million from the Rail Infrastructure Corporation to fund the Zouch Street bridge upgrade. I know that the Young Shire Council is extremely excited about the funding and will continue to work towards betterment of the roadworks and rail projects throughout the Burrinjuck electorate. I will continue to draw to the attention of the House similar issues until the Burrinjuck electorate has a satisfactory road and rail network.

After Young was included in my electorate, that was one of the very first issues I addressed by notice of motion. I am pleased I did that 11 months ago because the motion has been debated nearly a year after notice was given—such is the Government's treatment of private members' day. As a result of the Government's recent changes to sessional and other orders, the Opposition has reduced opportunities to bring before the House matters affecting their electorates. That is why I am glad I gave notice of the motion when I did. I am also pleased that a somewhat successful result has been achieved. I hope the Government will recognise that many roads and timber bridges in the Burrinjuck electorate need upgrading urgently.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 37

Mr Aplin Ms Hodgkinson Mr Roberts Mr Baird Mrs Hopwood Mr Smith Mr Baumann Mr Humphries Mr Souris Ms Berejiklian Mr Kerr Mr Stokes Mr Cansdell Mr Merton Mr Stoner Mr Constance Mr Oakeshott Mr J. H. Turner Mr Debnam Mr O'Dea Mr R. W. Turner Mr Draper Mr O'Farrell Mr J. D. Williams Mr Fraser Mr Page Mr R. C. Williams Ms Goward Mr Piccoli Mrs Hancock Mr Piper Tellers, Mr Hartcher Mr Provest Mr George Mr Hazzard Mr Richardson Mr Maguire 8 May 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7263

Noes, 47

Mr Amery Ms Hay Mrs Perry Ms Andrews Mr Hickey Mr Rees Mr Aquilina Ms Hornery Mr Sartor Mr Borger Ms Judge Mr Shearan Mr Brown Ms Keneally Mr Stewart Ms Burney Mr Khoshaba Ms Tebbutt Mr Campbell Mr Koperberg Mr Terenzini Mr Collier Mr Lynch Mr Tripodi Mr Coombs Mr McBride Mr Watkins Mr Corrigan Dr McDonald Mr West Mr Costa Ms McKay Mr Whan Ms D'Amore Mr McLeay Mr Daley Ms McMahon Ms Firth Ms Meagher Ms Gadiel Ms Megarrity Tellers, Mr Greene Mr Morris Mr Ashton Mr Harris Mr Pearce Mr Martin

Pair

Mrs Skinner Mr Gibson

Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Postponement of Business

General Business Notice of Motion (General Notice) No. 2. postponed on motion by Mr Anthony Roberts.

General Business Notice of Motion (General Notice) No. 3 postponed on motion by Mr Thomas George on behalf of Mr Steve Cansdell.

TUMUT RENAL DIALYSIS SERVICE

Mr DARYL MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [12.36 p.m.]: I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that patients from Tumut, Adelong, Batlow, Tumbarumba and Gundagai who are suffering from renal failure are required to travel thousands of kilometres per month to access renal dialysis; and

(2) calls on NSW Health to establish a renal dialysis service in Tumut.

It is some time since this notice of motion was placed on the Business Paper. I am pleased to report that the dialysis committee in Tumut has made outstanding progress cooperatively with the Greater Southern Area Health Service. A number of years ago a committee was formed in Tumut because of the number of people who needed to access renal dialysis, and it was forecast that the number would increase. As members know, renal dialysis is a consequence of kidney failure and, importantly, diabetes. With diabetes rampant in communities there can only be one way for renal dialysis services to go, and sadly that is up. A committee was formed comprising Albert Manning, the Chairman, Brenda Broomhead, Phyllis Darragh, Jenelle Becker, May Doon, Tim Oliver, Laurie Groves, Dr Geoff Pritchard, Mrs Sonia Piper, representing the Brungle Aboriginal community, and Louise Halsey.

They have had interaction with Dr Joe McGirr, Deborah Gration, David Jefferies, Mary Smit from the Greater Southern Area Health Service, Allan Tonkin, Gene Vanzella, the mayor of Tumut, and Chris Adams, the general manager. They have worked cooperatively and, as I said, progress has been made. Now I can advise 7264 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 May 2008

the House that there will be a pilot program in Tumut. Originally, patients were required to travel to Wagga Wagga to access renal dialysis services. We are proposing that a chair be set up in Tumut hospital, where patients capable of dialysing will be monitored by volunteers in that hospital facility.

I understand that there is a stumbling block. The Greater Southern Area Health Service has agreed to train nurses to administer the dialysis, but I have been told that the nursing staff will assist in emergency only. I encourage the Greater Southern Area Health Service to deal with that matter so that patients can access dialysis in Tumut hospital sooner rather than later. So the situation has changed from a number of patients travelling hundreds of kilometres to Wagga Wagga every second day to a proposal to install a chair in Tumut hospital where volunteers will assist members of the community who need to dialyse. Previously I have talked about members of the Wagga Wagga regional community having to travel as far as Canberra to access dialysis services. One of those people, Mr Roger Southwood, who is 76 years of age, was driving his wife, June, to Canberra three times per week to access dialysis services because Wagga Wagga, which is the central point for dialysis services in the region, was overloaded.

Since then the number of chairs for dialysis has doubled at Wagga Wagga Base Hospital so that June, the wife of Mr Southwood, and others can access the service, but more needs to be done. I am not ungrateful for what has occurred but renal failure is skyrocketing and further investment needs to be made. People from Tumbarumba, Gundagai, Adelong and Batlow should be able to access a renal dialysis chair at Tumut, which will take some of the strain from Wagga Wagga Base Hospital. The member for Burrinjuck and the member for Albury, whose electorate takes in Gundagai and Tumbarumba, enthusiastically support this initiative.

I do not exaggerate about the pressure on Wagga Wagga hospital. The dialysis unit is grossly overcrowded and undersized. The number of chairs has doubled. The accreditation area for each chair is nine square metres but Wagga Wagga hospital has less than half that. It has no proper observation station, just a small desk, one metre wide, for nurses, in the centre of the room, surrounded by chairs on which patients are dialysed. Ambulance officers have difficulty bringing patients on stretchers, as the stretchers cannot be turned, and have to transfer patients to chairs. The dialysis services room has no staff amenities and, as a result, staff must take their meals at the central desk at the feet of patients.

Visitors cannot be comfortably seated when accompanying the patients. The unit has a shortage of storage space, with the result that medical items must also be stored in the dialysis area. It has no reception area and its waiting room comprises two outdoor wooden benches which are subject to inclement weather conditions. The room has no privacy and no draw curtains for the men and women being treated in the dialysis room. The interior of the unit badly needs repainting, and the toilet facilities are not large enough for ease of staff assistance to patients. The infection prevention procedure of the unit is also in question. Wagga Wagga Base Hospital does not cover its chairs with a clean sheet after each patient, does not have mounted televisions at each chair with speaker controls, and does not provide meals and snacks like other properly designed dialysis centres.

The Tumut community is so supportive that I have presented to the Parliament their petitions every day since this issue arose. I became their member after Tumut was redistributed to my electorate from the electorate of the member for Burrinjuck. I will continue to present them daily to bring to the attention of the Minister and members in this place the dire need for improvement and more funding of dialysis. I acknowledge that some funds have been made available on a wider scale to combat the problems of deficiencies in dialysis services. I appeal to Government members to support this motion. The contributions of honourable members will point out the difficulties that country people have to face to access important dialysis services.

Recently a special commission of inquiry into the delivery of patient care, headed by Commissioner Peter Garling, was held at Wagga Wagga. At that inquiry Mr Southwood made a splendid presentation to the commissioner stating the needs of dialysis patients in Wagga Wagga and the entire region. Wagga Wagga Base Hospital serves not only Tumut, Tumbarumba, Batlow, Adelong, Brungle, Gundagai, Coolac and other towns, but also the entire Riverina area, which includes Uranquinty, Lockhart, The Rock, Coolamon, and places that gravitate towards Wagga Wagga as a centre. I hope that the commissioner includes the issues raised by Mr Southwood in his excellent presentation in his report, and that he asks the Minister to apply more funds to the provision of dialysis services, which the community is united about and is determined to achieve. The Tumut community has raised funds. I am aware of ongoing issues in relation to the provision of equipment and the disposables that are needed for a patient to be dialysed. With Government support, with the support of the community, and with the goodwill of all we can make positive progress—and I want negotiations to be finalised before 30 June 2008. 8 May 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7265

Ms NOREEN HAY (Wollongong—Parliamentary Secretary) [12.46 p.m.]: The Government is committed to the provision of renal services in rural and regional New South Wales. Demand for dialysis services is a significant issue for rural areas, where the proportion of older residents is increasing at a faster rate than elsewhere. In recognition of anticipated increasing demand for these services, NSW Health has been working collaboratively with specialists and area health services to plan and implement the expansion of renal dialysis services across the State. Released in 2007, the NSW Renal Dialysis Services Plan to 2011 is being used by area health services to inform local planning activities and investment in renal services.

In addition to local funds for services enhancement, funding specifically for renal dialysis services has been made available to area health services since 2002. Enhancement funding has increased from $2.5 million in 2002-03 statewide to current recurrent enhancements of $20 million. This funding has extensively supported both the establishment and expansion of dialysis services across the State. It may help the member for Murray-Darling because I agree with the member for Wagga Wagga who said there has been outstanding progress from the commitment of all stakeholders involved, which includes NSW Health. He spoke about the proposed pilot program for Tumut. This information is very important for people who need dialysis services. In addition, community and outreach services have been strengthened to support patients dialysing in their own homes. In all, funding for an additional 94 dialysis chairs has been made available statewide, meaning we can now provide dialysis for 1,880 people.

The NSW Renal Dialysis Services Plan to 2011 identifies areas for further work on prevention of renal disease, and improved training and support of people on home-based dialysis. Expert groups are working to develop effective strategies to address those issues. The New South Wales Government recognises the significant burden that haemodialysis treatment imposes on patients who have to travel to and from hospital facilities three times a week. The Government's long-term vision includes the prevention of end-stage kidney failure and, for those who need dialysis, a better quality of life through better-supported home-based services. The Isolated Patients Travel and Accommodation Assistance Scheme assists in meeting the costs of people who need to travel to access health services, including renal dialysis.

The Iemma Government's 2007-08 budget allocated $16.4 million to the New South Wales Transport for Health Program. Through reforms driven by the Iemma Government it is expected that an extra 11,500 patients and their carers will benefit every year. I was impressed that earlier a member mentioned that the number of available chairs had doubled in the Wagga Wagga area. I do not doubt the commitment of people involved in campaigning, and I do not doubt that that comes about from the preparedness of the New South Wales Government to heed those campaigns, and to work with NSW Health to improve facilities across the State wherever feasible.

A number of areas have received enhancement funding to open new units under the Greater Southern Area Health Service, including Goulburn, Moruya and a number of others. Several units have been expanded, including Wagga Wagga, Armidale, Coffs Harbour, Kempsey, Ballina, Dubbo, Broken Hill, Orange, Gosford, Campbelltown, Bankstown and Nepean. Those services have received funding to support physical expansion as well as additional staffing to increase capacity. As was mentioned earlier, community and outreach services have been boosted in the North Coast Area Health Service and the Hunter New England Area Health Service. Services that have received enhancement have used funds to either add physical capacity—that is, chairs—to individual units and/or recruit additional staff to enable them to operate more days per week and more shifts per day, thus increasing patient capacity per chair. The New South Wales Government and NSW Health are taking these issues very seriously and are working cooperatively with stakeholders to resolve outstanding issues.

Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON (Burrinjuck) [12.52 p.m.]: I acknowledge the motion moved by the member for Wagga Wagga, and add that people from our part of the world, including Tumut, Adalong, Batlow, Tumbarumba, Gundagai and surrounding towns and villages are suffering from renal failure. In some cases they are required to travel up to thousands of kilometres every month to access renal dialysis. I call on the New South Wales Health Department to establish a renal dialysis service in Tumut. I am glad that the member for Wagga Wagga raised this very important matter. The issue straddles both our electorates: Wagga Base Hospital provides renal dialysis services for residents of both the Wagga Wagga electorate and the Burrinjuck electorate.

This issue been ongoing since I was elected into this place in 1999, and I have raised it on several occasions. So many people are forced to travel huge distances. Tumut, Adalong and Batlow were in the Burrinjuck electorate until the redistribution last year, and now the member for Wagga Wagga represents those 7266 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 May 2008

towns very capably. It is fantastic that he raised this issue so early in this parliamentary term. I have received a letter in relation to this matter from John and Lorraine Robertson, who live at Maranoa, Tumbarumba Road, Gundagai. They wrote:

Dear Katrina,

I am writing to ask if you could put some input into a big problem.

My husband, John, has been fighting kidney disease for years and now has to go on dialysis three days a week.

The problem is transport to and from Wagga. John is 77 and I'm 78. I have had a mild stroke and feel all that driving is beyond me. Tumut has been trying to get a machine and Gundagai hasn't one or anyone trained to work it … Thank you.

I hope you do well in the election …

Thank you,

John and Lorraine Robertson.

That letter is an indication of those who really need renal dialysis services, who typically are of more senior years and are not confident about their ability to drive long distances to attend those services. No public transportation is available to them, yet they are expected to access renal dialysis three times a week. It is not a big ask to request that an appropriate service—a proper service, not a self-administered service—be set up in Tumut. Earlier the Parliamentary Secretary, the member for Wollongong, mentioned the Greater Southern Area Health Service renal plan to establish sufficient satellite centres so that patients can access a treatment centre within a reasonable travelling time of their home town.

That is not happening. There is no way that an area health service the size of greater Germany can do that. It was set up by a former Minister for Health, the current Premier, who has no idea about geography. He is highly geographically challenged, as are many Ministers of this Government, because they live in cities and their hospitals and health centres are nearby. They can access medical centres 24 hours a day, if they need to. They know they can walk in there, probably be bulk-billed and probably see someone within five minutes. That is not the way it works in the country. By the time one drives to the health facility a couple of hours have passed, provided that one is confident enough to do that driving. Then one has to wait for renal dialysis to be carried out, and then wait around for a while, and then try to get home again—and that is done three times a week.

Locating a service in Tumut is extremely sensible. Tumut, a large centre located in the middle of a substantial mountain range, is surrounded by forestry, pine plantations and timber mills, and is a centre for local villages and towns. It makes a lot of sense to have a renal dialysis service at Tumut. The member for Wagga Wagga and I will continue our campaign until a decent renal dialysis facility is located in that part of the Riverina. It is extremely important that people in that area have access to facilities that are not too far away. I could speak about many other issues in relation to renal dialysis; I have touched on only one part of what I wished to say today. However, I impress upon the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister for Health the vital importance of renal dialysis for citizens in my local area. [Time expired.]

Mr BARRY COLLIER (Miranda—Parliamentary Secretary) [12.57 p.m.]: I wish to add a few comments to the contribution of the member for Wollongong, the Parliamentary Secretary for Health. The Iemma Government's long-term vision includes the prevention of end-stage kidney failure and, for those who need dialysis, a better quality of life through better supported home-based services. The Isolated Patients Travel and Accommodation Assistance Scheme assists in meeting the costs of people who need to travel to access health services through renal dialysis. The Iemma Government's 2007-08 budget allocated $16.4 million to the New South Wales Transport for Health program. Through reforms driven by the Iemma Government it is expected that an extra 11,500 patients and their carers will benefit every year. In response to the member for Burrinjuck, I get a bit tired of members from The Nationals saying that we are all geographically challenged, that we know nothing about the country.

Ms Katrina Hodgkinson: Just the Ministers, not you. Are you a Minister?

Mr BARRY COLLIER: It is a common statement made by members of The Nationals. They should understand that many Ministers and backbenchers grew up in the country or spent time in the country. Many of us completed the Higher School Certificate and went to university, and some of us even studied geography. The constant comment that we do not know anything about the country does get a bit tiresome. Often people from the country think that city people do not get up at 5 o'clock or 6 o'clock in the mornings, that we all stay in bed until 8 o'clock and then catch a train. 8 May 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7267

Mr Paul McLeay: Not where I come from.

Mr BARRY COLLIER: It gets a bit tiresome, as the member for Heathcote will surely agree.

Mr John Williams: Point of order: My point of order is relevance. While the member for Miranda is suggesting that we have some biased view over the distance—

Ms Noreen Hay: There is no point of order.

Mr John Williams: It is a point of order on relevance. What are we debating?

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! The member for Murray-Darling will direct his comments through the Chair.

Mr John Williams: I remind the member for Wollongong that we are actually debating renal dialysis services for people in the country.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to direct his remarks to the leave of the motion.

Mr BARRY COLLIER: I was responding to comments from the member for Burrinjuck. Maybe her remarks were irrelevant to begin with. On that point I conclude my speech.

Mrs JUDY HOPWOOD (Hornsby) [1.02 p.m.]: It gives me great pleasure to support the member for Wagga Wagga in his attempt to value add and capacity build in relation to the access of his constituents and the constituents of surrounding electorates—including the electorate of Burrinjuck—to haemodialysis, or renal dialysis, as it is commonly known. In my electorate I have been working tirelessly, as have many members of the community, to have the Government see fit to allocate funding to establish a renal dialysis unit in the Hornsby electorate, if not in Hornsby hospital, so that residents of the electorate who require renal dialysis may travel a shorter distance to access the type of care they need. Hornsby is not a country electorate and there are not thousands of kilometres involved, but there are significant difficulties and impositions that affect the lives of residents of Hornsby. At the moment they access renal dialysis treatment at Concord. From 1 June 2008 they will be required to go to Royal Prince Alfred Hospital.

Today in the Hornsby Advocate there is an article written by Danielle Long titled "Dialysis call continues", indicating that this is a flashpoint issue in the Hornsby electorate for reasons similar to those highlighted by the member for Wagga Wagga and the member for Burrinjuck. The article deals with a Westleigh kidney transplant recipient, Sue Zvirblis, who has joined the campaign to have a dialysis centre established at Hornsby hospital. She was on dialysis for 10 months before receiving a lifesaving transplant, which some do not receive in time, dying as a result of their illness. The campaign has been driven by people in the community such as Mr and Mrs Smart. Mrs Joan Smart has been forced to travel for 90 minutes from her home to Concord hospital to undergo five hours of dialysis then wait for an available ambulance and travel for another 90 minutes to her home. She does this three days per week because there is no public renal dialysis service at Hornsby. Her husband, who is confined to a wheelchair, said that because of the separation from his wife of 55 years he has no life at all.

It is not unreasonable to expect that a hospital of the size and capacity of Hornsby hospital should have the ability to provide a renal dialysis service, particularly when the Concord hospital dialysis service is going to close and services for the patients from my area will resume at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital. Mrs Smart will then have to travel for up to four hours a day, three days a week. As the Government has stated on many occasions, its aim is to give a better quality of life to people needing haemodialysis and better access to treatment.

I call on the Government to give serious consideration to providing funding for Hornsby hospital on behalf of the many people requiring treatment who will have to go outside the Hornsby electorate to Royal Prince Alfred Hospital because Royal North Shore Hospital is continually full. It is a myth that everyone living on the North Shore can afford private health insurance and thus go to such places as the Sydney Adventist Hospital to access haemodialysis. Many people are required to access the public hospital system for services they greatly need. I have been collecting signatures from hundreds of people on petitions relating to this 7268 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 May 2008

problem. I will continue the fight, the community will continue the fight, and I know the local media will continue the fight to have an urgently needed haemodialysis unit at Hornsby hospital. It should already be established there: it is a perfect venue for such a facility.

Mr JOHN WILLIAMS (Murray-Darling) [1.07 p.m.]: I thank the member for Wagga Wagga for raising the issue of renal dialysis. As a Government study clearly outlined, there will be a massive explosion in demand for renal dialysis services. The growth of the Aboriginal community particularly in some areas, with a high rate of kidney failure and a requirement for renal dialysis, is going to be a major driver. Ageing of the population will be another. This Government submits a lot of plans so we look forward to seeing how it is going to address this demand in the future.

The community of Deniliquin is one that feels it is very disadvantaged in relation to renal dialysis services. In the Deniliquin area five people have to travel to Shepparton for dialysis treatment. The Echuca hospital cannot accommodate their needs. The round trip to Shepparton that these very sick people need to take is about 500 kilometres. The Rotary club of Deniliquin campaigned to raise funds to purchase a renal dialysis chair for the local hospital but the plan was refused by Greater Southern Area Health Service because it would not provide the supporting nursing staff. It was first claimed that nursing staff would not be interested in being trained but the nursing staff said that they were prepared to be trained in renal dialysis. So we are seeing a cover-up.

I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to come to Deniliquin and meet Linda Rumble. Linda Rumble is a battler, a hardworking woman who has renal failure requiring dialysis. She is a worker: she goes to work every day, she works hard, and she does not want to lose her job. She wants to keep her income; she does not want to receive a disability pension or spend her time driving from Deniliquin to Shepparton to get the treatment that she requires. The community has identified a demand, it fits the parameters to provide a renal dialysis chair, and the community is asking why that cannot happen. The Minister for Health has refused to negotiate or commit to a renal dialysis chair in Deniliquin. With the growth in demand for renal dialysis the need for the chair will only increase. If the Government does not expand renal dialysis services across all communities there will be a health crisis.

It is too much to expect Victoria and the other States to bear the cost of citizens from New South Wales travelling across the border to obtain services that are taken for granted in most capital cities and regional centres such as Wagga Wagga. The number of renal dialysis chairs has been expanded to meet demand. Demand for renal dialysis is so great in Broken Hill that a 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week service is provided, which enables people to come in overnight for treatment. People in Deniliquin are demanding similar services. I will continue to fight for the people of Deniliquin to ensure that they are provided with renal dialysis services so that Linda Rumble can get her treatment overnight, continue working and avoid having to claim a disability pension.

Mr DARYL MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [1.10 p.m.], in reply: I thank the member for Wollongong, the member for Burrinjuck, the member for Hornsby, the member for Murray-Darling and the member for Miranda for their contributions to debate on this motion. The member for Barwon wanted to speak in this debate but was unable to do so as it is time-limited. He wanted to raise the important issue of renal dialysis in Gilgandra. I understand that he will campaign very hard with the local community to secure those services. I wish to refer to a couple of points that were raised in debate. The member for Wollongong referred to comments that I made about the outstanding progress that had been achieved by my community because of the tireless campaigning of Roger Southwood and the Tumut Dialysis Committee.

On a wider scale, campaigns such as this are occurring across the State. However, some communities might not have achieved the success that we have achieved. Today we heard from other members who are experiencing difficulties and who have received knock-backs. That is what occurred in Wagga Wagga and Tumut. We put forward proposals that were knocked back. This campaign has been raging for a number of years in Tumut and in Wagga Wagga. I acknowledge the progress that has been made but more must be done. The Parliamentary Secretary and member for Wollongong also mentioned the New South Wales Renal Dialysis Service Plan for 2011, which was designed to enable people to dialyse at home rather than travel to major centres for treatment. Some people are unable to do that. As I said earlier, the number of patients that will need dialysis will increase.

Mr Bob Doon of Tumut is one of the people who was not able to dialyse at home. Sadly, Bob recently passed away at the age of some 80 years. One of the people receiving dialysis is still travelling to Wagga Wagga 8 May 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7269

and others have been lucky enough to have transplants. I have been advised that they are doing well. That is another important issue about which I hope to speak at another time. Earlier the member for Miranda referred to the Isolated Patients Travel and Accommodation Assistance Scheme [IPTAAS] and suggested that it was available to assist these people. However, people are still experiencing difficulties with IPTAAS, and the skyrocketing price of fuel is impacting heavily on those who have to travel. Importantly, there is a problem with the IPTAAS forms. Recently I asked the Minister question No. 228 without notice, which reads:

1. What steps have been taken to alter the wording on the Isolated Patients Travel and Accommodation Assistance Scheme so that it does not conflict with the wording in NSW Health Administration Manual?

2. How many patients in Greater Southern Area Health Service claiming IPTAAS have been affected due to the conflict in wording?

The answer I received was as follows:

I am advised:

(1) and (2) The Member's question is ambiguous and any interpretation of the question would be subjective. I suggest the Member provide further clarification in response to this issue.

I did so. In question No. 281 I asked:

1. Did a letter dated 9 January 2008, signed by the Parliamentary Secretary for Health— who is now in the Chamber—

state "NSW Health acknowledges that the wording on the IPTAAS application form conflicts with the wording in the Administration Manual. NSW Health is taking steps to rectify this matter?

2. What steps has NSW Health taken to alter the wording that is causing confusion and needless administrative red tape for claimants?

3. How many patients in Greater Southern Area Health Service have had their claims and queries refused or required to be re-submitted due to the acknowledged conflict in wording?

I expect an answer to that question, which was generated as a result of statements made by the Parliamentary Secretary and, ultimately, a letter from the Minister. We must develop this plan and ensure that communities such as Deniliquin, Gilgandra, Tumut and others have access to renal dialysis services that are staffed and that are able to expand to six chairs, so that as the need arises people suffering renal failure will be accommodated in their home towns rather than travelling thousands of kilometres, with the resulting effect on their fragile health. I ask all members to support this important motion, which I commend to the House.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 35

Mr Aplin Ms Hodgkinson Mr Richardson Mr Baird Mrs Hopwood Mr Roberts Mr Baumann Mr Humphries Mr Smith Ms Berejiklian Mr Kerr Mr Souris Mr Cansdell Mr Merton Mr Stokes Mr Constance Mr Oakeshott Mr Stoner Mr Debnam Mr O'Dea Mr J. H. Turner Mr Fraser Mr O'Farrell Mr J. D. Williams Ms Goward Mr Page Mr R. C. Williams Mrs Hancock Mr Piccoli Tellers, Mr Hartcher Mr Piper Mr Maguire Mr Hazzard Mr Provest Mr R. W. Turner 7270 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 May 2008

Noes, 49

Mr Amery Mr Harris Mrs Paluzzano Ms Andrews Ms Hay Mr Pearce Mr Aquilina Mr Hickey Mrs Perry Ms Beamer Ms Hornery Mr Rees Mr Borger Ms Judge Mr Sartor Mr Brown Ms Keneally Mr Shearan Ms Burney Mr Khoshaba Mr Stewart Mr Campbell Mr Koperberg Ms Tebbutt Mr Collier Mr Lynch Mr Terenzini Mr Coombs Mr McBride Mr Tripodi Mr Corrigan Dr McDonald Mr Watkins Mr Costa Ms McKay Mr West Mr Daley Mr McLeay Mr Whan Ms D'Amore Ms McMahon Ms Firth Ms Meagher Tellers, Ms Gadiel Ms Megarrity Mr Ashton Mr Greene Mr Morris Mr Martin

Pair

Mrs Skinner Mr Gibson

Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): I welcome to the gallery the former member for Lachlan, the Hon. Ian Armstrong.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Postponement of Business

General Business Notice of Motion (General Notice) No. 5 postponed by Mr Daryl Maguire on behalf of Mrs Jillian Skinner.

General Business Notice of Motion (General Notice) No. 6 postponed by Ms Katrina Hodgkinson.

RURAL RATE INCOME

Mr KEVIN HUMPHRIES (Barwon) [1.26 p.m.]: I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that the Government has failed to properly legislate to allow 44 local councils to fairly, legally and simply rate rural entities following the recognised separation of water from land for rating purposes in 2004;

(2) notes that the 2005 Department of Local Government Rating Option (No. 5) supporting sub categorisation of individual farmland property according to intensity of land use, was not enacted despite unanimous support; and

(3) Calls on the Government to:

(a) as a matter of urgency, amend the Local Government Act to expedite local government ability to underwrite their rate income;

(b) ensure all councils affected are supported by a full general valuation;

(d) fully compensate local government affected by loss of income as a result of any adjustment. 8 May 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7271

I gave notice of this motion 12 months ago when I first became a member of this House. It resulted from discussions amongst 44 local councils regarding the ongoing issue of their ability to rate, particularly in rural areas. The electorates affected certainly included my own, Barwon being number one, Murray-Darling, Dubbo, Tamworth, and Murrumbidgee to an extent. Of approximately 170 existing councils, 44 represents a significant number. The discussions followed the agreement between the States and the Federal Government in 2004 to recognise water as a property right, and the benefits of being unable to separate water from land, with the ultimate aim of being able to transfer water to the highest value end user. In some of our valleys water equals growth, which equals productivity. The idea was that the water should go to the highest end user within reason. That does not enter the debate about allocation of water in the valleys or the present situation in which we are trying to deal with the issue at both the State and Federal levels.

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

[Acting-Speaker (Mr Thomas George) left the chair at 1.30 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]

QUESTION TIME ______

CLINICAL SERVICES PLAN

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: My question is to the Minister for Health. Why is there still no North Sydney Central Coast area clinical services plan despite her firm promise that one would be in place by 30 April? Is this, like the fact that the area's finances are $50 million over budget, further evidence of her incompetence? When can she be trusted to deliver improvements on health?

Ms REBA MEAGHER: I am glad the Leader of the Opposition has asked me this question because it gives me an opportunity to update the House on the fine work that is occurring at Royal North Shore Hospital and in the North Sydney Central Coast Area Health Service. I was at Royal North Shore Hospital today meeting with our doctors, nurses and paramedics who responded to the boating tragedy last week, thanking them on behalf of the New South Wales Parliament and the people of New South Wales for the fine work they are undertaking. Everybody in this place would acknowledge that it is well-deserved recognition for hardworking staff who have been quite unfairly maligned by those opposite throughout last year—those opposite who would put politics before public policy.

Time after time members opposite are scaremongering about the budget of the health system in New South Wales but when they had the opportunity to raise their concerns about the contribution of the Commonwealth Government to public health, not only in New South Wales but around the country, did they take that opportunity? A complete and utter stony silence. Those opposite stand condemned. When they had the opportunity to influence policy, they missed it—they ignored it. They had the opportunity to advance ideas about the reform of the New South Wales health system. Did they advance any ideas? No.

Mr Barry O'Farrell: Point of order: My point of order is Standing Order 129, relevance. The Minister promised a clinical services plan by the end of April. Where is it?

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

Ms REBA MEAGHER: That reminds me of the point I was making: that the New South Wales Coalition has had plenty of opportunity to advance ideas about reform of the New South Wales health system. What has it done? "Barry O'Farrell: Third World standards for health care." That is the sort of undermining of public health staff that has come from the Leader of the Opposition. It is a complete and utter disgrace. Instead of backing our workforce in the challenges it faces, he is undermining them.

The SPEAKER: Order! Members will cease interjecting.

Mr Barry O'Farrell: Point of order: My point of order is Standing Order 130, debating the answer. The question was clearly about a clinical services plan and a budget that was $50 million over budget. Can we have some answers?

The SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Minister to direct her remarks to the leave of the question. 7272 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 May 2008

Ms REBA MEAGHER: Indeed, I will. Before I come to my final point I will table the press release under the heading, "Barry O'Farrell: Third World Standards at Royal North Shore Hospital" so it forms part of the record of the House. We put in place new management of the Northern Sydney Central Coast Area Health Service and did so because we acknowledged—

Mr Chris Hartcher: What a disaster when women have babies in toilets. You are doing a good job, aren't you?

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Terrigal to order.

Ms REBA MEAGHER: We now see an example of the fine contribution the Coalition is capable of. I encourage the Opposition to keep making such statements.

Mr Andrew Fraser: Point of order: The rules of this House state that if a document is to be tabled leave should be sought.

The SPEAKER: Order! The document was laid upon the table, which is within the standing orders. The Minister will continue.

Ms REBA MEAGHER: The management of the Northern Sydney Central Coast Area Health Service was changed because of the need to introduce a clinical services plan and the fact that the previous management had failed to deliver on that plan.

Mrs Jillian Skinner: Point of order: I seek leave to table the Minister's reply to the parliamentary committee where she promised the plan by 30 April 2008.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows that she is not entitled to table the document. Members will not take points of order with no substance merely to disrupt the flow of the Minister's answer. The Minister has the call.

Ms REBA MEAGHER: The new management of the Northern Sydney Central Coast Area Health Service is required to produce a clinical services plan with the involvement of clinicians. In fact, I will be meeting with those doctors tonight. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition does not listen. I will provide another example where that has occurred. Yesterday I introduced into the House a bill that changes the Medical Practice Act. Those changes will require mandatory reporting of doctors against colleagues they believe to be grossly departing from acceptable standards—a direct response to the case of Dr Graham Reeves.

Mrs Jillian Skinner: Point of order: My point of order relates to Standing Order 129, relevance. The question was about the clinical services plan and the budget for Royal North Shore Hospital. The Minister is anticipating debate about legislation she has introduced.

The SPEAKER: Order! I have listened carefully to the Minister and I will listen further.

Ms REBA MEAGHER: In response to the introduction of this legislation, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition raced out and issued a press release yesterday afternoon. She said:

While the legislation strengthened the role of the Medical Board and the Health Care Complaints Commission in determining that doctors that are flawed should be deregistered, there is no obligation on the part of employers to check their background.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has demonstrated that she does not listen in this House; she just chases cheap headlines. On more than two occasions I have told this House and I have been quoted at press conferences as saying that as a direct result of Camden and Campbelltown hospitals in 2004-05 changes were made to NSW Health that would mandate employers checking the background of their employees.

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to order.

Ms REBA MEAGHER: She knows that, but she does not listen. She is silly and lazy.

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

Ms REBA MEAGHER: We had another example of that yesterday afternoon. In conclusion, the new management of the Northern Sydney Central Coast Area Health Service is working with our clinicians to 8 May 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7273

develop a clinical services plan for the area. I acknowledge this is a priority and I am requiring that of my chief executive. I also make the point that we are working closely with our doctors and nurses to ensure that we are putting Royal North Shore Hospital back on the front foot. It is about time Opposition members acknowledged the performance of that hospital. Despite what it went through last year, it is now one of the best performing teaching hospitals in this State. We saw an example of that only last week. We should all be proud of the performance of the staff at that hospital.

CLIMATE CHANGE

Mr PAUL McLEAY: My question is directed to the Premier. Will the Premier inform the House of the Government's latest efforts to tackle climate change?

Ms Gladys Berejiklian: Sell the power!

The SPEAKER: Order! Members will cease interjecting, including the member for Willoughby.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: One hundred per cent powered by green energy—stay tuned!

Mr Mike Baird: Name them!

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I will return on another day and name the successful tenderer for the energy contract—100 per cent green power. In that spirit, I inform the House of another step the Government is taking for a cleaner, greener and more sustainable New South Wales as we move towards a lower emissions future.

Mr Andrew Fraser: What about the future of the North Coast?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I point out, for the benefit of the member for Coffs Harbour, that it is also in the State's economic interest to improve our sustainability and energy efficiency. The Government and its agencies currently consume approximately 4.4 per cent of all electricity used in the State. Today I announce that the New South Wales Government has set a goal to become entirely carbon neutral by 2020.

Mr Andrew Stoner: How does that go with the new baseload generator?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: It will be about six years later, Prince Myshkin. This is an important and ambitious initiative, and it will take some hard work to achieve.

The SPEAKER: Order! Members will listen to the Premier in silence.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: It will take a lot of hard work to develop this policy. As an early sign of our commitment to carbon neutrality, the operations approved by the New South Wales Cabinet will become carbon neutral from mid-2009. We will introduce a program to reduce the Government's carbon footprint to a position of zero net carbon dioxide emissions. As a first step towards its ambitious goal, the Government will immediately implement a sustainability policy that will drive down the greenhouse gas emissions of government agencies by 300,000 tonnes per annum by 2020. The Minister for Climate Change and the Environment will prepare a detailed audit of the Government's greenhouse gas emissions before undertaking an assessment of the best way to reduce or offset them. That represents the Government's policy on climate change—in contrast to that of the Opposition.

Mr Alan Ashton: Which is a policy-free zone.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The member for East Hills is quite correct. Greenhouse gas emissions from government buildings will be cut at least to 2000 levels by 2020 and tougher building energy and water efficiency standards will apply. Under the sustainability policy, budget-dependent agencies will audit their greenhouse gas emissions and adopt strategies to reduce them. These changes will apply to government properties, including schools, police stations, covered offices and Roads and Traffic Authority depots.

[Interruption]

The member for Murray-Darling might like to craft a policy, thereby helping everybody. Under our sustainability policy, government office premises of 1,000 square metres or more will be required to implement 7274 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 May 2008

an environmental performance rating of 4.5 stars or more for energy and water by 2011. We will also require a 15 per cent reduction in water consumption across government agencies. This represents sensible and practical action that is being taken under the sustainability policy, and it will deliver real gains to the environment while lowering greenhouse gas emissions.

ELECTRICITY INDUSTRY PRIVATISATION

Mr ANDREW STONER: My question is directed to the Premier. Given his statement yesterday that "the Opposition does not need details of the Government's position", when will he come clean with the specifics of his privatisation proposal so that the public can make up its mind, or does he still not know what his own proposal is?

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Bathurst to order. Members will remain silent, including the member for Monaro.

Mr George Souris: You're the Government!

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: That is very observant of the member for Upper Hunter. We are the Government, yes—well done, George!

The SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: There must have been a note attached to that $300 cheque that he signed for himself stating, "We are the Government."

Mr George Souris: I have been dining out on that story.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: It looks as though his campaign funds have been exhausted. Yesterday I informed the House that the Opposition has taken the position of not having a position. The Opposition has been saying it awaits the Government's details before it adopts a position. As the alternative government, the Opposition does not require details of the Government's position to come up with a policy—not at all. That is the point I made to the Opposition yesterday. When I responded to the question asked by the Leader of the Nationals about rural and regional employment impacts of our policy, I provided a long list of details on investments, infrastructure, jobs, job protection, pricing regulation and environmental benefits in relation to the Government's plan. If he wishes to obtain further details, I direct him to the Government's response to the Owen inquiry that was released in December, the Government's response to the Unsworth inquiry and all of the public statements the Government has made outlining the details of its proposals.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Nationals will cease interjecting.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: There are two challenges facing the Opposition: the first is to develop a policy and the second is to inform the House whether the Leader of The Nationals is walking away from his statement 12 months ago that it would privatise retail electricity in New South Wales.

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the Leader of The Nationals to order.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Does he adhere to that? If so, he should provide details of his alternative policy, if that is what it is, to show what he meant by, "We will have to consider consumer issues" and, "Hmph, we will have to take employees' conditions into account." Oh, really? That is all, and he has not uttered a word since. I note that he dishonestly sent his backbenchers out yesterday to say that he opposes the Government's policy. A week ago he said, "We will consider opposing it", which caused the Leader of the Opposition to jump in and say, "Oh no, The Nationals are rethinking their position", yet 12 months ago the Leader of The Nationals followed his Opposition leader and said, "There's the Queensland model. We will get out of retail electricity." He added that that was not an easy decision, but one that was in the best interests of the State. Ever since he has run around pretending he never said that. He has never referred to the Leader of the Opposition's reply to the budget or to the statements he has made in this Chamber that followed the line taken by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Andrew Stoner: Point of order: Standing Order 130 prevents members from debating matters during question time. The Premier is ignoring the question, which asked him when he would advise the House— 8 May 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7275

The SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The Premier's answer is relevant to the question.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Since then, the Leader of the Nationals has not once told anybody what he meant by, "Hmph, when we do it, we will have to consider consumers and take into account the conditions of employees." I would bet the Opposition worked throughout the night to develop that statement—"Hmph … taking into account the interests of consumers and workers"—while we wait, one year later, to find out exactly what its position is. The Opposition does not require any further details. All that is necessary is for the Opposition to state its position. The Opposition should simply take a stand in principle. It should simply announce an in-principle decision without following all the details in the Government's plan. All the Opposition has to do is state what it will do to secure New South Wales's energy in future, and what it will do to secure the future electricity capacity of the State.

Does the Opposition believe that 2014 is a key date? Does the Opposition believe that the next baseload generator should be funded from public funds? If not, would the Opposition borrow more funds? If not, would the Opposition raise taxes? If not, will the Opposition ditch Budget Paper No. 4 and go through the list of projects to tell us which hospitals, schools, roads and water infrastructure projects it will suspend or abandon to pay for its policy? If not, will the Opposition undertake a joint venture with the private sector? If not, will it be a public-private partnership? Would the Opposition have the private sector providing 100 per cent of the investment? The questions I have stated represent questions that the Opposition can answer and positions that the Opposition can take without any reference to the Government. The Opposition can tell the people of New South Wales what it will do. The fact that the Opposition has not done so reveals that not only is the Opposition useless and hopeless, but it simply does not have the courage or the intellect to come up with a policy.

CANCER RISK FACTORS

Mr DAVID HARRIS: My question is addressed to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Health (Cancer). Will she update the House on the latest information about cancer risk factors?

Ms VERITY FIRTH: Recently there has been a great deal of publicity about the social impact of alcohol on our community, particularly about the effects of binge drinking. What many of us may not realise is that alcohol consumption also dramatically increases the risk of cancer. I repeat: not only binge drinking but any consumption of alcohol increases the risk of developing cancer, especially cancers of the bowel, breast, liver, stomach and throat.

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Murray-Darling to order.

Ms VERITY FIRTH: Today the Cancer Institute released a report to advise the public about the latest international research into alcohol and cancer, and the results are startling. Unfortunately, they are startling even for moderate drinkers, as many of us are. With alcohol intake averaging just two drinks a day, the risk of cancer of the mouth is increased by a staggering 75 per cent.

The SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber. Members and Hansard are having trouble hearing the Minister.

Ms VERITY FIRTH: The risk of breast cancer, which is the most common cancer among women in New South Wales, is up to 22 per cent higher in women who have just two standard drinks a day compared with non-drinkers. The risk of breast cancer increases by least a further 10 per cent for each additional drink per day. Overall, 12 per cent of breast cancers in New South Wales can be directly attributed to excessive alcohol consumption. High alcohol intake by men is also not good, with a 64 per cent increased risk of bowel cancer. Risk of bowel cancer was increased at alcohol consumption of only two drinks per week. In fact, the World Health Organisation now classifies alcohol as a group 1 carcinogen, which is the highest classification available and is the same classification that is given to tobacco and smoking.

Roughly three-quarters of New South Wales adults drink alcohol. Most of us know that excessive alcohol consumption is not good for us, but what is worrying is that awareness of the link between alcohol and cancer is low. A recent Cancer Institute survey found that only 41 per cent of respondents were aware that alcohol was linked to cancer and 26 per cent of people were unsure if there was a link. Of more concern was that one-third of respondents actively rejected the possibility that drinking too much could be a risk factor for cancer. The report released today is about educating people so that they can make choices about their own health. 7276 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 May 2008

The report and advice released by the Cancer Institute today are about helping people to make informed choices about their health. The Iemma Government's comprehensive cancer prevention strategy combines both education and legislative action to protect the community. We have well-established laws covering the sale of alcohol, and last year we doubled the penalties around under-age drinking and secondary supply offences. We also have a comprehensive school education program, with peer-led lessons for all high school students and a new teaching resource for primary schools, announced by the Minister for Education and Training last week, to ensure that our young people grow up knowing the dangers that alcohol can bring so that they, too, can make informed decisions.

This is mirrored by our world-leading anti-smoking strategy—a combination of proactive, innovative legislation with a $12 million a year public education campaign. Ultimately, we know that we cannot legislate the behaviour of everyone in the community—nor would we want to—but we can ensure that people's choices are informed by the best possible research. We have made great strides in treating cancer in New South Wales. The chances of beating cancer in New South Wales are better than ever before, with 63 per cent of patients now being cured, which is up from less than 50 per cent in 1980. That puts our survival rates among the best in the world; it is equal with the United States of America and Sweden; it is above Victoria, above the Australian average and well above the chances of surviving cancer in the United Kingdom. While treatment is good, we know that by avoiding known risk factors such as tobacco and alcohol, about 35 per cent of cancers can be prevented. The Government will continue to work to ensure that members of our community have the information they need to make the best possible choices about their health.

ELECTRICITY INDUSTRY PRIVATISATION

Mr MIKE BAIRD: My question is directed to the Premier. With the cost of underwriting $10 billion in current market conditions being an estimated $400 million more than at the same time last year—which is enough to build two new hospitals or to provide a new hall for every school in the State—how can the Premier guarantee that privatising the State's electricity assets at this time would give New South Wales taxpayers the best value for those assets?

[Interruption]

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The member for Bathurst raises a valid point: What was the basis of the statements made by the Leader of The Nationals and the Leader of the Opposition 12 months ago when they said, "We are privatising retail—$4 billion into an infrastructure fund"? What was the valuation at that time? What work did the Opposition undertake? Who did the Opposition engage to provide that advice?

Mr Greg Smith: Point of order: My point of order relates to Standing Order 129. The Minister is not responding to the question; he is running a cross-examination, and he is not doing it very well. I do not think he would have made a quid as a lawyer. That is why he came here as a hack.

The SPEAKER: I thank the member for Epping for his rebuttal.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Did the Leader of the Opposition pluck the figure of $4 billion out of the air? Did he just take the Queensland Government decision, the Peter Beattie decision, and the realisation of $4 billion and simply transfer that to the New South Wales environment? Did he simply assume that if Beattie got $4 billion New South Wales would get $4 billion? Was that the case? What was it? We have not heard anything from him since then. But we have the member for Manly saying that these assets present a once and only opportunity.

The Star City negotiations were a similar transaction in the sense that they were open, commercial, public negotiations with public implications. The day after the Star City negotiations were announced the market value of the company went up more than $400 million. The member for Manly said to the effect, "Mmm, yes, an idea worth exploring". His leader said, "I am not exploring it. I'm doing it." That was 12 months ago. Since then he has done everything possible to avoid stating whether he has walked away from retail.

Mr Mike Baird: Point of order: My point of order relates to Standing Order 129. I asked a specific question. The cost of underwriting the assets is $400 million, which would provide a new hall for every school in the State—

The SPEAKER: Order! The Premier's answer is relevant to the question. 8 May 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7277

Mr Joseph Tripodi: It's not China, mate!

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the Minister for Small Business and Regulatory Reform to order. The Premier has the call. The member for Epping will cease interjecting.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Here are some figures to assist the member for Manly, as he wants some figures on value impact and potential diversion from hospitals, schools and roads. I will give one example. From 2002 to 2007 the market share of the three electricity retail companies grew by about $100,000; their private sector competitors grew by more than $3 million. The status quo option for retail electricity is somewhere between $2 billion and $3 billion to enable them to compete against 21 private sector companies.

Twelve months ago the Leader of the Opposition said that he would sell retail. So $2 billion to $3 billion must be pumped into the retailers competing in a national electricity market against at least 21 companies where they are losing market share. What is the best choice for New South Wales taxpayers? Is it $2 billion to $3 billion into the retailers that are losing value and customers—coincidentally, there is no guarantee about those jobs into the future—or $2 billion to $3 billion into the hospitals and schools that the member for Manly is talking about? That is why the Government made that decision. All we seek from the Opposition is its position.

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Hawkesbury to order.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The member for Manly is undermining the Leader of the Opposition because the member for Manly says it has merit and it is a once in a lifetime opportunity. Twelve months ago the Leader of the Opposition said he would do it; yet in every interview, every statement he has uttered since then he has tried to create the impression that he is not doing it. Yesterday his colleague, the Leader of The Nationals, had his backbenchers issue media releases all over rural New South Wales saying that they are not doing it. Have they walked away from the Leader of The Nationals? Was he lying last year in the Chamber? No, he was not. The Opposition has every intention of doing it but is just too gutless to state it at the moment. We know that the Opposition's agenda extends well beyond retail generation into distribution and transmission—it is just that the Leader of the Opposition will not say it.

Mr Andrew Fraser: Point of order: My point of order relates to Standing Order 130. The Premier is obviously debating this issue. Will you bring him back to answer the question that he has yet to provide New South Wales in regard to the privatisation of electricity?

The SPEAKER: Order! The Premier will confine his remarks to the leave of the question.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The Leader of the Opposition could have done some work a year ago and provided the rationale for the decision on budget in reply night. But it was not as a result of careful thinking or the development of a policy on their part; the Opposition was desperate for a headline the day after a budget that was well received and simply plucked the figure of $4 billion out of the air. They went through some newspaper clippings and saw that the Beattie Government got rid of retail two years ago and said, "Here's the grab for our budget in reply speech." The Opposition made no reference to what it would do to protect the conditions and jobs of workers, or what it would do until it was certain that competition would provide the benefits, that is, via extended regulation of prices, and they ran away from the policy.

The Leader of the Opposition tried to create an impression all over New South Wales that he never said that he would get out of retail electricity. At least the member for Manly has been honest to say that the idea is worth exploring, that it has merit and is a once in a lifetime opportunity. He has not yet gone that one step further. I suspect the member for Manly will take that one step further when he is certain he has the numbers over the Leader of the Opposition.

CHILD BODY PIERCING

Ms JODI McKAY: My question is addressed to the Minister for Community Services. What is the latest information on what the Iemma Government is doing to support parents to assist their children?

Mr KEVIN GREENE: The member for Newcastle shares the Government's determination to support parents, and its commitment to the greater protection and wellbeing of children in New South Wales. In late 2006, the Premier announced that he would introduce measures that back the authority of parents to say how, where and when their kids can get a piercing. The changes I am announcing will do just that. 7278 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 May 2008

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Terrigal to order for the second time.

Mr KEVIN GREENE: This Government is getting on with the job of delivering its undertakings to families in New South Wales. Body piercing appears to be on the increase in our community. Some would say it is just a harmless fashion statement, or a form of self-expression, but the reality is body piercing has the potential to be disfiguring, to leave permanent scarring, to become infected and cause serious health problems. Far be it for the Government of the day to dictate fashion, but as a father of six, and as a member of a community where parents are continually frustrated by their children falling victim to peer pressure, these new rules protect the rights of parents to have the final say on whether their kids get a piercing.

One of the most extreme forms of this practice is what I will refer to as intimate piercing. Apart from the clear health risks to those blood and nerve rich areas, I am appalled by the notion that a child is currently able to acquire one of those piercings with no questions asked. An intimate piercing requires people to expose themselves and to be handled. It would be clearly inappropriate for a child under 16 years of age to be treated in that fashion by an adult in any other circumstance, and by banning intimate piercings for children under 16, these new laws will make sure such behaviour is clearly and categorically deemed inappropriate in a piercing studio as well. Children under aged 16 will also require permission from a parent for other piercings.

Most parents already participate in this type of decision-making. Most kids are able and willing to talk to their parents, and most professional piercers are responsible for maintaining the required infection control standards and making sure their customers make informed decisions. But in this particular area our laws have not kept up with cultural changes in our community. The Government needs to make the rules clear to kids, parents and the body art industry. Parents are concerned about this issue. In an email a mother of four in northern New South Wales wrote:

Teens are prone to "spur of the moment" or "peer pressure" incentives to acquire such piercings that may have serious health consequences … [and these decisions] … are not maturely thought through …

Other parents have expressed their feeling of powerlessness to intervene, to guide and ultimately decide what is good for their children on such a serious matter as body piercing. These new laws give parents the backing of the law. Dr Caswell of the Cosmetic Physicians Society of Australasia described the concerns of most parents when she said:

The concern is that things are fashionable and immediate because most adolescents work on a day-to-day timetable … but they can deeply regret it later.

One fundamental way we can ensure the best possible services are delivered is for our laws to keep pace with the expectations of the community. For even the youngest members of this Chamber, I suspect that the possibility of having intimate piercing was not something they or their contemporaries ever really thought about, but it is 2008 and, for better or worse, this is an issue for kids today. Therefore, it is an issue for parents today. The Government has removed the uncertainty. Fines of up to $22,000 can be imposed on anyone who performs an intimate piercing on a child. A fine of up to $3,300 will be imposed for other piercings without parental consent. Imposing an age limit on an activity is never universally applauded. Some people will think these measures are too tough and others will think the Government has not gone far enough. This is a commonsense law that closes a legal loophole and puts the power back in the hands of parents.

ELECTRICITY INDUSTRY PRIVATISATION

Mr GEORGE SOURIS: My question is directed to the chairman of the Public Bodies Review Committee. As chairman of the Public Bodies Review Committee will he indicate whether he supports the Premier's plans to flog off the State's electricity assets? Yes or no.

Mr John Aquilina: Point of order: The member for Upper Hunter has been a member of the House for a very long time and knows that under the standing orders a question can only be directed to a chairman of a committee in relation to an inquiry currently being undertaken by that committee. I ask that you to rule the question out of order.

Mr Adrian Piccoli: To the point of order: The standing orders do not say that. They say that a chairman of a committee can be asked a question. I also refer you to two questions: one asked on 24 March 2005 and the other on 9 May 2006 to the chair of the road safety committee. The member for Riverstone was the Speaker and he allowed both questions. I can provide you with a copy of both questions. The Speaker allowed them both on that occasion, so the precedents are quite clear. I ask that the Chair of the Public Bodies Review Committee answer the question. 8 May 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7279

Mr George Souris: Further to the point of order: Standing Order 127 specifically states, not as the Leader of the House advised, that:

A Member, being the Chair of a committee, may be asked a question relating to the affairs of the committee.

Last time I looked, organisations such as Macquarie Generation were public bodies.

The SPEAKER: Order! I have listened to debate on the point of order and sought advice from the Clerk. Standing Order 127 states:

A Member, being the Chair of a committee, may be asked a question relating to the affairs of the committee.

As no such inquiry is before that committee, I rule the question out of order.

ROAD SAFETY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT

Ms TANYA GADIEL: My question is addressed to the Minister for Police. Will the Minister update the House on road safety and law enforcement measures?

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: I thank the member for Parramatta for her ongoing interest in policing and road safety matters. Road safety is a major priority for the Iemma Government. In 2007 New South Wales recorded its lowest road toll since World War II, but we can never be complacent. One of the most horrific parts of the job of our police and emergency services workers is turning up to accidents on our roads, especially heavy vehicle accidents. That is why I was appalled to note a motion given in the Legislative Council earlier today that was of great concern to me, and should be of great concern to all members. The motion asked the Legislative Council to note:

(1) (a) That the Hon. Duncan Gay is the National Party duty MLC for the Dubbo electorate.

(b) That between 2003 and 2007, companies owned by Dubbo businessman Roger Fletcher donated $30,400 to the National Party and National Party candidates for the seat of Dubbo.

Mr Chris Hartcher: Point of order: The question from the member for Parramatta was about road safety, not about the Hon. Duncan Gay, the Legislative Council or Dubbo. I draw attention to that and also that attacks on a member of Parliament must be made by substantive motion. Minister Campbell has gone well beyond the standing orders.

The SPEAKER: Order! I will listen further to the Minister's answer. Members will cease interjecting.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: As I said, I am quoting a motion, of which notice was given in the other place earlier today; I am not debating it in any way, shape or form. If the member for Terrigal cares to listen, he will hear a great deal more. The motion continued:

(c) That the Hon. Duncan Gay has used Question Time on two occasions to ask questions about matters relating to Mr Fletcher's business interests, including:

(i) on 10 November 2005 the Hon. Duncan Gay directed a question to the Minister for Primary Industries criticising a Government policy on Ovine Johne's Disease that was not supported by Mr Fletcher, and,

(ii) on 5 June 2007 the Hon. Duncan Gay directed a question to the Minister for Roads criticising RTA prosecutions of overloaded grain trucks. This included trucks owned by Mr Fletcher.

Mr Chris Hartcher: Point of order—

The SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Minister to resume his seat.

Mr Chris Hartcher: The Minister is outside the leave of the question. The question was about road safety—ask the member for Parramatta. That's about highway patrol and the police.

The SPEAKER: Order! I have sought advice from the Clerk. The Minister is reading directly from a notice of motion relevant to the question that was asked. I will listen carefully to the Minister's answer to ensure that the points raised in the notice of motion are relevant to the answer. The Minister cannot debate the matter. However, he can quote from a notice of motion before the other place that is relevant to the question asked. The Minister will stay within the leave of the question. I will allow him to quote from the notice of motion, but I will not allow him to debate the question. 7280 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 May 2008

Mr Andrew Fraser: Point of order: Mr Speaker—

The SPEAKER: Order! I have ruled on the point of order. Does the member for Coffs Harbour have a different point of order?

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: It is called desperation.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will resume his seat.

Mr Andrew Fraser: He is demonstrating, yet again. I draw attention to Standing Order 94, which states:

When a member rises on a point of order:

(1) The member who was speaking shall be seated.

The Minister blatantly ignored that standing order. If members on this side have to obey the rules of the House, so should the Minister.

The SPEAKER: Order! I uphold the point of order. I always ask the Minister or the member speaking to resume their seats when a point of order is taken.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: Desperation from the Opposition indeed. The motion of which notice was given in the other place this morning continued:

(d) That trucks owned by Fletcher International Exports Pty Ltd, a company owned by Mr Fletcher, were prosecuted by the RTA for 10 serious breaches of grain overloading, including one instance of a truck being 44 tonnes overweight— carrying 55% more than its legal payload.

(e) That the Hon. Duncan Gay misled Parliament on 6 May 2008 in stating he had never asked a question that related to trucking interests owned by Mr Fletcher, when in fact his question on 5 June 2007 referred to an issue directly involving trucks owned by Mr Fletcher.

Mr Malcolm Kerr: Point of order: What the Minister is now reading is no longer relevant to the question he was asked.

The SPEAKER: Order! I have consulted the Clerk. The Minister is reading directly from the notice of motion that relates to the question that was asked. It is relevant. I will listen carefully to the Minister.

Mr Malcolm Kerr: Further to the point of order: Mr Speaker—

The SPEAKER: Order! I have ruled on the point of order. The member for Cronulla will resume his seat.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: Indeed, I am quoting directly from a notice of motion given in the other place this morning, which continued:

(f) That the Hon. Duncan Gay has also misled the public in his explanation of these matters, concocting a story involving—

Mr Malcolm Kerr: Point of order: Mr Speaker—

The SPEAKER: Order! Does the member for Cronulla raise a new point of order?

Mr Malcolm Kerr: Yes, Mr Speaker. What the Minister is now reading relates to alleged misleading of the Legislative Council and has nothing to do with the question that was asked.

The SPEAKER: Order! I will listen further to the Minister and will seek the advice of the Clerk. I remind the Minister that he cannot attack another member other than by substantive motion. The House will come to order.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: Paragraph (f) states:

That the Hon. Duncan Gay has also misled the public in his explanation of these matters, concocting a story involving a South Australian trucking company—which he informed this House—

8 May 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7281

that is, the upper House—

was based on a Google search.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: This has now reached the farcical stage—

The SPEAKER: Order! The member is entitled to take a point of order.

Mr Brad Hazzard: The overriding provision that this House abides with is that if there is going to be a substantive attack on a member it must be by way of a substantive motion. The Minister cannot, under the guise of simply reading something that may or may not have been appropriate in another place, now seek to attack a member in contravention of the standing orders. I ask, particularly as he is well outside of what he is supposed to be talking about, that he be ruled out of order.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister must confine his remarks to the leave of the question. The points raised in the notice of motion in the other place must relate to the question that was asked. I ask the Minister to stay within the leave of the question.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: In the spirit of that comment, paragraph (i) states:

(i) That between 2002 and 2007, grain handling company GrainCorp donated $51,000 to the National and Liberal parties.

Mr Andrew Stoner: Point of order: I refer to Standing Order 128 (5), which states that questions cannot anticipate discussion upon an order of the day or other matter. It is clear that there is a motion in the other place for debate—a motion wherein the member named has the opportunity to reply. The Minister is abusing the forms of the House and the privilege that he has as a member of Parliament to attack another member outside the standing orders. Cease and desist, you grub!

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals will resume his seat. The point of order raised by the Leader of The Nationals relates to a notice of motion before the other House. The Minister for Police will conclude his answer as soon as possible.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: Paragraph (j) of the notice of motion in the other place states:

(j) That the RTA is currently involved in a court action against GrainCorp in relation to accepting deliveries from overloaded trucks, including trucks owned by Mr Fletcher, and this action could potentially result in multi-million dollar fines.

Paragraph (k) states:

(k) That the Hon. Duncan Gay sought to have RTA prosecutions against overloaded trucks withdrawn from court.

Mr Adrian Piccoli: Point of order: The Minister cannot make attacks on members of this Parliament other than by way of substantive motion and he cannot hide behind a notice of motion given in the other Chamber to do it. It does not matter whether he is answering a question or reading a motion from another Parliament or a newspaper clipping; he cannot hide behind that in order to attack another member. If he wants to attack a member by moving that motion, then move it. We will then have a go at Mr Rees, we will have a go at you and Joe Scimone, and we will have a go at Noreen Hay and all of your lovely donations down there in Wollongong, David. Give us the time. There is plenty on you, mate.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: In the spirit of not delaying the House further, I think the point is made: Those opposite have something to hide. It is for the Leader of the Opposition to stand up and hold the Hon. Duncan Gay accountable. It is for the Leader of the Opposition to uphold some standards on that side of the Parliament.

The SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Minister to resume his seat. The Minister has concluded his answer.

ELECTRICITY INDUSTRY PRIVATISATION

Mr JOHN WILLIAMS: My question is directed to the Premier. Given that the Premier has not undertaken a rural communities impact statement for his privatisation plan, what comfort does his claim of 7282 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 May 2008

yesterday—that there will be more jobs in generation—offer to current staff in country towns when all he offers is a choice between a bribe and five years with the private sector or a Clayton's job in the public sector?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I refer the member for Murray-Darling to my answer of yesterday and I refer him to the Government's response to the Owen inquiry and the Government's response to the Unsworth inquiry. Perhaps he might wish to consult his colleague the member for Wagga Wagga about the Uranquinty gas-fired peaking power station—

Mr Andrew Stoner: Is there going to be a generator at Hillston?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: No, a gas peaking power station is being built as a result of this Government's policy. You might go and get one!

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Murray-Darling has asked a question. Members will listen to the answer in silence.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: There is a gas-fired peaking plant in Tallawarra. There is a public plant on the Central Coast as well—a mixture of public and private companies are building peaking plants. As I pointed out yesterday, the Government's plan is all about getting more power stations built in New South Wales—whether it is at Mt Piper or Bayswater. When we build a power station we create construction jobs and when the power station is finished we have jobs for people who will operate the power station.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals will resume his seat.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: If it is a coal-fired power station we will create jobs in coalmining. If it is a gas-fired baseload power station we will create jobs in the gas industry. When we build infrastructure we create jobs. That is what I said yesterday, and that is what I stand by.

DUBBO COMMUNITY CENTRE AND GORDON ESTATE

Mrs DAWN FARDELL: My question is addressed to the Minister for Housing. What are the Government's plans for the future of the Dubbo community centre and the Gordon Centre?

Mr MATT BROWN: I thank the member for her question and commend her for her ongoing commitment to, and support for, the Government's plans to redevelop the Gordon Estate. The disadvantaged housing estate has been transformed into a community. What was once a haven for antisocial behaviour and crime is now a place where young families are able to buy an affordable home. We have been working hard to transform this community, ridding the area of antisocial behaviour. We are working hard to ensure that gangs of youths are no longer roaming around. In the long term, the intensive resources that the Iemma Government has provided to that estate will no longer be needed and the involvement of Housing New South Wales in the estate will cease. We are moving all our public housing homes out of the estate.

Involvement in the community centre will no longer be necessary because the Government has helped to create a functioning community. I take this opportunity to thank the staff of the centre, who have done an extraordinary job working with the community—particularly the youth—on the estate. I again point out—it does not seem to be getting through—that the Government invested more resources in staffing the Dubbo estate in order to deliver a better outcome for that community. It is Government policy not to have one public home on the estate in future, so the staff in the centre will no longer be needed. They were informed of this when they signed their staffing agreement three years ago. Again, I place on record our thanks for their dedication. The young people of Dubbo will still have access to a range of other government services, such as the police and community youth club, and our antisocial behaviour officers on the ground will help connect them to education and training opportunities. My department will also work closely with the member for Dubbo, the local council and the new residents of the Gordon Estate so that we can get the best outcome for that community.

YOUTH SERVICES

Mr ALLAN SHEARAN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Youth. Can the Minister update the House on the Iemma Government's commitment to services for young people?

Ms LINDA BURNEY: The Iemma Government is building the strengths of children and young people to help them meet life's challenges and to reach their full potential. As part of our commitment to young people 8 May 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7283

I have great pleasure in informing the House about the next funding round under the Better Futures program. Better Futures is an early support strategy for children and young people between the ages of 9 and 18 years. Approximately $6.7 million has just been committed to some 50 projects across New South Wales. Better Futures is about outcomes for children and young people. It strengthens their connection to community and to services. It empowers them to participate positively. Strong connections to families and communities translate into better school results, a greater sense of responsibility, good mental health and a longer life.

Last week I visited the Menai youth project with the member for Menai to announce more than $200,000 in funding. This project encourages young people to participate in community activities and decision making. The Menai youth project puts this into action. I also visited the Cringila youth project with the member for Wollongong to announce a three-year funding commitment of $64,000 to that service. It is about making sure that young people at risk do not drop out of school. I visited the Dapto-Koonawarra Youth Connect project with the member for Shellharbour to announce $218,000 in funding. This project will assist young Koori kids in staying at school and improving their educational outcomes. Better Futures is also funding midnight basketball in Campbelltown and Armidale. Young people participate in that workshop and it helps them with anger management and conflict resolution.

I wish to inform members about another Better Futures program in the Hunter that is supporting young Africans to become engaged in the community. These young people from Africa have gone through traumatic experiences that we in this House would find hard to imagine—civil war, violence and being in camps for years. These are just some of the examples of what is being supported under the Better Futures program. The projects will benefit thousands of young people in communities across New South Wales. Opposition members have a very thin youth policy. If the member for Manly—

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: Opposition members were happy to provide bipartisan support on this issue. However, that all changed when the Minister started to debate the issue. If she wants to debate the issue, Standing Order 130 states that now is not the time to do so. If the Government moves a motion Opposition members will say what they really think about the policies that are needed for young people.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will stay within the leave of the question.

Ms LINDA BURNEY: I only wanted to state that if the member for Manly and shadow Minister for Youth wants to come and talk to me about youth policies I will assist him in developing some.

CLINICAL SERVICES PLAN

Ms REBA MEAGHER: There is news to hand that I would like to share with members of the House. Earlier the Leader of the Opposition asked me about the clinical services plan. I am advised that a group was established in December 2007 comprising 21 senior clinicians from across the area, which considered 32 specialty plans and which has a number of issues under discussion.

[Interruption]

Opposition members should wait. As agreed, the draft clinical services plan was completed on 30 April and is now in the process of being circulated for consultation. This is where it gets better.

The SPEAKER: Order! Members will cease interjecting. I cannot hear the supplementary answer.

Ms REBA MEAGHER: This is the bit that I really like. Last week the chief executive of the Northern Sydney Central Coast Area Health Service met northern beaches members of Parliament to consult them about that process and to work through the detail. It does not stop there. Obviously they did not tell the member for North Shore and she did not tell her leader. While question time was being conducted the member for Wakehurst stepped out of the Chamber, rang the chief executive of the area health service, and apologised for the question!

The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Health will resume her seat. The House will come to order. I call the member for Bathurst to order for the second time.

Mrs Jillian Skinner: Point of order: The clinicians—the doctors—asked me to ask the Minister for the plan. 7284 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 May 2008

The SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The Minister for Health has the call.

Ms REBA MEAGHER: They do not tell the member for North Shore what is going on because they also think she is silly.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: The Minister should apologise—

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wakehurst will resume his seat.

NEPEAN HOSPITAL MENTAL HEALTH UNIT

Mr PAUL LYNCH: I have received advice from the chief executive of the Sydney West Area Health Service concerning the patients referred to in the question asked yesterday by the member for Albury. One of the patients presenting to the emergency department assaulted the carer accompanying those patients and the other was believed to be in a drug-induced psychosis—that is, suffering from the effects of ice. I am advised that the management of these patients was consistent with standard operating protocols for the safe care of patients who present posing risk to themselves and to staff or family members. One patient presented in the company of a carer. In the waiting room that patient assaulted his carer. Security was contacted and the patient restrained.

The implication in the Opposition's question yesterday that the patient should not be restrained is preposterous. Following assessment, this patient was detained. In accordance with proper treatment and in accordance with the risk to patients and to others, this patient was sedated and restrained with plastic restraints. The claim by the member for Albury that the patient was handcuffed is untrue. Doctors and nurses do not have handcuffs. If the member for Albury had any engagement with this policy area he would have known that. The patient was appropriately restrained and sedated for the protection of the patient, the carer and staff. This is the usual and proper course to enable the patient to recover, and clinicians make that clinical decision. The patient was transferred to a psychiatric intensive care bed in Cumberland.

The second patient presented to Nepean Hospital emergency department via police and was placed in acute care. That patient, who has a history of poly-substance use, was believed to be suffering from the effects of ice. Whilst in the emergency department the patient demonstrated violent behaviour and was subsequently sedated and restrained for the safety of the patient and the safety of others. The patient was also transferred to Cumberland psychiatric intensive care unit. It is regrettable that such behaviour occurs, but because it does the Iemma Government has funded psychiatric emergency care centres at nine different locations across greater metropolitan Sydney and each of those centres is staffed by appropriately trained mental health clinicians.

As I have said previously in the House, this initiative has reduced assessment and treatment times in emergency departments across the city and has meant that patients who require admission to acute units or mental health intensive care units have got there much faster. As part of the record $1 million mental health budget, this Government has opened 279 additional health beds since 2004 and another 300 are planned to open by 2011. When it comes to danger to our nursing staff and danger to others, the main issues are alcohol and illicit drug use. Pretending that it is the mentally ill, as the Opposition has been doing, merely stigmatises the mentally ill. It is also offensive and despicable. To suggest that the mentally ill are all dangerous flies in the face of the evidence, reflects a nineteenth century view and puts back by decades debate on the treatment of the mentally ill.

Question time concluded.

LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION RADIO 2UE COMMENTS

Personal Explanation

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai-Leader of the Opposition) [3.28 p.m.]: Over the past two days the Premier has sought to misrepresent me in relation to comments that I made on radio 2UE on Tuesday morning. It is important for me to set the record straight, and I do so verbatim from the Mike Carlton program this morning:

I think I've been quoted out of context as politicians are so fond of saying aren't they? Well I have been now. I did also say I thought this NSW State Government was arrogant and out of touch. I did say it made as an example an appalling mess of selling privatisation to people. And I also said the Treasurer Michael Costa had been carrying on like Mussolini about to invade Albania. Now I would like that written into Hansard if that's possible. That would be good. 8 May 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7285

Mr John Aquilina: Point of order: How can this be a personal explanation when the Leader of the Opposition is quoting what occurred at a media outlet? There is no way that this is a personal explanation. He is just repeating comments that were made to a media outlet—which he knows is totally out of order.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: To the point of order: It is absolutely outrageous that the Leader of the House is seeking to prevent my correction from getting on the record.

The SPEAKER: Order! Has the Leader of the Opposition concluded his personal explanation?

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: Yes.

VARIATIONS OF PAYMENTS ESTIMATES AND APPROPRIATIONS 2007-2008

Mr Frank Sartor tabled, pursuant to section 24 of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, variations of the payments estimates and appropriations for 2007-2008 flowing from the transfer of functions between the Department of the Environment and Climate Change and the Department of Lands.

Mr Frank Sartor tabled, pursuant to section 24 of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, variations of the payments estimates and appropriations for 2007-2008 flowing from the transfer of the functions between the Department of Planning and the Department of Water and Energy.

Mr Frank Sartor tabled, pursuant to section 26 of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, variations of the payments estimates and appropriations for 2007-2008 arising from the provision by the Commonwealth of specific purpose payments in excess of the amounts included in the State's receipts and payments estimates.

PETITIONS

Edgecliff Interchange Upgrade

Petition requesting the upgrading of Edgecliff interchange, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Pyrmont to Town Hall Bus Service

Petition requesting a 10-minute bus service between Pyrmont foreshore via Broadway to Town Hall, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Hawkesbury River Railway Station Access

Petition requesting improved access to Hawkesbury River railway station, received from Mrs Judy Hopwood.

CountryLink Pensioner Booking Fee

Petition requesting the removal of booking fees charged to pensioners on CountryLink services, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.

Pensioner Excursion Bus Tickets

Petition requesting that South Coast pensioners be able to access the $2.50 pensioner excursion ticket for bus travel, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.

South Coast Rail Services

Petition opposing any reduction in rail services on the South Coast, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.

Public Library Funding

Petitions requesting increased funding for public libraries, received from Ms Katrina Hodgkinson, Mr Daryl Maguire, Mr Donald Page and Mr John Turner. 7286 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 May 2008

Lismore Base Hospital

Petition requesting funding for stage 2 of the Lismore Base Hospital redevelopment and for rehabilitation beds to be maintained, received from Mr Donald Page.

Tumut Renal Dialysis Service

Petition praying that the House support the establishment of a satellite renal dialysis service in Tumut, received from Mr Daryl Maguire.

Shoalhaven Mental Health Services

Petition requesting funding for the establishment of a dedicated mental health service in the Shoalhaven, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.

Hornsby Area Haemodialysis

Petition asking that a public haemodialysis centre be established in the Hornsby area, received from Mrs Judy Hopwood.

Culburra Policing

Petition requesting increased police numbers in the Culburra area, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.

Cowra Policing

Petition requesting that Cowra police station be staffed 24 hours a day, received from Ms Katrina Hodgkinson.

Falls Creek Traffic Arrangements

Petition requesting consultation with residents concerning the intersection of the Princes Highway and Parma Road, Falls Creek, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.

Tomerong Traffic Arrangements

Petition requesting an upgrade of the Island Point Road and Princes Highway intersection, Tomerong, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.

Pet Shops

Petition opposing the sale of animals in pet shops, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Kurnell Desalination Plant Effects

Petition requesting that the residents of Kurnell be compensated for damaged property and be consulted about construction of the desalination project to ensure no further contamination of Botany Bay, received from Mr Malcolm Kerr.

CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO BE ACCORDED PRIORITY

Services Improvement Initiatives

Mr STEVE WHAN (Monaro—Parliamentary Secretary) [3.30 p.m.]: Today we have to choose which of two motions will be accorded priority. My motion is about vital initiatives for regional New South Wales in transport, such as pensioner excursion tickets and new concessions for students and apprentices, and vital services for Aboriginal communities. The Opposition's motion was blown out of the water by the Minister for Health in her supplementary answer to this House. We may choose to discuss the future of services in New South Wales. Last weekend the Premier outlined to the Labor Party conference important concessions to give 8 May 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7287

pensioners a better deal on public transport in regional New South Wales. That is a priority matter that the House should discuss today. Country Labor has pushed for these issues to be progressed.

Mr Thomas George: Name them.

Mr STEVE WHAN: I certainly will. Pensioner excursion tickets will enable pensioners to travel around many country centres on a $2.50 fare. I shall talk more about that if the House accords my motion priority. The extension of student and apprentice transport concessions is an important issue that my Queanbeyan constituents have raised with me over the years. It is important also that we discuss today the initiative that the Premier outlined for Aboriginal communities. I will be absolutely disgusted if any member who purports to represent country New South Wales in this place votes against debating these important issues. We have to choose which of two motions will be accorded priority. But there is a third unmentioned motion. The Opposition is not seeking priority today for the motion that it has tried to move for the past two days. I wonder why. Is it because yesterday when the Leader of the Opposition gave reasons why his motion should be accorded priority only 12 members of his party bothered to stay to listen to him?

The SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order.

Mr STEVE WHAN: More members have stayed today to listen to the shadow health spokesperson.

[Interruption]

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Lismore will resume his seat.

Mr STEVE WHAN: I am not the one with the knives out. I am confident that my colleagues are in their offices thinking, "Gee, that Steve Whan is out there batting for us again—excellent." In the past few days we have witnessed some amazing scenes. The Leader of the Opposition showed something to his colleagues, and they all came into the Chamber with grins on their faces. Then, as only he and the Leader of The Nationals can do, the Leader of the Opposition turned it into a losing issue. So today in seeking to have its motion accorded priority the Opposition will return to the same old whingeing we hear constantly in this place. Yet the Minister for Health demolished the Opposition's motion in spectacular fashion just before the conclusion of question time when she revealed that Opposition backbenchers and frontbenchers were not speaking to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or passing on information. I hope that all members who represent country electorates in this place will vote to accord priority to my motion about better services for country New South Wales, as outlined by the Premier.

Northern Sydney Central Coast Area Health Service Clinical Services Plan

Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER (North Shore—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.34 p.m.]: The past couple of contributions in this place have demonstrated amply why my motion should be accorded priority. The House has been told the biggest load of rot that I have heard in many years. For a start, no clinical services plan has been produced for the Northern Sydney Central Coast Area Health Service. There is a draft plan—I am well aware of that because my colleagues from the northern beaches met with the area health service representative last week—but it is not the plan that was promised by the Minister.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Monaro will cease interjecting.

Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER: I refer to the comments of the Minister for Health. Recommendation 16 in the report of the Joint Select Committee on the Royal North Shore Hospital says:

That management, clinicians, nurses and other staff at RNSH and across NSCCAHS commit as a matter of urgency to the development and implementation of a new Area clinical services plan by April 2008.

The Minister's response was to say that upon appointment of the new chief executive officer in October 2007 the Minister sought a commitment that an area clinical services plan would be developed within a six-month time frame. She went on to say that the group has as its primary objective to recommend to the chief executive by 30 April 2008 the direction for clinical services within the Northern Sydney Central Coast Area Health Service over the next 10 years. How do I know there is no clinical services plan? Only one minute ago a check with the doctors at Royal North Shore Hospital revealed that there is no clinical services plan. The Minister has been misleading this House. 7288 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 May 2008

I refer the House to the clinicians who have sought to secure this clinical services plan—it is all on the record. Dr Charles Fisher, Chair of the Medical Staff Council; Dr Philip Hoyle, Director of Clinical Governance, Royal North Shore Hospital; Dr Tony Joseph, Director of Trauma at Royal North Shore Hospital; Dr Greg Fulcher, former Chair of the Medical Staff Council at Royal North Shore Hospital; Matthew Daly; and Mary Bonner, former General Manager of North Shore Ryde Health Service, are all committed to getting the clinical services plan by 30 April. I refer anyone who wants to read the reasons in detail to the Hansard transcript of the parliamentary inquiry of December 2007.

I can table that document for anyone who wishes to read it. It points out that we cannot deliver services, determine where staff should be or buy equipment until we determine where the services will be provided— whether it is on the Central Coast or the northern beaches. How can the new northern beaches hospital be planned when there is no clinical services plan? That is what this process has revealed. I refer to the second part of the motion. It is interesting that when I read my motion the lip readers on this side of the House noticed the Minister's advisers say—I had better not use the actual language—"We are in real trouble." Why? It is because the Minister knows exactly where I am getting my information from and that it is absolutely correct.

The debt is now $50 million. The Government has rolled over funds from next year's budget to go to the Northern Sydney Central Coast Area Health Service to offset the indebtedness of those hospitals. But the situation is worse still. I am told that the Royal North Shore Hospital budget deficit, or the overspend, is—wait for it—$35 million. The northern beaches is $10 million, the Central Coast is $23 million and Hornsby is $3 million. So it is more than $50 million and the Government is proposing draconian measures to claw back before the end of the financial year the money that is over budget. Those measures include getting rid of salary sacrificing and things that will make it difficult for hospitals in the region to meet their obligations in delivering patient care. The doctors and other clinicians are totally fed up with this Government. I conclude by quoting Brett Holmes, general secretary of the New South Wales Nurses Association, in the latest edition of the Lamp which states:

… morale is at rock bottom among clinicians.

Around 60% of nurses and doctors in NSW public hospitals have seriously considered leaving the system in the past 12 months. This is a frightening figure.

Only 17% of doctors and 34% of nurses have trust in what their managers are telling them about what is really happening at work. No wonder the system has become so dysfunctional.

Mr Holmes is not a man I often quote, but in this case he is dead right. Morale is shocking, the hospitals are in terrible budgetary debt, and the Government has failed to deliver on its promises.

Question—That the motion of the member for Monaro be accorded priority—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 46

Mr Amery Mr Greene Mr Morris Ms Andrews Mr Harris Mrs Paluzzano Mr Aquilina Mr Hickey Mr Pearce Ms Beamer Ms Hornery Mrs Perry Mr Borger Ms Judge Mr Rees Mr Brown Ms Keneally Mr Shearan Ms Burney Mr Khoshaba Mr Stewart Mr Campbell Mr Koperberg Ms Tebbutt Mr Collier Mr Lynch Mr Terenzini Mr Coombs Mr McBride Mr Tripodi Mr Corrigan Dr McDonald Mr West Mr Costa Ms McKay Mr Whan Mr Daley Mr McLeay Ms D'Amore Ms McMahon Tellers, Ms Firth Ms Meagher Mr Ashton Ms Gadiel Ms Megarrity Mr Martin 8 May 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7289

Noes, 34

Mr Aplin Mr Hartcher Mr Roberts Mr Baird Mr Hazzard Mrs Skinner Mr Baumann Ms Hodgkinson Mr Smith Ms Berejiklian Mrs Hopwood Mr Souris Mr Cansdell Mr Kerr Mr Stokes Mr Constance Mr Merton Mr J. H. Turner Mr Debnam Mr O'Dea Mr R. W. Turner Mr Draper Mr Page Mr R. C. Williams Mrs Fardell Mr Piccoli Mr Fraser Mr Piper Tellers, Ms Goward Mr Provest Mr George Mrs Hancock Mr Richardson Mr Maguire

Pairs

Ms Burton Mr Humphries Mr Gibson Mr J. D. Williams

Question resolved in the affirmative.

SERVICES IMPROVEMENT INITIATIVES

Motion Accorded Priority

Mr STEVE WHAN (Monaro—Parliamentary Secretary) [3.48 p.m.]: I move:

That this House:

(1) congratulates the Government on a range of new initiatives recently announced to help low income and disadvantaged members of the community;

(2) notes that transport will now be made more affordable for thousands of country residents across our State by extending the pensioner excursion ticket to bus services in regional and country areas and extending student and apprentice concessions; and

(3) welcomes a new multimillion-dollar program to improve the health of residents and the environment in 64 remote Aboriginal communities by modernising water and sewer infrastructure, in partnership with the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council.

It is very disappointing that this matter has been accorded priority without support from Opposition representatives of rural electorates in New South Wales, particularly The Nationals. One would have thought they would show an interest in services and better service delivery in regional New South Wales: but, no. Once again the Opposition has proposed another whingeing, whining motion to be accorded priority.

Mr Thomas George: Point of order: I refer to Standing Order 129. The Parliamentary Secretary stated that the Opposition voted against the motion. We voted against priority being given to the motion.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Standing Order 129 relates to answers being relevant to the question asked. The House is debating a motion accorded priority.

Mr STEVE WHAN: Effectively, I said that members opposite voted not to give my motion priority. On the weekend the Premier announced a range of initiatives to help low-income and disadvantaged members of our community. He announced that the Government will extend the pensioner excursion ticket to all areas of the State to allow pensioners in rural and regional New South Wales to travel on buses for $2.50 a day; extend the half-fare concessions for all bus travel to tertiary students, not just journeys to and from university and college; extend the half-fare concessions to apprentices and trainees; expand the Linked Skills Program to provide English and vocational skills training to an additional 500 newly arrived migrants and refugees to help them get jobs; introduce a multimillion-dollar program to improve the health of residents and the environment in 64 remote Aboriginal communities by modernising water and sewerage infrastructure in partnership with the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council; proceed with construction of the North West Metro line in 2010 7290 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 May 2008

after the project was declared critical infrastructure; and provide $4.2 million in new funding for a variety of local health projects across the State to improve patient care and management.

An important part of the announcement was making transport more affordable for thousands of country residents across the State. This is another example of the Iemma Labor Government delivering for the most vulnerable people in our community. I particularly welcome the extension of the pensioner excursion tickets. That change was driven by Country Labor. Indeed, I well remember that the last Country Labor conference in Queanbeyan a couple of years ago passed a motion calling for that to happen, and it has happened as part of the Government's bus reform process. People will welcome that change. I shall give a couple of examples from the area I represent. First, extension of the scheme will not be rolled out tomorrow; it takes some time to make arrangements with the contractors. When the change comes into force pensioners who travels on Deanes Buslines from Queanbeyan to Canberra will be able to do so for the excursion fare of $2.50. Pensioners making that trip will significantly reduce their costs.

Mr Thomas George: Across the border?

Mr STEVE WHAN: Across the border indeed.

Mr Thomas George: Does it?

Mr STEVE WHAN: Into the Australian Capital Territory.

Mr John Williams: Travel to Melbourne for $2.50.

Mr STEVE WHAN: This is another case of members opposite not reading the detail. We are talking about route buses in country communities that have route bus services. If members opposite were familiar with the area I represent they might understand.

Mr John Williams: Point of order: The member for Monaro has just stated—

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! What standing order is the member for Murray-Darling referring to?

Mr John Williams: The member for Monaro is misleading the House.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The member for Monaro is in order. The member for Murray-Darling will resume his seat.

Mr STEVE WHAN: We all know the member for Murray-Darling's interest in rural communities. Earlier in question time we heard him say that public sector jobs in regional New South Wales were Clayton's jobs. That is what he thinks about them. He was supported by the member for Barwon, who about a year ago in this place said that moving public sector jobs to regional New South Wales would create more ivory towers. What a waste of time!

Mr John Williams: Point of order: If the member for Monaro wants to debate statements in this House he can do so by way of substantive motion.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! Is the member for Murray-Darling taking a point of order?

Mr John Williams: I am taking a point of order.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The member for Murray-Darling will follow the correct procedure when he takes a point of order. He will stand and ask for a point of order.

Mr STEVE WHAN: The former member for Murray-Darling has been in the public gallery over the past couple of days. Representation of the Murray-Darling electorate has certainly been downgraded. The former member would have voted to discuss a motion about pensioner excursion travel.

Mr John Williams: Point of order: If the member for Monaro wants to debate the performance of a former member he should do so by way of substantive motion. 8 May 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7291

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.

Mr STEVE WHAN: In a few years time the member for Murray-Darling might learn the standing orders. Let us face it: The Iemma Government is standing up for the elderly in regional New South Wales by providing a service that will be extremely welcomed by people in those areas. In the time remaining after those disruptive points of order I will focus on one or two other points. First, a number of people have contacted my office about bus fares for apprentices and students. I am sure they will welcome the discounted fares. One important thing the Premier announced at the Labor Party conference on the weekend is a program to assist with improving water and sewerage infrastructure in remote Aboriginal communities. That is a great initiative from this Government as it will help to overcome some of the disadvantage that people in those communities face.

Once again the Labor Government is working to put in place that program, which will go hand in hand with the positive initiatives and comments from the new Federal Rudd Government. The Federal Labor Government has put the health and pride of Aboriginal communities at the forefront by delivering an apology and delivering firm commitments to redress the imbalances that occur among those communities and between those communities and white communities.

Mrs SHELLEY HANCOCK (South Coast) [3.55 p.m.]: I have several questions about the motion moved by the member for Monaro. While I am pleased with the announcement by the Minister for Transport yesterday and with the subject of this motion, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all words in paragraph (1) with a view to inserting "calls on the Iemma Government to deliver on their promises of a range of initiatives announced to help low income and disadvantaged members of the community and remove the unfair CountryLink pensioner booking fees".

I will talk about that issue later. The pensioner excursion ticket scheme was introduced decades ago. It was a good scheme and a good idea. In 2005 the Government announced that the pensioner excursion ticket, which was complex, would be a flat fare of $2.50. That was welcomed by all people except those in rural and regional New South Wales who were not eligible for a pensioner excursion ticket. The member for Monaro, in his usual loud and aggressive manner, said that Country Labor had fought for the scheme to be extended. However, it was not Country Labor. It was the pensioners through New South Wales who were discriminated against and totally abandoned by this Labor Government for three years. If Country Labor fought for so long—perhaps the member for Monaro can answer this question—why has it taken three years for the scheme to be extended?

In my electorate of South Coast I have been waging a campaign against this discriminatory scheme for four years. One thousand people in my electorate have signed petitions. Across New South Wales pensioners have been signing petitions and writing to the Minister for Transport. I do not want to be totally negative today because I like the member for Monaro. When I spoke to him in the corridor yesterday he was pleased with himself and chuffed that his Government was making this announcement today. However, I will temper his enthusiasm by referring to comments made by pensioners in my electorate, many of whom are former Labor voters who felt that a Labor government should help them. After all, they are pensioners.

When the scheme was changed in 2005 it did not extend to places such as Sanctuary Point in my electorate. In Sanctuary Point pensioners must pay a bus fare of $13 before they can access the $2.50 pensioner excursion ticket. They currently pay $13 to get to Bombaderry railway station, and $13 for the return bus trip— no wonder they felt abandoned by this Labor Government. Apparently for three years Country Labor fought hard, but nobody on the Government benches listened or took the issue to the Minister for Transport. Country Labor must have been ignored for three years; they must have held their meetings in telephone boxes. Pensioners have been raising this issue, but there has been no response from the Minister except that he was considering the extension of the scheme to pensioners all over the State.

It is wonderful that the pensioner excursion ticket [PET] is to be extended throughout New South Wales. Yesterday I asked the member for Monaro and today I ask the Minister for Transport, how long will it take? When will the pensioner excursion ticket availability be extended? Today I asked private bus operators in my electorate and they told me they have had discussions with the Government and are looking forward to the extension of the pensioner excursion ticket scheme into rural and regional New South Wales but they do not know the timeline. Will the member for Monaro clarify when the extension will occur? We need to have a promise that is not broken. We cannot afford to let pensioners down in this State. Pensioners in this State are struggling more than anybody and need all the help they can get.

The shadow Minister for Transport, the member for Willoughby, introduced a bill in this Chamber in relation to the abolition of the $10 pensioner booking fee. Country Labor and the Government say to pensioners 7292 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 May 2008

they can have four free CountryLink tickets but it will cost them $10, or 15 per cent of the full equivalent fee, to book a trip. That condition is not fair and should be abolished. I am optimistic that the member for Monaro, in fighting for the rights of pensioners, will take up that matter with the Minister for Transport, as I have done on several occasions. I hope the Minister will be in the Chamber when that measure is debated, and support it, because the booking fee is just another example of discrimination against pensioners, who can least afford to pay.

Pensioners who cannot afford to pay such fees put off going to visit their doctor and some even refuse to seek medical treatment for conditions such as cancer. They cannot afford to travel to Sydney or Wollongong but rely on friends and relatives to drive them, and that raises the question of the Princes Highway. I am pleased with the Government's announcement yesterday. I hope that the pensioner excursion ticket will be introduced in a timely manner—in weeks, not months. The Government should not get pensioners' hopes up by making an announcement and then, as usual, dashing those hopes by not committing to its promise.

Ms ANGELA D'AMORE (Drummoyne) [4.02 p.m.]: The mark of a decent society is that it looks after its most vulnerable members. The Premier's announcements on the weekend go to the heart of that quality. The Iemma Government will deliver better access to services for some of our communities most vulnerable members; the elderly, Aboriginal people, people living in rural and remote areas, and students. Those groups often struggle financially and live on low incomes, and that is why the Government is going to take some of the financial pressure off them. The Government will provide $4.2 million in new funding for a variety of local health projects across the State to improve patient care and management.

The Government will upgrade older equipment as well as provide for new, state of-the-art technology for its hospitals, including brand-new multi-purpose centres for Manilla and Coonamble, worth $31 million, and new general practitioner super clinics in places like Mount Druitt, Rylstone, Cootamundra, Corowa, Jindabyne and Auburn, worth $40 million. It will also help migrants and refugees with the real-life skills that will help them get a job. This is not just a positive for those who choose to make New South Wales their home, it is also a major boost to the economy in overcoming skills shortages. The Iemma Government will expand the Linked Skills Program to provide English and vocational skills training to an additional 500 newly-arrived migrants and refugees to help them get jobs. This is a $1.6 million investment to deliver an additional 500 places which will commence in the second half of this year. Already more than 100 students have been trained through these linked skills courses and the results have been outstanding in terms of completion, attendance, credentials and employment.

The Premier also made an announcement that is very important for my local community. The North West Metro has been declared critical infrastructure. That project will happen and construction will begin in 2010. It is a $12 billion European-style metro rail line for Sydney that will service growth areas from the central business district to the city's north-west. The North West Metro was the first major transport initiative to be unveiled under the Government's new Sydney Link Program. It will run underground from the city, beneath Victoria Road towards Top Ryde, and then via Epping to Castle Hill and Rouse Hill. The metro is a rapid, single-deck heavy rail system, which will take pressure off the current rail network. This fantastic piece of infrastructure will allow people living in Drummoyne to be at Wynyard in just five minutes. This means less time travelling to and from work and more time with family and friends.

Mr John Williams: Point of order: Is the member talking to the motion? The motion is about a transport issue.

Mr Steve Whan: You should have listened because I have already talked about that.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.

Ms ANGELA D'AMORE: The project has been welcomed by residents in the State seat of Drummoyne because the Government will be looking at having a stop along Victoria Road in Drummoyne. Victoria Road runs through the eastern side of my electorate and currently carries 200,000 bus commuters each week and 78,000 cars per day. This project will provide residents with a much needed transport system, and Sydney will have a visionary new piece of infrastructure.

Mr JOHN WILLIAMS (Murray-Darling) [4.05 p.m.]: I am pleased that the member for Monaro has recognised Country Labor. An interesting motion in the Australian Labor Party conference last weekend was from Tamworth in relation to what Country Labor is all about. I suggest that the member for Monaro read that motion to get an idea what it is about. Every member from country New South Wales is supportive of the rollout of the $2.50 pensioner excursion ticket fee. They are pleased that the Government reluctantly introduced it. But the Government will trial it and will pull the trial if it costs too much. There is no such thing as a trial. The Government should put up the money and fulfil its promise. 8 May 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7293

If the Government pulls this trial it will have a fight on its hands, as has happened before when it made promises and broke them. Unfortunately the member for Barwon has been called away from the Chamber, but I am sure he would agree that the Prime Minister of Australia, who took 13 years to get his boots wet with sewage in an Aboriginal community—a real problem in Menindee— must realise that in those 13 years this State Government did nothing for Aboriginal communities and has turned its back on them. The Prime Minister has said that is not good enough and that the New South Wales Government will have to spend money and support those communities. This State Government was shamed into it.

Dr Andrew McDonald: Point of order: I thought this debate was about transport. Would you ask him to return to the motion?

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.

Mr JOHN WILLIAMS: The motion states, "welcome a new multimillion-dollar program to improve the health of residents". It is in order.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! Is the member for Murray-Darling speaking to the motion or to the member?

Mr JOHN WILLIAMS: This Government had to be shamed by the Prime Minister of Australia into doing something. I welcome Kevin Rudd to walk around my electorate because he will see a lot more neglect to shame this Government into repairing. The Government responds only when the Prime Minister has sewage running over his boots.

Mr JOHN AQUILINA (Riverstone—Leader of the House) [4.08 p.m.]: I support the motion moved by the member for Monaro and I oppose the amendment moved by the member for South Coast. While planning and building work is well underway in many parts of Sydney, the Government is keen to provide improved public transport services, and that is particularly relevant to my electorate. Since August 2005 the number of buses operating on the M2, which services my electorate, has increased by 22 per cent, an additional 37 buses. All those buses service the electorate of Riverstone and the North-West T-way is already fully operational. In past years passengers have put their confidence in bus travel, and Sydney's bus patronage has grown by more than 1.3 million trips.

I emphasise that my electorate is totally serviced by private buses, and patronage is up by a massive 4.4 per cent. However, more passengers means busier services, and we are matching passenger confidence with new services and more buses across Sydney. In the past 2½ years State Transit has added 267 new daily services, which means that that capacity has grown by 15,000 people a day or more than 3½ million passengers a year. Private buses across Sydney are now travelling 4.5 million kilometres more each year than they did in 2005, up 9 per cent. A total of 566 new air-conditioned, environmentally friendly State Transit and private buses have been delivered in the past three years, a feat no other government in the history of this State has matched. The Government will purchase more than 1,400 buses over seven years to stay ahead of the game.

On the issue of transport, and again relating to my electorate, which is very much dependent on public transport, the Government has committed to building the $12 billion North West Metro to Castle Hill by 2015 and to Rouse Hill by 2017, with construction underway by 2010. It should be observed that as a major global city Sydney continues to grow at a rapid pace. It is a modern city requiring modern, integrated and efficient transport. The North West Metro delivers on the Government's commitment—and the Premier reiterated that last weekend—for a north-west rail link, but the new project provides a faster, more frequent service and will carry more people than the original plan ever could have. Members should consider this: a train every three minutes, a trip taking 42 minutes from Rouse Hill to the heart of the city. That is an absolutely incredible feat.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The member for Lismore will cease interjecting.

Mr JOHN AQUILINA: A whole new corridor from the north-west of Sydney to the central business district will provide a new way across the harbour and Parramatta River and will relieve pressure on the North Shore line of the CityRail network—I am sure that the North Shore Liberals will be pleased about that. It will defer the need for another harbour crossing. The Government will provide Euro-style metro rail; only the best for Sydney.

Mr STEVE WHAN (Monaro—Parliamentary Secretary) [4.11 p.m.], in reply: I thank the members who spoke in support of my motion. I reject the amendment moved by the member for Bega. It is time for a 7294 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 May 2008

positive and united front in the House in support of important initiatives. I was disappointed to hear the member for South Coast doubting Country Labor's role in this process. Certainly the pensioners of New South Wales have been pushing for this, but Country Labor is on record as having pushed for these improved services. Members opposite seem to forget that it is the Labor Government that introduces good things for the State. The member for Barwon is a past master at attempting to claim credit for everything, along with those bootleggers opposite who claim to raise initiatives. The member for Drummoyne and the member for Riverstone spoke positively about initiatives for metro rail. At a conference last weekend the member for Murray-Darling spoke about a motion by Country Labor, and I spoke to that motion.

I said that it was a mistake for the old Country Party to have changed its name in the 1970s and that since then it had diminished in stature, because country people now know that the Country Party no longer exists and the only people who stand up for regional New South Wales are the members of Country Labor. That was demonstrated in the way that the Country Party's membership declined over the years. In the previous Federal Parliament its membership declined so much it was no longer seen as representative of country New South Wales. That was obvious again in this House when, last night, members of The Nationals said that they would oppose a supplementary appropriations bill, the Appropriation (Budget Variations) Bill 2008. They said it was not good budget management, that more money needed to be allocated. That money was for drought relief, and The Nationals told the media that they would oppose that. How dare they oppose drought relief for country New South Wales!

Mr Kevin Humphries: Point of order: I refer to Standing Order 76, relevance during debate. This is new material; it is not relevant. On moving the motion the member for Monaro said—

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! There is not point of order.

Mr Kevin Humphries: He spent only 20 seconds on water and sewerage and rural and remote communities—and he spent five minutes on drivel.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The member for Barwon will resume his seat.

Mr STEVE WHAN: I would have loved to have spent more time talking about Aboriginal communities, but I was precluded from doing so by three disruptive points of order from the Opposition. This motion is about many important services, and we know that The Nationals are not standing up for rural New South Wales. The member for Barwon is the classic bootlegger of policies; he is the Barwon bootlegger—he takes over and tries to claim credit. The Government has introduced positive policies, including pensioner excursion fares, half-fare concessions, half-fare concessions for apprentices and a vital program for Aboriginal communities. [Time expired.]

Question—That the words stand—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 44

Mr Amery Mr Greene Mrs Paluzzano Ms Andrews Mr Harris Mr Pearce Mr Aquilina Mr Hickey Mrs Perry Ms Beamer Ms Hornery Mr Rees Mr Borger Ms Judge Mr Sartor Mr Brown Mr Khoshaba Mr Shearan Ms Burney Mr Koperberg Ms Tebbutt Mr Campbell Mr Lynch Mr Terenzini Mr Collier Mr McBride Mr West Mr Coombs Dr McDonald Mr Whan Mr Corrigan Ms McKay Mr Costa Mr McLeay Ms D'Amore Ms McMahon Mr Daley Ms Meagher Tellers, Ms Firth Ms Megarrity Mr Ashton Ms Gadiel Mr Morris Mr Martin 8 May 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7295

Noes, 36

Mr Aplin Mr Hazzard Mrs Skinner Mr Baird Ms Hodgkinson Mr Smith Mr Baumann Mrs Hopwood Mr Souris Ms Berejiklian Mr Humphries Mr Stokes Mr Cansdell Mr Kerr Mr J. H. Turner Mr Constance Mr Merton Mr R. W. Turner Mr Debnam Mr O'Dea Mr J. D. Williams Mr Draper Mr Page Mr R. C. Williams Mrs Fardell Mr Piccoli Mr Fraser Mr Piper Ms Goward Mr Provest Tellers, Mrs Hancock Mr Richardson Mr George Mr Hartcher Mr Roberts Mr Maguire

Pairs

Ms Burton Mr O'Farrell Mr Gibson Mr Stoner

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Motion agreed to.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTORATES AND ELECTIONS AMENDMENT (TRUTH IN ADVERTISING) BILL 2007

Agreement in Principle

Debate resumed from 28 June 2007.

Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON (Burrinjuck) [4.27 p.m.]: The Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Amendment (Truth in Advertising) Bill 2007 seeks to amend the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act 1912. I congratulate the member for Ballina on introducing this important bill. It was introduced on 1 June 2007 and it is as relevant today as it was well over 10 months ago. During the last election campaign we saw a significant amount of misleading and inaccurate advertising. In fact, one could not turn on a television without seeing bucketloads of misleading and inaccurate advertising from the Iemma Labor Government. This sort of inaccurate advertising does nothing but erode our democracy. It makes a total mockery of our political system. It leads to increased voter distrust. It also misleads voters in that they are voting for something that is really a figment of the Government's imagination—they are voting on something that is not really there.

During the last election campaign the Iemma Government did a significant amount of advertising misrepresenting the policies of the Coalition. Time and again we saw Morris Iemma talking about the Coalition slashing frontline job services. That was an absolute load of hogwash. That was never in any policy document. But Morris Iemma, his Ministers, his Parliamentary Secretaries and his backbench said that a Coalition government would slash 29,000 frontline positions. Nothing could have been further from the truth. Minister Meagher and other Ministers for Community Services have said, "You are going to slash DOCS frontline workers." That is the biggest load of rubbish we have ever heard. In fact, under this Government there are fewer caseworkers in the system than ever before. I know that there is a lot of advertising for caseworkers, but the Government has not been successful in recruiting them. The Coalition could put it back on the Government as it is getting rid of frontline workers because they are just not there. I visited Tamworth last week. There is a shortage of 8 to 10 caseworkers just in Tamworth. There are 280 children in out-of-home care in that area and there are just not enough caseworkers for those children. And that is just one town in New South Wales. The State is riddled with this.

What happens when the Government tries to mislead voters and then is elected to this place? The voters have an increased distrust of the Government. What is the benefit for the Government? It is in power, and we 7296 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 May 2008

know the law according to Graham Richardson, Morris Iemma's great mate: "Whatever it takes". Transparency, openness, accuracy and honesty are required of businesses and individuals in our society. I honestly believe that political parties and political candidates should be subject to the same standards. This bill goes a long way towards doing that. The law as it stands in New South Wales allows people to stand for and obtain political office and political power through political advertising that may be totally fraudulent.

It is a dreadful attitude to have and it creates a dreadful impression. Such an appalling attitude to truthfulness fosters a culture that deception is part of what we do, that it is part of the political game and that it is okay for people to deceive, lie, cheat and do whatever it takes to get into Parliament. That is the Government's attitude to this bill. If it were not, Government members would agree to this legislation. I am yet to hear a positive contribution from Government members. It is imperative for us to restore public faith in the accuracy of political advertising. People should be able to expect honesty, transparency, openness and accuracy from their political leaders as they are putting a government into power and trusting that government to do what it said it would do. If that does not happen what faith could people have in us as political leaders in this place?

Opposition members are firmly of the view that there should be truth in advertising. That should apply not just to marketing companies or to organisations that are subject to prosecution by the Office of Fair Trading for attempting to mislead or deceive the general public; it should apply also to the products and services being supplied by big business and small business and to political advertising. Why is political advertising exempt from truth in advertising? The object of the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Amendment (Truth in Advertising) Bill is to fix that problem. It is to prohibit inaccurate and misleading political advertising. Under current law in New South Wales, misleading advertising provisions that apply to the businesses that I have just outlined do not apply to political parties or to political candidates. Political advertising should comply with the same standards of probity and honesty that apply to commercial advertising under State and Commonwealth law.

I have listened to the contributions of a number of members but I have not yet heard why political parties and political candidates should not be part of the truth in advertising banner. Why are politicians exempt from truth in advertising? Is there one rule for businesses and one rule for us? It is not fair and it is not right. The voters of New South Wales have told us that it is not right. We must work as a team to achieve truth in political advertising. I am sure that Government members will argue that this bill will restrict political communication, but it does not do that. As the shadow Minister and member for Ballina outlined earlier, this legislation would cost very little to implement. The Electoral Commissioner would be the regulator to ensure compliance with the bill. A similar bill has been drafted in South Australia, so it is not as though we will be out on a rock—the lone State in the Commonwealth. This sensible and practical bill will go a long way towards increasing the confidence of voters in New South Wales. This bill should be welcomed and supported by the Government. However, time and again we have seen that this lazy and out-of-touch Government is more interested in compounding lies rather than letting the people of New South Wales know the truth.

Mr WAYNE MERTON (Baulkham Hills) [4.33 p.m.]: I support the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Amendment (Truth in Advertising) Bill 2008, which is best described as a commonsense bill. It is difficult to understand why Government members are opposing this bill as it incorporates similar provisions to the provisions that already apply in South Australia, which at present is a Labor State. As I understand it, Premier Rann has made no move to alter that legislation. The overview of the bill is as follows:

The object of this Bill is to make it an offence for a person to authorise, cause or permit the publication of an electoral advertisement containing a statement of fact that is inaccurate and misleading to a material intent.

Fines will apply to persons or bodies corporate that are guilty of an offence. The Electoral Commissioner may request the advertiser to withdraw an advertisement from further publication or publish a retraction in specified terms. Proposed section 151AA (3) states:

It is a defence to a prosecution for an offence under this section if it is established that the defendant:

(a) took no part in determining the content of the advertisement, and

(b) could not reasonably be expected to have known that the statement to which the prosecution relates was inaccurate and misleading.

So there is an adequate defence for victims who are not responsible for publishing something that they could not have reasonably known would have been inaccurate or misleading. These are standards that the public rightfully requires. It is incredible that people can influence the result of an election with a series of misleading advertisements. Anyone running a business who repeatedly published deceptive, misleading or inaccurate 8 May 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7297

advertisements could be subject to redress under State and Commonwealth legislation. At the moment there is no redress in respect of political advertising. People influenced by political advertisements find out to their detriment after an election that those advertisements were untrue, that at best they were carelessly optimistic, and that the advertisements were of little substance. However, by then it is too late: governments might have changed, the result is a fait accompli, and they elected a government on the false premises to be found in those advertisements.

As I said earlier, there is a defence for honest mistakes—for people who make a mistake or who can dissociate themselves from the content of an advertisement. At present a somewhat lax attitude is taken ensuring truth in political advertising. It could be said that there is a culture of deception, which is simply part of the political game. At the end of the day that is an attack on the integrity of the political system. People want and are entitled to advertisements and statements from politicians that are true in substance and in fact. As voters they expect these standards, but they have been let down rather badly. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that on many occasions they have been intentionally misled and deceived and that governments have been elected by deception.

An essential part of a democratic system is that people expect honesty from political leaders and political parties. I am sure that no-one would disagree with that proposal. No-one would say that advertisements should have no substance, be deceptive or misleading, and carelessly optimistic at best. No-one would support that situation as being something that should exist in a democracy such as the one that we have in Australia. Very few people, if any, would say that that was a fair state of play. This commonsense bill, which preserves the integrity of the political process, protects people and informs them what will happen as a result of an election if they vote for a certain party, is being opposed by the Government.

Of course, that raises the question of why the Opposition is the author of this bill. If Government members do not agree with its wording, join us and we will talk about amending it. At least we could agree on proposals that incorporate the spirit and intention of preserving the integrity of the political process. Everyone in this Chamber—indeed, everyone in every Australian Parliament—is part of the political process and we have a responsibility to protect that process. Truth in advertising is a fundamental way of protecting that process. I believe there are few, if any, valid arguments against this bill. It might be argued that the bill could restrict political communication. That argument has absolutely no substance. Any political communication it would restrict would be misleading, deceptive, false and incorrect information—and that is a good thing because it is what people expect.

Again, I stretch my mind to understand how someone could object to the bill. The simple answer is that there is no valid reason. There is nothing that would cause a reasonable person to object to this bill. It reflects exactly how the people in Struggle Street feel and how people in the business community feel. They run businesses and understand that the consequences of dodgy, misleading, deceptive or false advertisements are severe and involve fines, imprisonment, or both. This bill has been on the books for a long time. We have listened to many convincing contributions to the debate, yet the Government does not support this bill. We offer this challenge: take a step for integrity, for democracy and for preserving our political integrity in New South Wales. We suggest that this House must support the bill. The Government must reconsider its position on this bill because not only does it make sense but it preserves the future of democracy in New South Wales.

Debate adjourned on motion by Ms Gladys Berejiklian and set down as an order of the day for a future day.

ROADS AMENDMENT (LANE COVE TUNNEL FILTRATION) BILL 2007

Agreement in Principle

Debate resumed from 3 April 2008.

Mr MICHAEL RICHARDSON (Castle Hill) [4.42 p.m.]: On the last occasion I spoke about the Roads Amendment (Lane Cove Tunnel Filtration) Bill 2007 I listed the general health impacts as detailed in the Legislative Council committee report on the health impacts of air pollution in the Sydney basin. I referred to the impacts of ozone on our health. Air toxics are another contaminant in the air and can cause leukaemia, long-term harm to the immune system, skin and eye irritations, drowsiness, dizziness, headaches, central nervous system dysfunction, narcosis, light-headedness, irritation of the respiratory tract, fatigue, tremors, coordination difficulties, impaired pulmonary function, cancer, and nose and throat irritation. [Extension of time agreed to.] 7298 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 May 2008

Air toxics can also cause kidney and liver damage, respiratory irritation, exacerbation of asthma, bronchitis, coughing and throat irritation. The impacts of air pollution on health are significant. Dr Ray Kearney, Chairman of the Lane Cove Tunnel Action Group and noted authority on air pollution, said:

Research confirms that up to a fifth of lung cancer deaths are attributed to exposure to carcinogen-laden fine particles in vehicle exhaust emissions.

The Minister Assisting the Minister for Health (Cancer) recently talked about the well-known link between tobacco smoking and lung cancer, but said nothing about the link between vehicle exhaust smoke and lung cancer. Indeed, many people regard PM2.5 as the new asbestos. The committee report on health impacts of air pollution in the Sydney basin states:

Smaller fine particles [PM2.5] may have greater health impacts than the larger particles [PM10]

The report continues:

Statistical evidence suggests that the health effects of particulates can occur independently of the presence of other pollutants such as ozone, nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide. There is also increasing evidence that the adverse health effects of particulates are more closely associated with the PM2.5 size fraction than with larger fractions.

Health studies of fine particles have shown that they can increase mortality from cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, increase hospital admissions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and heart disease, reduce lung function in children with asthma, and increase respiratory symptoms in school-age children. One can understand why we want a filter on the Lane Cove Tunnel—indeed, why we want to filter all road tunnels in Sydney. Electrostatic precipitators are needed; it is not just a matter of filtering the stacks. The particulate material needs to be removed from the tunnels. Electrostatic precipitators are capable of removing up to 95 per cent of particulate matter in the tunnel.

This bill seeks to clean the air inside the tunnel and the air leaving the tunnel. Lest it be thought this is not being undertaken elsewhere in the world, precipitators currently are installed in tunnels in Norway, Japan and South Korea, and are planned for Austria, Vietnam and France. So, it is good enough for Ho Chi Minh City but it is not good enough for Sydney. This Government puts it in the too-hard basket. Dr Michael Staff, Director of Environmental Health, NSW Health—someone I am sure the Minister for Health supports—told the upper House inquiry:

Air pollution does have health effects. What we would expect is that efforts would be taken to minimise those effects.

That is an absolute joke. The Government has foisted yet another unfiltered road tunnel on Sydney without any consideration of the health impact on surrounding residents, workers and motorists using the tunnel. One might ask why the member for Castle Hill is talking about this issue. The reason is that a large number of those motorists are my constituents. They travel through the Lane Cove Tunnel and potentially are subject to the health impacts I have outlined from particulate matter and other air pollution. Without filtration, those motorists will face the same problems in the Lane Cove Tunnel when traffic volumes increase in the future as motorists travelling through the M5 East Tunnel now face.

The Lane Cove Tunnel has two stacks: at Lane Cove west and Artarmon. The member for Lane Cove said that the lack of filtration means that air quality around the stacks inevitably will deteriorate. Indeed, the Legislative Council committee report identified people living, working or going to school near emission sources or hot spots as being a group at risk—that is a substantial number of people. The member for Lane Cove detailed the schools located near the stacks and also the potential health impacts on young children. Two years ago the National Environment Pollution Council report revealed that Sydney's smog was 10 times worse than in any other Australian city. Now we find in that council's latest report that smog levels over the past year have doubled around Leppington, where the Government wants to establish a new city in the south-west growth centre. The Iemma Government wants to locate another 100,000 homes in that area by 2031.

Around the Leppington area in Bringelly and Liverpool during 2006-07, the number of times the four-hour ozone level was exceeded doubled, while the one-hour ozone level was not met almost twice as many times as had been the case in the previous year in Bringelly, Liverpool and Macarthur. That demonstrates the contempt the Government has for the people it purports to represent. The Government does not care about air pollution or about reducing air pollution in the Sydney basin. It is prepared to allow 300,000 people to move into the Leppington area by 2031, despite the area being known to be a smog sink. That is a disgrace. 8 May 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7299

Why would the Government care? It does not care about the M5 East Tunnel, the Lane Cove Tunnel, or any other road tunnel. The Government has no commitment to minimising health impacts caused by air pollution. Not being content with impairing the health of people who live in Turrella and who travel through the M5 East Tunnel, it now wants to release unfiltered air from the ends of the tunnel—which is completely contrary to the conditions of consent. It will be subject my constituents and constituents of the members for Lane Cove and for Willoughby to similar health effects. That is absolutely typical of this Government's approach to health and environmental issues.

This debate presents an opportunity for the House to do something about that. The bill was introduced by the member for Lane Cove because he wants to protect his constituents but, more than that, he wants to protect all motorists who travel through the Lane Cove Tunnel from the harmful effects of air pollution. That is more than can be said for the former unlamented Minister for Roads and Transport, Carl Scully, who thankfully is no longer a member of the House. He steadfastly opposed filtration of road tunnels during the time he held the Roads portfolio. That is the reason half the people of Sydney are facing this dreadful mess today.

Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN (Willoughby) [4.51 p.m.]: I am pleased to support the Roads Amendment (Lane Cove Tunnel Filtration) Bill 2007 introduced by my colleague the member for Lane Cove. I commend him for introducing the bill. This is a major issue in our communities and it will continue to be a major issue. I regret that our legitimate and serious concerns, not only about air quality and filtration issues but, most importantly, about the enormous potential health effects that this Government's failure inflicts on our communities, are not being addressed. This private member's bill is a test for the Government. Is the Government serious about air quality issues, the environment and health issues? If so, Government members will support the bill to ensure that filtration of the Lane Cove Tunnel becomes a reality and to ensure the safety of motorists as well as people who live, work and carry out their business on a daily basis in the vicinity of the stacks.

I place on the record the fact that, regrettably, the issue has not been resolved, but the member for Lane Cove, the member for Castle Hill and I will continue to fight until it is resolved. I thank the member for Lane Cove as well as the member for Castle Hill and the member for Epping for their assistance, especially during this debate. I also acknowledge that many community organisations in our electorates have stood with us to highlight the issues and support us. They include the Lane Cove Tunnel Action Group, Mums And Dads Against Stacks, the Lane Cove Council and other local councils that have come on board concerning this issue. I again place on the record, as I have previously, my gratitude to Dr Ray Kearney, OAM, who has been an absolute community champion on this issue. Not only does he bring exceptional credentials in research, particularly medical research, to the debate on this issue, but he has a passion for the community in which he lives. He is a man of strong values. As a non-political voice he has added weight and credibility to the expression of justifiable concerns by our communities.

For the benefit of members who are not aware, Dr Ray Kearney is an associate professor in the Department of Infectious Diseases and Immunology at the University of Sydney. As I mentioned, he has been a long-time community advocate of the installation of filtration systems in road tunnels and has advocated the removal of noxious exhaust poisons. His stand relates to all tunnels. Although he is a resident of Lane Cove and a constituent of the local member, he is passionate about filtration of all tunnels. I thank him again for the great role he has played in exhibiting community leadership and assisting community organisations as well as for being a very strong advocate on this very important issue. The health aspects and concerns highlighted by Professor Kearney, members of Parliament and community leaders are well known. It is not only existing health complaints, such as respiratory illnesses, that are matters of concern: current technology does not allow us to foresee the impact that a failure to add filtration to our tunnels will have in the future.

We do not know the quantum of unfiltered air that people are inhaling and we do not know the impact that that may have in the future. As the member for Lane Cove said, that is a matter of concern. Schools in our electorates are situated in very close proximity to the stacks. The school in my electorate that is closest to the stacks is Artarmon Public School. I again state for the record my gratitude to residents in the vicinity of Artarmon Public School, especially parents, for drawing their concerns to my attention. When the Government first refused to filter the air in the tunnel the air quality readings proved to be inadequate. The air quality readings provide only a daily average of air quality. At peak hour, when the air pumped out of the stacks is at its worst, parents and other concerned local residents do not have air quality readings. The only readings that are publicly available are daily averages of the readings at 4.00 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. That is not reliable or adequate information. When we pressed the Government on the issue, we were told that the information provided to residents reflected world's best practice and was adequate. I argue strongly that it is not. 7300 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 May 2008

Not only is the Government preventing filtration and refusing to do what is ethically right in the interests of the health of our constituents, but it is refusing to be open and transparent about air quality readings. Why not publish air quality ratings when pollution in the tunnel is at its worst, particularly in peak hour? Parents, students, school communities and people who live and work around those stacks have the right, as private citizens and functioning members of the community, to know what they are inhaling during peak hour. If the Government is so convinced that the air quality is not bad at peak hour and that the health consequences of unfiltered polluted air being distributed throughout our community is not a major issue or a matter of public concern, why not reveal the figures? Why will the Government not make the figures available publicly? Why will the Government not allow people to sleep peacefully at night, knowing that their children are not inhaling toxins, either now or in the future?

This type of evasion reeks of a government paying lip-service to environmental issues, air quality, youth and health issues. When it comes to the crunch, this Government is not even respectful enough to provide a reason for its failure to filter tunnels, in particular, the Lane Cove Tunnel. Our residents and communities deserve better treatment than that. This is a test case for the future. By voting down this amendment bill, the State Labor Government is sending a message to all residents of New South Wales that they should not expect it to ensure good air quality. The Government will pay a lot of lip-service about the issue, but at the end of the day it is not prepared to act on what it says. The member for Lane Cove introduced this bill to the House last year. On a number of occasions the Government refused to allow us to debate it, most notably around the time of the last Federal election.

The Government was embarrassed about this issue because the former Federal Government put an offer on the table of $20 million towards the cost of filtering the tunnel. The former Federal Liberal Government initially committed $10 million but later put another $10 million on the table. So the Federal Liberal Government committed a total of $20 million towards meeting the cost of filtration but the State Government would not entertain the concept of filtering air in the tunnel and would not entertain the concept of matching those funds dollar for dollar to protect the health of our citizens. The State Government still has not given a reason for not contemplating acceptance of the Federal Government's generous offer at that time. Obviously the State Labor Government did not want the issue to be raised during the 2007 Federal election campaign because the Labor candidate for North Sydney, Mike Bailey, was very embarrassed about it. It was a major issue during the campaign.

Mr Anthony Roberts: Who does he work for?

Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN: We know who he works for and that he supports the Labor side. He was embarrassed that his own party let him down on that issue. The Government has tried to gag debate on this matter. Whenever the member for Lane Cove, the member for Castle Hill and I were ready on a private member's day to debate the issue, the debate was shut down. The Government committed an act of absolute hypocrisy last year. On the day before the Federal election, Premier Iemma hosted the third Clean Air Forum in Sydney. On 23 November, while the Government was shutting down debate about clean air for residents and about having the Lane Cove Tunnel filtered to ensure the air quality of local communities into the future, the Premier was hosting the Clean Air Forum. If that is not an absolute act of hypocrisy, I do not know what is.

The Government shut down debate on filtration. Indeed, it refused to consider the Federal Government's offer of $20 million towards the cost of filtration. This Government did everything it could to sweep the issue under the carpet, but out in spin and media land—where members opposite are most comfortable—it hosted a clean air forum. What absolute hypocrisy! While discussing the Lane Cove Tunnel filtration issue, I must mention the absolute arrogance of the Government in terms of advising the community about road changes associated with the tunnel and the impact of the tunnel on residential streets. Correspondence I sent to the Minister for Roads has been outstanding for 18 months. Some of that correspondence related to filtration and some related to other issues. It is totally unacceptable that a Minister of the Crown thinks it is okay not to respond to members' representations on an important issue that go back 18 months. In particular, I refer to representations I made to the Minister on behalf of the Artarmon Progress Association.

The Artarmon Progress Association raised several concerns about the Lane Cove Tunnel in terms of filtration, road changes and the impact on residential streets. One issue related to changed traffic conditions, which have not yet been implemented. It has taken the Minister for Roads 18 months to respond to correspondence, and some correspondence is still outstanding. If the Government does not intend to support what local communities want, the Minister should at least have the decency and the courage to write back and explain the Government's position. The State Government has not offered any coherent arguments as to why the 8 May 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7301

tunnel should not be filtered. World best practice is to filter tunnels, to ethically provide information to constituents, and to ensure the health and safety of constituents by maximising the purity of the air. The State Government has failed on all those counts.

At the end of the day what the Government says on climate change, the environment, health and youth means nothing because when it comes to the crunch it does not prioritise. It does not think it is important to safeguard the health of local residents, ensure air quality or take out insurance for the future health of people who live, work and play in the vicinity of these stacks. Again I refer to the Government's inability to plan ahead. Why did the Government not make in-tunnel filtration part of the contractual obligations when it was engaging with the private sector? Time and time again local residents, communities and taxpayers have been let down because the State Government has an inherent inability to deal with the private sector on such important matters.

Why did the Government not make filtration of the tunnel one of the conditions? Without wanting to verbal anyone, I assume that the private sector would happily have installed filters in the tunnel had that been part of the contractual obligations. But it was not. Why was that not on the table? Why did the then Minister for Roads, or whoever was negotiating on behalf of the Government, not make that a condition? [Extension of time agreed to.]

Why did the Government not make that a condition in the agreement with the contractors? Why does the Government not think it is important to ensure the health and safety of constituents, local residents and anybody travelling through the area? The Government, in response to this bill, has an obligation to explain why it failed to make in-tunnel filtration part of its contractual obligations with the private sector and to ensure openly and transparently that commuters were aware of air quality readings during peak times. Why are Government members speaking hypocritically in the community about air quality, environment, health and youth when they are voting down important legislation such as this bill and doing nothing to safeguard the health and safety of future generations?

I take this opportunity to explain my absolute frustration at the way the State Government has failed to consult on this issue. The Government has failed to address residents' concerns about air quality and many other associated issues. It has treated the community with contempt. At every stage the member for Lane Cove and I have tried to work constructively with the relevant authorities. At every turn we have tried to take delegations, to be constructive and to offer suggestions about the way forward. Regrettably, because of the Government's arrogant attitude, I must ask what the State Government regards as important in relation to road projects. Why does the Government not regard health and safety issues as paramount when conducting negotiations? When these matters are on the table why is the Government so obstructionist in terms of the basic right of local residents to live and work without having their quality of life impacted on?

As Professor Ray Kearney and others have described publicly, even if respiratory and other issues are not triggered currently, they could have a huge impact in the future. Members of Parliament should examine their conscience and consider how they would feel if their children or the children of loved ones were exposed to this level of fumes every day and they were part of a government that could have put in place measures to reduce the impact of the fumes. It is not too late: the Government can still ensure that filtration is a possibility. Why can we not look at that? Why do Government members argue against that? Is it a financial issue? Is it an ideological issue? Is it laziness? Is it because they do not care? Members opposite talk about climate change and air quality but when it comes to the crunch, when their actions are impacting on people's lives daily, they do not take the decisions necessary to enact what they are talking about.

Mr Alan Ashton: I wouldn't be talking about climate change because you are speaking against your whole party's policy system.

Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN: With due respect, I will not respond directly to the interjection by the member for East Hills.

Mr Alan Ashton: You just have.

Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN: That is okay; I am happy to respond. The member for East Hills and his colleagues should examine their consciences. I am sure they have been given the standard script from upstairs and told what to say. I am sure the relevant Ministers have given them scripts and told them how to explain that what they are saying is correct. I ask Government members to reconsider their scripts, reconsider why they sit in this place and reconsider how they would feel if it were their community. The member for Lane Cove and I have heard concern expressed by parents, community leaders and many local residents on this issue. 7302 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 May 2008

How would members opposite feel if this was happening in their community and the Government, which spins a lot about air quality and health and climate change, did not support this bill? The Government has not given a justifiable reason for not supporting the bill, apart from the fact that it is incompetent when it deals with the private sector and it is not a political problem that it needs to worry about.

The Government has demonstrated that it does not care about communities. This bill provides the Government with a chance to prove me wrong. This is a chance for members opposite to prove me wrong. I challenge members opposite to prove me wrong by supporting this bill. That would demonstrate that they care about the health of constituents and air quality, and that they recognise that a Government decision can impact on the health of citizens today and in the future. Members opposite should not treat people who do not necessarily live in their communities with contempt. They should take up the matter with the Minister for Roads, who thinks it is acceptable not to respond for 18 months to representations on such important matters. Is that best practice? Is it what residents of New South Wales and Sydney should expect? Are you proud of that decision? How have you justified that decision? I care very much about air quality and public transport. Use of public transport improves air quality. After years of planning, the State Government should have ensured that enough buses were available when the Epping Road lanes were reduced.

On the first, second and third days of the reduction in the number of lanes on Epping Road I visited my constituents and constituents of the member for Lane Cove who were waiting in long queues to catch buses. The Government should have been better prepared and should have considered the need for extra bus services before the Epping Road lane reduction, given its rhetoric about public transport. On those days it was chaotic. There were not enough buses. Not only does the Government refuse to filter the Lane Cove Tunnel and ensure air quality but it also refuses to provide adequate public transport services along that route to ensure that people have the option of a healthier lifestyle by using public transport and taking cars and congestion off the road. But the Government has ruled out those options.

The Government should stop the rhetoric; the community is sick of it. Government members might not realise it but people are diametrically opposed to them. At every turn on this issue they have failed their duty of care to the community and the electorate. This bill is a test case for the future. What Government members do on this bill will say much about what they will do in the future. This is an important test case. If they do not support the bill, that will have major ramifications for our residents and communities. Their lack of support will highlight their hypocrisy. I thank the member for Lane Cove for introducing this bill into the Chamber, and I thank him for the opportunity to address concerns in my community.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY (Maroubra—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.11 p.m.]: I am pleased to speak to the Roads Amendment (Lane Cove Tunnel Filtration) Bill 2007. I have taken no riding instructions from anyone upstairs, downstairs or in between. Unfortunately for the previous speaker, the member for Willoughby, and the members opposite, I replaced my colleague the Housing Minister on the Joint Select Committee on the Cross City Tunnel, which inquired into the Lane Cove Tunnel. That was a very useful exercise. Instead of gratitude from Opposition members for the delivery of this long-awaited project, the Government gets political posturing, with respect to my friend the member for Lane Cove, who has been a mate of mine for some time. With respect, he is trying to be a little bit too cute here.

Mr Anthony Roberts: We will take it outside.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: I said the member for Lane Cove, not the member for Hawkesbury. Members opposite should consider and reconsider the evidence that was given before the committee by Mr Ian Hunt, Chief Executive Officer, Connector Motorways, when he said quite rightly:

The local community, local mayors, councillors, Liberal and Labor MPs, motorists and motoring groups have fought for and demanded this project for nearly 20 years.

There is no doubt about the value to the community of this long-awaited asset. Further he said, "Epping Road is currently also a very serious polluter."

Mr Matt Brown: Who said that?

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: The Chief Executive Officer of Connector Motorways, Mr Ian Hunt, in sworn evidence before the committee. He said:

Cars are at their most polluting when they are travelling at five kilometres an hour—and we often see that on Epping Road—and the freer-flowing traffic in the tunnel will reduce emissions from vehicles in the corridor by 30 to 40 per cent. This is a very significant and positive outcome. 8 May 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7303

Mr Matt Brown: That is a killer fact.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: It is a fact indeed. When one sits on committees, one receives copious amounts of reading at the commencement of the committee. I saw the list of submissions as a result of advertisements put out statewide by the Government for people to have their say and make submissions about this state-of-the-art project. I thought that my friend the member for Lane Cove would surely take up the opportunity to provide a submission about the most significant infrastructure project ever undertaken in or around his electorate for the past 20 years. I looked in vain but he chose not to make a submission.

I thought that maybe he wanted to appear before the committee, impress on it the value of this asset, and thank the Government for having built it in his community. I therefore referred to the list of witnesses. Alas I was disappointed that my friend's name was once again missing in inaction. The inquiry concluded without the member for Lane Cove saying a single word or providing a submission to the committee. He did not thank the Government for building it and he did not say, "Excuse me, Minister Roozendaal, we have a problem with filtration." The member for Lane Cove did not say anything about filtration because it is not an issue; it is just a stunt. It was a Federal election stunt, just like the former Federal Government's promise of a paltry $20 million towards the cost of filtering the tunnel, which I will address later. Both this bill and the announcement of the former Federal Government—I love saying that; it sounds good—

Mr Matt Brown: It has a ring to it.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: It does have a ring to it.

Mr Matt Brown: Former Liberal Government is better.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: Former Liberal Government, former Coalition Government, former Howard Coalition Government. It says more about pre-election Coalition polling in North Sydney and Bennelong than it does about air quality. Members opposite who spoke in this and other debates are wont to quote Professor Ray Kearney. At least Professor Kearney had the courage and conviction to give oral and written evidence to the committee. With the greatest respect to Professor Kearney, I found his evidence very interesting, but he is a specialist in infectious diseases and immunology. I asked him whether he had any qualifications in respect of air quality and he was honest enough, unlike those opposite, to say it has been a hobby and an interest in which he has immersed himself but he has no qualifications in respect to air quality. Dr Peter Manins, Chief Research Scientist from the CSIRO, appeared before the committee and said he was also "a science manager for a number of years with 33 years of experience in air pollution and air pollution meteorology". He said:

I am published internationally. I have been involved in the M5 tunnel, giving advice to the former Department of Urban Affairs and Planning [DUAP] on stack heights. I have been involved in the Cross City Tunnel as a member of the air quality community consultative committee … and occasionally a similar role in the Lane Cove Tunnel, including just a few weeks ago.

Dr Manins, a renowned expert in Australia from the independent CSIRO, did a comparison between the three most recently built tunnels in Sydney at that time, that is, the M5 East, the Cross City Tunnel and the Lane Cove Tunnel. When talking about air quality he said that the best tunnel of all in his view would be the Lane Cove Tunnel because of its state-of-the-art design and its toughest quality air standards. Contrary to the shrill noises made by the member for Willoughby, compliance with those standards is ensured by monitoring air quality every five minutes at six different locations. The data is publicly available on the website of Connector Motorways. I suggest that the hysterics and the ingrates in the Opposition should look at that website.

We need to remember that many local residents and groups who called for the tunnel to be built did so partly to improve air quality. The tunnel is delivering this improvement for several reasons, without the need for filtration. Firstly, traffic is now moving more freely along that corridor. As Mr Hunt said, cars are at their most polluting when they are idling at five kilometres per hour. Vehicles are now moving more freely along that corridor because of the provision of the Lane Cove Tunnel. Secondly, tunnel emissions are released higher than ground level. The Epping Road corridor passes through a natural valley, and when a vehicle is idling on Epping Road, or travelling slowly along it, its exhaust emissions enter the atmosphere at less than a metre above ground level.

Emissions in the Lane Cove Tunnel are propelled at pressure through the stacks, at heights well above the road surface. Therefore, fumes are dispersed into the atmosphere further from people, houses and businesses 7304 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 May 2008

than if they were propelled from an exhaust pipe of a vehicle travelling along Epping Road. Thirdly, the Lane Cove Tunnel ventilation system is state-of-the-art. I am advised, and have seen in the construction phase of the tunnel, that there is an entirely separate ventilation tunnel, which is a special feature. It expels the emissions from the tunnel—

Mr Anthony Roberts: Where to?

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: Into the atmosphere, in greater capacity and at greater force than from older tunnels such as the M5 East. That means that greater volumes of fresh air are brought into the tunnel, diluting the exhaust fumes. A flaw in the arguments of the Coalition is that only cars in tunnels emit carbon monoxide and other pollutants. As I expressly mentioned earlier, vehicles travelling on the road surface contribute emissions into the atmosphere. Members should keep two aspects in mind in respect of filtration and particulates in tunnels. One is the particulate matter that is expelled into the atmosphere near surrounding residences and localities; and the other is the particulate matter to which drivers in tunnels are subjected.

It is for those reasons that the Government is proceeding to install filtration in the M5 East. These factors that occur in the M5 East do not apply to the Lane Cove Tunnel. Dr Ray Kearney gave evidence to the committee that I found to be particularly helpful. It related mostly to the size of the particulate matter and, therefore, necessarily to the quality of Australian fuels. He said that trucks that emit diesel fuels are quite damaging to the community. Evidence was given to the committee that with new Euro 5 diesel standards the particulate matter would be improved. There is a problem in the M5 East because of the number of heavy vehicles that use it. For several reasons the Government will install filtration in the M5 East—but those reasons do not apply to the Lane Cove Tunnel. The reasons are the vastly higher number of trucks that use the M5 East, the unique recirculating ventilation design in the tunnel, the gradient of the tunnel and the limited capacity of the single stack. For those reasons the Government will install Australia's first road tunnel filtration plant in the M5 East.

For the reasons I have stated, the Government opposes the bill. Further, the air quality in and around Epping Road and the tunnel locality will improve as a result of the Epping Road public transport enhancements. Further, whilst talking about the costs of filtration and the wonderfully generous offer from the former Howard Coalition Government, Connector Motorways has previously advised the Roads and Traffic Authority that the cost of in-tunnel filtration is about $200 million. I am advised that the cost of in-stack filtration is even higher— and that is what is proposed in the bill. What did we get from the former Howard Coalition Government? A paltry offer of $20 million, which proves that the former Howard Colation Government was not serious about installing filtration. It also proves that the bill proposed by the member for Lane Cove, when scrutinised, is nothing more than scaremongering of the local community and political ingratitude of the highest order. For those reasons the Government opposes the bill.

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS (Lane Cove) [5.25 p.m.], in reply: The filtration of the Lane Cove Tunnel is incredibly important to my constituents and those in the electorates of Willoughby and Ryde. It is of significance also to many other communities in Sydney who are fighting for their health and for filtration in their suburbs. It is important to acknowledge three key groups and a number of individuals who have seen the dangers of the poisons emitted from unfiltered tunnels into the communities. The groups are the Residents Against Polluting Stacks, Mums and Dads Against Stacks and the Lane Cove Tunnel Action Group. I once again pay tribute to their wisdom, fortitude and support. I acknowledge in particular Dr Ray Kearney and his wife Elma.

I acknowledge my parliamentary colleagues, in particular the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Vaucluse, the Leader of The Nationals, the member for Willoughby, the member for Epping and the member for Castle Hill, through whom tunnel filtration for Sydney became a key Coalition policy platform and remains so. I thank also the contribution, though somewhat misguided, of the member for Maroubra, my friend. The Coalition continues to urge the Government, because time is short, to follow world's best practice by filtering the Lane Cove Tunnel, and indeed all tunnels in metropolitan Sydney, not because it is the right thing to do scientifically, but for the health and wellbeing of our children, our families and our communities. Mark my words: What we are dealing with here is the new asbestos. It will haunt this Government and any members who oppose this filtration for decades to come. I commend the bill to the House.

Question—That the bill be agreed to in principle—put.

The House divided. 8 May 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7305

Ayes, 34

Mr Aplin Ms Hodgkinson Mrs Skinner Mr Baird Mrs Hopwood Mr Smith Mr Baumann Mr Humphries Mr Souris Ms Berejiklian Mr Kerr Mr Stokes Mr Constance Mr Merton Mr J. H. Turner Mr Debnam Mr O'Dea Mr R. W. Turner Mr Draper Mr O'Farrell Mr J. D. Williams Mrs Fardell Mr Page Mr R. C. Williams Mr Fraser Mr Piper Ms Goward Mr Provest Tellers, Mrs Hancock Mr Richardson Mr George Mr Hazzard Mr Roberts Mr Maguire

Noes, 44

Mr Amery Ms Gadiel Mr Morris Ms Andrews Mr Greene Mrs Paluzzano Mr Aquilina Mr Harris Mr Pearce Ms Beamer Mr Hickey Mrs Perry Mr Borger Ms Hornery Mr Rees Mr Brown Ms Judge Mr Sartor Ms Burney Ms Keneally Mr Shearan Mr Campbell Mr Khoshaba Mr Stewart Mr Collier Mr Koperberg Ms Tebbutt Mr Coombs Mr Lynch Mr Terenzini Mr Corrigan Dr McDonald Mr West Mr Costa Ms McKay Mr Whan Mr Daley Mr McLeay Tellers, Ms D'Amore Ms McMahon Mr Ashton Ms Firth Ms Megarrity Mr Martin

Pairs

Mr Piccoli Ms Burton Mr Stoner Mr Gibson

Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

Question—That private members' statements be noted—proposed.

MR TERRY RYDER

Mr TONY STEWART (Bankstown) [5.37 p.m.]: I refer the House to an article that appeared in the Australian newspaper on 29 April 2008 entitled, "The worst place to buy a home". This article was drawn from a recent report authored by a self-appointed so-called property specialist, Mr Terry Ryder. In this report Mr Ryder makes reference to Bankstown, along with 12 other towns or cities in Australia, which he urges property investors to avoid. In terms of Bankstown, Mr Ryder is quoted in this so-called property report entitled, "The No-Go Zones: 13 worst places to invest", saying amongst other things, "Imagine living in an area where there's an arson attack on a home every second day".

Put plainly and simply, Mr Ryder's comments on Bankstown—and most likely on other places he denigrates in his report—are grossly wrong and malicious. Bankstown and its surrounding region is, without question, one of the best places in Australia—if not the best—in which to live and work. The Bankstown local government area services a diverse population of nearly 200,000 people representing over 130 different 7306 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 May 2008

nationalities. This is easily one of New South Wales biggest and most harmonious communities; it is a great family area. I will refer to Bankstown and its virtues later in my comments, but for now I will make a few pertinent comments about the self-appointed property specialist Terry Ryder, a Queenslander who admits to spending only a handful of hours in the Sydney areas that he whinges about in his pathetic property report.

Mr Ryder in my view, based on my research, is a first-class property spiv, a twenty-first century version of the nineteenth century snake oil salesman. An analysis of this bloke's so-called work demonstrates that he is a charlatan who uses grubby and unjustified so-called facts to provide a smokescreen of credibility for his dubious reports. To access Mr Ryder's latest so-called property report on the Internet will cost the unsuspecting and vulnerable user an $80 fee. For this you get a few pages of drivel that could be easily derived from any property magazine, along with slanderous comments about good, decent family places like Bankstown.

This week my office contacted a number of well-known peak real estate property associations on a State and national basis to ascertain Mr Ryder's real estate credentials. My office first contacted the Real Estate Institute of Australia. This body, well known as it is, found no reference to Mr Terry Ryder. It referred us to the Real Estate Institute of Queensland—Terry Ryder's home State—but, amazingly, Queensland's peak real estate body said that a search of its records could not locate Terry Ryder as a member. Being diligent, my office then checked with the Office of Fair Trading in Queensland. This hardworking department advised my office that it had no record of Mr Terry Ryder, or Mr Terrence Ryder, having a real estate licence in Queensland or other States.

Not wanting to give up on this quest to discover any credible reference to Terry Ryder, my office then called the New South Wales Department of Fair Trading. Again it was advised that there is no record of Mr Ryder having a real estate licence in New South Wales. Persistently, my office contacted the Property Council of Australia. Once again this council could provide no reference to Mr Terry Ryder as a member or industry advocate. Based on this situation Mr Terry Ryder seems to have about the same credibility as Salman Rushdie at a Muslim function—a self-proclaimed real estate expert who does not even possess a real estate licence. I understand that this fellow operates from his residence on the Queensland Gold Coast—probably from a computer set up in his lounge room.

Given current economic circumstances and mortgage stress, the last thing that working families need is some boofhead, under the guise of a so-called property expert, maliciously prophesising doom and gloom about great family regions like Bankstown. By any standards Bankstown is a great place, which is demonstrated by the many great people who have lived there and their achievements. People of note from Bankstown include: former Prime Minister Paul Keating; former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam; Premier Morris Iemma lived close enough for Bankstown to claim him; New South Wales Commissioner of Police, Andrew Scipione; former New South Wales Commissioner of Police, Ken Moroney; and Margaret Cunneen from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Other people of note include entertainers such as Col Joye, from Bankstown; Kevin Jacobson, Bankstown; the Bee Gees, Bankstown; Rod Taylor, Bankstown; Natalie Imbruglia, Bankstown; Vince Sorrenti, Bankstown; Anh Do, Bankstown; Andrew and Michael Tierney of Human Nature—the world-renowned vocal group—Bankstown; Brian Brown, the famous international actor, Bankstown; and Roger Sommerill, of radio fame, Bankstown. Sports stars include Steve and Mark Waugh, Bankstown; Jeff Thompson, Bankstown; Lenny Pascoe, Bankstown; Wayne Holdsworth, Bankstown; Tony Roche, Bankstown; the Conrads, Bankstown; Don Talbot, Bankstown; Terry Lamb, Bankstown; Dr George Peponis, Bankstown; the Hughes family, Bankstown; Hazim El Masri, Bankstown; Chris Anderson, Bankstown; Peter Lonard, Bankstown; Tim Cahill, Bankstown; Ian Thorpe, the gold medallist, Bankstown; and Sean Eadie, Bankstown. Many other famous people also come from Bankstown. It is a great place that achieves great things for Australia. Alan Ashton also comes from Bankstown.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT EX GRATIA PAYMENTS

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE (Bega) [5.42 p.m.]: The Minister—

Mr David Harris: Match that for passion!

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE: I will. The Minister for Local Government is a dill and he is incompetent. He has written one of the more extraordinary letters I have ever seen from a Iemma Government 8 May 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7307

Minister. I refer to clause 405 of the Local Government General Regulations 2005, which was introduced to enable councils to provide ex gratia payments to retiring general managers. People across the State are not aware that Eurobodalla councillors approved an ex gratia payment of $100,000 for the retiring general manager, Jim Levy, but over the past few weeks it has been a topic of raging concern in the electorate of Bega and the Eurobodalla Shire Council area.

As the local member I have received correspondence and I have contacted the Minister for Local Government to ask whether such a payment is permitted under the Local Government Act—in 2003 this place passed legislation banning such payments. However, a regulation was introduced in 2005, which, of course, was not debated in Parliament. It was negotiated behind closed doors between the Labor Party, Local Government Managers Australia, the Local Government and Shires Associations and the United Services Union. The Minister points out in his letter that the arrangement was reached after extensive consultation. It was very clear that the community wanted the issue addressed, but the Minister's letter states:

In the absence of any widespread concern about its operation I am of the view that there is no need to amend clause 405 of the Regulation at this time.

I urge the Minister for Local Government to come to Eurobodalla. He flew over the area a couple of weeks ago on his way to Bega and then travelled to the southern part of the shire without visiting the council. I urge him to come to the shire to gauge the widespread community concern. The shire has had three rate increases in the past three years, so to see ratepayers' money being used in this fashion is very concerning. Ultimately, councillors will have to wear the political fall out for this decision, but the situation has occurred because the Minister for Local Government and the Labor Party have arranged some sweetheart deal. Other arrangements have been made for the retiring general manager, such as his receiving a Toyota Prado that has been depreciated to $18,000. Concerns have been raised in the community about other arrangements involving his contract, because he will take his accrued leave and will be under contract for a further 12 months, obviously while not working. His petrol card also comes into question.

The community is entitled to answers from the Minister for Local Government. I hope he will do the right thing and repeal this clause because it is not fair. It is particularly unfair in a shire in which the average family income is well below the State average and in which the council is struggling with assets because it has been starved of funding by the State Government. This Minister's correspondence to constituents is completely out of touch with what is going on. Saying that there is no widespread community concern about this issue is offensive. People in the Eurobodalla shire, who normally never complain or express concern about anything, are now writing letters to the newspaper, to local members and to the council about this decision, which the Iemma Government has allowed because of its extensive consultation in local government circles. I hope this issue is addressed because it is unfair to many pensioners and other ratepayers who think that they are paying rates for the benefit of their local community.

GERMAN VINEDRESSERS ARRIVAL 170TH ANNIVERSARY

Mr GEOFF CORRIGAN (Camden) [5.47 p.m.]: On the weekend of 26 and 27 April 2008 it was my pleasure to attend the first reunion of the descendants of the six German vinedressers brought to Australia by Edward Macarthur to tend to his brother's vineyards at Camden. This first reunion celebrated the 170th anniversary since the families left Germany in 1838 aboard the barque Kinnear and arrived at Sydney Cove on 23 April 1838. The vinedressers and their families were Casper Flick, Georg Gerhard, Johann Justus, Friedrich Seckold, Johann Stein and Johann Wenz. Throughout the weekend I was fascinated to hear the families' histories. I was delighted to join the Consul General for Germany, Dr Günther Gruber, in officially welcoming the descendants at Camden Park estate, which was kindly thrown open for the weekend by John and Edwina Macarthur-Stanham, who still call Camden Park their family home. I was very honoured to give the welcome and was delighted to read the following message from the Premier, the Hon. Morris Iemma:

I was delighted to hear that the descendants of the 'Original Six' vignerons who helped develop the Australian wine industry are having a reunion at Camden Park.

While we generally associate German immigration with South Australia and the aftermath of Bismarck's Kulturkampf, it is remarkable to imagine that a significant German presence was actually established here in NSW much earlier.

The remarkable journey of these vinedressers all the way from western Germany was a foretaste of the postwar multicultural miracle that would happen just over a century later.

Their advent also provided an early indication of Australia's potential as a winegrowing region, a fact that would be stunningly confirmed in the second half of the 20th century.

7308 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 May 2008

On behalf of the NSW Government, I honour the memory of these brave pioneers and the many sacrifices they made in the service of their new country.

I also thank and congratulate Julie Watt and all her relatives and colleagues who have worked so hard to publicise this fascinating but unsung chapter of Australia's history.

The descendants of the 'Original Six' are entitled to feel an enormous amount of pride in the achievements of your forebears. May their legacy long be treasured and remembered.

Morris Iemma Premier of New South Wales

Following the official welcome, the descendants toured Camden Park estate and then visited Camden Museum. That night Dr Gruber and I again joined the descendants at the Hubertus Club at Luddenham for their anniversary dinner. We had fantastic food. Indeed, Dr Gruber assured me that the food at the Hubertus Club is the equal of any German restaurant in New South Wales. Guest speakers also entertained us. There was too much history covered for me to do it justice in this brief speech. However, I will place in the Parliamentary Library a copy of the "Autumn in Macarthur" magazine, which has an excellent article by Julie Watt on the trials and tribulations faced by these early settlers. However, I will quote a small section of her research, which states:

Three weeks after leaving London they experienced storms as they sailed along the Spanish Coast. Johann Stein in his letter to the Mayor of Erbach, Germany dated 27 May 1838 wrote of the experience—"Our whole ship was rolling continuously. We never thought this would happen when we left London. The women and children had to stay in bed. They became seasick but nothing serious. The men all felt well and had no problems.

After disembarking from the Kinnear and then greeting their master, they travelled 12 miles via boat to stay overnight at Elizabeth Farm, the home of Edward's mother Elizabeth Macarthur. They continued the remainder of their 40-mile journey to Camden Park the next morning.

On arrival at Camden Park they were given as part of their contract with Major Macarthur a 'separate dwelling'. The head of each family was to receive for his labour '180 florins per annum'. With the homes, situated opposite the vineyard, they also received furniture, basic household tools and animals including chooks, dogs, geese & cows.

These days we can jump on a plane and be in Europe within 24 hours, which reminds us of the tremendous challenges that were faced by early settlers. Tonight I congratulate, in particular, the organisers who did a truly fantastic job in organising events at the weekend. I thank Julie Watt, who did all this research after simply starting out to investigate the barque Kinnear. From that simple search we now have available all this information on the pioneers of the Australian wine industry. Fortunately, for the sake of posterity, Camden Museum will hold that collection. I say to the other organisers—Bryan Bourke, Lionel and Wendy Stein, Robert Squires, Debbie Noy, Michael O'Rourke and Lisa Twomey—congratulations on a job well done!

As I said earlier, descendants requiring more information on the weekend's events will find it on the website www.twomeycontracting.com/reunion.htm. I am sure all members will be surprised and happy to learn that of those six families the Hon. Verity Firth, one of the Flick family descendants, is a Minister in this Government. Unfortunately, she could not attend events at the weekend but her mother and aunt Meredith Burgmann were there, learning about and honouring their ancestors. There is a bit of rivalry between these families. One of the members of the Seckold family told me that one of the members of that family was a Minister in the Lang Government, but I have yet to confirm that. I thank all the families for inviting me. They did a fantastic job. It was great listening to people talk about their families and about what happened A lot of them never knew they were descendants from these wonderful German vinedressers brought out by Macarthur. I congratulate them on a great job.

DUNGOG FILM FESTIVAL

Mr GEORGE SOURIS (Upper Hunter) [5.52 p.m.]: I take this opportunity to inform the House of the impending Dungog Film Festival that will be held between Thursday 29 May and Sunday 1 June. I compliment and commend the local community, in particular, Elona Stavros, shire council Mayor Glen Wall, and General Manager, Craig Deasey, for the wonderful and dramatic way in which the film festival has gone from year one to year two. Last year—year one—attracted about 1,500 people, but it is anticipated that in year 2, assuming that the weather is good, of the order of 5,000 people will attend nothing short of a fantastic film festival.

The festival is unique because it is the only film festival in Australia that features only Australian productions. This year, two Hunter Valley features will premiere at the Dungog Film Festival. The first feature film is Honeymoon in Kabul and the second feature film is Lockout. Honeymoon in Kabul features husband and 8 May 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7309

wife doctors from Newcastle who took their honeymoon in Kabul. It was not just an ordinary honeymoon; it was a productive visit by people who provided medical aide to that trouble-torn area. The film, which takes the form of a documentary, highlights the assistance that was given by people around the Hunter Valley who supported the couple who went to Kabul, and it then features the good work that was done.

Lockout, the second feature film from the Hunter Valley—those in the Hunter Valley would immediately identify it—is the story of the Rothbury riots and coalmine lockout that occurred in Cessnock, Pelaw Main and the Richmond Vale area. In all, some 80 films will be screened at a number of venues. Another utterly unique feature of the Dungog Film Festival is the James Theatre—the oldest continuously running heritage cinema in Australia. The fact that it is an Australian film festival will most certainly attract many star actors, producers and directors on the Australian film scene. It will be a really wonderful few days.

The film festival will be coupled with workshops and educational aspects as well as the screening of the films to which I referred. I was pleased to attend the launch of the festival, which was conducted in Newcastle last week. I wish all the people who are involved the best of success, in particular, the friends of the Dungog Film Festival and that large body of volunteers that makes it all happen. The film festival has become a major annual and landmark event in the world of cinematography in Australia. I look forward to attending the festival that will be hosted in Dungog—one of the most beautiful and picturesque valleys in the world. I strongly encourage everybody to make the journey to the most beautiful Dungog, which is on the CityRail network, to enjoy this fabulous film festival.

SYDNEY HARBOUR BOATING TRAGEDY

Ms VERITY FIRTH (Balmain—Minister for Climate Change and the Environment, Minister for Women, Minister for Science and Medical Research, Minister Assisting the Minister for Health (Cancer)) [5.57 p.m.]: This week the people of Balmain are mourning the tragic loss of young lives from our community. Members would be aware that in the early hours of last Thursday an overcrowded runabout collided with a fishing trawler off the Balmain peninsula. Six young people, most of whom were locals, tragically lost their lives in an accident that has shaken the close-knit Balmain community. I convey my deepest sympathies and condolences to the families and friends of these young people: popular Balmain bartenders Stacy Wright, aged 21, and Lizzie Holder aged 20; Alex Rumiz, aged 22; Jessica Savannah Holloway, aged 25, visiting from America; Ashlei Ayres, aged 32; and Alex "Pondy" Nikakis, aged 29, who died the following night at Royal North Shore Hospital. I know that the thoughts and prayers of the Balmain community go out to them all.

On the night of the accident the streets of Balmain were filled with locals comforting one another and sharing their grief. Over the last weeks tributes for these young people have flowed in, in particular, to Unity Hall Hotel where Stacy Wright worked as a bartender, and to the Commercial Hotel where Lizzie Holder worked. I understand that the Unity Hall Hotel has presented the Wright family with a donation of money collected from locals and staff. The hotel also has a consolation book that has already been signed by hundreds of patrons and local residents. Our thoughts go to the men on the fishing trawler involved in the accident who, naturally, were devastated following this tragic event. I take this opportunity to praise the brave actions of the fishermen who risked their own safety to pull victims out of the harbour. Their actions deserve the highest commendation. I am sure that all members join me in thanking them for their courage.

Tribute must go also to the ambulance staff and medical professionals in New South Wales who worked tirelessly through the night in an extremely challenging environment, and to water police crews whose base is in Balmain for their continuing efforts in this tragic case. I understand that one of the tributes given to Mr Nikakis was that he would always be remembered as a true Balmain boy. To be a resident of Balmain is to breathe the ebb and flow of Sydney Harbour, to live side by side with the ocean. It is absolutely tragic that this same ocean should be the source of such terrible grief for so many of our number. Balmain has always been a place where there is a real sense of community, of people helping one another and looking after one another. Last week this same spirit of camaraderie has been unmistakable in Balmain. Our hearts go out to the survivors of this accident—young people who lost their friends in truly tragic circumstances and those who have been taken from us so unfairly and in the prime of their lives. They will always be in our hearts and in our minds.

CURRAWONG RETREAT DEVELOPMENT

Mr ROB STOKES (Pittwater) [6.00 p.m.]: Tonight I inform the House about the sorry saga of Currawong, which is becoming symbolic of the Government's failure to get real about coastal overdevelopment issues, and the extraordinary power of the development lobby in this State. The development plans are now on 7310 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 May 2008

the table and, quite frankly, they are a disaster. It has always been clear that on social and cultural grounds Currawong should never be subdivided and flogged off to the uber-rich. It has always been clear that Currawong has immense value as a property of cultural and natural heritage significance. Now that the development plans are on the table it is clear that the residential subdivision of Currawong would be an environmental disaster.

As the bushfire assessment for Currawong states, "It would be expected that a fire burning within open forest vegetation on the slopes would mainly burn upslope and away from any developments precincts." In other words, any fire originating from Currawong would be likely to travel up the slope into the Ku-ring-gai National Park, placing areas of incalculable cultural, social and environmental significance to the nation at risk. The project application envisages the destruction of at least 136 mature trees, the majority being native eucalypts, casuarinas and angophoras, in part to provide for "more suitable building envelopes".

What are these building envelopes? The homes planned for this sensitive site are ginormous. On one lot the building envelope is a bloated 640 square metres, with a building height limit of eight metres. This would potentially allow construction of a mega-mansion of more than 1,000 square metres. We are not talking about small lightweight treehouses, as the proponent would have us believe. And the idea of allowing residential subdivision on a floodplain less than three metres above the Australia height datum [AHD] is grossly irresponsible. We have already inherited a pattern of development along low-lying coastal areas that will cause real problems in the face of a changing climate and the threat of rising sea levels. Why on earth would anyone in their right mind contemplate allowing a subdivision of vulnerable coastal land into multiple ownership? Who will bear liability for such a decision when rising sea levels coupled with extreme weather events and storm surges put these planned new homes at risk?

To make matters even worse, the project application envisages that homes will be built within 20 metres of a shoreline that is subject to collapse. Twenty metres is not a riparian buffer; it is a sick joke. Under legislation quietly repealed by the Government just a few months ago—the Rivers and Foreshores Improvement Act—a permit was required for any development within 40 metres of the top of the bank of any waterway. At Currawong we have a significant watercourse with a defined channel and a permanent flow influenced by tidal waters, and the proponent argues that a 20-metre riparian buffer is appropriate. I don't think so! The proponent is proposing to restore the sand dunes on Currawong beach. The only snag is that there never have been any sand dunes on Currawong beach. Methinks the "natural" sand dunes are more intended as a dyke. Maybe Hans Brinkler will get a job as the caretaker.

Noted coastal engineer Phillip Haines presented evidence at a recent New South Wales coastal conference arguing that a vertical buffer of 3.5 metres AHD should be applied to all new development around coastal lagoons. On this basis alone, no residential development on the floodplain at Currawong should be countenanced. Not only that, but this so-called ecovillage will involve excavation of an alluvial floodplain—a mud flat—for two swimming pools less than one minute's walk to a still water beach. It just does not make sense. It is ironic that the Minister for Planning was empowered to call in the Currawong development proposal only on the basis that Currawong is a sensitive coastal location. The fact that Currawong is a sensitive coastal location is the very reason that a major residential subdivision should not even be contemplated.

The principle of intergenerational equity, which is enshrined in New South Wales law, demands that we do not make decisions that will leave environmental headaches for our descendants to sort out. Currawong is a fragile and sensitive coastal location with great potential as a place of public recreation. Residential subdivision of Currawong involves huge environmental risks over the coming decades. If it is split up into little bits with multiple owners, as envisaged by the unions and the developers, these environmental problems will be almost impossible to solve. The only sensible option for a low-lying coastal site like Currawong is for government to purchase it while it remains in sole ownership, and to put the whole site into the national park which surrounds it. That is not to mention the significance of Currawong's natural and cultural heritage, which alone provides a complete justification for its resumption.

If the part 3A process has any objectivity or merit at all, the Minister for Planning will refuse the project application for Currawong, and I urge him with all my heart to do just that. Once the project application has been refused, it will be time for this Government to get real about Currawong, and purchase it back for the people of New South Wales. It is time for the Department of Lands to put back on the table its offer to purchase Currawong in the event that, hopefully, the project application is refused on its merits, which, as I have outlined briefly, are very, very few indeed.

ABORIGINAL MATERNITY HEALTH SERVICES

Mr MICHAEL DALEY (Maroubra—Parliamentary Secretary) [6.05 p.m.]: On Monday 5 May I was proud to attend, together with the Minister for Health, the Malabar Community Midwifery Link Service in my 8 May 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7311

electorate for the launch of a wonderful book entitled All You Need to Know about a Healthy Pregnancy for a Healthy Baby: An Aboriginal Personal Pregnancy Handbook. There is a beautiful motto on the front of the book, "Land is our life: Life is our mother." The book was written by Aboriginal women to assist Aboriginal women during pregnancy and labour. It covers vitally important pregnancy subjects that young women particularly would not otherwise know. It takes young women through the stages of pregnancy. It suggests they have medical checkups regularly and tells them what the danger signs are. It gives them guidelines and advice about health and things that can hurt their baby, such as the dangers of smoking, drugs and drinking, and of domestic violence. It gives them some guides to female anatomy and other things such as healthy eating for your baby and you.

I was pleased to have attended with the Minister to launch that book. It is part of a program called the Aboriginal and Maternal Infant Health Strategy [AMIHS], which is now being rolled out across the State. Evidence tells us that the sooner pregnant women connect with their health service the healthier they and their babies will be. The AMIHS program is currently in 14 areas across New South Wales and will be rolled out to a further 17 areas. That will bring the total Government commitment to the AMIHS model to $7.2 million. The program at Malabar is one I am particularly pleased to see in my electorate. Present on Monday were Terry Clout, the chief executive officer of the South Eastern Sydney and Illawarra Health Service, the service's midwifery coordinator, Shay Caplice, midwife Kate Williams and other midwives and vital people. Aunty Gloria Martin from La Perouse was there and gave a moving welcome to country, along with my friend Trudy Allende who works for the centre. Kate Williams, one of the young midwives, was recently named a finalist in the 2008 New South Wales Midwives Association Midwife of the Year Award. There were some young mothers there with beautiful babies.

The Malabar Community Midwifery Link Service builds upon the existing Aboriginal Maternal and Infant Health Strategy that has been running through the Royal Hospital for Women since 2002 in prioritising Aboriginal women who elect to give birth at the hospital at Randwick—and are we not lucky to have that wonderful hospital in our area—no matter where they live. The service is not just for Aboriginal women. The service provides a community-based, primary health care midwifery service for women and families who live in Maroubra, Matraville, Malabar and La Perouse, all women who use the service birth at the Royal Hospital for Women at Randwick. The service is based at the Malabar Community Midwifery Link Service clinic in Malabar and provides an outreach service at the La Perouse Aboriginal community health centre. This population includes women from Aboriginal communities and a range of culturally and linguistically diverse communities who are most at risk of poor perinatal outcomes and social isolation.

The service includes five registered midwives and one mentored Aboriginal midwife, coordinated by a clinical midwife consultant, and provides continuity of midwifery care. The practice services between 180 and 200 women per year. Each midwife has a caseload of approximately 30 to 35 women per year. The mix of Aboriginal women within this caseload is approximately 30 per cent. I was pleased to see the launch of this book at that service. I am proud to have the service residing in my electorate. I thank the Minister for Health for once again coming into my electorate and giving us the attention we like to see from NSW Health. I congratulate all of the people, particularly the women, who run this wonderful service. I thank them for the services they provide to young pregnant women in our electorate.

BYRON BAY WRITERS FESTIVAL

Mr DONALD PAGE (Ballina) [6.10 p.m.]: I raise an issue in the House tonight of deep concern to the people of the Ballina electorate and beyond. I refer to the review of Arts NSW Cultural Grants Program funding that could see future funding cease for the Northern Rivers Writers' Centre, which hosts the annual Byron Bay Writers' Festival. The festival is one of the most significant events on Byron Bay's calendar, attracting more visitors than either the Brisbane or Melbourne writers' festivals. It is the only significant literary festival that celebrates Australian writing and writers, and does not predominantly feature international writers. The Byron Bay Writers' Festival is the event writers love to attend; it provides regional audiences with a world-class forum for discussion and ideas. The festival has a reputation for excellence internationally with a passionate volunteer army of 130 people and a waiting list of people clamouring to be involved.

It is hard to believe that such a festival, which costs around $490,000 to put on, receives only $17,500 from the Australia Council and $5,000 from the Film and Television Office. Now the only other Government support it receives—$55,000 from the State Government—is in danger of being axed. The festival scheduled for this coming July will have 45,000 attendees. The Northern Rivers Writers' Centre was established in 1994 as a centre to foster excellence in Australian writing and reading. The centre is a non-profit organisation with a 7312 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 May 2008

membership of approximately 800 individuals and organisations. The NRWC plays a vital role in providing support and mentoring for emerging writers. The council does this through the provision of face-to-face consultations, facilitating contact between developing writers and local industry professionals, staff training to provide expert and current industry knowledge in all areas of publishing, writing and reading, and greatly enhances the cultural life of the local community.

To add salt to the wound, the NRWC advised me that it received no notification of the review. The report from the review was discovered on the Arts NSW website by pure chance. Imagine the centre's shock on reading the recommendation, which states that "funding for regional writers centres be reviewed and that better outcomes may be achieved by addressing the needs of regional writers online". Neither the NRWC nor even Arts NSW's own regional body, Arts Northern Rivers, was consulted regarding this review, despite the review stating that all major arts stakeholders involved in the cultural grants funding program were consulted.

Further, one of the people commissioned to perform the review is also on the Board of Varuna, the Blue Mountains Writers' Centre, which is the only centre exempted from the review. However, it should be noted that the NRWC agrees that Varuna should be maintained. It runs the highly sought after Litlink and Longlines programs. In 2007 of the 37 places offered in these programs nine were awarded to NRWC members. With such obvious talent, why would this State Government be looking to cease funding to an organisation that provides opportunities for regional residents—opportunities that are few and far between? The suggestion by the review that the services currently provided by the NRWC could be better provided by an online service is ludicrous and insulting to everyone involved in the NRWC.

Only recently the NRWC hosted a senior publisher from one of the largest publishing houses in Australia for one-on-one consultations with members. This resulted in that publishing house taking four manuscripts, with several more to be submitted after further work. How could this golden opportunity for local writers possibly be created online? Jenni Caffin, Director of NRWC, makes a good point when she asks: Why should rural writers and audiences be denied services and professional support when their impact on the national cultural life of this country is strong and when, in fact, many practitioners are choosing to abandon city life for the tree change or sea change experience?

The Northern Rivers region has a wealth of talent and creativity, which must be nurtured and developed. This area has such a wonderful nursery to do just that, but it requires some Government support. Indeed, it is the responsibility of government to support cultural development. Just prior to coming into the Chamber tonight to raise this issue I was able to express my concerns in a brief conversation with the Minister for Planning's arts advisor. I was assured by this advisor that the $55,000 for the Northern Rivers Writers Centre for this calendar year is secure, but that these grants are being further reviewed for future years. I was assured also that the Northern Rivers Writers Centre would be consulted in future regarding any changes. I thank the Minister's office for this assurance on this year's Byron Bay Writers Festival due in July. However, I remain concerned that the funding to the centre could be axed in future years. This would be an extremely short-sighted decision for the reasons I have mentioned.

ANZAC DAY 2008 MEMORIAL PARK, THE ENTRANCE

Mr GRANT McBRIDE (The Entrance) [6.15 p.m.]: Anzac Day marks Australia's most important national occasion. It is profoundly significant as it commemorates the creation of Australia's national identity. Anzac Day also is a celebration and recognition of what became known as the Anzac legend—a legend that shaped the way in which Australians view both the past and present. This year is the ninety-third anniversary of Anzac Day. I had the honour of attending the Anzac Service at Memorial Park, The Entrance. The commemoration began with a prologue by The Entrance Long Jetty RSL Sub-Branch President Mr Allan Fletcher, who recalled all those in the great tragedy of war who gave their lives for Australia and for freedom. He reminded us of the ultimate sacrifice that men and women make so that the lights of freedom and humanity may continue to shine.

He acknowledged also the involvement of the Australian Defence Forces, which even now are serving on active duty in the Middle East, including Afghanistan and Iraq, the Pacific, Timor and the Solomon Islands, and in peacekeeping operations around the world, including Cyprus. The order of commemoration was followed by a Prayer of Thanksgiving by the RSL Women's Auxiliary President, Mrs `Beryl Evans, a Prayer to the Queen by Reverend Pam Fraser and a Prayer to the Nation by Father Bill Stevens. Lachlan Dorn, Alarna Thorncraft and Shuana Watson of Tuggerah Lakes Secondary College Berkeley Vale Campus offered an insightful oration on the role of Women in the Defence Force from World War I to the present. 8 May 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7313

During the First World War 2,692 women served in the AANS [Australian Army Nursing Service], with 2,139 serving overseas, and 29 of these women died in active service. During World War II a number of auxiliary services were formed. There were 27,200 women in the WAAAF [Women's Australian Auxiliary Air Force], including my mother-in-law, Molly Day; 24,000 in the AWAS [Australian Women's Army Service]; and 3,100 in the WRANS [Women's Royal Australian Navy Service]. To be eligible to join these services women had to be aged between 18 and 45 years and single. Their occupations included communications, drivers, typists, mechanics and cooks. The Australian Women's Land Army was recruited to provide labourers on farms.

There was no equality in pay as wages were only two-thirds of what men received for similar jobs. Only nurses were allowed to serve outside the Australian territory. The auxiliary services were all disbanded by 1947 and the women returned to their normal lives having helped our country survive through these hard times. In today's defence forces, women are welcomed and treated as equals, serving side by side with their male counterparts. The commemoration continued with Reverend Jim Newton offering the Commemoration of the Fallen. The Last Post was sounded, followed by the Ode given by Sub-branch President Allan Fletcher.

Flag attendants Bill Potten OAM, Roger Gaydon, Terry Bendall and Tony Healy lowered the flag during the Last Post, then after a minute's silence they raised the flag to the sound of "Reveille". Spectators then joined CPO Colin Wild singing the hymn "Lead Kindly Light". Father Stevens offered benediction and everyone stood whilst the nation anthems of Australia and New Zealand were played. "Dismount the Guard" by the Guard Commander ended proceedings. Dignitaries included me; Craig Thomson, member of Parliament, member for Dobell; George Smith and Steve Cutler from The Entrance Town Centre Management; Max Maxwell from the Department of Veterans' Affairs; Chief Executive Officer Steve Byfield and Chairman Peter O'Grady and his wife, Chris, of Diggers at The Entrance; councillors Bob Graham and Robyn Stewart from Wyong Shire Council; Lieutenant Wilson and a contingent of 2nd/17th Infantry Battalion; Pilot Officer Tom Hofbrucker and a contingent from Williamtown RAAF; and Sub-Lieutenant Robyn Thompson representing the Navy.

I congratulate RSL Sub-Branch President, Allan Fletcher, who organised the fly over of an F18 Hornet, piloted by Squadron Leader Paul Simmons, during the ceremony. I thank the RAAF for allowing this spectacular addition to the ceremonies. On the day Allan Fletcher pointed out that the Hornet had flown from Williamstown to the Central Coast and subsequently was flying to Taree for another event on Anzac Day. Apparently the Hornet finished some 25 seconds earlier when it arrived at The Entrance. From a military point of view, that should not happen. It added a spectacular addition to the ceremonies.

The 2008 Commemorative Service at The Entrance is a true example of the community spirit that is evident in wider Australia today. The crowds that attended on Friday, from toddlers to adults, are a reflection of the national enthusiasm that is growing stronger each year and are a sign of respect for whose that gave their lives to secure freedom and democracy for Australia. I mention also the participation of local Hellenic community members who joined in the Anzac Day march through The Entrance demonstrating their respect to the fallen from all nations involved in conflicts from our history. Anzac Day continues to be a touchstone for the Australian community.

ALBURY GOLD CUP

Mr GREG APLIN (Albury) [6.20 p.m.]: A new chapter in the 127-year history of the Albury Racing Club was written on Friday 11 April when more than 20,000 people flocked to the racecourse for the running of the $125,000 Commercial Club Albury Gold Cup. In perfect autumn weather the largest ever crowd enjoyed the biggest event on the border's social calendar. It was a gazetted half-day holiday in Albury. But it was not only the locals who flocked to the racing club; many motels were booked out, underlining the economic benefit the two-day carnival brings to the region. Albury-Wodonga Moteliers Association President, Bill Papenestora, said the event was huge for motels and the whole community as it brought people to Albury-Wodonga and put it on the map. One estimate put the overall boost to the economy at $2 million for the weekend, and growing. Albury Racing Club committee vice-president, Mark Cronin, said the increase in prize money to $125,000 had ensured a quality field, which had generated great interest from outside Albury, with connections travelling from Sydney, Melbourne and even the Gold Coast.

In a record-breaking double, the crowd totalled 20,117 and more than $2.3 million was wagered on the day. Prize money on cup day rose to $275,000 over the nine races and for the first time the action was beamed live via Sky Channel to audiences in Malaysia, Hong Kong, Sri Lanka, the Philippines and Papua New Guinea. Given the geographic challenges of attracting metropolitan trainers, particularly during the Sydney carnival, the 7314 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 May 2008

Albury Racing Club was well satisfied with the high-quality field, which included entries from Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra. As racing club chief executive officer, John Miller said, "There will always be those challenges, and for Melbourne trainers, they have to cross the border and run in a different direction."

There were plenty of personalities. Leading Sydney bookmaker Tom Waterhouse was on-course; Bert Honeychurch, trainer of 1,000 winners was in the committee marquee, along with former Deputy Prime Minister, Tim Fischer; fashion designer Katie Davenport was special guest and was judging Myer Fashions on the Field; and jockey Danny Nikolic was the special guest. The two-day carnival offered $380,600 in prize money. At the launch, Danny Nikolic said the Albury carnival is one of the biggest country cup events on the calendar and that he was really looking forward to riding. Fate intervened to prevent him riding in the Gold Cup but he still made the trip to Albury to support the big day and speak at the committee function, and promised that he would be back next year.

Katie Davenport also attended the official launch function to provide some fashion tips for Myer Fashions on the Field, the biggest social event in the region. She said that the fashions were up there with Sydney and Melbourne. Indeed, she said she had jumped at the opportunity to return to Albury because of the great time she had last year. A new sponsorship arrangement with Myer saw the popular Fashions on the Field event offer a record $16,000 in prizes and, in a new innovation for cup day, the Myer Beauty Pamper Lounge was set up on-course to offer racegoers the opportunity to experience beauty treatments from renowned labels.

At the committee luncheon, President of the Albury Racing Club, David Wallace, acknowledged the many gold cup carnival and annual sponsors, particularly the Commercial Club, Albury, in its first year as naming rights sponsor. He welcomed the club's president, Barry Edmunds, and chief executive officer, Bruce Duck. David mentioned, with justifiable pride, the fact that Albury Racing Club had won the title of leading TAB Race Club in country New South Wales for 2007 at the Racing NSW Awards for Excellence. He stated that 72 corporate marquees were spread around the grounds this year, some housing as many as 300 guests. He conceded that there was almost no room to comfortably locate any more and that in future the club would have to consider opening access to the centre of the track for parking to relieve the congestion resulting from so many vehicles.

John Miller, Chief Executive Officer of the Albury Racing Club, received special mention not only for his superb organisation of the carnival but also for having put the club slightly in the black for the first time in 60 years. David Wallace noted that this meeting marked the tenth anniversary of mobile phones being allowed on racecourses. On the subject of communication he thanked the local media for their great coverage and support. He also thanked Albury City Council for the racing banners that had adorned the city's streets since the launch.

For the record, the Graeme Rogerson trained Luvuleo, with jockey Peter Robl, won the Albury Gold Cup, and in a weekend of triumphs, Robl went on to win the Rosehill Guineas the next day in Sydney. Originally from Benalla, Peter Robl has won six southern districts jockey premierships in the past seven years but had never won an Albury Gold Cup until he took Luvuleo home by two lengths to hand Rogerson his third win in the race. Corowa trainer, Richard Freyer, has won a record eight Albury cups but his entry finished second on this occasion. The 2008 Albury Gold Cup was a magnificent success and congratulations go to the Albury Racing Club committee and staff, the sponsors and all involved in making such a showcase day.

ANZAC DAY COMMEMORATION

Mr ALAN ASHTON (East Hills) [6.25 p.m.]: Like all members I attended several Anzac Day ceremonies on Anzac Day and over the weeks preceding Anzac Day. I attended the Anzac Day ceremony conducted by the students at Padstow Park Public School. I congratulate the students on that ceremony. Unfortunately, I missed the traditional Picnic Point High School ceremony this year because of the sittings of Parliament. I have spoken before in this House about the standard of excellence of the commemoration of Anzac Day at Picnic Point High School.

I attended Padstow RSL sub-branch ceremony on the Sunday before Anzac Day at both the war memorial at Padstow railway station and later in the RSL club. I congratulate Bill Smith, the hardworking executive of the sub-branch and directors of the RSL club on this wonderful ceremony. Padstow also actively involved young schoolchildren in both that service and the dawn service held on Anzac Day, which I also attended. Panania RSL sub-branch, which would have held a march except for the inclement weather, held a 8 May 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7315

ceremony in the RSL club on the Sunday before Anzac Day. At 4.30 a.m. on Anzac Day I attended the traditional dawn service at Panania RSL memorial. I congratulate Gary Murray, president of the RSL club, and Graeme Bellamy, president of the sub-branch on that service.

Each year more and more people attend the services while, of course, fewer veterans are able to attend. When I first took an active interest in Anzac Day, its history, and the Sydney march, I watched with my father, who was a Digger from World War II, veterans marching to commemorate a war they fought 50 years earlier. Now we watch World War II Diggers and Vietnam veterans in decreasing numbers marching to commemorate the sacrifice of their comrades and the suffering they endured. World War II ended 62 years ago, consequently, World War II Diggers are now pretty thin on the ground at Anzac Day ceremonies and marches.

I also attended the conclusion of the Anzac service held at Heroes Hill, which is sometimes known as the Revesby Heights Ex-Servicemen's Club. I enjoyed the stories told by friends at this club and other clubs on the day. I thank the president of that club, Max Parker, for his enthusiasm in promoting Anzac Day services at Revesby Heights. At Padstow RSL, Panania RSL and Revesby Workers Recreational Club breakfast is provided to the public and to those who have marched and attended the early morning dawn services. Those who march, their families and friends greatly appreciate that service.

Although for more than 90 years Anzac Day has largely commemorated the landing of the Anzac troops on the Gallipoli Peninsula on 25 April 1915, I believe it is time to give added focus to other theatres of war that yielded some remarkable victories, where many Anzacs were engaged and many lives were lost. I have had the privilege of visiting battlefields on the Somme—at places such as Albert, Bullecourt, Peronne, Armentiers and, of course, Villiers Bretonneux, where on Anzac Day 1918 Anzac troops pushed the Germans out of the town. The Battle of Villiers Bretonneux has been commented on recently. In fact, it was one of the turning points of the war because the Germans never advanced again after the Anzacs recaptured Villiers Bretonneux—which was called VB by the Aussies and the Kiwis. The Germans were on the retreat after that victory.

At Fromelles in 1916, as the Battle of the Somme began, more Australians were killed and injured in virtually one day than were killed or injured in the whole Gallipoli campaign. I am pleased that historians, the general public and the media are now giving much more attention to the battles on the Western Front, where we lost more than 46,000 men. In parts of France the debt that the Anzac's paid in the defence of France has never been forgotten. Last year I visited the Menin Gate at Ypres in Belgium and walked around the Passchendaele battlefields. The battle known as the Third Ypres at Passchendaele was probably the most horrific of all battles in which Australians fought.

It is time to pay greater attention to the efforts of Anzacs in the First World War on the Western Front as we commemorate the ninetieth anniversary of the Allied victory there. It is also worth remembering that not one Australian soldier was conscripted to fight in World War One. At two divisive referendums, Australians voted against conscription. More than 330,000 Australians participated in World War I but not one soldier was executed for desertion. It is the one bright light on Billy Hughes' otherwise tainted career as a Labor politician. In no way do I decry the great efforts of the soldiers at Gallipoli and the celebration of that war, but I believe it is time to give more focus to the great achievements on the Western Front.

Question—That private members' statements be noted—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Private members' statements noted.

The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m. until Friday 9 May 2008 at 10.00 a.m.

______