3805 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Wednesday 26 June 2002 ______ ABSENCE OF Mr SPEAKER The Clerk announced the absence of Mr Speaker. Mr Deputy-Speaker (Mr John Charles Price) took the chair at 10.00 a.m. Mr Deputy-Speaker offered the Prayer. AUDIT OFFICE Mr Deputy-Speaker tabled, pursuant to section 38E of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, Performance Audit Report entitled "e-Government: User-friendliness of Websites", dated June 2002. Ordered to be printed. CRIMES AMENDMENT (POLICE AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS) BILL MINING LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (HEALTH AND SAFETY) BILL Bills received and read a first time. BILL RETURNED The following bill was returned from the Legislative Council with amendments: Property, Stock and Business Agents Bill Consideration of amendments deferred. PARLIAMENTARY REMUNERATION AMENDMENT (RECOGNISED OFFICE HOLDER) BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 18 June. Mr TINK (Epping) [10.04 a.m.]: The Opposition accepts the Government's reasoning in support of the bill and does not oppose it. Mr TORBAY (Northern Tablelands) [10.05 a.m.]: I have read with interest the public comments about this legislation. I fail to understand the reasons for it, other than to assume that both the Government and the Opposition have come to an arrangement of not following the rules that have previously been put in place. In other words, when something happens that requires a change of rules to meet certain circumstances, the parties get together and make an arrangement. As an Independent member of this Parliament I oppose the bill and indicate clearly that I do not think there has been enough public debate in this Chamber on it. The fact that the honourable member leading for the Opposition said about ten words in support of the bill says a great deal about the arrangements that perhaps have been discussed prior to the bill being agreed to. There has been nowhere near sufficient scrutiny on behalf of the community. The bill should be opposed and the existing rules should remain. No additional arrangements should be made on behalf of members simply because of circumstances, which are very clearly outlined in the rules. If the number of members were to drop below ten, certain things would arise. That is a legitimate outcome and if this Parliament believes in public scrutiny and appropriate outcomes, it will not allow the passing of this legislation. It will lead to people assuming that some backroom deal has been done between the parties. That is highly inappropriate and the bill should be rejected. Mr WHELAN (Strathfield—Parliamentary Secretary) [10.07 a.m.], in reply: This bill has been on the notice paper for almost a week. It has already received substantial publicity, not by virtue of its second reading 3806 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 June 2002 in Parliament but the fact that it appeared in one of the major newspapers. I reject the criticism of the honourable member for Northern Tablelands that there was some closed deal between the Government and the Opposition on this issue. It involves the application of manifest fairness and equity. The honourable member is mistaken in his comments. This bill was introduced on 18 June. He will note that today's program indicates in big, bold letters at the top that this would be the resumption of the debate on the Parliamentary Remuneration Amendment (Recognised Office Holder) Bill. The purpose was to draw attention to this bill more than any other bill. Ten years ago the honourable member may have been correct but honourable members in this Chamber now receive their entitlements by virtue of the Industrial Court. As a result of amendments made by the Government, we are entitled to no more than ordinary workers, namely, access to the Industrial Court of New South Wales. That is the end of the matter. Therefore, the Government rejects the criticism of the honourable member for Northern Tablelands and commends the bill to the House. Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put. Division called for and, pursuant to sessional orders, deferred. LEGISLATION REVIEW AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 18 June. Mr TINK (Epping) [10.09 a.m.]: The Opposition supports the Legislation Review Amendment Bill and congratulates those who have been working in this area, particularly members of the Standing Committee on Law and Justice who produced the report entitled "The New South Wales Bill of Rights". In the report, the committee rejected the notion that it was in the public interest for New South Wales to have a bill of rights. I agree with that finding. The committee went on to make a number of recommendations that would beef up the role of the Regulation Review Committee. I believe this is a good substitute for a bill of rights and recognition of the primacy of Parliament. I also firmly believe the courts should not adjudicate on matters that should be considered by elected representatives rather than judicial officers. The philosophy of this bill is to ensure that such matters remain the responsibility of Parliament rather than the judiciary. I note from the second reading speech by the Leader of the House that the committee's decisions about new areas of jurisdiction will not be final or binding on Parliament but are intended to provide brief advice to members about matters within its jurisdiction. I respectfully agree with that point. We support the bill but we will propose an amendment to retain the current numerical composition of the Regulation Review Committee. We believe it should remain at eight rather than being increased to 12, as the bill proposes. The committee will have more work as a result of this legislation, but other committees such as the Public Accounts Committee [PAC] and the Joint Standing Committee upon Road Safety have also done an extraordinary amount of work over many years. Certainly when I was involved with the PAC—I do not think the situation has changed recently—five members would produce about 11 major reports a year. Similarly, while the Joint Standing Committee upon Road Safety has more members, it has an extraordinary record of work. On that basis, the Opposition will not agree to increase the membership of the Regulation Review Committee and I will seek to amend the bill to retain the status quo. Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Moss. APPROPRIATION BILL APPROPRIATION (PARLIAMENT) BILL APPROPRIATION (SPECIAL OFFICES) BILL GENERAL GOVERNMENT LIABILITY MANAGEMENT FUND BILL PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT OPERATIONS AMENDMENT (TRADEABLE EMISSION SCHEMES FUND) BILL 26 June 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3807 PUBLIC FINANCE AND AUDIT AMENDMENT (BUDGETING AND FINANCIAL REPORTING) BILL STATE REVENUE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (BUDGET) BILL Second Reading GOVERNOR'S SPEECH: ADDRESS-IN-REPLY Take-note Debate Debate resumed from 25 June. Mr MOSS (Canterbury—Parliamentary Secretary) [10.15 a.m.]: This is another extremely successful budget delivered by a Government that over the past seven years has proved that it is arguably the most successful Government in the history of New South Wales. If there is one thing the Carr Labor Government will always be noted for it is that, more so than any other government in our history, it has continued to attack the State's debt. What a great achievement that is. This year we had $1.6 billion extra in the kitty as a result of the Government reducing our debt-servicing payments from 14 per cent of expenditure to 9 per cent. That extra $1.6 billion means that our schools, hospitals, transport system and police force, to name just a few government instrumentalities, will be much better off. Over the next four years this budget will plough $3 billion into demand-driven, non-revenue raising public works projects such as schools and hospitals. Furthermore, public works expenditure over the next four years will be 26 per cent greater than in the past four years, as the Treasurer pointed out in his Budget Speech. That is an extraordinary achievement when one considers that the massive Olympics works program was undertaken during that time. Once again education is a big winner in this budget, with more than $8 billion being spent this year on our schools and TAFE institutions. That is almost half a billion dollars—or $494 million, to be exact—more than last year. I was pleased to see included in the education budget $10 million for a pilot program to reduce class sizes from kindergarten to year three. While this is only a pilot program, it is money well spent. The younger the child, the more attention he or she needs. This program measures up well with our early intervention strategies, as I am sure the Minister for Community Services, who is at the table, would agree. Just as early intervention from infancy is important to a person's overall wellbeing, intervention in the early years of a child's education will obviously produce a better-educated society. I fully support this program that aims to reduce infant class sizes in our schools. This year the Government will pour more money into the Computers in Schools Program, including funding for technology support. We are upgrading not only equipment but also the human element behind the computer. For example, this year we are spending $17 million on technology training for teachers. Technology training for teachers is important at this time, as obviously teachers have to be up-to-date with the latest in computer technology. Funding for this sort of training is important because it would be fair to say that not many of the teachers we have today grew up in the computer age. While that will change over the next 10 to 15 years, today's teachers deserve technology training and this Government is providing just that.