11760

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL AND LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Thursday 21 October 2004 ______

JOINT SITTING TO ELECT A MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

The two Houses met in the Legislative Council Chamber at 3.55 p.m. to elect a member of the Legislative Council in the place of Reverend the Hon. Frederick John Nile, resigned.

The Clerk of the Parliaments read the message from the Governor convening the joint sitting.

The PRESIDENT: I am now prepared to receive proposals with regard to an eligible person to fill the vacant seat in the Legislative Council caused by the resignation of Reverend the Hon. Frederick John Nile.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: I propose Frederick John Nile as an eligible person to fill the vacant seat of Reverend the Hon. Frederick John Nile in the Legislative Council, for which purpose this joint sitting was convened. I propose that Frederick John Nile be elected as a member of the Legislative Council to fill the vacancy in the Legislative Council caused by the resignation of Reverend the Hon. Frederick John Nile. I indicate to the joint sitting that if Frederick John Nile were a member of the Legislative Council, he would not be disqualified from sitting or voting as such a member, and that he is a member of the same party, the Christian Democratic Party, as Frederick John Nile was publicly recognised by as being an endorsed candidate of the party and who publicly represented himself to be such a candidate at the time of his election at the seventh periodic council election held on 27 March 1999. I further indicate that the person being proposed would be willing to hold the vacant position if chosen.

I would like to speak briefly to this gathering. It gives me pleasure to nominate Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile to fill the casual vacancy. There is no more experienced legislator likely to come into this House. Fred's 23 years of experience, including being the Chair and Deputy Chair of important general purpose standing committees, and Chair of the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics, stand him in good stead. However, this former Father of the House comes in as the most junior member of the House. The mantle of Father of the House still rests upon the shoulders of the Hon. Michael Egan. I have explained to Fred the finer details of being a new member, including the fact that I take milk, no sugar.

Last night at the adjournment of this House I attended a meeting of the Parliamentary Armenian Friendship Group, organised by Gladys Berejiklian, who advised us all of the contribution made by outstanding Armenian writers, artists and distinguished statesmen. It seemed to me that so many people are of Armenian descent in the public arena, and I was waiting to hear that that included American presidential candidate George W. Bushian! Immediately after that function I turned on my office television to hear Ms Sylvia Hale, lately called out of the Chamber by an attack of nature, attacking the Government for allowing the rules of the House to be manipulated to facilitate Reverend Fred Nile. The Hon. Michael Egan responded to Ms Sylvia Hale's comments by reminding the House that the Christian Democratic Party [CDP] alone may nominate a candidate to fill this vacancy.

At a properly constituted council meeting of the CDP Reverend Fred Nile was unanimously elected as our nomination to fill the vacancy. During Ms Sylvia Hale's speech, Ms Lee Rhiannon interjected, asking, "What about Reverend Dr Ross Clifford, college principal and radio broadcaster?" I am pleased to report to the House that the CDP council requested Reverend Fred Nile to stand as our number one candidate for the Senate. If Reverend Fred Nile was successful, Reverend Dr Ross Clifford would have been our nomination to fill the casual vacancy in this House, but if Reverend Fred Nile was unsuccessful, we would ask him to accept the nomination to fill the seat he vacated and to conclude the term for which he was previously elected. As it happened, Fred's preferences on the last distribution enabled the sixth Senate seat to go to Senator Michael Forshaw. Nothing gives me greater pleasure than to ask this joint sitting of the Houses to demand that Fred Nile hand in his former member's badge, unless it be also to ask that that we do the same for the Hon. Elaine Nile.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Notwithstanding the theological and ideological differences between Fred and me, I am pleased to second the motion. 21 October 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11761

The PRESIDENT: Does any other member desire to propose any other eligible person to fill the vacancy? As only one eligible person has been proposed and seconded, I declare that Frederick John Nile is elected as a member of the Legislative Council to fill the seat previously vacated by him. I declare the joint sitting closed.

The joint sitting closed at 4.04 p.m. ______11762

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Thursday 21 October 2004 ______

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

The Clerk of the Parliaments offered the Prayers.

GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE NO. 5

Report: Murrumbidgee College of Agriculture

Mr Ian Cohen, as Chair, tabled report No. 21, entitled "Murrumbidgee College of Agriculture", dated October 2004, together with transcripts of evidence, tabled documents, submissions and correspondence.

Report ordered to be printed.

Mr IAN COHEN [11.02 p.m.]: I move:

That the House take note of the report.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Ian Cohen.

PETITIONS

Gaming Machine Tax

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

Oath of Allegiance

Petition praying that the oath of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen be retained in the pledge of loyalty by members of the Parliament of New South Wales and by Ministers of the Crown, received from the Hon. David Clarke.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Postponement of Business

Private Members' Business item No. 6 in the Order of Precedence postponed on motion by the Hon. Catherine Cusack.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [11.07 a.m.]: I move:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 126 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to an order for papers regarding Operation Auxin, be called on forthwith.

The House divided.

Ayes, 21

Mr Breen Ms Hale Mr Ryan Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Jenkins Mr Tingle Mr Clarke Mr Lynn Dr Wong Mr Cohen Reverend Dr Moyes Mrs Forsythe Mr Oldfield Mr Gallacher Ms Parker Tellers, Miss Gardiner Mr Pearce Mr Colless Mr Gay Ms Rhiannon Mr Harwin 21 October 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11763

Noes, 15

Ms Burnswoods Ms Griffin Mr Tsang Mr Catanzariti Mr Hatzistergos Mr Costa Mr Macdonald Mr Della Bosca Mr Obeid Tellers, Mr Egan Mr Roozendaal Mr Primrose Ms Fazio Ms Tebbutt Mr West

Pairs

Ms Cusack Mr Kelly Mrs Pavey Ms Robertson

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Order of Business

Motion by the Hon. Michael Gallacher agreed to:

That Private Members' Business item No. 126 outside the Order of Precedence be called on forthwith.

CHILD PORNOGRAPHY PROSECUTIONS

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [11.16 a.m.]: I move:

That under Standing Order 52, there be laid upon the table of the House within seven days of the date of the passing of this resolution, and made public without restricted access, any advice provided to any Minister or government agency by the Solicitor General, Crown Solicitor or the Crown Advocate relating to Operation Auxin, together with any document which records or refers to the production of documents as a result of this order of this House.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: Point of order: I draw attention to Standing Order 53, which states:

The production of documents concerning:

(a) the royal prerogative,

(b) dispatches or correspondence to or from the Governor, or

(c) the administration of justice

will be in the form of an address presented to the Governor requesting that the document be laid before the House.

In accordance with your previous rulings concerning matters pertaining to Standing Order 53 the request that is being made by the Leader of the Opposition for the production of documents should be made under that standing order, not under Standing Order 52. Therefore, I request that the motion be ruled out of order and that the honourable member be requested to rephrase his call for papers under Standing Order 53, which should be on a petition to the Governor.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: To the point of order: I remind the Government that on a number of occasions in recent times, under the former and existing Standing Order 52, advice from the Crown Solicitor concerning accountability for the Minister has, in fact, been tabled in this House. I remind the Government that in debate on the Terrorism (Commonwealth Powers) Bill on 4 December 2002 the former Minister for Police, the Hon. Michael Costa, tabled, by leave, advice from the Crown Solicitor concerning the accountability of the Minister following a resolution of this House. I also remind the Treasurer that he tabled advice from the Crown Solicitor in debate on the Public Finance and Audit Amendment (Auditor-General) Bill on 16 October 2001, once again following a resolution of this House, not as the Minister for Justice has identified but under the pre-existing Standing Order 52. I also remind the Minister for Justice that on 3 December 1997 Mr Hannaford moved: 11764 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21 October 2004

That this House calls on the Leader of the Government, representing the Premier, to table all advices, including legal advices, that the Government has received in relation to:

(a) the supply of motor vehicles to Members of Parliament, including Parliamentary Secretaries; and

(b) the impact of section 13 of the Constitution Act 1902 on the supply of such motor vehicles.

Once again that related to legal advice given to the Government, including Crown Solicitor's advice. On 3 December 1997 the Hon. Michael Egan tabled, by leave, advice from the Crown Solicitor dated 27 November 1997. They are three examples of instances where, under the previous Standing Order 52, the Government agreed, by resolution of the House, that that was the proper course by which this request should be made. The precedent has been set.

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

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I have given three examples of previous decisions from this House that have resulted in Crown Solicitor's advice being tabled under the pre-existing equivalent of what we currently call Standing Order 52. This is nothing more than the Government attempting to gag debate and prevent this House and the public of this State having some measure by which we can see that accountability and transparency do exist. This House has a responsibility to ensure that the representation of the public is maintained and upheld in this House. The Government is doing everything it can to stop this House from proceeding to a fairly legitimate debate that pre-existing decisions of this House show were handled in a proper way. I put to you, Madam President, that once again the Opposition has followed the proper procedure in seeking the Crown Solicitor's advice, as it has in the past.

The Hon. Michael Egan: To the point of order: These are new standing orders. Members of the Standing Orders Committee spent some days drafting and approving the standing orders. Members of the Standing Orders Committee should be experts on what is in the new standing orders. In any event, Standing Order 53 really is a redrafting of the previous standing order—

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Standing Order 52.

The Hon. Michael Egan: —that has existed in the standing orders since Adam was a boy.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: You got it mixed up, cobber. You might correct the record, It is Standing Order 52. Standing Order 53 is something else.

The Hon. Michael Egan: Standing Order 53—

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: You don't know what you're talking about. You've really lost it.

The Hon. Michael Egan: —says nothing about legal advice or advice from the Crown Solicitor or the Solicitor General. It refers to documents concerning the administration of justice. And what it says is:

the production of documents concerning:

(a) the royal prerogative—

I do not think this concerns the royal prerogative.

The Hon. Eric Roozendaal: What is the royal prerogative?

The Hon. Michael Egan: He will have to find out. He should know. He should not even ask that question. Standing Order 53 continues:

(b) dispatches or correspondence to or from the Governor—

I do not think the motion covers that—

or

(c) the administration of justice— 21 October 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11765 and the motion clearly covers that—

will be in the form of an address presented to the Governor requesting that the document be laid before the House.

This is the second time in recent times that the Leader of the Opposition—

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Has got it right.

The Hon. Michael Egan: —has made this basic error. He is the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition in this Chamber. He has been a member of this Chamber for a long time now, but he does not have a basic understanding of the standing orders that guide the conduct of this House. It is no wonder he will stay in opposition forever: he is a slow learner. I can remember the previous occasion on which he moved a motion seeking the production of documents concerning the administration of justice. When I took a point of order on that occasion he was ashen faced because he did not know what was in the standing orders. But surely on this occasion he at least should be able to recollect his humiliation on the previous occasion. However, it seems that he is not only a slow learner but he also has a very short memory. The standing orders are clear. The point of order taken by the Minister for Justice is clear, and it is valid.

The Hon. Peter Breen: To the point of order: There is another occasion on which this House ruled as a result of the Crown Solicitor's advice, and that was the case where the Leader of the Opposition sought to have produced before the House under the old Standing Order 18 certain papers in relation to the conviction of prisoner Phuong Ngo. On that occasion the Leader of the Opposition sought, through what was then Standing Order 18, to have produced various papers in connection with what was called a wok party at Long Bay gaol and various other matters in connection with the conviction of Phuong Ngo.

On that occasion the Crown Solicitor ruled that there were circumstances in which the phrase "administration of justice" can be interpreted in a narrow way and restrict the Parliament from having access to papers. On that occasion the Crown Solicitor went through the motion and addressed each particular item and said, "Yes, this falls within administration of justice. That does not." I suggest to the House that the expression "administration of justice" as interpreted on this occasion relates to a number of alleged offences that apply to a broad number of people.

On the previous occasion, and on other occasions when the Crown Solicitor has addressed the question of administration of justice, it has been in relation to one offender. On the previous occasion that the Leader of the Opposition attempted to use this provision for Phuong Ngo, obviously it related to one offender also. I suggest to the House that this is an important issue. If we are to debate the motion then the administration of justice can be considered under the motion. It would be wrong to exclude or gag the debate on the basis of what the Crown Solicitor may or may not think when it is the Crown Solicitor's very advice that we are seeking to obtain.

In the course of that debate I would expect that the whole or some part of the Crown Solicitor's advice would be made available to members for consideration on either some private or individual basis so that the matter can be considered in more detail. It would be wrong to gag the debate by using Standing Order 53, as the Minister is seeking to do. I would oppose that. I would suggest that any question of administration of justice be considered in the context of the motion itself.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Members will recall the issue referred to by the Hon. Peter Breen in relation to an order for papers concerning Phuong Ngo. At that time advice was sought from the Crown Solicitor on then Standing Order 19, which is now new Standing Order 53, which requires that the production of papers concerning the administration of justice be asked for by address to the Governor. That advice was tabled in the House on 9 April 2002. In my statement to the House on that day I indicated that the Crown Solicitor had advised:

… papers which contain material relating to the administration of justice, whether it be material touching upon or concerning papers relating to court proceedings or the police investigation leading to such, may be papers having reference to the administration of justice.

Given the advice of the Crown Solicitor I am of the view that the motion calls for, and I will read part of the motion, "any advice provided to any Minister or Government agency by the Solicitor General, Crown Solicitor or the Crown Advocate relating to Operation Auxin", which is a police operation. Quite clearly the motion calls for papers that relate to police investigations and prospective court proceedings. Therefore, they fall within the 11766 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21 October 2004 category of the definition of "administration of justice" and such papers may only be called for by address to the Governor. I therefore rule the motion out of order. There has been no attempt to gag discussion because the member may, of course, give another notice of motion in the usual course using a different standing order.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion by the Hon. John Ryan agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow the moving of a motion forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 125 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to an order for papers regarding the Designer Outlets Centre, Liverpool, be called on forthwith.

Order of Business

Motion by the Hon. John Ryan agreed to:

That Private Members' Business Item No. 125 outside the Order of Precedence, be called on forthwith.

DESIGNER OUTLETS CENTRE, LIVERPOOL

Motion, as amended by leave, by the Hon. John Ryan agreed to:

1. That, notwithstanding the inquiry into the approval of the Designer Outlets Centre, Liverpool, being conducted by General Purpose Standing Committee No. 4, and the power of the committee to order the production of documents, under standing order 52, there be laid upon the table of the House within 21 days of the date of the passing of this resolution:

(a) all documents held by all government agencies and ministerial offices relating to the Designer Outlets Centre at Orange Grove Road Liverpool, Nabil Gazal, Frank Mosca and Sam Bargshoon,

(b) all documents held by all government agencies and ministerial offices relating to the General Purpose Standing Committee No. 4 inquiry into the approval of the Designer Outlets Centre, Liverpool, excluding any documents previously provided to General Purpose Standing Committee No. 4 and correspondence sent to agencies by the committee in relation to this inquiry,

(c) any document which records or refers to the production of documents as a result of this order of the House.

2. That any documents previously provided to General Purpose Standing Committee No. 4 during the course of its inquiry into the approval of the Designer Outlets Centre, Liverpool, and subject to a claim of privilege by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources, be made available to all members of the Legislative Council.

FAMILY IMPACT COMMISSION BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 31 August.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [11.31 a.m.]: I did not intend to speak at this time; however, as it is my understanding that the Hon. Melinda Pavey wishes to conclude her remarks on the bill, I will continue until she arrives. I understand the honourable member intends to adjourn the debate.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: Madam President—

The PRESIDENT: Order! As the Hon. Melinda Pavey has already spoken and been succeeded by Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes, she cannot speak again unless with the leave of the House. Is leave granted?

Leave granted.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY [11.32 a.m.], by leave: I move:

That debate on the Family Impact Commission Bill be postponed to another day when Private Members' Business is considered.

Motion for adjournment agreed to. 21 October 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11767

MOBILE PHONE TOWERS

Debate resumed from 23 September.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [11.33 a.m.]: When this debate was last before the House I made a number of comments on the original motion moved by Ms Sylvia Hale and the amendment moved by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe. I stated that for a number of reasons, which I outlined briefly, the Government would not support the motion, despite having some sympathy for it. I briefly reiterate that I think the Opposition's amendment was an action of desperation and essentially an attempt to avoid criticism of the Federal Government by deleting the original motion and replacing it with the motion that focused only on the State Government. Given the Federal Government's constitutional telecommunications power, it seemed a rather strange course for the Opposition to take.

It also struck me as extremely strange and very worrying that the Opposition's amendment called on the Government to use the metropolitan strategy document as an opportunity to examine the issues. I express concern that members of The Nationals and others who represent the enormous areas of this State that are not covered by the metropolitan strategy might feel slightly alarmed that the Opposition thinks it is suitable to move an amendment which seems to suggest that there are no mobile phone towers or concerns related to them among communities anywhere in this State outside the metropolitan area of Sydney. I can assume only that the amendment moved by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe on behalf of the Opposition was prepared in haste and desperation. I hope the Opposition withdraws the amendment and that members of the Opposition have the decency to hang their heads in shame.

Although the Government does not support the motion, the Government certainly recognises that the apparent proliferation of mobile phone towers is a matter of concern for both the community and the State Government. While the State Government shares the concerns of many communities that have been upset by the fairly untrammelled powers of mobile phone companies and the Federal Government in this respect, the hands of the State Government are tied by the constitutional power of the Federal Government and the legislation that it has enacted. I have had personal experience in the west Ryde and north Ryde areas where essentially people have turned up to install mobile phone towers, much to the grave concern of the surrounding community.

In the remaining time allocated for my speech, I point out that the House should address the industry code that has been developed as it relates to community and government concerns. The code establishes guidelines for the installation of what are known as low impact facilities. The code is known as the Deployment of Radio Communications Infrastructure Code and sets out guidelines, which to my knowledge have not always been followed, such as having written procedures for site selection, implementing proper community consultation procedures, and providing electromagnetic radiation emission reports as required by the Federal Department of Health. The publication also refers to the formation of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency. It is a good thing that the code exists, but I would be the first to say that if the industry is to continue to self-regulate according to the code, the industry should make sure that the code is being complied with.

The State Government does not have the legislative power to ban low impact facilities. The Federal Government has quite deliberately limited the States' powers in relation to telecommunications. Certainly the New South Wales Government is prepared to call on the Federal Government to review its legislation in respect of the wide powers and immunities that the Federal Government has granted to private companies—which is why, among other reasons, the Opposition's amendment is totally inadequate. The State Government is also concerned about the location of telecommunications towers near sensitive sites, such as schools and playgrounds. These issues should certainly not be left to private companies alone to determine.

I am convinced that the New South Wales Government is undertaking a number of steps to manage the issue, however it can do so only within the framework established by the Commonwealth Government. The motion moved by Ms Sylvia Hale is unsatisfactory in some respects. I have not gone into the local government issues of concern, and local government also has some powers and rights in this respect. I reiterate that for a number of reasons the State Government and councils are taking action. On the fundamental issue of the Federal Government having the power, this motion is unsatisfactory. [Time expired.]

Ms LEE RHIANNON [11.39 a.m.]: I have listened with interest to the debate and comments from the Opposition and Government. I note that both the Government and the Opposition are aware of the significant community concern about third generation [3G] phone towers and believe that action needs to be taken. 11768 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21 October 2004

Ironically, the Opposition believes that we should focus only on giving advice to the State Government, and the Government believes that a solution can happen only when the Federal Government amends its legislation— pretty convenient! So while it seems we all agree that reform is needed, neither the Government nor the Opposition are prepared to do anything—instead each is happy to simply blame the other. The Greens believe that this serious issue needs a co-operative approach from all levels of Government. We need urgent action from the Federal Government but the State Government also has the power and responsibility to act. We were amazed to see reports earlier this week that the State Government has delayed drawing up lease agreements for telecommunications carriers, who have subsequently saved hundreds of thousands of dollars in unpaid rent.

Up to 30 councils in New South Wales have dozens of mobile phone towers on public land. Because of delays by the Government, neither the Government nor the local council has received proper rent for many of those sites. Similar towers on private land generate between $15,000 and $30,000 per tower per year. Because of the sloppy actions of the Government, cash strapped councils have been deprived of hundreds of thousands of dollars that could be used to fund crucial infrastructure and social services. Rest assured, councils would put that money to good use. Over recent years, the State Government has shifted responsibility for many services such as affordable housing, child care and roads maintenance without providing any extra funding to local councils. Both Ms Burnswoods and Ms Forsythe mentioned the importance of striking the balance between the rights of the community and the availability of mobile phone technology.

The Greens agree. Mobile phone technology is an important part of modern life—but that should not give the telecommunications carriers the right to ride roughshod over community interests. Currently mobile phone carriers have rights that override the rights of residents, school communities and even landowners. It is simply unacceptable that phone towers can be installed on buildings against the wishes of residents and the owner. A more even-handed approach to achieve a balance between providing essential communications infrastructure against the rights of communities would be to ensure that carriers abide by standard development consent processes. Communities must be involved in the decision-making process, or one cannot honestly claim that community needs have been fully taken into account. I reiterate the distinction between 2G and 3G technology, which Ms Sylvia Hale has already pointed out.

Some members have confused the technology with 2G and have mistakenly assumed that 3G technology is an essential service. 2G mobile phones are ordinary mobiles, which are, in this day and age, considered essential communications services. In metropolitan areas of the country telecommunications companies have an extensive and relatively mature 2G network. 2G wireless technology, which is an essential communications service, now covers 96 per cent of the Australian population. The Greens recognise the importance of communications services, especially to people living in rural and remote areas. On the other hand, 3G technology is not, at least yet, an essential service—despite the best efforts of the industry to convince us otherwise. 3G is a high-tech toy, enabling people to send live video images. If 3G were to become a widespread or essential service, we need to know that it is safe. Before a massive rollout of towers and base stations occurs, communities need to be reassured that they will not suffer adverse health effects.

Even if 3G technology is one day considered an essential service, that is still not reason enough for mobile carriers to override all rights of residents and communities. We would never allow the RTA to bulldoze our house against our will to build a road, or for cable television providers to put antennas in our front yard against our wishes. By the same token, we should have the right to refuse to have a mobile phone tower on our roofs. Ms Forsythe has regurgitated the industry line that 3G technology is a ubiquitous part of our life. It is not. However hard the industry has tried to convince us otherwise, 3G technology has been very slow to take up, and most people have only bought 3G phones because the carriers were forced to drop call costs to an artificially low level to attract customers. Ms Forsythe said also that it is not for us to determine whether people have the right to access 3G technology. But it is our responsibility to protect the rights of those who choose not to access the technology.

The radiation effect from mobile phones is not like that from microwave ovens. They affect not only the owner of the phone but everyone who has the misfortune to live near a transmission tower. An individual is free to choose whether or not to use a 3G phone, but currently we have no right to refuse to host a tower on or next to our home, workplace or school. While there is no conclusive evidence linking health concerns with mobile phone towers, there is also no conclusive evidence to rule it out. There has been insufficient research into the health effects of mobile phone towers. A cynical explanation for this is that governments and telecommunications companies do not want to find out what the health effects are. A very small contribution from the profits of telecommunication companies, or telcos, could easily be levied to fund independent research, but we have seen very little will from governments to adopt this approach. In the meantime, we are left with no certainty about the health impacts. 21 October 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11769

The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency [ARPANSA] has identified mobile phone towers as safe. But the ARPANSA has an overrepresentation of industry stakeholders on its committee. The ARPANSA looks only at thermal effects, not other impacts of electro magnetic radiation on the body. The ARPANSA standards are far less stringent than those in many other countries. Switzerland's regulations are 100 times more stringent than those in Australia. China's are 75 times more stringent. The predecessor to the ARPANSA committee recommended a more stringent standard than the International Commission on Non- Ionizing Radiation Protection [ICNIRP] European standard, which considers only thermal radiation. The Australian Communications Industry Forum [ACIF] industry code of conduct is similarly inadequate.

Contrary to Ms Forsythe's suggestions, breaches of the code are rarely enforced. According to a leaked document, the Australian Consumers Association [ACA] considered that complaints from individuals and communities regarding nine sites were valid. Hutchison was involved with four of those sites, Telstra 3 and Optus 2. Despite the fact that the ACA upheld all nine complaints, only two fines were issued. To clarify a point made by Ms Burnswoods, the ACA will investigate complaints about breaches of the ACIF code, but will not investigate breaches of the Telecommunications Act, which is Federal legislation. Clearly there is a case for being very wary and cautionary about 3G technology. I recommend the motion moved by Ms Sylvia Hale to the House.

Mr IAN COHEN [11.48 a.m.]: I support the motion moved by Ms Sylvia Hale relating to third generation [3G] phone towers. I support also the comments of both Ms Sylvia Hale and Ms Lee Rhiannon. I do not need to go over many of the issues that have been well canvassed. Certainly I and many people with whom I communicate within the community have real concerns about phone towers. At Bondi, near where I stay when in Sydney, it was proposed that a phone tower be erected. Many of the local community were so concerned that they handed out letters and flyers in protest, but that seemed to come to naught eventually. The telecommunications companies, or telcos, had absolute right of way in pushing forward their project, despite real concerns by the local community, families and children, who thought that the proposed tower was far too close.

I would, however, like to refer to an issue that impacted significantly on my home community of Byron Shire. It related to a project involving the construction of a phone tower on a public facility, which was a water tower. The water tower, located in a suburban area named Suffolk Park to the south of Byron Bay, was originally designated to be an exhibition area with a viewing platform and that concept was much supported by the community. Stairs were to be constructed and a platform located at the top of the tower, which was situated on reasonably elevated ground, to permit members of the local community and tourists to climb up and view the surrounding area from that vantage point. Telstra seemed to think that placing a mobile phone tower on the water tower at that site would not in any way detract from the pleasure derived, or potentially derived, by people going up to look at the view. In the end construction of the tower went ahead. A significant amount of equipment and machinery was installed, together with what looks like a shipping container-size component at the base of the water tower, and the idea of constructing a tourist facility there died with the advent of the tower.

Many people living within only metres of the phone tower were most upset because the original siting of the tower was in a much more advantageous position, on the private property of a landowner who changed his mind at a certain point and refused to permit the tower to go ahead. Despite the fact that the wishes of people in other areas had been ignored, for some reason the telecommunications company, or telco, felt it incumbent on the company to take notice of the landowner in question and moved the tower to an area which was not as effective and yet potentially affected not merely a few people a long distance away, but people living within metres of the water tower. I must say I am proud to belong to a politically active community and those people made quite a noise about the issue. Blockades were set up and members of the local community staffed those blockades day and night for quite a while.

Certain assurances were given that the telco would not come in. Media comment was sought and a significant campaign waged in the regional media. I went on site and spoke to members of the community. I lobbied on their behalf and spoke to the media about the issue. Those people were really concerned because they lived in houses literally 20 or so metres away from the phone tower. They had moved to the area in order to be in an environment that provided a healthy lifestyle. There was bush all around. It was a beautiful area. They had poured a significant investment into their homes in the area only to find a mobile phone tower within 20 metres or so of those homes. Many of those families had children. Whether or not there is a reality to the electromagnetic field [EMF] impact or merely their imagination does not matter. Those people suffered a significant loss in the value of their properties and many have found themselves well and truly stuck, unable to sell and facing large mortgages. 11770 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21 October 2004

Here we have a national carrier purporting to be a public service, bullying its way in. I say very deliberately "bullying its way in" because I had conversations with the Telstra people on site. The regional head of Telstra visited the site and, in a most aggressive manner, basically said, "Bad luck. You've got no say. If necessary we will call in the police." Members of the community, including a local doctor and his family, were most upset about the advent of this phone tower and about a Telstra representative acting in a bullying manner and saying, "You've got no say. You've got no rights." He basically demanded that people get out of his way. There was a stand-off for a period because, fortunately, a local developer refused the telcos access across his development. He said that not only was he aware it was something the community did not want, but he was developing eight or 10 home sites, only to find halfway through the development that a phone tower was to be constructed, which would have a significant impact on the financial viability of his project. He did not allow access over his land.

A blockade was growing. People were putting up barricades and staffing them for a considerable period of time, so that we ended up in a situation where there was going to be a confrontation. Unfortunately, Telstra was unable to negotiate and take on board the suggestions put forward that the tower be moved to another area. It would have been far more effective to negotiate with the landowner who had refused access, or to consider negotiating with a rival telco that had a phone tower already in existence, incidentally on another water tank that was located in a small reserve area. Telstra refused to double up. It refused to see that it would be appropriate to somehow get together with other major operators and negotiate a mutually agreeable settlement in order to be able to put its phone tower on the same site. As far as Telstra was concerned it was not the way that Telstra did business and it just would not work.

We ended up with a situation, unfortunately, whereby just before dawn one morning the telcos arrived with a number of police—it reminded me of the old logging issues that I had often been involved with in the past. They arrived with police and forced back the small contingent of people who had been there during the night. The police opened up the area, threw the blockade aside and allowed Telstra to undertake the building of the phone tower. Many people in the community were crushed at this set of circumstances. We appreciate that telecommunications have a priority but, as Ms Rhiannon said earlier, 3G is not an essential service, as much as they would like to believe it is. We are talking about live video images on mobile phones. We need to resolve the safety issues associated with these towers. It is distressing to think that so many of them are to be constructed in yet another parallel network under the heading of progress.

No doubt, once again the Greens will be seen as modern day Luddites and accused of holding back progress. But it is not the type of progress that is going to institute a network of effective communications systems in New South Wales. It is not the sort of progress that is going to save lives. I admit that I am affected by poor mobile phone communication and that did make a difference, but this motion by Ms Sylvia Hale relates to advances at the frivolous end of the technological revolution. In the future does everyone have to have a mobile phone with a camera? It is a view that, Luddite or not, I think is reflected in the general community. Many people in the general community do not want their rights, their sense of safety and their healthy lifestyle completely overridden by a government instrumentality with a very aggressive attitude because of the legislation that is enacted to support it. What is appreciated and understood is the importance of communications systems in our society.

Many people in country areas, and I am sure many members of The Nationals, are aware that it is vital to have proper telephone connections and an opportunity to use mobile phones to their maximum advantage. Unfortunately, this is a frivolous push by a number of Telco operators who are putting forward services that are not essential in the true sense of the word, thus overriding the wishes of the community. I believe that Ms Hale has moved a reasonable motion.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

______

CITYRAIL SERVICES

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Transport Services, who is not in the Chamber. Perhaps the Minister needs to be instructed about question time. He is probably hiding under a chair somewhere. 21 October 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11771

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind Ministers that question time commences at 12 noon sharp.

The Hon. Don Harwin: Point of order: I ask that the clock be reset as a substantial amount of the time of the Leader of the Opposition has been wasted.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The clock will be set back one minute.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Will the Minister apologise to Higher School Certificate [HSC] students who rely on trains to get them to and from their examinations in light of the large number of trains that ran late during the first three days of the HSC? Did approximately 770 trains run four or more minutes late during Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday peak hours, and were 366 of those trains 10 or more minutes late? In light of the fact that CityRail's web site reveals that wet weather conditions accounted for only 94 of those 770 peak hour delays, while operational problems, broken-down trains, dirty trains and broken equipment accounted for the rest of the delays, will the Minister apologise to each and every HSC student who is late for examinations because of the Minister's inability to manage the rail system?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I certainly will not apologise for my inability to manage the rail system because I am very capable of managing it. As the Leader of the Opposition knows, I am in the process of overseeing a major capital investment in the rail system that will see massive improvements. That ongoing program will ensure that the rail system is properly positioned not only for the rest of this decade but also well into the next decade. I refer, of course, to the program of rail clearways in which the Government is investing over $1 billion. It is also investing in new rolling stock. I certainly apologise to all commuters—something that I have done on a number of occasions—for the problems that have recently been experienced. We are well on the way towards resolving them.

I do not want to go through all the problems in chapter and verse, as people are well aware of them. We have had driver shortages and problems associated with the introduction of new safety measures as a result of the Waterfall inquiry. We know the Opposition's position is to do nothing about safety. That is certainly not the Government's position. It will continue to implement recommendations from all the inquiries, which have caused disruption to the rail system and for which I again apologise. However, there is no alternative other than to undertake those safety measures, introduce data loggers, introduce new medical standards and improve driver training. Those measures will go ahead.

I refer specifically now to HSC students. I am advised that students travelling to their HSC examinations who are delayed should immediately approach station staff who will organise alternative transport. Despite the problems being experienced over the past two weeks—and the Leader of the Opposition clearly knows this because he has been trying to get up stories—the morning peak has progressively improved since changes were made to weekend timetables in July, which increased the availability of drivers. I am advised that more work is being done in the short term to ensure faster recovery times from incidents.

As I said, as we introduce the new timetable, which is targeted for September next year, we will have on-time running back to acceptable levels within a safety framework and culture that Opposition members are obviously completely disregarding. Opposition members clearly have no understanding of requirements relating to safety. Any Opposition leader who says that we should sacrifice safety to maintain on-time running, thus putting at risk the public—

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Who said that?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: John Brogden said that.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: When did he say it?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: He has said on many occasions that we should ignore the recommendations of the Waterfall inquiry and implement a regime that would maintain on-time running at the detriment of safety measures.

The Hon. Michael Egan: That is a disgrace.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: It is a disgrace. We will not do that. We have systematically addressed the problems in the rail system. The evidence is on the record to show that this Government is doing 11772 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21 October 2004 that. A new timetable is due in September next year. It will finally address the problem of on-time running, but it will do that within the context of a safe railway. The notion that we should sacrifice safety for on-time running is one that this Government rejects. We will not put at risk the lives of the passengers who travel on our system to maintain artificial and structurally inappropriate running times, using an out-of-date timetable that needs revision. I make no apologies for doing that. However, I certainly apologise to the public for the problems that they have recently experienced. That apology will be reflected in the changes that will be implemented next September.

WESTERN SYDNEY DISABLED CHILDREN SUPPORT SERVICES

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Disability Services. What action is the Government taking to support children with a disability in Western Sydney?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I thank the honourable member for her question as it provides me with an opportunity to update the House on what the Government is doing to support children with a disability and it highlights the commitment of this Government to flexible and responsive services. Last week I was in Prairiewood to open a service to support children with a disability in western Sydney—a service that will be operated by the Spastic Centre. It mirrors the highly successful service that the Spastic Centre has run in northern Sydney since 1997. The Spastic Centre has a long history of being responsive to the needs of families who have a child or young person with a disability. It is a leader in family centred services for children and young people.

I had the opportunity to meet with staff at the Spastic Centre and was impressed by their commitment, dedication and enthusiasm to providing innovative services. I was also impressed by their understanding of the needs of families who have children with a disability—the client group with whom they are working. The Government is providing $200,000 a year, along with $100,000 in one-off funding, to the Spastic Centre to establish this intensive family support option service in western Sydney. The service will provide assistance to families of children with an intellectual, developmental, sensory or physical disability and it will cater for the needs of different families by providing counselling, behavioural support, referrals and practical assistance.

It is an intensive program for families who have a child with high needs and who require extra assistance. It will make a real difference. Its aim is to provide intensive support for up to 12 weeks and it will be unique because it will offer 24-hour on-call support so that families can access help when they most need it. The aim is that after the 12 weeks of intensive support the family will have gained the knowledge and extra support that it needs to be able to manage a child with high support needs. The services might include assisting parents to develop routines at meal times and helping families so that they can attend a swimming club at their local pool and enjoy a regular positive outing with their children. While those can seem like simple things to an onlooker, for a family with a child with a disability they can make all the difference.

The Spastic Centre is good at doing that, which is why it is a leader in family centred services for children and young people. It already provides a range of therapy and education programs. Its pathway programs help families to plan and arrange the support that they need in their community. The partnership between the Government and organisations such as the Spastic Centre reflect the importance of working together to provide quality services for children and young people with a disability and their families. Research has shown that a family's sense of wellbeing is improved by its ability to maintain daily routines and strong links to its local community. In these circumstances families are much more likely to be able to continue to care for and nurture their children, in particular, families who have a child with a disability. Research shows that it is far better for a child to remain with his or her family than having to be moved into care if he or she has particularly high support needs.

The new service is part of a broader expansion of services for children and young people with disabilities and their families. Over the next four years the New South Wales Government will provide an additional $30.6 million to expand support for children and young people and their families. These funds will have an emphasis on early intervention and support for families as well as providing support for children and young people who are unable to live with their own families. I was very pleased to open this important service in western Sydney and I look forward to seeing the support it will provide to children with a disability and their families in that area. 21 October 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11773

MINISTER FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRIES CHARTER FLIGHT COSTS

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Is it correct that the Minister's charter flight from Sydney to Narrabri in September arrived at the same time as the commercial flight from Sydney? Was any of the farmers' compulsory levy money for insect control used to pay for the Sydney media's charter flight to the locust control centre at Narrabri?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The question from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is interesting because if I did not travel to western New South Wales and bring the media to see the problems there he would stand up in this Chamber and demand to know why I was not meeting farmers, travelling around, encouraging compliance with the scheme and getting people interested and active in it. Why does the Deputy Leader of the Opposition not ask the media about this matter? Media representatives were very happy to be on the flight and to see at first hand the plight of farmers and what they have to face. I think representatives from channels 7, 9 and 10 and some other agencies were on the flight. They said to me afterwards, "Thanks, Ian, for organising this flight and getting us out there."

What has really annoyed the poor little Nats in this Chamber—and, in fact, the entire Parliament—is that the State Government is doing the work and seeing what is going on in the regions. Those opposite get upset when they see me on the box so regularly—particularly in Sydney but also in the bush—fighting for farmers' interests. They do not like that; they do not like Country Labor and the New South Wales State Labor Government showing how concerned they are about the plight of farmers. Of course Opposition members do not like that. So they come into this Chamber and ask nitpicking little questions, such as "Did your flight arrive at the same time as another flight?"

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Who paid for it?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Or "Who paid for it?" Those opposite will ask any silly little question. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition can rest assured that the money will not come out of the insect control fund.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Who paid for it?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: It will not come out of the insect control fund—it will not come out of the producers' levy. That is fine. I am happy to stand by my decision. Farmers everywhere come up to me and say, "Thanks, Ian, you're doing a great job; you're doing a fantastic job for us on this issue." The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should read the letters column in the Land—they say what a fantastic job I am doing. All the poor old Deputy Leader of the Opposition can do is ask, "How much did you spend on that flight?" when it gave everyone in this State the opportunity to see at first-hand, through the media, what is going on in the country. I assure the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that I will continue to get out to rural New South Wales to reaffirm our commitment to relieving the plight of farmers in western New South Wales, as they fight the drought, the locust plague and a potential mouse plague. Wherever trouble is facing the farmers of New South Wales I will be there, leaving no stone unturned. And if it means that I have to charter a plane to get there with a group of media representatives, I will do it. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition can come into this place and ask a thousand questions but it will not change that.

FISHING BANS IMPACT

The Hon. JON JENKINS: My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries. The October 2004 edition of Fishing World reported that the value of the recreational striped marlin fishery far outweighs that of the commercial fishing sector. In fact, the recreational industry is worth approximately 20 times more than the commercial sector—I emphasise that point. Could the Minister please provide any studies of figures that compare the value of recreational-based fishing, including boating and tourism, with similar commercial activities? Will the Minister commission the studies necessary to assess the financial impact of the loss of tourism and income on local communities associated with the many existing and planned fishing bans along the New South Wales coast? Given this recent study into the economic worth of recreational fisheries, what will the Government do to address the significant economic, social and environmental issues raised by this report, particularly in view of the existing and planned closures of recreational fisheries?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I have had the opportunity of reading the report. I saw those figures and I have asked the economic unit of the Department of Primary Industries to analyse the calculations. There is 11774 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21 October 2004 no doubt that there is a powerful and extensive recreational fishing effort along the coast of New South Wales— no-one questions that—and I have been keen to ensure that those fisheries remain viable. However, I have also been keen to ensure that there is a balance between the recreational and the commercial efforts. Commercial fishing operations provide fresh seafood for the benefit of all people across New South Wales, not just those who fish for recreational purposes. In some instances recreational fishers catch and release. I believe we must find a balance between the recreational and commercial sectors and encourage both fishing efforts. However, unlike the Hon. Jon Jenkins, I do not want to apply a conflictual model.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: A what model?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: A conflictual model. There has been enough conflict between and division within those industries along the coast of New South Wales in the past decade. I would prefer to see a bit more harmony and a bit more consultation between both sectors. I have been encouraging that through the spread of pro-am-type liaison groups. I recently attended a meeting of commercial, professional and recreational fishers in Port Stephens. I was the first Minister in 10 or 11 years to address the Sydney Pro-am at the Fish Markets and I have addressed various groups that are trying to bring commercial and recreational fishers together. We are examining the issues raised in that report—the economic unit is having a good look at it. Honourable members must remember that the fishery in question is primarily a Commonwealth responsibility and obviously fits into the Federal framework. However, we will look at this issue and I will give the Hon. Jon Jenkins more details in the near future. But we have had enough of people trying to stir up conflict between recreational and commercial fishermen.

WINE AWARDS

The Hon. HENRY TSANG: My question is addressed to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. Will the Treasurer inform the House of the latest winners in the New South Wales Wine Awards?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I would love to because last night I had the pleasure of presenting the New South Wales Wine Awards, which recognise New South Wales-based companies for excellence in the wine industry. I hope that honourable members listened to that important question from the Hon. Henry Tsang and will listen to my important answer because I have established to my satisfaction that Opposition members hear nothing and learn nothing. Yesterday the Hon. Henry Tsang asked me a very good question, and I gave a very good answer. It was only members of the Government—

The Hon. John Ryan: Point of order: The Minister is debating the question.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Treasurer that he must not debate the question, and that comparing the question with another question is probably debating the question.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Madam President, I am not sure that that is the case but I think it is relevant to point out to the House that the question asked yesterday and the answer that I gave to it were identical to the question I was asked less than four weeks ago by the Hon. Jan Burnswoods and the answer that I gave on that occasion. But the only people who noticed were members of the Government. Members of the Opposition did not have a clue so it clearly establishes that they do not care what questions are asked or what answers are given. They sit here asleep all through question time. The only people who caught on were members of the Government.

The Hon. John Ryan: Point of order—

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Exactly the same question and answer, word for word, and they did not even notice.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister will take his seat.

The Hon. John Ryan: Yesterday the Treasurer gave long-winded answers simply for the purpose of consuming question time and he is clearly doing the same today. We ask him to be relevant in his answers so we can ask more questions.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Treasurer that answers to questions should be relevant to the questions asked. 21 October 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11775

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: New South Wales has in the past five years doubled the number of its wine producers. It is no mean feat to stand out in a crowded marketplace where about 16,000 different wine labels are now clamouring for attention. But these awards also raise awareness about the quality and diversity of the New South Wales wine industry. Sydney and New South Wales is a big market for wine. Our residents and visitors alike know quality and demand it, which means that our wineries have to deliver. Fortunately we have a range of topographies, soils and microclimates to meet those demands and we have first-class winemakers throughout the State.

I will provide information about last night's winners of Awards 2004. Hunter-based McGuigan Simeon wines won three out of the seven categories, including wine of the year. McGuigan Simeon took out the Harbour Kitchen and Bar Wine of the Year and Best New South Wales Mature Dry White Wine Awards for its McGuigan Wines Bin 9000 Semillon 1999; and the Best Mature Dry Red Wine Award for its McGuigan Wines Personal Reserve Shiraz 1998—both good wines that I tasted last night. More than 600 entries were judged to produce a top 40 wines list and seven trophy winners.

The Hon. Rick Colless: Blackie drank the lot!

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I tasted many of them.

The Hon. Rick Colless: Blackie drank it all?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Blackie was not there. The quality of New South Wales wines and winemakers has been recognised through a number of major achievements over the past 12 months, for example, Andrew Spinaze of Tyrell's Wines receiving the Qantas/Gourmet Traveller Winemaker of the Year Award and Riverina-based Casella recording the sale of its four millionth case into the United States of America market.

The Hon. John Della Bosca: They've all got Italian names.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Not all of them. Tyrell's and McGuigan are not but I assume Spinaze and Casella are Italian. I congratulate all winners and finalists of the wine awards and wish them another successful year in 2005.

DISABLED SUPPORTED ACCOMMODATION

The Hon. JOHN RYAN: My question is directed to the Minister for Disability Services. Is it true that 42-year-old Lorrae Thomas of Greystanes, who has a disability, has been living in a ward at Westmead hospital for more than a month because her elderly mother is no longer able to care for her at home? Will she continue to remain at the hospital because your department is unable to find her a place in supported accommodation? How many other people with disabilities who could be living in supported accommodation are currently accommodated in the hospitals of the State? Why has the Government ignored the findings of the Standing Committee on Social Issues, which recommended that 200 additional supported accommodation places should be provided each year over five years from 2000?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I will follow up the issue about the individual client to whom the honourable member has referred and whether the circumstances he outlined are correct. As I have previously advised the House, this Government has invested record funds in disability services in this State. Funding for disability services has doubled and services have been expanded in a range of ways in the State under this Government. The department has allocated more than $450 million in 2004-05 to provide long-term accommodation for people with disabilities in New South Wales. That represents a doubling of the Government's funding commitment to better meet the accommodation needs of people with a disability.

There is no doubt that in every State and Territory the disability service system is under pressure. I advise that the department is focusing not only on funding but also on actively making sure that reforms to improve the responsiveness of the accommodation system are introduced. For example, the department has expanded the vacancy management approach to improve the placement of clients in the department's own group home and is taking into account what is happening in the non-government sector. The department is developing an integrated approach to vacancy management that will enable more efficient use of vacancies as they arise across all government and non-government services statewide. 11776 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21 October 2004

At the last Commonwealth/State Ministers meeting I put forward the issue of demand for services that was supported by all my State and Territory colleagues. It is of great concern that the burden of meeting demand is being increasingly borne by the States. For example, New South Wales will spend $142 million more on disability services in the first three years of the current agreement than what it was when it signed up to the agreement. I tried to point that out to the Commonwealth Government at the time of the negotiations of the third Commonwealth-State/Territory Disability Agreement [CSTDA]. Every State and Territory supported further discussions around unmet need and demand but the Commonwealth did not want to go there. Despite the fact that this Government is spending an extra $142 million to what it originally signed up under the third CSTDA, the Commonwealth has not contributed one dollar more than when the agreement was approved.

I presented those concerns to my colleagues at the recent meeting. I was pleased the Commonwealth Minister agreed to the need for national disability administrators to report at the November meeting of Ministers on the most appropriate means to address demand pressures. I was pleased that the Commonwealth Minister saw a need to look at that issue at the November meeting of Ministers. I have no doubt that the Commonwealth has to take more responsibility in this area. The State is funding up to 80 per cent of services under CSTDA and the Commonwealth is putting in 20 per cent, which is not good enough.

The Hon. John Ryan: What does that do for Lorrae Thomas?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I have said I will follow up that issue.

RESPONSIVE USER SERVICES IN HEALTH UNIT

The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD: My question is directed to the Special Minister of State, representing the Minister for Health. Is the Minister aware of the efforts of Manly Councillor Pat Daley to seek information in relation to the Responsive User Services in Health [RUSH] unit in Pittwater Road, Manly? Is the Minister aware of the story in relation to this matter in yesterday's Manly Daily? In particular, is the Minister aware of Councillor Daley's allegation that a New South Wales Department of Health area manager, known to Councillor Daley, contacted Councillor Daley for the purpose of blackmailing him into dropping his inquiries in relation to the activities of the RUSH unit? Does the allegation of criminal behaviour by a senior manager of the Department of Health concern the Minister? What action will the Minister undertake to investigate this matter?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I do not know whether the member is talking about Pat Daley or Arthur Daley.I am aware of recent comments by that individual from Manly Council. I am sure honourable members would be aware the comments are baseless and made purely on the grounds that they can generate for the same person some publicity and achieve some scaremongering at the same time. As a result of a recommendation of the 1999 Drug Summit in New South Wales the Government, as everyone knows, decided to support a trial of one medically supervised injecting centre located at Kings Cross. Kings Cross was selected—and it is a well-rehearsed argument because it has been debated on a number of occasions—because of its long historical association with illicit drug use, with high levels of street-based injecting drug use, high drug overdose rates and a transient drug-using population. The single trial is governed by legislation passed by this Parliament. I repeat: there is only one trial and that is at Kings Cross. Nasty scare campaigns like those by this individual will not do anything to solve the problems or contribute to a solution to the problems with illicit drug use in the community in Manly or elsewhere in New South Wales.

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

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: They are unhelpful to hardworking health workers who often work for salaries a lot less than those we enjoy—and perhaps even those that Manly councillors might enjoy— and to families who are trying to cope with the stress of complex problems as a result of drug addiction and drug abuse. The second part of the honourable member's question about a blackmail allegation made no sense to me. I could not understand exactly the context of the question or how it could be relevant to me or the Minister for Health in the administration of our portfolios. I am not certain that I can help the honourable member with an answer, but I will refer it to the Minister for Health, who may be able to form a view and provide an appropriate answer.

The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD: I ask a supplementary question. Does the Minister consider the acronym RUSH to be, perhaps, inappropriate for a Department of Health unit related to illegal drug use?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Now he has asked me a good question. I think that acronyms are always inappropriate for anything. I have a longstanding campaign in which the Treasurer has participated—he 21 October 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11777 may have even commenced it—to try to wipe out acronyms from the public, private and academic sectors. I have always found acronyms to be offensive: they are used by experts and insiders to alienate ordinary people from various public processes.

The Hon. Michael Egan: Like you and me.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Yes. We have to work our way through wall-to-wall acronyms, and other Ministers are confronted with them in their agencies. I am sure we all agree that acronyms are ludicrous and annoying. When public sector agencies send me documents that contain acronyms I send the documents back and ask for proper explanations written in correct prose.

The Hon. Michael Egan: I remember well the old Sydney Harbour Improvement Trust!

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Yes, that is what acronyms are all about. I can sympathise with the Hon. David Oldfield and I understand his being upset about the use of a silly acronym. But from time to time organisations use acronyms for public reasons. There might be a good reason locally for the use of an acronym. I will obtain some further advice from the Minister for Health about the use of the acronym.

VENDOR DUTY

The Hon. DON HARWIN: My question is directed to the Treasurer, and the Minister for State Development. Has he found time to obtain the September vendors duty figures, given that he informed the House on Tuesday in response to my question that he had not yet seen them? Can he now inform the House how much vendor duty he collected in September?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I am pleased that the Hon. Don Harwin asked this question. He follows up matters in which he has an interest, unlike many of his colleagues who ask questions handed to them by members in the lower House and then do not bother to listen to the answers provided by Ministers. I thought that the Hon. Don Harwin might ask me this question so yesterday I ascertained the figure for September: it was $24 million. I also ascertained—

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: I thought it was $29 million before.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: No, that was the amount in August.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: So it is going down.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Actually, I ascertained that it was $26 million in August.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: You did a good job of killing that market, didn't you?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I would like to respond to the interjection by the Hon. Melinda Pavey. The figures for the last month released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics—

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: The Treasurer cannot respond to interjections.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister may continue.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: The figures for the last month released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that New South Wales accounted for 43 per cent of the national total of investment housing loans—I repeat: 43 per cent of the national total. The interjection of the Hon. Melinda Pavey is simply ill- founded and baseless. More than $2,100,000 of investment finance was put into the residential housing market in the last month. The Reserve Bank probably regards that level as too high, because the Reserve Bank has been very determined to ensure that the level of housing loans has moderated but also to ensure that the investment proportion of it as a share of the total is declining. The worst social and economic disadvantage that this State suffers is the high cost of housing. It is a huge social and economic disadvantage. We cannot prescribe what should happen in that area, but if house prices stabilise it will be a good result not only for young home buyers who are trying to buy their first home but also for the economy of the State. 11778 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21 October 2004

FRUIT FLY MANAGEMENT

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI: My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Will he inform the House of the progress of the State Government's review of the management of fruit fly?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: As I outlined yesterday, the Queensland fruit fly is one of the many insidious pests that threaten the profitability of vital agricultural industries in New South Wales. To some degree we are protected from pests and diseases by isolation from the rest of the world, but we can never afford to become complacent. We must evaluate continually our monitoring and control programs to ensure that they are as effective as possible. In May this year I announced an independent review into the way we manage fruit fly in New South Wales to be headed up by the Hon. Richard Bull. Honourable members will recall that the Hon. Richard Bull also carried out a thorough review of the management of ovine Johne's disease in New South Wales, which helped us to find a new united way forward for the sheep industry. I am pleased to say that he has again worked closely with producers to tackle some difficult disease management issues and has put some constructive suggestions on the table.

Today I released for public comment the Hon. Richard Bull's report entitled "Queensland Fruit Fly Control and Management in New South Wales". This follows yesterday's announcement of a more efficient system of issuing orders for the monitoring and control of fruit fly on public or private land in urban areas. Both announcements are good examples of the State Government strengthening protection of vital agricultural industries. I can inform honourable members that the Hon. Richard Bull spent three months working closely with stakeholders in the New South Wales fruit fly exclusion zone before preparing his report. He also held discussions with the Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Biosecurity Australia, industry stakeholders, and with officers of government departments in Victoria and South Australia.

The current fruit fly exclusion zone covers more than 30 million hectares across New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. In New South Wales it includes areas such as Griffith, Leeton, Hilton, Narrandera and the Sunraysia towns. As I mentioned yesterday, horticultural industries are the backbone of those towns, but they also inject $900 million into the State's economy. The Hon. Richard Bull's review suggests a number of practical ways in which we can improve our approach to fruit fly management and therefore give those industries a more secure future, including seeking a closer partnership between industry and the government in the ongoing funding and management of fruit fly. New roadblock protocols are also proposed, including on-the- spot fines for people who bring fruit into the current exclusion area.

The Hon. Richard Bull also recommends prosecution for serious offenders who breach roadblocks. A cornerstone of the Bull report is the need for a national approach to managing fruit fly species. I am now calling on industry groups to access the report and closely read the recommendations. It is important that we receive their feedback on the proposed changes before the Government finalises its response. It is critical that relevant industry groups are brought on board and closely involved in managing any pest species. Partnerships between industry and government give us the best chance to protect jobs in rural and regional New South Wales. I am confident that the Hon. Richard Bull's review will help lay the foundation for this kind of partnership to strengthen our fruit fly management program.

This kind of co-operation is already developing. A tri-State Queensland fruit fly meeting is under way today in Mildura. The meeting brings together representatives from New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia who will discuss the Bull review as well as other important issues dealing with fruit fly management across eastern Australia. For the information of interested members, the report of the Hon. Richard Bull will be available on the Department of Primary Industries web site. Public submissions can be emailed to the department by Thursday 23 December. Once again I thank the Hon. Richard Bull for his fantastic work and I call on all industry groups to be involved in the consultation process.

BINNAWAY TO GWABEGAR BRANCH RAIL LINE MAINTENANCE

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I direct my question to the Minister for Transport Services. Why did the Government wait until trains could no longer run on the Gwabegar to Binnaway branch line before carrying out repair work that has been needed for years? Is emergency repair work being done only to avoid paying compensation to Pacific National for having to use trucks to ferry grain? When will the Government listen to the local community and upgrade and repair this branch line so that the current situation—20 trucks a day thundering on inadequate roads—is not repeated? 21 October 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11779

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I do not know who wrote that question for Ms Lee Rhiannon.

The Hon. John Della Bosca: The Nationals?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: It would not be The Nationals. They are too sensible to have anything to do with the Greens—as are we.

The Hon. Michael Egan: Oh no they are not.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Is that so?

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You took the Greens preferences in Richmond.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Everybody knows how I vote. The grain in the silos does not belong to Pacific National at all, and I am surprised that whoever wrote the question does not understand that. The grain belongs to growers and it is held on their behalf by organisations such as GrainCorp and the Australian Wheat Board. The Hon. Rick Colless has asked me questions on these matters on a number of occasions and the position has not changed. Discussions are ongoing with the industry about restricted grain lines. I have said on many occasions that it does not make sense to apply scarce public resources to lines that potentially will not be part of the grain belt.

The Government is happy to consider significant investment. I have already indicated that the Government is examining a process of reallocating some funds that are tied up in the broadacre agreement relating to restricted grain lines. But a decision needs to be made by industry about precise patterns of movement of grain in the future. An audit was commissioned at the request of the industry group and has been completed. The results are being circulated to industry parties. I am scheduled to have a meeting with them within the next month or so to try to resolve these matters. However, one thing is clear: it reflects no credit on the Greens, who have a public policy of phasing out food production, when they make noises in this House about their concern for rural communities.

Mr Ian Cohen: Our policy is to phase out food production? Oh, come on!

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Absolutely! Greens policy states that we should not have agricultural food production that is based on animals. That is Greens policy. I have seen it.

Mr Ian Cohen: We have not said that.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Of course the Greens have said that.

Ms Lee Rhiannon: Point of order: Madam President, could you call the Minister back to the essence of the question and direct him to stop debating the question and using this time as an opportunity to cite Liberal Party propaganda to distort our policies.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to order. I remind the Minister that he must not debate the question and that his answer must be relevant to the question asked.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The fact of the matter is that a great deal of the grain is used in feedlots as food for animals that are kept for human consumption. It is quite clear that the Greens have a policy of phasing out this form of agricultural production. It is strange for the Greens to come into this House and express concerns about agricultural production when their policy has the potential to decimate quite significant sections of agriculture.

Mr Ian Cohen: Agribusiness!

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Mr Ian Cohen mentions agribusiness, so he admits the Greens want to phase out agricultural production. The issues will be approached sensibly in consultation with the industry. Some hard decisions will have to be made, but I am committed to a consultative approach and will maintain that approach. I reject the Greens hypocrisy. They are in no position to make comments in support of agricultural production because fundamentally they are opposed to it. They are hypocrites. The recent election has shown that the public is becoming increasingly aware of the Greens hypocrisy. 11780 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21 October 2004

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I ask a supplementary question.

The Hon. Michael Egan: Do you not believe in collectivisation of the farmers?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: The Treasurer can promote that when he resigns to the relief of us all. The Minister referred to ongoing discussions. Is that an excuse for his not having the courage to announce that he refuses to repair the branch line? When, if ever, will the Government upgrade this important rural branch line and stop using abuse of the Greens as an excuse?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I do not abuse the Greens. I expose their policies for what they are: policies that fundamentally are opposed to agricultural production.

Ms Lee Rhiannon: Point of order: Madam President, could you ask the Minister to stop debating the question and to answer it?

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Minister of the standing order that relates to intimations and inferences against other members of the Chamber and ask him to refrain from making inferences against other members of the Chamber.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I certainly take the view that the Government needs to consult with the industry about matters that are important to it. Difficult decisions have to be made. The Government does not have unlimited resources to apply to every single activity that communities and some people in particular desire the Government to protect. The Government will sit down and deal sensibly with those matters in conjunction with an industry consultative group. Difficult decisions must be made in relation to branch lines and that is why I have suggested that the industry and the Government should examine the likely patterns of requirements for rail and road transportation infrastructure. Grain will be moved by road because in many locations there is no rail infrastructure, and there are very real issues associated with that.

The issue to which I was referring when the Ms Lee Rhiannon took her point of order was that if a group has policies that are fundamentally opposed to the basic economic rationale of an industry, it is surprising when they come into this House and shed crocodile tears over concern for people who will be affected by their policies. Hypothetically, if the railway line were closed, it would have less of an impact on farming activity than does the policies of the Greens.

BINNAWAY TO GWABEGAR BRANCH RAIL LINE MAINTENANCE.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: My question is very similar to the preceding question and also is directed to the Minister for Transport Services. Is it a fact that the Australian Rail Track Corporation [ARTC] is undertaking maintenance work, including the replacement of sleepers on the Binnaway to Gwabegar branch line, under contract to the Rail Infrastructure Corporation? Is it also a fact that Rail Infrastructure Corporation employees in the region are sitting at home on full pay? Why is the Rail Infrastructure Corporation contracting the ARTC to undertake this maintenance work, while its own employees are on full pay, but are not working?

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Good question.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I do not think it is a good question. The fact of the matter is that the Government entered into an arrangement with the Australian Rail Track Corporation [ARTC] at the request of the Federal Government. The Federal Government came to us. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services, John Anderson, for whom I have a lot of time and respect in relation to these matters, approached the State Government and said that the Federal Government wanted to take over the interstate lines and that, as part of the process, an arrangement had to be agreed upon relating to associated interface infrastructure. An arrangement has been entered into which means that the ARTC will manage the infrastructure on behalf of the States.

The Hon. Rick Colless: Why are you not asking the Rail Infrastructure Corporation [RIC] to do it while its own staff members are sitting at home?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The Hon. Rick Colless should allow me to finish what I am saying. As part of the agreement, the ARTC has that responsibility. I will obtain precise details in response to the question, but point out meanwhile that although there may well be staff who are still employed by the Rail 21 October 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11781

Infrastructure Corporation [RIC], under the arrangement and our policy of no forced redundancies they will remain RIC employees.

The Hon. Rick Colless: But they are not doing anything.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The Hon. Rick Colless should allow me to finish what I am saying. It is clear that the Hon. Rick Colless is genuinely concerned about these matters, but it is equally clear that he does not understand the agreements that are in place. I will be pleased to organise a briefing for him. Clearly there are surplus employees within the RIC and that happened as part of a number of efficiency measures that were implemented by the ARTC. As a consequence of the arrangement with the ARTC, there may well be additional surplus staff. The Government has given a commitment to maintaining its policy of no forced redundancies in relation to ARTC and to instituting a program of redeployment and retraining, but the ARTC has the responsibility for management of the agreement on behalf of the State. That was the agreement that was entered into.

In relation to staff that is not being utilised, I am happy to sit down and discuss the matter with the appropriate managers. The matter has been raised with me by the unions. Even as recently as this week I have had discussions with the unions about the appropriate utilisation of staff. The Government wants to ensure that staff affected by these changes, which the Commonwealth Government supports, are given the opportunity for redeployment, retraining or engagement in alternative employment. The question is important, because it indicates that the Government is doing work along the very lines that seemed to be implied in the previous question.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: No, it indicates that the ARTC is.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: No, the State Government is paying the ARTC. Let us get this right—

The Hon. Rick Colless: That's right, you are right.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Yes, I know I am right and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is wrong.

The Hon. Rick Colless: You are both right.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The ARTC is managing infrastructure on behalf of the State. I will explain this to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition so that he understands it once and for all. We have staff across the rail sector, including urban rail and passenger rail, who are surplus to requirements. That is a natural consequence of the reform processes. We are applying policies of no forced redundancies, redeployment and retraining to accommodate those staff. By definition, that means that there will be staff who are paid although they are not gainfully employed. However, we are seeking to address that through the normal policies of government. There is not an inconsistency here. The real question is whether the people currently not utilised can be utilised, whether they have appropriate skills, and whether the policy of redeployment and retraining is working. It is certainly true that we are engaged in a program of looking at restricted branch lines. Some work is occurring in that regard and some funding has been expended.

PRISONER EDUCATION

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Justice. Will the Minister advise the House whether prisoners in New South Wales are participating in educational programs offered in correctional centres and how that assists them in their rehabilitation?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Inmates are participating in education programs at very high levels in correctional centres across the State. The education programs include recognised courses such as School Certificate and Higher School Certificate equivalents. In 2003-04 a monthly average of 4,519 inmates enrolled in accredited education courses in New South Wales correctional facilities.

The Hon. Peter Breen: How many in full-time programs?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I will get to that. Approximately 150 inmates completed nationally recognised education certificates that in some cases can be recognised as the School Certificate or 11782 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21 October 2004

Higher School Certificate. It is an unfortunate statistic that many inmates enter correctional centres with low literacy and low numeracy levels, and low employability skills. Most have a fragmented school experience with limited employment history and negligible work experiences. To help combat that, in 2003-04 the Government spent $14 million on education programs, and has committed an additional $7 million over the next four years dedicated to literacy, numeracy and work skills programs. Education is provided in correctional centres through the Adult Education and Vocational Training Institute [AEVTI], a training organisation registered with the New South Wales Department of Education and Training.

At that institute 181 teachers deliver more than 75,000 teaching hours each year in 33 correctional centres across the State. How many did the Coalition have? None, not one full-time teacher was employed in 1995. AEVTI works under an initiative known as Throughcare. Simply put, it places an emphasis on making the transitions in an inmate's life as smooth as possible. As inmates are processed into a correctional facility they are tested for low levels of education. That examination determines an offender's potential risk of reoffending, and is also a valuable aid in determining which educational pathway the offender should take. Many convictions come with a requirement to take special courses, but the offender often does not have the skills necessary to begin such programs immediately.

As a result, AEVTI offers a number of program-related courses that provide fundamental and self-help education. In that way AEVTI works from the very beginning of the offender's time in prison to prepare him or her for successful rehabilitation. Providing accredited courses and nationally recognised qualifications, the institute aims to improve the literacy, language and numeracy skills of all inmates to a level equivalent to year 10 secondary education. The institute provides also further educational opportunities and vocational training for offenders to develop work-related skills thus improving their chances of procuring gainful employment upon re- entering society. I am sure honourable members would be aware that employment is of essential assistance to inmates avoiding the perils of recidivism once back in the community.

In response to the interjection of the Hon. Peter Breen, I advise that the Intensive Learning Centre at the John Morony Correctional Centre provides full-time study opportunities for young offenders. The studies include adult literacy and numeracy, English as a second language, communication skills, vocational training, Aboriginal education, employment skills, general life skills, and further education. The department also buys from TAFE vocational training courses specifically targeting Aboriginal inmates. Currently the department buys 19,000 teaching hours from TAFE. Courses targeting Aboriginal inmates account for 6,000 of those TAFE teaching hours.

I remind the House that not only were no full-time teachers employed when the Carr Labor Government came to office, but also that education programs were slashed by 62 per cent when the Coalition was in government. This Government has restored full-time teachers to the levels I have advised. More recently the shadow Minister said that those sorts of programs should not be accessible in correctional centres because they are a rort to get people out early on parole. [Time expired.]

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

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Yes, very briefly. I commend the efforts of the education program participants who will graduate with a portfolio of nationally accredited general education and vocational education and training qualifications. Those qualifications will be recognised by employers, TAFE and other tertiary education institutions, and are an invaluable provision upon release when inmates journey back into the community. I point out that for many of the offenders who will gain qualifications, it will be the first time they have gained anything in the nature of recognition for any efforts they have undertaken in an educational environment at any time in their life.

COFFS HARBOUR REGION STORM DAMAGE

The Hon. JOHN TINGLE: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Is the Minister aware that floods on the New South Wales North Coast have been accompanied by gale-force winds and rainfalls of 400 millimetres and more in some places? Given that some areas of the North Coast have been in drought or semi-drought conditions and are now experiencing floods, what is the net impact on agricultural industries in the region? What is the Government doing to help those areas of agriculture that have been adversely affected by the deluge? 21 October 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11783

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Let me start by congratulating everyone involved in the massive rescue and clean-up effort on the North Coast. Once again, authorities and the community have united to ensure the safety of residents and to try to limit the damage of the flood and of problem waters. Honourable members would be familiar with the role of the State Emergency Service, but may not be aware that the Department of Primary Industries also provides emergency support in such circumstances. When floods, fires and other natural disasters threaten homes and lives, agricultural producers can also suffer devastating losses of crops, stock and infrastructure. Fortunately, the State Government provides urgent advice and assistance, as well as financial support, to producers at those times. I assure honourable members that, as I speak, we have experts on the North Coast assessing flood damage to a range of agricultural industries. That includes the banana industry, which employs about 720 growers in the North Coast region and generates about $60 million annually.

We have received early reports of damage to banana plantations in the Coffs Harbour district and are carrying out field inspections today to assess damage to plantations in the Woolgoolga area. The North Coast has healthy dairy and beef cattle industries and we have received unconfirmed reports of some cattle being washed away in the floods. Inspections to properties in the Bellingen catchment will hopefully reveal any damage to fencing around creeks and dams, as well as possible erosion. Department of Primary Industries [DPI] staff held discussions yesterday with the RSPCA to ensure emergency accommodation is available for cats and dogs at the Coffs Harbour shelter. The DPI is working with Bellingen Shire Council to discuss any possible need for the disposal of stock carcasses once the floodwaters recede. As we collect more detailed information on the damage to properties, farmers may need to seek financial assistance.

Properties within the Coffs Harbour and Bellingen local government areas will be covered under the natural disaster assistance arrangements announced yesterday by my colleague the Minister for Emergency Services. That assistance will entitle farmers who have suffered damage to crops, stock, fencing and other infrastructure to apply for business assistance through the Rural Assistance Authority. Eligible farmers can apply for a loan of up to $130,000 to cover the cost of replacement and repair not covered by insurance. It is one of the great ironies of life on the land that much of the North Coast has been marginally or fully affected by drought since June this year. I note also that Wauchope has received 407 millimetres of rainfall, which will certainly relieve conditions there. In the past four months, rural lands protection board data had recorded low subsoil moisture, low pasture growth and low dam levels. The local ABC media reported that one farm near Bellingen received 200 millimetres in just five hours between 7.00 a.m. and midday yesterday.

Although we are concerned about all damage to properties in the area, the rain will be a massive boost to some on-farm water supplies and soil moisture on the North Coast. I congratulate the work of all department staff, who will continue to work with landholders in the region over the next few weeks. In particular, Graeme Eggleston deserves special recognition for his superhuman efforts in running a range of high-level programs across the State.

Mr Eggleston is already managing a heavy workload as Plague Locust Commissioner and overseeing our massive drought relief efforts. Now he is also co-ordinating our flood response team on the North Coast. I have full confidence in the ability of all Department of Primary Industries staff to continue their valuable work under very difficult circumstances. Once again, the department's extension staff have a unique role of the front line in rural and regional New South Wales. I have just received an update about the Bellinger River. It is to be noted that the level of the river has dropped further overnight and the emergency situation has passed. The update does not report animal problems as of this morning, although some stock were stranded and had been moved to higher ground. It looks as though the situation has eased dramatically in the Bellingen area.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT JAPAN DELEGATION

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: My question is to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. Did the Department of State and Regional Development recently send a Central Coast delegation to Japan? Who were the members of the delegation, and what was the justification for each person going? What was the length of the trip and the total cost?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Clearly, that question should have been placed on notice. How could I be expected to know the total cost off the top of my head? I will be happy to ascertain answers to the questions that the Hon. Greg Pearce has asked.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I have a supplementary question for the Treasurer. Does the Treasurer know the identity of any of the members of the delegation to Japan?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I refer the honourable member to my previous answer. 11784 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21 October 2004

ABERCROMBIE AND FITCH AUSTRALIAN WOOL BOYCOTT

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG: My question is to the Minister for Primary Industries. Is the Minister aware of the recent action by United States of America retailer Abercrombie and Fitch to boycott Australian wool, following a campaign by the animal activist group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals? What action does the Government intend taking to protect the wool industry?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The entire Australian sheep industry is concerned about the move by United States of America retailer, Abercrombie and Fitch, the first major retailer to boycott Australian wool. Unfortunately, this boycott is based on misinformation and intimidation by the radical activist group, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals [PETA]. As this House is aware, I have responsibility not only to help develop profitable, sustainable agriculture industries, but also to oversee animal welfare policy in New South Wales. I am proud to say that this State has a strong track record in the animal welfare area.

Earlier this year we doubled the penalties for those who commit aggravated acts of cruelty, and instituted legislation banning the practice of tail docking. We continually work with the RSPCA, Animal Welfare League and other similar organisations to ensure both industry and the general population are serious about animal welfare. PETA claims that its campaign against the Australian wool industry is based on the "grossly inhumane practice of mulesing" and Australia's live export trade. Unfortunately, PETA, along with Abercrombie and Fitch, have failed to understand the facts. Mulesing provides lifelong protection against the slow and painful death often associated with breech flystrike.

I am sure that anyone who has ever seen an animal infected with flystrike would agree that allowing maggots to eat away at the insides of sheep is by far a much crueller practice. This long and lingering death cannot be justified when there is an acceptable and effective alternative. In fact, surgical mulesing has been shown to reduce the incidence of breech flystrike in sheep by more than 80 per cent. Despite years of research in this area, there is currently no better alternative than the very humane practice of surgical mulesing. Even the RSPCA agrees that mulesing is sometimes a necessary practice. In a statement issued on 15 October RSPCA Australia stated that in particular geographic locations where there is a high risk of flystrike:

it has been established that there is absolutely no acceptable alternative to mulesing … the RSPCA considers mulesing a necessary means of eliminating or minimising the pain and suffering caused by flystrike.

In an interview in this week's edition of the Land the RSPCA's World and Australian President, Dr Hugh Wirth said:

PETA has a philosophical objection to the use of animals for any purpose. It wants to get rid of farming altogether.

As an example of just how extreme PETA is, co-founder and President, Ingrid Newkirk, was quoted in October 2001 as having said, in relation to foot and mouth disease:

I openly hope that it comes here. It will bring economic harm only for those who profit from giving people attacks and giving animals a concentration camp-like existence. It would be good for animals, good for human health and good for the environment.

That is, that we have foot and mouth disease in the country. In April 2001 PETA also urged Timothy McVeigh, America's Oklahoma City bomber, to die a vegan because it would show compassion to animals and would benefit his soul. Previous PETA campaigns have urged college students in America to abandon dairy products in favour of beer. It has also targeted the Boy Scouts of America, calling for that organisation to abandon its "Fishing" and "Fish and wildlife Management" merit badges because they "teach young people that hooking, maiming, suffocating and killing fish is acceptable". What PETA fails to recognise is that the welfare of animals is paramount to farmers. It is at the core of their very livelihoods.

Unlike PETA, the Australian sheep industry and the State and Federal governments are genuinely concerned about animal welfare and are taking rational, science-based steps to continually improve practices. These include training and new techniques. For instance, Australian Wool Innovation is currently funding research into the use of analgesics for mulesing, as well as non-surgical mulesing techniques. There is a lot of additional research that I will not go into. While PETA's aggressive and holier-than-thou attitude may resonate on the highbrow streets and fashion strips of New York City, it is not grounded in reality. Dr Wirth of the RSPCA has issued a challenge to us all, saying in this week's issue of the Land that, "It is time for the RSPCA and farming groups to get together and get aggressive in return." I will be writing to both the Federal Minister for Trade and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry on this matter, encouraging them to take up the fight against these sensationalised and hysterical claims. I will also write to Abercrombie and Fitch.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: If members have any further questions I suggest they place them on notice. 21 October 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11785

DEFERRED ANSWERS

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

DRUG OFFENDERS COMPULSORY TREATMENT PILOT

On 15 September Ms Lee Rhiannon asked the Special Minister of State a question without notice regarding the drug offenders compulsory treatment pilot. The Special Minister of State provided the following response:

The Drug Offenders Compulsory Treatment Pilot was a joint initiative of the NSW and Commonwealth Governments.

It was a recommendation of the 1999 NSW Drug Summit recommendation and was funded by the Commonwealth Government at $2.16 million under a bi-lateral Agreement with NSW in 1999/2000–2002/03.

The bi-lateral Agreement was made under the Illicit Drug Diversion Initiative and was one of many made by the Commonwealth with the States and Territories as part of the National Illicit Drug Strategy of the Council of Australian Governments.

New Agreements have been made under Phase 2 of the Illicit Drug Diversion Initiative for 2003/04–2006/07.

The Illicit Drug Diversion Initiative is a truly national achievement. The Commonwealth, States and Territories have continued to work together since 1999 to promote a national diversionary approach to breaking the drug-crime cycle.

I would remind the Honourable Member that, while the Commonwealth Government provided $31.8 million under that Agreement, the NSW Government also made a significant investment.

In addition to a specific contribution of $9.8 million under the Agreement, we separately funded the court, police and health core infrastructure to support Drug Diversion programs in NSW.

We also separately funded the Adult Drug Court to which we have allocated $25.28 million up to 30 June 2006.

In fact, since 1999 the NSW Government's total investment in Drug Diversion is $53.4 million, including $34.5 million in 2003/04–2006/07.

Turning to the Drug Offenders Compulsory Drug Treatment Program, it was always recognised by the NSW and Commonwealth Governments that the Pilot would be a twelve-month trial. This was expressly stated in the NSW Government's response to recommendation 6.8 of the Drug Summit.

The purpose of this, as with other Drug Summit initiatives, was to test a new approach—in this case to see if the Pilot would be effective in helping certain adult offenders stop their drug use and break their personal drug/crime cycles.

Under the Pilot, Police were able to use their discretion to not charge minor drug offenders and to instead caution and refer them to assessment and treatment.

The Pilot did not apply to cannabis offenders. Diversion for these offenders was tested in other programs originating from the NSW Drug Summit which continue to operate today, including the Cannabis Cautioning Scheme, the Magistrates Early Referral into Treatment (MERIT) Program and the system of warnings, cautions and youth justice conferencing under the Young Offenders Act 1997.

Consistent with the NSW Government's approach to drug and alcohol policy, decisions made about the Drug Offenders Compulsory Drug Treatment Pilot and its future were evidence based.

The Pilot was trialed from 3 July 2000 to 3 July 2001 in the Northern Rivers and Illawarra regions at the Police Local Area Commands of Tweed/Byron, Richmond, Wollongong and Lake Illawarra.

But the evidence was that far fewer offenders were dealt with than expected. Although it was estimated there would be 80–100 Police cautions in the twelve months, Police issued only 14 cautions up to 17 June 2001. Four of these cautions were later withdrawn.

Both the Commonwealth Government and the NSW Government agreed there was no point continuing the Pilot and that it would be a better use of public monies to redirect funds to other Drug Diversion initiatives which were working.

The Commonwealth Government agreed to redirect funds for the Pilot primarily to the Magistrates Early Referral into Treatment (MERIT) Program which was also being trialed at that time to divert drug offenders to treatment and rehabilitation. This scheme applies in relation to all prohibited drugs.

Today, MERIT is operating in 51 local courts across NSW, including 100% of local courts in the Northern Rivers region and 95% of local courts in the Illawarra.

The MERIT Program has been very successful in diverting a large number of drug offenders away from the criminal justice system and into treatment.

Over 3,500 offenders have entered the Program statewide including 642 in the Northern Rivers and 552 in the Illawarra.

There have also been 1,846 graduates from the Program statewide to date, including 308 in the Northern Rivers and 286 in the Illawarra. 11786 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21 October 2004

M5 EAST EXHAUST STACK HEALTH IMPACTS

On 15 September Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes asked the Special Minister of State, representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice regarding M5 East exhaust stack health impacts. The Minister for Health provided the following response:

The Department of Health advises that the pollutant impacts of M5 East tunnel exhaust stack emissions were modelled during the assessment of the M5 East Motorway. Modelling was undertaken by consultants to the Roads and Traffic Authority and the Department of Planning. Results from the modelling predicted that the level of pollutants, such as fine particles and nitrogen dioxide, would be less than national and World Health Organisation guidelines.

Based on the prediction that emission levels would be below those known to have significant impacts, prospective health monitoring was considered to be unwarranted. Subsequent monitoring of pollutant levels has not been able to detect any changes due to the stack emissions.

Fine particle pollution and resultant effects on asthma or other respiratory diseases were the major focus of community concern prior opening of the M5 tunnel. In hindsight, conducting a study on asthma and other respiratory diseases would not have included the health effects related to community complaints that arose subsequent to the M5 opening – that is eye, nose and throat irritation.

With regard to other road tunnels, currently under construction, modelled predictions of stack emissions are also below national and World Health Organisation guidelines. Monitoring of pollutant impacts is required in the Minister for Planning's consent conditions for both the Cross City and the Lance Cove tunnels.

In case of the Cross City Tunnel an epidemiological study is not warranted as expected emission impacts are very small and any potential health effects would be very difficult to detect.

In relation to the Lane Cove Tunnel, expected pollutant impacts from the stacks are again very small. However, the population impacted may be of a size where a prospective evaluation could be undertaken. The Department of Health will decide whether to undertake a health study following consultation with the community and other agencies.

SYDNEY WATER SUPPLY

On 15 September the Hon. David Oldfield asked the Minister for Rural Affairs, representing the Minister for Energy and Utilities, a question without notice regarding the Sydney water supply. The Minister for Energy and Utilities provided the following response:

The Sydney Catchment Authority has tested for many years this currently inaccessible water and has not found any evidence that the quality of water at the bottom of Sydney's dams is significantly different in quality to that currently being supplied to Sydney.

KOSCIUSZKO ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

On 15 September the Hon. Jon Jenkins asked the Minister for Justice, representing the Minister for the Environment, a question without notice regarding membership of the Kosciuszko Advisory Committee. The Minister for the Environment provided the following response:

The creation of Kosciuszko National Park was one of former NSW Premier McKell's greatest legacies. In January 1942, I understand he toured Australia's high country for ten days and, after seeing first hand the erosion being caused by grazing in the Snowy Mountains, his government banned grazing over a massive area of what is now the national park. His government formally established Kosciuszko State Park in 1944.

While it is obviously true that the Park provides significant year round recreational opportunities, it is also true that the Park has significant conservation values. This is why the Park was transferred to the then National Parks and Wildlife Service in 1967.

National Parks and Wildlife Advisory Committees provide an important link between the community and the National Parks and Wildlife Service (now part of the Department of Environment and Conservation).

Members are appointed on a regional basis from a cross-section of the community to provide advice on the protection and conservation of nature, Aboriginal heritage and historic heritage in the New South Wales landscape, including the management of national parks and reserves.

Kosciuszko National Park is covered by two advisory committees: Snowy Mountains Region and South West Slopes. Both Advisory Committees consist of a range of representatives from diverse backgrounds with knowledge, skills and experience appropriate to the range of issues associated with management of the Park. I am advised that a number of members have strong recreational interests. Members represent local government; tourism authorities, Aboriginal Land Councils, NSW Farmers Association, alpine resorts, Rural Fire Service, Rural Land Protection Boards, conservation groups, business owners, scientists, park neighbours, four wheel drive groups and local community interests.

WESTERN SYDNEY INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY SUPPORT GROUP FUNDING

On 16 September the Hon. John Ryan asked the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Youth a question without notice regarding funding for the Western Sydney Intellectual Disability Support Group. The Minister provided the following response: 21 October 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11787

Presently, Western Sydney Intellectual Disability Support Group receives recurrent funding of $84,837 for crisis support. An additional one-off funding of $50,000 has been allocated for the period 2004/05 to the group to continue to provide advocacy support services for the remaining Marsden Rehabilitation Centre clients who have not yet completed their move into the community.

KOSCIUSZKO NATIONAL PARK POISON SURFACE BAITS

On 16 September the Hon. Jon Jenkins asked the Minister for Justice, representing the Minister for the Environment, a question without notice regarding Kosciuszko National Park poison surface baits. The Minister for the Environment provided the following response:

Feral pigs are a pest in the Kosciuszko National Park, and on 27 August 2004 they were listed as a key threatening process statewide.

The Department of Environment and Conservation is responsible for controlling feral pigs on land that it manages. It adopts an integrated pest management approach using a range of techniques. Due to the success of these programs, I am advised that the number of pigs in Kosciuszko National Park have actually been reduced to what are currently low levels.

I am advised that soaked wheat grains were used in the poisoned surface baits. The baiting program is specifically designed to target feral pigs alone, and is not targeted at any other animal.

Non-target impacts are minimised using a range of highly effective methods. Indeed I also understand pigs are more susceptible than other animals to warfarin with an LD50 (Lethal Dose that would kill 50 per cent of the population) of 0.4mg per kilogram of body weight, compared with rat (1.0mg/kg); poultry (10.0mg/kg); and cattle (200.0 mg/kg). I am advised that the dosage levels used in the feral pig baiting program would not be enough to cause the death of a horse. The Department has advised me that no known native animals have been poisoned in the current program.

ACT Parks and Conservation have used warfarin as their main pig control technique in Namadgi National Park for over 15 years. Its program was originally developed in 1986 in conjunction with the CSIRO to test the effectiveness of the technique in controlling potential foot and mouth outbreaks. These programs have proven highly successful in reducing pig numbers, with the original research program showing a 91 per cent reduction in the Namadgi pig population.

The Department of Environment and Conservation works closely with other agencies to develop and apply best practice approaches to pest animal control. Some examples include:

• implementation of Cooperative Wild Dog Management Plans in conjunction with the Rural Lands Protection Boards, State Forests and local land holders; • Pest Animal Control Cooperative Research Centre in the ACT; • predator and critical weight range species monitoring with the CSIRO; • the South West Slopes Region has been involved in the Management of Wild Dogs in SE NSW and ACT Project—in conjunction with the University of NSW; and • Department of Primary Industries for research, training and expert advice.

Specialist pest species officers employed by the Department regularly liaise with other key organisations in order to keep up to date with the latest research to develop and implement effective pest management programs.

Questions without notice concluded.

[The President left the chair at 1.08 p.m. The House resumed at 2.46 p.m.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Notice of Motion

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: According to Standing Order 71, I seek leave to give notice of a motion relating to an address to the Governor under Standing Order 53 relating to papers concerning Operation Auxin.

Leave not granted.

JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE UPON ROAD SAFETY

Report

The Hon. Ian West, on behalf of the Chair, tabled report No. 4/53, entitled "Report on the Safety of Railway Level Crossings—Where Roads and Railway Lines Meet at Substantially the Same Level", dated October 2004.

Ordered to be printed. 11788 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21 October 2004

MOBILE PHONE TOWERS

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [2.49 p.m.]: I wish to refer to the health effects and regulation of telephone towers for mobile phones—a matter that has become quite controversial. Two issues need to be dealt with. I refer, first, to the idea of accountability in general. If corporations want to set up telephone tower transmitters, should they have to comply with popular will or the will of concerned citizens? It is the view of the Democrats that the Government gets its legitimacy from the will of the people and it is in their interests that the Government should negotiate with powerful vested interests.

The Government should not merely capitulate to vested or powerful interests; it should negotiate with them on behalf of the people. That is what the Government was elected to do, and if it does not do that it really has no legitimacy. If the Government decided that telephone towers are harmless it should say so, and present the reasons they are not harmful and address the legitimate concerns of citizens. If it gave permission for the establishment of telephone tower transmitters it should have done so only after thorough scientific scrutiny of evidence relating to the health effects, or possible health effects, of telephone towers, and the results of that scrutiny should be made public.

Under freedom of information legislation—and we should not really need freedom of information legislation—the Government should make public its reasons for giving a telephone company permission to establish mobile phone towers. That has not been done. The nature of science is that it works by advancing no hypotheses. Scientists might state that something is not the case and then seek to disprove it. For example, they might state that telephone towers are not harmless and they might then try to disprove that statement. People have expressed anxiety about the rays from telephone transmission towers and about many other sorts of radiation. I am not an expert in physics but I did complete a year of physics at university level and have a master of applied science in occupational health.

I am aware that people have expressed anxiety about electromagnetic radiation and the concept of managing and understanding risk in numeric forms or forms in which people understand risk—in other words, how people perceive risk. People are far more scared of being struck by lightning than they are about the effects of smoking, even though the probability of being killed by smoking is one in two and the probability of being killed by lightning is one in hundreds of thousands.

The electromagnetic radiation spectrum spans very short wavelengths, such as gamma rays, and very long wavelengths, such as radio waves. In between those extremes there is visible light, ultraviolet light, heat rays, microwaves, x-rays and various other forms of radiation, which are defined according to their wavelength. Radiation has always caused concern—sometimes there has been too much concern and sometimes not enough. Likewise, good exposure level data is sometimes available and sometimes it is not. Marie Curie did a lot of harm to her skin in her early work with radium when that element was not understood properly. It was thought initially that x-rays simply heated up so early radiographers measured x-rays radiation levels by hand and were thus exposed to very high doses of radiation.

People have expressed concern about radio waves and emissions from television transmission towers. Some years ago I was friendly with an ABC staffer who worked at the television studio at Gore Hill. The ABC television tower situated in the front yard of the studio disrupted computers inside the building and staff were concerned that the waves could harm them too. The introduction of visual display units [VDUs] caused a repetitive strain injury epidemic—I did some work in that area—but also generated concern that the radiation emitted by television sets and VDUs could cause physical malformations in humans. A paper was produced on malformations in mice that were supposedly damaged in utero. It found a higher incidence of congenital malformations in the offspring of mice that had been placed in front of visual display units. Many attempts were made to reduce the amount of radiation emitted by visual display units and I attended a conference on this subject in Sweden in 1985, from memory.

There are longstanding concerns about microwaves and microwave leakage and about telephone relay tower emissions. Some electricians have expressed concern about exposure to electric fields and high doses of radiation when they service transformers or stand in front of the beam when maintaining relay towers. One might assume that risk is related to the amount of heat produced and that the power of various devices can be measured by ascertaining their wattage and calculating exposure levels using the inverse square law or some 21 October 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11789 other means—I am reaching the limits of my knowledge in this area. We certainly want to know whether a certain dose of radiation has an adverse health effect—and uncertainty in this area generates more concern than concrete findings.

Radiation exposure levels are generally studied through tests on animals similar to those used to test the effects of drugs. Generally three different species are exposed to varying doses of radiation and the incidences of leukaemia or other cancers are measured and recorded. A small number of disease strains are specially designed to develop cancers fairly easily in animals so the increased incidence of cancers is relatively easy to track and document. Researchers then calculate the amount of radiation to which a particular species may be exposed safely—the human dose is usually 100 times less than the dose that is safe for the most sensitive animal species.

We are routinely exposed to a variety of waves. There are radio waves in the air, light rays, heat rays, microwaves and rays from telephones, VDUs and televisions. Telephones in the home have transmitters at ear level that transmit to a base station within the house, cordless mice send messages to the computer and telephones talk to computers via laser beams—or perhaps via infrared beams. When the studies on mice are completed cohort studies are conducted—that is the next step. These involve studying a population group and ascertaining whether those people who were exposed to certain radiation levels suffered a higher incidence of cancer than those who were not exposed.

As an occupational health physician, I have always thought it appalling that there is no ongoing study of occupational health risks. If one were to search for the literature on these types of studies one would have to look almost invariably to Scandinavia, where national identity cards trace people's occupational and health histories. The cards generally record people's occupations on a yearly basis. In Australia doctors take patients' occupational health histories with varying degrees of thoroughness. They will record whether a cancer patient works as a security guard but 30 years work in another occupation is often not recorded in the patient's medical history—and when it is the information might not be entered in the database that identifies types of chemical exposures over specified periods. Thus clinical extrapolations cannot be made from the patient's occupational history.

I was one of the few people who supported the concept of an Australia Card, because I simply could not get information. In my occupational medicine practice I continually asked were certain substances hazardous. I had to refer to data on animals or case control studies that were methodologically much more difficult. I said that people basically relied on the fact that data could not be collected, and the Australia Card would have easily collected data, but people could have been identified and harmed by that data collection. On the other hand, the lack of an Australia Card has led to efforts to find a single medical record number or trace people through tax file numbers and credit reference association numbers.

The information on these databases is there for reasons that might not necessarily be in people's best interests. However, such data cannot be used, because an Australia Card could be used to track work histories and answer questions. I have been concerned about the effects of insecticides and herbicides on health, and again I have had to go to incomplete Scandinavian railway worker literature to find out if it is harmful or likely to be harmful. I was asked whether an increased incidence of leukaemia or lymphoma, given the carcinogenicity of benzene, has been found in petrol pump workers and people who repair petrol pumps. I found that the two major contractors in Australia—Gilbarco Australia Limited and Email—were not the employers of petrol pump workers. They were employed by small contractors, so there would be even less chance of finding out what was happening. I do not believe that the question whether electricians working on transformers or microwave equipment have suffered an increased incidence of lymphomas or leukaemia has satisfactorily been resolved or looked at, although I have not referred to the literature recently.

The general principle is that all possible studies should be done. In this case only a few mobile phone companies are able to advise on the number of calls made and thus how much radiation people are likely to have been exposed to. I am not sure whether exposure varies according to the type of phone used, or whether over a certain period of history phones on average produced so much radiation and therefore a person who had $50 worth of phone calls per month would have been on the phone for a certain number of hours and would have had a certain dose of radiation. The register could then competently be cross-checked against any tumours that developed. I am discouraged that even though the Federal Government still owns 51 per cent of Telstra―and even if it did not―it could mandate but has failed to mandate that phone companies have to provide those records. Those records could be provided at very little cost to a researcher. I am bothered that the Federal Government does not enable such research. 11790 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21 October 2004

If such information were made available, the Government, or anyone for that matter, could fund an approved research project to look at the data. If the Government is going to impose increased radiation doses on the population, and the population is concerned about it, then the Governmentt should either state that the scientific evidence is good enough, and provide the basis for that decision, or it should conclude that the data is not good enough and it should do the study. If the Government thinks that the data is not good enough, it should follow the cautionary principle and not approve the phone towers at all. However, if the Government decides that the risk is low enough, although unproven, and takes into account the proven benefit of the convenience of mobile phones in saving the lives of people lost in the bush or otherwise endangered in emergencies, a decision to use mobile phone towers would be reasonable. The Government cannot have it both ways. It cannot approve the construction of phone towers, which gives power to companies, without a clear statement that it believes there is no risk. Such a statement would be judged on its merits, but I believe that would be going beyond what the Government ought to be doing.

The Hon. Henry Tsang: You don't support the amendments?

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: Please shut up! I have suggested other methods of developing databases and a registration system for exposure to hazards in occupations or in routine aspects of life, such as using a mobile phone, so that good evidence on the hazards that people face can be compiled. Rather than think of medical research as laboratory research, the Government ought to think far more in terms of public health research, to which the Greens have drawn attention. In my contribution I have defined the public health issues as I see them. Public and preventative health are sadly neglected aspects of health. Government action at the top is required in cases where a large population needs to be studied. A grant cannot simply be given to somebody through the National Health and Medical Research Council or other research bodies to get the answer through bench or statistical research unless that data is provided. It is disappointing that the Government has not been more conscientious, as is needed in this case and in many analogous cases.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [3.06 p.m.]: The Government does not support the motion. Mobile phone technology is a vital part of everyday life for New South Wales citizens. It is also essential for the continuing economic growth of the State that our business and tradespeople have access to the very latest communications technology. However, the apparent proliferation of mobile phone towers is a matter of concern for both the community and the State Government. There is a limit to what State governments can do in this respect because the overarching legislative framework is Commonwealth. To a large extent, our hands are tied by Commonwealth legislation that gives very wide powers to mobile phone carriers. I will outline those powers because it is important to know the industry code by which mobile phone providers are supposed to abide.

In response to community and government concerns, mobile phone carriers have developed a code which establishes guidelines for the installation of low impact facilities. It is called the Deployment of Radiocommunications Infrastructure Code, key aspects of which include: using a precautionary approach to site selection, particularly sensitive sites, that is, schools, hospitals and similar locations; having written procedures for site selection; establishing community consultation procedures, where required; requiring council notification for new site installations; planning design and operation of base stations to minimise electromagnetic emissions; developing an internal complaints handling procedure; and providing electromagnetic radiation emission reports as per the Federal Department of Health's requirements and the format of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency.

Importantly, the code requires carriers to enter into a formal communication consultation process when proposing the installation of certain facilities. However, under this code, while a carrier is obliged to consider community feedback, there is no obligation to modify the original plan in light of the feedback. That is one of the key areas that has caused a lot of community concern. The carrier retains the right to proceed with the facility installation as originally planned.

The State Government does not have the legislative power to ban these so-called low-impact facilities. Honourable members know what I am talking about: they can be seen all over the place. Some facilities go to the extreme and try to disguise mobile phone towers as fake palm trees. Any building that is on the crest of a hill or is the high point in a local community has a whole raft of mobile phone towers on the top of it. The roof of the old State Government building in Ashfield, near where I live, is covered with phone antennas. People rightly said, "Well, why do we have to have so many? Why can't there be more sharing? Why do these problems exist?" They exist because the State Government cannot truly deal with the problem.

The location of telecommunication towers around sensitive sites is particularly important for the community, but their location should not be left to private companies alone. Currently the New South Wales 21 October 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11791

Government is taking many proactive steps to manage their location within the framework established by the Commonwealth Government. To a certain extent the Government is sympathetic to elements of the motion moved by Ms Sylvia Hale, but taken as a whole it does not represent the best way to deal with this issue. I refer to comments from Hutchison Telecommunications received by some honourable members who have shown an interest in this matter. I cannot verify the detailed analysis of their comments by Ms Sylvia Hale, but I would like to convey the key elements of their concerns. The communication, dated 19 October, reads, in part:

Following the parliamentary debate on 23 September 2004 regarding the placement of telecommunications antennas across New South Wales, Hutchison Telecommunications has met with NSW Greens MLC Sylvia Hale to outline our concerns about incorrect statements made in her parliamentary speech.

Hutchison has also provided to Ms Hale's office a written account of our concerns regarding misconceptions and incorrect statements included in her address to Parliament. We understand that the parliamentary debate on this issue continues, and accordingly, we would like to take this opportunity to provide you with a copy of the brief that has been provided to Ms Hale

I hope that you have the opportunity to consider the concerns raised in our brief before the debate resumes.

Mainly because telecommunications regulation is a Federal issue, I have not been able to go through and verify in detail the information provided by Hutchison. But it is fair to say that they have sent five pages of detailed comment on errors they identified in the information conveyed by Ms Sylvia Hale. I would like honourable members to bear that in mind when they decide which way to vote because there are a lot of misconceptions out there. I make no attempt whatsoever to ignore or make light of the many genuine community concerns. This very complex issue is mainly a Federal concern. Unfortunately, the actual consideration of the location of phone towers is a local government issue. At this stage there is no real role for the State Government to play. But that does not mean we are not interested in community concerns or a better way to move forward. That does not go to the extent of saying that I support the amendment of the Hon. Patricia Forsythe. However, the motion moved by Ms Sylvia Hale as a whole does not represent the best way of dealing with this issue.

In relation to the amendment moved by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe, the metropolitan strategy is not the appropriate forum for discussion of mobile phone towers, which exist right across New South Wales, not just in metropolitan areas. It is a huge slight to the people of rural and regional New South Wales that the Opposition would see fit to try to limit discussion to city areas of the impact and management of these towers. We must bear in mind that many people choose to live in country New South Wales to avoid what they perceive to be many of the dangers that surround new technologies. Many people who do not want to live in areas that have high traffic pollution and lots of mobile phone towers, where they cannot grow their own organic vegetables, or where their children cannot play in the backyard for fear that the soil might be lead contaminated, choose to live in country areas because of what they perceive will be a cleaner and healthier environment in which to bring up their families. Their concerns about the location of mobile phone towers and the proliferation of mobile phone antennas are just as valid and should be recognised equally with the concerns of those who live in metropolitan areas.

Referring the matter for consideration to the metropolitan strategy is not the appropriate way to go. Furthermore, the metropolitan strategy deals with large-scale planning and infrastructure issues over which the State Government has jurisdiction. As my colleagues and I have explained, the State Government does not have control over the Commonwealth telecommunications legislation that governs mobile phone towers. These issues must be raised in a forum that can better include sector-specific consultation. The Government is committed to addressing this important issue, but a discussion on the metropolitan strategy is not the appropriate forum. Although the State Government does not have the legislative power to ban these so-called low-impact facilities, we are still concerned. The Federal Government has deliberately limited the State's powers to have a say on this issue. The New South Wales Government is prepared to call on the Federal Government to review its legislation focusing on the wide powers and immunities granted to private companies in this industry sector.

I am pleased to report to the House that in 2000 the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources developed draft telecommunications guidelines to advise local councils on preparing local environmental plans to control those telecommunications facilities not exempted as low-impact facilities. In April 2003 a local government and community working group developed a model of telecommunications and radio communications development control plan. A number of councils have developed development control plans based on this model, including Sutherland, Woollahra, Lake Macquarie, Canterbury and Rockdale councils. This significant initiative by councils is supported and encouraged by the Government. The Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources is currently working with councils to encourage adoption of the best practice development control plan to assist them in dealing with the development applications from mobile phone carriers. 11792 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21 October 2004

The department is also preparing a draft telecommunications guideline to encourage a consistent statewide approach by councils to the placement of facilities through local environmental plans. The Government believes this collaborative approach with local councils is the best way to manage the process. We would further encourage the industry and Commonwealth agencies responsible for this area to be involved in managing this important issue. I have highlighted a number of ways in which the State Government is working with stakeholders to deal with the location of mobile telecommunications towers in New South Wales. We believe this represents a better approach than that proposed in the motion of Ms Sylvia Hale and the amendment of the Hon. Patricia Forsythe. For this reason we oppose the motion, and I would urge all other members of the House to do so. This is an important issue, but an inappropriate response will do nothing to promote better management.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [3.17 p.m.], in reply: I thank members for their contributions. I also thank my colleagues Mr Ian Cohen and Ms Lee Rhiannon, who have responded already to many of the points raised in the debate. Since speaking to this motion on 23 September I have met with representatives of Hutchison and, just prior to this debate, I also met with representatives of the Mobile Phone Carriers Forum, the peak industry advocacy body. I take this opportunity to address some of the matters raised in those meetings, as well as those expressed by members in this debate. Everyone agrees, the industry included, that more could be done to deal with community concerns and improve the siting of mobile phone towers.

In far too many cases antennas are erected in the most visually invasive manner, such as protruding above the roof line or spaced along the entire front facade of the building, in some cases on heritage buildings. In these cases little or no attempt has been made to hide the antennas or to blend them into the building in an architecturally sensitive manner. In other cases, massive towers with a double crown of antennas are erected along prominent visible sight lines. These sites may offer the best reception, or the cheapest costs, but cost and reception alone should not be the sole considerations. There are cases where the industry goes the extra mile to install antennas that are hidden or blended into the surroundings, but these are the exception rather than the rule.

Earlier I noted that we expected to see a roll-out of 5,000 new third generation [3G] towers in the coming years. In the meeting with Hutchison, its representatives disputed this and told me that Hutchison had already installed 1,900 towers and will apparently install "only a few hundred more" at fill-in sites. But Optus and Vodafone have just announced a partnership for a new 3G network, and Hutchison itself claims that in the next three to five years everyone will be using 3G technology—a point that was also made by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe. If this is indeed true, and I am sure the industry is working hard to bring it about, how many more towers will be needed to handle the ever increasing demand? I hazard a guess that to enable the existing mobile- phone-using population to convert to 3G within three to five years, in excess of 5,000 towers will be required.

Hutchison also took exception to my comments about the laissez-faire environment in which telecommunications companies operate. Other members have spoken of a need to strike a balance. The industry often claims that it is self-regulating. It is indeed one of the most self-regulating, industry-based regulatory schemes in the country. What other private industries can install their facilities on land, against the wishes of the owner? Moreover, carriers are not being fined for breaches of the industry's code of conduct. Government agencies and self-regulating industry bodies are turning a blind eye to blatant breaches of the Telecommunications Act and the industry's own code.

Hutchison also challenged my assertion that the carriers sometimes focus on soft target sites. Hutchison knows full well that councils are often not able, or permitted, to charge commercial rents in public parks due to zoning restrictions upon permissible land use. The Director-General of the Department of Lands has admitted that up to 30 councils are not receiving market rent for the use of some sites. This loophole needs to be closed. In the meantime, I challenge the industry to demonstrate that it is not targeting precise locations where rent is free or negligible when compared to sites on private land that command rents of up to $30,000 per year.

One final point raised by Hutchison relates to my claim that building owners are sometimes intimidated by carriers. Hutchison may dispute this, but I will read into Hansard an email I received from a distressed landowner:

With reference to our telephone conversation of today's date, please find enclosed a copy of the recent Telstra Land Access Notice received on 5.00pm Friday 15th October 2004 by Express post. Telstra has given me a new deadline expiring on 3rd November 2004. They are still determined to proceed in spite of being aware that the weight of their towers will be in excess of 5 tonnes installed on an Asbestos roof which is aged, friable and therefore unstable. Despite my repeated condemnation of their intended installation, Telstra has also been repeatedly spreading misinformation to the [local] Council, the print media and between some politicians, that they have a signed agreement with me, and are still negotiating because I only want more money—which is not true.

My decision to keep my building free from any mobile phone tower installation is absolute and final. No value can be put on the health and safety of myself, my wife, my neighbours and my future tenants. It is not negotiable. No power or any monetary offer from Telstra or any other company will sway my thinking, as I have always lived and will die for my principles. 21 October 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11793

I am 63 years old, and in the last 50 weeks of continuous pressure of unwanted telephone calls, faxes, and letters from Telstra and its agent, it has been and continues to take heavy toll on my life; not only in my work but also with my health and that of my wife's. I cannot also lease my property, or advertise it, knowing that Telstra can exercise their powers anytime under Schedule 3 of the Telecommunications Act of 1997.

Contrary to Telstra, I have a conscience. I cannot allow my property to be leased, knowing that the issue of towers is still hanging like a shadow above my building, and that it will cause harm to my future tenants, my neighbours, and to my wife and myself.

I have deliberately omitted the name of the recipient of the notice in order to protect his privacy. The company in this particular instance was not Hutchison.

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: Signed "Lee Rhiannon"!

Ms SYLVIA HALE: No, it was not Lee Rhiannon. I am more than happy to provide copies of the original email and the correspondence from the person who received the notice and who has been subjected to enormous stress from Telstra. It is not a laughing matter. This person is genuinely concerned and believes that his reputation has been traduced by Telstra by asserting that his concern is for receiving insufficient money whereas his concern is over the health and safety implications of the installation. It is not important that the company involved in this particular instance was not Hutchison. The point I was making, and the point I stand by, is that the industry intimidates landowners. This behaviour will reflect badly on all carriers until the industry and the Government put a stop to it. The easiest way to do that is to amend the law that enables carriers to install antennas wherever they wish, against the wishes of landowners.

The Greens acknowledge the amendment that was moved by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe to ensure that the State Government will determine, as part of the metropolitan strategy, a comprehensive strategic approach to the identification of suitable mobile phone tower sites. This is a reasonable suggestion and one that the State Government should certainly examine. The Greens hope that the Opposition will include this suggestion in its submission to the current consultation process that is now under way in relation to the metropolitan strategy. But this proposal should amplify, rather than replace, the Greens motion which calls on State, Federal and local governments to act immediately to protect the rights and welfare of communities. Acceptance of the suggestion that the Opposition's amendment should replace the Greens motion would be tantamount to playing cheap politics rather than moving toward addressing the multiple and very real concerns of the community about the siting of mobile phone towers. The Greens motion allows all members to make a public commitment to work toward resolving the problems that are currently plaguing the telecommunications industry. I urge all honourable members to support the original motion.

Amendment negatived.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 6

Mr Cohen Ms Hale Ms Rhiannon Dr Wong Tellers, Mr Breen Reverend Dr Moyes

Noes, 21

Ms Burnswoods Ms Griffin Mr Tingle Mr Catanzariti Mr Jenkins Mr Tsang Mr Colless Mr Lynn Mr West Ms Cusack Mr Obeid Ms Fazio Mr Oldfield Mrs Forsythe Ms Parker Tellers, Miss Gardiner Mr Pearce Mr Harwin Mr Gay Mr Roozendaal Mr Primrose

Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived. 11794 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21 October 2004

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL VACANCY

Joint Sitting

The PRESIDENT: I shall now leave the chair for the joint sitting. The business of the House will be suspended during the joint sitting. The House will resume at the conclusion of the joint sitting following the ringing of the bells.

[The President left the chair at 3.36 p.m. The House resumed at 4.15 p.m.]

The PRESIDENT: I report that at a joint sitting this day Reverend Frederick John Nile was elected to fill the vacant seat in the Legislative Council caused by the resignation of Reverend the Hon. Frederick John Nile. I table the minutes of proceedings of the joint sitting.

Ordered to be printed.

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGED CARE SERVICES FUNDING

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [4.16 p.m.]: I move:

1. That this House condemns the Federal Government:

(a) for its failure to provide adequate funding for aged care services in New South Wales,

(b) for its failure to address the growing needs of our ageing community, especially in regards to care for dementia sufferers, which places an undue burden on the families of these aged people,

(c) for the lack of available aged care beds in public hospitals thereby increasing the pressure on home care nursing,

(d) for its failure to recognise that many aged people can languish in public hospital beds long after their medical needs have been attended to because no appropriate accommodation is available in an aged care facility,

2. That this House calls on the Federal Government to initiate bipartisan talks with the State Government to address these needs rather than continue to deny that any problem exists.

Aged people in Australia are among the biggest losers following the re-election of the Howard Government. Since 1997 the Howard Government has played havoc with Australia's aged care sector and that has resulted in the current crisis in aged care. Elderly people have no certainty about the availability of appropriate aged care, their families are left with the unnecessary worry about how they will be able to care for their elderly family members, and the aged care sector is being squeezed in two really critical ways: firstly, financially and, secondly, in respect of the quality of care that can be provided to the aged.

In 1997 the Howard Government made some pretty significant changes to the aged care system, which it predicted would guarantee positive outcomes for older Australians. The Minister at the time, one of many in a revolving door ministry, asserted that it was essential to undertake reforms, claiming that the reforms were necessary to meet the challenges of our ageing population. In 1997 Minister Judy Moylan stated:

While this reform is urgently needed, the Government acknowledges it would be irresponsible to allow the system to develop unchecked after the passage of the bill.

But that never happened. The Federal Government introduced radical reforms without ensuring that the necessary supports were in place. About 20 years ago I used to work for the Commonwealth in the Aged Accommodation Program. I cannot believe that this Federal Government did not conduct an evaluation process to ensure that the aims of these reforms were being met and that the quality of care was adequate. Any responsible government would have done that, but not the Howard Government. One example of this is the accreditation system that currently costs in the order of $11.5 million a year. It should be noted that aged care service providers are charged a fee for each accreditation review. The Howard Government's reforms placed additional financial pressures on the aged care sector. In 2003 the Australian National Audit Office reported on the accreditation process and found:

There is no way of knowing whether or not the accreditation system actually improves the quality of care for residents because the Government had not undertaken an evaluation program to determine this vital information. 21 October 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11795

Perhaps the revolving door ministry to which I referred earlier has had an impact on the management of this vitally important portfolio. Let us look at who has been responsible: first, Judy Moylan; second Minister Smith; third, Bronwyn Bishop—I am sure all honourable members remember the kerosene bath scandal—then Kevin Andrews; and, finally, Julie Bishop in cahoots with Tony Abbott. What responsible Government would have five ministers in six years? The answer is none. The Howard Government's policies, reforms and lack of proper administration have had very serious consequences for the aged care sector.

In February this year the Salvation Army Australia Southern Territory announced that it was being forced to sell 15 of its 19 aged care facilities throughout Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory in which 2,390 elderly Australians live. The Salvation Army Australia Southern Territory has admitted that increasing financial pressures in aged care contributed significantly to its decision to sell those facilities. At a time when we all recognise that the ageing population of Australia will place increasing demands on budgets, both Federal and State, no leadership is being shown by the Howard Government on this growing problem and no commitment is being shown to ensure that the aged in our communities will be able to access quality affordable and appropriate aged care at the time when they need it.

The Howard Government has only ever given attention to this critical issue in the run-up to election campaigns. During the 2001 election campaign the Prime Minister made an election promise—which is in the document that the Government issued at the time—to commission a pricing review into aged care. Once having conceded that there was a need to undertake such a review it took the Government a year or more to get it going. I am referring, of course, to the Hogan review. The Government had the Hogan review but it kept it under wraps until June this year. The review cost taxpayers $7.2 million. It was a 2001 election promise and the Australian people had to wait until June 2004 to see the results.

The aged care sector desperately needed action, yet the Government did not release the review. It seems that every journalist, every person and their dog in this country had a view about and knew what was in the Hogan review except, of course, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health and Ageing. The rumour mills were working overtime, causing even more uncertainty for the aged in our communities and for those involved in the aged care sector. The media was full of stories about the recommendations that Professor Hogan had apparently made in the review.

For example, it was rumoured that there would be sweeping deregulation of the aged care sector; nursing homes would be able to offer different levels of accommodation, rather like star-rated hotels, at varying prices, and charge new residents cash deposits; there would be more user-pay focused systems for nursing homes; Hogan would recommend that nursing home operators be given unprecedented freedom to set their own prices; or nursing home beds would be auctioned while residents and their families could use vouchers to choose their levels of care. I did not just make up those things; they were headlines from media reports of this critical issue.

Rather than killing these rumours and stopping the uncertainty the Howard Government sat back and did nothing until June 2004, when it introduced the Aged Care Amendment Bill—another initiative taken in the lead-in to a Federal election campaign. Ageing people in our communities deserve better than to be used as political footballs by an uncaring and unresponsive Howard Government. During debate on this bill in the Federal Parliament Steven Smith, the acting shadow Minister for Ageing and Seniors, noted:

… for years the Government has ignored the pleas of the aged care industry, the community and Labor about its neglect of residential aged care, neglect that has caused difficulties in access and industry viability as well as concerns about the quality of care.

He registered concern:

… that the Government has resorted to a short term political fix which seeks to put off until after the election the Government's true intentions on a range of issues, including whether:

(a) accommodation bonds will apply consistently for both high level care and low level care;

(b) an accommodation bond will apply to residents who are classified as medium-care residents under the new Resident Classification Scale;

(c) there will be a further increase in the maximum daily accommodation charge for non-concessional residents from $16.25 to $19, a nearly 40% increase from the current charge;

(d) the requirement that at least 40% of residents are concessional before a provider is entitled to a concessional supplement is retained into the future; 11796 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21 October 2004

(e) bonds will be available to providers for the duration of a resident's period of stay if it is greater than the current five years;

(f) an aged care voucher system will be introduced; and

(g) an auction or tender system will be introduced for the allocation of aged care places.

Referring to the bill, Federal Labor said:

The government response to these longstanding problems has been a last-minute, short-term political fix which seeks to put off the government's true intentions on a range of issues— including many of the issues I mentioned before. Labor was concerned with the Government's refusal to state "whether accommodation bonds will apply consistently for both high-level and low-level care". He noted:

Generally, the Hogan review recommended that options for capital contributions from residents, such as an accommodation bond or a daily accommodation charge, apply consistently to low and high care. In the fine print of the government's budget, this is also said to be open to discussion with the industry.

This legislation, which was introduced in June 2004, did nothing to address the concerns and uncertainty in the industry. The Federal Government's response was too little, too late, and ignored the fundamental problems that have been developing in the aged care sector since 1996. I shall detail those problems. The Howard Government turned a surplus of 800 aged care beds in 1996 into a 10,000-bed shortage by June 2003. By then there were also more than 18,600 so-called "phantom" beds—beds that had been promised and allocated but never eventuated.

In June 2002 there were more than 17,900 of these phantom beds. To make matters worse, more than 5,200 phantom beds were more than two years old as at 30 June 2003. So there are long waiting lists around the country. As a result of these shortages thousands of frail and elderly Australians in need of nursing home beds continue to wait. Too often these elderly Australians must stay in acute care awaiting a nursing home bed. For example, more than 2,000 elderly people are currently in Australian hospitals waiting for a nursing home bed. This has the adverse effect of increasing the pressure on public hospitals.

I turn now to the terrible impact of the Howard Government's appalling management of this important portfolio on New South Wales. Before I get into the details, I refer the House to an article on this issue that appeared in a newspaper in my local area—it is the type of article on this topic that appears regularly in publications across the State. It is headlined "Hospitals bear elderly burden" and states:

Concord Hospital is being used as a "de facto nursing home" by people leaving elderly relatives in hospital while they wait for aged care beds... The practise, dubbed "granny dumping", saw 10 elderly patients waiting in Concord Hospital last week until aged care beds became available.

That is an appalling situation but the Federal Government has done nothing to address it. The lack of Federal Government funded aged care is having a negative impact on the flow of older patients through hospital and other acute care settings. The ageing population's impact on health care is at the forefront of planning for New South Wales health services. The number of people aged 75 years and over is expected to increase from 6.1 million in 2001 to 7.1 million in 2026.

In New South Wales we are not only planning for the future growth of the ageing population but we are already responding. This is reflected in the number of hospital admissions of people aged over 65 years. In 2003-04 older people between the ages of 65 and 74 occupied 15 per cent of all acute bed days and those over 75 years occupied 27 per cent. Hospitals are also seeing an 8 per cent annual increase in attendances at emergency departments by patients aged over 80 years. For example, Sydney metropolitan public hospital emergency departments are treating more than 170 patients over the age of 80 years on a daily basis. The length of hospital stays is sometimes extended beyond that which is required for treatment due to difficulties in accessing appropriate aged care facilities or community support.

At any one time public hospitals in New South Wales are accommodating up to 900 older people waiting for residential aged care and a significant number who are waiting for Australian Government funded community care. The average length of stay in New South Wales public hospitals of those older people needing residential aged care is 27 days compared with the average length of stay of 3.31 days for an acute episode. The cost of a hospital stay under these circumstances is more than double that of aged residential care and has put further strain on the New South Wales health system. This increased length of stay is estimated to cost the New South Wales public hospital system a total of $87.3 million per year. NSW Health is asking the Australian Government to permanently plan and fund interim and transitional care solutions for older people who are waiting inappropriately in hospitals. 21 October 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11797

Transitional care needs to be flexibly funded so that the interim care offered by public hospitals reflects individual needs and circumstances. The Australian Government's recent announcement of jointly funding 2,000 transitional care beds across Australia is welcomed, with approximately 680 beds for New South Wales. The NSW Health funding contribution to these services is, however, greater than that provided by the Australian Government. The department has advised that the real cost of providing facility-based transitional care is in the range of $240 to $325 per place per bed day. At this stage the Australian Government is funding six pilot programs at a level of $86.99 per day for a facility-based place and $70.13 for a home-based place. The lack of growth in funded residential aged care places and the considerable time lag between residential aged care beds being approved and becoming operational is problematic.

At June 2003 there were 67,653 allocated aged care places in New South Wales but only 60,839 were operational—that is, 6,814 places were non-operational. The Australian Government has declined to provide NSW Health with any figures past this time. At the same time, the demand for assessments of older people for aged care places has increased from 59,965 in 1999-2000 to 72,553 in 2003-04. The time lag between when places are approved and when they become operational represents an estimated loss of $142 million in aged care subsidies for older people of New South Wales. The Australian Government should not only reduce this time lag but it should also change the measure of need, which is currently 70 years and over, that determines the number of residential aged care places available. People 85 years and over currently occupy 52 per cent of residential care places and that is projected to grow steadily over the coming years unless alternative care measures are put in place. These problems also apply in rural areas, to which I will refer later.

The New South Wales Government has not just been sitting back complaining about the lack of action of the Howard Government. NSW Health has taken considerable steps to better manage the care of older people and to address the increasing demand for services. Some of these initiatives include multidisciplinary teams in emergency departments. In response to the increase in attendance by patients over the age of 80 years at emergency departments, 36 aged care services emergency teams were established in 2002-03 in emergency departments of public hospitals at an additional cost of $5.5 million per annum. The introduction of aged care services emergency teams has provided improved and timely access to specialist aged care services for older people.

Another initiative is Telehealth facilities to support the provision of both secondary and tertiary services across a wide geographical area. This service allows older patients to access services closer to home, thereby reducing the need to travel to major metropolitan facilities. There may also be a reduced demand for the provision of inpatient beds. An amount of $11.03 million has been allocated over four years to implement the 2001-06 New South Wales Dementia Strategy, jointly led by NSW Health and the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care. This strategy represents a planned response at the State level to the expected increase in the prevalence of dementia over the next five years. An amount of $4 million over five years has been allocated to specialist dementia nursing positions to improve acute hospital care for people with dementia. Funding has also been allocated to support general practitioners, aged care assessment teams, acute hospital staff and other health professionals in dementia care, and to initiatives to enhance partnerships and service co- ordination at the local level.

Another initiative that has been given priority is the management policy to reduce fall injuries among older people. Conservative estimates put the cost to the health system for fall injuries among older people in New South Wales at $325 million per annum, with that figure set to escalate by more than five times in the next eight years. An amount of $8.5 million has been provided over four years to address the complex problem of fall injuries in the community, residential and acute care settings. The fall prevention policy provides a framework to ensure that a statewide, long-term, co-ordinated approach to the prevention of fall injuries is adopted. The Care of Older People Committee was established in 2003 to integrate developing policy initiatives to ensure that NSW Health improves the care it provides for older people. The committee has endorsed the framework for the integrated support and management of older people in the New South Wales health system. This document has been published and disseminated.

A total of $45 million will be spent over three years on the first phase of the Chronic and Complex Care Program of new service models where older people are a key population group. More than 42,000 patients with cardiovascular disease, respiratory illness and cancer have benefited from access to 60 local programs across New South Wales, with 56,000 bed days avoided in the two-year operation of these programs, which equates to 89 beds. An amount of $15 million recurrent expenditure has now been allocated to the Chronic and Complex Care Program from July 2003. 11798 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21 October 2004

In addition, as a matter of urgency in response to increased pressure on beds, in 2003 the Minister for Health approved expenditure of up to $4 million in a pilot program called ComPacks, across a number of area health services. This is a community care case management model that allows certain patients to return home safely and be cared for in the community rather than in a hospital setting. The program is designed to meet the clinical and support needs of patients who are assessed as appropriate for that type of community-based care for a defined period. The pilot was so successful that a further $2 million has been allocated for ComPacks in 2004- 05, bringing total funding for the year to approximately $6 million. It is expected that approximately 4,000 hospital inpatients will be discharged with a ComPack this year.

In the absence of these services, those patients would have had to remain in hospital for unnecessarily long periods. This initiative is innovative in that it is developing partnerships between the community and the hospital sectors to better manage the needs of people, particularly those with complex and chronic conditions. The department is working with the Australian Government to develop and implement more effective fundamental reforms to community and residential-based care services as a matter of priority. The Australian Government has to focus more on the provision of funds for public hospitals and community and aged care than on private health insurance. Private health funds have no role or interest in care plans for their members, so even for those who do have cover, it falls back on the public sector to organise and provide the necessary care.

This problem is worse in rural areas. In some rural areas many elderly patients are unable to access nursing home beds and have to wait for more than 12 months for an available bed. Every day the equivalent of 30 hospital wards are taken up by patients who are waiting for a nursing home bed and care. The inconvenience to those aged citizens is great, but so is the cost to the taxpayer. It costs approximately $354 a day to keep a patient in an acute care bed in a public hospital, and it costs approximately $80 a day to care for a patient in a nursing home bed. The Commonwealth has abandoned these people. Its policies are an irrational waste of taxpayers' money. Public hospital beds are for ill people. Public hospitals have a small army of medical experts to ensure that ill people get better. Nursing homes are better able to focus on the quality of care for the aged, and to provide low level care where required. These people should be in nursing homes, not blocking hospital beds.

But this problem, of course, is not just impacting on New South Wales. On 28 August 2003 a joint statement was released from all Premiers and Chief Ministers calling unanimously for health reform to be discussed at the Council of Australian Governments meeting. In respect to the public hospital system and the aged care system they stated:

A national shortage of residential aged care beds means older people are being kept in acute wards in public hospitals. This situation benefits neither older people nor public hospitals. Trials including the Multi Purpose Services are a good example of the Commonwealth and the States working together. We need to build on this.

August saw the first anniversary of the signing of the 2003-08 Commonwealth-State Health Agreement, an agreement about which the Minister for Health, the Hon. Morris Iemma, has stated:

… that all States and Territories were forced to sign up with the Commonwealth with a gun held to our heads, an agreement that left New South Wales public hospitals with almost $300 million less in funding over the course of the next five years.

During the recent Federal election campaign did the Howard Government give a commitment to fix the problems it has created, or to spend the budget surplus responsibly? No, it did not. In an attempted bribe to shore up its support in the aged community the Howard Government proposed giving health insurance companies more money, another $500 million—as if the subsidy to private health insurance companies, which at the moment totals $2.3 billion, was not enough. The Commonwealth has decided to transfer another $500 million in private hospital health insurance funding at the expense of our public hospitals. It is yet another example of how the Commonwealth refuses to face up to its responsibilities to properly fund our public hospitals and the aged care sector.

Adequate support for aged care would relieve the pressure on our public hospitals and, most importantly, provide more appropriate care for those 900 senior citizens who are in public hospital beds but are awaiting Commonwealth funding, nursing home or community care positions. I have concentrated on the practical problems created by the Howard Government, but I also want to highlight the human cost of its failures. I especially want to focus on its failure to deal with the growing needs of our ageing community, particularly care for dementia sufferers, which places an undue burden on families of these aged people.

The fast-growing incidence of dementia is one of the challenges faced by both governments and the community. Dementia can have a devastating effect not only on sufferers but also on their families and carers. 21 October 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11799

Currently in New South Wales more than 56,000 people have moderate to severe dementia, and that number is expected to increase to 73,000 in 2010. It is important that the New South Wales Government, together with other levels of government, respond to this challenge in a planned and sensitive way. But the Commonwealth Government has to help as well. We know that a supportive, well-informed community can enable a person living with dementia to participate and live as normal a life as possible.

The impact on families and carers is very hard. As the onset of symptoms is gradual, the level of care and assistance also increases gradually until the point when the often agonising decision has to be made to place the sufferer into a residential care facility. Finding an appropriate local facility can be very difficult, and having confidence in strangers to care for a family member in a sympathetic way can also be difficult. We must consider who are the carers of people suffering from dementia. The majority are aged people. It is aged spouses who are doing the majority of this work, which places stresses on them, and, in turn, impacts negatively on their health. Let us also consider the consequences of bed lock.

Let us not forget that at the moment 900 public hospital beds are taken up by people who would be more appropriately placed in long-term aged care. We hear a lot of talk in winter about hospitals on code red. When the elderly become sick with flu and pneumonia they are admitted to hospital, where they should stay for about one week. Unfortunately, they have to stay for months because when they become too sick and frail to be released there are no nursing home beds to accommodate them. Many people consider this issue only from the perspective of the aged. But the impact on other people who are suffering acute illnesses or have been involved in accidents of aged people taking up 900 hospital beds in New South Wales is significant.

We hear the Opposition talk a lot about ambulances not being able to offload patients at hospital emergency departments. If someone cannot be released from an emergency department to an acute care bed because the bed is being taken up by an elderly person who should be in a nursing home it starts a chain reaction that is felt all the way down to the ambulance drivers and paramedics, who often have to wait with patients in hospital car parks until a bed can be found for them. That is not the fault of the State Government but of the Commonwealth for allowing that gap to develop between the number of aged care places and the level of recognised demand. I commend the former Federal Opposition spokeswoman on ageing, Annette Ellis, for her determined advocacy for the aged in our community and the aged care sector.

[Interruption]

I can hear some rather intemperate comments from the Hon. John Ryan, who may not be aware that Annette Ellis suffered from cancer earlier this year, which is why she stood aside from her position and why, for a while, Stephen Smith was the acting spokesperson for the Federal Opposition on aged care. Annette has declined to go back on to the frontbench because of her frail condition. Annette fought strongly to get recognition for the lack of action and lack of proper administration in this critical portfolio area. For that I thank her. This is a very important issue. The Howard Government has had a revolving-door ministry.

The number of aged care people in our country who are facing a number of problems deserve better than to have Ministers who, in the main, lasted an average of 14 months in the aged care portfolio. It is not uncommon to reshuffle ministers when a party is in government for a long time, but in a critical area like aged care it is not good enough to be shuffled so often, to have no continuity of administration or policy direction and to have people use it as a launching pad to get ahead in their political careers. The aged community in Australia deserves better. The Howard Government can solve this problem by initiating genuine bipartisan talks with the New South Wales Government and other State governments.

I urge the Howard Government to initiate these talks to deal with this critical issue, to ensure that the aged in our community and the aged care sector can have certainty, and to ensure adequate growth to meet the ever-increasing needs of our ageing population. We must remember that it is taxpayers' money, whether it is Federal or State, that is spent on the care of aged people, whether in nursing homes or public hospitals. It costs $360 per bed day to have someone cared for in an acute hospital care bed, while the appropriate level of care can be provided in a Commonwealth-funded nursing home for $80 a day. It does not make sense for this impasse to continue. The State Government is prepared to sit down with the Federal Government. It is prepared to examine initiatives to overcome this problem. I urge the Howard Government to stop shovelling so much money into the private health insurance sector, to confront this problem and to provide positive solutions.

The Hon. JOHN RYAN [4.46 p.m.]: I am stunned at this shameless exhibition of political grandstanding and pointless hand wringing by the honourable member. I cannot believe that, in a motion that 11800 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21 October 2004 commences, "This House condemns the Federal Government", she has concluded her speech by saying that the two governments should sit down and work together. How can two groups sit down and talk to each other when the motion calls on the House to condemn the Federal Government? There is no doubt as to who will get started. Not only have we seen an amazing and shameless display of—I think the best word I can use is one she used in her speech—intemperate language and poor research, but her amazing speech about how many elderly people are supposedly blocking beds in New South Wales hospitals leaves me utterly gobsmacked because the New South Wales Government has more than 1,000 young people with disabilities inappropriately clogging up aged care homes.

One constituent on the North Coast has written to the Minister for Community Services two or three times a week drawing her attention to the fact that her 29-year-old daughter is living inappropriately in an aged care home in Lismore. The Minister, through the department, has replied with incredible nonsense, saying that the daughter's medical needs are such that she cannot be in a group home. She does not have medical needs that would prevent her from being in a group home. Nearly 1,000 young people who are the responsibility of the State Government are in the same position.

The New South Wales Government should implement the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Social Issues to establish a target of 200 additional places in group homes every year for five years to catch up with this incredible demand, which includes young people inappropriately placed in aged care homes. The Government has done nothing about the recommendation, yet it wants to lecture an outstanding Federal Government, a Federal Government that proved its level of support in the community on the weekend it received an historic level of support by being re-elected with an increased majority.

The speech by the honourable member who led for the Carr Government during this debate, the Hon. Amanda Fazio, showed how out of touch the New South Wales Government is. Most of the honourable member's research was wildly out of date. I suspect she prepared the speech with some enthusiasm a year or so ago when she gave notice of the motion in June 2003. While she might have felt some excitement about the issue then, obviously she has not updated her speech. She completely neglected to mention the outstanding announcement made by the Howard Government throughout the recent election campaign of a historical level of funding for dementia programs.

Honourable members might care to compare the performance measures for dementia mentioned by the Hon. Amanda Fazio to the announcement made by Julie Bishop, the Federal Minister for Ageing, of $200 million, which will be allocated over the next four years by the Federal Coalition to dementia-specific programs, including $127.7 million for 200 extra aged-care-at-home places and approximately $20 million for the Carer Education and Workforce Training Program, which will provide dementia-specific training for up to 8,000 community care staff and residential home workers and 6,000 extra carers and community workers. In addition, $52 million will be allocated for support initiatives that categorise dementia as a health priority, including the exploration of new methods of treating and caring for people with dementia or Alzheimer's disease. That approach to aged care is indicative of a compassionate Federal government which has a vision and which is putting its money where its mouth is.

The measly amount allocated by the New South Wales Government to this area of priority need is approximately $11 million over the next four years. People should compare that amount with the commitment made by the Federal Government of $200 million over the next four years. When Labor was in government federally, it ignored the challenge of Australia's rapidly ageing population and its implications. Federal Labor politicians ignored aged care and their legacy is a shortage of 10,000 aged care places. Labor Federal Governments failed to introduce quality care standards, despite an independent report which showed that homes were delivering poor standards of care. The Hon. Amanda Fazio referred to the infamous kerosene incident that occurred while the Hon. Bronwyn Bishop was the Minister for Health and Ageing, but the Federal member should be highly commended for the manner in which she drew attention to the need for appropriate standards in aged care accommodation.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: Say that again, with feeling.

The Hon. JOHN RYAN: I say it with absolute feeling. The Hon. Bronwyn Bishop is to be highly commended for recognising the need to introduce an accreditation program. She drew more attention to the issue than all the handwringing and rhetoric that I have heard from members of the Labor Party. During Federal Labor terms in government, only 4,500 community aged care packages were created. Federal Labor's overall aged care policy ignored the carers of older people, chronically ill or disabled people, and gave them next to no 21 October 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11801 recognition. In contrast to the $200 million announced by the Coalition to address dementia issues, the alternative Mark Latham government intended to spend $5 million on yet another study to generate a strategic plan. No promises have been made by the Federal Labor Party of extra beds. If the motion presently being debated had been passed prior to the most recent Federal election, State Labor members would have been wildly disappointed at the policy response of the Federal Labor leader, Mark Latham, to the needs of people involved in aged care.

The New South Wales Government should consider the glass house in which it lives before it starts throwing stones. It should start addressing the fact that it has closed thousands of hospital beds, which is one of the reasons why a large proportion of aged people occupy beds in this State's hospital system. The number of beds in residential aged care facilities has declined and it follows logically and naturally that aged people will occupy a higher proportion of hospital beds as a result of that. Yet this is a Government that approximately 18 months ago closed one of the few aged care facilities on the South Coast. So much for the commitment by the Carr Government to people with aged care needs! The Carr Government should start to address some of its own issues before it starts lecturing any other government.

The Howard Government has more than doubled expenditure on aged care, from $2.8 billion in 1995 to $6 billion currently. The aged care package that was announced in the 2004 budget amounted to $2.2 billion over four years—the single largest investment in aged care policy by any Australian government. During its term of office the Federal Coalition Government has provided $37 million to support the aged care needs of older Australians. A further $30 billion has been allocated for aged care over the next four years. The Howard Government has steadily increased the allocation of places since 1996 and has reached the benchmark ratio of 100 places for every 1,000 people who are aged over 70 years. To respond to Australia's rapidly ageing population, the Howard Government recently increased the benchmark ratio to 108 places for every 1,000 people over the age of 70 years. In the eight years that the Howard Government has been in office, it has allocated 83,500 places, and has increased the number of places by more than 35 per cent since 1996. In no way can it be said that the Howard Government has been sitting on its hands.

Since the Howard Government came to office, there have been a great deal more aged care places in our community, including in New South Wales, than has been the case under Labor federally. Of 4,125 new aged care places in New South Wales, 3,100 are for residential care, 720 are for community care, and 305 are for aged care at home. The 2004-05 aged care approvals round will inject an additional $120 million per annum for aged care into New South Wales. This is in addition to the $176.9 million one-off payment that has already been allocated to providers in New South Wales during the past year. It is estimated that a further 4,450 aged care places will be allocated in New South Wales during the 2005-06 and 2006-07 aged care approval rounds. These places will result in an additional $118 million per annum being committed to aged care in New South Wales by the Federal Government.

In 2003-04, the Australian Government provided $1,732 million for aged care places in New South Wales, which represents an increase of over 80 per cent on what Federal Labor spent before it left office. Believe it or not, one of the more significant problems referred to by the Hon. Amanda Fazio—phantom beds— exists because it has not been possible to supply all the necessary beds. One of the reasons for that has been that the Carr Government botched dealing with issues related to development consent. Approximately 70 per cent of delays in bringing provisional allocations of residential aged care places into operation are due to issues concerning planning approvals, availability of land or suitability of sites. The Australian Government has sought co-operation from State and local governments to address this issue in each State. When New South Wales is prepared to get its planning approvals system right to meet pressing needs—not necessarily those of developers who want to destroy communities under State environmental planning policy 55—it might be possible for achievement of realistic capacity when approval for development is sought for aged care accommodation, and we might see some progress instead of the handwringing that accompanies complaints about phantom beds.

Between 1996-97 and 2002-03 State governments have cut the number of acute care public hospital beds by 3,570, or 6.7 per cent. Over the same period, there has been an increase of 14,295 in operational aged care beds. While the State Government has been slashing the number of hospital beds, the Federal Government has been steadily increasing aged care beds to the point that the State Government has been using some of them as quasi group homes for young people with disabilities. Today during question time I asked the Minister the Community Services whether it is a fact that a woman aged 42 is currently living at the Westmead Hospital, not because she needs the level of care that is provided at a hospital but because she has not been able to be provided with a supported accommodation place since her ageing parents have become unable to supervise her medication or meet her other personal care needs. 11802 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21 October 2004

I have to say that the bleating by the Hon. Amanda Fazio, who led for the State Government during this debate, about phantom beds is astonishing when people are unnecessarily accommodated in hospitals because of the inadequacy of this State's disability services. Last year, the Federal Government budget allocated 2,000 transition places over three years to assist older people after they had received treatment in a hospital. This jointly funded program will allow aged people to receive rehabilitation service to support and increase their independence and confidence.

The Howard Government has developed a transition plan to allow aged people who are in hospitals inappropriately to be given some transition to their homes, with appropriate support. To assist older people in making a smooth transition from hospital to home, or to residential aged care, the Australian Government has made a commitment to expand the transition care program to 2,000 places by 2006-07. In addition, under the Pathways Home Program the Australian Government is providing $253 million to the States over the next five years to assist older people leaving hospital. Under the Aged Care Innovative Pool Program, 12 innovative care rehabilitation services and 6 intermittent care pilots have been established to provide short-term rehabilitation and nursing or community support to older people after a hospital stay.

Under the Aged Care Innovative Pool Program, the Federal Government offered some money to the State Government to move some young people who were inappropriately placed in aged care accommodation into group homes. The Minister for Community Services refused that offer because she knew that after two years there would be no further funding. The Minister was offered funding for two years more than she should have been given, because it is her job to get those people out of nursing homes in the first place. The Federal Government was at least providing some assistance.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

COMMITTEE ON THE OFFICE OF THE VALUER-GENERAL

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): I report the receipt of the following message from the Legislative Assembly:

MADAM PRESIDENT

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

That George Richard Torbay be appointed to serve on the Committee on the Office of the Valuer-General in place of Anthony Michael McGrane, deceased.

Legislative Assembly JOHN AQUILINA 21 October 2004 Speaker

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [5.02 p.m.]: I move:

That this House at its rising today do adjourn until Tuesday 26 October 2004 at 2.30 p.m.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [5.02 p.m.]: I cannot believe that it now appears that the Government is about to wrap up Parliament for this week when, without a doubt, the biggest issue currently confronting law enforcement in this State, child pornography, remains to be dealt with. The Government itself recognised that through its own ineptitude it has a problem and it set about trying to get advice to ensure that it could fix the legislation. I am talking about some amendments that, if we believe the words of the Minister for Police and the Attorney General—

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): I take it you are formally speaking against the adjournment?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I am speaking against the adjournment.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Are you speaking against the special adjournment or the adjournment of the House today? The Minister has moved the special adjournment.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I am speaking against the special adjournment. 21 October 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11803

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: When do you want to come back?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: We should be debating this matter now.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: I have not yet adjourned the House.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: You are getting ready to wrap up the sittings of the House.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: No, I am adjourning today's sitting. Do you want to come back tomorrow?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Madam Deputy President, we are talking about ensuring that the Government keeps the House sitting until such time as it produces legislation—and it has to give an indication to the people of the State about its intention of producing legislation regarding child pornography. The Minister for Police said that he was going to introduce amendments to the legislation that increase the maximum penalty for the possession of child pornography from two years to five years. Bring it in; we will vote on it now; up to five years―a done deal. Done! Next, the Minister spoke about increasing the maximum penalty of publishing child pornography from five years to 10 years.

Bring it in now; we will do it now; we will wrap it up now. This is extremely important legislation, not something that should be left another few days. This announcement was made on 19 October when the Minister said, "We do not want any delay." It is now 21 October and the House is about to rise until next week. It is apparent to me that we have a delay. Another proposed amendment is to increase the maximum penalty to 14 years for using a child for pornographic purposes.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! The member should confine his remarks to stating why he believes the House should not adjourn. As the proposed amendments to which he is referring are on the business paper for the House to deal with, it is inappropriate to deal with them at this time.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Madam Deputy President, reluctantly I draw to your attention that that legislation has not been introduced. That is the very point I am making. You are incorrect, Madam Deputy President. The point is, we have legislation—

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): If that is so, I withdraw my ruling and allow the member to continue with his interesting speech.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Thank you. The Government promised to introduce amendments to increase the maximum penalty for using child for pornographic purposes to 14 years for children under the age of 14 years. Bring it in now. We will pass it; it will be done. Why the delay? The Government said that it did not wish to delay these amendments, but we do not have the legislation before us. However, the House is sitting now, we are into Government business, the amendments could be introduced now. Of course, further amendments have been promised to remove the requirement that material be classified by the Office of Film and Literature Classification by amending the definition of "child pornography". Further amendments were promised to enable judicial officers and juries and not the Office of Film and Literature Classification to determine whether material may or may not be child pornography, to remove the requirements that possession of child pornography offences be dealt with summarily before the Local Court, and to provide that proceedings for the offences be commenced within two years after the alleged offence.

Potentially those amendments are the most important issues that this House has had on the horizon this week. We need to hear from the Government why it is pushing this House to adjourn now. In fact, we should sit here for as long as it takes to get this legislation through ASAP. The Government own words were, "We do not want a delay". I assure the House that the Opposition is here to work, not to delay. We are here to ensure that children in this State and around the world are protected through the passage of this legislation. It is extremely important that the Government be held to account for its commitments and its promises that it never fulfils. In sessions on the sixth floor of Parliament House the Government delivers press statements and makes promises, and then forgets about them.

The Opposition will not let the Government forget about those promises; we will keep it to its word. These are extremely important issues that the House should have the right to debate now, not next week or, God forbid, whenever it decides to put through the legislation. The amendments appear to be very simple, but we 11804 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21 October 2004 have not heard much from the Government about why it has not produced the legislation. Let the Government produce it now, let us keep this House sitting. For those reasons, the Opposition is opposed to the adjournment.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [5.06 p.m.], in reply: The stunt just performed by the Leader of the Opposition does him no credit. The Opposition's interest in this matter started off with an attack on the New South Wales police service which, the Opposition claimed, had committed the biggest bungle in the history of NSW Police in any investigation. This morning that stunt was compounded by its seeking the release of investigative documents and other documents relating to the prosecution of a number of alleged child pornographers so that, no doubt, defence lawyers would be able to trawl through that information in an endeavour to exculpate their clients from the charges they are facing. That is the Opposition's contribution. Now at 5 o'clock it puts on a stunt to try to adjourn the House in circumstances where it knows that the bill that the Government is committed to introducing will not be introduced today.

The Hon. John Ryan: Where is it?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Just a moment. Whenever the bill is introduced will make no difference in the timetable of events to the charges that are before the courts. We have already indicated that we will legislate retrospectively.

The Hon. John Ryan: That makes no difference to charges being laid now.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! I call the Hon. John Ryan to order.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: We have indicated that we will legislate retrospectively to make clear the circumstances that existed with those charges and to resolve those matters which the Leader of the Opposition's colleague the Hon. John Brogden identified as potentially infecting the charges that the police have laid, so that there can be no doubt about those issues jeopardising the prosecutions. The Government has made that commitment and there is nothing to be gained from that sort of stunt.

The Hon. John Ryan: That was as a result of John Brogden speaking about it.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! I call the Hon. John Ryan to order for the second time.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: The Government is not prepared to risk even one prosecution failing because of some errant judicial officer adopting the stretched interpretation that the Opposition seems to have embraced on these issues. That matter is being dealt with and the legislation will come before the House in due course. We have already indicated that its elements will be made retrospective; there is nothing to be gained by this stunt.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [5.10 p.m.]: The Greens support the objections that have been made to this motion.

The Hon. Michael Egan: You're back?

Ms SYLVIA HALE: Indeed we are back. I remember the Greens were present in the Chamber on the last occasion on which there was a motion that the House adjourn prematurely in order that the Minister for Transport Services not be inconvenienced, so that he could go off and attend his wedding. All this week the House has adjourned at an extraordinarily early hour. There is every expectation that, when we reconvene in a week’s time or so, once again we may be faced with the situation that there is so little legislation being brought before the House we will no doubt adjourn early on each of the sitting days. There is also an expectation that, during the final sitting weeks of this parliamentary session, we will be confronted with a barrage of legislation.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! As the Minister has spoken in reply to the motion, other members may not speak to it. I will now put the question.

The Hon. John Ryan: The honourable member is entitled to seek leave and we were going to give her that leave. 21 October 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11805

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! If a member wishes to seek leave to speak to the motion, the House will consider the matter. The Hon. John Ryan has not sought the call and he will resume his seat. The advice I gave the House was that, as the Minister had spoken in reply, it was not in order for other members to seek or to be given the call. If a member wishes to seek leave to speak to the motion, he or she may do so. I will not recognise a member calling out from the front benches and being argumentative.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I seek the indulgence of the House to enable me to make a brief contribution.

Leave granted.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [5.12 p.m.]: I thank the House for its indulgence. I support the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition. I further indicate that, in supporting his comments, which are valid about something that should have been done, The Nationals will not divide the House. We are opposed to the House adjourning at this time but will not divide the House because we believe that the Government should control the order of business. That is what we did on the occasion involving the Minister for Transport Services. The Government should be able to make that decision, even though we believe it to be the wrong decision. As I said, although we support the Leader of the Opposition, I indicate that we will not divide the House.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I also seek leave to speak in the debate.

Leave not granted.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: I also seek leave to speak in the debate.

Leave not granted.

Motion agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [5.15 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

OVERSEAS STUDENTS EDUCATION AND IMMIGRATION AGENTS USE

The Hon. HENRY TSANG [Parliamentary Secretary] [5.15 p.m.]: It is with grave concern that I report to the House a matter brought to my attention by a group of students last week. These overseas fee-paying students attend private colleges in Australia, many of which are in New South Wales, and use education and immigration agents for their formal applications. The students attend these colleges as a stepping-stone to enter university following qualifying courses and diplomas which prepare them for further tertiary studies. These courses range from English language programs to basic business courses. Many of these private colleges have contractual links with universities to provide them with a steady stream of qualified students for their degrees and diplomas. This role is particularly important to some of the smaller universities or those outside metropolitan areas. Many of those students do need help with their applications, in particular in dealing with a foreign immigration and educational system.

Many of those private educational institutions also rely on those agents in processing the paper work of the applicants. Some of these agents also operate as migration agents. Those students reported to me very disturbing cases of fraud and extortion by some agents and subagents in processing their applications. They have reported the matter to the New South Wales Police and to the education institutions. Earlier this week I organised a meeting with NSW Police, the Department of Immigration and the students to discuss their case. Clearly, with the potential for irregularities, they may become unwitting victims regarding their visa status as well as being victims of fraud. Of the students who came to see me, two had been defrauded of more than $10,000 with the agents going bankrupt and closing up shop. In one very disturbing case, a subagent attempted to extort up to $100,000 from a student whose original payment to an agent had disappeared after the business closed, with the promise that the student's educational and immigration status would be fixed, whatever "fixed" means. 11806 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21 October 2004

The promise from the subagents was that they had contacts within the department whom they would recruit to fix the problem. Some of these operators mislead the students as to what they are capable of doing. This is an attempt to extract even more money from these students. While many of those students could have undertaken their applications themselves, it is understandable that in a foreign country they would feel intimidated by their lack of local knowledge and enlist the support of more experienced locals. The problem is that some of these locals are no more than dishonest operators preying on vulnerable people trying their best to get into tertiary education. I am pleased that NSW Police and the Department of Immigration are treating this matter very seriously. Those students, many of whom are from very humble backgrounds, have gone to great expense to get here in the first place. With their money gone, they have no choice but to find work, thereby placing their education and visa status at risk. In many cases, they are forced into clandestine jobs as they fear reporting the matter to the authorities and even to their parents.

As I said, many universities and private colleges rely on those agents to recruit students. While I am sure the majority of them do their best to help students, there is still a rotten core preying on students. They need to be driven out of the system and prosecuted for their fraudulent activities. The police have indicated that they need to hear from more students so they can build a stronger case. I urge those students to come forward to assist the police in their investigation. I am glad that the Department of Immigration has also undertaken to work closely with the Department of Education to monitor the situation. The education providers, private colleges and universities alike must work together to streamline the system to minimise the involvement and influence of these agents. This matter covers both spheres of government. The parties involved, from both Federal and State governments, will work together to eradicate these predators from the system who give Australian education a bad reputation here and abroad. I hope that they establish a protocol and regulations for the parties involved and that appropriate action is taken against those preying on vulnerable students. The needs and rights of the students must be protected.

Australian education services is a major industry in our modern economy. We must protect our reputation, which has been built over the last few decades, starting with the arrival of students from poorer countries under the Colombo Plan. These former students are now leaders in their community back home and are highly influential in the future export of our education services. With cuts in funding from the Commonwealth to the education sector, universities and the tertiary sector rely increasingly on overseas full fee- paying students. The integrity of the sector must be preserved in order to preserve the sustainability of the wider education system.

MR MARK ARBIB FEDERAL ELECTION RESULTS COMMENTS

The Hon. DON HARWIN [5.20 p.m.]: On Sunday 10 October the New South Wales Australian Labor Party General Secretary, Mark Arbib, spoke to the media about the previous day's Federal election results and how they related to the political landscape in New South Wales. The most thorough account of Mr Arbib's comments appeared the following day in the Australian Financial Review. I take this opportunity to correct the many inaccurate assertions put forward by him on that day. The suggestion by Mr Arbib that "State issues played no role in this election" was a weak denial of the major role that the failures of the Carr Government played in creating a climate in which the Federal election was contested, taking nothing away, of course, from the Federal Government's fine performance. His statement that "the Coalition in New South Wales... can take nothing from this result" is just nonsense. Similarly, it was poor attempt to gloss over the facts.

The Hon. Michael Egan: We won seats.

The Hon. DON HARWIN: The Liberal Party in this State will concede just one seat. The first ever victory in the formerly Labor-held seat of Greenway was achieved by the Liberal Party at this election. There is no doubt that the result in Parramatta, the Liberal Party's only loss, would not have occurred if it were not for the extraordinary circumstances surrounding that candidate and the dishonest campaign run by the candidate for Forrest on that day. Mr Arbib's attempts to portray The Nationals' performance in negative terms also fails to hold up under examination. He said that there was a swing away from The Nationals in New South Wales, and that is just nonsense.

Of course, the loss of Larry Anthony is quite tragic because he is an outstanding Australian in public life. While The Nationals seem to have maintained the percentage of votes they received in the previous Federal elections, it must be remembered that in fact that they were contesting two fewer Federal seats than they did at the last election, namely, Farrer and Patterson. At the request of The Nationals the Liberal Party also contested Calare and New England on this occasion in a three-cornered contest. So, obviously, The Nationals did very 21 October 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11807 well in the circumstances. Mr Arbib's remarks in relation to the Premier are particularly worthy of note. He told the media that Mr Carr had played a significant role in the contest and that he was out campaigning on a number of occasions. Members of the Australian Labor Party were so embarrassed at Premier Carr's performance that they raised no objection to him taking yet another trip overseas.

The Hon. Eric Roozendaal: Point of order: I have been listening very carefully to the Hon. Don Harwin—

Ms Lee Rhiannon: That is not a point of order.

The Hon. Eric Roozendaal: I am getting to the point of order.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the member that interjections are disorderly and he should ignore them.

The Hon. Eric Roozendaal: Might I now finish my point of order?

The PRESIDENT: Yes.

The Hon. Eric Roozendaal: The Hon. Don Harwin is making imputations against the Premier and personal imputations against Mark Arbib. He is stating inaccuracies—

The Hon. DON HARWIN: You would not know what an imputation is, you nong.

The PRESIDENT: Order! It is totally disorderly for members to make imputations against members of either Chamber. However, members can make imputations against members of the public.

The Hon. Michael Egan: Point of order: Is it parliamentary for the Hon. Don Harwin to refer to my esteemed colleague as a nong?

The Hon. DON HARWIN: He is a nong.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the member that it is certainly unparliamentary to make imputations against other members of the Chamber.

The Hon. DON HARWIN: Late in the campaign, however, the Premier appeared at Batemans Bay Hospital with Kel Watt, Country Labor candidate for Eden-Monaro—and what an outstanding success that was! With Mr Watts standing beside him the Premier told the local press about the Government's $2.5 million plan to upgrade the hospital's emergency department by October next year. However, locals told the Bay Post that they were disgusted by the Premier's speech as it simply re-announced funding originally committed a year ago for a project that was supposed to have been completed by Christmas this year. [Time expired.]

RETIREMENT OF MR ROB BRIAN, PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARIAN

Ms LEE RHIANNON [5.25 p.m.]: For 12 years Rob Brian was Parliamentary Librarian. During that period he oversaw the expansion of services to members of Parliament and parliamentary staff, including the establishment of the Parliamentary Library Research Service. A group of parliamentary librarians and law librarians from courts, universities and government departments have written to the Presiding Officers of this Parliament. I would like to quote from a copy of that letter, which was sent to me:

All of us have known Mr Brian as a colleague, mentor and friend, or by reputation, for many years... We are confident that at all times Mr Brian has acted with integrity, and only in the interests of the Parliament and the people of New South Wales. We also know that under his guidance and with his vision the Parliamentary Library and Research Service have developed into an outstanding service for political decision-makers of the twenty-first century. The signatories to this letter are listed below.

LIST OF SIGNATORIES:

R. J. N. Bannenberg Queensland Parliamentary Librarian

William H. Robinson Senior Specialist in Public Policy Former Deputy Director 11808 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21 October 2004

Congressional Research Service U.S. Library of Congress Washington D.C.

Jennifer Tanfield, former Librarian of the House of Commons, Westminster

Gail Dunston, Parliamentary Librarian, Parliament of Victoria

Roy Jordan Information Specialist Law and Bills Digest Section, Information and Research Services Parliamentary Library, Department of Parliamentary Services Parliament House, Canberra A.C.T.

Jacqueline Elliott Court Librarian High Court of Australia

Lynn Pollack Former Librarian-in-Charge, Law Courts Library, Sydney

Joanna Longley Librarian in Charge Law Courts of the Australian Capital Territory

Jean L. Willis Deputy Director San Diego County Public Law Library San Diego, USA

Lorraine Weinman Law Library Adviser on AusAID Law and Justice Project in Fiji

Margaret McAleese Law Librarian University of Sydney

Billie Vlies Law Librarian University of Technology Library Sydney

Colin Fong Current positions held: Librarian, Australian Taxation Studies Program The University of New South Wales

Gayle Davies Manager, Library Services Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) 1997 to the present Director of Library Services, Family Court of Australia

Marilyn Withers Manager, Information Services Independent Commission Against Corruption to August 2004

I quote a speech given by a colleague at Rob's retirement lunch:

We have all been incredibly privileged by our association with Rob—he was the first professionally qualified librarian appointed to the High Court of Australia, and was Foundation Law Librarian at the University of NSW for over twenty years, before his appointment as Parliamentary Librarian. He has been a consultant to the National Library of Australia on the development and maintenance of its law collection, and also as a consultant, he established the law libraries of Bond and Murdoch Universities. He was consulted by Mr Justice Michael Kirby on the establishment of the library of the Australian Law Reform Commission. He has reviewed and assisted law libraries in New Zealand, Indonesia, Tanzania and Vanuatu. He was one of the founders of the Australian Law Librarians' Group, which now has over 600 members nation-wide. He also represented Australia on the Board of the International Association of Law Libraries from 1980 to 1983. Through his reports and reviews on standards and requirements for libraries and legal information to support of the teaching of law in Australia and internationally, Rob has played a highly influential role in the development of the legal profession we know today.

Despite this record of achievements, Rob has always maintained his kind and unassuming demeanour, and has never been too busy or too high-powered to forget his colleagues and friends. The capacity for kindness and forgiveness are qualities that many people are apparently unaccustomed either to exercising or encountering in public life. Rob exemplifies both qualities. We are living in times when power and authority are apparently only recognised and respected if they are accompanied by brute force, and justified by lies. Rob is perhaps somewhat unfashionable in that his personal authority is derived from reason, intellect, humanity, impartiality and knowledge. Let us hope that these qualities will one day again prevail both in public life and in our work-places.

We all wish Rob a happy, varied and interesting retirement from full time work and we hope that he will continue his distinguished record of service to the community in areas where his professional skills are needed and appreciated. 21 October 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11809

ALL SAINTS GREEK ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN PARISH AND COMMUNITY, BELMORE, FORTIETH ANNIVERSARY

The Hon. KAYEE GRIFFIN [5.30 p.m.]: In recent months I have had the pleasure of attending a number of events celebrating the fortieth anniversary of the All Saints Greek Orthodox Christian parish and community in Belmore. Today I acknowledge this significant historical milestone for the parish and community. The parish and community of All Saints, Belmore, have seen many changes from their humble beginnings 40 years ago, in a small, abandoned church, to the magnificent All Saints church that now stands. The precincts include the parish school and All Saints Greek Orthodox Grammar School, with the junior school campus currently located at Lakemba and the senior school campus at The Towers site in South Belmore.

There has always been a strong Greek presence in the Canterbury local government area. The City of Canterbury is home to a large community of people of Greek origin, who have made positive contributions to the local community and the wider Australian community. In the early 1960s a number of Greek families living in the Belmore area felt the need to create an organisation that would cater for their basic religious, educational and cultural needs. Thus in 1962 the quest for a Greek Orthodox parish and community in the area began. On 28 March 1964 the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese approved the establishment of the parish and community at Belmore. With the formation of the parish given official approval, finding a suitable church in the area was the first priority of the new parish management committee. The church that the committee decided on was a small, deserted Anglican church dedicated to All Saints on the corner of Isabel and Cecilia Streets, Belmore. The small church was purchased, becoming the first church of the new parish, and its initial name, All Saints, was preserved. The newly established parish was placed in the care of the Very Reverend Father Ezekiel Kefalas.

On 10 May 1964 the first holy liturgy of the parish was held on the Sunday after Easter. Although it was held in a tent beside the church as internal renovations were still being carried out, I have no doubt that the first liturgy in the newly formed Greek Orthodox Parish of Belmore and district was a joyful and proud occasion. In 1965 the relevant government bodies approved the constitution of the parish and community and gave it the official name: Greek Orthodox Parish and Community of Belmore and District "All Saints" Ltd. Over the next few years All Saints set about purchasing land and making preparations for the building of a new church large enough to house the growing number of parishioners.

In 1969 the foundation stone was laid in the new church and the church hall was completed. The access to the church hall, as a central gathering place for the parishioners, assisted in the development of the Greek Afternoon School while providing the venue for a variety of social functions. Once the religious and cultural needs had been addressed, the community began working on plans to provide for the educational needs of the parish. The vision was to set up an All Saints Grammar School that would cater for male and female junior and senior students. The aim was to achieve academic excellence within a foundation of Orthodox Christian ethics. All Saints Grammar is a vibrant school founded in 1990 by the parish and community. I know the school encourages and nurtures success in its students and offers children a well-rounded education. I have been fortunate to attend many functions at the school and am always impressed by the rapport between staff and students.

The school opened officially in 1990 with the first influx of students in the junior school of the college, with kindergarten, year 1 and year 2 classes schooling 28 students in total. In July 1994 the parish purchased the historic local property The Towers to house the senior school. The National Trust had classified the 1888 gothic structure as one of the most important buildings in the area. It has become an icon for All Saints and is referred to as the tower of strength for the education of students of All Saints Grammar School. In my inaugural speech in this place I mentioned The Towers, and recognised its restoration and the retention of its historical significance by the All Saints community. I am sure that, like me, many people have fond memories of "the castle"—a somewhat mysterious building that fuelled our childhood imaginations—and I appreciate the efforts of All Saints in helping to preserve such an important local icon.

November 2000 saw the graduation of the first year 12 class at All Saints—a proud achievement not only for those students and families but also for the whole parish and those who worked so hard to make All Saints the school it is today. I acknowledge the hard work and effort over the past 40 years by the members of the Greek Orthodox Parish and Community of Belmore and District "All Saints" and I thank them for their contribution to my local community. It would be difficult in the time allotted to name all the individuals who had the vision to work towards the establishment of All Saints and all those who have contributed to the parish since that time. This includes the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia, the Parish Board of Directors, the Board of Governors, various committees, the principal and staff of All Saints Grammar and the community of 11810 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21 October 2004

Belmore and district. I extend my congratulations and best wishes on its fortieth anniversary and look forward to being involved in many more anniversary celebrations as the parish and the community continue to flourish.

MEDOWIE HIGH SCHOOL PROPOSAL

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER [5.35 p.m.]: Last Friday night I attended a public meeting called to address the local community's perceived need for a high school in Medowie. I arrived early and helped the local member for Port Stephens, John Bartlett, and the committee members put out chairs for the meeting. Mr Bartlett commented that we would not need to set up too many chairs as the issue had been around for some time and was of limited interest. I disagreed with him but wondered whether anyone would attend on a Friday night, when most locals were busy with little athletics fixtures in the area. Committee members optimistically put out the chairs and, lo and behold, they were filled—and more were needed. Almost 100 people from the small community of Medowie showed up to discuss this longstanding issue about which they still feel passionately. I met members of the steering committee once before the meeting and agreed to attend to hear what locals had to say on the subject.

The steering committee was established to explore the need for a public high school at Medowie. The population in the Port Stephens area is growing and hundreds of children must travel to Raymond Terrace, Tomaree, Maitland or Newcastle to attend high schools, and that is increasing pressure on existing schools. The 2001 census put the population of Medowie at 6,873, a 16.7 per cent increase on the 1996 census due largely to the establishment of large estates in Medowie, which attracted more young families to the area. The two public primary schools in Medowie—Wirreanda and Medowie Primary—have a combined student population of 874. I note that a high school requires 700 to be viable.

In addition, there are schools in Salt Ash, Williamtown and Tanilba Bay in the catchment area. The primary schools at Tomaree, Raymond Terrace and Irrawang have 4,669 students and the local high schools have capacity for 2,766 students. That is a student shortfall of 1,900. As I have said, past pupils of those primary schools must travel long distances to attend high school. Bus routes are getting longer in order to serve the growing housing estates, both old and new, and students are spending more time in overcrowded buses that do not have airconditioning. Safety is a huge issue. Students from Tanilba Bay and Salt Ash must take a bus ride of up to two hours every school day and students from Medowie have to travel by bus for up to an hour. Land for the school is earmarked and is located next to Wirreanda Primary School.

The community is calling on the Carr Government and the local member, the honourable member for Port Stephens—whose support it has requested—to commission a comprehensive audit of the population of Medowie and Tilligerry Peninsula, both current and projected, in order to gauge educational need. At the meeting Mr Bartlett called on the community to conduct the audit, but I believe the Government is best placed to do that. The Government should conduct the audit or, better still, commission an independent audit that takes account of current availability and possible future options for children of high school age from the area. Such an audit would determine whether there was a good case for locating a high school or, as suggested at the meeting, perhaps a middle school in Medowie. That is what the community wants, and I will assist them enthusiastically in making their wishes known to the Government. The Government should listen to the community and conduct that research. Local people have been passionate about this issue for a number of years. An audit would produce up-to-date figures and assess current need objectively. I support the Medowie community in this endeavour and call on the honourable member for Port Stephens to support his constituents and urge the Government to commission an audit. [Time expired.]

GOVERNMENT WASTE AND MISMANAGEMENT

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [5.40 p.m.]: On a number of occasions I have brought to the attention of honourable members the gross waste and mismanagement that is rampant across all parts of the Carr Government, which shows that this Government is not competent to properly manage the State, particularly its finances. The waste of money across a broad range of projects and operational areas goes part way to answering the question that is asked by everyone throughout the State: Where has the money gone, Bob? That question is asked because instead of a vibrant State as a result of unprecedented revenues we have a legacy of lost opportunity in this State. We have a Government that has failed to properly manage its projects and, as a result, has run down infrastructure. The State is not benefiting from the good economic times we have experienced.

A further example of waste and mismanagement by this Government is its failure to manage projects across all avenues of government responsibility and to deliver them in a timely fashion. When projects are not 21 October 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11811 delivered on time costs blow out, and that again contributes to the terrible financial mismanagement of this Government. A prime example last year was the Millennium train and its three-year delay. The Government seems to be particularly inept at delivering transport projects on time. The Chatswood to Parramatta railway has now blown out for another year, and we do not know when it will be finished. Of course, it is only half built at this stage, but is yet another example of cost blowouts in transport. Most tragic, however, is the fact that because of the inability of the Government to deliver improvements and projects on time we consistently see people killed or injured in car accidents on the Pacific Highway.

I will identify other projects that have been delayed across all portfolio areas to give members some understanding of the breadth of the problems the Government has experienced in managing the State. These projects involve not only building infrastructure but also important government operations. In the Premier's Department, a process automation system program in the Parliamentary Counsel's Office has now slipped out to a 2006 completion. The Premier's Department is responsible for some very important heritage works. The Eveleigh Carriage works have been delayed a year, and works at Leichhardt have been delayed. In the portfolio of the Attorney General, and Minister for the Environment, work on the Aboriginal outstation at Griffith has blown out to 2006. The Attorney's maintenance program in courts has blown out to 2008.

Other projects that have blown out by a year include the Court Link phase 2 project, which relates to intellectual technology; the Hunter Children's Court; the Mount Druitt Courthouse; and the Sydney West Trial Complex, at Parramatta. In the Department of Environment and Conversation and the National Parks and Wildlife Service work on the Stockton Bight National Park development has been delayed a year. In the Ministry of Health, the redevelopment of the Blue Mountains Hospital has been delayed for another year. The Minister for Justice, who is in the Chamber, is not exempt from these delays. I instance the delays in the provision of correctional centres. For example, the start date for the Mid North Coast Correctional Centre has been delayed for four years. These are just some examples—

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: Point of order: The honourable member is misleading the House.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: What is the standing order?

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: The member is misleading the House because the Mid North Coast Correctional Centre was expanded from 350 to 500 places. When centres are expanded, more time and extra money are needed. The honourable member should stop misleading the House and withdraw those comments.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I do not withdraw the comments because the Minister has delayed the start date—

The PRESIDENT: Order! Is the Hon. Greg Pearce speaking to the point of order?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: No.

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order. The Minister knows full well that an allegation that a member is misleading the House cannot be raised as a point of order.

[Time for debate expired.]

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 5.45 p.m. until Tuesday 26 October 2004 at 2.30 p.m. ______