2662

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Tuesday 17 October 2006 ______

Mr Speaker (The Hon. John Joseph Aquilina) took the chair at 2.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.

Mr SPEAKER: I acknowledge the Gadigal clan of the Eora nation and its elders and thank them for their custodianship of this land.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Address by the Member for Hawkesbury: Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders

Mr STEVEN PRINGLE: I seek leave to suspend standing and sessional orders to allow me to make a statement to the House.

Leave not granted.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Address by the Member for Hawkesbury: Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders

Mr CARL SCULLY (Smithfield—Minister for Police) [2.20 p.m.]: I move:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to permit the member for Hawkesbury to address the House forthwith.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [2.21 p.m.]: Notwithstanding a devastating drought affecting rural communities, a Sydney water crisis that even on a wet day sees no recycling, cover-ups in relation to reports into the Cronulla riots and cuts to the highway patrol, once again the Government is prepared to do anything to distract people's attention from the main issues affecting the State. The simple question that needs to be asked is: Why does this matter have to come on now when the honourable member for Hawkesbury could easily raise it during private members' statements at 5.15 p.m. today, when standing orders provide that we can raise issues relating to our electorates? I want to say a couple of things to the honourable member for Hawkesbury.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Hawkesbury will resume his seat. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has the call.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: I do not think any member of a political party in this place has anything but sympathy for the situation in which the honourable member for Hawkesbury finds himself. There are people on this side of the House who certainly worked long and hard to try to ensure that the result did not occur, but I make the point that the Liberal and National parties have a system under which branch members decide who is to be a member of Parliament. We have a system under which there is no automatic right of endorsement, whether one is a party leader or the most junior of backbenchers. We certainly do not have the N40 rule, which is used by the Labor Party to discard the likes of the honourable member for Newcastle, Bryce Gaudry, and impose someone against the wishes of local branch members.

I make the point that the system that produced the result that the honourable member for Hawkesbury clearly feels concerned about is the same system from which he benefited four years ago. It is the same system that applied to the former member for Hawkesbury, who at that time no doubt shared the emotions the honourable member for Hawkesbury feels today. Given the way the former member for Hawkesbury behaved and the dignity with which he handled the situation that confronted him, I urge the honourable member for Hawkesbury to use him as the role model for whatever he might say today. In anticipation of what the honourable member for Hawkesbury may or may not say in this place I say to him: If he has concerns about the process there are appeals mechanisms within parties. I remind the House that only two weeks ago in another 17 October 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2663

division a preselected result was overturned by State Council as a result of the use of those processes. I would have thought that would have been the first action taken by the honourable member for Hawkesbury.

Second, if the honourable member for Hawkesbury has wider concerns I remind him that in August the Liberal Party referred certain matters to the Independent Commission against Corruption [ICAC]. The Liberal Party has not yet heard back from ICAC about those matters, but I think the commission ought to be allowed to fully investigate and examine them without any encouragement from this place. In anticipation of what the honourable member for Hawkesbury may say, I also want to say that 72 hours ago both candidates were asked questions by the preselection panel. One question they were asked was whether, if they were unsuccessful, they would run against the Liberal Party. The honourable member for Hawkesbury was clear and firm in his answer. He said he was totally committed to the Liberal Party and would not do such a thing. I certainly hope that in what the honourable member for Hawkesbury is about to say to the House he bears in mind those comments that he made to a room, half of which was filled with people who strongly supported him throughout the preselection process.

I assume that the present procedure is being followed only because things are going to be said within the parliamentary confines of this Chamber that the honourable member for Hawkesbury may not be prepared to say outside the Chamber. I say that because I remember that when the honourable member for Port Macquarie made a similar move, he did so through television interviews outside the House. He certainly did not seek to interrupt question time or seek to use the House in the way the honourable member for Hawkesbury is doing, with the support of the Government. All I do is simply ask the honourable member for Hawkesbury to exercise the usual caution when using the right that members have in this place under parliamentary privilege.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 58

Ms Allan Ms Hay Mr Pearce Mr Amery Mr Hickey Mrs Perry Ms Andrews Mr Hunter Mr Price Mr Barr Mr Iemma Mr Pringle Mr Bartlett Ms Judge Ms Saliba Ms Beamer Ms Keneally Mr Sartor Mr Black Mr Lynch Mr Scully Mr Brown Mr McBride Mr Shearan Ms Burney Mr McLeay Mr Stewart Mr Campbell Mr McTaggart Ms Tebbutt Mr Chaytor Ms Meagher Mr Torbay Mr Corrigan Ms Megarrity Mr Tripodi Mr Crittenden Mr Mills Mr Watkins Mr Daley Ms Moore Mr West Mr Debus Mr Morris Mr Whan Mr Draper Mr Newell Mr Yeadon Mrs Fardell Ms Nori Ms Gadiel Mr Oakeshott Tellers, Mr Gaudry Mr Orkopoulos Mr Ashton Mr Gibson Mrs Paluzzano Mr Martin

Noes, 27

Mr Aplin Mrs Hopwood Mr Slack-Smith Ms Berejiklian Mr Humpherson Mr Souris Mr Cansdell Mr Kerr Mr Stoner Mr Constance Mr Merton Mr Tink Mr Debnam Mr O'Farrell Mr J. H. Turner Mr Fraser Mr Page Mrs Hancock Mr Piccoli Mr Hartcher Mr Richardson Tellers, Mr Hazzard Mr Roberts Mr George Ms Hodgkinson Mrs Skinner Mr Maguire 2664 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2006

Pair

Ms D'Amore Ms Seaton

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

HONOURABLE MEMBER FOR HAWKESBURY

Mr STEVEN PRINGLE: It is ironic that those behind me have been so supportive. I want to say how much I have appreciated the many phone calls from my colleagues, particularly those aligned with the Right, about how outraged and disgusted they are with the way I was dumped from the Liberal Party's endorsement. They are incredulous that such an injustice could occur within the Liberal Party. But, like turkeys waiting for Christmas, they are too fearful to speak out in case they are the next on the list.

I sought preselection because I am proud of my record of service to the people of the Hawkesbury. But rather than boast, I lay upon the table of the House for the information of members a reference from the Leader of the Opposition, Peter Debnam, outlining my credentials:

[Steven’s] personal experience with State and Local Government has provided him with a comprehensive understanding of the impact of government action or inaction on his constituents. He is extremely proud to be representing the constituents of the Hawkesbury and constantly demonstrates his effectiveness in representing their concerns. He is well versed with the many issues [in his electorate] …

[Steven] is a very effective voice in Parliament for the people of the Hawkesbury and his colleagues have all benefited from his hard work …

In summary, Steven is a valued member of parliament, a hard-working and highly effective local member and he has my full support.

I joined the Liberal Party 28 years ago because I passionately believed in its values of maximising individual and private sector initiative and encouraging its citizens. The party was fondly described as a broad church that prided itself on equal opportunity and tolerance for all Australians: freedom of parliamentary democracy, freedom of thought, freedom of worship.

I knew there were issues within the Liberal Party, but until Saturday—the ides of October—I did not realise the depths that the party has sunk to. Freedom of democracy means freedom to cram hundreds of people into branches, particularly those who do not ask questions. Freedom of thought is acceptable as long as your thoughts are the same as the faceless factional head. Freedom of worship is encouraged so long as it is Opus Dei.

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

Mr STEVEN PRINGLE: The broad church of the Liberal Party is now controlled by an exclusive sect, an extremist right-wing group, and the seat of Hawkesbury is being used as a possession of factional warriors to bestow on those who suit their agendas. The preselection on Saturday was a complete rort because many people were party members for only three months. Preselectors do not have to declare any conflict of interest. These mobile preselectors do not have to live in the electorate, and never have to attend branch meetings, contribute to fundraising or assist the party in any other way. Yet they are given the power to make crucial decisions. Others are allowed to hunt in packs, moving from Hornsby to Epping to Hawkesbury, and are travelling now to preselect for the upper House. It was not based on merit, only factions.

The members of the State Executive, who are supposed to be the guardians of the Liberal Party, providing leadership and espousing values, were themselves elected by dubious means, as outlined by the ABC's Four Corners program. As preselectors, they followed the direction of David Clarke, not common sense, and in the Epping preselection many people were not even literate, could not speak or understand English, and required assistance to complete the ballot paper. I would not have objected to a fair contest where I was beaten by a better candidate, but I feel so aggrieved that the party in which I believed could turn its back on its own values of tolerance and a fair go for all. Nor am I an aberration—John Brogden, Patricia Forsythe, Pru Goward, John Ryan, and, in today's papers, Bruce Baird as well. 17 October 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2665

What is even worse is that this process was condoned by the Leader of the Opposition and had the grubby marks of David Clarke all over it. Despite my service to the Liberal Party and the community, I was hunted down by a pack of rent-a-crowd preselectors marauding in caravans from electorate to electorate to take control. I naively believed the Liberal Party would weigh up the decision objectively, but I was wrong! To preselect a Liberal candidate, what do you think was the one deciding factor on which to make this decision?

It was not qualifications, business experience, party loyalty, political experience or a mandate from the electorate, nor was it being able to develop and articulate policy on a broad range of issues. Most importantly, it was not about understanding the Hawkesbury electorate. On Saturday, there was only one deciding factor: who does the godfather want to get up? And David Clarke may be mentoring Councillor Williams, but one thing he will not need help with is fund-raising. When asked about this by preselectors, the councillor was quick to say that the property development group Homeworld, in the north-west, would generously cough up $100,000.

Not only do we have a party that has lurched to the right, but now it is also for sale to the highest bidder. The person who claims to lead the Liberal Party, Peter Debnam, has consistently claimed the preselection process produces the best candidate. But the best for whom? Is it the best for the factional head who wants to add to his power base? Or is it the best for the people of the Hawkesbury? I recall when the leadership of the Liberal Party was being contested, I received a call from Peter Debnam assuring me that if he got up I would have his full support and he was the only one who could bring peace between the factions. However, you can guess whose phone he used to make the call. Yes, you guessed it: David Clarke.

Of the 4,000-plus constituents who have come through my door, how many have come about issues including abortion, homosexuality or drug-injecting rooms? Zero. Yet those are the obsessions of David Clarke. It is clear that the people of the Hawkesbury do not want a single-issue extremist party. That point came home to me in the lead-up to the preselection when I was told that I care too much about my electorate and not enough about those issues of ideology. I will probably be accused of all sorts of things by my former colleagues, but I cannot be accused of blindly following a right-wing extremist ideology at the expense of my local community. I care about social issues, but I have a much broader perspective. I care about the practical day-to-day issues that affect the people of the Hawkesbury; problems such as housing, disability services, school maintenance, electricity supply, transport, water, sewerage and other issues that interfere in the daily lives of ordinary people and businesses. My record of service shows how driven I am about those issues.

I can no longer stay silent about the state of the Liberal Party. They have taken the decision away from the grassroots, the people of the Hawkesbury. However, what they cannot take from me are my Liberal values that I still hold through and through. I may be disillusioned with the Liberal Party, but they have strengthened my resolve to offer the people of the Hawkesbury a local member who does more than merely mouth Liberal values, but actively lives them out with sincerity and commitment.

Therefore, I advise the House that I am formally resigning from the Liberal Party today to represent the people of the Hawkesbury as an Independent and will contest the next election in that capacity. I know the people of the Hawkesbury have been in the past strong Liberal supporters; the seat is held by a 14 per cent margin. I have no illusions—being elected is a big task. However, to match that task, I have a big heart for the people of the Hawkesbury and a strong belief that they deserve better than a right-wing factional puppet.

In closing I want to present the people of the Hawkesbury with a clear choice. Do they want a factional puppet or someone who will truly champion their cause? Do they want someone whose allegiance is to a faction or to the people of the Hawkesbury? Do they want a person who merely pays lip service to Liberal values or someone who actively lives them out? Do they want someone who can see only to his council ward boundaries or a member whose holistic vision extends to all corners of the electorate—from Bilpin in the west to Kellyville in the east, and from Bucketty to Dural. I know all those communities and I know their issues.

My decision to become an Independent will put "local" back into "local member." I promise to pursue the public interest directly from the people to Parliament rather than taking the views of the extremists in the party and ramming them down people's throats. I want to contribute to a more representative Parliament where the people are put before the party. I look forward to the contest in March, where the people of the Hawkesbury will come first.

2666 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2006

ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT

Mr SPEAKER: I report the receipt of the following message from Her Excellency the Governor:

MARIE BASHIR Office of the Governor GOVERNOR Sydney 2000

Professor Marie Bashir, Governor of New South Wales, has the honour to inform the Legislative Assembly that she re-assumed the administration of the Government of the State on 29 September 2006.

29 September 2006

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following bills reported:

Crimes Legislation Amendment (Gangs) Bill Fair Trading Amendment Bill Police Amendment (Police Promotions) Bill Police Integrity Commission Amendment Bill Transport Administration Amendment (Travel Concession) Bill Education Amendment (Financial Assistance to Non-Government Schools) Bill Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Amendment (Parent Responsibility Contracts) Bill Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Amendment Bill

VARIATION OF PAYMENTS ESTIMATES AND APPROPRIATIONS 2006-07

Mr John Watkins tabled variations of the receipts and payments estimates and appropriations for 2006-07, under section 26 of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, arising from the provision by the Commonwealth of specific purpose payments in excess of the amounts included in the State's receipts and payments estimates (Advancing Australian Agriculture—Exceptional Circumstances and Rural Assistance Authority).

REGISTER OF DISCLOSURES BY MEMBERS

Mr Speaker tabled, pursuant to the Constitution (Disclosures by Members) Regulation 1983, a copy of the Register of Disclosures by Members of the Legislative Assembly as at 30 June 2006.

Ordered to be printed.

NSW OMBUDSMAN

Report

The Clerk announced the receipt, pursuant to section 4 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Amendment (Adult Detainees) Act 2001, of the report entitled "Review of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Amendment (Adult Detainees) Act," dated November 2005.

LEGISLATION REVIEW COMMITTEE

Report

The Clerk announced the receipt, pursuant to section 10 of the Legislation Review Act 1987, of the report entitled "Legislation Review Digest No. 14 of 2006," dated 13 October 2006.

PETITIONS

Artarmon Public School Bus Service

Petition requesting the provision of a school bus for the children within the southern precincts of the catchment area for Artarmon Public School, received from Ms Gladys Berejiklian.

Pensioner Travel Voucher Booking Fee

Petitions requesting the removal of the $10 booking fee on pensioner travel vouchers, received from Mr Steve Cansdell and Mrs Shelley Hancock. 17 October 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2667

South Coast Rail Services

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

South Coast Pensioner Concessions

Petition requesting that pensioner concessions be provided for travel within the South Coast area, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.

CountryLink Rail Services

Petition opposing the abolition of CountryLink rail services and their replacement with bus services in rural and regional New South Wales, received from Mrs Judy Hopwood.

Cowan Train Station

Petition requesting an upgrade of the facilities at Cowan train station, received from Mrs Judy Hopwood.

Broken Hill Water Supply

Petition opposing the recent increase in the price per litre of water in Broken Hill and calling on the Government to provide capital funds to Country Water to replace pipes and equipment, received from Mr Peter Black.

Dunoon Dam

Petition requesting the fast-tracking of plans to build a dam at Dunoon, received from Mr Thomas George.

Shoalhaven River Water Extraction

Petition opposing the extraction of water from the Shoalhaven River to support Sydney's water supply, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.

Whale Protection in Australian Waters

Petition requesting that whales be protected in Australian waters, received from Mrs Judy Hopwood.

Barnetts Reserve, Berowra Heights, Disabled Toilet Facilities

Petition requesting disabled toilet facilities at Barnetts Reserve, Berowra Heights, so that the reserve is a fully functional recreational area for disabled persons, received from Mrs Judy Hopwood.

Anti-Discrimination (Religious Tolerance) Legislation

Petition opposing the proposed anti-discrimination (religious tolerance) legislation, received from Mr Andrew Stoner.

Rural and Regional Police Resources

Petition calling upon the Iemma Government to allocate more police resources to rural and regional communities throughout New South Wales, received from Mr Steve Cansdell.

Shoalhaven Local Area Command

Petition requesting additional resources for the Shoalhaven Local Area Command, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.

Nambucca Policing

Petition requesting a permanent 24-hour police station at Nambucca, received from Mr Andrew Stoner. 2668 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2006

Campbell Hospital, Coraki

Petition opposing the closure of inpatient beds and the reduction in emergency department hours of Campbell Hospital, Coraki, received from Mr Steve Cansdell.

Breast Screening Funding

Petitions requesting funding to ensure access to breast screening services for women aged 40 to 79 years and to reverse falling participation rates, received from Mr Steve Cansdell, Mrs Shelley Hancock and Mrs Judy Hopwood.

Lismore Base Hospital

Petition requesting funding for stages 2 and 3 of the Lismore Base Hospital redevelopment and for rehabilitation beds to be maintained, received from Mr Thomas George.

Shoalhaven Mental Health Services

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

Sunflower House, Wagga Wagga

Petition requesting funding to facilitate the operation of Sunflower House, Wagga Wagga, received from Mr Daryl Maguire.

Mental Health Services

Petition requesting increased funding for mental health services, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Manyana Residential Land Rezoning

Petition opposing the proposal by Kylor to rezone residential land in Manyana, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.

Jervis Bay Land Rezonings

Petition requesting a moratorium on further land rezonings within the catchment of Jervis Bay, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.

Urban Planning

Petition requesting that urban planning designs be decided by local communities, received from Mrs Judy Hopwood.

Community-based Preschools

Petitions requesting increased funding to community-based preschools so that young children are able to access two years of preschool before they start school, received from Mr Greg Aplin, Mrs Shelley Hancock and Mr Robert Oakeshott.

Sow Stall Ban

Petition requesting the total ban of sow stalls, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Recreational Fishing

Petition opposing any restrictions on recreational fishing in the mid North Coast waters, received from Mr Andrew Stoner. 17 October 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2669

Private Native Forestry

Petition requesting a review of the draft code of practice for private native forestry, received from Mr Andrew Stoner.

Rural Lands Protection Board Levies

Petition requesting a review of Rural Lands Protection Board levies and charges in respect of smaller landholdings, received from Mr Andrew Stoner.

HMAS Canberra Artificial Reef

Petition requesting that HMAS Canberra be sunk in Jervis Bay for scuba diving purposes, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.

Shoalhaven City Council Rate Structure

Petition opposing a 27 per cent rate increase proposed by Shoalhaven City Council, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.

CSR Quarry, Hornsby

Petition requesting a public inquiry into Hornsby Shire Council's acquisition of CSR Quarry in Hornsby, received from Mrs Judy Hopwood.

Kempsey Shire Council

Petition requesting an inquiry into Kempsey Shire Council, received from Mr Andrew Stoner.

Grafton Bridge

Petition requesting the construction of a new bridge over the Clarence River at Grafton, received from Mr Steve Cansdell.

Inner City Bicycle Lanes

Petition requesting dedicated bicycle facilities for the entire length of William Street, and on Craigend Street and Kings Cross Road, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Cross City Tunnel

Petition requesting government decisions concerning the Cross City Tunnel to be based on the public interest, received from Mr Andrew Stoner.

LEGISLATION REVIEW COMMITTEE

Report

Mr Allan Shearan, as Chairman, tabled report No. 6, entitled "Strict and Absolute Liability— Responses to the Discussion Paper", dated 17 October 2006, together with submissions received, and minute extracts regarding "Legislation Review Digest No. 12 of 2006" and "Legislation Review Digest No. 13 of 2006".

Report ordered to be printed. 2670 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2006

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

______

CRONULLA RIOTS REPORT

Mr PETER DEBNAM: I direct my question to the Minister for Police. It has been 10 months since the Cronulla riots and revenge attacks, and the public have a right to know why they suffered one of the worst breakdowns of law and order in New South Wales. Given that the police report was completed at least six weeks ago, will the Minister explain why he is trying desperately to delay and bury the report?

Mr CARL SCULLY: Perhaps Opposition members can give me a copy of that report and I will consider its contents. They know that the report process has not yet been completed so they have invented a story where none exists. It sounds good—Watergate, Nixon, cover-up and conspiracies. It all makes for good copy. But before the Leader of the Opposition starts inventing stories about our side of the House, there are stories on his side of the House that are not mythical and need to be fixed. We heard about—

Mr Peter Debnam: Point of order: Under Standing Order 139 the issue is very clear. The Minister for Police himself said that the report was finished by the end of August. The Minister himself said that it went to Cabinet by the end of August.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The Minister is answering the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition.

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat and allow the Minister to continue his response.

Mr CARL SCULLY: The story of the day is that the Leader of the Opposition is not fit to govern because he is not fit to run his own party. That is the story of the day. Turning to the Cronulla riots: Yes, it was a conflagration. A lot of people did a lot of silly things. We put a score of them before the courts and a number of them went to gaol. Quite reasonably, when an incident such as that and the revenge attacks occur the police review the causes and contributing factors and, most importantly, consider how they might improve their operations. But the Opposition is interested in making sure that it can pour another bucket on the cops. I have to disappoint Opposition members. I have not even seen the report because my advice is that it has not yet been completed but, personally, I think the cops did a great job. Could they have done it better? Probably. Might there be room for improvement? There always is.

Mr Peter Debnam: Point of order: My point of order relates to Standing Order 139. The Government is simply rewriting the report. That is the fact of the matter. Why does the Minister for Police not stand up and say so?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. He knows that he is totally and completely out of order. His point of order is nothing more than a blatant attempt to disrupt the Minister's reply.

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for East Hills will come to order. The Minister for Police has the call.

Mr CARL SCULLY: When that right-wing extremist started peddling these myths about a report I contacted the Commissioner of Police—who, by the way, is overseas and will return in a few days. I rang him a short time ago and asked him about the status of the report. His advice was that the report has not yet been completed. I asked him when it might be finished and his advice was that former Assistant Commissioner Norm Hazzard had still to interview some operational police before he could finalise it. When I receive the report I will consider it. The Redfern report and the Macquarie Fields report were released for public consumption and my preference would be to do the same in relation to the Cronulla riots. I will make a decision when I receive the final report. 17 October 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2671

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister has the call.

Mr CARL SCULLY: The Opposition offered no thanks to the police. Did they not do a fantastic job last summer? It is quite appropriate that they should review their operations. Opposition members are hoping and praying that the report will be an almighty bucket job on the cops so they can jump on the bandwagon they have been on for years now and get stuck into the cops.

Mr Peter Debnam: Point of order—

Mr CARL SCULLY: Why do you hate the police? That is what I want an answer to. They have had a gutful of you.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition has the call.

Mr Peter Debnam: I find that offensive. I find the Minister's words offensive. Why is it every single time you get up on your hind legs you fall into the gutter?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition is clearly contravening the standing orders.

Mr Peter Debnam: What is it about Carl Scully that drags you into the gutter?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition cannot take a point of order merely because he does not like the Minister's response. The Minister has the call.

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Government members will come to order. The Minister has the call.

Mr CARL SCULLY: I am the Minister for Police and he is the Leader of the Opposition against police. That is the reality. When one calls the Commissioner of Police a "clown" one must face the consequences. I sit in the meal rooms with police officers. They have absolute contempt for the Leader of the Opposition. He cannot bag the commissioner. Police officers treat the Commissioner of Police with deference and reverence—as they should treat an officer of 41 years standing. The Leader of the Opposition cannot go around calling their chief executive a "clown" without the troops viewing it as an attack on them.

An attack on the Commissioner of Police is rightly seen as an attack on all police officers. But it is not just about the Leader of the Opposition's attacks on the Commissioner; the Leader of the Opposition is looking around every corner for opportunities to attack the police. The report processes have not yet been completed. When they are finished obviously I will be presented with the report by the Commissioner of Police. Then, as occurred with the last two reports into riots, the Minister of the day—in this case, it is me—will read it, there will be a discussion with the Premier, the report will be presented to Cabinet and then it will be released. I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question.

STATE TRIPLE-A CREDIT RATING

Mrs KARYN PALUZZANO: My question is addressed to the Premier. What is the latest information on the Government's efforts to protect New South Wales's triple-A credit rating?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: When the people of New South Wales cast their vote at the election on 24 March—

Mr Andrew Stoner: Why didn't you acknowledge the netballers?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Premier has the call.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The what?

Mr Andrew Stoner: The netballers. They had an historic win. Did you forget them? 2672 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2006

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: When the people of New South Wales cast their vote on 24 March next year they face an important decision. The party that wins the election will be in charge—

Mr George Souris: Point of order: The Premier posed the question, "What netballers?" I would just like to inform him that the Australian netballers beat New Zealand—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Upper Hunter will resume his seat. He is clearly wasting the time of the House. The Premier has the call.

Mr George Souris: The score was either 46-40 or 78-64.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Upper Hunter will come to order. If he tries to name the team, I will call him to order. The Premier has the call.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The party that wins the election on 24 March next year will be in charge of an operation that spends around $43 billion of recurrent expenditure, that is, around $10 billion per year in capital, and will manage assets in excess of $124 billion. The Government of New South Wales is without doubt the largest entity in the State. In this context the community has a legitimate right to know what each party intends to do and understand the effect of their election commitments on the State's finances. The community also has a right to expect that political parties use the best available analysis to calculate the cost of election spending. And they have a right to get this information at a time when it is most useful to them to help them make their decision. For these reasons the Government will introduce a charter of budget honesty.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Premier has the call.

[Interruption]

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

Mr Chris Hartcher: That is so good!

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I am glad the honourable member for Gosford said it is so good and that he will avail himself of it. I am sure he will. It will provide an impartial framework for the costing of political party election promises by New South Wales Treasury. I am glad the honourable member for Gosford has endorsed this statement: It ensures a bipartisan approach to the costing system by giving the Opposition access to Treasury advice and analysis. It provides assurance that the Treasury advice is strictly confidential. It also provides for public release of the full effect of all promises on the State's financial position before the election. This system is not dissimilar to the Federal charter of budget honesty introduced by the Commonwealth Government.

It, however, does have two important differences that make the New South Wales process fairer and more useful to the voting public. Firstly, it gives the Opposition the right to withdraw any promise. This means that it is not locked into the promises, like the current Federal system on budget honesty. Rather, the Opposition can choose to amend its proposals before initial Treasury costings are made public. This gives the Opposition every opportunity to be very precise about what it wants to do and what it will commit to. Given the Opposition's more than $25 billion in promises, some revision of these commitments will be required. I note the Opposition has not taken up the opportunity to revise any of those promises. In light of that failure, the $25 billion in promises stands. It has had the offer for more than four weeks, but it has not chosen to delete any item from the list.

Secondly, Treasury will release before the election the accumulated costs of each party's promises and—here is the important point—the effect on the State's forward estimates. This means the community get to know the full effects on the budget position, not simply the total cost of election promises. The model is both fair and impartial, and it will see higher quality budget estimates across the board.

Mr Peter Debnam: Point of order: Again under Standing Order 139, will the Premier release the detail of forward estimates? 17 October 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2673

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition knows he is flouting the standing orders.

Mr Peter Debnam: It is a straightforward question: Will he release the detail of the forward estimates?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a question, he will do so in a proper way. The Premier has the call. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I have to thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question he posed by way of interjection, because in the four hours of my estimates hearing and of the Treasurer's estimates hearing, he never fronted. He was not present for one minute. He did not bother to ask one question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Myall Lakes will come to order.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: He can get a copy of the budget papers from the library.

Mr George Souris: It is an upper House committee.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Good on you, George! Just keep counting the cost of Luna Park and Eastern Creek for us. This model is both fair and impartial and it will see higher quality budget estimates across the board. The Leader of the Opposition might want to turn up next time. Using Treasury will avoid the usual problem of New South Wales private sector consultancies getting involved in some type of costing verification. Perhaps this is why the former Leader of the Opposition, Mr Brogden, supported this type of approach. In his budget reply speech in 2002, he said he would introduce a charter of budget transparency, which would, to quote his words:

… provide for the release of a comprehensive pre-election budget update and for independent costings of policies by the Treasury during an election campaign free from political interference.

The New South Wales budget position is fundamental to the fortunes of the State, and the last thing it needs is rampant spending promises in the campaign leading up to an election. The international credit ratings agencies Moodys and Standard and Poor's have recently reaffirmed the New South Wales Government's credit rating. But it recognised the importance of the Government's strong record of fiscal management and plans for modest expenditure growth. If the Opposition supports this system, we will be able to guarantee the people of New South Wales that they will get the best possible advice on political parties' election promises and their costings at a time when the community needs it most—just before they go to vote.

The Secretary of the Treasury will offer the Leader of the Opposition—I hope he takes up this offer, unlike the amnesty and the Peter meter—a face-to-face, full and detailed briefing on these measures, to ensure a complete understanding of the process we are about to undertake. We are also prepared to continue the amnesty we made available to the Opposition earlier this year whereby it can reassess any of the $25 billion of unfunded promises on the Peter meter and make a decision either to reaffirm all the items or to start the process of deletion. The onus now falls squarely on the Leader of the Opposition to see whether he supports this measure in budget accountability.

DROUGHT ACTION PLAN

Mr ANDREW STONER: My question is directed to the Premier. Given that after 12 years he still has no new ideas to help country communities struggling with the drought—telling them to "watch this space"—will he now adopt the Liberal-Nationals Drought Action Plan, which includes drought assistance for small businesses, maintenance of services including teachers, nurses and police in drought-affected communities, and investment in water infrastructure?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: We notice that just recently the Leader of The Nationals has cottoned onto the fact that there is a drought in this country, backed up by his friend the Leader of the Opposition. Why? It is because Lynton Crosby and Mark Textor have written the questions for them—written and authorised by Lynton Crosby and Mark Textor, straight out of the manual. Last week the Leader of the Opposition focused on drought and water with his ridiculous statement about declaring a state of emergency. For the past four years during this severe drought the Government has stood by farmers because we understand the devastation it has caused farmers, their families and farming communities. 2674 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2006

I will repeat for the benefit of the Leader of The Nationals some of the measures that the Government has undertaken over the period of the drought. Those measures, which amount to an investment of $223 million, include $83 million on transport subsidies with more than 80,000 applications processed in the last four years; 1,200 drought conservation loans worth $52 million; and 1,275 applications for exceptional circumstance interest rate subsidies, to which New South Wales has contributed $34 million. Our drought hotline has received nearly 13,000 calls in the past four years, including 42 calls in the last week. We have invested more than $1.8 million to provide 100 per cent transport subsidies on donated fodder stock. We have contributed $8.6 million for emergency household relief, $3 million for rural financial counsellors and $2.7 million for drought support workers. We have stood by farmers and we will continue to stand by them during the drought.

Mr Andrew Stoner: Point of order: On a point of relevance, the question was specifically about assistance for small businesses, maintaining government services in drought-affected communities and investing in water infrastructure. The Government's measures are very nice, but it needs to do more. Is it saying no?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals knows that he cannot take a point of order merely because he does not like the Premier's answer. The Premier has the call.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I have just given a detailed outline of the drought support measures the Government has taken and will continue to take. We will continue to stand by farmers. We do not need our Federal friends to write questions for us or Federal pollsters to tell us that the results of focus groups indicate that we had better turn our minds to drought and water.

COALITION TRANSPORT POLICIES

Mr ALLAN SHEARAN: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Transport. Will the Minister outline the Government's concerns about the Opposition's Transport policies, including services to the north-west corridors and related matters, following the dumping of the shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Transport?

Mr JOHN WATKINS: I shall read to the House from an ABC news report dated 23 September, less than a month ago. The report states:

In the Hawkesbury moderate Liberal backbencher Steven Pringle is under threat from a Right-backed candidate.

"All the sitting MPs have my total support and I'm working for them," Debnam said.

He says he wants them all in his team after the March election.

On 14 August an AAP report states:

NSW Liberal Leader Peter Debnam says he wants all his party's sitting MPs to stand as candidates again at the next state election.

Mr Barry O'Farrell: Point of order: My point of order relates to Standing Order 138. I listened carefully to the question, which related to the future of the north-west rail link—a line that people have waited 17 years to be delivered.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may take a point of order; he should not make a speech. I am sure that the Minister for Transport will move to that aspect of his reply that deals with transport policy. The Minister has the call.

Mr JOHN WATKINS: The AAP report continues:

Responding today to speculation that Hawkesbury MP Steven Pringle could face a preselection challenge, Mr Debnam said he wanted all sitting MPs to be re-endorsed.

"That's been my position all the time … that sitting MPs should be re-endorsed," he told reporters.

Mr Debnam said Mr Pringle had been doing a great job at representing his outer north-western Sydney electorate.

"Steven Pringle has been doing a great job as one of the local MPs and I will continue to support all the MPs," he said.

That is further proof that the Leader of the Opposition is a pitiful fraud. As we have already heard personally from the honourable member for Hawkesbury, the ego of the Leader of the Opposition is such that he is writing 17 October 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2675

cheques the extremists will not cash. It is no surprise that the betrayed honourable member for Hawkesbury labelled the Leader of the Opposition "lying or impotent". The Leader of the Opposition cowardly shrunk away from his public chest beating in support of his colleagues and handed Hawkesbury over to the extremist Right. Too many major transport issues are happening in the north-west for the Leader of the Opposition to allow that to happen to the hard-working honourable member for Hawkesbury. The Leader of the Opposition performed another one of his gutless fence-sitting specials on the weekend. Once again he jumped from the trenches when the war was over and declared he had backed the winner all along. It happened in Pittwater, Hornsby and Epping, and now it is happening in Hawkesbury.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Gosford will come to order.

Mr JOHN WATKINS: After supporting all sitting members of Parliament and pretending he was in charge, the Leader of the Opposition tried to spin the line, "It's a very good preselection system and … only one could win on the day."

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Bega will come to order.

Mr JOHN WATKINS: It is a very good preselection system if you are David Clarke. Today in the Australian Financial Review the Leader of the Opposition said, "I only get one vote and the ability to talk to other preselectors." That is a far cry from his statement to AAP on 18 August.

Mr Wayne Merton: Point of order: About two minutes ago Mr Speaker made a ruling, which was probably fair in the circumstances, and indicated that the Minister for Transport would return to the question. Two minutes have expired. Like the rail, the Minister has not returned.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Transport has referred to transport policies and I am sure he will make further reference to them.

Mr JOHN WATKINS: My response is entirely relevant because the honourable member for Hawkesbury was the shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Transport and a member of Parliament representing north-western Sydney where a huge amount of money is being spent by the Iemma Government on transport infrastructure such as railway and transitways. On 18 August the Leader of the Opposition told AAP:

I'll be making sure we choose the best candidate for every single preselection.

What happened last weekend is also proof that the Leader of the Opposition had a debt to pay for his face-saving emergency shoehorning of Pru Goward into Goulburn. The payback to the zealots has come with the sacrifice of the hardworking honourable member for Hawkesbury.

Mr Barry O'Farrell: Point of order: My point of order does not relate to Standing Order 138 but to Standing Order 139, which does not allow debate when answering a question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am sure the Minister for Transport will not resort to rhetorical questions and will provide a response to the question asked.

Mr JOHN WATKINS: I hate rhetorical questions, don't you?

Mr SPEAKER: The Speaker says yes.

Mr JOHN WATKINS: There may have been another reason why the out-of-touch jazzercise junkie from Bellevue Hill did not want the honourable member for Hawkesbury around the bridge of the party room. The honourable member for Hawkesbury has got too much credibility in the north-west of Sydney. The web site of the honourable member for Hawkesbury shows that he had 20 years of service with the Royal Australian Navy, where he reached the rank of Lieutenant Commander. He is a graduate of the Royal Australian Navy Staff College and a visiting Military Fellow at the Australian Defence Force Academy. Further, he retained his commission with the Royal Australian Navy. Maybe someone was just a little bit jealous about his naval background.

Since becoming Leader of the Opposition, following his role in the conspiracy to destroy John Brogden, Andrew Tink has pulled the plug on this place, Patricia Forsythe went down swinging, Judy Hopwood 2676 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2006

threatened to stand as an Independent just to ward off the zealots, Peta Seaton was pressured, Pru Goward was dumped in Epping, Steven Pringle has been done over, Andrew Humpherson has been stripping branches frantically to save himself and the knives are well and truly out for Jillian Skinner.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Government members will come to order. The Minister for Transport has the call.

Mr JOHN WATKINS: Mr Speaker—

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order—

Mr JOHN WATKINS: They are convincing him of the Leader of the Opposition's support.

Mr Brad Hazzard: I am aggrieved. Last week I was unanimously endorsed with the Leader of the Opposition's support, and I would like to thank the Deputy Premier, and Minister for Transport for—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst will either state his point of order or resume his seat.

Mr Brad Hazzard: —his congratulations, which are forthcoming any second.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for Wakehurst will not waste the time of the House seeking congratulations from Government members. The Minister for Transport has the call.

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Police will contain his enthusiasm. The Minister for Transport has the call.

Mr JOHN WATKINS: The long list includes Seaton, Goward, Pringle, Humpherson and Skinner. Just like a Pringle, the extremists have found that once you pop you just cannot stop. Every moderate that has been forced out or done over has been replaced by a disciple of the hard Right maniacs running the Liberal Party in the State.

Mr Barry O'Farrell: Point of order: That attack upon Bryce Gaudry cannot go unanswered. Bryce, you should respond to this.

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

Mr JOHN WATKINS: The Leader of the Opposition is unhinged and thin skinned. Whenever someone criticises him he shrieks, he panics and he lashes out.

Mr Chris Hartcher: Point of order: Let us hear about the honourable member for Newcastle. Let us hear about the honourable member for Penrith. Tell us about Brandy Alexander.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Members of the Opposition will either take genuine points of order or resume their seats.

Mr Chris Hartcher: Tell us about the honourable member for Newcastle, who was railroaded out of his seat by you.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will call members of the Opposition to order if they do not make appropriate use of the standing orders.

Mr Chris Hartcher: Tell us about the honourable member for Peats, who had to wait six months to get permission to stand while you and John Della Bosca were trying to get her out of her seat.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Gosford to order for the second time. 17 October 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2677

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Gosford to order for the third time. The Deputy Premier has the call.

Mr JOHN WATKINS: Every time the Leader of the Opposition is attacked, out they come⎯these personal, vindictive attacks on other people, often against his own colleagues. He is a coward. He is not fit to lead the Liberal Party in New South Wales. He has handed the Liberal Party over to a bunch of fanatics simply to put himself in the spotlight. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done.

Mr Donald Page: Point of order: I refer to Standing Order 82, which requires that, if the Minister wishes to make an attack on another member of the House, he do so by way of substantive motion. The Minister has been attacking the Leader of the Opposition for the last 10 minutes. He should do it by way of substantive motion so that the Leader of the Opposition has the opportunity to put him back in his place. You grub!

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am sure the Minister will return to the policy issues related to transport.

Mr JOHN WATKINS: Members on this side of the House recognise the service to the community that the honourable member for Hawkesbury has given to the north-west of Sydney. We recognise the fact that he has been the victim of the most cold-hearted treachery and cowardice. That is why we wish him all the best in his future endeavours.

DROUGHT ACTION PLAN

Mr ANDREW STONER: My question without notice is directed to the Premier. Given that three months ago he told the media that "in New South Wales we have secure [water] supplies for the next decade and a half", even though at the time more than 90 per cent of the State was in drought, what confidence can country people have that he understands the severity of this drought or that he has the capacity to solve the water crisis?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: This proves yet again just how right Steve Price was in describing the Leader of The Nationals as ignorant and an idiot. The comments were in relation to the Metropolitan Water Plan in securing water supplies until at least 2015.

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

[Interruption]

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

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: In relation to the Metropolitan Water Plan, Sydney's water supplies were secure until at least 2015. It is a comprehensive water plan for Sydney's water security. I will come to the second part of the question in a second. We have been waiting for the Coalition's metropolitan water plan for nearly one year. Late last year the Leader of the Opposition stood in this place and outside and said that a water plan for metropolitan Sydney was just around the corner. We all know the reason why there is not a water plan.

Mr Andrew Stoner: We don't have to hear about your water plan. You're sucking the water out of the Shoalhaven.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I am glad the Leader of The Nationals has admitted what everybody in New South Wales knows. The Coalition has no water plan because it has been too busy with the unrestrained war within its ranks, proving yet again that if its leader cannot run the party he cannot run the State. That is why the Coalition's water plan has not materialised. It is getting its instructions from Canberra, from its focus groups, from Crosby|Textor, which is telling Coalition members what questions to ask and when to ask them. That is why The Nationals cottoned on to the drought last week. The drought has been going on for years, but The Nationals discovered it only last week, when we saw an orchestrated attack from Canberra on water and drought on the States. That is what it is all about. The questions are written by Crosby|Textor and authorised by John Howard. In relation to the second part of the question, it goes back to the earlier question the Leader of The Nationals asked. In excess of $900 million has been invested in water, water security and water infrastructure in rural and regional New South Wales. 2678 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2006

BASIC SKILLS TEST

Ms TANYA GADIEL: My question without notice is to the Minister for Education and Training. What is the latest information about the achievements of New South Wales students in the year 5 basic skills test?

Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT: As I am sure everyone in the House is aware, more than 66,000 year 12 students this week start the Higher School Certificate. Beginning on Thursday, the students will sit the final round of exams, which will, in part, determine their Higher School Certificate marks. What is more, as the editorial in yesterday's Daily Telegraph said, "thanks to the forward-thinking actions of this Government the New South Wales Higher School Certificate is world-class" and "over the past six years has been fined-tuned into academic credentials recognised and accepted in countries all over the globe". That is high praise indeed. Now in its sixth year, the Higher School Certificate [HSC] has a very clear trend, which is demonstrated in the growth of the number of students who continue to study advanced courses. For example, since 2001 enrolments in advanced English have grown by almost 38 per cent, and it is 42 per cent of all HSC candidates this year.

The changes that were introduced in 2000-01 have worked. They have encouraged students to take the more challenging courses, knowing that they will be rewarded with their results. HSC students have the confidence to choose these tough subjects because they have been given excellent foundations through their schooling in New South Wales. A central plank of the rigorous programs provided to New South Wales school students are the diagnostic tests we have in place, such as the Basic Skills Test, the English Language and Literacy Assessment, and the Secondary Numeracy Assessment Program. I am pleased to inform the House that this week schools around New South Wales will receive the results for more than 166,000 year 3 and year 5 students who sat the Basic Skills Test in August this year, including students in almost 1,700 public schools across the State.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber.

Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT: Based on the rigorous New South Wales curriculum, the Basic Skills Test assesses the literacy and numeracy skills of students and provides teachers with vital information about each student's abilities in these key areas. Students are tested on the fundamentals—spelling, grammar, punctuation, comprehension, fractions and geometry. I am pleased to inform the House that New South Wales public school students achieved excellent results in the 2006 Basic Skills Test. This year there has been a lift in student numeracy results, with year 5 students achieving the best ever average numeracy results. Almost 30 per cent of year 5 students achieved results in the highest skill level. Likewise, the statewide average marks for literacy in both years 3 and 5 have been maintained at the highly successful levels recorded last year. These results demonstrate that the New South Wales Government's record investment in literacy and numeracy is working.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of Order: Perhaps the Minister might tell the truth. The results for year 3 are down by 0.1 per cent for literacy⎯

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

Mr Brad Hazzard: —and down by 0.3 per cent for numeracy.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst is not even attempting to disguise his remarks as a point of order.

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Wakehurst to order. He will resume his seat. The Minister for Education and Training has the call.

Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT: One would think that, at this stage, the House might hear the shadow spokesperson for education praising our students, congratulating our teachers and recognising the great job that our schools are doing but, no, once again he is trying to pull the system down rather than build it up. That is what we hear all the time from those opposite. We are proud of what our school system is achieving. We have increased annual funding for literacy and numeracy programs threefold, from $53 million to more than 17 October 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2679

$154 million, and have significantly expanded the Reading Recovery Program. The extra attention that this investment has allowed is producing great results for those students who need it.

We have seen a decrease in the number of students in the lowest literacy bands. Almost 60 per cent of year 3 students in the lowest literacy bands and 70 per cent of students in the lowest numeracy bands in 2004 improved their marks to reach a higher skill band in year 5 this year. Likewise, the percentage of year 3 students in the lowest skill band for writing has reduced considerably from the 11 per cent in 2001 to 7 per cent in 2006. The 2006 Basic Skills Test results join the many New South Wales national and international tests, which demonstrate that when it comes to standards in numeracy and literacy New South Wales public school students are among the very best in the world—something we are very proud of, and so we should be.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: If this Labor Government is doing so well, why is it losing 0.5 per cent of students from government schools to private schools?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for Wakehurst will stop wasting the time of the House. I call him to order for the second time. The Minister for Education and Training has the call.

Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT: We are always striving to improve literacy and numeracy standards amongst our students. Over the next four years $616 million will be invested. The funding will be used to implement the State Literacy and Numeracy Plans, which have clear targets to reduce the number of poor performing students by 10 per cent by 2008. These strategies go hand in hand with the Board of Studies Foundation Statements, which clearly advise teachers that no less than 45 per cent to 55 per cent of each week should be devoted to literacy and numeracy in New South Wales' primary schools.

The Foundation Statements make it easier for teachers to plan lessons, assess student achievement and report to parents on students' progress. It is another example of the robust New South Wales approach to curriculum development. The Federal Minister's calls for a focus on literacy and numeracy come about 10 years too late, I would suggest. Curriculum in New South Wales focuses on the basics and that is evident at every level of New South Wales schooling. In New South Wales we have taken a comprehensive approach to curriculum and testing, and to professional development and teacher training. Each strategy supports the others and that is shown in the results that our students are achieving.

GLEN INNES AND NORTHERN TABLELANDS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Mr RICHARD TORBAY: My question without notice is to the Minister for Regional Development. Will the Minister update the House on initiatives to encourage economic development in Glen Innes and the northern inland region?

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: It is little wonder that the honourable member for Northern Tablelands is such a successful local member. Last week I happened to be in his electorate visiting a small business in the main street. People were continually coming up to talk to him. I travelled to Tingha to see some of the work being done under the Country Towns Water Supply and Sewage Program, a program that has seen about $1 million a week spent in country New South Wales over the past 10 years. I thank the honourable member for Northern Tablelands for his question and his support for businesses in his region. His independent voice for the northern inland region was evident to me on my visit to Armidale and Tingha last week. Unlike The Nationals, the Iemma Government does not think the honourable member for Northern Tablelands and his colleagues are a failed experiment.

Mr Andrew Stoner: Point of order: My point of order relates to Standing Order 140, which refers to questions without notice. After the effusive praise for the honourable member for Northern Tablelands from the Minister, he got to his briefing notes, which indicates that notice had been given of the question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals well knows that there is no point of order. He has attempted this stunt on previous occasions and the Chair does not take kindly to his continued abuse of the standing orders.

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Leader of The Nationals to order. 2680 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2006

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: It is clear that the Leader of The Nationals does not like Glen Innes or Dubbo, and it is clear he is very much wounded by the fact that a number of Independents sit across the Chamber—and, as we saw today, that number is growing. It is great to see Independents such as the honourable member for Northern Tablelands, the honourable Member for Dubbo and the honourable member for Tamworth lobbying so strongly on behalf of their dynamic regions. Despite what The Nationals may tell us, the story in regional New South Wales is very strong and overwhelmingly positive. The Iemma Government is working closely with country communities to make sure regional doors are open for business. Our regional towns are the backbone of our economy and many of these vibrant centres are growing dramatically with New South Wales Government support. They are struggling under the weight as members of The Nationals talk down places such as Glen Innes, Dubbo and Tamworth. Every time they open their mouths it is to talk down those places.

In Glen Innes the New South Wales Government's Business Development managers are very active and have a strong working relationship with the local council. Earlier this year the Iemma Government funded a Business Retention and Expansion Survey. The council is now undertaking a strategic plan exercise and has also employed an economic development officer with the support of the Government. The staff on the ground in Glen Innes are now working on the early development of a cluster of engineering companies in Glen Innes, to assist them to develop new markets beyond the immediate district. Such a cluster would include Glen Innes Engineering, which has submitted a development application in relation to a site to undertake its expansion. An engineering business is expanding in Glen Innes with the support of the Government.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: Another potential member of the cluster is Tablelands Engineering. This initiative builds on the work the Iemma Government is doing through Small Business September activities in the northern inland region. I am sure we will hear more about Small Business September later this afternoon. The Government's business development managers continue to work with the Eastmon Group, which has significantly expanded its operations in Glen Innes in recent years.

The Iemma Government's business development managers continue to work with the Eastmon Group, which has significantly expanded its operations in Glen Innes in recent years, and are also working with Tretheweys Industries at Deepwater. Through its economic development programs the Iemma Government has also supported the Gourmet in the Glen Festival to promote regional produce. The event, which incorporated the New England Wine Show, grew out of the Viticulture Strategy that has been developed jointly over recent years by the Iemma Government and the Northern Inland Regional Development Board. By any measure, these programs assist country communities to take new directions and to expand. The New South Wales economy is strong. It has a triple-A credit rating and unemployment is the lowest in 25 years.

The New South Wales Government means business, and that includes working with country communities like Glen Innes to open doors to local investment. Unlike the Opposition, which has no plan and no ideas, the Iemma Government is making sure doors are open for country communities. It is helping to create regional jobs, unlike the Opposition whose only plan is to slash jobs in the bush. The Leader of the Opposition's plan to slash 29,000 jobs has his own members so worried that they are phoning me to find out where the job loses will be. The honourable member for Albury recently demanded that I tell him which jobs in Albury would go. He demanded that I outline where the earmarked 167 jobs in Albury would come from. He should ask the Leader of the Opposition because it is his policy and his diabolical plan that will tear out the heart of our regions and so badly affect the bush. The Leader of the Opposition may try to shy away from his plan, but there is genuine fear, for a range of reasons, among Coalition members representing country electorates about the impact his plan will have.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: The Opposition's policies are not about increasing the number of jobs. The Opposition is not sticking up for the people in our regions against Canberra's failure to slow down interest rate rises or investigate petrol price hikes. The Opposition is not calling on the Federal Government to spend more money on regional airport security. What is it that causes so much concern for the Deputy Leader of The Nationals? He was wandering around trying to find out the basis for defining the term "regional city". While the New South Wales Opposition fails to stand up to Canberra over issues such as interest rate increases, petrol prices and regional airport security, the New South Wales Government is getting on the with the job: it is working with local communities, such as the Glen Innes community, and members representing country 17 October 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2681

electorates, such as the honourable member for Tamworth, to implement strong programs and achieve strong outcomes for regional New South Wales.

LOWER HUNTER REGIONAL STRATEGY

Mr JEFF HUNTER: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Planning. Will he update the House on the Lower Hunter Strategy?

Mr FRANK SARTOR: I thank the honourable member for his persistently deep and abiding interest in the future of the lower Hunter and Lake Macquarie region. Today the Premier released the Lower Hunter Strategy and Lower Hunter Regional Conservation Plan that maps out a new direction for sustainable growth in the lower Hunter—a direction that balances new jobs, investment and housing with unprecedented environmental protection. It represents a big win for the environment in the lower Hunter. The strategy was exhibited to the community last November. It is a strategy that has involved the community, attracting 1,000 submissions from residents, investors, businesses, councils and other stakeholders. That input led to significant improvements to the strategy, as all honourable members representing lower Hunter electorates would know.

Mr Adrian Piccoli: Point of order: I refer to the Premier's ministerial code of conduct and to what the Premier said in an address he gave during question time. When introducing legislation or speaking in the Parliament members are required to make clear any financial contributions that are made. I believe that Hardie Holdings is part of the lower Hunter plan.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for Murrumbidgee will resume his seat. He is abusing the standing orders.

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. I call the honourable member for Murrumbidgee to order. He will resume his seat.

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Police will resume his seat.

Mr FRANK SARTOR: Well may the honourable member for Murrumbidgee not want to hear my answer because it is unequivocally good news. That is why he is trying to interrupt me. The Hunter strategy provides for an increase in population from 125,000 to 160,000 over the next 25 years. That estimate is based on revised Australian Bureau of Statistics projections of growth rates in the Hunter. The strategy also provides for 66,000 new jobs, which is an increase from 50,000, and for 115,000 new dwellings. The strategy also identifies a number of greenfields sites for residential development to accommodate increases in population and will result in the transfer of vast tracts of bushland to public ownership.

The strategy is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to fill in the missing links in two major green corridors that run right across the lower Hunter. The trade-offs are heavily and unequivocally weighted towards the environment. Major landholders will contribute over 80 per cent of their holdings to national parks and reserves. In other words, their land will be transferred to public ownership. A total of 12,000 hectares of privately owned land will be added to the lower Hunter conservation system. The area includes high conservation value lands that will be protected in perpetuity for the people of the lower Hunter. Details of the memorandums of understanding that have been entered into with the landholders will be placed on the department's web site over the next two or three days. Transparently and unambiguously, this is a good deal for the people of the Hunter, and I stand by it.

The Lower Hunter Regional Conservation Strategy marries with the planning strategy to secure 32,000 hectares of bushland, which represents 320 square kilometres of new conservation land, including 12,000 hectares from private landholders and 20,000 hectares of public land. These lands will include two major corridors—the Wallarah Peninsula corridor, which secures the green buffer zone between the Central Coast and the Hunter region—and the Watagan to Stockton corridor from the rugged sandstone areas of the south-west to the wetlands and coastal plain of the north and the east. New conservation areas will also be established at Karuah near Port Stephens, at Werakata near Cessnock, and at Belford. 2682 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2006

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

Mr FRANK SARTOR: This strategy is the biggest conservation gain that has ever been announced for the lower Hunter. The new conservation areas include more than 4,000 hectares of endangered forest and extensive areas of threatened species habitat. The honourable member for Murrumbidgee may not like it, but it is, nevertheless, a good deal. The Government will invest $12.5 million to secure and establish management arrangements for the new reserves that will add to the 450 new national parks and reserves that have been created under this Labor Government—something that The Nationals want to undo. The Nationals want to roll back national parks because they have never understood their value. The Hunter is unique in New South Wales as the meeting place of ecosystems from the north and the west.

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

Mr FRANK SARTOR: Under these plans an area of parkland within 50 kilometres of Newcastle will nearly double, providing new opportunities.

Mr Adrian Piccoli: Point of order: These were recommendations from the Independent Commission Against Corruption—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for Murrumbidgee will resume his seat. He is flouting several standing orders of the House.

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Murrumbidgee to order for the second time. He will resume his seat.

Mr FRANK SARTOR: In conclusion, I point out that the proposals in the strategy represent concrete, clear, transparent and unambiguous plans for the future of the lower Hunter, unlike the so-called plans of the Opposition—its secret plans that are straight from Nick Greiner's grab-box and would result in rampant development, no planning department, traffic chaos and infrastructure catastrophe. The Opposition does not want to come clean on what it plans for this State and stands condemned. The Government's agreement is transparent and will be published for all to see. The Opposition cannot do better.

TREASURY MONTHLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Mr PETER DEBNAM: My question is directed to the Premier. Given his new-found desire for budget honesty, can he explain why he has refused to publicly release his Treasury's monthly financial statements since May, despite the requirement under section 8 of the Public Finance and Audit Act to do so?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: On budget day all the documents are produced and all the papers are available for the Opposition to see. We have estimates hearings and other reviews. When it comes to accountability and transparency, all the material is there if the Leader of the Opposition wants to take the time to read it. We cannot help him when he cannot be bothered to turn up. The Opposition asked for four hours of estimates hearings, but how many estimates hearings did the Leader of the Opposition turn up to? None. How many questions did he ask about budget estimates? None. What interest did he take? None.

Mr Peter Debnam: Point of order: Perhaps the Premier missed the question. Section 8 of the Act requires a monthly report, which the Premier has refused to put out since May.

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

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question and the Premier is answering that question.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The Leader of the Opposition will get his chance to participate in this bipartisan offer on budget accountability. I can tell him one thing about budget honesty: promising $25 billion in 17 October 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2683

election commitments without one funding source is the most dishonest thing he could do. There would be nothing left in the New South Wales budget if the people of New South Wales had the misfortune to have him sitting on this side of the House. I can tell the people of New South Wales what would happen in New South Wales on day one under him: he would bankrupt them.

NATIONAL PARKS AND NORTH-EAST REGIONAL ECONOMY

Mr NEVILLE NEWELL: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for the Environment. What is the latest information about the contribution national parks make to the regional economy of north-east New South Wales?

Mr BOB DEBUS: I thank the honourable member for his keen interest in the national parks of his region, some of the most spectacular in the State. Because they are such fantastic parks, it comes as no surprise that the findings of a recent report entitled "Regional Economic Impact of Protected Areas in North-East NSW" are indeed very positive. The report, prepared by Gillespie Economics, found that national parks in north-east New South Wales are worth $124 million annually to the regional economy and that they provide more than 1,900 jobs. Almost six million people visit those parks each year. During their stay they spend money on local produce, eat in local restaurants, stay in local motels and caravan parks and use local services. In short, they provide a huge boost to the local economy.

The report covers the direct and flow-on economic benefits of park-related spending by both park visitors and the New South Wales Government. Visitors to parks and reserves directly and indirectly contribute $107 million to the regional economy, which generates 1,650 jobs. The expenditure of the Department of Environment and Conservation generates a further $17 million each year and 265 jobs in the region. The study clearly shows that national parks create jobs in regional New South Wales. If the Leader of the Opposition gets his way and slashes 29,000 jobs from the public sector, national parks, including those in the region that especially interest the honourable member for Tweed, will indeed be devastated. The Department of Environment and Conservation is already one of the Government's most decentralised agencies. Nearly three-quarters of its staff work in rural and regional parts of the State. I have done the arithmetic, and it is clear to me that under the Coalition's job cuts plan the Department of Environment and Conservation and national parks cannot be quarantined.

If jobs are slashed from national parks, it is certain that rural and regional economies will suffer as a consequence. For starters, the honourable member for Coffs Harbour should be very nervous. Under the plan of the Leader of the Opposition, 22 jobs would go in that electorate: six in Coffs Harbour and six in Dorrigo. The honourable member for Ballina would lose four jobs in Byron Bay and five in Alstonville. The honourable member for Myall Lakes would lose five jobs at Pacific Palms and three at Taree.

Mr Andrew Fraser: Point of order: The Minister for the Environment said that six jobs would go in Dorrigo. In fact, Dorrigo moves into the Oxley electorate after the next election.

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

Mr Andrew Fraser: If he is going to tell the House something, he should get it right. No-one likes his lies.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the honourable member for Coffs Harbour wishes to make a clarifying statement he can do so at the appropriate time. This is not the appropriate time. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour will resume his seat.

Mr BOB DEBUS: At that rate, the Leader of The Nationals will lose six jobs in Dorrigo and another three at South West Rocks. The honourable member for Upper Hunter will lose six jobs: three in Scone and three in Gloucester. It pains me to tell the honourable member for Lismore that the city Liberals have not spared him either, because three jobs will be lost in Kyogle.

Mr Thomas George: I have got only two.

Mr BOB DEBUS: No, the honourable member for Lismore has a lot more than that, and he will lose three. That is the policy of the Leader of the Opposition. Front-line park workers—the people who fight fires, eradicate feral animals and weeds, and clean and maintain picnic and camping areas—will be gone in the blink 2684 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2006

of an eye. As the Minister for Planning has just reminded the House, the Coalition has consistently opposed Labor's new national parks.

Mr Andrew Stoner: The only job that is going to be gone under us is yours. You are the one who is going to go.

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

Mr BOB DEBUS: It is true that the Opposition has preselected a formidable candidate in my electorate. I am sure the Opposition's candidate is going. The Coalition has already promised, if elected, to significantly wind back the national park system, including all the new parks created in the Brigalow, the South-East Forests National Park, Coolah Tops National Park, parts of Jervis Bay National Park, and the Yanga Park in the Riverina. The Nationals and many others have consistently lined up to vote against key national parks legislation.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals will cease calling out.

Mr BOB DEBUS: Similarly, they have lined up to vote against protected and threatened species legislation, laws to ban broadscale land clearing, laws to protect inland rivers, and laws to create new marine parks—the lot. That is the picture we would see in the extraordinarily unlikely event of a Coalition victory.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Coffs Harbour will cease calling out.

Mr BOB DEBUS: Many of our most spectacular national parks would be logged, thousands of country towns would be hit hard as jobs would disappear under the Opposition's job cuts plan, many of our inland rivers would be starved of water, massive areas of native vegetation would be reopened to land clearing, laws to protect our State's threatened species would be watered down, and new marine parks would be abolished. The Coalition's plan would mean the loss of more than 100 jobs from northern New South Wales alone.

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

Mr BOB DEBUS: That is the vision—a grab-bag of irresponsible, unfunded promises and a gloomy forecast that would devastate rural and regional New South Wales.

Questions without notice concluded.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Bill: Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL (Keira—Minister for Water Utilities, Minister for Small Business, Minister for Regional Development, and Minister for the Illawarra) [3.49 p.m.]: I move:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to permit the introduction forthwith of the Charter of Budget Honesty (Election Promises Costing) Bill, without notice, up to and including the Minister's second reading speech.

I have moved this suspension to ensure that the bill comes before the House and that there is an opportunity to debate the transparency of this important issue.

Mr PETER DEBNAM (Vaucluse—Leader of the Opposition) [3.59 p.m.]: The Premier is determined to introduce the Charter of Budget Honesty (Election Promises Costing) Bill this afternoon. That is fair enough, but his chief of staff, Mike Kaiser from Queensland, has just left the Chamber. Where has he gone? He has gone to find out why, since May, the Government has kept secret every single monthly report on the financial accounts.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Bathurst will come to order.

Mr PETER DEBNAM: I can tell the House why the Premier and Michael Costa are keeping those reports secret. It is because they have a fundamental problem with the budget. What a hide the Premier has to talk about budget honesty when he has fiddled the budget since the budget papers were released. We have not yet seen the monthly reports for June because they would allow us to figure out what the end-of-year accounts 17 October 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2685

for the last financial year look like. Government members have not seen the reports for July, August or September either. Why? It is because the Premier does want them to see those reports until after the election. He does not want Government members to see the detail.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs will come to order.

Mr PETER DEBNAM: The detail will tell them that the Labor Party's deficit of $696 million is way underestimated and that the actual deficit for this year is clearly going to be in excess of $1 billion. What is more, next year—when the Premier and Michael Costa were miraculously going to bounce the budget result back to a surplus of $340 million—there is going to be another $1 billion deficit. The worst thing the Premier could do prior to the election on 24 March next year is introduce some budget honesty. A reading of the real New South Wales figures will reveal that the State will be in deep deficit in the election year and in the year after that. That is the Government's problem.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Bathurst will cease calling out.

Mr PETER DEBNAM: That lot opposite lapped up the rorts, year after year. For the past couple of years the community has asked where the money has gone. But what do people say now? The interesting thing is that in the electorates of Government members they say that New South Wales is broke. Why? It is because of mismanagement by that lot opposite. The Attorney General is about to escape the sinking ship; he is about to flee his electorate and the Labor Party. That joker was a finance Minister in a previous Labor Government that left New South Wales saddled with what we have now: a very large deficit and a hell of a lot of debt. The Attorney General is now about to escape before the reality of the figures is revealed.

If the Government had any budget honesty at all the Premier would release the monthly statements for the general government sector. The Premier has hidden them since May. Those opposite purport to want honesty, so they should release those accounts. The Government is introducing another bill, but legislation is already in place to force the Government to release the monthly statements. What difference does it make to the Government to have another piece of legislation?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Maitland will come to order.

Mr PETER DEBNAM: We are talking about budget honesty so when the Government releases the monthly statements I will release an economic scorecard on New South Wales.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Water Utilities will come to order.

Mr PETER DEBNAM: That scorecard will show that after 12 years of Labor New South Wales gets the wooden spoon on every single indicator of economic progress. That is what we get after 12 years of high taxes, high costs and the most extraordinary overregulation that we have ever seen in New South Wales. How about a little honesty, Mr Premier? [Time expired.]

Motion agreed to.

CHARTER OF BUDGET HONESTY (ELECTION PROMISES COSTING) BILL

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr MORRIS IEMMA (Lakemba—Premier, Minister for State Development, and Minister for Citizenship) [4.04 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Charter of Budget Honesty (Election Promises Costing) Bill provides an impartial framework for costing election promises in the lead-up to New South Wales election. The bill ensures that the New South Wales Treasury will be made available to cost the election promises made by both the Government and the Opposition. Those costings will include a four-year forward projection encompassing both capital and recurrent commitments. The costings will be publicised, allowing the electorate and the media to judge each side's credibility and to see how its promises stack up. 2686 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2006

With the bill in place, parties will no longer be able to promise the world, as the Opposition has done, while failing to say how they will pay for it. The onus will be on the Opposition to say how it will pay for its $25 billion of unfunded promises. Election promises must be costed and they must be credible. The people of this State deserve and demand no less. The voters are more economically literate than ever before and they will not be conned by a fistful of dollars. That is why we need to rebuild the community's faith in the political process through this measure. We need to demonstrate that we can deliver what we promise. That is the fundamental principle behind the bill.

Another key purpose of the bill is to ensure the sound and prudent management of the State's finances. The New South Wales Government is, by any measure, a serious enterprise, with a $43 billion budget and the largest work force in the nation. A key element of sound financial management is the robust costing of future funding commitments, providing greater certainty about what government can and cannot afford to do into the future. That means governments can plan in advance for future costs, such as rising school enrolments or an ageing population. It also means that governments can plan better for unexpected shocks without having to cut frontline services. A robust process for costing future commitments also allows governments to demonstrate fiscal responsibility to the business community, to the community and to the ratings agencies. Having been placed on credit watch in 1991, we must ensure that New South Wales's triple-A credit rating is never again put in peril.

The bill will also ensure the New South Wales Government's ability to adhere to the long-term plan laid out in the State Infrastructure Strategy, which is predicated on prudent and affordable levels of borrowing. The borrowings under the State Infrastructure Strategy have been supported by the international ratings agencies on the proviso that we restrain outlays and limit revenue growth. Reckless election promises could seriously undermine our ability to service the prudent debt levels planned for the next decade, and the people of New South Wales, the ratings agencies and our lenders are all entitled to know whether rash election promises will harm our ability to pay our way.

The other main principle underlying this bill relates to expertise. The bill proposes that the pre-election costings be undertaken by the body best equipped to do them: the oldest government agency in the State, the New South Wales Treasury. Costings must be done by those who are best qualified and informed to do them, and nobody has more expertise in costing election promises and managing the State's finances than the New South Wales Treasury. Costing of a road or a promise to hire extra police, for example, is the bread and butter of Treasury work—knowledge and expertise built up over 180 years.

In past years this job has often been farmed out to external consultants, very much a second-best option. That is not only because the Treasury has unrivalled specialist knowledge of public sector finance, but also because private sector consultancies have a direct financial interest in delivering the news a political party wants to hear, and also because the consultants must rely on the assumptions and documentation provided by that party which may be incomplete or one-sided. That hardly provides the community with overwhelming confidence in the integrity of the advice given. I would also add that using Treasury to provide the costings puts the Government and Opposition on an equal footing giving both a powerful incentive to be frank and transparent.

The costings process will operate in the following fashion. The bill requires the Secretary of the Treasury at the time of the last half-yearly budget review before an election to publicly identify the amount of money available to meet future spending commitments for the current budget year and the forward estimates, in other words, to establish the financial envelope available to the next Government to fund its policies. If the total cost of a party's commitments exceeds that envelope the party must then explain how it will meet the difference, for example, through new revenue sources, adjusting priorities or expenditure cuts, all of which must themselves be properly costed.

The bill provides for the Premier or the Leader of the Opposition to request the Secretary of the Treasury to prepare costings of publicly announced or proposed policies. This arrangement will commence 60 days before an election. A request for a costing may be withdrawn at any time prior to its completion. A party that requested a costing may publicly release the costing at any time. Once the policy is released, the bill requires the parties to advise the Treasury that the policy has been released. And Treasury—on being so informed—must release the costing and the original request. Importantly, the bill provides that if the Secretary of the Treasury considers that the costing has been misrepresented in public the Secretary may issue a public statement to correct any misrepresentation. 17 October 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2687

The bill also provides that the overall impact on the budget of a party's promises is properly identified, in the form of a budget impact statement. This statement will include a summary of the financial impact of each costed policy and the net financial impact of all the costed policies. The statement for each party will be prepared in consultation with each relevant party. Treasury will provide the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition with a draft budget impact statement and a list of their policies as incorporated into the forward estimates 15 days before polling day. They will have 48 hours to confirm their list of policies. And after Treasury reviews the final lists the Secretary of the Treasury will publicly release the final budget impact statements five working days before the election.

A consolidated set of the Treasury costings will also be released with the statement. The bill empowers the Secretary of the Treasury to issue guidelines to govern the preparation of costing requests, Treasury costings and budget impact statements. To ensure confidentiality, the bill also makes it a punishable offence for the Secretary of the Treasury or any Treasury officer to disclose costing information or documents prior to their public release. The bill also includes explicit safeguards against political interference.

The provisions of this bill are largely similar to those contained in the Commonwealth Charter of Budget Honesty Act introduced by the Howard Government in 1998. However, it differs in two important respects. First, it allows the Leader of the Opposition to have access to the Treasury to cost a proposed policy prior to its announcement. This allows the Opposition to assess the financial impacts of a proposed policy and provides the opportunity to delete that policy or amend it prior to release. Secondly, it provides a mechanism to assess the overall financial impact of the policies presented by each of the major parties. This will enable the electorate to gauge the overall fiscal responsibility of the competing parties, not just their individual policy costings.

In the past the Opposition has called for independent costings of policies by the Treasury during an election campaign free from political interference. That call is spot-on. The legislation being introduced today does precisely that. The days when you can promise anything and put it on the taxpayers' credit cards are over. This bill marks a new era of prudence and accountability. It is time this process, and this legislation, were brought into practice. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Daryl Maguire.

HONOURABLE MEMBER FOR HORNSBY

Personal Explanation

Mrs JUDY HOPWOOD, by leave: I wish to make a personal explanation. I condemn the statement by the Deputy Premier that I threatened to run as an Independent. It is a pity that he has fallen to an all-time low by making up statements for political gain.

CONSIDERATION OF URGENT MOTIONS

Drought Support Programs

Mr STEVE WHAN (Monaro) [4.16 p.m.]: It is urgent that the House consider my important matter today. In the past few weeks we have seen a continuing deterioration in the drought affecting New South Wales. It would be true to say that on many occasions in the several years that I have been a member, and well before, Country Labor members have brought to the attention of this House the drought affecting New South Wales. The matter is more urgent today because it has become very clear in the past few weeks that our farmers, rather than feeling there will be some relief from the drought over the next few months, will see conditions worsen.

This matter is urgent because in the past few weeks the news and predictions have deteriorated. Early this year climate commentators were suggesting that we would see normal rainfall patterns over this year. Tragically, that was a false hope. Desperate farming families are now hearing that climate predictions are getting worse. Even in early September one climate forecaster appeared on "Country Hour" on the ABC saying it was not all doom and gloom and that the El Niño was not certain. Just one month later, according to a Climate Centre report aired on an ABC news report on 3 October, the chances of avoiding an El Niño effect for the rest of this year are zero. 2688 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2006

That is confirmed by work done by the Bureau of Meteorology, which has released detail suggesting that Pacific climate patterns are indicative of a developing El Niño and that a majority of computer models now predict the El Niño conditions developing or persisting in the Pacific will go for the rest of 2006. That is a tragedy for farmers. Members who represent rural constituents know that this matter is urgent, because we see the desperation in the eyes of our constituents every time we talk to them. We see how tragic the situation is becoming when, for yet another year, hope of rainfall seems to be disappearing. It is a tragedy in the area that I represent, as it is in most other areas of New South Wales, and it deserves urgent consideration in this place.

Over the winter season the Monaro electorate has seen its lowest snowfall on record. That has implications for people to the west who rely on the water that should have run into Lake Eucumbene and other lakes. It is a tragedy for the farmers that I represent who thought there would be spring rains, but now realise those rains will not arrive. This matter is extremely urgent. We need to reinforce the State Government's commitment. We should use debate on this motion as an opportunity to give credit where it is due and welcome the fact that yesterday the Federal Government announced further funding. But we must also express a strong view about something that many rural constituents have been talking to me about, that is, changes being made to the Rural Financial Counselling Service.

The Rural Financial Counselling Service has been operating for 15 years. The community-based committees that run the service are apolitical. The committee in the area I represent includes many prominent members of The Nationals. Those members, together with the other committee representatives, are aghast at the changes that are taking place. At this time of crisis in rural New South Wales the Federal Government is introducing uncertainty into the Rural Financial Counselling Service. As I said, the service has been operated for 15 years by people who do more than just offer advice on the end of the phone. They have become a shoulder for farmers to lean on. They know their clients personally. They know their local areas and the local issues.

The situation is coming to a head. After 18 months of stuffing around with the structure of the Rural Financial Counselling Service, in the last month the Federal Government has told a number of community committees that it will not give them the money they need to fund their tenders and that they should combine and service a much larger area. That is a tragedy because this operation relies heavily on local presence. That is the reason this motion should be debated today. The Opposition's urgent motion is also on drought, but it is not a bipartisan expression of support for farmers or an acceptance of our responsibilities. The Government's motion is an expression of concern and support for farmers and an acceptance of responsibility. The Leader of the Opposition should look into his heart and into the eyes of his constituents and ask them would they prefer a bipartisan expression of support or political pointscoring.

Drought Action Plan

Mr ANDREW STONER (Oxley—Leader of The Nationals) [4.21 p.m.]: There is no doubt that this worst-ever drought is affecting the State's farmers, entire communities and even the State economy. The purpose of The Nationals' urgent motion is to consider what the State Government can do in response. The Federal Government has made a substantial response and the banks have responded. Now we must ask what the State Government plans to do to respond to this worst-ever drought. We are not talking about implementing the same measures of drought assistance that have been applied in the past because this is not like other droughts.

Farmers in many parts of the State have been coping with the situation since 2001. They have had multiple crop failures. The level of water reserves is dwindling and there is a cash shortage in country communities. The State requires a different response. As I said, the Federal Government and the banks have responded and now we need a response from the State Government. That is the difference between the urgent motion of The Nationals and that of the Government. The Government's self-congratulatory motion deals with one aspect of drought assistance relating to the structure of the Rural Financial Counselling Service. The Government is playing politics.

This motion should be urgently debated because up to this point the Premier's sole response to this worst-ever drought has been to tell country people to "watch this space". Country people have been watching this space for 12 long years and they do not like what they see: inaction and bureaucratic paralysis. The water crisis did not sneak up on us. The signs have been there for years—changing rainfall patterns and falls in dam levels. But for 12 years the Carr-Iemma Labor Government has had its head in the sand. Less than three months ago the Premier told the media that New South Wales had a decade and a half of secure water supplies. I asked him about that issue today. The Premier claimed that The Nationals had never raised the issue of drought in this place. I refer to Hansard on 28 February, 7 June, 29 August, 31 August, 19 September and 21 September this 17 October 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2689

year where The Nationals have consistently sought to get the issue of drought and its impact on country communities onto the Government's agenda. The response we have had from the Premier is "watch this space".

People in Byrock and Bellbrook in my electorate are having water carted in. They are not going to watch this space. They do not believe the line that the State has got a decade and a half of secure water supplies. The honourable member for Monaro should look into his heart and into the eyes of those people. Country people in New South Wales will be hit harder by this drought than other Australians because the Carr-Iemma Labor Government has driven the State economy into the ground. A good government plans for the future and puts money away for rainy days. It makes sure there is something extra for the tough times. The Government has run the New South Wales economy into the ground. Now, when it is time to draw on something extra, the cupboard is bare.

The impact of job losses and the economic downturn associated with this drought will hurt all the people of this State because Labor's economic vandalism has already led to the New South Wales economy lagging on all indicators. This motion should be debated urgently because clearly the Government does not have a plan. The Liberal-Nationals Coalition does have a plan. As I stated today publicly, we have a drought action plan. We want assistance to flow to farm-related small business, which has been greatly impacted by the drought.

Mr Steve Whan: What about tourism?

Mr ANDREW STONER: It could include tourism in country areas. We want drought-affected communities to receive a commitment from the Government that services and resources such as teachers, nurses and police will not be withdrawn when families are forced to move from a district. This motion should be urgently heard because country people need more mental health workers and rural financial counsellors during this drought. The vacant positions should be filled. The Nationals' plan delivers those measures. We need to discuss with banks and other lenders about understanding and support for drought-stricken people. We need to invest in water storage facilities to conserve the water that will come when the drought breaks. This motion should be urgently heard because the Opposition has a plan. The Government needs to adopt our plan and help country people survive this drought.

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

DROUGHT SUPPORT PROGRAMS

Urgent Motion

Mr STEVE WHAN (Monaro) [4.26 p.m.]: I move:

That this House:

(1) expresses its strong support to farmers and rural communities suffering the ongoing drought;

(2) commends the continuing financial support being provided by the State Government for farmers affected by the drought; and

(3) welcomes the Federal Government's announcement of increased drought support, but calls on the Federal Government to drop its proposed changes to rural financial counselling services and return to the previously successful community model.

Today the House has an opportunity to express unanimous support for farmers in New South Wales. People who do not live in rural communities sometimes ask me: Why is this matter urgent now when the drought has been going for a long time? It is hard for people in the city to understand the desperation that is now being felt by many people in rural communities. In my earlier speech I referred to the look in the eyes of people in my electorate who know that after nearly a decade of struggle there is no hope in the near future. Earlier this year we had what could almost be described as a false dawn. There were predictions that this year we would see a return to normal rainfall conditions. As recently as last month a weather forecaster suggested it was not all doom and gloom, that only a weak El Niño was coming and we may have normal rainfall over summer. Unfortunately, that hope has been dashed because the weather bureau and the climate centre have confirmed, as reported on ABC news on 3 October, that the chances of avoiding El Niño this year were nil. That is devastating news for many people who have been surviving this drought for so long. 2690 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2006

In summary, the weather bureau predicts that Pacific climate patterns are indicative of a developing El Niño and a majority of computer models now predict El Niño conditions developing or persisting in the Pacific during the rest of 2006. That is a matter of great concern to people in rural areas. In the area I represent there has been almost no spring rain. That is an unusual occurrence—we usually get a flush of green and some follow-up—but this year there has been very little. Also bad news for the people to the west of the mountain range is the fact that this winter had the lowest snowfalls on record. As a result, the level at Lake Eucumbene, which is a key storage area for irrigators and the Snowy Hydro, is at its lowest ever level. Next year Lake Eucumbene will be at even a lower level because there was next to no spring run-off. It is a disastrous state of affairs for people who rely on irrigation. I can only express my sympathy for them and the challenges they face. An ABC report on 26 September reported that the earth's temperature was nearing a one million-year high because of global warming.

Because of all those factors farmers are desperate and have to decide what stock to retain, what stock to sell at reduced prices on the market and, in some cases, whether to stay on the land. I am not a farmer and I never have been. I cannot express my feelings for those who, over the next year, will have to decide whether to continue on farms that have been in their families for many years. A report in this morning's Sydney Morning Herald referred to beef prices falling by 30¢ a kilogram yesterday in one market because people have chosen to destock their properties. Many people are in despair. I have read comments in the media as to whether drought assistance is propping up unviable farmland. Now is not the time to debate whether areas of farmland are viable or not viable. That is a debate for the future. Many people in areas of viable farmland are struggling to survive. They deserve the assistance of both the State and Federal governments. All governments must continue their support, and they must continue to refine and add to their support.

The State Government has already provided a substantial and significant amount of support to farmers, such as providing $83 billion in transport subsidies, waiving western land lease fees, contributing $3 million to rural financial counsellors, approving 1,200 drought conservation loans valued at $52 million and providing $8.6 million in emergency household relief. I am pleased that, from the moment he became Premier, Morris Iemma has stressed his continuing support for farmers. Contrary to what the Leader of The Nationals mentioned a moment ago, the last budget contained an expression of ongoing support for farmers for as long as the drought continues. I welcomed the Federal Government's announcement yesterday of new drought support funding. But, as the motion highlights, I am concerned about what has been happening to rural financial counselling services over the last 18 months. For 15 years, community committees have run these services based on receiving 50 per cent funding from the Commonwealth, 25 per cent from the State and 25 per cent from the local community.

The New South Wales Government has always provided $25,000 per counsellor. We recognised the difficulty that some communities were having in raising necessary funds during the drought, and we provided a special drought grant. The Federal Government is moving in this area, as in so many other areas, to introduce a free market and put it out for tender-style-of-service delivery. But the free market ideology is looming towards a head-on crash with country rural communities. The tender process will diminish local import into rural financial counselling services. But local content is critical. How do people think local community organisations raised their $25,000 contribution? They did it because they were locals. In the last month the Federal Government has said to the various community bodies that run rural financial counselling services, "We do not want to give you the amount of money you have tendered for. We think it is too much. We want you to combine your districts into much larger areas." That approach is a potential disaster for rural families.

As I said when justifying the urgent nature of the motion, rural financial counsellors are more than just people who give a little bit of financial advice. They are friends to the farmers. They know them. They are a shoulder to lean on, and in times like these they are a desperately needed shoulder to lean on. Chaos in the rural financial counselling service is why one chairman, Bill Thomson from the North East Riverina Rural Counselling Service, recently resigned. He issued a press release saying, amongst other things, that he had resigned because Minister McGauran and the department had been trying to blackmail rural financial counselling services into operating with insufficient funding and insufficient notice to become organised for the new funding arrangements. Bill Thomson is also vice-president of the State Rural Financial Counselling Service and vice-president of the national association.

In the area I represent I have been hearing about this looming debacle for more than one year. Local communities have done the job for 15 years. The Federal Government's new model will expect community committees to continue finding contributions, but without local input. Our local service has been in a state of complete uncertainty. It has no office administrator because no-one is willing to take on a job that will not exist 17 October 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2691

in a short time. Our rural counsellor, Bruce Bashford, has 15 years experience. He does not have time to do the paperwork because so many farming families need this service. He has been working flat out on drought-related problems, yet he, together with his chairman and his committee, are uncertain about the future. As one person involved said to me, the Federal department has stuffed this up—although he used a much stronger work than "stuffed".

Our local chairman recently said to one of our local papers that servicing a huge area of the State with just one office was totally inappropriate, and that the process would lead to an unmitigated disaster. Those comments have been reflected in many other areas of the State. The motion is about three things, and I hope it will be a bipartisan motion. First, it is about telling farmers that they still have our support and that they will have it from everyone in this House for as long as the drought continues. We know they need our support. Second, it is about confirming the need for Government support because we cannot make it rain, but we can give support. Third, it is saying to the Federal Government that we need rural financial counselling services maintained.

Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON (Burrinjuck) [4.36 p.m.]: I move:

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

"this House:

(1) expresses its strong support for farmers and rural communities suffering the ongoing drought;

(2) condemns the State Labor Government for its failure to urgently formulate a comprehensive drought action plan to minimise the impact of the drought on the community;

(3) welcomes the Federal Government's announcement of increased drought support; and

(4) calls on the State Labor Government to honour its earlier commitment to fund the community donations portion of the funding for rural financial counsellors."

The State Labor Government has reneged on its commitment to fund the 25 per cent community contribution towards provision of rural financial counsellors. What a mongrel act! Almost all of New South Wales is in drought. Figures for October showed that 89.3 per cent of the State is in drought, 8 per cent is marginal and only 2.7 per cent is satisfactory. The entire electorate of Burrinjuck is wholly in drought. Most of the electorate of Burrinjuck has been in drought or declared marginal for 50 out of the last 66 months since May 2002. Some areas in the north-west of New South Wales have been continuously in drought since February 2002. The last time all of New South Wales was classified as satisfactory was in April 2001. The effect of the sixth year of drought on the economy of New South Wales cannot be underestimated. I agree with the statement made recently by Federal Treasurer Peter Costello that Australia's farm economy was in crisis due to the drought. The Treasurer said:

If you had a contraction in the general economy at all it would be a recession—to have a contraction of 2.3 per cent is a rural recession and what that means is that farmers just won't get an income, most farmers will not get an income this year.

If they are lucky they will get some of their seed back, but they will suffer extraordinary losses with no break on the horizon.

As I have said in this place on a number of occasions, this drought is probably the worst that New South Wales has experienced as far back as records have been maintained. The Federal Treasurer's statement does not come as a surprise to me. As a local member for a large rural electorate I have spoken on many occasions in this place, as have other members, about the drought and the need for greater State Government assistance for farmers. Last weekend I attended the Murrumbateman field day. It was a great weekend, as always. Some of the heaviest rains in the southern tablelands should fall this month, but there has been absolutely nothing. If one drives down the Barton Highway, or indeed anywhere around the electorate of Burrinjuck, evidence of the drought is apparent.

At this time of the year the hillsides should be covered in lush green growth, but last weekend—and it will continue, obviously—the growth was a very dry olive colour. Most of this spring growth dries off because of a lack of subsurface moisture. There are a few patches of greener growth—it is superficial; there is nothing in it—and some paddocks have been sown with feed crops, but few are surviving. Most are failing because of the small amount of rainfall that has occurred. The growth in paddocks should be knee high at this time, but they have only a few inches of growth in them. The crops are unlikely to grow sufficiently to be harvested and bailed. 2692 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2006

Rural tourism is suffering. As someone who has been involved in tourism retail for the past 17 years I can tell the House that a downturn in tourism such as we are experiencing in rural towns really hurts when farming families are not able to spend freely either. Metropolitan residents could do us a huge favour by visiting rural New South Wales. It is a lovely trip down any one of the roads in rural New South Wales. People should come for the weekend, stay at a bed and breakfast, utilise local restaurants and shop in the local area. It would have a beneficial impact in the face of so much negativity surrounding the drought. When one drives from Orange through to Cowra and Boorowa, traditionally good cropping areas, one is confronted with the sight of stock turned into fields of failed crops as farmers struggle to claw back some return.

Last week a grazier from Gunning spoke to me, saying that the company that supplies him with feed grain is unable to source new stocks and is not taking any new orders. Mr Gibson, a grazier in the Goulburn area who used to run 6,500 sheep, now has no commercial stock. That scenario is becoming more and more common because rain to promote paddock growth has fallen at the wrong time this year. Over the past two weeks crops that were looking promising have failed, and those they have not already bailed up as feed will probably be turned over to stock if it does not rain in the next week. Bill Fife from Fife's Stock Feeds stated, "It is the worst I have ever seen. It is very, very bad this year." He said that it was extremely difficult to access any grain and hay prices had doubled over the past two weeks.

The Hillcreston Pinehill partnership of Temora and Bigga recently achieved the season record for auctioned ultrafine wool, with a single bale at the Yennora Wool Complex selling for 65,500¢ a kilogram. The joint owner of the partnership, Brett Picker, however, said that it was increasingly difficult to find oats and straw for their 2,000 shedded sheep. He also said, "The way things are at the moment, sourcing the right feed is going to be very hard." However, it is not just grazing that is being severely impacted by the drought. The Grenfell Record of 1 October said of the drought, "Turning the crops over to silage and hay is purely aimed at making the best out of a bad situation." That newspaper quoted James Ingrey, an agronomist with local grain and produce merchants H. O. Ryder and Son, as expressing concern about the possibility of carting water for stock and not harvesting usable seed for next season.

Recent market reports indicate that cropping is facing a bleak year. GrainCorp Limited received 10.7 million tonnes of grain in 2005-06. On 13 October, just last Friday, GrainCorp issued a revised forecast, saying that it now expects total receivals of about two million to four million tonnes across its network. In his statement the Managing Director of GrainCorp, Mr Tom Keene, said that, despite strong planting, there had been no decent rain since August across the eastern wheat belt and that once again growers across much of eastern Australian faced a bleak year. I am sure honourable members will have noticed that, following that announcement, GrainCorp's shares fell by 35¢. During a time when the general share market is performing relatively strongly, shares in Australian Wheat Board, Abb Grain, Futris Corp, Nufarm, Incitec Pivot and the Australian Agricultural Company have also fallen. The managing director of the brokerage firm Longsec was quoted in the weekend media as saying, "The prospect for agricultural stocks at the moment is very gloomy, very gloomy."

Saleyards in Cootamundra and Cowra are reporting record sales of stock as farmers also come to the conclusion that more and more of their stock has to be sold because of concerns about accessing suitable feed and water over the coming summer. The Cootamundra saleyards yarded almost 10,000 sheep in September. Close to 16,000 sheep and lambs went through the Cowra saleyards complex last Friday, 13 October. Two days before, on 11 October, the Young Witness reported something that I am hearing everywhere as I travel around my electorate⎯that is, that growers are making the tough decision to graze or make hay or silage from remaining crops, and are selling all but the nucleus of their stock. Local auctioneer Joe Bargwanna was reported as saying that most of the stock is going to slaughter with very few restockers buying because of the drought.

The Young primary industry district agronomist, Paul Parker, described the situation as desperate, saying, "It's going to take a long time for recovery," with farmers doing all that they can to preserve their land until the drought breaks. Many small businesses in rural areas have seen a drop in their income because of the reduced spending ability of farmers, as I have already said. Ron Moses, who owns the Gundagai menswear store, told of a clothing sales representative whose boss in Sydney wanted to know why his sales figures were down. When the representative explained that there is a massive drought, the response from his Sydney boss was, "So, what's that got to do with it?" These are the sorts of things that are going on in rural New South Wales.

I have written to the Minister for Tourism, seeking assistance for tourism businesses, which are also suffering from the effects of the drought. However, she does not recognise that there is a problem. It is dreadful 17 October 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2693

for the Minister for Tourism not to recognise that there is a problem with businesses in rural New South Wales suffering as a result of the drought. She has water when she turns on a tap in Sydney and her ministerial income pays the bill, but I would expect a little more sympathy from a Minister of the Crown. I note that Government members will contribute to this important debate, and I regret that the Minister for Tourism does not have an interest in this drought and in rural tourism.

The State Labor Government offers no support for agricultural aid for small businesses. Communities are now being asked to fund 25 per cent of the cost of rural financial counsellors after more than five years of little or no income. No plan is in place to maintain front-line services⎯such as teachers, nurses and police⎯in drought-affected communities. This Government has no plan to increase the number of rural financial counsellors or mental health workers in rural areas. The farmers of New South Wales are hurting now and they need more assistance from the State Government now.

Honourable members who log onto the Department of Primary Industries web site will find the following headings under drought assistance: Exceptional Circumstances program, which is Federal money; Income support (Exceptional Circumstances), which is also Federal money; Interest Rate Subsidy (Exceptional Circumstances), which is also Federal money; Drought Household assistance, which is DOCS funding limited to $2,000 per household per year and people cannot get it if they receive exceptional circumstances payments; Transport Subsidies, the main State drought assistance; and Mental and Physical Health. This link provides a referral to Lifeline, which the State Labor Government⎯ [Time expired.]

Mr GERARD MARTIN (Bathurst) [4.46 p.m.]: I support the actions of my colleague the honourable member for Monaro in bringing this urgent matter before the House today. I also congratulate the New South Wales Minister for Primary Industries on his sustained efforts in regard to this issue. He has consistently called on the Federal Coalition to help farmers affected by the worst drought in living memory. It is about time the Howard Government started to help the situation by giving drought assistance to areas which cannot get it but which are doing it just as tough as everyone else. The drought figures for October were handed down last Sunday, and things cannot get much worse: 89.3 per cent of the State is in drought and 8 per cent is marginal, which leaves only 2.7 per cent satisfactory.

All around the State winter crops are being devastated as we speak, and already many are being turned into pastures for livestock. This year the harvest will be less than two million hectares at best, which is well down on an estimated 4.5 million hectares. What is the Howard Government's response to all this? It is more money but, unfortunately, with not too much sense involved. It talks of interest rate subsidy schemes that are available to less than 10 per cent of New South Wales farmers; it does not extend exceptional circumstances support to other areas that badly need it; it still has not reviewed areas not previously rolled over; and does not have criteria for its streamlined rollover process, despite a lot of talk.

What does the Howard Government have? To start with it has a $15 billion surplus—it might have increased to $17 billion while I have been on my feet—yet the best it can do is squeeze out $350 million for one of the biggest agricultural crises this nation has ever faced. It has a Parliamentary Secretary in charge of water who repeatedly contradicted himself in regard to Federal water policy last night on the ABC's 7.30 Report. The Federal agriculture Minister has failed to understand the seriousness of this drought and is so incapable of making timely decisions that he has not delivered tangible benefits to those who need them the most.

The State Opposition wants to declare a state of emergency. It is not sure what that is, but it sounded good on Sunday when it was looking for a media grab. The State Opposition, with its bottomless purse, wants to make another $150 million in unfunded promises in relation to the drought. If even a fraction of the $25 billion that has been promised by the Leader of the Opposition's Peter meter were spent on drought by the Howard Government, this State's 50,000-odd farmers would be very much better off. But I would say, based on the Coalition's performance to date, that the forecast for farmers, if it ever wins government, is very bleak, at best.

Let me forecast some hope. The Iemma Labor Government takes the drought seriously and will stand by farmers in these difficult times. To that end, this Government has already spent approximately $230 million on drought support. Today in response to a question the Premier outlined the State's assistance and gave his unequivocal assurance that the Government will stand by farmers for the duration of the drought. Small business has been given assistance to the tune of $300,000. More than $2 million will be used to fund the role of drought support workers. The New South Wales Government will save struggling businesses more than $5.8 million in payroll tax concessions from a payroll tax rate that is 25 per cent less than when the Coalition was in government. The Government has spent $500,000 on farm family gatherings. I have attended many of those in 2694 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2006

my electorate. The Government has waived fees and levies worth in excess of $5 million for wild dog destruction and ovine Johne's disease. The New South Wales Government listens to farmers and will continue to do so.

During this debate the honourable member for Burrinjuck accused the Government of welshing on the deal relating to rural financial counsellors. I am sure my colleagues will take up that matter in detail during their speeches, but I simply point out that that is an untrue statement. The Federal Government asked to take over the 25 per cent funding responsibility for rural financial counsellors and since then has rationalised the funding. The Federal Government took on that responsibility at a time when it was crucial to maintain the system that was working well and to reinforce it. Instead, the Federal Government amalgamated rural financial counselling areas. Consequently, councillors who were working hard and were stretched to the limit suddenly had double their usual service areas to cover.

Farming families who are in need of urgent financial counselling tell me that the advice they receive from rural financial counsellors is very helpful, but those farming families have had the rug pulled from under them. The Federal Government has an embarrassment of riches and it has a clear-cut responsibility for funding rural financial counselling services. The New South Wales Government has shown the lead and expects everyone, including the Prime Minister, the Federal Treasurer, the Federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Federal Nationals, to step up and face their responsibilities. [Time expired.]

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI (Murrumbidgee) [4.51 p.m.]: I support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Burrinjuck to the motion for urgent consideration. The drought has been well and truly debated in this Parliament on many occasions, and rightly so. The situation is dire, and has been dire from day one. We are in approximately the seventh year of a very significant drought. In the south-west of New South Wales the situation is as dire as it is anywhere else. On the weekend the consequences of this drought were made even clearer to farmers, particularly those in the Murray Valley, when the New South Wales Labor Government announced carryover water being restricted to 80 per cent. That is very significant. My electorate office has received many phone calls from farmers who are very upset, annoyed and in many cases distraught.

In the Murray Valley the allocations are set at zero for the year. Many farmers were relying on their carryover from last year. They made a commercial decision not to totally use last year's allocation so that they would have water available to them this year, even in a worst-case scenario of continuing drought. They carried over water and they believed that their allocations in the Hume weir and the Dartmouth weir were 100 per cent secure and were ready for them to use this year. However, for one reason or another, such as the Government's bungling its measurements, allocations or management of water resources, the New South Wales Government has announced that farmers will be able to access only 80 per cent of their carryover water allocation. That will have an adverse effect on farmers because some farmers bought water that would otherwise have been covered by their carryover and others made commercial crop-planning decisions on the basis of a 100 per cent allocation. They are now faced with vastly changed circumstances.

In light of the decision to impose restrictions, the issue of compensation that may be payable by the New South Wales Government has been mentioned to me. The issue will be taken up with the Minister for Natural Resources. This is a very serious matter for all the irrigators concerned. I call on the Minister for Natural Resources to do three things. First, he and his department should do everything possible to reinstate the allocation to 100 per cent of farmers' carryover water, given that it ought to have been 100 per cent secure and available in the dams at the beginning of this year. The Minister and his department should do everything possible to ensure that 100 per cent of that carryover water is accessible by irrigators.

Second, the Minister and his departmental officers must visit Deniliquin, Finley or any other place along the Murray River to explain to irrigators what is going on. Part of the problem in the Murray region is the inadequacy of information that is being given to farmers and other water users. The Minister should explain to farmers face-to-face what is happening and why it is happening—the latter being the really big question. That we have reached this crisis situation despite all of the experience over successive decades of water management in New South Wales is quite unbelievable. The Minister must face the irrigators and explain what has happened and apologise.

Third, the Minister and his department must give serious consideration to claims for compensation that will be made. I am sure that many irrigators have relied on their carryover allocation in negotiations to purchase or sell water, or have made crop-planning decisions on the basis of their expected allocation. They will suffer significant financial consequences as a result of the Government's decision. The issue of compensation is 17 October 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2695

significant, given the record prices for commodities such as wheat and rice. The Minister should give serious consideration to granting compensation to water users who have had their carryover allocations restricted. The drought is very serious. None of us can make it rain, but the Government should manage properly the natural resources we have in this State so that it will not have to face another embarrassing bungle similar to the one that was the subject of its announcement last weekend. [Time expired.]

Mr PETER BLACK (Murray-Darling) [4.56 p.m.]: Today we have witnessed towering, monumental hypocrisy from The Nationals to a degree not normally associated with this Chamber and to a degree that somewhat astonishes even The Nationals. Before I deal with that hypocrisy, I will deal with matters of grave importance to individuals who live in western New South Wales. The Adelaide Advertiser of Wednesday 11 October shows a picture on its front page of Amy Rix, who is the daughter of a friend of mine, Cheryl Rix, of Palinyewah on the Darling River, striding across the Darling River. The photograph depicts a tragic state of affairs—one to which the people of New South Wales are not accustomed—that has been brought about by a drought the likes of which has not been known in Australia's recorded history.

Last Sunday, after a very pleasant reunion of the Wheel Barrow Push at Burra, I had the good fortune to have morning tea with James Hawker of South Booborowie. James Hawker was the district chairman in 1983 at the first five-day event of the Wheel Barrow Push and held that position until the fourth and last event in 1988. His grandfather had been on the land since the year dot and was succeeded by James's father. James has run the property for 30-odd years to my knowledge. This is the very first year that there will be no harvest on that property. This is the year in which the lowest recorded rainfall ever in South Australia, extending into New South Wales, has fallen in winter.

Opposition members have quoted figures. The normal inflows of the Murray in September are 1,558 gigalitres. However, last September it was 112 gigalitres. The gathering at Kilfera Station, Ivanhoe, with the great Clive, Faye and Peter Linette, was a great field day. But as there is a cash drought, the auction raised a measly $8,000 on that very dusty day. About three weeks ago I had the luxury of attending the Deniliquin Ute Muster, where I met and was pleasant to the honourable member for Murrumbidgee and his lovely wife. However, the following morning a staggering plume of dust was rising many thousands of feet vertically from that site. With 20,000 people and 6,000 utes it was a spectacular affair, but the dust caused a problem.

I turn now to the towering hypocrisy of The Nationals. A media release dated 9 October, referring to what the Government should do about the Menindee Lakes system, stated:

In terms of scale this could equate to savings of up to 700-750 gigalitres of water; three times the water supply usage of Broken Hill …

I was staggered to read that, because the top water usage in Broken Hill is 36 gigalitres. The release further stated:

The Nationals in a State Coalition government have committed to a $55 million program over three years which would include a secure water supply for Broken Hill.

I have no idea what The Nationals are speaking about. The drought action plan, mentioned by the so-called Leader of the once great Country Party, now the notional party, stated:

Extending drought assistance measures to agriculture-related small businesses as well as farmers.

The Nationals have become unpopular; membership of that party is going down the drain to Independents. Today in this House we saw another member announce that he has become an Independent. Another Independent, and a very good one, is challenging John Cobb for the new seat of Calare. And well may I say goodbye to John Cobb, because he was the first to make sure that only $1 million out of the allocated $70 million under economic circumstances allocations went through to small businesses. John Cobb has been the biggest failure that the bush has ever seen. The Nationals action plan includes:

Maintaining resources for front-line services such as teachers, nurses and police in drought-affected communities.

We have done that! The plan continues:

Increase the number of rural financial counsellors. 2696 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2006

What are they talking about? That is a Commonwealth program. I am very sorry to see the state that The Nationals has been reduced to. Where are they? They have all left the Chamber. I wish they would go away permanently! [Time expired.]

Mr STEVE WHAN (Monaro) [5.01 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members who have spoken in this debate. Government members will reject the amendment moved by the Opposition for a couple of absolutely critical reasons. One reason is that The Nationals have once again bent over to Canberra and refused to criticise the Federal Government's performance on rural financial counselling services. Another wimp out. Over and over again we have seen the Liberal Party telling The Nationals what to do. The Leader of the Liberal Party cannot even tell his own party what to do in New South Wales, but not to worry, he has one lot of lap dogs, The Nationals, and they will do what he tells them.

Again today The Nationals moved an amendment relating to the critical issue of rural financial counselling services. A few minutes ago the honourable member for Burrinjuck misled this House when she claimed that the State Labor Government had taken its community donations away from rural financial counselling services. In fact, the State Government funded the counselling services community contributions for a year during the drought. On 31 May the State Minister received a letter from the Federal agriculture Minister, Peter McGauran, which stated:

The recent Australian Government Budget allocated an additional $9.7 million over two years to replace the shortfall in community cash contributions and to fund the increased cost of governance.

Ms Katrina Hodgkinson: You have not sent that to me. I do not believe you.

Mr STEVE WHAN: That is a quote from the Federal Minister. He said also:

Thank you and your representatives for providing such a strong expression of support for the RFSC programme.

The $25,000 was to be provided by the Federal Government. It is a lie to say that the State Government took that away or did not replace it. It is outrageous for members such as John Cobb to put out press releases attacking the honourable member for Murray-Darling over that same issue. It is just dishonest. Earlier I said that what I hoped to achieve today was bipartisan support for the people of rural New South Wales. What a pity that the Coalition decided to wimp away from that and try to score political points. They say they want to have rural financial counselling services, but their actions today support the Federal Government reducing the number of rural financial counsellors. What a disgrace!

The honourable member for Murrumbidgee raised some valid points about the allocations of water. He then spoke about bungling allocations. The honourable member for Murray-Darling has had discussions with the Minister about that, and he will, of course, stand up for his constituents. This is not about bungling allocations. As I mentioned earlier, it is about being able to walk through the old town of Adaminaby, a town that had been under water since Lake Eucumbene was filled. That is one reason why allocations have been reduced. Next year there is a danger of the Hume weir becoming empty. How can water be allocated if it is not there?

Earlier today in a bizarre performance the Leader of The Nationals seemed to suggest that the Premier had some big button labelled "Rain" which he was refusing to press. How absolutely ridiculous to try to blame the Labor Party for no rain. That is effectively what The Nationals are doing. We want to see bipartisan support for rural counsellors. The Nationals, in attempting to reject that, is not only selling out rural communities and those desperate families who need that shoulder to lean on—a rural financial counsellor—but is rejecting its own members.

A person from Monaro went to Gary Nairn, the Federal member for Eden-Monaro, and asked him to fix the problem, to stop the mess that the Federal Government was making. That person was Susan Mitchell. I am sure the honourable member for Burrinjuck knows Susan Mitchell very well, because she is a prominent member of The Nationals. Susan Mitchell went to Gary Nairn because she, unlike the narrow-minded Nationals in this place, could see what is needed to fix this issue is bipartisan support. Let us see that today; let us see bipartisan support for the desperate people suffering during the drought. We are not getting that support from The Nationals in this place, because they constantly sell out their constituents and are not willing to stand up.

Ms Katrina Hodgkinson: Tell the truth, darling.

Mr STEVE WHAN: I wish the honourable member for Burrinjuck would not call me "darling", it is very worrying. Let us face it: there is only one issue to be supported today—that this House give bipartisan 17 October 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2697

support for our desperate farmers. As I said earlier to the Leader of The Nationals, look into your hearts and join the Government in supporting our farmers. [Time expired.]

Question—That the words stand—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 50

Ms Allan Mr Gibson Mrs Paluzzano Mr Amery Mr Greene Mr Pearce Ms Andrews Ms Hay Mrs Perry Mr Barr Mr Hickey Mr Price Ms Beamer Mr Hunter Ms Saliba Mr Black Ms Judge Mr Sartor Mr Brown Ms Keneally Mr Shearan Ms Burney Mr Lynch Mr Stewart Mr Campbell Mr McLeay Ms Tebbutt Mr Chaytor Mr McTaggart Mr Tripodi Mr Collier Ms Meagher Mr Watkins Mr Corrigan Ms Megarrity Mr West Mr Crittenden Ms Moore Mr Whan Mr Daley Mr Morris Mr Yeadon Mr Debus Mr Newell Tellers, Ms Gadiel Ms Nori Mr Ashton Mr Gaudry Mr Orkopoulos Mr Martin

Noes, 28

Mr Aplin Mr Humpherson Mr Slack-Smith Ms Berejiklian Mr Kerr Mr Souris Mr Cansdell Mr Merton Mr Stoner Mr Constance Mr Oakeshott Mr Tink Mr Draper Mr O'Farrell Mr Torbay Mrs Fardell Mr Page Mr J. H. Turner Mr Fraser Mr Piccoli Mrs Hancock Mr Richardson Tellers, Ms Hodgkinson Mr Roberts Mr George Mrs Hopwood Mrs Skinner Mr Maguire

Pair

Ms D'Amore Ms Seaton

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Notices of Motions

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Mills): Order! It being 5.15 p.m. the House will now deal with General Business Notices of Motions (General Notices).

General Business Notices of Motions (General Notices) given. 2698 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2006

PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

______

WOOLWORTHS CAR PARK USAGE CHARGE

Mr ALAN ASHTON (East Hills) [5.18 p.m.]: The new trend by Woolworths to charge shoppers who use its car park is causing great concern in my electorate of East Hills. While Woolworths is probably legally entitled to charge shoppers who use its car park, I believe making consumers pay for the privilege of making purchases in a major store is taking the user-pays principle to ridiculous lengths. The practice began in Padstow about three months ago, catching dozens and dozens of people completely unawares. Signs were erected in the Woolworths car park stating that the first two hours of parking were free but that thereafter patrons would be charged up to $88 for parking.

People who received the payment notices thought they were, in fact, fines. Many chose to pay them. Originally, I was advised that those payments were not legal. I have since learned that a court decision has held that they are. Even though the first two hours parking are free, people are being sent payment notices when they may have been in the car park for only five minutes. Shoppers who arrive at the Woolworths shopping centre in Padstow must go to the middle of the car park to get their free ticket for the first two hours, but by the time they return to their car they may have been slapped with a $88 "fine", or payment, by an organisation called Australian National Car Parks Pty Limited.

Many people have raised this matter with me. We spoke to people at Australian National Car Parks, which in the first instance was prepared to waive the payments. More recently the company has chosen not to do so. That raises a few issues. First, the Woolworths car park at Padstow did not submit a development application to Bankstown council for charging facilities and signs. The car park operator's people have to cross a dedicated road owned by Bankstown to charge shoppers entering the privately owned Woolworths car park. So, the council allows them to cross that road for nothing so that they can hit people who overstay with an $88 "fine"— or those who do not overstay at all but take a few too many minutes to get the free parking ticket. I might point out that truck deliveries to Woolworths at Padstow use the public, council-owned road, at no benefit to ratepayers, who must maintain the road. Pallets on which food and product have been delivered to the Woolworths shop are left on public land. It seems to me that Woolworths has been a total hypocrite in charging people to use its car parks, while making no contribution to the public road that its vehicles use to deliver stock.

Another point of interest relates to a much bigger Woolworths store operated at Revesby, where the council imposes a cost on shoppers who overstay the parking time. I completely understand why Woolworths wants to deal with people it regards not as shoppers but people who use its car park all day and commute to the city. I can understand that action if that is Woolworths' aim. But I ask why it did not look to Bankstown council to raise this money, because money raised by the council could be used for swimming facilities, football ovals and cricket pitches, or for child care services, Betsy Women's Refuge or the many other worthwhile services run by the council to improve the lifestyle of the people of Bankstown.

Mr Tycehurst is one of the many people who wrote to me about this matter. He paid the $88 fee, then wrote to Woolworths seeking information about the fee and why it had been imposed. He received nothing back but a letter thanking him for making his payment. Woolworths and Australian National Car Parks have not addressed any of the concerns he raised in correspondence to them, but instead said: Thank you very much for being silly enough to pay your money. My advice is that people should not pay the "fine". I have to check this information, but I am concerned that the Roads and Traffic Authority has provided to Australian National Car Parks the names and addresses of people who own the cars parked at Woolworths. That begs the question: What if your car is being used by a friend or relative or has been stolen? Are you expected to pay the fine? That rather brings into play the Einfeld question of just who was in your car when it was parked at the Woolworths car park. This practice is outrageous. Woolworths should refund Mr Tycehurst his money. [Time expired.]

CSR QUARRY, HORNSBY

Mr MICHAEL RICHARDSON (The Hills) [5.23 p.m.]: Tonight I join with my colleague the honourable member for Hornsby in calling for an independent public inquiry into the compulsory acquisition of the 28.5 hectare Hornsby quarry site by Hornsby Council from CSR Limited for $25 million. The quarry is just behind the Hornsby swimming pool, but most residents of the shire would be blissfully unaware of its presence. 17 October 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2699

Every time they receive their rates notices, however, they will be reminded of that massive 100 metre deep hole in the ground: they will be paying off the acquisition through a 5.3 per cent surcharge for the next 10 years!

The quarry operated for more than 100 years until 2003. Many of the roads around Sydney used basalt that was blasted from the quarry at 2.00 p.m. every Monday—you could set your watch by it. In the 1960s and 70s housing crept along the ridgeline overlooking the quarry, and the people living in these houses wanted the quarry closed. One way of doing this, they believed, was to have the site declared open space. Their lobbying paid off, and council declared the site Open Space—Proposed Recreation in April 1977. This zoning was reconfirmed in July 1994. However, what council apparently did not take into account was that clause 17 (5) of its local environment plan obliged it to acquire land so zoned when requested to do so.

That is exactly what happened on 22 March 2001 when CSR Limited, the new owner of the quarry, served notice to acquire on Hornsby council. Two months later the company, a huge multinational that could swallow Hornsby council before breakfast, advised that it wanted $24 million for the site. In September it launched legal action in the Land and Environment Court. Abbott Tout Lawyers acted for council. I am glad they have never acted for me. The final settlement on the property was $25,099,500, a million dollars more than CSR's original request and more than 10 times the valuation provided by council's valuer, Kent Wood, of just $2.3 million. But I am sure Abbott Tout pocketed a hefty fee regardless. The council also had to pay CSR's costs.

Understandably, Hornsby shire ratepayers are outraged by what has happened. Most of them have moved into the shire after council's 1977 decision to zone the quarry open space. They would have only a vague understanding of the circumstances that brought the $25 million payment about. If they did know anything about it, they would be wondering how a hole big enough to swallow the spoil taken from the Epping-Chatswood railway line four times over could possibly be worth $25 million.

In an endeavour to resolve this issue I wrote to the New South Wales Valuer-General, Philip Western, on 21 March this year. In that letter I pointed out that the real issue in question was the size of the valuation placed on the land by the contractor, Alcom Corbin Nicholson (ACN) Pty Limited, acting on behalf of his office. I put a series of questions to him, including: (a) whether variations of 1,100 per cent in valuations, as happened in this case, were normal; (b) why there was no consideration taken of environmental constraints on the land; (c) whether anyone from his office has visited the site; (d) how the valuation was arrived at, given that Alcom Corbin Nicholson admitted it could not identify any property "of direct comparability"; (e) why a geotechnical report on the quarry known as the Gerrard report, which identified an extremely dangerous and unstable site, was ignored by the valuer; and (f) why he did not allow Hornsby Shire Council to put in a submission on the valuation before he made a final determination on the matter.

Mr Western did not respond. Instead, a letter came from the honourable member for Tweed on behalf of the Minister for Lands. Tony Kelly obviously did not deem the matter to be of sufficient importance to reply himself. I suppose when you have squandered billions of dollars of taxpayers' money, the way the Government has done, $25 million seems like chickenfeed. While the letter failed to answer many of my questions, it was interesting from a number of points of view. First, it said the Valuer-General did review the valuation personally; the former Valuer-General, Peter Cunningham, visited the site with the contract valuer, Brian Nicholson, on 16 January 2003. Second, it claimed the site had "large-scale development potential", even though it is right next to an unstable 100 metre high cliff, and the valuation was based on a yield of 443 units at $95,000 a unit, less development costs. Third, it claimed that the Gerrard report was not provided by council for consideration in the valuation process.

The local paper, the Hornsby Advocate, organised a public meeting at Asquith Leagues Club on 31 July. This meeting only left those who attended thirsting for more information. Council then organised a second forum in late August. At this forum Philip Western said his predecessor had only received the Gerrard report after he had signed off on the valuation in early 2003, but that had he received it beforehand it would have affected the valuation. However, Hornsby council general manager Robert Ball subsequently told the Advocate that the report had been submitted on 12 July 2002, well before Peter Cunningham signed off on that outrageously inflated figure of $25 million.

This whole sorry episode throws no credit on any participant. CSR may well have got away with $25 million of Hornsby ratepayers' money, but the manner in which it did so is highly questionable ethically. 2700 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2006

Hornsby council should not have reaffirmed its open space zoning for the quarry site in 1994, when the current member for Hawkesbury was a member of Hornsby council, without considering how much the acquisition of the site might cost in the future. Peter Cunningham, the former Valuer-General, should never have signed off on the valuation without—if what Robert Ball says is accurate—taking the Gerrard report into account. The contractor, Brian Nicholson, acted as though he was an agent of CSR rather than the Government. Tony Kelly, the Minister for Lands, acted shamefully in failing to answer all my questions and sloughing off my letter to a backbencher. So members can understand why an independent inquiry is the only way of resolving this issue. Such an inquiry would have the capacity not only to discover the true value of the quarry site, which is essential if Hornsby shire ratepayers are to get their money back, but it may also find out the truth of the matter. [Time expired.]

BIDDABAH PUBLIC SCHOOL CAPITAL WORKS

Mr JEFF HUNTER (Lake Macquarie) [5.28 p.m.]: Last week I was pleased to welcome the announcement by the Minister for Education and Training, Carmel Tebbutt, that Biddabah Public School would benefit from the construction of a purpose-built hall, a new canteen, four new classrooms and covered walkways. Since 2001 more than $725,000 has been spent on various capital works at the school, including the provision of air-cooling to five demountable classrooms and the construction of a permanent library, and also funding on several jointly funded projects.

In recent years the State Government has assisted Biddabah Public School with the construction of a new $600,000 library, which I was pleased to officially open in September 2004. The Government has also matched the school community's hard work and fundraising efforts dollar for dollar, with the money being used for a number of projects at the school, such as the provision of a hard-surface court in June 2005. I am pleased that last week the Minister for Education and Training was able to look positively upon our ongoing requests for further upgrades at the school. I recall that on 27 October 2004 I told the House that on Friday 3 September I had attended the school to officially open its new $600,000 library. I also said that on 9 September 2004 the principal of Biddabah school, Graeme Mason, wrote in the school newsletter:

Biddabah School library was officially opened last Friday by the State member for Lake Macquarie, Mr Jeff Hunter.

The principal went on to say:

The library had been a long time coming but everyone thought it had been well worth the wait. That magnificent building has now become the centre of learning at Biddabah School with students and staff most satisfied with it.

Mr Mason said in his newsletter that I was a good friend of the school, and continued:

Jeff takes a keen interest in Biddabah School and has visited us on many occasions. Over the years we have had a fine working relationship with him.

He referred to my speech at the opening of the library:

In his talk Mr Hunter mentioned that he had spoken to the Education Minister, Mr Andrew Refshauge, the day before and Mr Refshauge assured him that the plan to provide additional buildings for Biddabah School was still active.

I also spoke about plans to gain joint funding for airconditioning and a hard-surface court at the school. In my speech in the House that evening I took the opportunity to again remind the then Minister that the school was worthy of a continued upgrade program. On a number of occasions I have followed up that reminder with representations to the current Minister for Education and Training, the most recent being approximately one month ago. On 20 September Mr Stuart Glover, Vice-President of the Parents and Citizens Association of Biddabah Public School, wrote to me about improvements needed at the school. In his letter he said:

The school community at Biddabah Public School needs your help to secure vital funding for a MULTI PURPOSE CENTRE.

Although the school library was upgraded in recent years, there is still a range of factors adversely affecting students.

He went on to list those factors, which included poor facilities for assemblies and performing arts, a lack of covered walkways, and drainage problems in the area. He asked me to go in to bat for the school. I immediately contacted the Minister's office and the Department of Education and Training seeking information as to when further upgrades at the school would take place. Last Thursday, 12 October, I was pleased to receive a letter from the Minister in which she said: 17 October 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2701

Dear Mr Hunter

I refer to your representations on behalf of Mr Stuart Glover of the Biddabah Public School P & C Association in regards to upgrading of facilities at the school.

I am pleased to advise that work will begin on an extensive upgrade of facilities at Biddabah Public School, including the provision of 4 new classrooms, a purpose-built hall, canteen and covered walkways, in the next financial year (2007/2008). Consultation with the School community will begin immediately.

The letter continued:

In addition to these major improvements, a project to repair the pavement in the school grounds will be undertaken in 2007/2008.

This is on top of a project to provide handrails in various areas of the school which will be completed by the beginning of the 2007 school year.

The Minister also said:

The Department of Education has also been asked to review drainage at the school and the condition of the toilets.

I thank the Minister for her swift response to my representations on behalf of Biddabah Public School. The school community is pleased with the Minister's announcement last week, and the school is certainly worthy of this substantial investment by the Government in upgrading the school's facilities.

Ms LINDA BURNEY (Canterbury—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.33 p.m.]: I congratulate the honourable member for Lake Macquarie on his representations, and the Minister for Education and Training and the previous Minister on their commitment to upgrades at Biddabah Public School. The honourable member made an important point when he acknowledged the community's fundraising efforts for various projects, which were matched dollar for dollar by the Government. The school has undergone capital works costing $725,000a $600,000 library and a number of other improvements. I place on record the fact that in this financial year $120 million has been committed statewide to upgrade school facilities in New South Wales. Our commitment is based on the belief that all children in New South Wales schools deserve comfortable and proper places in which to learn. Biddabah Public School is a worthy recipient. Once again I congratulate the honourable member for Lake Macquarie on his advocacy for schools in his area.

MENTAL HEALTH WEEK

Mr STEVE CANSDELL (Clarence) [5.35 p.m.]: The speech I am about to read was delivered two weeks ago by a young lady in my electorate by the name of Kate Bender on the opening night of Mental Health Week. At the opening, which was held at Grafton Regional Art Gallery, clients and carers were acknowledged for their ongoing battle with mental health problems. Unfortunately, for reasons unknown, Kate's speech was overlooked. When mental health clients are willing to share their experiences with others, they should be heard. Kate Bender will be heard today in the New South Wales Parliament. This is Kate's speech:

Good evening, honoured guests, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Kate Bender and I have Bi-Polar Disorder also known as Manic Depression.

I feel privileged to be here today and to have my art hanging along side the many people who have contributed to this exhibition.

The works are unique because they have been created by people who have a mental illness. Expressing ourselves through art is a very beautiful and natural way to heal and to put a little of ourselves out into the world. Whether our art is made through our personal experiences of mental illness or it is made simply to enjoy the process. I'm sure everyone will enjoy the exhibition.

I have had a mental illness for 13 years and in that time I have suffered greatly but I have also learnt how to cope with my illness so that it has minimal effect on my life.

It is opportunities like today that I would like to use my experiences to show others that mental illness is not the end of our lives. I would like to let everyone know the difficulties we face, but also how we can deal with them together.

Support for people facing these illnesses is so important. Whether you've just been diagnosed or you're learning to cope with a long term illness.

Everybody needs friends, family and love. Even those who aren't ill. For every one person with a mental illness there is probably at least another ten who need educating to support that one person, and in turn helping them with coping skills.

If family and friends are truly aware of what that person is going through they have a much better chance of helping them and not hindering them with ignorance.

2702 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2006

With knowledge, the carer and the person being cared for become empowered.

If you know nothing of mental illness and your 16 year old daughter is diagnosed with schizophrenia, you can't help until you have some understanding of what she is going through. Awareness of what is happening to her will help you help her.

I hope anyone who has a friend or relative that has been recently diagnosed or has a long term illness to ask yourselves: Do I have an idea of what they are suffering from? Can I help them? If I'm not educated, if I don't take the time to empower myself or them? The whole thing freaks me out! Well if it freaks you out imagine what they are going through.

For me in the worst parts of my illness, you could liken it to living out your worst nightmares and not being able to wake up.

Mental Illness is serious and needs to be treated accordingly. What worries me the most is how many people take their own lives. I can understand why. I was suicidal for years and attempted it myself. I got to the point where I felt it was my only option. I was so very lucky, I didn't succeed and now with time and support I am happy to be alive and grateful for my life and all its experiences.

If I could save one life by transferring some of my experience and knowledge that things can turn around, that would make me happy. To be able to get through to someone who is on their lowest low, where they no longer value their own life. To give them the courage and strength to go on. I think we all have this ability to shine a light where there isn't one.

We need to be able to see when a person has hit rock bottom. We need to recognise this situation and bring out all measures to help and support them and guide them into better times. If someone is suffering so badly, surely they will be noticed.

Again, it comes back to education and knowledge leading to empowerment. If we know the signs, we can intervene. I know this doesn't always work, but if we can open our eyes and really see the suffering of others and understand it, we have the power to help.

As humans we seek happiness. Everyone is entitled to happiness. Without suffering, how do we measure happiness? Everyone suffers and everyone can be happy. If we are compassionate and understanding we can make a huge difference. If we educate ourselves we are no longer ignorant. With knowledge we empower ourselves and those around us.

For me, to be able to come to a point in my life where I have a lot more awareness and therefore control over my illness, has taken time and effort. I have had ongoing support of numerous professionals, I have had friends along the way and some family support. I was also lucky enough to have Des, my partner and best mend with his love for me and his continual belief in me. But this last person I could not have done all this without. That person is myself: I needed to want to get better, to want to have happiness, to want a better life for myself.

What she is saying is that there is help out there. She continues:

I'd like to finish with a quote from George Eliot. "It is never too late to be what you might have been".

Congratulations to Kate Bender on her strength and success in overcoming this illness.

DEATH OF IRENE ARROWSMITH

Ms NOREEN HAY (Wollongong) [5.40 p.m.]: I pay tribute to Irene Arrowsmith, a friend of mine in Wollongong who recently passed away. I first met Irene Arrowsmith many years ago when I was a delegate for the Miscellaneous Workers Union at the Home Care Service of New South Wales. Merve Nixon was the Secretary of the South Coast Labour Council at that time. I used to go into the old Trade Union centre and help with the Migrant Resource Centre. Irene was always there, and was always willing to give her advice and share a friendly word. Like many women of her generation in Wollongong, Irene was a clerical worker who did the work of a union official. She gave advice and assistance, and an ear to those who needed it.

Irene was always involved in trying to better the conditions of workers, regardless of their union membership, particularly people in clerical jobs. She took under her wing new delegates to the union movement, like me. When we went to Victoria Street I had a desk in a corner that I could share and use occasionally. I recall that Irene insisted the sub-branch secretary give me at least a drawer so that I could put a pen somewhere. I have very warm memories of those days and of the people, particularly Irene Arrowsmith, Monica Chalmers and Irene's sister, Olive, who died some years ago. Olive was very involved in establishing the Illawarra Women's Health Centre. In my lifetime I hope to see a plaque erected in her honour.

Irene was one of six children born to Violet and Bill Taylor. She was born in 1931 in Portland where, at the time of her birth, her family was living in a bag humpy at Cullen Bullen. Irene's father, like many men of the Depression era, was an itinerant worker who moved from town to town in search of work. All six children of the family were born in different towns. Irene once told me that one of her earliest memories was of attending a demonstration with her mother in support of the Dalfram. The deprivation and poverty Irene experienced during her early years did not embitter her. There is no doubt that it stamped an indelible mark on her, but it did not 17 October 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2703

prevent her from developing into the kind, caring and wonderful human being she became. She never forgot those early years, and all her life she strived to make the world a better place: free from hunger, want and war. Irene received her education in the public school system and reached intermediate level at Wollongong High School. Her first job on leaving school was in a cafe in Crown Street. The family had a close relationship with the Communist Party and, at the age of 16, Irene was given special dispensation to join the party and went to work in its office. Eric Aarons was the organiser at that time.

It was at a dance held in an old jam factory that Irene met Neville Arrowsmith, who was to become her lifelong partner and husband. Their marriage took place in the Wollongong registry office, which at the time was in the courthouse. The man who performed the ceremony, Claude Hall, said to Irene's mother, "These marriages never last." I have no doubt that the politics they shared strengthened them and prepared them for the hard time ahead. With two sons born, Teddy and Martin, they were allocated a Housing Commission home at Warrawong. They were to swap this house for a larger home at 21 Lorking Street, Bellambi, which is still the family home. The family had now been added to by the birth of two daughters—Naomi, who followed in her mother's footsteps and is now a senior official with the Australian Services Union, and Mary—and included Irene' s mother, who had come to live with them and remained with them until her death. Irene retired from the Miscellaneous Workers Union in the late 1980s. As well as being a full-time worker and mother, Irene involved herself in many other activities.

Irene was active in the Peace Movement, especially during the campaigns around the Vietnam War. She was involved with the International Women's Day Committee. She helped to frame the Working Women's Charter. She helped to establish the Women's Centre, the Aboriginal Advancement League, the support group for the ANC, and the Union of Australian Women. She campaigned against rising prices and was part of the anti-nuclear campaign. She was an active member of the Federated Clerks Union. Irene was made a life member of the South Coast Labour Council in recognition of her lifetime struggle and support for the workers not only in this area but nationally and internationally. Irene never missed May Day and took part in the march until she was no longer able to go the distance. However, she would always be at the end cheering on the marchers. In fact, her last political outing was on May Day this year. Mind how you go, Irene. We thank her, and those like her, for their commitment to people.

CRONULLA ELECTORATE CYCLEWAY

Mr MALCOLM KERR (Cronulla) [5.45 p.m.]: I support the provision of a cycle facility that would duplicate the Sutherland to Cronulla railway line. Supporters of the facility have given me a report prepared by PBAI Australia. The report shows that there are no practical impediments to the cycleway. In dealing with the Caringbah station to Woolooware station section of the railway corridor the report says:

Caringbah Station to Woolooware Station is a relatively flat section with only slight cuts along it, with the railway line and adjoining shoulders level with the surrounding area. This segment of the railway corridor provides good opportunities for a cycleway path to be developed along it, especially on the southern side. The main issue in keeping it on the corridor for much of its length will be at Gannons Road, where a new underbridge will be developed on the northern side of the corridor and/or northern sides of the Railway corridor. Cycleway facilities between Caringbah and Woolooware could be considered:

• On the southern side from Caringbah Station, a route could be provided to Woolooware Station via the Caringbah Station car park, the southern side of the railway corridor where it would cross Gannons Road via a cycling crossing then across Jenola Park then back on to the railway corridor through to Woolooware Station.

• On the northern side from Caringbah Station, a path could be developed within the proposed widened section of the corridor parallel to Denham Avenue, where it would also cross Gannons Road and continue back within the corridor until it would need to re-enter on-road to Denham Avenue where the corridor narrows.

In relation to the Woolooware to Cronulla section the report states:

A good proportion of this segment of the rail corridor could also facilitate a cycleway path. A cycleway facility between the Woolooware and Cronulla could be considered:

• On the southern side from Woolooware Station to Cronulla Station, the route could be on-road from Wills Road to the Kingsway (where priority lanes would need to be considered on this busy route), Connells Road, West Street, a small section of the railway corridor near the electricity sub-station and the Searl Road and Tonkin Park Reserve.

• On the northern side from Woolooware Station to Cronulla Station, via the existing off-road footpath that exists between the Station and the Kingsway, across the Kingsway (as a newly signalised intersection), then utilise the railway corridor to Wilbar Avenue, where it would connect through to Searl Road and Tonkin Park Reserve. 2704 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2006

I have also been advised that the Minister for Transport has instructed the Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation to undertake a further detailed assessment of the cycleway proposal. It is important that a date be designated for the release of the results of that detailed assessment. I strongly urge the Government to set a date and to advise the community when the report will be available. As I said, it appears to the people in my electorate that a cycleway from Cronulla is entirely feasible, and I am sure that honourable members of this House will be keen to come down and take advantage of that cycleway. As I said, it is important that a timetable is set and the report released for comment by members of the public. We must not have the situation that has occurred in respect of the police report into the Cronulla riots. The Government has not released that report, and the report on the cycleway must not fall into that category. It is important that the report be released—as the report on the Cronulla riots should also be released.

PUBLIC TRANSPORT IN WESTERN SYDNEY

Mrs KARYN PALUZZANO (Penrith) [5.50 p.m.]: This evening I wish to speak about public transport in western Sydney. On an average weekday in outer western Sydney 92,000 trips are made on public transport, including approximately 48,000 train trips and 44,000 bus trips. I travel to this place by train and on the train network, and I often speak to people from Glenbrook, Lapstone, Emu Plains, Penrith and Kingswood about why they should be disadvantaged by the Howard Government's tax arrangements for those who travel by car. By any measure of fairness, it is inequitable to offer a concession to car users that is not offered to those who use public transport, especially in western Sydney. Restoring fairness is reason enough to act on this issue and provide a similar arrangement to that on offer for car use.

But there are other, equally compelling reasons: the removal of a barrier to increased public transport usage and the environmental benefits of reduced greenhouse gas emissions that flow from a reduction in motor vehicle use. The level of public transport use has increased, but more can be done. The new train timetable, especially in the electorate of Penrith, has included extra stops. The train service—affectionately known as the "fish and chips"—now stops at either Penrith or Emu Plains, for the first time in many decades. There are extra stops during the morning and afternoon peak hours for commuters wishing to use those services. Also, most of the "U" stops on the western line—stops where passengers could get on but not off the train—have been deleted from the timetable and passengers wishing to alight at Penrith and Emu Plains are able to use those services previously unavailable to them.

That has increased the level of public transport use, but changes to taxation arrangements could also remove a barrier to public transport use. Car travel accounts for almost 80 per cent of all passenger trips in outer western Sydney. In total, 79.7 per cent of those trips are made in private vehicles. The challenge is to prevent an increase in car travel, and eventually to reduce it. The Howard Government's attitude is that "cars-r-us", and Commonwealth laws provide fringe benefits and taxation incentives. Motorists can get generous tax breaks by buying or leasing a new car by paying for it with part of their pre-tax salary. These arrangements often include packaging fuel, insurance, parking and maintenance into the deal as well.

Worse is the fact that the more often the car is driven the more generous are the tax breaks, and that is a huge incentive for people to purchase a new car and use that instead of public transport. The Howard Government's review on taxation, the 1999 Ralph Review, recommended the reform of fringe benefit tax rules relating to transport. That review found that under current arrangements there is a perverse incentive to drive extra kilometres in order to get even bigger tax breaks. In other words, the Commonwealth fringe benefit tax arrangements make it beneficial to drive a car more frequently to get more tax breaks, and to use public transport less and pocket the tax break at the expense of other Australians.

But it is also at the expense of the environment. Everyone knows that increased use of public transport will remove cars from our already congested roads, resulting in cleaner air for us to breathe. Based on advice from the New South Wales Greenhouse Office, each year the average car emits about four tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. That is a startling figure—four tonnes, or about 4,000 kilograms of greenhouse gases each year. That is about 77 kilograms a week, or 11 kilograms a day, for an average car travelling 15,000 kilometres over a 12-month period, burning an average of 11 litres of fuel per 100 kilometres travelled. And what does the Liberal Opposition say about the proposal for tax incentives for public transport? It is on record as saying that it is a joke. The Leader of the Opposition, on regional radio, has described this issue as a joke. Do members of the Opposition and the Liberal candidate for Penrith support Canberra's "cars-r-us" approach or the public transport users of western Sydney? 17 October 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2705

ANVIL HILL COALMINE AND BICKHAM COALMINE

Mr GEORGE SOURIS (Upper Hunter) [5.55 p.m.]: I want to place on the record some comments about Anvill Hill and Bickham coalmines. In respect of Anvill Hill coalmine, the exhibition period before the environmental assessment has been completed and Muswellbrook council has given its approval, with conditions. The principal environmental concern, from my perspective at least, is water resources, dust fall-out, and the cumulative environmental impacts of coalmining in the Hunter Valley. Sandy Hollow was omitted from the Transport Plan and was generally ignored as a business centre. I hope that during the assessment phase consideration is given to this aspect and that Sandy Hollow is included in the ultimate conditions that the Department of Planning might be contemplating.

I note that Muswellbrook council, whilst it has offered support, is not the determining authority and, although its input and recommendations form a vital part of the assessment process, that process is entirely within the hands of the Minister for Planning. I join my Federal counterpart, Joel Fitzgibbon, who condemned the professional extreme Greens who made global warming, global capitalism, and even the internal combustion engine, the issue in the area in a recent demonstration over genuine local concerns. In respect of Bickham coalmine, the proposed mine is a long way from exhibition and environmental assessment. The Government has required Bickham to undertake an extensive hydrological study. As this is the principal environmental issue, I certainly support that.

The issue concerning hydrology relates to the headwaters of the Pages River and, of course, the many downstream farmers and users who are associated with that river. In addition, the general area of the headwaters is also an underground water resource recharge area and has its own importance for that reason as well. I believe the hydrological study will be pivotal for my support, which I have yet to determine, even though I know I do not have any statutory role in the planning process other than to express and present community and individual views and concerns as I become aware of them. I take note of the fact that a Newspoll survey was commissioned in the 2337 postcode area, the result of which was that 67 per cent of residents were opposed to coalmining. The poll was professional and independent, and I place on the parliamentary record the information I have received in respect of that poll. I will also consider and respect the view of local government. To my knowledge, Upper Hunter shire council has not yet adopted a position. When that council does so, I will certainly be respectful of the council' s views.

In conclusion I wish to place on record that in relation to all the considerations I have outlined the Minister for Planning should apply the following guiding principles and factors in making an assessment on coalmining. First, the Minister should take into account the rights of existing agricultural industries, livestock and equine industries, viticulture and tourism, to name a few, especially in respect of vital water resources and entitlements to those resources. Second, in considering the question of compensation and property acquisition, the Government should be prepared to err on the presumption of the existence of direct and nearby property owners. Third, in respect of cumulative environmental impacts, the Hunter Valley is at or near saturation point with respect to coalmining. I include in cumulative impacts dust fall-out, noise, traffic impact, and many other considerations. I call them the APE principles—agriculture, property and environment. From another perspective I believe that the Government should, and no doubt does, consider making positive contributions to community infrastructure, employment with a local preference, and general economic impacts.

CANTERBURY ELECTORATE CHRISTMAS CARDS

Ms LINDA BURNEY (Canterbury—Parliamentary Secretary) [6.00 p.m.]: I dedicate this private member's statement as a thank you to Our Lady of Lourdes Primary School in Earlwood, which is a Catholic school. The school's principal is a wonderful woman named Maria Ross and she is supported by fantastic staff. I place on the record my recognition of the active parent body associated with the school. I attended the school three weeks ago because, as many other honourable members of this House do in their electorates, each year I select one of the schools in my electorate to design my electorate's Christmas card. I well remember that last year the honourable member for Illawarra and Madam Deputy-Speaker had a fantastic Christmas card displaying many of the designs made by children in her electorate.

In previous years Harcourt Public School, Campsie Public School and Yeo Park Public School have provided Christmas card designs, and in this, the fourth year of the scheme, Our Lady of Lourdes has provided designs. I know that members are not supposed to bring props into the House, but I have two folders containing all the entries from the students from 4G and 3S. Christina Stojanovska's entry won one of the Christmas card awards, and Konnor Geisler-Edge from 3S won the other. As well as congratulating Christina and Konnor, 2706 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2006

I thank the school for the warm welcome I was given, for the fantastic enthusiasm shown in providing the designs, and for widening the school areas that have participated.

In the context of the current debate in Australia about Australian values and what they mean, it struck me that the fear being generated by the Federal Government—that somehow we are losing Australian values—is quite unfounded. My visit to Our Lady of Lourdes brought home to me just how important Australian values are from a unique perspective. I believe that the Federal Government's arguments and fear mongering are basically ethnocentric. The Federal Government's basic proposition is that somehow Australia is being overtaken. As all honourable members know, Canterbury is an electorate with high population diversity. Between 140 and 150 different languages are spoken by people who are from nations right throughout the world. There are no issues about political correctness in Canterbury, because the schools in my electorate celebrate festive events from many cultures.

The Canterbury electorate celebrates cultural events enthusiastically, as do many other schools in other electorates. For example, we celebrate Harmony Week, Deepavali as the main Hindu Festival, Ramadan, which is drawing to its conclusion for this year, Easter and Christmas. It is normal to recognise all those different events. On many occasions food festivals are held in my electorate, and during festivals children come to school representing the diverse cultural backgrounds they come from. I point out to this House that Australian values should be based on the magnificence of recognising our diversity in Australia. It is our strength. It marks this country as, in the main, a harmonious place. I include in those who possess that recognition the first people of our nation and the successive generations of migrants who have come to Australia.

Without exception, the people I have met from those groups value enormously their life in Australia. They see themselves as Australians. Allegiance is not about whether people speak perfect English but, rather, about preserving who and what we are in Australia. It is about valuing, recognising and protecting the cultures, customs and languages of those who have made Australia their home and who have become proud Australians. I thank Our Lady of Lourdes for bringing that home to me in such a positive way.

DEATH OF RYDE BUSINESS FORUM CHAIRWOMAN, MS CATHI KING

Mr ANDREW TINK (Epping) [6.05 p.m.]: It is with sadness that I note the passing of the Chairwoman of the Ryde Business Forum, Cathi King, who died recently after a battle with cancer. Until recently Cathi was the Vice Chairwoman of the Ryde Business Forum and had been involved in the forum since its inception in 1993. For the past year or so she had been chairwoman, and had been very successful indeed in that role. Cathi's involvement began when a number of companies came together to form the group in 1993, including Hoover (Australia) Pty Limited, Hunt and Hunt, solicitors, Siemens Plessey Electronic Systems Pty Limited, Canon Australia Pty Limited, Graf Property Group, Macquarie University and the Ryde City Council. Every year since 1993 the forum grew and it became a great success. The expansion of the forum was commensurate with the expansion of the city of Ryde as a result of the explosion in the high-tech sector in north Ryde. That expansion will be complemented by the railway line that is about to be commissioned and the enormous expansion of the Macquarie University.

Under Cathi's leadership, the Ryde Business Forum's mission since its inception was: to act as a catalyst for innovation and sustainability within the city of Ryde and its businesses; to stimulate the growth of the private enterprise sector within Ryde in a way that encourages harmony between the social, educational and environmental needs of the community; to foster business practices to ensure the ongoing success of enterprises within the region and the highest standard of service to customers; to promote a sense of civic awareness, community pride and business development; to stimulate the labour market through business growth thus providing employment and self-employment opportunities; to encourage the use of labour and services available in the local area without forgoing standards of competitiveness on price or product, and to take pride in the enormous achievements of local businesses, government and community organisations. I am sure the honourable member for Ryde and Deputy Premier will agree that the forum's achievements in relation to all those goals have been absolutely outstanding, and that is due in no small part to Cathi's involvement and leadership.

A mark of how far the organisation progressed in 10 years is that on its tenth anniversary on 21 November 2003 the Prime Minister was guest speaker and acknowledged the work that had been done in the previous decade under the leadership of Edwin Matiuk, with Cathi King being greatly involved. I will take a few minutes to read onto the record some comments that were made recently by Sabrina Davis who was Cathi's offsider. On 9 October 2006, at one of the regular so-called business after-hours events held in Ryde to allow 17 October 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2707

members of the forum to meet and further their goals, Sabrina addressed the gathering. Those present were really quite surprised, shocked and distressed at the news of Cathi's passing because it was Cathi's wish to keep her illness to herself. Sabrina welcomed members and guests on behalf of the board and said:

Cathi had chosen not to tell anyone she was unwell, and was working until it was no longer possible for her to do so. Therefore this news has come as a shock to all of us. I think you'll agree that was Cathi's way—she didn't want to worry people. Her bravery in her last fight against cancer was astounding.

Cathi was loved and admired by many, and brought sunshine into countless lives with her vivacity, honesty, humour and generosity. She will be truly missed by everyone who knew her; a lovely person who had time and a smile for everyone.

I certainly agree with that. Sabrina Davis continued:

You might think it odd that we decided to run tonight's event, but Cathi's daughter Amanda said late last week, when she first told me her Mum was in hospital, that Cathi wanted this event, and all the upcoming events, to go on. Cathi's wish for the Forum was for it to grow and prosper, regardless of who was at the helm—even though we know Cathi was one of a kind and quite irreplaceable! Over the thirteen years Cathi was involved with the Forum, she succeeded in bringing together business people from many different backgrounds at events such as tonight's, and watched communication in Ryde grow, business relationships form, friendships flourish and the idea was that the Forum evolve into the strong organisation we know today, with its own energy and synergy. It's important that we keep that going. We have lost a wonderful friend with visionary ideas, but it's because of those ideas we're here tonight. On behalf of the Board I hope we have your support in growing the Forum as Cathi intended.

I certainly provide that support and I am sure that the Deputy Premier, and Minister for Transport, who represents the electorate of Ryde, provides that support. I am sure everyone will continue with the forum in the way that Cathi King intended.

BUILDING SUSTAINABILITY INDEX ENERGY EFFICIENCY TARGETS

Ms CLOVER MOORE (Bligh) [6.10 p.m.]: The most important issue facing us in 2006 is global warming, an issue that is of great importance to my constituents. Therefore, the State Government's failure to strengthen the Building Sustainability Index [BASIX] energy efficiency targets was a depressing backdown. I place on record my disappointment at the Government's failure to keep its promise to increase the BASIX energy efficiency targets for multilevel dwellings. The New South Wales Government introduced BASIX in 2004 to provide mandatory targets to reduce water consumption and greenhouse gas emissions in residential buildings. With increasing energy costs, drought and endemic water shortages in Sydney and across the country, and global warming threatening further changes, the BASIX scheme was a welcome step in the right direction and received strong community support.

Before 1 July 2006 the BASIX scheme required all dwellings to achieve 25 per cent efficiency improvements, except six-storey or higher multi-units, which had to achieve improvements of only 20 per cent. The Government made a public commitment to increase energy efficiency targets to 40 per cent for all dwellings on 1 July 2006, but in June this year the Government reneged on that commitment. Under revised targets, only detached dwellings must now meet the 40 per cent energy efficiency improvements. Lower targets exist for low-rise dwellings, at 35 per cent, and mid-rise dwellings, at 30 per cent, while high-rise apartment buildings remaining at the initial 20 per cent energy efficiency requirement.

A study by the then Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources found that high-rise apartment buildings are responsible for far more greenhouse gases per resident than any other dwelling type. The electorate of Bligh and the City of Sydney have the highest proportion of multilevel dwellings in the country. In the city multilevel units make up 70 per cent of new residential development and, of course, are vital to the Government's urban consolidation policy. The Australian Conservation Foundation says that the residential sector is responsible for 25 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions, with building energy emissions predicted to increase by 91 per cent by 2020. With the serious threat that greenhouse gas emissions pose to global warming, it is irresponsible that the Government has not acted to improve the energy and water efficiency of multilevel dwellings.

The Government says that BASIX is too expensive for developers. However, improved energy efficiency through the BASIX scheme not only leads to long-term environmental improvements, but also results in long-term financial savings for homeowners. Owners and occupiers of homes built with a BASIX certificate have cheaper electricity and water bills, plus a higher resale value. Indeed, developers who say that BASIX is too expensive commonly build apartments with granite bench tops, designer appliances, and far more toilets and basins than anyone can use at any one time. In response to my question in Parliament, the Minister for Planning 2708 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2006

admitted on 30 August that due to the time lag between development approval and construction, the Department of Planning was not aware of any multi-unit dwellings at all that have been built to meet BASIX requirements.

BASIX had already been weakened in July 2005 when the Government allowed portable appliances such as clothes dryers and refrigerators in multi-level dwellings to be used to meet BASIX targets. These appliances can be replaced at any time, and apartments with a BASIX certificate that look on paper to comply with BASIX may fail to save energy or water. The Australian Conservation Foundation says that most other States require five-star thermal comfort, while in New South Wales a three-star thermal rating suffices for development. The Victorian Government recently announced a mandate of 10 per cent renewable power by 2016, and South Australia's proposed bill commits to 20 per cent renewable power by 2014, but New South Wales has not introduced similar pledges to renewable energy to reduce global warming and improve sustainability.

The City of Sydney council is now beginning to do its part to slow climate change, with an Environmental Management Plan, a green fleet initiative, an Energy Savings Action Plan, and applying the Australian Building Greenhouse Rating to council's buildings. Council purchased 10 per cent green power in 2005-06, with 20 per cent budgeted for this financial year. Together with councils of North Sydney and Parramatta, it is using the acclaimed Australian Building Greenhouse Rating Scheme to benchmark performance of commercial tenants and establish improvement targets as a part of the "3CBDs Greenhouse Initiative". Corporate leaders are also taking action. The Lend Lease corporate headquarters, the 30 Bond Building, is an inspiring example of corporate responsibility. I conclude by calling upon the State Government to reinstate the BASIX efficiency improvement targets promised for July this year.

DUBBO YOUTH ACHIEVEMENTS

Mrs DAWN FARDELL (Dubbo) [6.14 p.m.]: I bring to the attention of the House some outstanding achievements recorded by the enormously talented youth in the electorate of Dubbo who are performing some remarkable feats on the sporting field, on the stage and in the classroom, proving their mettle against peers from far larger communities. For example, on 30 July at the Opera House 19 extremely talented dancers from the Dubbo Ballet Studio took part in the final of the open jazz section in this year's McDonald's Performing Arts Challenge. The persistence displayed by the dancers paid off and they were judged second.

Compare that to a small, but no less significant, performance at the Dubbo Police and Community Youth Club [PCYC] during the recent school holidays. An innovative program was taken up by carers and PCYC staff teaching children a range of hip-hop and cultural dance. Mixed with that, through the steady work of staff of the New South Wales Department of Sport and Recreation, was a specialised program also teaching indigenous games. The new-found dancing skills were proudly displayed to parents and invited guests on 11 July as excited children performed on stage and received certificates for taking part in both programs.

On any given weekend throughout the year, sporting fields, tennis courts and swimming pools around the Dubbo electorate are packed full of juniors and parents. Despite what national figures may claim, participation rates are not dropping off as rapidly as in other communities. Junior sport is alive and well throughout my electorate. We regularly celebrate the State and national sporting achievements of youngsters who are proudly supported by doting parents or carers. Events such as Youth Week give critics proof that young people living in rural and regional communities have much to offer. Local councils and community groups really got behind the activities and embraced the aims of Youth Week, no more so than Dubbo City Council's Youth Council.

So why is it that with so many success stories we hear news items reporting that the troubles of our young people are mostly due to boredom, stress or peer pressure? Why do our youth suddenly feel the need to steal a car, torch a house or school, or converge in packs upon unsuspecting passers-by? Recently in this place I spoke about the roles that parents must take in ensuring a responsible approach to raising children. For those a little older, now is a good time for rural and regional youth to ask serious questions about how they are being treated by government and what can be done. Carers, coaches, mentors, teachers and health professionals dedicate their lives to working with our youth and know full well the depth of issues faced by young people in rural and regional areas. They know that some young people face strikingly similar and sometimes very different problems, issues and concerns from those in major metropolitan areas.

The added stresses of simply growing up are often exacerbated when in a rural or remote area and, as studies have tragically pointed out over recent years, the health and wellbeing of our young people suffer. By 17 October 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2709

the very nature of being in a country area, more often than not outreach and counselling services for the treatment or early intervention of any issues do not exist. The Government has either cut back or shifted the services that are relied upon by older residents too; rarely do they return. Our youth are also struggling to keep up with the demands of employment and education opportunities. The drought has done more than break the back of some of our farming families; it has split them up altogether. Work has dried up and the only option left open to them is to move to larger centres.

According to figures from the Bureau of Rural Sciences, between 1996 and 2001 the population of young people in remote areas dropped by more than 6.5 per cent. Large populated inland communities also saw a shift away, losing more than 2 per cent of their younger population to regional and metropolitan areas. Some do find work, but many young people in the electorate of Dubbo wish for something more. In 2001, just 62 per cent of 16-year-olds were in full-time schooling in a remote area. After six years of drought little would have changed. Surely we can do better in a modern and wealthy Australia. Communities throughout the electorate of Dubbo would benefit greatly from an environment in which young people can aspire to a career. That would do much to reverse the drain from other country areas also.

A common experience I come across when talking to young people in my electorate is ingrained feelings that their often smaller town has too little to offer, which immediately leads those vibrant young people to think of escape to the big city as soon as they can. Those who do then face a different set of challenges: if they are lucky enough to be able to continue with an education, they will have to battle for a place at university or TAFE. The Commonwealth may spruik the advances being made to boost skills in this country but how many average young Australians have been locked out of a place at university or TAFE because courses have been cut and resources slashed or because fees are so ridiculously high that tertiary education is far beyond the reach of a struggling rural family? In my book, far too many young Australians have been so affected. That is unforgivable.

Give our young people the chance to get on with an education, make them aware of the pitfalls of drugs and alcohol, and give them purpose and direction. The delivery of proper services close to their home towns will help not only them but entire communities, which are sick of the continued exodus of government services and of businesses shutting up shop and leaving town. If we treat our young people with some respect the Government will get respect in return.

Private members' statements noted.

[Madam Acting-Speaker (Ms Marianne Saliba) left the chair at 6.19 p.m. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m.]

DEATH OF THE HONOURABLE CHARLES BENJAMIN CUTLER, A FORMER DEPUTY PREMIER AND MINISTER OF THE CROWN

Mr GRAHAM WEST (Campbelltown—Parliamentary Secretary) [7.30 p.m.], by leave: I move:

That this House extends to Lady Cutler and family the deep sympathy of the members of the Legislative Assembly in the loss sustained by the death on 23 September 2006 of the Hon. Sir Charles Benjamin Cutler, KBE, ED, a former Deputy Premier and Minister of the Crown.

Mr ANDREW STONER (Oxley—Leader of The Nationals) [7.30p.m.]: At the outset I acknowledge the presence tonight in the public gallery of Lady Dorothy Cutler, Geoff Cutler, Neil Cutler and his partner Louise, and Sir John Fuller, Sir Charles's old friend and colleague. Charles Benjamin Cutler was born into a Forbes farming family in 1918 on his parents' wheat and sheep property, Glencoe. He attended high school in Orange—a community with which he was to enjoy a lifelong association. Sir Charles left school at the end of his fourth year to work for a local agricultural co-operative—an experience that, coupled with his rural upbringing, gave him a great affinity with our State's farmers.

Sir Charles had a distinguished military career before his entry into State politics. After joining the Citizens Military Forces before the outbreak of World War II Sir Charles went on to serve with the 2nd Australian Imperial Force, 17th battalion in North Africa, Syria and Palestine. Sir Charles was a member of the Rats of Tobruk, the Australian force that famously defended the Libyan port of Tobruk against the German Afrika Korps, before he was seriously wounded at El Alamein. Upon his recovery, Sir Charles continued to serve in Borneo and rose to the rank of lieutenant colonel in command of the Citizens Military Forces after returning to Australia. 2710 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2006

After leaving the armed forces Sir Charles went to work as a sports writer for the Bathurst Times. It was during this period that Sir Charles was inspired to enter State politics after observing the marginalisation of issues facing country New South Wales by the then Labor Government. Sir Charles was elected to Parliament as a Country Party member for the State seat of Orange in 1947 at the ripe old age of 29. He defeated the sitting Labor member and a Liberal candidate. Ever since then the seat has been held continuously by the Country and National parties by members such as the Hon. Garry West and Russell Turner, who is in the Chamber tonight. As the then youngest member of the Legislative Assembly, Sir Charles was often referred to as "the kid" by his parliamentary colleagues.

Sir Charles was quick to develop strong relationships with his parliamentary colleagues. There was a strong sense of camaraderie between parliamentarians at a time when many members of Parliament were returned war veterans. Sir Charles was well known for enjoying a game of billiards with all members, including Opposition members. Sir Charles Cutler was elected leader of the Country Party in 1959 after a short period as acting leader in recognition of his extraordinary dedication in furthering the Country Party cause. At the age of 41 he was the youngest ever Leader of the New South Wales Country Party, now The Nationals, beating me by two years when I assumed the leadership in 2003. He was a tireless campaigner in the old Country Party tradition. He is quoted in Paul Davey's excellent book The Nationals: The Progressive County and National Party in NSW 1919 to 2006 as saying in relation to the 1959 election campaign:

I travelled 2,500 miles by car and spruiked from the back of lorries, footpaths, hotel verandahs and other odd places. In Crookwell I was Rugby tackled in the main street. In Mumbil, outside the pub at 6.00pm in the semi-dark, I copped eggs, stones and two or three shotgun blasts in the air. In Griffith, Lismore, Dubbo and Inverell, I sweated and lost pounds in weight and in Oberon I nearly froze addressing the local [Country Party] Branch Chairman and one mangy dog from the back of a truck.

I know the feeling. Nothing has changed. Sir Charles continued to lead the Country Party until his retirement in 1975, and served as Deputy Premier in Sir Robert Askin's Coalition Government from 1965 to 1975, building a close working relationship with his Liberal counterparts that was to keep Labor from government for 11 years. His 16 years as Leader of the Country Party was second only to Colonel Michael Bruxner, who led for a total of 30 years. Charles Cutler developed a reputation as a straight shooter and a man's man, who drew respect from all sides of politics. He was famed for taking his parliamentary team to the bar after joint party meetings—a ritual known as Cutler's compulsory parades.

Mr Ian Armstrong: It should be reintroduced now.

Mr ANDREW STONER: I think it should. Sir Charles later stated:

Party meetings can be become pretty volatile at times. The Whip, Jimmy Brown, reckoned Cutler's compulsory parade up to the bar was to calm everybody down and get them back on track again. It worked.

Perhaps we ought to do that again from time to time. Sir Charles also showed a strong commitment to country education throughout his parliamentary career. He held the education portfolio for seven years and always took a leading role in shaping Coalition health policy. Sir Charles is credited as an instrumental force in establishing the tertiary institutions that went on to become Charles Sturt University and Southern Cross University.

One of Charles Cutler's main legacies was his unwavering commitment to country New South Wales. He gladly claimed to have diverted funding from city electorates to country New South Wales, saying be reversed the State Government spending ratio from 60 to the city and 40 to the country to the other way round. He was also strongly committed to building water storage facilities across New South Wales. Sir Charles secured huge levels of funding to see the Copeton, Lostock, Toonumba and Carcoar dams through from the first stages of planning to the point of completion. He was also instrumental in ensuring major water storage projects such as the Blowering, Pindari and Wangala dams came to fruition.

This causes me to reflect that that long list of achievements, along with other infrastructure such as roads, schools and hospitals in country New South Wales, has delivered a standard of living, which today is enjoyed by many of the sea changers and tree changers moving out of the city into country New South Wales. That is due to Sir Charles' great vision and commitment to decentralisation and infrastructure in country New South Wales.

After his retirement from politics in 1975, Sir Charles went on to serve for two years as a trustee of the Opera House—which he had been instrumental in the construction of—and continued to pursue the interests in singing he had fostered since his army days. He also served as Chairman of Sun Alliance Insurance from 1978 17 October 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2711

until 1990. Sir Charles always retained his strong links with the Orange community, which he so ably represented for 28 years, enjoying many a drink with local Orange residents at his favourite local watering hole, Kellys Hotel. Just last year he told Paul Davey:

I've been drinking at Kelly's for about 65 years, and in that time I've only moved a couple of feet down the bar.

Sir Charles also habitually, every morning, ran the Australian flag up the pole in his garden, and was not daunted when it was firebombed, along with his hedge, by vandals last year. He remarked as he ran the flag up the pole once more:

It's up again now. I won't let those bastards get the better of me.

He was a great patriot, a great leader, a great character, a great bloke. Vale, Sir Charles Cutler. On behalf of the New South Wales Nationals, I extend my sincere condolences to Sir Charles' family and friends on the passing of a great servant, friend, colleague and former Deputy Premier of this great State, Sir Charles Cutler.

Mr RUSSELL TURNER (Orange) [7.45 p.m.]: I acknowledge the presence in the gallery this evening of Lady Cutler, her sons Geoff and Neil, and Neil's partner, Louise Schwarer, and Sir John Fuller. Sir John came to Orange for the funeral service and delivered the eulogy—and delivered it brilliantly. It is great to see Sir John here this evening. I acknowledge also Sir Charles' other son, Ian, who is unable to be here this evening, and his daughter, Joanne, who also is unable to be here this evening. Charles Benjamin Cutler was born in Forbes 88 years ago, on 20 April 1918. I quote from Paul Davey's book The Nationals: The Progressive County and National Party in NSW 1919 to 2006:

Born at Forbes where as a toddler his four older brothers and a sister left him safely in a chaff bag suspended from a fence post while they went swimming in the Lachlan River.

Charles grew up in Orange. He had a great sense of humour and a great voice—as was acknowledged at his funeral service when the Rowland Gregory Orpheus Singers, an Orange male voice choir that recently celebrated its eightieth anniversary—sang a number of songs in a tribute to a great citizen who contributed an enormous amount to his community. This commitment to his community was, in a similar way to all members of Parliament, quite often at the expense of his family. Charles was elected as a member of the Legislative Assembly in 1947 at the ripe old age of 29. Charles was the first member of Parliament to hold the seat of Orange for the Country Party, and he held the seat until his retirement in 1975—a total of 28 years serving his constituents and 28 years serving the people of New South Wales.

Before his political career Charles joined the Citizens Military Force prior to World War II and entered the Australian Infantry in 1940. Charles served in the 2/17th Australian Infantry Battalion in North Africa, Syria and Palestine and throughout the siege of Tobruk and was wounded at El Alamein in 1942. He was then allowed to come home. In 1943 he married a young starry-eyed Dorothy Pascoe from Millthorpe. George and Joyce Pascoe, whom I talked today at the field day, asked to be remembered to Dorothy. The Pascoes are well known around Orange and Millthorpe and will be for many more generations. Charles went on to serve at Moratai, Labuan and Borneo before being discharged in 1945.

The electorate of Orange was established in June 1859 and has been represented by the Nationalist Party, the United Australia Party, the Labor Party, the Progressive Party, the Country Party and now, proudly, by The Nationals. As mentioned earlier, Charles Cutler, who was strongly supported by his wife, Dorothy, held the seat of Orange for 28 years. Following his retirement in 1975 the seat was won by Garry West, who represented the electorate for the next 20 years. Following Garry's retirement in 1996 I was elected in a by-election, also representing the then National Party. I have been honoured to be the member for Orange for the past 10 years and I look forward to continuing in that role following the next State election in March 2007. In a similar way to Charles, who was supported by Dorothy, Garry West was supported by his wife, Libby, and I receive the strong support of my wife, Diane, who is in the gallery tonight.

In 1958 Charles was elected as the Deputy Leader of the Country Party and in 1959 was elected leader. In 1965 when the Coalition won Government, Charles became Deputy Premier and Minister for Education and Science. When I travel around the seat of Orange and see Sir Charles's name on plaques at places where he has opened schools or renovations, I am reminded of the many advances he made throughout the electorate of Orange in his time as leader and as the member for Orange. In 1972, after relinquishing the Education portfolio, Charles was sworn in as the Minister for Local Government and the Minister for Highways. In 1973 the Queen 2712 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2006

conferred on him the honour of Knight Commander of the British Empire. Charlie Cutler became Sir Charles Cutler and his very loyal wife became Lady Cutler.

At this stage I would like to briefly acknowledge the enormous support given by Dorothy to Charles, not only during his parliamentary career but also during the period between his retirement as a pollie and his death last month. Dorothy and Charles had four children—Neil, Geoffrey, Ian and Joanne. I am sure there were many times when Dorothy was both mother and father, especially during election campaigns. In his contribution the Leader of The Nationals referred to the times when street spruiking and talking off the backs of trucks was the thing to do. Sir Charles was appointed Minister for Tourism in January 1975 before retiring in December 1975. He was appointed a life member of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and granted the freedom of the City of Orange. Sir Charles then went on to a career in private business before retiring in 1988.

On a lighter note, I remember an event when Charles, despite having a great sense of humour, did not see the humorous side of a prank that was carried out by some Apexians. It was before my time as an Apexian. Sir Charles was to officially open the first set of traffic lights in Orange, which were the pedestrian lights outside the post office. Just before Charles was due to arrive a group of Apexians rode up, in true Charles De Groot style, and cut the ribbon. I am led to believe that Charles was not amused and never quite forgave those Apexians for the stunt. Whilst the role of a politician remains basically the same, the way we carry out the role has changed dramatically. I mentioned earlier the spruiking off the backs of trucks and talking to one person and a dog in the street.

On Monday of this week Lady Dorothy flew down to Sydney. She insisted on coming down on her own by plane, although her son Neil was happy to drive her. I flew down this afternoon. I remember Dorothy telling me how Charles used to catch the steam train home to Orange after Parliament rose. Sometimes he did not get home to Orange until 2.30 a.m. and then walked from Orange railway station to their home in Kite Street. When I travel by plane I can be in Orange at 6.30 a.m. and sitting in my parliamentary office in Macquarie Street at 8.00 a.m.

Mr Ian Armstrong: Too soft.

Mr RUSSELL TURNER: We get it tough in other ways. Times have changed, and that gives members an idea of how much easier in some ways, and how much more difficult in other ways, the job of a politician is these days. Charles will be missed at his old watering holes of Kellys pub and Newstead Bowling Club. I was talking to some executives at Newstead Bowling Club the other day. They told me they will have to hold an extraordinary meeting and revise their budget now that Charles has passed on. In the last few months Charles had difficulty walking across to Newstead Bowling Club, even though it is just across from his home in Kite Street. He got to the stage where he would drive the 30 or 40 metres across to the club rather than miss out on having a couple of drinks each night with his mates. I hope that his stool in the corner at Kellys and his stool at Newstead will retain their special places. I am sure that no-one would be game to sit on either of those stools.

We thank you, Charles, for your contribution to Orange, New South Wales and your country. You are a proud Australian. You served your country in wartime, politics and business. You will be missed by your family and friends and you are recognised and respected by all who knew you. I thank you, Dorothy, for your support of Charles and for everything you have done personally for Orange, New South Wales and Australia. I thank you for your personal friendship to Diane and me, and I wish you and your family all the very best for many more years.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [7.57 p.m.]: On behalf of the Liberal Party I join in this tribute to the life and memories of Sir Charles Cutler. It is fitting that I do so given the close association that Charlie Cutler had with a former Liberal leader, Bob Askin. I do so in the presence of John Fuller. Even though the ministries between 1965 and 1973 were invariably described as the Askin-Cutler ministries, it is clear that they may well have been better described as the Askin-Cutler-Fuller ministries. Bob Askin recognised and worked with talent. Traditions are meant to flow in the upper House, yet Bob Askin had no hesitation in 1968 in appointing Sir John Fuller as Leader of the Government in the upper House, despite the fact that he was a member of the Country Party. So it is fitting that John Fuller is here this evening as we pay tribute to Charles Cutler. I am a Liberal and a Coalitionist and someone who married into the National Party and has Coalition children.

Mr Russell Turner: Best decision you ever made. 17 October 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2713

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: It is the best decision I ever made. The model that the Askin-Cutler-Fuller regime provided to this side of politics is one of which we should never lose sight. It was successful for 11 years and can prove to be successful again. I acknowledge it was mirrored in the relationship between Wal Murray and Nick Greiner and Ian Armstrong and John Fahey. It was an important lesson set by at least one of the three who survives and who sits in the gallery this evening. What is remarkable about the career of Charles Cutler is that he came in at a relatively young age, as the Leader of The Nationals has indicated.

More importantly, he served 28 years in this place. He became a member of this House after a three-cornered contest where the Country Party bettered the Liberal Party but defeated the sitting Labor Party member. In that year it was only one of two seats the Country Party won in three-cornered contests. The important thing is that Charles Cutler came into this place having done a remarkable thing, that is, defeat a sitting member from the other side. He also did a remarkable thing on his way out: he chose his own time of departure. He was not defeated. He chose the time of his leaving.

The thing that characterises Charles Cutler's contribution to this place, which is evident in his maiden speech—and no doubt the honourable member for Lachlan will refer to that—is the fact that he had war service and that he had served his country. Like a generation of people at both Federal and State level who came back from the Second World War—those who were determined that future generations would not have to go through such conflicts—he came into this place determined to do good for his area and, more importantly, for the State. It is probably appropriate—and perhaps it explains their relationship—that both Charles Cutler and Bob Askin became leaders in 1959. They were leaders who shared similar backgrounds. Although, as I am sure The Nationals will correct me if I am wrong, but Charlie Cutler was a lieutenant, and Bob Askin was just a humble sergeant.

Before their parliamentary careers they both worked in administrative positions, and perhaps it is that skill as well that ensured that whilst they were running the State it was well run and administered. But their generation and their closeness owes much to their service to this country at a time of war and great conflict, and their determination to leave the State in better shape than perhaps they found it. I found it interesting that a leader of the Country Party, a Deputy Premier of the day was, for most of his time as a Minister, the Minister for Education and Science. Why do I say that? It is not because members of The Nationals are not vitally interested in education, but I suppose I am of the vintage when members of The Nationals were more interested in dams, roads and rural portfolios than perhaps they were in big trucks and big machines.

Mr Thomas George: They have been educated.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: As the honourable member for Lismore said, the current generation of members of The Nationals have benefited from the skills that Charles Cutler brought to the role of education, and they are much better educated than their predecessors. But the point is that the most prescient thing he did in his maiden speech was to pose the question, "In what can we better invest our money than in the future of our children?" The problem that bedevils all governments is trying to deal with the here and now, trying to fix the problems that exist in the State. One of the hardest things governments do is look to the future and invest in the future by investing, as the Leader of the Nationals says, in dams or by implementing the sorts of policies that John Fuller and Davis Hughes pursued in this place to ensure we had great decentralisation policies that served this State well in the 1960s and the 1970s and would serve it well again today.

But the reality is that Charlie Cutler, as Minister for Education and Science throughout all of that period, managed to invest in our future by ensuring that we had an education system the length and breadth of this State that was a first-choice system, a system that you did not send your kids to because you could not afford to go to non-government schools. It was a system you were proud to send your children to because it taught them the fundamentals they needed to get on in life.

This evening I spoke with my father-in-law, Bruce Cowan, and I asked him what he remembered about Charlie Cutler. He remembers, as octogenarians perhaps do, those times with great joy and, perhaps, with a degree of mischief, given some of the stories I hear about this place before it was renovated, when members not only worked here but also slept here, and certainly partied hard. In the time he served here he served under two leaders, Charles Cutler and Leon Punch. He said that Charlie Cutler was a tremendous party leader, someone who managed to bring his entire party together. Given the events of earlier today, it might surprise the House to know that even in the days when Charles Cutler was leader of the Country Party, as it was then, within different parties there were groups that were known as ginger groups. Bruce Cowan pays tribute to the leadership skills 2714 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2006

that Charlie Cutler brought to the Country Party in the way in which he was able to cope with the varying pressures, the eddies and tides that exist within political parties, with good humour.

The Leader of The Nationals talked about one of Charlie Cutler's habits, which was to ensure that his members socialised—a time perhaps long gone when the members' bar was far more important than it is today, but a time when the members' bar was used to not only iron out personal issues and develop relationships but also, as I hear, to do lots of business. Members would talk to Ministers and seek to get decisions to the benefit of their communities. Bruce Cowan recounted to me—I will not tell the entire story; I will leave that to his memoirs—that early on in the piece he managed to offend the Government parties by moving a motion in the House without permission. The ginger group in the Country Party immediately demanded a party meeting, which was intended to discipline Bruce Cowan and indeed, so the story goes, to put him out of the Country Party.

This evening Bruce reported to me that at the appointed time he was the first person in the party meeting. He had some of his mates around. The ginger group arrived. He said that the last person to arrive was Charlie Cutler, who simply looked at them all and said, "Well now, boys, let's go up to the bar and have a drink." That was the way he defused that situation. Of course, Bruce Cowan continued his membership of the Country Party, as it was then, at both the State and Federal level.

I pay tribute to a great man, a great representative of his area, someone who contributed mightily to the State, who worked with the Liberal Party to give good government to New South Wales, and who deserves his fitting place in this Chamber, which this year celebrates its one hundred and fiftieth anniversary. When this Chamber is empty, Charles Cutler will be remembered not perhaps for his words or his actions in this place, but for the body of work that he left. I say to his family: Our condolences are with you. I say to Lady Cutler that my father-in-law specifically wanted me to acknowledge your presence, and say that he and Marion, his late wife, thought that you were the exemplar of political wives and that you provided a great role model of support for those wives whose husbands were members of this place. He wanted me to particularly extend condolences and greetings to you.

Mr IAN ARMSTRONG (Lachlan) [8.10 p.m.]: I also express my sympathy to Lady Cutler, Geoff, Neil and his partner, and Ian and Joanne. In doing so I also make mention of Sir John Fuller, my friend and a great friend of the Cutlers, The Nationals and this Parliament. Sir Charles Cutler's career in politics has been well articulated by previous speakers and I do not propose to go over that again. Honourable members will appreciate that, having been a member of this House for 25 years, I have often spoken in motions of condolence because I have known so many people over that lengthy period. But the biographical material prepared by the Parliamentary Library is one of the most comprehensive presentations I have seen. When one thumbs through it, one gains some understanding of the volume of work that Sir Charles covered while he was the member for Orange and some recognition of his intelligence and the amount of knowledge he accumulated during his lifetime and was able to give to the Parliament and to the people of New South Wales.

I propose to take a slightly different approach to that taken by previous speakers. Sir Charles Cutler returned from World War II, a war in which we suffered an enormous loss of life. We hear a lot about repatriation of soldiers and problems with the mental health and the physical capacity of those who went to war. Charles Cutler was a commissioned officer, and I think about the men who served under him and those who came back in 1945, 1946, 1947 through June 1951 and 1952. I think about soldier settlers in places like Wirrimah and Prune Vale, and on dairy farms such as Willigobung at Tumut. I think about the expansion of the fruit industry in the Orange district, much of which was achieved by soldier settlers, and about the way that those people were rehabilitated. To be frank, they were not rehabilitated at all. They were demobbed, handed in their uniforms and received a few shillings.

In those days that is all that was available. The concept of mental health rehabilitation or guidance was completely foreign. They were tough because they had to be tough, and their leaders had to be extraordinarily tough mentally and sometimes physically. They had to be people of considerable substance to be able to counsel themselves, if you like, and counsel the men that they fought with or worked with, the troops they had led, and then attempt to assist those troops to rehabilitate. When I think about someone who served as a leader in World War II and has now passed away and I make a comparison with the present day, I cannot get those thoughts out of my mind. I am not condemning the way we think these days, but I believe it is proper that we should have an understanding of what our forebears did to deal with the problems encountered in this country at that time. 17 October 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2715

Charles Cutler was a member of the New South Wales Parliament during fairly exciting times. In 1949 there were major industrial problems in the coalmines in Cessnock and Greta, and that certainly sorted out a few industrial relations matters for the following few years. The Korean War broke out in the early 1950s, and there was an enormous boom in wool. In those days wool was Australia's principal export and the boom brought unprecedented prosperity to this nation from export income; it allowed governments at that time to build considerable infrastructure. One of the results of that boom was the increased height of the Wyangala Dam, which is situated in the upper reaches of the Lachlan River. It was increased by almost two-thirds of its capacity, from about 600,000 megalitres to 1.3 million megalitres—in other words, three times bigger than Sydney Harbour. That was achieved under Charles Cutler's stewardship. Then, of course, there was the construction of the Sydney Opera House, which remains one of the great icons of the world.

Mr Carl Scully: A Labor Party initiative.

Mr IAN ARMSTRONG: It is a long time since the Minister has sung there. It was a masterpiece of engineering and negotiation. It was highly controversial. Charles Cutler was the Deputy Premier of this State during much of that period, and they were exciting times. It was something my generation had not heard suggested. The previous great event in this city was the opening of the Sydney Harbour Bridge in 1932 during the Great Depression.

Mr Carl Scully: Another Labor Party initiative.

Mr IAN ARMSTRONG: The Labor Party has not done much since that time though. The construction of the Opera House was also an exciting period. The internal politics, the Davis Hughes-Utzon professional difficulties took a lot of managing, and one might say Charles Cutler as Deputy Premier was into that up to his ears. Daylight saving was an issue then, and it continues to rear its head today. I notice there has been a bit of a push by some newspapers this week for daylight saving to commence a month earlier or a month later, or whatever it might be. The other wonderful change that was going to make us all wealthy was the introduction of decimal currency. I still cannot understand why we have it because I do not seem to be any better off than I was before. All I know is that it doubled my debt overnight! As one of my colleagues said, Charles Cutler as Minister for Education was committed to and quite passionate about education. I would like to read onto the record some of the things he had to say about education. In his inaugural speech, he said:

I refer to my predecessor, Mr Robert Emmet O'Halloran. During the recent election campaign, Mr O'Halloran fought a very clean political battle and I can pay him no greater tribute than to aver that he fought well and lost well. On entering Parliament about five months ago I confess that because I was young in politics and in opposition I had some misgivings as to the treatment that I should receive at the hands of experienced gentlemen connected with the Administration. I can truthfully say that I have received nothing but assistance, courtesy and co-operation from the Ministers, from hon. members and from the staff of the Assembly and Government departments. For that assistance, courtesy and co-operation I hope that all will accept my very sincere thanks.

That says a lot about Charles Cutler's personality. He spoke about immigration, which is also a topic of discussion at the moment. He said in part:

There can be no doubt that Australia needs immigrants, but if immigrants are to be induced to stay here Australia must be made a paradise not only in the mind of the Federal Minister for Immigration but also in actual fact. Too many persons are endeavouring to convey the impression to intending migrants that Australia can offer them everything. Perhaps some hon. members did not see a small paragraph in this morning's press to the effect that during the last twelve months the number of people leaving Australia permanently exceeded the number coming to Australia to reside here by 2,300. That concerns us a great deal. I can see no better start to perfect our way of life than to work on our systems of education, housing and health, and through them, to obtain domestic happiness and security.

I do not think one has to say much more than that. Those words say it all, and I will repeat them if I may:

I can see no better start to perfect our way of life than to work on our systems of education, housing and health, and through them, to obtain domestic happiness and security.

Nothing much has changed, has it? Achieving systems of education, housing and health remains the challenge for governments today. Sir Charles went on to talk about finance and some of the social aspects of life. In recent years we have seen the introduction of poker machines into hotels, and 24-hour licensing for most hotels around the State if they want it. In the days when Sir Charles Cutler was Deputy Premier hotel opening hours were from 10.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. and we used to have what was called the six o'clock swill. That meant that at about ten minutes to six a drinker might order up to 10 middies of beer and set them in front of him because he could not buy them after six o'clock. Sir Charles said in his inaugural speech: 2716 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2006

I realise that before we can overcome that lag we must have additional finance, but, after all, in what can we better invest our money than in the future of our children? It is certainly a better investment than the £50,000,000 spent in Australia last year on liquor. I am not complaining about that expenditure, I am merely making a comparison and pointing out that £8,000,000 a year is being spent in this State on education whereas £50,000,000 a year is being spent on liquor in Australia, £100,000,000 a year is being spent on gambling in Australia, and £207,000,000 a year on liquor, gambling and amusement.

Again Charles made his point about education. He was not condemning gambling and liquor, but asking whether we have our priorities right. That is a very good point because the same ratios of expenditure exist. We are spending much more per capita on gambling and liquor than is spent on education. Charles's message is a very enduring one and is very important even in this day and age. He also spoke about Orange:

In the city of Orange there is a very beautiful maternity Hospital which, though completed almost twelve months ago, has not yet been put into use because of the shortage of nurses. On the admission of the Minister himself, to-day people are dying of tuberculosis in their homes because nurses cannot be found to care for them. True, recently the Minister made a token effort to increase the number of nurses, but the fault lies in the fact that many girls who wish to become nurses, wish also to retain or better their social status. No one in this country to-day is more deserving of a high social standing than the nurse, and we should offer to those who have a leaning for this type of work economic security and social standing equal to that enjoyed by people in other professions.

What prophetic words they are. Their relevance still stands today. There is no more honourable profession than nursing. I agree that 50 years later we still do not recognise the importance to everyone in the community of good health, particularly the importance of those who administer good health, the nurses. It is a shame that nurses aides are not able to work in hospitals as they were when Sir Charles Cutler was in charge. In every town and every suburb, young women could leave school at the appropriate school-leaving age, which was 16 years for most students, and many who became nurses aides went on to become nurses by working in the field. That was a wonderful boon for families, for the individuals concerned, for the community and for the health system.

In conclusion, I simply state that I knew Sir Charles as a young man. I lived at Boorowa and he lived at Orange. I recall his coming across on a couple of occasions to open the Boorowa Show. I remember him as a very forthright man who had a great sense of humour. He was also a man who had the absolute respect of everybody with whom he came into contact, including labourers, unemployed persons, and squatters with large farms. He was respected by all and it did not matter whether a person voted for him or not. He was respected and admired because of his character, his intelligence, his leadership and because he was easy to understand. He had a mission that everybody could relate to immediately—the advancement of society.

Sir Charles Cutler was not particularly interested in the frippery of politics. He was interested in, shall I say, bricks and mortar, the betterment of the individual, a safe community and a community that was at all times progressive. His interests were water, roads, health and education. While opening a show, Charles would talk about all those things. He was a man of great substance and great vision. He obviously laid an enormous foundation for those who wanted to follow him. Very few of us have been able to emulate him, but as a member of the Country Party when I first entered Parliament and now as a member of The Nationals, I have always remembered him fondly and I have tried, probably without success, to emulate his many characteristics of leadership and vision.

Mr DONALD PAGE (Ballina—Deputy Leader of The Nationals) [8.23 p.m.]: As the Deputy Leader of the New South Wales Nationals, I take this opportunity to express my condolences to the Cutler family on the loss of a wonderful servant and leader of our party, Sir Charles Cutler. I acknowledge the presence in the gallery tonight of Lady Dorothy Cutler, two of Sir Charles and Lady Cutler's children, Geoff and Neil, and Neil's partner, Louise. I also acknowledge the presence of a great friend of the Cutler family, Sir John Fuller, who was a close parliamentary colleague of Sir Charles Cutler. Unfortunately, two other children of Sir Charles and Lady Cutler, Joan and Ian, cannot be present tonight, but I extend my condolences to Joan and Ian as well.

I know more about Sir Charles Cutler by reputation than by anything else, but after he had retired I met him on several occasions, mainly at National Party conferences at either Dubbo or Orange. On those occasions we discussed various aspects of political history. Sir Charles knew my grandfather, Sir Earle Page, quite well; they shared a passion for education. We had some great yarns about what happened and why things happened from the 1920s to the 1960s in Australian and New South Wales politics.

By any measure Sir Charles Cutler was a towering figure in the history of the Country Party. He was the leader of the country party for 16 years—which is, in itself, a remarkable achievement. A person does not become leader and then remain a leader of a political party for 16 years unless that person has something special in the eyes of their colleagues and in the eyes of the electorate. Sir Charles was highly respected both inside and outside this place. As the honourable member for Orange for almost 29 years, Sir Charles clearly had the 17 October 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2717

common touch. Anyone who is elected and re-elected 10 times as a local parliamentary representative obviously knows his electorate very well and enjoys the confidence of his constituents.

Lady Dorothy Cutler was at his side throughout his political career. She is a working patron of many organisations, as mentioned this evening over dinner. She was a very strong supporter of Sir Charles, a great confidant, an admirer and political ally. Those of us who have been in politics for some time—although I may be described as a new boy compared to Sir Charles as I have been a member of Parliament for approximately 18 years—all know that the strong support of a wife or husband enables a member, particularly in country electorates, to deliver for the people in a way that perhaps some other parliamentarians cannot. Many constituents of country electorates regard parliamentary representation as a team effort. I certainly know that Sir Charles was very fortunate to have such a wonderful ally, confidant and supporter in Lady Dorothy, and I pay tribute to her long and supportive role of Sir Charles.

Often political figures are remembered for the big issues with which they were associated or for the portfolios they held. While that is important and I do not seek to downplay that aspect at all, I have found that helping individuals in the community is what gives local parliamentary representatives a special type of personal fulfilment. Think of the number of constituents Charles Cutler must have helped during his 28 or more years as the honourable member for Orange. He would have helped thousands of individuals. For that alone I am sure his legacy will live on for a very long time in the Orange area. At the State level, Sir Charles was a pivotal player in the very successful Askin Government between 1965 and 1975. During that time Sir Charles was the Leader of the Country Party and Deputy Premier. He also was acting Premier and Treasurer twice during that period.

During that time he held the important portfolios of Education, Science, Local Government, Highways and Tourism—portfolios that Sir Charles Cutler specifically wanted and insisted on having as the Country Party leader. He worked tirelessly to improve country infrastructure and rural education. He was a champion of the regions and a strong advocate for country people. In many ways he was the quintessential Country Party leader—dedicated, visionary, courageous, shrewd and affable, but tough when he needed to be. But above all, he was a champion for country people. He is one of the few people in our party to hold the Education portfolio—I think the Hon. David Drummond might have been the other one. Many good things were achieved for country students when Sir Charles held the Education portfolio. Perhaps it is time The Nationals held that portfolio again.

The family of Sir Charles Cutler should be very proud of his achievements in government, as the honourable member for Orange and as an Australian who served his country with distinction. We have lost a passionate and intelligent advocate for regional New South Wales, but his legacy lives on in so many areas of public administration. I again offer my condolences to his family who are present in the gallery tonight. Sir Charles is gone, but he is certainly not forgotten.

Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON (Burrinjuck) [8.28 p.m.]: I also pay tribute and respect to the former Country Party leader and honourable member for Orange and Deputy Premier, Sir Charles Cutler, who recently passed away. As mentioned by various speakers, Sir Charles Cutler was the leader of the Country Party from 1959 to 1975 and was also the Deputy Premier in the Askin Government from 1965 to 1975. Sir Charles was born in Forbes in 1918 and served in World War II. He was elected to the New South Wales Parliament as the Country Party member for Orange in 1947. He served in various ministerial roles including education, science, local government, highways and tourism. I am sorry that he is not still here in that ministerial role for tourism. As the shadow Minister for Tourism, I can say that he did a lot more for tourism than anyone in the present Government is doing. He was known as a great gentleman and a strong leader. Together with Liberal leader, Robert Askin, he formed a formidable partnership that took the Liberal Party and Country Party into Government in 1965.

Sir Charles had a great commitment to building stronger rural communities, and that commitment was legendary. From my research in the Parliamentary Library and in the contribution by Paul Davey in his most recent book about The Nationals, which was a project of the sesquicentenary committee, there is no doubt that his strength and determination for the people of rural New South Wales is very well remembered. That determination has taken the former Country Party to its strength as The Nationals. There can be no doubt that Sir Charles Cutler's commitment to building stronger rural communities was not only legendary but also part of the commitment that the New South Wales Nationals and, indeed, the Federal Nationals, have today for rural New South Wales. As has been said by the honourable member for Lachlan, Sir Charles was responsible for creating a separate Department of Decentralisation and Development and he helped to strengthen country communities through the establishment of a Country Industries Assistance Fund. 2718 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2006

Sir Charles served with the Australian Imperial Force in the Middle East and the Pacific from 1940 to 1945 and was knighted in 1973. He retired from politics in 1975. I was interested to read a great obituary published in the Sydney Morning Herald on 28 September 2006, penned by Jonathan Pearlman. With leave, I will read extracts of that obituary onto the record. Referring to Charles Cutler's life and his prominent role in public life, following his successful military career, it states:

He was born on his father's wheat and sheep property, Glencoe, at Forbes in central eastern NSW.

He attended high school in Orange, leaving at the end of his fourth year to lump chaff and wheat for a local co-operative before joining the Citizen Military Forces before the outbreak of World War II.

He entered the Australian Imperial Force on Anzac Day 1940, and served with the 2/17 Australian Infantry Battalion in North Africa, Syria and Palestine. Blessed with a good base baritone voice, his rendition of The Legion of the Lost at a concert during the Siege of Tobruk was recorded by the ABC and broadcast across Australia. His interest in singing would continue into his political career, when his portfolio included administration of the Opera House.

That was a gorgeous passage from the Sydney Morning Herald for me to incorporate, as the honourable member for Lachlan expanded on during his contribution. Jonathan Pearlman continued:

At the second attack at El Alamein in 1942, Cutler was wounded in the thigh by a tracer bullet shot at close range from a German tank.

"I was lucky it was so close," he once observed. "If the bullet had not had such velocity, it would have shattered the bone and there might have been two cousins today without a leg." Sir Roden Cutler lost his right leg in Syria.

That was a wonderful contribution. Jonathan's obituary continued:

One of his main legacies was to divert state finances from the Sydney metropolitan area to country areas. He openly boasted that he had reversed the ratio of public works spending in NSW from 60 per cent city and 40 per cent country.

That remains the policy of The Nationals today as we head towards the next State election, particularly for road and highway funding. It is quite incredible that we had such a wonderful man in Sir Charles Cutler—such a wonderful Leader of the Country Party. Today we are emulating the policies he put forward in those days. I pay my utmost respect to Lady Cutler and to all members of his wonderful family who are present this evening, and also to Sir John Fuller. They have our heartfelt condolences. There is no doubt that the world is a better place for the life of Sir Charles Benjamin Cutler.

Members and officers of the House stood in their places.

Motion agreed to.

CRIMES (FORENSIC PROCEDURES) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 28 September 2006.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER (Gosford) [8.36 p.m.]: The Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Amendment Bill was introduced on 28 September 2006 and the second reading speech was delivered that day by the honourable member for Heathcote, Mr Paul McLeay, on behalf of the Attorney General. However, today the Attorney General gave notice of intention to introduce the bill. The Attorney needs to look at his own office and the efficiencies of his office as to why a bill that had been presented some three weeks ago was presented by him for the second time today.

The New South Wales Coalition strongly supports DNA testing and the forensic procedures involved in fighting crime in this State. We need all the weapons we can get to fight crime. I spoke on this issue at some length when the original bill was introduced in 2000. I do not intend to canvass that again. As part of the Coalition's commitment to the continued use of modern technology in the battle against crime, the honourable member for Davidson, Mr Andrew Humpherson, has a private member's bill before the House, not yet debated. Given the way that the Government treats private members' bills and private members' time, it is not likely to be debated. That relates also to extending the grounds upon which DNA testing can take place.

The bill arises from the initiative of our colleagues in the Liberal-Nationals Government in Canberra in 2001 to establish a national DNA database to allow interjurisdictional testing and collation of DNA evidence. 17 October 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2719

Accordingly, the bill amends portions of the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000 to allow New South Wales to participate in this important national program. The Commonwealth is currently amending its DNA database legislation in line with the views of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. The Commonwealth is to be commended for the leadership that it continues to show in developing a national approach to fighting crime, in assisting the States in this respect and in establishing the national DNA database. In response to the use of DNA evidence in criminal proceedings the House recently passed the double jeopardy legislation—which, as we speak, is being debated in the Legislative Council—and the Innocence Panel legislation, both of which had the support of the New South Wales Coalition parties.

The second objective of the bill is to amend existing DNA testing legislation to allow persons previously convicted of a serious indictable offence who are subsequently charged with another indictable offence to have their DNA collected and tested. The New South Wales Coalition is on record, both through me and through the honourable member for Davidson, as advocating the DNA testing of all persons who are charged with an indictable offence as part of the establishment of a State DNA database. That is appropriate in the same way as it is appropriate that people charged with criminal offences are subjected to fingerprinting. As has been said on many occasions, DNA testing is the twenty-first century crime-fighting equivalent of the twentieth century's fingerprinting.

Therefore, while the Coalition does not oppose the extension through the bill of DNA testing to people charged with an indictable offence who previously committed a serious indictable offence, we would happily see the provisions of the bill widened to allow for the testing of any person charged with an indictable offence. As I said, that position is consistent with collecting fingerprint samples from people who are charged with offences. The New South Wales Coalition consulted the New South Wales Bar Association, which advised us that it has no problems with the bill. It said, "The New South Wales Bar Association has no concerns regarding the provisions of the bill as introduced into the Parliament." Similarly, the Coalition contacted the Law Society of New South Wales, which advised:

There are aspects of the Bill which the Law Society offers support for, for example the amendment to the volunteer provisions to require that informed consent be obtained from child volunteers before a forensic procedure may be carried out.

The Bill amends the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 so that time spent in carrying out forensic procedures, or to prepare, make and dispose of an application for an order for the carrying out of such a procedure, does not form part of any investigation period during which a person may be detained under that Act …

The investigation period begins when a person is arrested and is limited to a maximum period of four hours unless extended by warrant … Section 117 lists certain times to be disregarded in calculating the investigation period.

The Law Society's Criminal Law Committee is of the view that carrying out a forensic procedure and making the relevant applications for an order should fall within the normal course of a police investigation, and should not fall within the excluded times listed in section 117. Excluding this period of time from the investigation period enables the police to detain a person for a far lengthier period.

I draw the attention of the House to the views of the Law Society, which are always considered carefully and worthy of respect. However, the Coalition does not share the Law Society's view in this case. We take the view that allowing the detention period to expire while testing is undertaken defeats the purpose of testing. It would permit the accused person or the person under investigation to walk free, and the procedures that go to the proof of guilt or innocence would not be completed. The Coalition believes that is not in the best interests of the accused person or of the community. Accordingly, while we respect the view of the Law Society, we do not share it.

The bill also makes a number of amendments to various aspects of the DNA legislation. I do not propose to go into them now. Some of them were dealt with in the Parliamentary Secretary's second reading speech and some were not. The bill is part of a process of updating the legislation. We understand that it is consistent with the Commonwealth initiative and is largely consistent with the views expressed by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. It is important to place on record the role played by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, in conjunction with the Commonwealth, in developing a national approach. Crime knows no State borders so it is important that we adopt a national co-ordinated approach to fighting crime. The Commonwealth initiative, supported by the States through the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, is appreciated and supported. The New South Wales Coalition does not oppose the legislation. We believe important DNA testing should continue to be carried out, and indeed should be widened to all persons charged with an indictable offence. 2720 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2006

Mr BOB DEBUS (Blue Mountains—Attorney General, Minister for the Environment, and Minister for the Arts) [8.46 p.m.], in reply: I thank the honourable member for Gosford for his support for the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Amendment Bill. However, I point out that, although we all agree about the importance of adopting so far as possible a national approach to crime fighting, the role played by the Commonwealth in developing the DNA database is not quite as significant as the honourable member for Gosford suggested. In fact, the legislation that is presently before the Federal Parliament is the result of leadership shown by this State in identifying problems with the national database as constructed by the Commonwealth. The concerns of New South Wales, communicated through the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General working group, led to the changes in the Commonwealth legislation to which the honourable member for Gosford referred.

However, I turn now to the present bill, which represents the culmination of several years work by a number of agencies. There are 109 amending provisions, but the general purpose of the bill is relatively simple. It does three things. First, it implements a range of reforms to the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act that arose from formal reviews of the Act. Second, it clears the way for New South Wales to participate in the national DNA database. Third, it enables DNA backcapture⎯that is to say, it allows police to take a sample for a DNA profile from former serious offenders when they are charged with a fresh offence. The bill represents a significant step forward in the Government's commitment to establish a more efficient, transparent and fair system of forensic sampling and DNA analysis for the investigation of criminal offences, and in particular it puts this State in a position to participate fully in national DNA matching. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE THREATENED SPECIES CONSERVATION AMENDMENT (BIODIVERSITY BANKING) BILL 2006

Establishment

Mr MICHAEL RICHARDSON (The Hills) [8.51 p.m.], by leave: I move:

(1) That a joint select committee be appointed to monitor the implementation of the Threatened Species Conservation Amendment (Biodiversity Banking) Bill 2006.

(2) That the functions of the committee will be:

(a) to evaluate the objectives of the scheme as set out in the bill;

(b) to draft guidelines for the two-year trial period and report to the Minister;

(c) to oversight the operation of the scheme during the two-year trial period.

(d) to report to both Houses of Parliament on the operation of the trial within six months of the expiration of the trial period.

(3) That the committee consist of seven members as follows:

(a) Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes, who shall be Chairman of the committee.

(b) three shall be from the Government, being two members of the Legislative Assembly and one member of the Legislative Council; and

(c) two from the Opposition, being one member of the Legislative Assembly and one member of the Legislative Council; and

(d) one crossbench member from the Legislative Council.

(4) That the members be nominated in writing to the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly and Clerk of the Legislative Council by the relevant party leaders and the crossbench members respectively within seven calendar days of the passing of this resolution. In the absence of any agreement concerning Legislative Council representation on the committee the matter is to be determined by that House.

(5) (a) That at any meeting of the committee four members shall constitute a quorum provided that the committee meets as a joint committee at all times.

(b) The Chairman or Vice-Chairman (if presiding) shall have both a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equality of votes, a casting vote.

(6) That the Vice-Chairman of the committee shall be elected by and from the members of the committee. 17 October 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2721

(7) That the committee have leave to sit during the sittings or any adjournment of either or both Houses, to adjourn from place to place, to make visits of inspection within New South Wales and have power to take evidence and send for persons, papers, records and things, and to report from time to time.

(8) (a) That should either House stand adjourned and the committee agree to any report before the House resumes sitting, the committee have leave to send any such report, minutes of proceedings and evidence taken before it to the Clerk of each House.

(b) A report presented to the Clerks is:

(i) on presentation, and for all purposes, deemed to have been laid before the House,

(ii) to be printed by authority of the Clerk,

(iii) for all purposes, deemed to be a document published by order or under the authority of the House, and

(iv) to be recorded in the official proceedings of the House.

I have moved the motion on behalf of the Opposition. It follows on from my comments made during the second reading debate. My firm belief is that the legislation, because it is pioneering legislation, needs the oversighting role of a parliamentary committee to make sure it is implemented properly, that the trial is implemented properly, and that the bill proceeds as smoothly as possible. I am delighted to say that the Minister for the Environment wrote to me today and said that the Government would be pleased to consider such a motion. I have tried to word the motion in such a way that the operation of the committee will not impede the implementation of the trial in any way. It also will be a bipartisan committee, with more Government members than Opposition members, so that there can be no proper suggestion that this is in any way a set-up. This is a genuine attempt to make sure this legislation works.

Coalition members had serious concerns about a number of aspects of the bill; in particular, that it placed a disproportionate emphasis on home buyers to fund biodiversity conservation; that the protection given to biodiversity sites is far less than for parks and reserves; and that it does not specify the methodology for drawing up a biobanking statement, or determining how many biodiversity credits can be created on a particular site. The latter is to be specified by the regulations. The Government, I understand, is about to move no fewer than 61 amendments to its own bill, and I am sure there will be as many moved by crossbenchers in the other place. The legislation is extremely complex. The mere fact that the Government thinks fit to move 61 amendments, after introducing what really ought to have been a draft exposure bill before the winter recess, is a clear indication that continuing oversight by the Parliament—

Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marie Andrews): Order! I remind the honourable member that he should confine his remarks to the motion to appoint a select committee.

Mr MICHAEL RICHARDSON: I am talking about continuing oversight by the committee.

Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marie Andrews): Order! The honourable member will confine his remarks to the motion, and not to the bill.

Mr MICHAEL RICHARDSON: Because the bill is so complex, because it has been changed substantially—the amendments are as substantial as any I have seen in my 13 years in this place—we on this side of the House feel that having a committee, not only to assist in drafting guidelines for a two-year trial period, because the Minister signs off on those guidelines, but also to oversight the operation of the scheme during the two-year trial period, will be of material assistance in getting this biobanking scheme up and running, getting it right, and getting it to perform the functions that the Government says it will perform—that is, both improving conservation outcomes and streamlining the development process. With those few remarks, I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in regard to my motion.

Mr BOB DEBUS (Blue Mountains—Attorney General, Minister for the Environment, and Minister for the Arts) [8.56 p.m.]: My concern is that several Government members wish to speak generally in the debate. I am not sure whether we should allow that to happen, or whether it is appropriate that I make an immediate response. With respect to the motion alone, I acknowledge that the honourable member for The Hills has raised a sensible idea: the formation of a committee to oversight a formal review of this legislation after a two-year trial. The review would be able to examine, and learn from, the two-year trial of the scheme. I believe that to be a reasonable suggestion, and the Government will support it. 2722 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2006

Mr MICHAEL RICHARDSON (The Hills) [8.57 p.m.], in reply: I thank the Minister for his favourable consideration of the motion. It is not quite clear to me whether we should now vote on the motion, or whether that should be done after the Committee stage of the bill.

Mr Bob Debus: It is not clear to me either. I suspect that we would do the whole lot in Committee.

Mr MICHAEL RICHARDSON: It is a little unorthodox.

Mr Andrew Fraser: Point of order: I have listened to this debate from my room. Once the mover responds, that closes the debate.

Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marie Andrews): Order! We are debating a motion to appoint a select committee. We are not debating the bill.

Mr MICHAEL RICHARDSON: I thank the Minister for his favourable consideration of the motion.

Motion agreed to.

Message sent to the Legislative Council advising it of the resolution.

THREATENED SPECIES CONSERVATION AMENDMENT (BIODIVERSITY BANKING) BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 27 September 2006.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY (Maroubra) [9.00 p.m.]: I support the Government's new approach to protecting our native plant and animal species. The bill is one of many positive reforms aimed at conserving biodiversity while at the same time providing social and economic opportunities for New South Wales. Combined with its cascading levels of enforcement powers, the scheme will ensure that conservation outcomes are achieved. All honourable members would applaud that. Despite our State's world-class national park system and many other positive efforts to conserve threatened species, clearing and fragmentation in urban and coastal areas continues to be a significant cause of biodiversity loss. We need a systematic way to prevent unacceptable impacts and, where impacts are unavoidable, to ensure positive action is taken to counterbalance biodiversity loss.

The current laws and systems are not dealing adequately with the cumulative effects of many small to medium scale impacts. Where development pressure is high, despite everyone's best intentions, our wildlife is slowly succumbing to a "death by a thousand cuts". More and better conservation on private land must become a part of this State's strategy to protect ecosystems and recover threatened species. Biobanking is an additional part of the Government's plan to help slow the cumulative loss of biodiversity. It will provide financial rewards for landowners who protect and improve biodiversity values on their land. This will send a strong message that protecting biodiversity is valuable. Conservation banking has been used successfully in the United States of America since the mid 1990s. The original concept started much earlier with wetland conservation. After some early setbacks in the United States, support for this approach has grown. The Society of Wetland Scientists has now recognised wetland mitigation banking as critical to the success of meeting the goal of no net loss of wetlands in the United States.

In New South Wales we have now developed a biobanking scheme that builds on international experience to suit our own needs. Under biobanking, landowners can voluntarily establish a biobank site by entering into a biobanking agreement with the Minister for the Environment. In return for their commitment to manage and improve biodiversity on their land, they will get a specified number of biodiversity credits which they can sell. Money from selling the credits will pay for the long-term management of the site and provide an investment return for managing the land in this way. Because the agreement is tied to the title of the land, biodiversity values will be protected and conserved in perpetuity, despite the land changing hands many times over. Biobanking will provide an incentive for biobank sites to be located in areas of long-term conservation value, such as a biodiversity corridor, instead of leaving isolated and vulnerable patches scattered across the urban landscape. This approach enhances and enriches biodiversity outcomes in areas of high conservation value. 17 October 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2723

Biobanking will provide a streamlined process for developments, but only where those developments achieve the strict improve or maintain test for biodiversity values. Biobanking will not increase or facilitate the clearing of high conservation value vegetation in urban areas. Biobanking will help conserve them. In addition, clearing of land containing viable endangered ecological communities will not be permitted under the improve or maintain test. These areas will be identified as "red lights" within the biobanking methodology. Under planning law, important developments may not be able to meet this strict standard. In such cases, biodiversity credits can be used to offset development impacts in a manner that is more transparent and robust than is presently possible. Under the maintain or improve test, credits for a particular development will be obtained only from a biobank site with either the same ecological community as the development or a more endangered ecological community. Also, credits can be obtained only from a biobank site with similar threatened species habitat as the development site.

Biobanking will ensure that offsets are permanent. In the rare event that the biobanking agreement can no longer be fulfilled and has to be terminated, a new offset will need to be found for the original development⎯that is, a second new offset must be found for the terminated biobank site. Offsets will not be allowed to cause the current creeping destruction of habitat. The biobanking assessment methodology is based on the best available science and on information already being used by catchment management authorities across New South Wales for clearing assessments under the Native Vegetation Act. This science has been subject to independent peer review. Green groups have supported the use of approved biodiversity offsets under the Native Vegetation Act.

The Department of Environment and Conservation will establish a compliance audit program to ensure management actions are being carried out. In the event that management actions are not properly carried out, the bill provides a number of enforcement provisions. A range of penalties can be applied to respond to differing levels of breach. For lesser offences the Minister may suspend or cancel credits until the management actions have been carried out. This means that biobank site owners would not be able to sell their credits until these sanctions were lifted. In extreme cases the Minister will be able to apply to the Land and Environment Court for an order to transfer land to either the Minister or another body so that the biobank site can be managed appropriately. Penalties up to $1.1 million could apply if a landholder breaches a biobanking agreement or fails to comply with a biobanking statement.

Furthermore, the rules of the scheme will ensure that all transfers of credits will be validated by requiring them to be placed on a public register. There will also be public registers of biobanking sites and biobanking statements. These registers will provide an open and transparent public reporting mechanism. Together, these and other protections in the bill will equip New South Wales to do a much better job in protecting rare and endangered species for future generations. The bill enshrines intergenerational equity and the precautionary principle in a commonsense method. The bill before the House is a major step forward to protecting our native plant and animal species. I congratulate the Minister for the Environment and those who have assisted him with the formulation of this bill. I commend this new approach to the House.

Mr PAUL PEARCE (Coogee) [9.07 p.m.]: I support the Threatened Species Conservation Amendment (Biodiversity Banking) Bill. In his second reading speech the Minister for the Environment outlined the elements of the biobanking scheme. The four components identified by the Minister were: establishing a biobanking site on land via an agreement voluntarily entered into between the Minister for the Environment and the landowner; creating biodiversity credits where the landowner agrees to undertake positive environmental management and/or rehabilitation actions to improve biodiversity values on the biobank site; allowing such credits to be traded once they are created and registered, thus enabling the credits to be used to offset a biodiversity impact on another site caused by urban development; and establishing a transparent assessment methodology to ensure that the overall operation of the scheme results in the maintenance of or improvement in biodiversity values.

I initially had a number of concerns about the possible operation and impact of the bill on threatened and endangered species. However, upon further inquiry and analysis of the bill and its relationship to other legislation—including the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995, which this bill seeks to amend, and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act—I have come to the conclusion that the intent of the bill has merit and should be supported. The environment movement raised a number of legitimate concerns. Many honourable members will have received a letter dated 30 August from the Environment Liaison Office, outlining the response from a number of environmental groups to the draft bill, which was put out for comment. 2724 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2006

The environment groups correctly made the assessment that the biobanking scheme cannot be separated from its context within the planning and development regime. Like many in the environment movement, I share their concerns about the operation of aspects of the planning and development process in New South Wales. The history of the development industry in ignoring significant community environmental concerns is well documented. All too often, developers plunder an environment, destroy local communities, adversely impact established local businesses, and take the money and run. Usually the public sector is left to pick up the pieces.

Part of the problem historically has been that the speculative developer has undervalued the environment, as well as the local heritage. When a developer assesses the yield for a particular project, items such as heritage or environment are either ascribed no value or are designated as a cost. Although I share their concerns, I feel that some of the comments of the environment movement are predicated on some misapprehensions about the objectives of the bill, as well as its relationship with the Environmental Protection and Assessment Act, particularly part 3A. There was also natural reticence to move away from a command-and-control regulatory regime to a market-based mechanism. It is reticence that I share, given the history of the failure of the market and the private sector to properly value environmental goods.

In this regard, the intention to have a full operational review of the scheme after two years is to be welcomed. I support the motion that was moved earlier. However, in a sense the scheme envisaged by the bill will put a marketable value on biodiversity for the first time. It is a value that a developer will have to take into account when assessing the yield for development proposal. They can choose that either as a cost or as a benefit. The letter from the Environment Liaison Office cites 12 points of concern regarding the bill. I do not propose to examine each of the concerns in detail. However, I wish to discuss the issues raised generally, and some points specifically.

The initial point, that the scheme is predicated on the clearing of threatened species habitats and the destruction of biodiversity values to function, is based on a number of assumptions. The primary assumptions that the relatively small parcels of land are likely to be part of any biobanking scheme are, in fact, a sustainable environment over a longer term. However, this assumption would have to be open to question. The assessment of the suitability of land in question to be part of a biobanking scheme is proposed to be subject to a rigorous analysis. The test identified is an "improve and maintain" test. The letter also fails to acknowledge that a significant proportion of land of high-value biodiversity is protected already by the extensive network of reserves and national parks established in New South Wales. This level of protection would be threatened only if the critics of the expansion of national parks, those sitting opposite, were to gain office.

The letter from the Environment Liaison Office at point 2 states that the scheme will not prevent development of high conservation value areas. Although this is true in itself, it fails to recognise the operation of the existing planning process. The biobanking scheme will apply only to proposed developments that will be admissible under existing planning laws. In itself this scheme would not allow any additional clearing or development to occur. If a development proposal meets the tough improve or maintain standard there would be no further need to undertake the existing threatened species assessment process. If the proposal does not meet the standard the current assessment process would have to continue. The environment movement is correct in expressing concern about development proposals for high conservation value areas.

However, this concern would be better directed toward input at the formulation stage of local environment plans and development control plans by consent authorities. If an area is of high conservation value it probably should not have been included as land suitable for development in a zoning stage. A biobanking scheme could be a benefit to the preservation of endangered ecological communities. It will provide a transparent method to measure whether a proposed development will improve or maintain biodiversity values. Indeed, the clearing of land that contains viable quality patches of endangered ecological communities will not be permitted under the improve or maintain test. These areas will be identified up front as being viable and, therefore, would not satisfy the basic intent of the bill.

Concern has also been expressed regarding the exemption of development being assessed under part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. Again, I feel that the authors of the letter are under a misapprehension as to the nature of the operation of part 3A of the Act. First, part 3A applies only to those developments that are adjudged to be of State significance or critical infrastructure projects. To reach the conclusion that the project is one of critical infrastructure, the Minister is required to have undertaken a preliminary risk assessment that is required to consider the financial, economic, social and environmental risks of the project. The essence of part 3A is procedural in so far as it excludes the various stop-the-clock provisions, 17 October 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2725

which would otherwise apply. However, it does not change the heads of consideration required for the assessment of a project as outlined under section 79 (1) (c) of the Act.

Put simply, the objection raised to the exemption of proposals to be assessed under the provisions of part 3A of the Environmental Protection and Assessment Act is more to do with the changes occasioned by the insertion of part 3A than the principles of the biobanking bill. In my opinion, it is highly unlikely that a major proposal fitting the criteria for exercise of the Minister's powers under part 3A of the Environmental Protection and Assessment Act could, or would in itself, be subject to a biobanking scheme. This is not to say that some land subject to a State significance proposal or critical infrastructure proposal may not be part of an existing biobanking scheme. In such a case the Minister may require that biodiversity credits be acquired as a condition of consent to offset the impact of the project. It should be borne in mind that there are no appeal rights by the applicant for projects under part 3A. Therefore, it is quite conceivable that the process puts a greater onus on the proponent.

Planning laws in this State are not predicated on thwarting lawful development. The principal objectives of the Act are to ensure that development proceeds in accordance with the requirements of a planning scheme and individual applications are assessed against the provisions of any planning instrument, as well as against a site-specific impact of a social, economic and environmental nature. The bill, which seeks to establish a legal framework for voluntary schemes, in no sense compromises the principles of assessment under either the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act or the requirements under the Threatened Species Conservation Act. Point 5 of the letter from the environment movement makes the point that there is no permanent protection for offset sites. That is true as far as it goes. It is open to any landowner to make an application for land to be rezoned. Similarly, it is open to any consent authority to respond by preparing a draft planning scheme. Only public land in a national park is protected in that sense. Even that can be affected by a legislative change. However, it cannot be ignored that the use of land subject to a biobanking scheme is impacted upon.

Under proposed section 127I (1) the agreement runs with the land and, therefore, binds successors in title to the owner who entered into the agreement. Further, this proposed section makes provision for those successors in title to be taken to have a notice of the agreement. Subsection (2) of proposed section 127I broadly defines who are successors in title for the purpose of the bill. Therefore, I question the conclusion in the letter at point 12 from the Environment Liaison Office that there would be a strong commitment to funding, monitoring or enforcement. On the contrary, I consider that there is a fairly strong legal obligation placed upon the legal owner of the land. I refer the authors of the letter to proposed section 127K, which gives a third party right, which is absent from the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, and is often cited as a weakness in that Act. In addition, proposed section 127M gives the Minister power to intervene to rectify a breach of a biobanking agreement.

Proposed section 127N provides for the subject land to be transferred to another party when an agreement has been contravened by either an Act or an omission on the part of the owner of the land subject to such an agreement. The Environment Liaison Office makes several valid points concerning the basis for assessment methodology. The Minister has recognised this concern and has undertaken, as I understand it, to seek further peer review of the methodology prior to the commencement. However, it should not be ignored that the underpinning of any methodology will be the rigorous improve or maintain test. The bill does not, in itself, facilitate unacceptable development. In conclusion, therefore, I feel that the scheme facilitated by the bill has the potential to generate pluses for the environment. It is voluntary in nature and will be subject to review of its operation and effectiveness after two years. On balance, I believe it certainly should be supported.

Ms CLOVER MOORE (Bligh) [9.20 p.m.]: The Threatened Species Conservation Amendment (Biodiversity Banking) Bill is not about improving biodiversity in this State. Rather, it works against high-conservation areas and, if passed, it will provide an easier avenue for developers to destroy conservation areas and increase the rate of extinction of threatened species. Biodiversity means the variety of life made up of genetic species and ecosystem diversity. In New South Wales there are 800 registered threatened species, but there are certainly more that we are not aware of. Under the bill the Government has proposed a scheme whereby landowners can enter into a voluntary agreement with the Minister for the Environment to establish biobanking sites. Landowners can then earn credits for their actions to improve biodiversity on these sites, which can either be used to offset biodiversity impact on another site or sold to developers to offset their development impact.

A developer who enters into a biobanking arrangement must work out the number of biobanking credit points required to offset their development, replacing the current threatened species assessment process. 2726 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2006

A biobanking assessment methodology will be established to determine how many credit points biodiversity management actions earn, and how many credit points are needed to compensate for the loss of biodiversity from development impact. In order for the biobanking scheme to work there will be damage to biodiversity. Actions to promote biodiversity occur only to offset losses. How does this promote protection and slow the already high rates of extinction? I agree with environment groups who say that this is a perverse approach to addressing the serious threat to biodiversity.

The bill fails to protect high conservation value land. While the Minister tells us that development on high conservation land will fail "improve and maintain" tests required for the scheme, the bill itself does not explicitly exclude these sites from development. "Improve and maintain" tests rely on the assessment methodology. They are not written in the bill, making them easy to change in the future. Without a ban in the bill, there is no guarantee for high conservation land. I call upon the Government to include in its amendments to proposed section 127B (3) a provision that all areas of high conservation areas should be off limits. Losing high-conservation land cannot be compensated for. Once a natural community is cleared, it is gone for good. There is a serious risk that many more species will become extinct through this scheme.

There are no like-for-like provisions that require impact to be offset by actions on land of the same or similar biodiversity value. High-conservation land can be cleared for development if it is offset by biodiversity promotion on land that has already been degraded. Again we are told that provisions will be made in the assessment methodology to ensure either the protection of the same ecological community or a more endangered ecological community. This, however, is not in the bill and is, therefore, not guaranteed. Furthermore, the notion that an ecological community can be sacrificed because a more endangered community will be better managed is extraordinary. Un-endangered communities will be continually sacrificed until they become endangered. The bill does not guarantee permanent protection of biobanking sites. A landowner can undertake actions to promote biodiversity on a site at one time and then use it for development at a later time.

We are told where biobanking requirements are not fulfilled, two new sites must be protected, one for the initial development site and one for the forfeited biobanking site. But protection should be absolute and allow for long-term gains that really make a difference. Biobanking sites should be protected indefinitely. In fact, new amendments pose even greater threats to biobanking sites. There are now provisions to allow holders of mining authorities and petroleum titles to damage biobanking sites. It is a disgrace that a scheme promoted as protecting threatened species could let mining and petrol operations, which can have extremely destructive outcomes, damage the very sites that should be improved. There is also a time delay between impact and potential improvements because the scheme offsets biodiversity improvement actions rather than outcomes.

Damage will occur long before any proposed benefits are realised. What is worse is that actions under this scheme will not even guarantee outcomes. For example, fencing a catchment from stock could earn credits, but will not promote regeneration of native fauna if there is severe drought. The bill places all the risks on biodiversity. While development is certain and permanent, improvements to biodiversity rely on environmental conditions including rain, fire, temperature, and there is no guarantee that an intended outcome will be achieved. The crucial details of this scheme, which will be set out in the biobanking assessment methodology have not been developed, and are untested. We are told that the process will be sound and rigorous, and that there will be a testing period, but to protect biodiversity fundamental principles need to be included in the bill which cannot be changed without an Act of Parliament.

I have great fears about this "just trust us" and "leave it to the next lot" policy. Biodiversity is a complex issue. Associate Professor of the School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, Dr Paul Adam, has pointed out that the tendency to believe that communities with more species are of greater value is incorrect. Natural areas with fewer species, such as the arctic tundras, can be of great global value. It is unclear whether the biobanking assessment methodology will adopt this incorrect assumption. However, I note that in his second reading speech the Minister for the Environment said that the bill will shift the focus in biodiversity from "small pockets of inexpensive land which is more suited to development onto lower priced land where pressure of weeds, pest species and degradation is low".

With the bill's focus on residential development, biodiversity in Sydney will be at the greatest threat. Of course, that is getting to the heart of what the bill is about. Sydney's natural environment should not be degraded. Rather, it should be protected and celebrated. In fact, it is one of the city's greatest assets, and I remind the House that the Wollemi pine was found during the last decade on Sydney's doorstep. The effects of clearing for development are permanent. Urban growth should be limited to a defined urban footprint, clearing for urban development should be planned and areas defined. The bill will impact on urban areas that are under 17 October 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2727

considerable threat in exchange for biodiversity promotion in rural areas where clearing is supposed to be constrained by the Native Vegetation Act 2003.

New amendments to be moved by the Government, which have been proposed to appease the development industry, go further and remove other avenues of protecting threatened species by preventing protection considerations under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The local community and concerned groups will have no say when an area is declared for development if the loss of biodiversity is offset by actions somewhere else. Areas in high demand by developers will be sacrificed because of management actions far away. Actions by the Government, and mainly supported by the Opposition, have steadily and comprehensively removed hard-won rights for communities to have an effective say in the development and future of their areas. It amazes me that members of this House will have the gall to ask the very same communities for their vote next March.

The bill also exempts development under part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act from complying with even the minor biodiversity criteria set out in the bill, such as the requirement to demonstrate that all cost-effective measures are taken to minimise impacts on biodiversity. That is despite reports from environment groups that part 3A development, such as major highways, is the most destructive development. Already the Sydney Morning Herald on 9 August reported that Hardie Holdings, a developer that is a regular donor to the Labor Party, is already planning to buy high-conservation land to earn credits for development. Under the bill, developers will be able to destroy land of high biodiversity value if they have the money to pay for it. The existing rate of biodiversity loss in this country and this State is shameful. The bill not only fails to address those ongoing losses, but also threatens to endanger the number and disposition of precious and unique ecological communities.

I support the environment groups who condemn this bill as potentially destructive and I would like to have recorded in Hansard the names of those groups. They are the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Blue Mountains Conservation Society, the Colong Foundation for Wilderness, Greenpeace, the National Parks Association of New South Wales, the Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales, the Wilderness Society and the Total Environment Centre. I support their view that the entire approach to biodiversity in this State needs to be rethought with a stronger rather than weaker resolve from the Government to protect what remains of our high- conservation areas. There is a lot of talk by Government about Australian values and the importance of Australian heritage as a desirable legacy for our children's future. The bill fails on both accounts. I urge the members of this House to oppose it.

Mr ALEX McTAGGART (Pittwater) [9.28 p.m.]: I oppose the Threatened Species Conservation Amendment (Biodiversity Banking) Bill 2006 as it fails to protect sensitive land in Pittwater and adjoining metropolitan local government areas. I acknowledge the Minister's presence in the Chamber and suggest to him that the bill is probably a good idea but it certainly needs a little more work. The bill, which adds a new part 7A to the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995, is too complex. It does not set out the mechanisms for biodiversity assessment or outline who will make that assessment, and in my view it does little to protect the environment, particularly the metropolitan urban environment.

Environmental groups throughout the State say it is totally unacceptable, and I have to agree with them. I notice also that, following the Government's amendments, the Property Council and the urban development task force now support the bill, as does the Mining Council, which makes me even more suspicious of it. Environmentalists say neither the bill nor the new amendments will deliver better environmental or planning outcomes. It is little more than a concession to developers, who want more land released for urban development with less environmental red tape.

Most of the amendments are aimed at giving developers and the mining industry access to areas of land with high conservation value that normally should be protected. Basically, all this bill does is give developers an easy way around threatened species laws, which are already not sufficiently strong. The bill does not address the fundamental problems of land clearing and biodiversity loss due to overdevelopment, which, presumably, is what it is intended to do. Its main problem is simple: It allows economic interests to systematically override environmental concerns.

The Minister tells us it offers weightings to provide incentives for biobank sites to be located in areas of strategic conservation value instead of leaving isolated and vulnerable patches scattered across the urban landscape. I am opposed to that because these are the wildlife corridors which connect the habitats of our urban wildlife. Animals move from food source to food source, from one side of a valley to another. They need that 2728 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2006

connectivity. To destroy pockets in isolation, as this bill allows, will break up the very nature of what is left of the biodiversity of urban areas. As the director of the Nature Conservation Council, Cate Faehrmann, says:

None of our main concerns have been addressed by these latest amendments, which means that we will continue to see the loss of large areas of irreplaceable bushland on our urban fringes.

But of greatest concern is that the bill, by allowing for the selling of biodiversity credits to anybody, allows for the destruction of one area by a developer in return for conserving another, the nature of which is not specified. So a piece of land which is valuable to a developer but which also is valuable to environmentalists for its biodiversity can be destroyed. If a developer protects one piece of land there are no requirements that an alternative site should be of equal value. The bill claims to be enhancing biodiversity. But how is that achieved by allowing the destruction of high-value land in exchange for preserving land of lesser value, especially when, in many cases, those alternative sites will already be protected under a range of different Acts? One of the most significant deficiencies of the bill is that the alternative sites are not guaranteed protection in perpetuity. There is nothing to stop the protection from being removed some time down the track and the land being used for development, or even to prevent the land from being traded off again.

There are other serious flaws in the bill. Under current laws, development that destroys the last remaining habitat of an endangered species can still be approved for economic reasons. The bill does not address that. Environmental groups have told me that it neither maintains nor improves diversity, and it does not even simplify the development process. The bill is supposedly aimed at environmental protection, yet amendment 33 allows the Minister for Planning to have veto power over the release of the Department of Environment and Conservation's assessment of threatened species under biobanking. The power of local councils to protect their threatened species habitat is also diminished under amendments 32, 36, 40, 53 and 55. Environmentalists say that all those amendments should be opposed, along with amendment 20, which fails to protect biobanking sites in perpetuity and opens them up to future mining.

The bill allows for the immediate destruction of an endangered habitat in return for a nebulous gain at some time down the track. Biobanking relies on increasing biodiversity values, which can take 75 years or more to deliver, and it does not guarantee that the offset site will be protected for that period. The bill is also too weak and too vague when it comes to the mechanism for assessing biodiversity or its value in a particular area. The Minister tells us the price for each credit will be determined by the market, but how is a monetary value assessed in relation to biodiversity? Who will determine which conservation area is worth more than another, and on what basis? The bill does not answer those questions because the assessment methodology has not yet been worked out. Surely what we need in a bill is not the creation of a complicated system which, through wheeling and dealing, allows development on sites where formerly it was not allowed, but a bill which puts high conservation value areas off limits to development, full stop.

Some of the amendments to which the Minister agreed following public consultation, after the bill was introduced in June, are welcome. A review after two years of operation is also a good idea, although I would have preferred a review to take place sooner than that. I note also that the Minister has agreed to set up a ministerial reference group on which all stakeholders will be represented to assist in finalising the biobanking assessment methodology and regulations. But surely it is a bit late to set up such a group after the legislation has been passed. I would have thought it should have been established and working on the assessment methodology in the preparatory stages of this bill, not after it becomes law. I note also that testing of the methodology will be conducted for a three-month period only, which is nothing like enough time to assess the fundamental process for the operation of this bill. Again, I maintain that such testing should have been conducted before the bill's introduction, not afterwards.

The Minister tells us that biobanking will provide a practical way to help reach the goal of improving or maintaining biodiversity in urban areas, especially in areas that are subject to the metropolitan and other regional strategies, but we do not know how. Biobanking is also intended to be used as part of the certification of environmental planning instruments, such as local environmental plans. Again, I am not sure how that will work, either. How can the Government claim to be protecting biodiversity when mining will be permitted on biobank sites? A letter from Georgina Woods of the Hunter Community Environment Centre and Carmel Flint of the North East Forest Alliance was sent to the Minister for the Environment on behalf of 44 environment groups. It states that they are appalled by the bill, which threatens at least six of the most fundamental principles of modern conservation.

I turn now to how biobanking will impact on my electorate of Pittwater and to examine the current protections, however thin. Before I do so, I point out that previous speakers have referred to section 94 17 October 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2729

contributions. Section 94 contributions will not work in Pittwater and other inner-city areas because the cost of land is too great and they cannot work on single or minor land transfer transactions. Recently, in the Warriewood Valley land release, Pittwater Council had the problem of providing one additional sports field, as required by the increase in density. The cost of that land is approximately $6 million, and that makes the contribution very high. Unless broad-brush land trading is the mechanism, the contributions cannot be funded.

Currently, the provisions governing the protection of threatened species from urban development in New South Wales mean that there are no prohibitions against the destruction of threatened species, their habitats, or rare and vulnerable habitat values like coastal wetlands and rainforest, even when these are covered by a State environmental planning policy. The State's planning legislation tends to play a far more significant role in determining the fate of threatened species on private land in New South Wales than the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. Although planning legislation establishes processes for consideration of impacts and assessment requirements under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, a consent authority can grant a development consent that will adversely affect a threatened species no matter how endangered that species is.

The Department of Environment and Conservation has a concurrent role when a development will have a significant impact on threatened species. The courts are usually the consent authority, after great financial and emotional cost to the community. What is the process at the moment? If an area with high conservation value is zoned for residential development and the owner wants to develop it, the owner may lodge a development application with the local council. The developer and the council decide whether the development is likely to have a significant impact on the environment. If they decide it will, they prepare an environmental impact statement [EIS]. Threatened species values are a subset of the environment debate. The EIS determines what threatened species or communities are likely to be impacted upon.

The seven-part test under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act is the current test for whether an action will have a significant impact on a threatened species or community. If the EIS finds that the development will have a significant impact, the developer must submit a species impact statement [SIS] with a development application that has been prepared in accordance with the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. The species impact statements are placed on public exhibition. The consent authority must consider, when deciding whether to grant the consent, how the development will affect that critical habitat and whether a threatened species, population or ecological community or its habitat is likely to be significantly affected. The failing of all of the above is that it looks at the development application only in isolation and not at the connectivity of wildlife corridors and the linking of pockets. It is the pockets in our urban areas that are under threat. The consent authority cannot, as a general rule, grant consent without first getting agreement from the Director General of the Department of Environment and Conservation.

Socioeconomic benefits are balanced against threatened species impacts under the terms of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, and the Department of Environment and Conservation generally uses its concurrence role to mitigate threatened species impacts. The development proposal is modified to lessen the impacts, and these amelioration requirements are incorporated into the development consent. Littoral rainforest is protected under State environmental planning policy [SEPP] 26 and coastal wetlands under SEPP 14. Local governments are the consent authorities for the destruction of those values, and quite often are rolled in the courts.

Under biobanking the process would be as follows. Developers would be able to voluntarily use the scheme instead of the species impact statement method mentioned earlier. For environmental impacts other than on threatened species, an environmental impact statement would still be required if it was deemed necessary. Developers would still lodge a development application as per the above, but for threatened species impacts they would ask the Department of Environment and Conservation to run a biobanking assessment. That assessment will be uniform for all developments. The methodology will be gazetted and is based on the biometric tool used on rural properties, not for urban properties.

The biobanking methodology will determine how many biodiversity credits a developer will need to purchase in order to maintain or improve biodiversity. The developer buys those credits from the owner of a biobank site, a property or part of a property that is managed for conservation. The biobanking methodology also determines how many credits a biobank site generates. There will be three classes of credits: community credits for vegetation communities, broad threatened species habitat type credits, and credits for a list of specific threatened species. 2730 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2006

Credit purchase requirements are incorporated into the development consent in place of the amelioration requirements currently used. Once credits are purchased, the purchaser is issued with a biobanking statement which states that that development maintains or improves biodiversity, and that the developer has fulfilled all requirements relating to threatened species under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and the Threatened Species Conservation Act. Councils will not be able to impose any further requirements or conditions of consent upon the developer for threatened species protection once a biobanking statement has been issued. The credits purchased are then retired and cannot be used again. No part of that process is publicly exhibited, but biobanking statements will be kept on a public register. The only red light values the loss of which cannot be offset are viable patches of endangered ecological communities. The term "viable patch" has not been defined. [Extension of time agreed to.]

In the case of a patch of littoral rainforest, it would seem likely that the developer would have to purchase rainforest biobank credits to offset that loss. That raises the issue that one piece of littoral rainforest in an area has to be sacrificed to protect another. The bill has specifically excluded the requirement that losses may only be offset within equivalent vegetation communities, but, broadly, offsets will have to show the same habitat values and species present. If developers could find someone selling coastal rainforest credits, they could get a biobanking statement saying they had offset the loss and could go ahead with the development. If they could not find any appropriate credits to buy, they would just go back and use the seven-part test, and the development would go ahead anyway.

I propose to the Minister a possible way forward for metropolitan urban land. Under the new Department of Planning local environmental plan template that has been foisted on councils, there should be a mandatory audit of all threatened and endangered species and habitats on both private and public land in each local government area, or perhaps in each subregion of the metropolitan housing strategy, categorised into levels of ecological value. There should be an audit also of all land assets owned by the Government and its agencies—the Department of Planning, the Department of Lands, the Department of Commerce, et cetera—and a bank of equal value established. It is the State that should protect the remaining sensitive land by way of barter or trade. I would like to give an example of a small version of this concept.

Recently in Pittwater there were two sensitive landholdings in private ownership on the Warriewood escarpment, the Hayden Estate and the Gowings Estate. It was proposed that both significant environmental assets would be cut up; they had significant environmental value to the community. By way of a land exchange with some council land, some Department of Planning land and an environmental levy of 5 per cent for five years, the council on behalf of the community was able to place approximately 27 hectares of sensitive land in public ownership. That 27 hectares was half a kilometre from the beach and 20 kilometres from the central business district. It is impossible to put a price on that land.

That was a demonstration of community and government working together. There is no reason why State land and cash cannot be traded with private landowners who have sensitive land they wish to develop. It is imperative that we save what is left of the urban fringe and its environmental value. I fear that small pockets of littoral rainforest at the head of the valleys at Newport, Bilgola, Avalon and Palm Beach, as well as the remnant spotted gum forest and Duffys Forest vegetation, will be under threat if the bill goes ahead in its current form. I urge the Minister to defer the bill for consideration of the urban landholding position and to give the community something to work with.

Mr PETER DRAPER (Tamworth) [9.46 p.m.]: As previous speakers have said, the object of the Threatened Species Conservation Amendment (Biodiversity Banking) Bill is to establish a biodiversity banking and offset scheme which contains a number of key elements. I have serious reservations about the bill in its current form. I refer to the very valid concerns raised by the New South Wales Farmers Association on the impediments the bill will place on rural landholders. Following the second reading speech an enormous number of amendments, 62 in all, were drafted in response to valid concerns about the bill's original content. Despite those amendments, little has been achieved to alleviate the concerns of the farming community.

My office has been inundated with correspondence from urban development organisations in relation to the bill, and while I support biobanking in principle, most representations I received were opposed to the bill in its original form due to the unnecessary restrictions and imposts placed on urban development in New South Wales. The State offices of the Urban Development Institute of Australia, the Property Council of Australia and the New South Wales Urban Taskforce, expressed concern over the original bill. I found it very encouraging that the Government redrafted the bill in response to those concerns. I also find it very encouraging that the 17 October 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2731

Minister has taken the opportunity to be present in the House to listen to the contributions tonight. That is a positive step.

However, I point out the opposition to the bill expressed by the New South Wales Farmers Association on behalf of rural landholders. The association believes that further amendments to the bill are needed to allow landholders to purchase credits as a means of meeting offset requirements in property vegetation plans [PVPs] or landscape plans under the Native Vegetation Act 2003. The association states that the current bill allows biobanking credits to be created on rural land, but does not allow those credits to be used on rural land to meet requirements of the Native Vegetation Act. The Government, in turn, has stated that current legislation provides an equivalent mechanism through offsets provided in PVPs, but it is apparent those mechanisms are not equivalent, as any offsets available in PVPs are required to be found on the same property.

In many cases, the required offset ratios are such that it is impossible for farmers to find sufficient offsets on their own property. As property developers are free to use their credits at will, farmers are not, which places them at a significant disadvantage. Farmers can purchase offsets from another landholder, but they cannot be used for rural land purposes. Biobanking credits can be used to meet development approval requirements under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 but cannot be used to meet requirements under the Native Vegetation Act 2003.

The association sought informal legal advice that revealed that there is currently no legal impediment to amending the bill and the Native Vegetation Regulation 2005 to enable biobanking to be used as a tool under the Native Vegetation Act 2003, in the same way that the bill proposes to make biobanking available under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. I therefore agree with the association's advice to the Government to delete proposed new section 127ZD (a), which states:

… any clearing of native vegetation that must not be carried out except in accordance with a development consent granted in accordance with the Native Vegetation Act 2003 or a property vegetation plan under that Act …

The association also recommends the insertion of a clause in the Native Vegetation Regulation 2005 environmental outcomes assessment methodology, stating that biodiversity offsets required within a PVP can be met by retiring a biobanking credit. The insertion of a subclause into clause 26 of the Native Vegetation Regulation 2005 will also remove impediments, to the effect that biodiversity credits are deemed to improve biodiversity outcomes for the purposes of the Native Vegetation Act 2003.

There is significant merit in the association's argument for further amendment of the bill. It appears that there is no technical impediment to this as the biodiversity banking methodology applies the same assessment criteria for biodiversity impacts as the Native Vegetation Regulation 2005. Biobanking would also play a valuable role within the framework of landscape plans by providing a robust legal mechanism for economic transfers within the plan area. Landscape planning will require an enabling amendment to the Native Vegetation Regulation, and this should be written to accommodate the biobanking option.

Urban development is an issue that receives most publicity and attention from government in metropolitan areas, while development in rural areas barely rates a mention. The rate of development in the urban areas of outer Sydney is obviously higher, and the Government and local councils face significant challenges in meeting the demands of a rapidly growing population. I agree that environmental interests constitute a significant part of these challenges, and I support the consideration of our native flora and fauna in any development. However, it is vital that these concerns are addressed in a manner that would not add unnecessary imposts for rural landholders.

That is not to say that urban development is stagnant in country electorates. In the electorate of Tamworth, for example, housing estates are growing at a rapid rate. In the Gunnedah shire this year the local council has approved 34 individual lots for development. Discussions are currently under way regarding a possible 330-lot subdivision in Gunnedah and a further 200 individual lots are being reviewed at an existing subdivision. In the Tamworth area the progress with housing developments is even more pronounced. A number of housing developments, valued at almost $10 million, are currently awaiting approval by Tamworth Regional Council, including the $1 million Forest Hills subdivision and the $630,000 Greenacres Estate. A $30 million retirement village is also planned for a rural area in the Hills Plain district. Many of these developments will be subject to the provisions of this bill.

It is clear that housing development in my electorate is increasing to cope with the growing population. Over the past three years I have developed a database of constituents and I send letters to people when they 2732 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2006

enrol to vote in my electorate. When I was elected in 2003 I signed between 50 and 70 such letters a month. But over the course of 2006 I have been signing anywhere from 350 to 400 letters per month. Many of them are sent to married couples who have relocated to the area. The property development industry was rightly concerned that the bill's original content eroded housing affordability. However, many industry players pledged their support for the bill after the Minister amended the legislation. It is a positive step that the Government moved to address these concerns as many people who relocate from the city to the country probably do so because of greater housing affordability. The Government should now move to alleviate the remaining concerns of rural landholders.

As a member who represents a country electorate and as a resident of a rural village, I cannot support the bill in its current form. I am very much in support of the principle of biobanking but further amendments, as detailed by the New South Wales Farmers Association, should be implemented so that landholders are not disadvantaged by property developers. According to the Federal Treasurer, in times of drought-induced rural recession farmers need assistance in order to remain viable. This bill could create further impediments to their ongoing viability. The legislation is not consistent and we need equity between developers and farmers. From my perspective, the legislation focuses clearly on metropolitan areas and favours the property development industry at the expense of rural landholders. Farmers must be able to purchase biobanking offsets for the purpose of rural farming activities. I urge the Government to consult further with the New South Wales Farmers Association and rural landholders so that we can resolve the issues that have been raised.

I recognise the contribution made to this debate by the honourable member for Pittwater, who has obviously researched this issue thoroughly. He suggested a possible way forward that would involve a mandatory audit of threatened species and government land assets and a bank of equal value. He gave the very good example from Warriewood, where the council has resumed 27 hectares of sensitive land. I think that is a very good step and a strong example of how cities can protect valuable land. However, the issues are very different in the country. Therefore, I cannot support the bill in its current form.

Mr ANDREW STONER (Oxley—Leader of The Nationals) [9.55 p.m.]: The original proposal regarding the Threatened Species Conservation Amendment (Biodiversity Banking) Bill was deeply flawed. The original bill had many shortcomings and loopholes. The Government said effectively not only to the Opposition but to stakeholder groups, "Take us on trust and we will introduce regulations to address the many areas that were not covered adequately in the bill." The Government has subsequently made a number of amendments to the bill that go part of the way towards addressing some of our concerns—the Opposition particularly welcomes the initiative to have a joint select committee examine a biobanking trial—but the fundamental flaws in the legislation remain.

I represent a coastal electorate and many concerns have been brought to my attention, including the trading-off of extremely valuable coastal land, which may be the habitat of many threatened species, in exchange for other cleared land situated away from the coast. At present there is great demand for coastal land and for land with water views. Not everyone can purchase land with water views but the strong development lobby has obviously been in the ear of the Government.

Ms Katrina Hodgkinson: Frank Sartor knows them well.

Mr ANDREW STONER: As the honourable member for Burrinjuck points out, earlier today the issue of developer donations to the Labor Party was raised in the context of not only this bill but other legislation before the House. We have many questions about the representation by some of those developers on committees associated with the bill. Not only environment groups but other stakeholders have expressed many other concerns about this legislation. So, while the Government's amendments go part of the way towards addressing the Opposition's concerns, they do not change the fact that the bill was introduced hurriedly and without proper consultation. It is based on trust but the Labor Party, in view of its past record and its close relationship with developers, simply cannot be trusted. This is the party that abolished the Coastal Council, that accepts large donations from developers and that has introduced a bill that will see the sell-off of certain land in exchange for other land. On that basis, although it welcomes some of the amendments, the Opposition still cannot support the bill.

Mr BOB DEBUS (Blue Mountains—Attorney General, Minister for the Environment, and Minister for the Arts) [10.00 p.m.], in reply: The honourable member for Pittwater gave an example in which he described the outcome of some negotiation between private and public landholders to bring about a solution that was useful from the point of view of development and the point of view of conservation. Of course, that is exactly 17 October 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2733

what was achieved earlier today when the Premier and the Minister for Planning and I went to Newcastle to announce the regional strategy and conservation plan, in which 30,000 hectares of public and private land of the highest conservation land available passed into national parks, and 3,000 hectares have been, or will be, set aside for development of a sort which, it is generally conceded, is necessary for the economic wellbeing of that part of the world.

The point is, however, that we need a systematic way to enable this kind of transaction to happen in smaller scale, regular, day-by-day development proposals. Biobanking is the world's best practical proposal to deliver on the kinds of in-principle support that a number of honourable members have expressed for the resolution of these issues involving conservation that must take place in the face of development pressure. The fact is that we need to get on with biobanking, and the fact is that the Government is showing a path forward within a two-year trial period.

I would like to correct an often-quoted misconception, perpetuated again tonight, especially by the honourable member for Bligh, about the biobanking scheme. Biobanking is not intended to, and will not in fact, increase or facilitate the clearing of high conservation value vegetation in urban areas. It is nonsense to be suggesting so. Rather, biobanking will provide a streamlined process for developments, but only where those developments achieve the strict improve or maintain test for biodiversity values. For part 3A development, the scheme provides a robust framework for using compensatory habitat to mitigate impacts. By encouraging the creation of biobank sites, the scheme will also provide strong incentives to better protect biodiversity on private land.

The Government is committed to conserving biodiversity and threatened species. The Government has significantly expanded the network of national parks. The Government has added 2.5 million hectares to national parks in the past 10 years—the greatest expansion of reserve in the history of this State, by far. The Government has established catchment management authorities, which are delivering incentives for natural resource management for private land, and there has been an end to broadscale clearing unless it maintains or improves environmental outcomes under the Native Vegetation Act. Additionally, a comprehensive statement of prioritised recovery actions for threatened species has been placed on public exhibition, and will soon be adopted.

Appropriate conservation of private land is, of course, an important part of the strategy to protect ecosystems and to recover threatened species. However, despite the many positive efforts to conserve threatened species and biodiversity, the fact is that clearing and fragmentation in urban and coastal areas continues to be a cause of biodiversity loss. I address this observation again, especially to honourable members opposite who have been reading out from letters from some conservation organisations: we need a systematic way to prevent unacceptable impacts and, where impacts are unavoidable, to ensure positive actions are taken to counterbalance the losses. Unfortunately, present laws and systems are failing to deal effectively with the cumulative impact of many small to medium actions.

The Department of Environment and Conservation will continue to provide significant opportunities for public input and consultation in the development of the regulations and the biobanking assessment methodology. This will build on efforts to date to consult and involve key stakeholders in the development of the scheme. A ministerial reference group, on which all key stakeholders will be represented, will be established to assist in finalising the biobanking assessment methodology and regulations, and that group also will oversee implementation during the two-year trial and assist in the review of the scheme. It will include representatives from environment and industry groups and catchment management authorities.

The biobanking assessment methodology will undergo rigorous testing involving stakeholders before it is commenced, and that testing will include a number of worked examples of real properties to ensure that the methodology is practical, affordable and robust. The testing will occur over a minimum three-month period, and it will include opportunity for landowners to nominate sites on which to test the methodology and a series of workshops in which the reference group will review the application of the methodology on these sites and make recommendations upon it. The final draft of that methodology will also be placed on public exhibition for comment, before it is finalised. It will then be published in the Government Gazette.

The biobanking assessment methodology provides the basis for credit calculations, trading scope and rules. The Department of Environment and Conservation has established an exceptionally strong team of scientists, economists and planners to work with the various stakeholders and the reference group to develop methodology. The assessment methodology will establish the minimum possible number of credit types and the 2734 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2006

minimum necessary trading rules so that it can implement a transparent, robust, improve or maintain test based on the best available science. It will enable gains and losses at development and biobank sites to be assessed at different times, and independently it will ensure that biodiversity losses are offset for "like for like or better" outcomes. It will provide also a assessment process that is rapid, objective and easy to use.

The final assessment methodology will be based on a refined version of the assessment methodology already being used by catchment management authorities for issuing property vegetation plans under the Native Vegetation Act. Refinements to date include the integration of most individual threatened species into their associated ecological communities, the ability for independent assessment of credit calculation for development sites and biobank sites, and mechanisms for risk assignment between unrelated parties.

Finally, I mention that the trading rules will be applied through the improve or maintain test to secure positive biodiversity outcomes. The improve or maintain test will be incorporated in the assessment methodology, and that will be part of the legal framework for the scheme. As already stated, the clearing of viable patches of endangered ecological communities will not be permitted. This proposition again answers precisely the propositions being made by the honourable member for Pittwater. The clearing of viable patches of endangered ecological communities will not be permitted under the improve or maintain test. For other areas where credits can be used to offset impacts under the test, there will be strict rules ensuring that credits are obtained from a biobank site, with either the same ecological community as the development site or a more endangered ecological community. The credits are obtained from a biobank site with the same threatened species habitat as the development site. The credits are obtained from the same geographical subregion or other subregions with similar habitats.

Biobanking is an important new strategy that combines successful environmental banking experience in the United States of America with the very best of Australian science. It provides a much-needed innovation to avert recurring conflict that occurs over competing land use claims. Particularly around Sydney and along the coast, biobanking will provide a structured way to ensure native plants and animals are protected, even as the population and the economy continue to grow. In the United States environmental banking has provided incentives for private investment to seek out, restore and manage land for conservation in perpetuity. Funds can be pooled for cost effectiveness. One not-for-profit group in the United States already has set aside a $US23 million endowment fund for the ongoing management of land under conservation covenants. That is only one example of the great benefits that can be achieved for the environment under a robust biobanking scheme. Exactly the same kind of arrangement could be made by a private charitable organisation, such as the Australian Bush Heritage Fund, which is presently engaged in Australia in, for example, the purchase and covenant of land for its conservation.

The New South Wales Government recognises that conservation on private land is an integral part of the strategy to protect important ecosystems and recover threatened species. Despite the many positive efforts, clearing and fragmentation in urban and coastal areas continue to cause net biodiversity loss. That is a reality that some Opposition members are unwilling to acknowledge. Biobanking is designed to provide a systematic way to ensure that positive conservation actions are taken to counterbalance the biodiversity losses that exist where the impacts of necessary development cannot be avoided and will provide a net gain for the environment. There should be no doubt that where an assessment of a development demonstrates that the impacts will be unacceptable, a biobanking statement will not be approved for that site. Where a development is to go ahead, biobanking can help to provide a balanced outcome for both the environment and development.

I will respond to some issues that were raised during the debate. First of all, on consultation, the Government, through the Department of Environment and Conservation, has extensively consulted on biobanking, including the bill now before the House. In August 2005 a detailed discussion paper was released seeking comment on the proposed biobanking scheme. Seventy-two submissions were received in response to the discussion paper. Following that paper, numerous briefings were held with key stakeholders. The briefings included five forums, four government briefings, 14 seminars on threatened species reforms for local government and four briefings for individual stakeholder groups, which were provided in response to specific requests. The peculiar suggestion by the Leader of The Nationals that the Government had not consulted has been proven, by that account, to be perfectly ridiculous.

A working paper providing more detail on the operation of the scheme was released in late 2005 and a background paper was released in January 2006. Once again, there were detailed briefings with many stakeholders. Fifty-four submissions were received on the working paper. In addition to the establishment of the focus and review group, eight stakeholder briefings were held between February and June 2006. Following that 17 October 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2735

massive amount of consultation, the Government introduced the bill in June this year. During the second reading speech, I indicated that we would be seeking more feedback from interested parties during the winter recess. Once again, numerous meetings were held to brief those who had a special interest in the content of the bill.

Arising from that comprehensive consultation process, as previously advised, the Government will move a number of amendments during the Committee stage of the debate. Changes will also be made to the way the Government intends to implement the scheme. The amendments address a number of key issues raised by the honourable member for The Hills and other stakeholders in response to the bill tabled last session. A letter describing the intent of these changes was circulated to the Opposition and all crossbench members several weeks ago. The first draft of the amendments and a revised version, which had a single technical change, were circulated in late September.

Among the many claims reported in the recent media coverage of the biobanking scheme, it has been alleged that biobanking will not provide lasting conservation outcomes. That is manifestly not the case. Under the bill, biobank sites will be required to be managed in perpetuity. Not for 15 to 20 years, as has been suggested, but in perpetuity. Biobanking provides a robust legal framework to ensure that is so. All biobanking agreements will be tied to the title of the land to which they pertain, which means that biodiversity values will be protected and conserved even if the land changes ownership. Once created, credits will be separated from the land and can be transferred to any person as property. That is the basis of the market in biodiversity credits.

When biodiversity credits are first sold by the biobank site owner, a prescribed amount of money will be paid into the Biobanking Trust Fund. The fund will make annual payments to the owner of the biobank site to assist with the delivery of conservation management actions. If the land is sold, the funds remain in the trust and are payable to the new landowner to help pay for managing the site. It is the Government's intention that the trust fund be managed by a private sector organisation with financial management skills and experience, in much the same way as superannuation funds are managed. In the event that conservation actions are not properly carried out by the owner of the biobanking site, the bill provides a number of enforcement provisions as well as penalties of up to $1.1 million. For lesser offences the Minister can suspend or cancel credits until the management actions have been carried out.

The biobanking assessment methodology will provide the basis for credit calculations, as well as the scope and rules for trading. The Department of Environment and Conservation has been working with an exceptionally experienced and well-qualified team of scientists, economists and planners to develop the methodology and will continue to engage stakeholders as the methodology is finalised. The assessment methodology will be based on the best available science and on information already being used by catchment management authorities across New South Wales for clearing assessments under the Native Vegetation Act. Under that approach we now have a vast amount of information regarding the types of animals and plant species, population size and supporting habitat contained in each catchment management area. This science has been subject to an independent peer review and is supported by peak conservation groups. As I have said, I believe the methodology will be developed to maximise overall biodiversity gains, but it will put in place a demonstrably robust "improve or maintain" test; ensure that biodiversity losses are offset for "like for like or better" outcomes; and provide a transparent assessment process.

The bill establishes the overarching legislative framework for biobanking as a necessary first step to develop the scheme. The regulations and detailed biobanking assessment methodology will be finalised with the ministerial reference group. In line with suggestions made during the consultation period, including by the Opposition, the first two years of the scheme's implementation will take place as a voluntary trial. It is intended that the two-year trial will allow the Government and stakeholders to look closely at critical operational factors of the scheme, such as the operation of the new market in practice, further financial and cost analysis, compatibility with the Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and the implications of public sector participation in biobanking.

As I will outline shortly, an important issue raised by the New South Wales Farmers Association will also be examined during the trial period. The Government will have the opportunity during this period to look at biobanking in full operation to allow for a thorough assessment of the scheme's effectiveness. That will also provide the participants of the scheme with the security necessary for investment into the scheme. This means that biobanking agreements and biobanking statements will have the legal status provided by the bill, and that trading in biodiversity credits can legally occur. 2736 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2006

If a person participates in the scheme during the trial by entering into a biobanking agreement or obtaining a biobanking statement, the requirements of the scheme will continue to apply and have legal force during and following the trial. The biobanking scheme will be integrated within the existing development assessment process by providing a transparent and scientifically robust approach to dealing with potential impacts on threatened species and biodiversity. This, I believe, will result in a vastly improved and easier-to-use assessment system. The honourable member for The Hills has asked about the relationship between biobanking and the biodiversity certification of environmental planning instruments.

Biodiversity certification enables councils to address biodiversity upfront at the local and regional planning stage. Presently, the Department of Environment and Conservation is working directly with a number of local councils on certification. At the same time, councils are also upgrading their planning instruments to use the new standard local environmental plan to simplify and improve consistency in the planning system across the State. Biobanking provides a standard mechanism for the use of offsets that can be considered as part of certification. Biobanking will assist in the implementation of broader regional and local plans as it provides a transparent, effective mechanism to ensure that conservation action is taken each time there is to be an unavoidable impact of development.

I will respond also to some issues raised by the honourable member for Tamworth on behalf of the New South Wales Farmers Association. Biobanking will provide landholders, including farmers, with an opportunity to diversify their income source by establishing a biobank site creating biodiversity credits that can be sold on the open market. In this way, biobanking provides incentives to farmers and other private landholders to manage their land for conservation. To generate credits, landholders commit to conservation actions such as controlling feral animals and noxious weeds. Farmers will be able to turn good environmental management into a commercial opportunity. The greater the performance, the more credits the landholder will be able to sell and therefore the more income they will earn.

Contrary to the suggestion made by the honourable member for Coffs Harbour, the scheme does encourage landholders to better manage their land because it is this commitment that provides for the creation of credits. This conservation incentive will complement the considerable native vegetation reforms already under way, including a package of more than $400 million in financial incentives for farmers to conserve native vegetation and improve natural resource management, as well as a substantial $37 million structural adjustment fund. In a letter dated 26 September 2006 the New South Wales Farmers Association has proposed that the bill should be amended to enable biodiversity credits to be used to meet offset requirements under the Native Vegetation Act 2003. I believe this is the issue the honourable member for Tamworth was particularly concerned with. However, the Government understands that this would be only in relation to clearing proposals that meet the Native Vegetation Act's improve or maintain test⎯that is, in the so-called amber light areas.

Under the current Native Vegetation Act, a single property vegetation plan can cover two properties, with the clearing and offset sites being located on different properties. However, I understand that the association is also seeking to enable farmers to have much wider access to credits that become available on the open market under biobanking. Under such an amendment, farmers could choose to either provide on-farm offsets as per the current property vegetation plan system, or purchase and retire credits that have already been created by another landowner who has set up a biobank site. As the bill presently stands, the clearing of native vegetation requiring approval under the Native Vegetation Act is excluded from obtaining a biobanking statement. This circumstance was designed to ensure that landowners address either the relevant requirements of the Native Vegetation Act or the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, depending on whether they are located in rural or urban areas.

Despite the exclusion, I have advised the New South Wales Farmers Association that the Government would be prepared to consider the possibility of using biodiversity credits to offset amber light clearing of native vegetation under the Native Vegetation Act. However, I must emphasise that any use of credits in this way would need to ensure that the improve or maintain test under the Native Vegetation Act was met, as well as being consistent with the assessment methodology under the biobanking bill. Given the nature of this proposal, its impact on the Native Vegetation Act and the need to ensure extensive consultation, I propose that this issue be explicitly referred to the ministerial reference group for its consideration and advice. I anticipate that, if agreement about the proposal can be reached, this issue could conceivably be dealt with and resolved well before the conclusion of the proposed two-year biobanking trial. I hope that the honourable member for Tamworth will now support the bill. 17 October 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2737

Finally, I wish to address the suggestion that only degraded parcels of land will benefit from being managed under the scheme as biobank sites. In fact, sites that can be described as being in either poor or good condition may be established as biobank sites. The greater biodiversity benefit capable of being generated, the more credits that can be sold from the site. This will encourage biobank sites to be established in areas that contribute most significantly to conservation. Acknowledging that there is a great deal of technical information in the remarks that I have made, but indicating that I believe in all the circumstances it is necessary that I should have given those explanations, I commend the bill to the House.

Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 44

Ms Allan Mr Gaudry Mrs Paluzzano Mr Amery Mr Gibson Mr Pearce Ms Andrews Mr Greene Mrs Perry Ms Beamer Ms Hay Ms Saliba Mr Black Mr Hickey Mr Scully Mr Brown Mr Hunter Mr Shearan Ms Burney Ms Judge Mr Stewart Mr Campbell Ms Keneally Mr Tripodi Mr Chaytor Mr Lynch Mr Watkins Mr Collier Mr McLeay Mr West Mr Corrigan Ms Meagher Mr Whan Mr Crittenden Ms Megarrity Mr Yeadon Mr Daley Mr Mills Tellers, Mr Debus Mr Morris Mr Ashton Ms Gadiel Mr Newell Mr Martin

Noes, 30

Mr Aplin Mr Kerr Mrs Skinner Mr Barr Mr McTaggart Mr Souris Ms Berejiklian Mr Merton Mr Stoner Mr Constance Ms Moore Mr Tink Mr Draper Mr Oakeshott Mr Torbay Mrs Fardell Mr O'Farrell Mr R. W. Turner Mr Fraser Mr Page Mrs Hancock Mr Piccoli Mr Hartcher Mr Richardson Tellers, Ms Hodgkinson Mr Roberts Mr George Mrs Hopwood Ms Seaton Mr Maguire

Pair

Ms D'Amore Mr Hazzard

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and committed.

In Committee

Progress reported from Committee and leave granted to sit again. 2738 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2006

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion by Mr Carl Scully agreed to:

That the House at its rising this day do adjourn until Wednesday 18 October 2006 at 10.00 a.m.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Bills: Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders

Mr CARL SCULLY (Smithfield—Minister for Police) [10.39 p.m.]: I move:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to permit:

(1) the introduction forthwith of the following bills, notice of which was given this day for tomorrow, up to and including the Minister's second reading speech:

Adoption Amendment Bill Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Amendment Bill Election Funding Amendment Bill Electricity Supply Amendment (Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme) Bill National Park Estate (Lower Hunter Region Reservations) Bill Ports Corporatisation and Waterways Management Amendment Bill State Revenue Legislation Amendment (Tax Concessions) Bill

(2) at the conclusion of Government Business, the House to adjourn without motion moved; and

(3) until the rising of the House, no division or quorums to be called.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [10.40 p.m.]: There have been 25 sitting days this year when the House was meant to sit until at least 10.30 p.m. Today is the fourth day out of 24 days when we have sat until at least 10.30 p.m. Four sitting days have been cancelled. However, the Government proposes to introduce approximately 60 bills between now and when the House rises at the end of the session. This motion is not about accountable government; it is about legislation resembling a sausage-making process. This motion is about rushing through legislation without any member of this Chamber being aware of the purpose of that legislation.

[Interruption]

Government members say that they know what the bills are about. I put it to the House that the performance a few moments go by the Minister for the Environment shows that he has absolutely no idea of how to handle the 62 amendments he proposes to move in relation to the biobanking bill. Despite the competence of the Minister concerned, if that is an indication of Labor Government ministerial leadership—and given that Joe Tripodi is on the front bench, that does not mean a lot—it speaks volumes about the competence of the Labor Government backbenchers.

This motion is a joke. It is a precursor to more legislation being pushed through this Chamber during the remaining three weeks of the sittings. It is no wonder the upper House has imposed a deadline on this Government and has said that it will not consider legislation without a week's notice. Quite frankly, that is reasonable. This week legislation will be passed through this House in less than 24 hours. If Government members think that that is a hallmark of responsible government or thinks that that is how legislation ought to be dealt with, they ought to go outside this Parliament and speak to the people. Legislation being passed in that fashion simply makes a mockery of the processes that this place is supposed to uphold.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Mills): Order! There is too much audible conversation.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: The Opposition will not oppose the motion because we know which way the numbers will fall. However, I merely point out that this motion is yet another example of Mr Carl Scully's inability to manage this House. As the honourable member for Willoughby remarked when the Leader of the House moved the motion, what have they been doing for the past year? On average, this year the House has sat fewer hours than in any other parliamentary session. Four Friday sittings were cancelled. There have been continual early marks because the Leader of the House does not have enough stamina to stay here until 10.30 p.m. or later. 17 October 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2739

This motion is a joke. The way in which legislation is being pushed through this House is a disgrace. I predict that on Thursday, when the honourable member for Southern Highlands again tries to debate the need for small business in this State to have relief from payroll tax, the Leader of the House will gag the debate. I predict that that will happen not just this Thursday, but the following Thursday and the two Thursdays after that until the Leader of the House gets his 60 pieces of legislation through the House. Good government? No way! Responsible government? No way! An example of how this Government cannot govern? Absolutely!

Motion agreed to.

NATIONAL PARK ESTATE (LOWER HUNTER REGION RESERVATIONS) BILL

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr BOB DEBUS (Blue Mountains—Attorney General, Minister for the Environment, and Minister for the Arts) [10.45 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Over the past decade, the Government has declared nearly 2.6 million hectares of new national parks and reserves. Around half of these additions to the reserve system have resulted from regional forestry assessments and we have supplemented this with significant purchases of high conservation areas throughout the State. In striking an appropriate balance between social, economic, environmental and cultural values, the Government has set a national benchmark for the involvement of all stakeholders and community groups. This has resulted in the creation of a world-class conservation network that protects biodiversity, old-growth forests and wilderness. It has also provided secure access for the timber industry to timber resources in State forests and for the coal and minerals industries to coal and minerals resources in State forests, State conservation areas and Crown reserves. These conservation reserves also provide vital recreational opportunities for both local communities, visitors and tourists alike. In fact, more than 20 million people visit and enjoy our national parks every year—that is to say, nearly 55,000 people each and every day.

However, the Lower Hunter region has tended to have less of its high conservation value land reserved for conservation than has Sydney or other parts of the State. This bill will address this imbalance. The final Lower Hunter Regional Strategy and the draft Lower Hunter Regional Conservation Plan were released by the Premier, Minister Sartor and me today, 17 October 2006. The regional strategy and regional conservation plan clearly define priority areas for development and conservation over the next 25 years and will provide the Lower Hunter community with a clear vision for the future. Local councils and local communities in the Hunter will, of course, be closely involved in finalising the detail of process.

The regional strategy and regional conservation plan form an integrated package and represent a truly innovative approach to development and conservation in New South Wales. The package has allowed the Government to address a range of social, economic and environmental matters and deliver a balanced and sustainable outcome for the Lower Hunter community. To offset the impacts of future development that have been identified in the regional strategy, it is imperative that key conservation areas be secured upfront. Implementation of stage one of the regional conservation plan, which this bill involves, is designed to secure these critical conservation areas and demonstrate the Government's commitment to delivering balanced conservation and development outcomes in the Lower Hunter.

This bill will transfer more than 20,000 hectares of high conservation value Government-owned land into conservation reserves. In addition, I am pleased to confirm that a further 12,000 hectares of privately owned freehold land will be transferred to conservation reserves to be managed by the Department of Environment and Conservation under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974. This will include iconic areas at Catherine Hill Bay and Stockrington that have been the focus of significant community conservation efforts over many years. In order to finalise the package, the remaining elements of the Lower Hunter Regional Conservation Plan are on public exhibition. I expect to release the final plan later in the year.

The permanent conservation of approximately 32,000 hectares of land delivers an outstanding result for the Lower Hunter community. In fact, the Government's announcement outlines the biggest conservation initiative ever announced for the Lower Hunter and nearly doubles the area of park within 50 kilometres of Newcastle. The reservation of these lands will secure critical vegetated corridors in the Watagan, Cessnock, 2740 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2006

Karuah, Port Stephens and Tomago areas, as well as secure a green buffer between the Central Coast and Lower Hunter. Many of these areas comprise the final vegetated links in critical habitat corridors and they are irreplaceable. The largest of the new reserves—a corridor stretching from the Watagan Ranges to Port Stephens—covers around 14,600 hectares.

This area, which has long been promoted by members of Parliament representing their Hunter constituents, as well as by a great many Hunter conservation groups, forms the backbone of a new conservation corridor. This and other areas will provide a backbone around which future additions to the reserve system will complete and reinforce the conservation corridors. The reservation of these areas will also conserve significant areas of threatened plant communities, endangered forest types and habitat for a range of threatened species.

The majority of these areas will be transferred into State conservation areas and national parks under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 and will provide a range of additional recreational opportunities for the local community. In particular, the Government will encourage further input from the Hunter community as it considers new opportunities for ecotourism, such as new walking and cycling trails, new camping areas, birdwatching facilities and commercial cabins for short stays by visitors and tourists. The new reserves will provide important habitat protection for migrating bird species including those species listed on China Australia Migratory Bird Agreement and Japan Australia Migratory Bird Agreement. That will help enhance opportunities for passive birdwatching in the lower Hunter area, which is a high-profile activity by a number of local community groups and is a recognised tourism asset for the Hunter.

The new Hunter Estuary National Park will also provide enhanced protection for Kooragang Island and the upper arm of the Hunter River, which are listed under the Ramsar International Wetland Protection Treaty and which have internationally recognised values. Key reserves this close to the major city of Newcastle are a great achievement, which will be valued by generations to come. The importance of ensuring appropriate access to critical natural resources⎯including coal, water, timber and other minerals⎯was recognised from the beginning and is inevitable in areas as long and densely settled as the lower Hunter. I am pleased to confirm that the reservations introduced tonight will not affect access to those important resources.

Areas which are currently, or are likely to have, underground mining have been classified as State conservation areas. I note that the provisions of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 relating to State conservation areas were explicitly drafted to ensure that current and future underground mining activities and associated surface activities, including the construction of facilities, associated clearing of vegetation and land subsidence, are permissible within State conservation areas. Such provisions will be particularly relevant to the present mining operations south of Cessnock, which, under this bill, will become the Werakata State Conservation Area. The new State conservation area will not have any impact on the coalmine's current or future operations, including necessary surface works.

In reserving this land, the Government recognises and accepts that some level of subsidence will occur with this operation. However, with rehabilitation after the mining operation ceases, there is no reason why this area cannot continue to deliver important biodiversity outcomes. This in turn provides an excellent example of how we can ensure quality nature conservation and biodiversity outcomes while at the same time protecting important job-creating industries at sites where they co-exist. I can also confirm that the reservations will not adversely impact on the fulfilment of timber supply agreements and access to merchantable resources.

I also highlight an important part of the package concerning water supply arrangements for the Hunter community. Specific legislative amendments have been designed for the circumstances of Hunter Water Corporation's operations which will protect and enhance its current and future access to all water resources. These provisions, which are contained in the bill, are supported by the board of the Hunter Water Corporation. It is also acknowledged that proposals to construct a rail line between Fassifern and Hexham, if it proceeds, and to extend the F3 from Branxton to Raymond Terrace, would impact on small areas of land now being reserved by this bill. I am advised that final routes for these transport corridors are yet to be decided.

My department will work closely with the relevant agencies throughout the selection of the final routes to minimise their impacts. When these transport corridors have gained their final relevant approvals, I can advise that the necessary excisions will be made from the reserves to accommodate those new uses. It is important that these new areas are managed effectively and that funds are available to establish the new infrastructure to ensure that the people in the lower Hunter can enjoy these new reserves. The Government will invest $12.55 million over the next four years to establish and properly manage the new reserves. This includes funding to enable the construction of new multiple-use walking tracks, camping areas, barbecue facilities and 17 October 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2741

undertaking essential fire prevention, weed and pest animal control work. Funding will be available to also employ new park management staff and so ensure the new reserves are properly and effectively managed. Overall, there will be more than 20 new front-line park management jobs created, with a target of 20 per cent of those being Aboriginal people. Those staff will be responsible for day-to-day fire management and pest animal and weed control, as well as maintaining the visitor facilities and infrastructure of these new reserves.

I turn now to the details of the bill. Part 1 provides for the land transfers to occur on 1 July 2007. Part 2 revokes certain lands as State forest and makes provision for those revoked lands to be reserved as national parks or State conservation areas. It also reserves certain Crown lands as national parks, nature reserves or State conservation areas. This part also sets apart certain lands in State forests as flora reserves under the Forestry Act 1916. Clause 8 vests certain land in revoked State forests and certain Crown land in the Minister for the Environment for the purposes of part 11 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974. Clause 9 transfers land currently within national parks, nature reserves or State conservation areas to new national parks, nature reserves and State conservation areas.

Clause 10 enables the Director General of the Department of Environment and Conservation to alter boundaries of the transferred land by adjusting the land descriptions contained in the bill. These adjustments must be for the purposes of the effective management of the national park estate land and State forest land, the adjustment of boundaries to public roads, and in connection with easements. Any adjustments made under clause 10 must not significantly reduce the size or value of the national park estate land or State forest land. The Director General of the Department of Environment and Conservation must have the agreement of the relevant Ministers to make the changes. Adjustments must be made by 1 July 2008 or, in the case of State forests and Crown lands vested in the Minister for the Environment under part 11 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 or of the boundary of land adjoining a public road, by 1 July 2012.

Schedule 8 amends the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 to provide for the carrying out of development for certain purposes by or on behalf of the Hunter Water Corporation in special areas under the Hunter Water Act 1991 that are reserved under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974. The amendments provide also for the joint preparation and implementation of plans of management for that land by the Director General of the Department of Environment and Conservation and the chief executive officer of the Hunter Water Corporation, and for the joint adoption of those plans by the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Natural Resources. Schedule 9 amends the Hunter Water Act 1991 to provide that the Hunter Water Corporation is the owner of all works on land within a special area under that Act that is part of the national park estate.

To summarise, the bill facilitates the transfer of government-owned land to various new conservation reserves under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974. The Government land to be transferred via the bill include approximately 8,300 hectares of State forest, approximately 1,100 hectares of Crown land, approximately 4,500 hectares of Crown land currently managed by the Hunter Water Corporation and approximately 1,500 hectares of land currently managed by the Regional Land Management Corporation.

In addition, the bill provides for the reclassification of approximately 2,900 hectares of State forest to flora reserves under the Forestry Act 1916 which will allow for enhanced and secure conservation of those areas. The Department of Environment and Conservation will continue working with the relevant government agencies to refine the reserve boundaries and reserve categories as necessary. The bill also contains important safeguards to protect the rights and entitlements of persons who may be using the lands that will be transferred or be subject to this draft legislation. These safeguards are important and provide security for people whose lands may change tenure.

Importantly, the bill specifically excludes reservation of freehold and certain leasehold lands that may have been inadvertently included in the land descriptions in the schedules. Such lands cannot be dedicated under the bill. This includes freehold land and lands subject to a perpetual lease, a special lease or a term lease under the Crown Lands (Continued Tenures) Act. Similarly, existing leases issued under the Forestry Act are protected under this proposed legislation. Thus, people who may be undertaking an activity under a lease on State forest may continue to do so. In other words, existing uses are protected.

Access roads and trails in use before 1 July 2007 will not be reserved as national parks, nature reserves or State conservation areas. Rather, these roads and trails will be vested in the name of the Minister and may continue to be used for the same purposes into the future. This will ensure that people continue to have access to their properties. The bill also puts an obligation on the Minister to grant a right of way for a road if that road had 2742 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2006

a right of way under the Forestry Act. By 1 July 2012 the Minister must advise which of these access roads are excluded from reservation and which may be reserved. However, the bill also provides that the Minister must not authorise the closure of any access road to private land while that land remains in private ownership and the road is the only practical means of access.

Finally, the bill protects Aboriginal land claims. The bill states that any Crown land subject to a claim made before 25 September 2006 under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act is not reserved or vested in the Minister's name if it has not been determined by 1 July 2007. This ensures that the proper processes can continue and that the Aboriginal community's interests are fully protected while the claim is being considered. The bill also amends the Native Title (New South Wales) Act 1994 to preserve native title rights and interests in respect of a reservation or vesting of, or declaration over, land or waters by the operation of the proposed Act. I commend the bill to the House and table for the information of honourable members colour copies of maps that show the land described in the schedules to the bill. I will also provide electronic copies of the maps to be included on the parliamentary web site.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Thomas George.

ADOPTION AMENDMENT BILL

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Second Reading

Ms REBA MEAGHER (Cabramatta—Minister for Community Services, and Minister for Youth) [11.01 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Adoption Amendment Bill proposes a number of miscellaneous amendments to the Adoption Act 2000. The bill seeks to enhance the functioning of the adoption legislation following extensive consultation held with the sector before the introduction of the Adoption Regulation 2003. These amendments are seen as operational amendments that do not alter matters of significant policy. The amendments are being made independently of the statutory review of the Act. To this end, the bill proposes that new criteria be inserted after section 67 (1) (c) of the Act. These will provide for the circumstances when a child has been in the care of authorised carers, has established a stable relationship with those carers and the interests and welfare of the child will be promoted by adoption by those carers.

At present the wording of the section allows the court to dispense with the consent of the parent or guardian of the child to the adoption only when there is serious cause for concern about the welfare of the child. In circumstances where a child has been in the long-term care of authorised carers that criteria cannot be met as there will not be any serious concern for the child's current welfare. The judiciary has expressed concern about its ability to dispense with parental consent to the adoption in those circumstances where such a dispensation may be necessary to enhance the child's sense of belonging and permanence in the carer's family but there is no concern about the child's current welfare as distinct from the child's welfare at the beginning of the placement.

Statistics show that in the past parental consent was dispensed with in 60 per cent of adoptions where the child was under the parental responsibility of the Minister. Most of these children were in long-term care. This would suggest that the dispensation provisions as they currently stand may well be a barrier for the majority of children to be adopted, even if adoption is the most appropriate outcome for their long-term stability and care. The amendment will allow the court to make a "consent dispense" order where the authorised carers make an adoption application and the child has been in a long-term, stable relationship with those carers. This will happen only when adoption by those carers will promote the child's interests and welfare.

It is also proposed to amend the Act to make it quite clear that the provisions set out in section 134 (1) (a) to (c), relating to the distribution of certain original documents held in departmental files, override any provisions of the State Records Act. The State Records Act prohibits the release of original records. Section 134 (1) (a) to (c) of the Act provides that an adopted person may access certain adoption information, including original documents. These documents may be intensely significant pieces of information, such as an original birth certificate, a letter from a birth parent, a baby book or original photographs. The State Records Act 1998 prohibits the release of original records that have been archived by the Department of Community Services, even when those records are the subject of an Act enacted after the State Records Act. Officers from 17 October 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2743

the Department of Community Services and officers from State Records have worked diligently to find a way to provide original personal documents to adopted persons. These records are often significant personal mementos. They may be the only link that an adopted person has with a birth parent.

To overcome the inconsistency between the two Acts, section 143 is proposed to be amended to state explicitly that the provision of the original documents to adopted children does not contravene the State Records Act. Consequently, original records can be released to an adopted person from archived files. Copies of an original document removed from a file will be made and retained on the archived file in accordance with section 75 of the State Records Act 1998. This provision will be sufficient for record-keeping purposes and, provided the documents are certified, will be admissible as evidence in legal proceedings as if they were the original documents.

The bill also amends section 46 (2) of the Act. The amendment seeks to make it a requirement that in those cases when an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child is placed with non-Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander parents the adoption plan must include the ways in which the child is to be assisted to develop a healthy and positive cultural identity. The adoption plan is also to indicate the way in which links to the child's heritage will be fostered. Aboriginal groups and other stakeholders believe it is critical to both the child and the birth parents that these aspects be included in the adoption plan and that there should be no discretion about this. The amendment proposed will enshrine this principle in legislation.

It is already mandatory in those cases where an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child is placed with adoptive parents who are not of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander background that the adoption goes before the Supreme Court for a preliminary hearing. The amendment proposes that it will be at this time that the agreement is reached as to the way the child's cultural heritage will be protected and reinforced. This amendment is not about when an Aboriginal child can be adopted by non-Aboriginal people but, rather, about requiring recognition of the child's Aboriginal culture once that decision is made.

The bill amends section 24 (2) (a) in relation to adult adoptions. The amendment relates to applications from adults requesting adoption. It seeks to clarify that the parent-child relationship between the adult adoptee and the proposed adoptive parents must have existed entirely during the adoptee's childhood, commencing no later than when the adoptee was 13 years of age. This provides that the adoptee has been brought up, maintained and educated by the proposed adoptive parents for a continuous period of at least five years before the adoptee became an adult.

The reason for this proposed amendment is an important one that goes to the heart of what adoption law is about. Adoption law is about the child and securing a stable, long-term, close relationship between that child and the adoptive parents. Adult adoptions can occur but only as a recognition of this relationship. When the purpose of the application does not appear to be about the need to enhance this parent-child relationship but concerns some other purpose connected with migration, succession or other non-relationship status issues, the Adoption Act should not be made to accommodate such requirements.

We want to be quite clear about our adoption laws. Adult adoptions are not for the purpose of circumventing some other laws of this country. They exist only to legitimise bona fide relationships that are important and significant to both the adoptee and the prospective adoptive parents. For this reason we want the legislation to be very clear that there must have been a relationship while the adoptee was a child, it must have been of reasonable length, and it must have been continuous for at least five years before the application was made. In the unlikely event that there is a situation where the five-year criteria is not met, but the court is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist to justify making an adoption order, then an allowance has been included to provide for these circumstances.

The bill amends section 79 of the Act to give the director general the power to issue an administrative order and seek a warrant to enforce the order. This is specifically designed for a child or young person under the parental responsibility of the director general. The director general has parental responsibility of a child once all the consents for an adoption have been either given or dispensed with. The difficulties that justify the introduction of this section occur when a pre-adoptive placement has been terminated by the director general and the prospective adoptive parents have failed to relinquish the care responsibility for the child.

The proposed amendment will give the director general the power to regain care responsibility of the child who is under his parental responsibility. Previously this power was contained under the Children (Care and Protection) Act 1987 in a way that also applied to adoptions. However, this was lost when the care legislation 2744 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2006

was created as stand-alone care legislation. The former position is, therefore, to be restored in connection with the Adoption Act 2000. A further amendment to the Act seeks to clarify the powers that the Department of Community Services and the police have in pursuing investigations under the Act or regulations. The amendments include powers to apply for search warrants to enable the entry, search and inspection of premises.

Finally, the bill proposes some minor amendments to assist in the smooth functioning of the legislation. These include the amendment of chapter 4 and the Act generally to change the language of "guardian, guardianship, care, custody, and foster parent" to the more current terminology "parental responsibility, residence, care responsibility and authorised carer." The amendments also provide that accreditation standards do not have to be prescribed by regulation but rather can be published in the gazette from time to time, in the same way as selection criteria for prospective adoptive parents is published.

The amendments proposed in this bill will be of significance to those children in long-term relationships seeking to be adopted, to those Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children whose connection with their cultural heritage will be safeguarded by the amendments, to those adults seeking adoption into families they have been with for a period of more than five years and to those seeking access to their original records. The New South Wales Government believes these amendments will modernise the language of the Act and clarify the powers available to the director general in investigations and in the regaining of care responsibility. These are important amendments to a significant Act. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Thomas George.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY AMENDMENT (GREENHOUSE GAS ABATEMENT SCHEME) BILL

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr JOSEPH TRIPODI (Fairfield—Minister for Energy, Minister for Ports and Waterways, and Minister Assisting the Treasurer on Business and Economic Regulatory Reform) [11.14 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The international community is quickly coming to the consensus that induced climate change is real. While debate will continue, it is prudent and necessary for us to continue acting to address the causes of climate change. The world's climate is a complex natural system. While we can never get absolute certainty as to the causes of individual changes in temperature, there is now a body of scientific evidence that cannot be ignored: rising surface air temperatures, higher subsurface ocean temperatures, increase in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers and other unambiguous changes to the world's physical and biological systems.

More than any other government in Australia, the New South Wales Government has recognised the need to address the threat of climate change. Australia has too much to lose. We must take strong practical steps to deal with the challenge of controlling and reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. Our objective is to reduce the State's greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels by 2025, and cut them by 60 per cent in 2050. Since 1991 greenhouse gas emissions per person in New South Wales have been cut by 15 per cent. Of particular importance is New South Wales's Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme, Australia's first carbon emissions trading scheme.

The scheme is responsible for reducing carbon emissions by 24 million tonnes in total to the end of 2005. Ten million tonnes were reduced or abated in 2005 alone. That is 33 per cent more than in the previous year. This bill ensures the ground breaking Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme continues until it is replaced by a national emissions trading scheme. The scheme's strength is that it harnesses market mechanisms as the most efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Rather than relying on command and control measures, the scheme creates an environment where reducing greenhouse gas emissions makes good business sense. The market-based nature of the scheme delivers on two fronts. It delivers the highest possible greenhouse gas reductions at the lowest possible cost. When the then energy Minister, the Hon Kim Yeadon, introduced the bill that established the Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme he said:

… we have argued for several years that the most equitable and economically efficient means of addressing greenhouse gas emissions is through a national emissions trading scheme—a scheme that sees uniformity in rules, and sees all Australian emitters taking responsibility for their emissions. 17 October 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2745

That is still the Government's preferred position. The New South Wales Government has called for national leadership from the Commonwealth in ratifying the Kyoto Protocol and establishing a national emissions trading scheme. But the Commonwealth Government has so far refused to do either of these things. The Commonwealth prefers to rely solely on subsidies to develop cleaner coal technologies in the hope that they can become competitive with ordinary coal technologies.

We support efforts to research, develop and demonstrate greenhouse-friendly technologies. But the key to making sure this happens in a sustainable way is through a clear market signal. Without such a signal these new technologies may not be developed in a fully commercial manner and will almost certainly not be deployed. Ironically, the Prime Minister supports a market signal to reduce water use, but opposes a market signal for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But the Government has not used the lack of leadership by the Commonwealth to avoid taking action here in New South Wales. Instead, we have taken the lead in designing a national emissions trading scheme with all other State and Territory governments. The Commonwealth Government has been invited to join our National Emissions Trading Taskforce at any time, but to date has declined to do so.

In August of this year, Premiers and first Ministers released a discussion paper on a possible design for a national greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme. A national scheme could start as soon as 2010 if State and Territory governments agree to proceed with it. The Government is keen to maintain the incentive to invest in low-emission generation and abatement projects until a national emissions trading scheme is established. Unless honourable members pass this bill, the New South Wales Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme will end in 2012, leaving business without the certainty it needs to invest now in an environmentally responsible way. Many projects encouraged by the Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme require significant capital investment, and investors will only receive a payback over a long period of time. Without a clear signal that carbon trading will continue beyond 2012, investment in environmentally friendly technologies under the Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme may dry up.

For this reason, the Government decided to extend the scheme until a national emissions trading scheme is established. The bill extends the scheme without major amendments. This is an interim measure to provide continuity for investors facing the uncertainty that the New South Wales scheme may end before a national emissions trading scheme begins. If it becomes clear that a national emissions trading scheme is not going to be established or will be delayed indefinitely, the Government will conduct a wide-ranging review of the New South Wales Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme. The aim of such a review would be to ensure the extended scheme continues to meet the government policy objectives over a longer time frame than currently anticipated. These objectives include a future transition to a national emissions trading scheme. Because the New South Wales scheme is already well-established, the cost of extending it is minimal compared with ending it in 2012.

I will give a brief overview of the Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme, the objectives of which are to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production and use of electricity and to encourage participation in activities to offset the production of greenhouse gas emissions. The scheme focuses mainly on the electricity sector. Electricity generation is the largest source of New South Wales greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for 54 million tonnes or 35 per cent of the State's economy-wide emissions. Emissions from electricity are growing rapidly, while also offering significant opportunities for abatement. The scheme includes a penalty regime to create incentives for retailers and large customers to take actions to reduce greenhouse gases under the scheme.

The scheme also creates the capacity for legal ownership of the greenhouse reductions. This property right is made possible through the creation of greenhouse gas abatement certificates. The scheme allows the owners of these certificates to trade them so they can earn revenue to cover their costs and earn a reasonable return. The scheme provides for the creation of abatement certificates from activities that offset emissions from electricity, activities that result in reduced consumption of electricity, activities carried out by large electricity consumers to reduce on-site emissions not directly related to electricity consumption and the capture of carbon from the atmosphere in forests.

The primary purpose of the bill is to give effect to the decision to extend the scheme. The bill amends part 8A of the Electricity Supply Act 1995, which creates the New South Wales Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme. The major provision in the bill is to extend the operation of the New South Wales Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme from 2012 to 2021 and beyond or until a national emissions trading scheme is established. It is important that electricity retailers continue to have incentives to meeting their greenhouse gas targets under 2746 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2006

the scheme. That is why the penalty generally needs to be higher than the predicted costs of greenhouse gas abatement. If the penalty is not higher, electricity retailers may have an incentive to pay the penalty in lieu of funding actual greenhouse gas abatement. As a consequence of extending the scheme, the Government has reviewed the penalty required to maintain the incentive to reduce emissions. The bill increases the penalty from its current level of $11.50 to $15.50 in four equal steps of $1 each, starting in 2010 and ending in 2013. The bill also contains a consequential amendment to the Electricity Supply (General) Regulations 2001 to ensure that both the current and new penalties will be adjusted correctly for inflation in accordance with movements in the consumer price index.

The Government has an ongoing commitment to improving the efficiency, integrity and transparency of the scheme. For this reason, the Government is taking this opportunity to make some minor adjustments to the scheme's administration. The Scheme Administrator is required to keep a register of accredited abatement certificate providers and a register of greenhouse abatement certificates. The bill allows the Scheme Administrator to compile and make available consolidated information compiled from the registers. This will improve market transparency and correct an anomaly whereby members of the public could compile and publish this type of information but the Scheme Administrator could not. As greenhouse abatement certificates cannot be registered until after they have been created, information compiled from the register will reflect past events, not current ones.

Under the Act, people wishing to create greenhouse abatement certificates apply for accreditation. The Scheme Administrator grants accreditation with conditions. A common condition is to prevent double counting of abatement under a mandatory scheme other than the New South Wales Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme. To maintain the integrity of the scheme, the bill expands this provision. It does so by providing the Scheme Administrator with broader discretion to prevent double counting of abatement used for compliance with voluntary and non-government schemes or in accordance with any other agreement, arrangement or undertaking. The Act currently does not have a clear process for accredited abatement certificate providers to apply to the Scheme Administrator to vary or revoke conditions of their accreditation as their projects grow or change. The bill allows accredited abatement certificate providers to do this. The provision is similar to the existing provision for applying for accreditation, including the provision to allow charging of an application fee and the discretion to charge additional fees, on a cost recovery basis, for investigating complex applications. This will encourage careful consideration of requests for accreditation condition changes.

The Act currently requires the scheme's compliance regulator, the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal, to submit its annual report by 30 June each year. However, the accredited abatement certificate providers do not have to register greenhouse abatement certificates until 30 June of the year following their creation. To assist fuller reporting of the scheme's operation, the bill changes the final date for submission of the annual report by the compliance regulator to 31 July each year. This bill extends the New South Wales Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme without major amendment, while allowing the Governor to suspend the operation of the scheme once a national emissions trading scheme is established. The bill provides the continuity that business needs to invest in greenhouse friendly projects. It continues the Government's track record in preparing the people and the economy of New South Wales for a world increasingly acting to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and to reduce the risks to society from global warming. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Thomas George.

PORTS CORPORATISATION AND WATERWAYS MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT BILL

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr JOSEPH TRIPODI (Fairfield—Minister for Energy, Minister for Ports and Waterways, and Minister Assisting the Treasurer on Business and Economic Regulatory Reform) [11.27 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

In 1995 the Labor Government introduced the Ports Corporatisation and Waterways Management Act. This groundbreaking legislation dissolved the old Maritime Services Board and created the three port corporations of Sydney, Newcastle and Port Kembla. The port corporations were established with a charter to operate efficiently 17 October 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2747

on a commercial basis, to maximise the State's investment and to promote trade through their facilities. Each of the port corporations are also required to carry out certain port safety functions under their port safety operating licence. The Act introduced new commercial disciplines and management accountabilities. Cross-subsidisation between the major ports has been eliminated. Many benefits have flowed from this initiative, including increased efficiencies and a corresponding reduction in costs. Greater trade has been attracted to the ports and the adjacent regions. A clear signal was sent to the business community that this Government is committed to achieving greater economic growth for the State.

The ports are an integral link in the freight logistics chain, handling $60 billion of trade in New South Wales. The port of Botany is now the second-largest container port in Australia. Trade through Sydney ports for last financial year totalled 25.9 million mass tonnes, an increase of 3 per cent on the previous financial year. The year 2005-2006 also saw record growth in total container movements of 1.4 million TEU—an average size shipping container—an increase of 5 per cent on 2004-2005. The port of Newcastle is the economic and trade centre for the resource rich Hunter Valley and much of northern New South Wales. Newcastle is one of the world's largest coal exporting ports. In 2005-2006, coal exports totalled 85.6 million mass tonnes, an increase of 2 per cent on 2004-2005. In 2005-2006, Port Kembla Port Corporation achieved $4 billion worth of trade, a trade growth of 6 per cent on the previous year, the best result since 1997-98.

Since the ports were corporatised more than 10 years ago tonnage throughput at the ports of Newcastle, Port Kembla, and Sydney has collectively risen by more than 30 per cent. Mass tonnage throughput at New South Wales ports has risen from 103 million mass tonnes in 1995 to more than 138 million last financial year, an increase of 34 per cent. Just last year, the ports of New South Wales handled more than 4,500 ships, carrying trade estimated to be worth $60 billion. This is good news for the ports, for jobs, for business and for the economy. And to reinforce the positive outlook for New South Wales, trade growth is forecast to triple over the next three decades. As Minister for Ports and Waterways, I am delighted with the achievements that have been recorded over recent years by this great maritime State. Port safety operating licences are issued to each port corporation to certify their ability to carry out port safety functions.

The Ports Corporatisation and Waterways Management Act currently gives the Governor the responsibility for issuing, renewing, and cancelling these licences. The personal involvement of the Governor in administering these licences is an unnecessary formality. To streamline the administration of this process it is proposed that these functions be assigned directly to the Minister for Ports and Waterways. Over the years, the Maritime Authority has undergone considerable transformation and changes to its administrative arrangements. In 1995, the then Waterways Authority was established as a stand-alone declared authority, responsible for the regulation of recreational boaters and the operators of small commercial vessels. Since 1995 the organisation's role has evolved from a core focus on recreational and commercial boating safety to a broader maritime role encompassing oil and chemical pollution response, some environmental regulation, and safety regulation for all vessels in State waters other than those that are the responsibility of the port corporations.

In recognition of these developments, the Ports Corporatisation and Waterways Management Act has already been amended to change the name of the Waterways Authority to the Maritime Authority of New South Wales. Activities regulated by the Maritime Authority under delegation from the Minister include commercial passenger vessels, commercial fishing and working vessels, recreational boats, and marinas. The Maritime Authority is also now charged with the provision of policy advice on maritime and port matters to the Minister of day, and the management of any property vested in it. These property functions include the control and management of dry and submerged land including structures, roads and installations on that land to facilitate navigation and port operations in New South Wales. More recently, New South Wales Maritime has additional functions in relation to the redevelopment and management of land for public precincts, including Walsh Bay and King Street Wharf.

The Maritime Authority is also responsible for the safe operation and navigation of recreational vessels, and for commercial vessels not subject to control by a port corporation. The authority also ensures compliance by the ports with the port safety functions exercised by them under their port safety operating licences. The Maritime Authority is responsible for the protection of the environment from waste associated with vessels on State waters and co-ordinating emergency environment protection services in response to oil and chemical spill incidents from vessels. The authority arranges for the mooring of recreational vessels and commercial vessels not subject to the control of a port corporation. New South Wales Maritime investigates marine accidents and incidents, and manages port facilities, such as Yamba and Eden, not managed by a port corporation. The authority is also responsible for the co-ordination of New South Wales policy on port and maritime security, and 2748 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2006

the co-ordination of maritime security activities not covered by either the requirements of the Commonwealth Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act or plans approved in accordance with that Act.

In light of these developments the bill seeks to amend the Ports Corporatisation and Waterways Management Act to set out the principal functions of the Maritime Authority. The bill also seeks to expressly provide that the Maritime Authority is to exercise maritime or other functions of the Minister under the marine and other legislation as is delegated to it by the Minister. It is important to note that the Maritime Authority has taken on a number of functions under non-maritime legislation. For example the authority is an appropriate regulatory authority in relation to pollution from vessels under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act. New South Wales Maritime is also responsible for issuing safety management system guidelines to vessel operators under the Passenger Transport Act. It is therefore proposed to amend the Ports Corporatisation and Waterways Management Act to provide the Maritime Authority with a statutory power of delegation.

This will assist with the administration of its important environmental and other roles and responsibilities. The bill also makes sure that there can be no doubt about the validity of any past approvals issued by the authority when the Minister of the day had sought to delegate responsibility to the Maritime Authority or its predecessors. In light of the passage of time since the corporatisation of the ports, I am of the view that the cumbersome name of the Act no longer accurately reflects its day-to-day purpose. Given that the ports are already corporatised, a continuing reference to the process of corporatisation no longer needs to appear in the title of the legislation. For this reason the bill renames the principal Act as the Ports and Maritime (Administration) Act. The 1995 enactment of the Ports Corporatisation and Waterways Management Act represented a significant shift in New South Wales port governance. The improvements contained in this bill provide another example of the New South Wales Government's commitment to improving the administrative efficiency of legislation affecting business and growth. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Thomas George.

CRIMES (ADMINISTRATION OF SENTENCES) AMENDMENT BILL

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr PAUL McLEAY (Heathcote—Parliamentary Secretary) [11.38 p.m.], on behalf of Mr Bob Debus: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The object of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Amendment Bill 2006 is to make various amendments to the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999, which is the principal Act that governs the administration of sentences. The amendments will make a number of miscellaneous changes to the Act and will clarify certain aspects of the operation of the Act. The amendments relate to such things as lifetime supervision of lifetime parolees, transfer of juvenile inmates to prison hospitals, home visits to offenders under periodic detention orders and home detention orders, reinstatement of periodic detention orders that have been revoked, suspension of warrants of commitment, creation of a unit within the department to oversee compliance and monitoring of offenders in the community, and other minor, consequential and ancillary matters. The bill also makes a consequential amendment to the Children (Detention Centres) Act 1987. I shall now outline some of the proposed changes to the Act.

The bill inserts a new section 128B to provide that any parole granted to an offender serving an existing life sentence within the meaning of schedule 1 to the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, namely, a life sentence imposed in accordance with the law prevailing before the truth in sentencing legislation of 1989, which commenced in 1990, is to be subject to a condition requiring lifetime supervision during which the offender must comply with obligations imposed by the Commissioner of Corrective Services. Those obligations must not be inconsistent with the standard conditions imposed by the regulations or any condition imposed by the sentencing court or the State Parole Authority. The proposal to make life parolees subject to lifetime supervision would remove the need for the State Parole Authority to consider whether or not to make further supervision orders: life parolees would always be subject to lifetime supervision on parole.

The bill provides that the Commissioner of Corrective Services is to have the power to determine the level of supervision to be applied to life parolees and may oversight the case management of a life parolee, 17 October 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2749

including being able to impose additional and reasonable supervisory conditions, not inconsistent with the conditions determined and imposed by the State Parole Authority, and be able to refer a matter to the State Parole Authority for consideration of breach action, where the commissioner is of the opinion that the behaviour of the parolee warrants such. Given the level of public interest in life parolees and the time frame of their parole order—that is, the remainder of a lifetime—it is appropriate that the Commissioner of Corrective Services have the authority to determine the level of parole supervision applicable to a life parolee.

The high level of case management and supervision of life parolees may include the imposition of obligations to supplement parole conditions imposed by the State Parole Authority, such as a change in the frequency of home visits, electronic monitoring or other forms of supervision made possible by future advances in technology. If, for example, the commissioner determined that electronic monitoring was necessary for a life parolee, it would then be a breach of parole for the life parolee to remove or interfere or otherwise tamper with, the electronic monitoring equipment.

The availability of the proposed commissioner's power with respect to life parolees should assist to re-assure the public that the eventual release of notorious offenders does not compromise public safety. The bill proposes to amend section 41C (2) of the Act to enable the Commissioner of Corrective Services to order juvenile inmates from Kariong Juvenile Correctional Centre or any other future juvenile correctional centre, to be transferred to Long Bay Hospital, or any other adult correctional centre that provides health services, for medical attention without the need for the involvement of the Minister for Justice or the Serious Offenders Review Council. Currently under section 41C (2) the Minister may order that a juvenile inmate be transferred from a juvenile correctional centre to an adult correctional centre on the recommendation of the commissioner if the inmate is of or above the age of 18 years, or on the recommendation of the Serious Offenders Review Council [SORC] if the inmate is under 18 years of age.

The current mechanism provided in section 41C (2) is not efficacious if there is a need to transfer a juvenile offender from Kariong Juvenile Correctional Centre to Long Bay Hospital, an adult correctional centre, for medical services. Under section 41C (3) the commissioner and the SORC cannot make a recommendation to the Minister for the transfer of a juvenile inmate unless they are satisfied that:

(a) the inmate wishes to be transferred;

(b) the inmate's behaviour is or has been such that he or she should be transferred;

(c) it is in the inmate's best interests that he or she be transferred; or

(d) the association of the inmate with other juvenile inmates at the juvenile correctional centre constitutes, or is likely to constitute, a threat to the personal safety of any other person, the security of the juvenile correctional centre, or the good order and discipline within the juvenile correctional centre.

A transfer to effect medical services or treatment is not entertained or encompassed by either the current wording of, or regime constructed by, the legislation as it stands. While it is arguable that section 41C (3) (c), which refers to the inmate's best interests, may be applicable in circumstances where an inmate requires medical treatment, it is felt that the proposed amendment is required for the sake of providing clarity. The regime that is constructed, whereby the Minister is the decision maker based on advice received from the commissioner or the SORC, is one which takes time and is ill suited to the immediacy of the situation presented by the need for medical treatment and services. Further, the SORC is a part-time body and difficulties may present in gathering a quorum at short notice. Therefore, delays may be experienced in making urgent decisions.

As the commissioner is charged with the responsibility for the care, direction, control and management of all correctional facilities under section 232 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999, it is preferable that the commissioner is the decision maker in a situation where a transfer is to be effected for medical treatment or services. The provisions of section 41C need to read in conjunction with section 23, which confers on the commissioner a general power to transfer inmates from one correctional centre to another. Under section 23 (1) the commissioner is able to move adult inmates from one correctional centre to another for a variety of reasons. However, section 23 (2) limits the commissioner's ability to move juvenile inmates. Section 24 of the Act permits the commissioner to order that an inmate be transferred to a hospital or some other place if of the opinion that it is necessary or desirable for the inmate to receive medical attention. However, the section does not apply to the transfer of juvenile inmates.

Recently, a juvenile inmate at Kariong required a mental health assessment. The only way for the assessment to be completed was for the inmate to be transferred from Kariong to Wyong Public Hospital, where 2750 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2006

the inmate was admitted for one week. During this time two staff from Kariong had to be rostered for each shift, 24 hours per day for the seven days of the juvenile's admission. The overtime cost was significant. At the end of the assessment period the inmate was returned to Kariong with no change to his medication. Owing to the existing terms of the legislation the department had no alternative but to place the public at risk and incur an overtime expense in order for the mental health assessment to be undertaken. The proposed amendment will provide for future assessments to be carried out at Long Bay hospital, at no risk to the public and with no overtime cost to the department.

A senior psychiatrist, Professor Greenberg, who is undertaking work for Justice Health and who is experienced in both the adult and juvenile correction environments, subsequently informed the Department of Corrective Services that he could have undertaken the necessary assessment at Long Bay hospital had it been legislatively possible to transport the juvenile to the prison hospital. Further, Kariong is a small correctional centre with a limited staffing quotient. All staff at Kariong have to satisfy stringent child protection checks and undergo specific training in dealing with juveniles.

Accordingly, when staff need to be reassigned to cover hospital duties for admitted juvenile inmates, there is limited capacity for staff from other adult correctional centres to be redirected to work at Kariong, thereby filling the shortfall. It is in the interests of fair and equitable time out of cells for all inmates at Kariong, and in the interests of avoiding unnecessary admission to the public hospital system and juvenile inmates who can be appropriately and cost-effectively managed at Long Bay hospital, that the Act be amended. The bill also amends section 41C to require prior consultation with the chief executive officer of Justice Health before such a transfer may be made.

The bill amends section 81 to make it an obligation under an offender's periodic detention order that the offender will permit home visits by members of staff of the Department of Corrective Services. The purpose of the home visits is to ensure that the reasons provided by an inmate for a leave of absence or failure to report are genuine. A similar amendment to section 104 is proposed in relation to offenders under home detention orders. The bill amends section 114 of the Act to require an offender to continue performing community service work after the expiry of the relevant maximum period for the community service work order. Under section 114 applications for an extension of the period of a community service order must be made on the grounds that it would be in the interests of justice to extend that period, having regard to circumstances that arise since the relevant community service order was made.

At present, even if an extension is granted a community service order offender must cease work in the period between the expiration of the original community service order and when the court grants an extension of the order. It is in the interests of justice that when an application for an extension to a community service order is made in good faith prior to the expiration of the order, a community service order offender may be required to continue to work after the expiration of the original order until the court determines whether to grant the extension.

The bill amends section 164A of the Act to ensure that an offender's application for the reinstatement of a periodic detention order that has been revoked may not be made until the offender has spent at least three months in custody since the order was revoked. Currently, under section 164A an offender whose periodic detention order has been revoked may apply to the State Parole Authority for an order reinstating the revoked periodic detention order in respect of the remaining balance of the offender's sentence. A condition of the reinstatement being granted is that the offender must have served, since the revocation, at least three months of his or her sentence by way of full-time detention. However, currently offenders are applying for reinstatement well before they have served at least three months in full-time detention and the authority is considering such applications shortly after the three-month period has expired. The purpose of the amendment is to restore the corrective value of the minimum period of full-time detention that is required to be served after a periodic detention order is revoked.

Reinstatement is intended to be a privilege, not a right, and an offender should be required to satisfy the State Parole Authority that the circumstances that caused their periodic detention order to be revoked have changed so that the offender is once again suitable for periodic detention in accordance with section 66 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. The bill provides that in the application for reinstatement, the offender must indicate what the offender has done, or is doing, to ensure his or her compliance with the order in the event that it is reinstated. The bill amends section 181 to enable the State Parole Authority to recall or suspend any warrant that it has issued under that section. This power is expected to be useful, for example, when, after the revocation of a periodic detention order, medical certificates are received that justify the periodic 17 October 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2751

detainee's absence from periodic detention, for example, due to hospitalisation or being placed in a drug rehabilitation clinic.

The bill inserts a new section 235G into the Act to enable the commissioner to appoint members of staff of the department as compliance and monitoring officers. The unit will oversee compliance and monitoring of offenders in the community, namely those under periodic detention, home detention and community service orders and external leave programs. Compliance and monitoring officers will be able to exercise, in relation to offenders outside a correctional centre, certain powers of arrest, powers of drug and alcohol testing and powers of search and detention. Those powers are currently exercisable by correctional officers only.

Any qualifications on the exercise of those powers by correctional officers will apply equally to their exercise by compliance and monitoring officers except that they will be able to be exercised wherever the offender happens to be. The proposed section is not to be construed as conferring a power of entry to premises. In relation to access by victims to all documentation concerning serious offenders, section 193A subsection (2) of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 currently gives victims of a serious offender access to all documents held by or, on behalf of, the State Parole Authority in relation to the offender. Feedback from representatives of key victims lobby organisations is that giving victims access to all documents has not benefited them. By way of example, victims have found it distressing to read that a serious offender has had access to medication for a psychological disorder, whereas the victim has not had access to that.

Other information about a serious offender's participation in a specialist program may be wrongly interpreted by the victim. For example, the custody-based intensive therapeutic program for sex offenders may discharge an offender from the program early. The early discharge may happen for any number of reasons, not all of which are negative or indicative of some kind of failing on the serious offender's behalf. However, the victim may not understand that and instead may latch on to the reference to the early discharge, and interpret it only as a negative situation, whereas that may well not be the case. Accordingly, with the consent of the key victims lobby groups the Government is amending section 193A to restrict the class of documents to which a serious offender's victim is entitled to be given access. Victims will continue to have access to documents that indicate the measures the offender has taken, or is taking, to address his or her offending behaviour. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Thomas George.

STATE REVENUE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (TAX CONCESSIONS) BILL

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr PAUL McLEAY (Heathcote—Parliamentary Secretary) [12.01 a.m.], on behalf of Mr John Watkins: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The State Revenue Legislation Amendment (Tax Concessions) Bill 2006 implements land tax changes announced in the 2006-2007 budget. The bill also clarifies and extends a number of concessions from State taxes. The bill amends the Duties Act 1997, the Gaming Machine Tax Act 2001, the Land Tax Management Act 1956, the Valuation of Land Act 1916, and the Taxation Administration Act 1996. I will deal first with amendments relating to land tax.

In September 2005 the High Court ruled that in most unit trusts a unit holder is not the owner of the land held by the trust. This decision means that the unit trust, and not the unit holder, is liable for land tax at the flat rate applying to special trusts with no entitlement to the threshold. Measures were announced in the 2006-2007 budget to provide relief for certain family unit trusts and for unit trusts that restructure into fixed trusts. The amendments in this bill implement these measures with effect from the 2006 land tax year. The amendments set out the eligibility criteria for family unit trusts to continue to receive the benefit of the tax-free threshold. The amendments also allow unit trusts that elect to restructure into fixed trusts to do so without incurring State taxes on the restructuring transactions.

Three-year averaging of land values was announced in the budget to reduce the large variations in tax assessments that can occur from year to year. The bill makes some minor amendments to the averaging 2752 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2006

legislation. One amendment simplifies the system of averaging the value of land subject to a protected tenancy and land subject to a heritage restriction under an environmental planning instrument. The amendments will provide for the last three concessional land values to be averaged rather than having to average the land values before the reduction applies. This is consistent with the way land values are averaged where the land is subject to a heritage order under the Heritage Act.

The bill also includes a statute law amendment relating to the land value of Crown land where the lessee is liable for land tax. The amendment will provide for the land value of a parcel of Crown land that is part of a larger parcel to be separately recorded in the register of land values. The bill makes minor amendments to the valuation objection provisions of the Valuation of Land Act. Amendments in the 2006 budget measures legislation gave taxpayers a right to object to all three land values that make up the average value of a parcel of land. In effect, this extended the time for taxpayers to lodge objections against prior year values. Taxpayers will be able to object to prior year valuations, provided those valuations have not already been the subject of an objection. The amendments do, however, provide discretion for the Valuer-General to consider a second objection against a prior year valuation if the taxpayer can demonstrate special circumstances.

A consequential amendment is made to the Taxation Administration Act. When an objection is made to a prior year land value used to determine the average value, that objection does not affect the validity of the land tax assessment for the prior year. The bill makes a number of amendments to the Duties Act primarily for the purpose of providing or extending concessions and exemptions from duty. A recent decision of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal highlighted some anomalies in the application of a provision that aggregates transactions for duties purposes. The provision effectively imposes a higher rate of duty on multiple transactions as part of one arrangement subject to a discretion for the Chief Commissioner not to aggregate.

The Tribunal decision has added uncertainty as to when the discretion should apply. A review by the Office of State Revenue found that although the aggregation provision can apply to some transactions that are outside its intended scope, the discretion is rarely applied. In particular, aggregation can apply to arrangements where separate vendors play no part in that arrangement, such as where a developer purchases blocks of adjoining land from unrelated vendors. The bill, therefore, removes the redundant discretion and adds another limitation to the aggregation provision so that it only applies if the transferor is the same person or the transferors are associated persons.

The bill also makes a specific exception for purchases of multiple lots by home builders. These amendments will improve taxpayer certainty, reduce compliance and administration costs, and reduce the duty payable in some cases by builders and developers. Call option assignment duty prevents the avoidance of transfer duty by the use of options. Since this duty was introduced in June 2005 the Office of State Revenue has held discussions with the Property Council of Australia, the Housing Industry Association, and the Urban Development Institute of Australia. Although those bodies acknowledge the need to address duty avoidance practices, they have identified what they consider to be unintended consequences of the provisions.

The bill clarifies the definition of a call option to ensure that it does not include an agreement for sale and introduces two new exemptions. The first is an exemption for assignment of options by home builders. Developers and builders use put and call options as a means of allowing the builder to construct a home for sale on land owned by a developer. The builder enters into a building contract with a home buyer and subsequently assigns the option over the land to the home buyer. The bill exempts this assignment from duty. The second is a specific exemption for intra-group transfers of call options where the assignee and assignor are corporations that are members of a group. Although these assignments may be eligible for an exemption as a corporate reconstruction, that exemption requires an application to the Chief Commissioner for approval of each transaction. The new exemption will, therefore, remove an unnecessary administrative and compliance burden.

The bill extends a duty concession that applies to a home equity release scheme which allows the home owner to access part of the value of their home without affecting their rights as owner. Many older people have valuable homes but little cash on which to live. A home equity release scheme provides home owners with cash in exchange for the right to a specified percentage of the future sale proceeds when the home is eventually sold. The minimum age for this scheme was originally set at 65 years. Following further representations the age has been reduced to 60 years.

The bill also clarifies a provision that potentially imposes an unintended nominal duty on certain documents that establish or govern a managed investment scheme. The bill removes that liability. A duties exemption applies to transfers of land used for primary production between family members. The bill adopts for 17 October 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2753

duties purposes the same definition of land used for primary production used in the land tax legislation. This will ensure consistent treatment of primary production land for State tax purposes. The exemption also defines family members by reference to various relationships by blood or marriage. An anomaly has been identified whereby the former spouse of a deceased family member would not be eligible for the exemption despite being considered part of the family conducting the farming business.

The bill confirms that the former spouse of a deceased family member is part of the family for the purposes of the exemption. When assessing a liability to land rich duty there has been a longstanding practice that the liability to duty arising from an agreement to purchase shares occurs on completion of the agreement. A decision of the Supreme Court stated that the liability arises on registration of the transfer. This decision would have the effect of deferring liability to duty or even allowing avoidance of that liability in some circumstances. The bill restores the previous practice. Finally, the bill contains a statute law amendment to the Gaming Machine Tax Act to correct a minor drafting error

The bill is more good news for the New South Wales economy from the Iemma Government. This is the Government that in just over 12 months has abolished vendor duty, lifted the land tax threshold, cut workers compensation premiums for business by 15 per cent, and recently by 25 per cent, cut payroll tax for companies locating or expanding in areas of higher unemployment, and solved the pokies tax issue with the clubs. The bill demonstrates the Iemma Government's determination to continue building a strong New South Wales economy, an economy with unemployment at its lowest levels in 25 years, an economy of a State that continues to be awarded the highest credit rating of triple A.

Compare the Government's sound financial management to the Opposition and its scary Peter meter— now up to more than $25 billion of unfunded commitments. The Opposition is promising everything to everyone. It will either break its promises or send New South Wales broke. Given its recent public pronouncements, it is a genuine risk to our triple A credit rating. After all, let us not forget it has form. The last time Coalition members were in Government, New South Wales was placed on credit watch. The risk that it will bankrupt New South Wales is real. While the Coalition is busy announcing its latest crazy spending proposals, the Iemma Government is getting on with the job of further strengthening the New South Wales economy. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Thomas George.

ELECTION FUNDING AMENDMENT BILL

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr PAUL McLEAY (Heathcote—Parliamentary Secretary) [12.12 a.m.], on behalf of Mr Morris Iemma: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Election Funding Act imposes obligations on parties, candidates, individuals and organisations to disclose political donations and campaign expenditure. It is important legislation which helps ensure the transparency of the electoral process. The Act also provides for the public funding of part of the costs of candidates and political parties during election campaigns. This ensures greater fairness among the relevant candidates and parties and reduces the need for separate fundraising activities. The Act is administered by the Election Funding Authority, which is chaired by the Electoral Commissioner. The Electoral Commissioner has, on behalf of the authority, drawn to the Government's attention the need for two amendments to the Act.

The first amendment relates to the provisions in the Act that require the disclosure of political donations and electoral expenditure incurred in connection with an election. The Electoral Commissioner has highlighted a recent case that shows that the important disclosure provisions of the Act could be undermined. The problem arises because the authority has no power to require a person to provide information to the authority about the identity of another person or organisation that might have failed to disclose a political donation or electoral expenditure. n the particular case highlighted by the Electoral Commissioner, a political organisation organised for a number of individuals and businesses to make a contribution to the cost of electoral advertising. The political organisation arranged for the advertisements to be placed in various local media. The organisation also arranged for the media agency, which ran the advertisements, to bill the individuals and 2754 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2006

businesses that contributed to the advertisements directly, rather than billing the political organisation. The individuals and businesses that paid for the advertisements were required under the Election Funding Act to disclose this expenditure, but did not do so.

Neither the media agency nor the political organisation had an obligation to disclose the electoral expenditure, as they had not incurred the advertising expenditure themselves. Further, the authority had no power to require either the political organisation or the media agency to identify those individuals and businesses that had paid for the advertisements. Item [2] of schedule 1 to the bill amends the Act to give the authority, or an authorised officer of the authority, the power to demand from a person the name and address of another person where the authority reasonably suspects that the other person has failed to disclose political donations or electoral expenditure, as required by the Act. The power will be able to be exercised only in circumstances where the authority or authorised officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person may have information which enables the person who incurred the electoral expenditure to be identified.

The second amendment affects the provisions of the Act that provide for public funding of election campaigns. Candidates are entitled to make claims for reimbursement of electoral expenditure from the Constituency Fund. Parties, on the other hand, are entitled to make claims on the Central Fund for expenditure they incur. In the past, candidates have been able to claim from the Constituency Fund amounts that have been invoiced to them by political parties in circumstances where the party incurs expenditure on behalf of the candidate. Recently, the authority sought legal advice from the Crown Solicitor about the Macquarie Fields by-election. In that by-election, the Greens candidate submitted invoices received from the Greens party for electoral expenditure incurred by the party on behalf of the candidate.

The authority declined to reimburse those invoices from the Constituency Fund. That was because the Crown Solicitor advised that candidates could only claim for expenditure that they themselves incur or for expenditure which is incurred by the party for its candidates pursuant to a formal agency arrangement. The Greens candidate had not incurred the expenditure personally himself, and he did not have a formal agency arrangement with his party. In the context of the by-election, the Greens were ultimately able to obtain reimbursement from the Constituency Fund by resubmitting their claim to ensure it was made by the party and not by the candidate. This is possible because the Election Funding Act enables parties to claim on the Constituency Fund for by-elections.

However, that is not the case for general elections. If this claim were to be made in a general election, it would be refused because the Act does not enable parties to claim directly on the Constituency Fund for general elections. As a result of the Crown Solicitor's advice, the authority will now need to also refuse those claims made in respect of invoices issued by political parties to individual candidates for expenditure incurred by the party on behalf of the candidate, unless a formal agency arrangement is in place. That is despite such claims being routinely accepted in the past.

As honourable members would be aware, political parties often arrange advertising and incur other expenditure on behalf of the candidates they endorse. Formal agency arrangements are generally not in place between candidates and political parties. However, in most cases there are informal understandings or arrangements that the party will incur certain expenditure for the benefit of the candidates, such as printing or advertising costs. When parties incur expenditure on behalf of candidates without a formal agency arrangement being in place, without these amendments they would only be able to claim that expenditure from the Central Fund.

It is appropriate that parties are able to invoice candidates for those amounts, and for the candidates to claim the amounts from the Constituency Fund. Item [1] of schedule 1 to the bill, therefore, amends the Act to provide that a candidate is entitled to claim from the authority campaign expenditure which has been incurred by the party for the benefit of a candidate and invoiced by the party to the candidate. This will apply regardless of whether there is a formal agency arrangement in place, or whether the candidate is legally liable to the party for the expenditure. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Thomas George.

The House adjourned at 12.20 a.m., Wednesday 18 October 2006, until 10.00 a.m. the same day.