14014

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL AND LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Wednesday 23 February 2005 ______

JOINT SITTING TO ELECT A MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

The two Houses met in the Legislative Council Chamber at 4.00 p.m. to elect a member of the Legislative Council in the place of the Hon. Michael Rueben Egan, resigned.

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

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

Mr BOB CARR: I propose Gregory John Donnelly as an eligible person to fill the vacant seat of the Hon. Michael Rueben Egan in the Legislative Council, for which purpose this joint sitting was convened. I propose that Gregory John Donnelly be elected as a member of the Legislative Council to fill the seat in the Legislative Council vacated by the Hon. Michael Rueben Egan. I indicate to the joint sitting that if Gregory John Donnelly were a member of the Legislative Council, he would not be disqualified from sitting or voting as such a member and that he is a member of the same party, the Australian Labor Party, as the Hon. Michael Rueben Egan was publicly recognised by as being an endorsed candidate of that party and who publicly represented himself to be such a candidate at the time of his election at the Eighth Periodic Council Election held on 22 March 2003. I further indicate that the person being proposed would be willing to hold the vacant place if chosen.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I second the nomination.

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

The joint sitting closed at 4.06 p.m.

14015

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Wednesday 23 February 2005 ______

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

The Clerk of the Parliaments offered the Prayers.

PARLIAMENTARY ETHICS ADVISER

The PRESIDENT: I report the receipt of a message from the Legislative Assembly relating to the appointment of the Parliamentary Ethics Adviser:

Madam PRESIDENT

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

(1) The appointment of Mr Ian Dickson as Parliamentary Ethics Adviser, which expired on 22 February 2005, be extended on a month by month basis until superseded by a further resolution of the House; and

(2) That any extension be for a maximum of 12 months.

The Legislative Assembly requests that the Legislative Council pass a similar resolution.

Legislative Assembly JOHN AQUILINA 23 February 2005 Speaker

Consideration of message deferred.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Precedence of Business

Motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly agreed to:

That on Wednesday 23 February 2005 General Business take precedence of Government Business, debate on Committee Reports and Budget Estimates until 5.00 p.m.

ROTARY INTERNATIONAL 100TH ANNIVERSARY

Motion by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe agreed to:

That this House:

(a) notes that 23 February 2005 is the 100th anniversary of the foundation of Rotary International,

(b) recognises the valuable contribution that Rotary has made to the community through the voluntary work of its members,

(c) congratulates Rotary on achieving the milestone, and

(d) conveys our message to the District Governor of each Rotary District in New South Wales.

GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE NO. 5

Extension of Reporting Date

Motion by Mr Ian Cohen agreed to:

That the reporting date for the reference to General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5 relating to the Budget Estimates and related papers be extended to Thursday 31 March 2005. 14016 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23 February 2005

GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE NO. 4

Extension of Reporting Date

Motion by the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner agreed to:

That the reporting date for the reference to General Purpose Standing Committee No. 4 relating to the Budget Estimates and related papers be extended to Thursday 31 March 2005.

MARINE SAFETY AMENDMENT RANDOM BREATH TESTING BILL

Bill received, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly agreed to:

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

Second reading ordered to stand as an order of the day.

BILLS UNPROCLAIMED

The Hon. John Hatzistergos tabled a list detailing all legislation unproclaimed 90 calendar days after assent as at 22 February 2005.

PETITIONS

Temporary Protection Visa Holders

Petition praying that temporary protection visa holders be provided with the same rights and services as permanent protection visa holders, received from Ms Sylvia Hale.

Department of Primary Industries Budget

Petition requesting support for primary producers and opposing Department of Primary Industries budget cuts that may affect key field staff, front-line services and research and development, received from the Hon. Duncan Gay.

Bondi Junction Post Office

Petition requesting that Bondi junction Post Office be restored to an integrated shopfront location, received from Ms Lee Rhiannon.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL VACANCY

Joint Sitting

The PRESIDENT: I report the receipt of the following message from Her Excellency the Governor:

Office of the Governor Sydney 23 February 2005

Message

I, Professor Marie Bashir AC, in pursuance of the power and authority vested in me as Governor of the State of New South Wales, do hereby convene a joint sitting of the Members of the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly for the purpose of the election of a person to fill the seat in the Legislative Council vacated by the Honourable Michael Egan, and I do hereby announce and declare that such Members shall assemble for such purpose on Wednesday the twenty third day of February 2005, at 4:00 p.m. in the building known as the Legislative Council Chamber situated in Macquarie Street in the City of Sydney; and the Members of the Legislative Council and the Members of the Legislative Assembly are hereby required to give their attendance at the said time and place accordingly.

In order that the Members of both Houses of Parliament may be duly informed of the convening of the joint sitting, I have this day addressed a like message to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly.

MARIE BASHIR Governor 23 February 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14017

INDIAN OCEAN TSUNAMI

Debate resumed from 22 February.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [11.07 a.m.]: The tsunami that hit 11 countries on the Indian Ocean on Boxing Day was perhaps the biggest and most profound natural disaster in living memory, if not the past millennium. Prior to Boxing Day, the most devastating tsunami in recorded history was in June 1896 on the island of Honshu, on Japan's Pacific seaboard, killing more than 27,000. On Boxing Day I arrived in New Zealand for a family holiday and I was quite shocked to see footage of the disaster on the evening television news. I felt somewhat bad that I had not gone to Bali after the Bali bombing as I have some expertise in emergency medicine, so I tried to volunteer to go to the area hit by the tsunami disaster. Unfortunately I found that groups such as the Australian Red Cross and Medicines San Frontiers were not putting together groups very quickly because apparently this takes some time.

Certainly my experience in emergency medicine suggests that early help is far more important than late help in saving the maximum number of lives. So I was not able to arrange to go there, which was somewhat disappointing for me. I thought of simply going, but it turned out that in Aceh there was a difficulty with the Indonesian Government. The Thai Government fairly quickly said that it did not want more people there, and I was not certain that there was a purpose in going to Sri Lanka in the short term. However, I did follow that up some time later. The tsunami struck 11 Indian Ocean countries, killing an estimated 280,000 people, 240,000 in Indonesia alone. I can only offer my deepest sympathies to the loved ones of those killed in this horrific event. Australians have been touched by the tragedy. Eighteen Australians have been confirmed dead and six are still missing. We have a special bond with those of our countrymen who have died or lost loved ones.

Australians are well known as travellers and many Australians have visited the countries affected. I travelled by train from Colombo to Galle along the train line that was partly washed away by the tsunami. I developed a great affection for the Sri Lankan people. I had gone there to try to counteract the effect of British American Tobacco, which was trying to sell cigarettes to the people there. The health groups were trying to stop the company from doing that and were getting some expertise from Australia on how to counteract the company's evil acts.

The Australian public has donated $220 million to non-government organisations to help with the relief and reconstruction efforts in South-East Asia. I believe the generosity of Australians in their donations to aid relief is testament to the Australian characteristic of helping our neighbours in times of tragedy. The Australian Government has pledged $1 billion in grants and loans to assist in the reconstruction. Our armed forces organised civilian teams to go into Aceh. Indeed, I tried to get into one of those teams, but the organisers already had available enough people with expertise to form the preferred model of small well-trained teams rather than large teams. The Australian military organised that assistance but for diplomatic reasons the military involvement was played down.

According to AusAID, the Australian Government package will consist of $500 million in grants and $500 million in concessional loans over 40 years, with no interest and no repayments of principal over the first 10 years. I pay special tribute to the Australian Defence Force [ADF] personnel in Indonesia helping out with the relief effort, reconstruction of the devastated areas and the clearing of port infrastructure. Australian Democrats members in every State have worked very hard to collect money for the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund [UNICEF] to aid their work in the tsunami relief effort, and Democrats members have collected more than $50,000 to help UNICEF to provide clean water and vaccinations for children in affected areas, reunite lost children, protect children from exploitation and get them back to school. From New Year's Eve the Australian Democrats had a button on its web site to assist people who wanted to donate.

The impact of the tsunami has changed the geography of the affected regions. Thousands of acres of once productive farming land have become less fertile following inundation by salt water. The earthquake and tsunami have also shifted islands such as Nicobar and Simeulue. The massive tsunami began deep beneath the Indian Ocean, 250 kilometres off Sumatra's coast and 10 kilometres below the earth's surface, where the Indian, Burmese and Australian tectonic plates meet. The earthquake that caused the tsunami measured 9 on the Richter scale and caused the sea floor to lift 10 to 15 metres, displacing millions of tonnes of water from its epicentre at 500 kilometres per hour. As the waves neared the shore they slowed down to about 45 kilometres per hour, but grew to a height of 10 metres. Sumatra was hit by the tsunami within 30 minutes of the earthquake.

The tsunami killed more than 240,000 people in Indonesia alone, with an additional one million people requiring relief. In Sri Lanka the tsunami killed more than 30,000 people and left more than 860,000 homeless 14018 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23 February 2005 and destitute. About 5 per cent of the Maldives' population of 300,000 have been made homeless by the tsunami. In the Indian mainland provinces, Cuddalore and Nagapattinam districts of Tamil Nadu were the worst hit areas. The death toll in the tsunami tragedy has crossed 10,000 and another 5,000 people are said to be still missing.

In an article by Simon Blair of Reuters, local leaders as well as aid groups say that the Indian Government may have seriously underestimated the tsunami death toll from the Andaman and Nicobar islands. Government figures indicate there are 7,462 people either confirmed dead or missing and presumed dead. Independent estimates of the death toll ran from more than 10,000 up to 12,000. The discrepancy may reflect the difficulties involved in counting the dead in the Indian Ocean islands where whole villages were swept out to sea and most of the bodies will never be recovered. There is also a shroud of secrecy surrounding the Andaman and Nicobar islands as they have air force bases for the Indian air force and the naval air wing.

The effect of the tsunami on the regional economy is mind-boggling. If we look at one industry, fisheries, on 17 February the head of the Fishery Technology Service of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation gave the current estimate for direct losses in the fisheries sector as $520 million. According to its information, 111,073 fishing vessels were destroyed or damaged, with an estimated replacement cost of $161 million; 36,235 engines were lost or damaged beyond repair, with replacement costs projected at $73 million; 1.7 million units of fishing gear—net, tackle and similar equipment—were destroyed, with an estimated replacement cost of $86 million; the cost of repairs of other damages to the fisheries sector, such as to aquaculture operations, the fishing industry infrastructure and harbours, is estimated to be in excess of $200 million. These figures refer to only those seven countries most affected by the tsunami: India, Indonesia, the Maldives, Burma, Somalia, Sri Lanka and Thailand.

A United Nations interim report by the top decision-making body of the United Nation's Environment Program [UNEP] on the environmental impact of the tsunami was made public yesterday. The UNEP spokesman Nick Nuttall said:

Those coastlines with intact coral reefs, mangroves, vegetated dunes and robust coastal forests came off better than those degraded by pollution and insensitive land use.

So the environment is not a luxury … It is an economically important insurance policy whose wisdom we ignore at our peril.

Coral reefs and mangroves are absolutely vital in safeguarding people living in those areas.

The number of children who have been orphaned by the tsunami is heartbreaking. The UNICEF estimates that there are as many as 13,000 children orphaned in Aceh and that 3,500 children have lost one parent and 1,000 children are being cared for by extended families while their parents are being traced in Sri Lanka. The Department of Community Services is already receiving inquiries about inter-country adoption and many non- government organisations are gearing up to facilitate adoptions as well. But certainly there is a view that the orphanages should be funded in the countries, and cultures, in which the children live so that they can grow up as they would have in their own countries rather than simply being adopted overseas.

I support the motion. I think it is important that we do everything we can to help support those survivors from the tsunami and to help build the infrastructure of those people whose lives have been so tragically affected.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [11.27 a.m.]: I join all other members of the House who have spoken in giving my support to the sentiments of the motion. As a community, events such as this bring people together. We have focused on the work and effort of many people, in New South Wales and throughout Australia, to give support to the communities and the hundreds of thousands of tsunami victims who have suffered so much. I note, and I know other members have commented on this, that our former colleague the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti was one of the doctors who went to Aceh very soon after the tsunami hit on 26 December.

I reflect on a conversation that I had with Dr Pezzutti last week as to the real impact of the tsunami. We have seen much of it on television and we should acknowledge the Australian media's coverage. I have personally acknowledged it to some of the journalists from Channel 9 because I thought they gave an outstanding presentation in very difficult circumstances right across the region. I spoke to Dr Pezzutti about what effect the tsunami had on communities on the ground. I think it is worth reflecting on some of his comments about Aceh. We have heard that about 260,000 people lost their lives in Aceh alone, but we need to understand that in the context of lost occupations. Thousands and thousands of police officers have lost their 23 February 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14019 lives, as have thousands and thousands of nurses, teachers, and public servants. Indeed, every skilled part of the work force of their communities has been gutted.

Dr Pezzutti said that on that day in excess of 25,000 teachers lost their lives in Aceh. It is not merely a question of the work provided and aid given by the world since 26 December 2004, but the long and slow task of rebuilding societies, not only in Aceh but throughout the Indian Ocean area. We must reflect on that. We must also acknowledge the $800 million contribution that the Federal Government announced soon after the disaster. The Prime Minister and the Federal Government recognised that we should be concerned not only about the immediate impact and terrible loss of life but also what this disaster will mean for those societies for a very long time into the future because they have lost a significant percentage of their skilled work force.

Dr Pezzutti noted that soon after the earthquake that preceded the tsunami the roof of a shopping centre in one of the key urban areas of Aceh collapsed. As a result, emergency service workers from throughout the region were gathered in one place. Most of those workers lost their lives in this place that was devastated not only by the initial earthquake but also by the tsunami that followed. We must consider the long-term consequences of this disaster for those societies. It is a fact throughout the world that instability always follows the collapse of a government or a natural disaster. Aceh will suffer from this instability for a long time. Therefore, we should tread with caution and give whatever help we can to help our neighbours overcome their problems. I emphasise that this is not a short-term problem that can be fixed merely with money; it is about the significant loss of thousands of skilled workers who have underpinned those societies for a long time.

In December my family was host to an exchange student from Thailand, so we saw the disaster from a personal perspective. We talked through each news bulletin with our 16-year-old exchange student, who explained what it meant to her family. Although her family lived closer to Bangkok and were not impacted by the tsunami, they had spent a considerable amount time in the Phuket region. Her father spent some time trying to contact everyone in the village where her family used to spend holidays. When I last spoke to her, there was very little understanding of how many people in the village had survived. I am richer for having shared that interesting and personal perspective with that student. Australians who were in the area and people from those countries who were away at that time have gained a richer understanding. I note the work and efforts of citizens from New South Wales and Australia. I note the broad contribution of societies to those who have been so devastated by the tsunami. I join honourable members in support of the condolence motion.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG [Parliamentary Secretary] [11.34 a.m.], in reply: I congratulate the Government on moving the condolence motion and I thank honourable members for supporting this important issue. The devastating tsunami that hit Asia on Boxing Day 2004 is beyond description and comprehension. As the death toll escalated by the hour and visions of the destruction hit our television screens, we began slowly to appreciate the enormity of the damage. The extent of the destruction was something that, at first, we could not imagine. It took days, if not weeks, for the extent to be revealed. We still cannot fully appreciate the scale of the devastation. Although we have previously suffered from natural disasters and the loss of many young people during war, I do not think we can fully appreciate the sheer scale of this disaster. However, that did not stop us from feeling and sharing the shock and pain of those affected in South-East Asia and the Indian Ocean, and responding to their cry for help.

We can all be proud of our response. The more we learn of the loss of life and destruction the more we have responded to it. It is one of those events where politics did not feature or interfere with a humanitarian response. The Federal Government's response was in proportion to the devastation inflicted on our close neighbours. I congratulate the Federal Government and the Prime Minister on their initiatives. The New South Wales Government, along with the other States and Territories, contributed by making available emergency service teams and immediate cash donations. Similarly, local communities were galvanised into action. In the weeks that followed the tsunami we witnessed extraordinary acts of generosity through concerts, cake stalls, telethons, donations, efforts of charity organisations and more. I was impressed because we did not wait for, and rely on, governments to help the victims; community organisations were spurred into action and did what they could to raise funds, many in novel ways.

Perhaps because the tsunami happened at Christmas time or perhaps because of the scale of the disaster, we all reacted charitably, realising that we were better off than most other people in the region. I note that the local Chinese community played its part, like so many others, and organised many functions. The Sing Tao Daily raised $183,000 from its readers for the Red Cross appeal; the Australian Chinese Daily raised $153,00 from its readers for the Red Cross appeal; the Australian Chinese Charity Foundation raised nearly $400,000 from fundraising and auctions, which included $100,480 from the sale of 320 tickets for vegetarian 14020 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23 February 2005 lunches donated by Golden Century on 2 January and 8 January; the Australian Chinese Teo Chew Association raised $60,000; the Australian Chinese Buddhist Society raised more than $100,000; and west Sydney Chinese community organisations raised $300,000, including more than $100,000 from the Melbourne Chinese community. These organisations deserve our praise. Recovery in the affected region will take a long time and our contribution to the rebuilding must take that into consideration. Let us pray that a disaster of this kind will not happen again.

Motion agreed to.

FAMILY IMPACT COMMISSION BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 28 October 2004.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY [11.39 a.m.]: Debate on the Family Impact Commission Bill is now in its fourteenth year. The object of the bill is to provide for the establishment of the Family Impact Commission to look at any law before the New South Wales Parliament to assess its impact on the family. The overview of the bill states:

The Commission is to study and report on the moral, social and economic impact on New South Wales families of existing laws and proposed laws and Government expenditure, for the purpose of ensuring that the following principles are recognised and upheld:

(a) The family, consisting of those individuals related by blood, adoption or marriage, is the foundational social unit of the nation. (b) The family is to be given the widest possible protection and assistance as the natural and fundamental unit of society, particularly where it is responsible for the care and education of dependent children. (c) The family has primary responsibility for the welfare, education and property of its members. (d) The sanctity and unique sphere of authority of the family is to be recognised and preserved. (e) Optimum conditions for maintaining the integrity of the family unit are to be preserved and promoted.

I do not think anyone would argue with any aspect of the commission's aims. The basis of our argument is that as elected members of Parliament we always consider the impact of legislation not only on constituents across the sphere but families in particular. It is natural that members of Parliament think about the impact of laws on society, and families are the cornerstone of our society. As my colleague the Hon. Patricia Forsythe said, this encompassing bill would provide overarching powers that we have not seen before. It is not the case that members of Parliament do not support families. Of course we support families, as do members on both sides of the political fence. However, there is a difference in the way we propose that families be protected and recognised.

I refer to the contribution of Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes. He referred to the work of two eminent American sociologists, Dr Nick Stinnett, Dean of the Graduate School of Education and Psychology, Pepperdine University, Los Angeles, and John DeFrain, who have undertaken significant research into families over the past 10 years not only in America but across the world. I refer briefly to the point made by Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes that the results of the research found that six qualities which made strong, happy families were mentioned time and time again. The first overriding theme is that family members must be committed to each other. That is the first fundamental platform for a happy and strong family.

The second platform is that family members must appreciate each other. Sometimes we do not appreciate the work of members within the family unit, which creates tension. However, talking it through is probably the best way to deal with it. That was another fundamental platform for happy, successful families. The fourth principle was that the sociologists discovered that strong families have family members who spend time together. Spending time together is probably the most significant thing one can do, and I refer to my own family experience. It is difficult to spend quality time together with the constant pressing demands on one's time. Parliamentarians, especially those living in country areas who must travel to Sydney to work, find it tough to spend quality time with family members. However, if families have spending time together at the top of their agenda it is fulfilling at the time and creates a strong foundation for the family unit.

The fifth principle was that family members cope with problems. Families that have had trauma, sadness or difficulties thrust upon them find that being able to work through those problems results in a stronger family unit. That is commonsense. The sixth principle was that a common spirituality in families in all countries also creates a wellness, whether it is a strong Christian faith, Jewish faith, Muslim faith, Hindu, Buddhist, 23 February 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14021 whatever. A strong belief in something else can help to create a strong family. I appreciated the contribution by Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes, and I appreciate the compassion of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and his 14-year commitment to putting the Family Impact Commission Bill before this Parliament. I do not think any of us have an issue with the aims and objectives; it is the way in which it is being proposed.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: The machinery.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: Yes, the machinery. We have an issue with the way it has been proposed. It is worth recognising the contribution of Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes that if families across this nation, and indeed across the world, can learn to appreciate fixing some of the foundations within our family units, we would have better, stronger, happier families and therefore a better society.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Melinda Pavey.

CRIMES AND FIREARMS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (APPREHENDED VIOLENCE ORDERS) BILL

Second Reading

Debate called on, and adjourned on motion by the Hon. Peter Primrose.

MILLENNIUM TRAINS

Debate resumed from 23 September 2004.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [11.48 a.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for participating in this debate. Honourable members will recall that this issue arose initially from a motion I moved in 2003 to produce papers, to which the House agreed. As a result, the public discovered that the Millennium train project was three years overdue and had incurred cost overruns of at least $114 million. It was one example of the Government's lack of accountability and its secrecy. But, worse than that, it was a prime example of the Government's inability to deliver on infrastructure projects and its reluctance to replace the State's ageing infrastructure, which has become a hallmark of the Government's failure to the people of New South Wales.

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his lengthy speech, in which he went through the history of the Millennium train project. He also put on record the lengthy process the Opposition had to go through to force the Government to be accountable for its actions in relation to this project, which had gone extremely wrong. The Government had conned and covered up through its term. This is another example of its cover ups, bullying, intimidation and lies that are endemic in relation to hospitals, policing, schools and all the other requirements of the State Government. Most of all, the Millennium train exercise is an example of the lengths the Government was prepared to go to try to disguise its mismanagement of the project. The Government has encouraged a culture of cover up that is conducive of corruption. This is characterised by the level of deception to which Cabinet was prepared to go to ensure that the true details of this project were not released.

Before the former Minister for Transport Services, the Hon. Michael Costa, was sacked for his failure in the portfolio, he spoke in the debate on this project and on the production of papers. The best the former Minister was able to come up with was to damn the Millennium train project with faint praise. The sacked Minister said, "On the basis of the Auditor-General's report, it represents reasonable value for money." The project was damned with faint praise with the Auditor-General saying that eventually the public received reasonable value for money. That was a long step down from the claims made by former transport Ministers, particularly Minister Scully, as the saga wore on.

One of the difficulties we faced with regard to uncovering the story on the Millennium train was that the Government went to extraordinary lengths to try to cover up the history of the project. Honourable members will be aware that initially the Government tried to swamp the Opposition by producing 130 or so boxes of material in relation to the order for papers. It was claimed that 99 boxes were privileged, which was extraordinary. I then had to use the process the House has approved and challenge the validity of those claims of privilege. There were a number of challenges to the claims of privilege. We were concerned not to waste taxpayers' money by having the privileged claims tested by the independent arbiter—which inevitably involves some cost. We did not challenge the validity of privilege unless we thought the documents would add to public debate. We went through that process with a great deal of care. We did not want to repeat what the Government had done: it wasted a great deal of money having the initial privilege claims prepared. 14022 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23 February 2005

Some of the documents that were ultimately disclosed showed some of the matters referred to in the resolution. For example, that the Government, through its budget committee of Cabinet, awarded the original contract in 1998 notwithstanding that a number of Ministers, including the Premier, had been warned of the potential for design problems, which ultimately eventuated, and the potential for cost overruns, which also eventuated. The documents show that very clearly. Among the other documents disclosed were documents that showed that a lump sum payment of $30 million, contrary to the conditions of the tender and the contract, had been approved by the former Treasurer, the Hon. Michael Egan, to cover finance charges. That payment was disguised as an advance payment for design and development costs, which potentially misled not only the Swedish financiers but also the public generally and disadvantaged other tenderers.

As was pointed out in debate by the Leader of the Opposition, of particular concern was that former transport Minister Scully and his successor, the sacked former transport services Minister Costa, failed to enforce the conditions of contract, failed to ensure that the delays were dealt with and failed to enforce liquidated damages provisions in the contract which, instead of adding an extra $114 million-plus to the cost of the project, would have resulted in $10 million being available to the State as a saving. The Government did not understand how to enforce the provisions of the contract. Sacked transport services Minister Costa made a short contribution to debate on this motion. Clearly, he did not believe there was any purpose in trying to defend his predecessor for his non-performance in relation to this project.

As we reviewed these documents we were concerned that while we carefully challenged a number of privilege claims, other documents could have led to a finding of corruption. We were faced with a difficulty: unless we went through the process of challenging the privilege on all the documents and had them made public, there would be no simple way to disclose those documents if they were of concern to a body such as the Independent Commission Against Corruption. By moving this motion I sought to put in place a simple procedure that would allow honourable members, with the approval of the House, to provide some of those confidential documents to the Independent Commssion Against Corruption if that was appropriate. That process is still workable. Since I moved this motion the James Hardie legislation has been passed. It was designed to deal with a similar problem. The Jackson inquiry had various documents that may have been of use to the authorities. The legislation introduced by the Carr Government was designed to allow the documents from the Jackson inquiry to be provided to the authorities. On that basis, my motion is worth supporting. I thank honourable members for participating in debate on the motion. I commend the motion to the House. [Time expired.]

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 21

Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Lynn Mr Ryan Mr Clarke Reverend Dr Moyes Mr Tingle Mr Cohen Reverend Nile Dr Wong Mrs Forsythe Mr Oldfield Mr Gallacher Ms Parker Tellers, Miss Gardiner Mrs Pavey Mr Colless Mr Gay Mr Pearce Mr Harwin Ms Hale Ms Rhiannon

Noes, 16

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

Pair

Ms Cusack Ms Robertson

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted. 23 February 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14023

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

______

WORKCOVER NATIONAL CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENCY HOLDER RETESTING

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: My question is directed to the Special Minister of State, Minister for Commerce, and Minister for Industrial Relations. Did an Independent Commission Against Corruption [ICAC] investigation last year find that some 20,000 certificate holders required retesting as their certificates may have been gained under false pretences or by corrupt means? Did the TAFE retesting program begin in July last year, and in the first three months were only 828 certificate holders assessed? At this rate of retesting will it take WorkCover approximately eight years to retest the 20,000 certificate holders?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The question closely relates to a question that the Leader of the Opposition asked me yesterday in relation to investigations by the Independent Commission Against Corruption. WorkCover had concerns about the activities of at least one of its employees in relation to licensing. The matter was referred to the Independent Commission Against Corruption, which is now undertaking an investigation of the employee. The ICAC asked WorkCover not to take any action against the employee while the investigation was being conducted. When it became clear that the commission's investigation would take a long time, following consultation with the ICAC, WorkCover decided to suspend the employee. WorkCover notified the ICAC when it became aware of corrupt activity and in early 2003 the commission began an investigation into accredited assessors and trainers, as outlined in the narrative of the question of the Leader of the Opposition. The ICAC released the report on its investigation in June last year. This report revealed that the assessors in question had issued approximately 30,000 certificates relating to competency during the admitted period of misconduct. In the interest of fairness WorkCover has implemented a retesting program for workers who received certificates of competency from these assessors during the period.

Certificate holders had had the option of being retested at TAFE at WorkCover's expense or by an assessor at their own cost. Aside from contacting these certificate holders by mail, WorkCover is also listing cancelled certificates on its web site so that employees, as well as employers, can ensure that a certificate is current. Further initiatives introduced by WorkCover include establishing an audit management unit to conduct rigorous audits of WorkCover’s approved service providers, such as accredited assessors, investigating and taking action against those found to be operating corruptly or inappropriately, and implementing an amnesty period in 2004 to allow any workers who obtained certificates of competency without having a completed proper knowledge or practical assessment to hand in their certificates and avoid prosecution.

Investigations by the new audit management unit and the amnesty have resulted in, as at February this year, the cancellation of 51 accredited assessors and the suspension of another 18 and the cancellation of 15 accredited trainers and the suspension of another eight. WorkCover also conducted a number of compliance blitzes in 2003 and 2004, which involved random retesting of operators’ knowledge and competency in the handling of equipment such as forklifts and cranes, and other potentially high-risk work such as dogging, rigging and scaffolding. During a month-long blitz on building safety across the State, WorkCover inspectors visited more than 400 employers and issued approximately 700 safety notices. WorkCover also changed the administration of the compulsory health and safety induction training for construction workers to detect and minimise such corrupt activities.

CLASS SIZE REDUCTIONS

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Education and Training. What action is the Government taking to reduce average class sizes?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: The class-size reduction program for young students is a giant step forward in the education of children and young people in this State. We know that the early years of schooling are critical. It is the time when the foundations are laid for later learning. That is why the Government has committed to reduce average class sizes in those early years. Smaller class sizes in the early years of schooling help students to develop academically, socially and emotionally. Teachers can spend more one-on-one time with students. This means better results in reading, writing and maths.

Under the four-year $462 million class size reduction plan, a total of 800 extra teaching positions have been delivered to schools. This means that some 3,700 teachers welcomed the 61, 000 new kindergarten 14024 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23 February 2005 students enrolled in public schools this year. I might stress that this is additional funding. It is a $462 million plan over four years additional funding. Over the summer, $39 million was spent rolling out the first classrooms to reduce kindergarten class sizes to a statewide average of 20 students. For the start of the 2005 school year an extra 218 classrooms were set up in 166 primary schools throughout the State.

Under the four-year plan average statewide classes will be reduced to 20 students in kindergarten by 2005, 22 students in year 1 by 2006, and 24 students in year 2 by 2007. The Government has a strong record of delivering on its education plans for our youngest students. For example, we have focused on early learning and early intervention programs. We have ensured that the basics of learning in literacy and numeracy are in the school curriculum to give primary students a better start. The Government is providing intensive support to those students who need it.

In 2004 the Government reduced the statewide average size of classes for kindergarten students to fewer than 20 in our priority schools. In addition, 181 extra teachers were provided for these schools and 79 new and refurbished classrooms were delivered to 35 schools throughout the State. We want to give our youngest students the best possible start in the crucial early years of schooling. This will lay the foundation for success in later years. That is why the Government is carefully monitoring the progress of the class size reduction program.

In 2003 a study began to review information about student performance, coupled with further surveys and case studies. This study will run through to 2008 and measure literacy, numeracy and social skills, as well as taking the views of principals, teachers and parents. The Department of Education and Training is working closely with school principals to ensure that the formation of classes is in line with the class size reduction program. I might point out that extra resources, extra teachers and extra classrooms mean that the average reduction of class sizes in the early years should not impact on class sizes in later years. To assist the Government in monitoring the program’s outcomes, an audit of class sizes is completed each year. The results of the audit are published in the department’s annual report and on its web site.

FARMBIS 3 FUNDING

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I direct my question to the Minister for Primary Industries. Does the Minister recall that last year the New South Wales budget committed $15 million to help fund FarmBis 3, scheduled to commence in July 2004? Is the Minister aware that this will be matched dollar for dollar by the Federal Government if New South Wales comes on board? Is the Minister aware that New South Wales is the only State holding up implementation of the program, having yet to commit the funds, and that farmers in other States have had access to training funds for many months? Will the Minister inform the House why New South Wales has not honoured the commitment to provide funds for FarmBis 3? Does the Minister recognise that New South Wales farmers have been without training for 17 months since August 2003? When will New South Wales funding for FarmBis 3 commence?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I thank the honourable member for his question. Yes, we have been considering exactly how we handle this issue.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: For a long time, since August 2003.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The trouble with the Hon. Duncan Gay, as I have tried to point out in this House on a number of occasions, is that he should check his facts before he jumps in. In the 2004-05 Federal budget, the Federal Government announced an extension of the FarmBis program for four years. The State and Federal governments fund FarmBis equally, but no specific allocation has been made to New South Wales. The proposed extension of the FarmBis program is to run until 30 June 2008. Unfortunately, the Federal Government waited until May 2004 before any announcement on this matter was made. The Federal Government also sought to make a number of unilateral changes without first discussing them with New South Wales.

I think I should inform honourable members of some of the changes that the Federal Government has foisted upon us. Despite having a highly proficient and experienced chair, Fran Rowe, the Commonwealth insisted that those elected to chair could only serve for two years. It also asked that we go to a costly and cumbersome competitive tender process for almost every administrative and service delivery aspect of the program. This would have simply eaten into the funds that should have rightly gone to State farmers.

The Federal Government also wanted to run a new round of advertisements and expression of interest processes for all members of the State planning group. It was not simply, “Here is some money. Get on with the 23 February 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14025 program.” It was, “The money is there, though not allocated. We want you to do all these things before you can access the money." We have gone through an extensive process to put these parts in place. For some months we have been working with the Federal Government to resolve outstanding issues. Most of these will just add another layer of bureaucracy without adding any value to farmers. As a consequence, a substantial portion of the first year of the scheme will have expired before FarmBis is up and running—because of the Federal Government's new requirements.

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

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: It is notable that the Commonwealth announced that to date only Western Australia, Victoria and South Australia have signed up on the new terms. Obviously, others share our concerns. New South Wales remains anxious to get on with the job of providing FarmBis training to our State's farmers as soon as possible. But a responsible government has to minimise unnecessary administrative costs wherever possible, and that is precisely what we are doing. If only the Federal Government was as focused on outcomes as New South Wales. I will be making an announcement on FarmBis as soon as these issues have been fully resolved.

WORKPLACE FATALITIES

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I direct my question to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Does the Minister anticipate that the Workplace Fatalities Bill will be introduced before 15 October 2005, the second anniversary of the death of Joel Exner, a tragic incident widely recognised as having kicked off the public campaign to reduce deaths in the workplace? If the Minister does not have a date for introducing the bill, is it because he now disagrees with the expert panel headed by Professor Ron McCallum or has he bowed to employer pressure?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The honourable member has asked a very important question. She is asking me to be a bit more prescient than I can possibly be. It is a well-rehearsed argument, but worthwhile, I think, to once again make the point for the record. I am sure everyone agrees that every workplace death, regardless of the cause, is a tragedy and impacts on the worker’s family, friends, co-workers and employers.

For obvious reasons I have not referred to any particular cases, but Ms Lee Rhiannon and others have referred to the instances that generated this round of debate about the occupational health and safety laws. A small number of industrial deaths each year occur because of an apparent complete disregard for basic occupational health and safety, and the community has been demanding tougher sanctions and potentially tougher sentences.

Yesterday on radio 2SM Australian Business Ltd's Paul Ritchie told the public that Australian Business Ltd supports the introduction of workplace fatalities legislation. Obviously, however, Mr Ritchie and others in the business community have expressed some concerns about the current draft bill. Business has made some positive and constructive suggestions. The Government is currently talking with unions and employers about the best way our laws can bring about safer and more productive workplaces.

The Government recognises that any change we make must continue to provide the right motivation and incentives to ensure that employers make effective changes to their workplace and to the safety culture of their business. We agree that hardworking, responsible employers should have nothing to fear from occupational health and safety laws.

The release of the consultation draft of the Occupational Health and Safety Legislation Amendment (Workplace Fatalities) Bill, which was referred to in Ms Lee Rhiannon's question, followed extensive consultation in the wake of the legislative review into workplace deaths. The honourable member correctly points out that a panel of legal experts, headed by the Sydney University Dean of Law, Professor Ron McCallum, undertook the review.

The Government wants to make sure the bill is aimed at a minority—the rogues whose indifference to health and safety results in death, as I am sure both employers and employees agree. We want to make sure that any amendments to our occupational health and safety laws continue the spirit of co-operation that has contributed to making our workplaces healthier and safer. It is important to note that the bill remains part of the consultation process. This may be the best I can do in making the prediction that Ms Lee Rhiannon wants me to make. There is no intention to rush forward this legislation. It has not been introduced yet because the Government is still consulting. 14026 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23 February 2005

It was surprising that after a two-year debate the Leader of the Opposition blundered in yesterday with a very unhelpful contribution. He put forward no ideas to improve the legislation and no plan to fix the problem, and he displayed complete ignorance about the current laws as they have stood for decades. The Opposition was alarmed about strict liability and the right of unions and prosecutors to seek half the fine from the courts. These laws are already in place and have nothing to do with the draft provision that is out for consultation. Indeed, the laws have been in place since 1983. They were untouched during the reign of Greiner and Fahey.

Unions have been able to prosecute since 1943, and prosecutors have been able to seek moiety from the courts since 1901, when Sir Samuel Griffith was drafting the Constitution on Sydney Harbour. New South Wales occupational health and safety laws already contain gaol sentences. The consultation draft bill imposes no new duties on employers. The Leader of the Opposition in the other place clearly does not understand our laws, and he has no policies and no ideas or plans for safer workplaces.

MR DANE KAHUI AND OWNERBUILD PTY LTD HOME BUILDING ACT BREACHES

The Hon. KAYEE GRIFFIN: My question is addressed to the Minister for Fair Trading. Will the Minister advise the House of the latest information concerning consumer complaints about the activities of Mr Dane Kahui and Ownerbuild Pty Ltd? What action has the Office of Fair Trading taken in relation to the complaints?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: In August-September 2004 Mr Dane Kahui, through his company Ownerbuild Pty Ltd, began an extensive marketing campaign, in the print media and on the Internet, under the name Ownerbuild Swimming Pool Consultants. The company purported to assist home owners with installing in-ground swimming pools in their homes, saving them thousands of dollars in standard construction costs. It then provided to consumers a full costing for the construction of the pool, for which a fee of 10 per cent of the contract price was charged. Home owners were then encouraged to obtain owner-builder permits to facilitate the construction of the swimming pools, without the builder having to obtain home warranty insurance.

In reality, Ownerbuild took on the role of builder by contracting with the home owner to do the work and sourcing, appointing and supervising the work of subcontractors. Ownerbuild sold a number of territory franchise agreements to persons to act as swimming pool consultants. These franchisees were reliant on Ownerbuild to provide marketing and stationery, and the format for contractual agreements to be used with consumers. Inquiries in relation to all the franchise holders have revealed that none of the franchisees were licensed or eligible to provide home warranty insurance.

During 2004 the Home Building Service received a total of 18 complaints in relation to Ownerbuild's activities. Primarily, complaints related to the quality of works being carried out, the non-provision of statutory warranties, and the non-provision of home warranty insurance. In March 2004, as a result of being interviewed, Mr Kahui submitted an application for a swimming pool building licence to the licensing branch of the Home Building Service. The application was not progressed because of the non-payment of prescribed application fees and the inability of the licensing branch to verify the nominated supervisors of Ownerbuild.

I am pleased to inform the House that the prosecution of Mr Dane Kahui and his company Ownerbuild Pty Ltd for unlicensed and uninsured building work occurred last Monday on 21 February 2005. On that day Wyong Local Court convicted Ownerbuild Pty Ltd, trading as Ownerbuild Pool Engineers and Consultants, and Mr Kahui, its sole director, of a total of 16 breaches of the Home Building Act. Eight of those breaches were against Ownerbuild Pty Ltd, comprising four breaches of section 4 (a) of the Act, relating to unlicensed contracting, and four breaches of section 92 of the Act, relating to home warranty insurance offences. The other eight breaches were against Mr Kahui, comprising two breaches of sections 4 (a) and 92 of the Act and four breaches of section 5 (2) (a), relating to seeking work by or for an unlicensed person. Ownerbuild Pty Ltd and Mr Kahui were ordered to pay a total of $64,000 in fines and $10,673 in costs.

Mr Kahui's unscrupulous work ethic and nefarious conduct has left affected home owners heavily exposed to loss if problems later arise with the work. As the company is still a viable entity, any consumers who have suffered financial loss because of their dealings with Ownerbuild or Mr Kahui can lodge an application with the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal seeking redress. The Office of Fair Trading is poised to seek injunctive action if evidence emerges that Ownerbuild continues illegal activity.

The Home Building Act exists to protect consumers and ensure professional standards in the building industry, and the Office of Fair Trading is vigilant in enforcing it. Consumers should also take steps to protect 23 February 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14027 themselves by ensuring that they deal only with a licensed builder, by checking their licence and other details with the Office of Fair Trading. I trust honourable members will join with me in supporting the clear message that this prosecution sends to all builders and tradespeople: they cannot ignore the law and their ethical responsibilities when it comes to doing the right thing by consumers.

SCHOOL ACTIVITIES PHOTOGRAPHY RESTRICTIONS

The Hon. JOHN TINGLE: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Education and Training. Is the Minister aware of a reported proposal by the Federation of Parents and Citizens Associations to restrict the right of parents to take photographs of their children at school functions? Does the Minister agree with the federation that parents should have to seek official permission to photograph their children on such occasions? Given the positive effect of parent involvement in school functions, does the Minister have concerns about this type of restriction being imposed on parents?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I also read yesterday's media reports that flagged this issue. I understood that the issue was first raised in relation to an initiative of a local council or a local council- administered swimming pool.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: The green mayor of Randwick.

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: Randwick, that is correct. While I can appreciate what motivated such a position, it is impractical. It would be very difficult for parents if they were told that in order to have a photograph of their child at a swimming carnival or sports carnival they needed to sign a consent form. We obviously have procedures in schools whereby, if media outlets or other outlets come to schools wanting to take photographs, students are asked, usually at the start of each school year, whether their parents agree for them to be part of that. If their parents do not agree, students are either not allowed to be part of those activities or are removed when the media come to the school. Alternatively, the media are told very clearly not to photograph the students concerned.

As I said, I am aware of the issue raised by the Federation of Parents and Citizens Associations. I am advised that the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 regulates the way government schools must treat the photographing of identifiable individuals. Generally schools are advised by the department to inform parents of the circumstances in which photographs of their children may be taken. Individual schools have the right to determine their own policy on parents taking photographs. If they wish, parents have the right to decline permission for their children to be photographed.

I am advised that New South Wales privacy legislation does not prohibit parents, or others who are not staff of the school, from photographing children during school events. Each school may, however, create policies that prevent such photographs being taken. Schools are advised to consult parents about these policies. For example, a school may limit or stop photography where people are disrupting an event or distracting participants by constantly setting off flashes, or where the school has organised for a professional team to produce an official video of a school event. If a school hires a venue, such as a swimming pool, that places limitations on photography as part of the hiring agreement, the school must observe those conditions.

I advise the House further that the president of the Federation of Parents and Citizens Associations has advised my office that the federation supports the arrangements that are currently in place for government schools across New South Wales. Essentially it is a sensible approach. Schools need to take a commonsense approach to this matter. Obviously, anything they do should be done in consultation with the school communities and with parents, but I think it is unrealistic to expect a regime that requires parents to sign consent forms in order that photographs may be taken of their child participating in a school swimming carnival.

HOME CARE SERVICE OF NEW SOUTH WALES

The Hon. JOHN RYAN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Disability Services. Has the Home Care Service of New South Wales set a maximum number of hours it will allocate to clients during any month, and are clients having their services reviewed and withdrawn if their service hours exceed 55 hours a month? Are Home Care Service clients being dropped from services if they are admitted to hospital for short stays? Has the Minister received correspondence from a 48-year-old former Home Care Service client, Mrs Trish Wyatt, who has multiple sclerosis, stating that she lost her home care service of 70 hours a month after she had been hospitalised for a short period, and that she has now been forced out of her 14028 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23 February 2005 home and living with her daughter into inappropriate aged care accommodation miles away from where she previously lived?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I said yesterday, that the Opposition, and today the Hon. John Ryan, is once again raising a matter of a particular circumstance involving a particular individual rather than a matter of policy or reflecting on policy alternatives resulting from the situation of a particular individual, reflects the basic problem that the Opposition has a static approach to dealing with such issues. I have not heard the Hon. John Ryan express any solutions, ideas or a plan to deal with the problems he outlines.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: You are the Government.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: And you are the Opposition, and it is your job to be the alternative government. I am simply making the point, and this is my entitlement. The Home and Community Care Program, a joint State-Australian Government program, provides basic support services to frail older people, particularly the disabled and their carers, to assist them to remain in their homes. The New South Wales Government is committed to ensuring that home and community care remains an important source of community care and that the people of New South Wales receive their fair share of equitable access to the services. In this financial year current expenditure for the Home and Community Care Program is projected to be $414.1 million. In addition, the New South Wales Government is committed to providing $4.1 million in unmatched contributions to meet the cost of the increase in the Social and Community Services [SACS] Award. This will bring the total to more than $418 million.

The budget for the program in this financial year includes an additional $32 million increase, representing growth of 8.35 per cent. The New South Wales Government is proposing that $23.9 million of the growth funds be made available for increased services across New South Wales this year, with the remaining $8.025 million to be allocated to service providers to cover staff and other cost increases so as to maintain the existing level of services. The budget for the program in 2003-04 included an additional $32.1 million increase for basic Home and Community Care [HACC] support services, representing a growth of approximately 9.2 per cent.

In 2003-04 recurrent expenditure of the HACC program was projected to be $386.2 million, including $4.1 million in unmatched New South Wales contributions, to meet the cost of the increase in the Social and Community Services Award. I remind members that the New South Wales Government contributed these unmatched funds because the Australian Government refused to pay its share of these award increases. We had to move to secure the future of these non-government service providers when the Australian Government would not.

The Hon. John Ryan: Point of order: Whilst I think the Minister could be forgiven for a short introductory comment about the general history of the Home Care Service, it is hardly fair that he does not respond to a question that asked him specifically whether the Home Care Service had a policy of covering clients for more than 55 hours a month. I think it is high time the Minister addressed the specifics of the question.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The member knows perfectly well that Ministers may comment generally when responding to a question.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: That is right. The Hon. John Ryan is in the Opposition; and the Opposition takes care of the questions and we take care of the answers. I will not attempt to answer a matter about a specific client except if it is placed on the notice paper. This is a very good policy. The Hon. Carmel Tebbutt got many things right, and this is one of those things. It is an individual piece of advice and I am taking it. On the specific matter I will get back to the member as soon as practicable.

LOCUST CONTROL

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: My question is directed to the father of the House, the Minister for Primary Industries.

[Interruption]

I did not realise that the Minister did not know about his promotion. My question is directed to the father of the House, who doubles as the Minister for Primary Industries. Could the Minister inform the House about the locust activity across the State? 23 February 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14029

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I can report that our campaign continues in full force. The number of reported hatchings dropped to 140 this week, bringing the total to more than 15,490 reports. Locust activity is currently focused around the Murray, Riverina and Hay districts as well as the Moree, Narrabri and Tamworth areas in northern New South Wales. Since the start of the campaign we have issued and used enough insecticide to treat more than 990,000 hectares. In addition, the Australian Plague Locust Commission has treated nearly 250,000 hectares in New South Wales. Today, in fact, the Department of Primary Industries is working with local police and the Roads and Traffic Authority to temporarily close a portion of the Olympic Highway near Culcairn for aerial control. This operation should last about one hour.

While on the topic of locusts, I take a moment to clarify a number of inaccurate and misleading claims made about the overall effort. First, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition claimed yesterday that during a 27 January interview on ABC's Country Hour I allegedly said farmers would "easily" be able to find the dollars needed for the pest insect destruction levy. I have a transcript of that interview and I can advise that not once did I use the word "easy" in relation to the levy. So here we have our first instance of the member making inaccurate statements to the House.

What I did say during the Country Hour interview was that the contributions by landholders to the industry fund would not be "a huge amount of money over a period of time, and over the four years". When asked if an extra $100 or $150 would be the straw that broke a few camels' backs, I responded, "Certainly not". And why is this? Because, as I stated quite clearly to the ABC, "the saving of $900 million in crops has meant that many farmers have for the first time gotten a decent crop off". The funding arrangements clearly stipulate that industry will have up to four years to repay the Government's no interest loan. We know landholders across this State have had a tough time with the drought. But we also know that the $900 million in crops and pastures saved is a direct benefit to landholders.

Secondly, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition claimed that the levy payable by Mr Graham Brown of Reola station increase by $540.11. I challenge the honourable member to produce evidence of this increase, because I have been advised that the Wanaaring board rate notices have not yet been sent out. I understand, however, that when Mr Brown's rate notice is posted it will be based on the fact that he has four separate holdings, not one as the honourable member intimated yesterday. Combined, these four holdings cover an area of over 115,000 hectares, giving Mr Brown a carrying capacity of well over 20,000 stock units.

I have consistently said that the temporary adjustment to the locust fund means that, on average, ratepayers' contributions are likely to range from between $15 and $25 in coastal districts to between $50 and $100 in western districts. This is an average based on calculations by the State Council of the Rural Lands Protection Boards [RLPB], taking into account all of the 122,000 RLPB ratepayers in the State. I am sure even the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would agree that Mr Graham Brown's combined holdings are amongst the largest in New South Wales and certainly are not representative of the average landholder in this State.

Once again the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has tried in vain to misconstrue the facts and in doing so has given inaccurate information to the House. The Carr Labor Government has continually helped farmers meet the challenges of life on the land. Throughout the extended drought, for instance, the State Government has committed over $60 million in transport subsidies, more than $10 million of which has been directed towards the Western Division. In fact, two-thirds of the ratepayers in the division have taken advantage of the scheme.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: I ask a supplementary question. Can the Minister elucidate his answer?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I only speculate on whether Mr Graham Brown was a recipient of some of this drought assistance from the State Government. In last night's adjournment debate the Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred also to the Director of the Cobar Rural Lands Protection Board, who claimed that the board was not consulted at any time by the Minister, the Plague Locust Commission or the State Council of the Rural Lands Protection Boards about the restructured contribution. This is a monumentally inaccurate statement. I have been advised that the State Council of the Rural Lands Protection Boards provided numerous updates to its boards on this matter. This includes correspondence to all boards on 10 January, 12 January, 21 January, 1 February and 2 February. If this particular director missed these notices, I have serious doubts about his capacity to lead the board, let alone educate the ratepayers about critical issues affecting the Cobar area. 14030 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23 February 2005

As a final demonstration of just how out of touch the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is, yesterday he did not even know that Mr Graeme Eggleston, the Department of Primary Industries' Plague Locust Commissioner was a New South Wales public servant. During yesterday's question time the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, "He's a Federal public servant." What rock has Duncan been living under that has caused him to make such a statement? Graeme Eggleston has worked with the New South Wales department since 1986—20 years serving the people of New South Wales. As New South Wales Plague Locust Commissioner, Graeme has worked his guts out during the current campaign, visiting locust-affected areas and liaising with landholders and response teams. He has been interviewed on no less than 200 occasions by radio, print and television outlets to provide updates on the drought. On all scores yesterday in relation to locusts, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition got it wrong.

M4 EAST EXTENSION

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads. Will the Minister acknowledge that the proposed extension of the M4, which will terminate several traffic lights before Anzac Bridge, will cause higher traffic volumes and massive congestion for commuters entering and exiting the motorway at this point? Given that the previous Minister for Roads, Carl Scully, opted for the cheaper 3.6 kilometre extension of the M4 and only lengthened this extension after the community voiced its concerns, will the Minister now reconsider the 6.6 kilometre extension of the M4 East as an alternative? Is the Minister aware that an overwhelming majority of commuters from the inner west travelling to and from the city prefer the long tunnel option, which will surface near Anzac Bridge? Can we expect the Minister to act upon the concerns raised by residents living in the inner western suburbs and respond to their concerns?

The Hon. Duncan Gay: How come you have a prepared answer to a question without notice?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I do not have a prepared answer, I am just prepared generally. I am advised that in July 2002 the former Minister for Roads announced that a possible 3.5 kilometre tunnel link would be investigated from the M4 at North Strathfield to the City West link and Parramatta Road at Haberfield, to relieve traffic congestion on this section of Parramatta Road and reduce travel times for freight, businesses and private vehicles. Consultants Connell Wagner examined a number of design options, including a proposal by community groups for a longer tunnel, with a portal in Lilyfield.

I am advised that on 16 December 2003 the former Minister unveiled three options for community comment. On 26 June 2004 he announced the preferred option for the M4 East, which, based on community submissions, lengthened the project by almost a kilometre, costing somewhere in the order of $300 million as part of a package of improvements. I am advised that an environmental impact statement is under preparation and is expected to be exhibited in the first half of this year. That process will go forward and there will be an opportunity for community consultation.

LAKE CATHIE PRIMARY SCHOOL PROPOSAL

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Education and Training. Will the Minister consider meeting with the Lake Cathie school committee to learn first hand the concerns of the local community about the need for a new primary school at Lake Cathie at the same time as her scheduled meeting with the member for Port Macquarie? Is the Minister aware that up to 300 local children have to travel away from their community to attend nearby public schools and that a further 70 children attend nearby private schools as there is no local primary school for them to attend? Given the Minister's commitment to stem the flow of school students to the private sector, will the Minister reconsider the Government's position on the need for a new primary school at Lake Cathie?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I already have some appreciation of the concerns of the Lake Cathie community about the school issue, as, obviously, did the former Minister. Many representations on the matter have been made. The Federal Minister for Education, Science and Training, Dr Brendan Nelson, recently wrote to me with a funding proposal concerning the school and I am having that proposal urgently reviewed by the department. I am to meet with the local member, Rob Oakeshott, but I am not aware of whom he intends to bring to that meeting. I am happy to meet with representatives of the Lake Cathie community at the appropriate time. I would not necessarily want them travelling to Sydney for a meeting when we still have not reviewed all that has been put forward by Dr Brendan Nelson, but I would be happy to meet with those representatives at an appropriate time. 23 February 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14031

ECONOMIC REFORM

The Hon. HENRY TSANG: My question is addressed to the new Minister for Economic Reform, and the newly promoted Deputy Leader of the Government. Will the Minister update the House on the OECD's latest observations on economic reform?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: New South Wales is committed to economic reform, and the challenge of economic reform becomes even more important at this moment for our nation because the Federal Government has left the country in the lurch.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner to order.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: With regard to economic reform, no less an authority than the Governor of the Reserve Bank, Ian Macfarlane, conceded what members on the Government side of the House have known for a long time: Australia's recent economic growth has been built on the achievements of the Hawke-Keating Government.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Point of order: The Minister is intentionally misleading the House, and he knows it.

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

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: It galls members opposite to think that one of their appointees to the prestigious position of Governor of the Reserve Bank told the truth on this matter for everyone to hear, that is, that Australia's recent economic growth was based on reforms put in place by Federal Labor governments— reforms such as tariff reduction, financial deregulation and competition policy. These are real Labor achievements on which the other side of politics has piggy-backed for many years. Governor Macfarlane's report also confirmed the recent OECD report, which shows that the structural reforms of the Hawke-Keating governments are the foundation of the economic prosperity experienced by this country. What has the present Federal Government done in terms of its own agenda to enhance economic reform? The answer is very little. According to the OECD report, Australia—

The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: Point of order: I fail to see how statements about what the Federal Government is doing can have anything to do with the Minister's portfolio. I ask that he be requested to stick to the subject.

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

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: It does not surprise me that the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans does not understand economic reform and how it connects to State Government policies. The real issue is how our economic reform is to be managed into the future. The Federal Government is recklessly spending New South Wales tax dollars. Material indicating the amount of GST revenue that has been collected clearly shows that New South Wales has been short-changed by the Federal Government. The Federal Government collects $2.6 billion more in GST revenue from New South Wales than it returns to New South Wales. It is a disgrace. It is the basis of a range of policy measures by the Federal Government, and recently it became obvious that those measures are pork-barrelling. The Federal Government is good at pork-barrelling. [Time expired.]

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

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The Federal Government takes $2.6 billion out of the pockets of New South Wales taxpayers and spends it on projects such as Tumbi Creek and the Beaudesert railway—great projects for nation building! That money is used for pork-barrelling to get hopeless Coalition members elected. The taxation figures for the country are absolutely clear: New South Wales taxpayers are being rorted by the Federal Government to pay for its pork-barrelling. A range of indicators shows, first, that capital grants—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: So you've never made an election promise?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: So it is an election promise, is it?

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Of course it was. What did you think it was? 14032 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23 February 2005

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: An area that was swept through with water naturally had to have funds allocated to it. The National Party is famous for such election promises. The fact is that New South Wales taxpayers have not had returned to them funds that have been collected. Services in New South Wales are under pressure because the Federal Government takes $2.6 billion more in GST from New South Wales taxpayers than it returns. We will hang that figure around the necks of members opposite for the rest of this session. Honourable members should remember this: the Federal Government has taken $2.6 billion out of the pockets of New South Wales taxpayers and distributed it for National Party pork-barrelling. It is an absolute disgrace. The Federal Government needs to explain why it is short-changing New South Wales taxpayers, and I will remind members opposite of that.

CORRECTIONAL CENTRES MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

The Hon. PETER BREEN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Justice. As the New South Wales prison population exceeds 9,000 inmates, is the Minister aware of how many prisoners are being treated for a mental illness? Is he aware of how many Corrective Services facilities, such as the X wing at Goulburn gaol, are dedicated to the exclusive treatment of prisoners suffering from mental illness? What is the recidivism rate of prisoners suffering from a mental illness, compared with the recidivism record of the rest of the prison population?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Management of the mentally ill in New South Wales prisons is a shared responsibility. Justice Health, which is an agency under the jurisdiction of the Minister for Health, provides psychiatric services and mental health nursing services. The Department of Corrective Services provides psychological treatment and custodial supervision in correctional centres and also through Community Offender Services, which deals with those offenders who are not actually in custody and manages offenders with mental health problems who are under some form of supervision in the community. The figures for the number of prisoners being treated for mental health conditions vary from time to time.

However, Justice Health has identified that, among the male inmate population, 78.2 per cent of receptions and 61 per cent of sentenced inmates have had symptoms of some form of mental health disorder at least once within the 12 months prior to screening; 10.7 per cent of receptions and 4.2 per cent of sentenced inmates had a psychiatric disorder within the 12 months prior to screening; and 63.7 per cent of receptions and 33.6 per cent of sentenced inmates had a substance use disorder within the 12 months prior to screening.

Justice Health found that, among the female inmate population, 90.1 per cent of receptions and 78.6 per cent of sentenced inmates have had symptoms of some form of mental health disorder at least once within the 12 months prior to screening; 15.2 per cent of received into custody and 5.7 per cent of sentenced inmates had a psychotic disorder within the 12 months prior to screening; and 74.5 per cent of receptions and 57.4 per cent of sentenced inmates had some form of substance abuse disorder within the 12 months prior to screening.

In relation to the facilities that are provided, the Department of Corrective Services is working with Justice Health to plan and build two new facilities within the Long Bay correctional complex: a new hospital that will replace the existing facility, and a new forensic hospital, which will be funded and operated by NSW Health, on degazetted land at Long Bay. At present a new 40-bed mental health screening unit for males is being constructed at the Metropolitan Reception and Remand Centre [MRRC], and it will commence operation in 2005. This unit will manage inmates for whom severe mental health problems are indicated on reception. The unit will develop appropriate discharge management plans for the management and treatment of inmates in custody, as well as for integrated and continuing case management upon their return into the community.

This unit will assume management of the existing temporary unit at the MRCC. In all, 75 beds will be available for early screening and assessment in order to ensure more effective case management. Construction has begun on a 10-bed mental health screening unit and clinic for female inmates at Mulawa Correctional Centre. Its function will be similar to that of the mental health screening unit in the MRRC. The new facilities will complement our existing facilities, which include facilities at Long Bay hospital, which is the principal unit for the treatment of 89 male and nine female offenders who are unfit to plead because of their mental illness or who are in need of special psychiatric care; and the Mum Shirl Unit at Mulawa Correctional Centre for female offenders, with both psychiatrists and mental health nurses on hand to deal with mental health patients.

The Biyani program facility for women at Long Bay correctional complex was opened by Her Excellency the Governor in March last year. The facility aims to stabilise mental health, drug and alcohol problems and help women to gain access to long-term community rehabilitation programs and resources. 23 February 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14033

A range of work is undertaken by correctional officers. Psychologists and other offender services and programs staff provide counselling to inmates. Offenders with mental health problems who are under community supervision are supported by officers of Community Offender Services, which is a branch of the department, in collaboration with Justice Health.

I do not have information in relation to the differences between the recidivism figures for offenders who have some mental illness and those who do not, so I am not able to provide that information. I am not sure that we distinguish it, but I am on record as having expressed my views in relation to that matter. [Time expired.]

TRANSPORT PLANNING AND CLEAN AIR STRATEGY

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: I direct my question to the Minister for Justice, representing the Minister for Transport. Will the Government give figures of the vehicle kilometres travelled in the past five years and estimated in the future? Is not this a key performance indicator for transport planning and clean air strategy and, if so, are the changes and projections satisfactory? Why does the Government continue to spend money building freeways and tunnels, but spurn light rail and heavy rail extensions, when our Kyoto performance is so dismal?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I will refer the question to the Minister for Transport in the other place, obtain an answer and advise the House in due course.

FIREFIGHTER ASSAULTS

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister for Lands. Is the Minister aware that firefighters have been attacked in the Gordon Estate in West Dubbo with rocks and bottles? Why has he not ensured that offenders have been prosecuted with five-year prison terms for attacking emergency services personnel, as the former Minister for Emergency Services, Bob Debus, promised 10 years ago?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: That is a matter for the police, and I will refer the honourable member's question to the Minister for Police.

BUSHFIRE MANAGEMENT

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Emergency Services. Will the Minister update honourable members on national bushfire management initiatives?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I am pleased to be able to inform the House that this State's bushfire management has been supported, and indeed vindicated, by the Council of Australian Government [COAG] report into national bushfire mitigation and management. The COAG report, released last month by the Prime Minister, endorsed New South Wales' multipronged approach to bushfire management. The COAG inquiry was launched by the Prime Minister following the 2002-03 bushfire season. During that season more than 54 million hectares of land across the nation were burned. The report was compiled after months of detailed examination by a panel of scientists and bushfire and land management experts from throughout Australia. New South Wales made a significant contribution to the process, including providing a full-time staff member to the panel.

COAG has now decided that the augmented Australasian Police Ministers Council will have a lead role in co-ordinating and monitoring the implementation of the report's recommendations. This will be discussed at the council's forthcoming meeting on Friday week. As we have said for many years—and this report acknowledges it—bushfire prevention and management is a complex issue that must encompass a range of difficult policies and practices by public and private landowners and managers. It is not simply about a scorched earth approach to hazard reduction. I am not disputing that hazard reduction is a useful tool in helping reduce the intensity of fires under moderate conditions, but, as the report says, fuel reduction burning should not be seen as a panacea.

I particularly welcome the report's recommendation that COAG adopt a statement of national principles for bushfire mitigation and management. One of these key principles is that firefighter and community safety 14034 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23 February 2005 should be at the forefront of bushfire decisions, and personal safety must be the greatest concern. The safety of our firefighters is paramount. This Government makes no apology for putting the lives of our firefighters first and foremost. We will not return to the days when too many firefighters lost their lives, as would be the case if a number of potentially dangerous recommendations of the so-called Mann inquiry were adopted.

The COAG report's recommendation of the implementation of a single-incident control system for managing multiagency operations reflects the New South Wales model. One of the greatest benefits of the new Rural Fire Service operational headquarters is the improved capacity it provides for co-ordinated operations, involving all the essential fire and land management agencies, to better support our firefighters on the ground. This COAG report is a constructive review that will result in a series of practical, far-reaching and effective recommendations to assist all fire agencies and those responsible for land management in the challenging and complex task of preventing and fighting bushfires. I commend all those involved in its production.

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

WORKCOVER NATIONAL CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENCY HOLDER RETESTING

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition asked me about an Independent Commission Against Corruption [ICAC] investigation. I want to add an additional matter to my answer of yesterday. The employee involved has been suspended in accordance with guidelines issued by the Premier's Department and powers accorded to the chief executive officer under the Public Sector Employment Management Act. Further, WorkCover pressed the ICAC to allow it to take action in this matter, conscious that while there is a public interest in investigating corruption there is also a public interest in maintaining a robust and corruption-resistant licensing system. It would be inappropriate for me to comment further on this matter.

WORKCOVER NATIONAL CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENCY HOLDER RETESTING

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Earlier today the Leader of the Opposition asked me a question about WorkCover licence testing programs. WorkCover has given me advice that it expects to complete this testing process by the end of the year.

TEACHING STANDARDS

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: Further to a question asked yesterday by the Hon. Catherine Cusack, I can advise that from 1 October 2004 schools cannot employ teachers who do not have a bachelor's degree, which is the minimum entry qualification into the teaching profession. Teachers already employed in schools and who do not have either a bachelor's degree or a teaching qualification are required to attain a bachelor's degree over a seven-year period. These teachers are defined as transition scheme teachers under the Institute of Teachers Act. In addition, these transition scheme teachers must work under the on-site supervision of a qualified teacher.

Questions without notice concluded.

TABLING OF PAPERS

The Hon. John Hatzistergos tabled the following paper:

Annual Reports (Departments) Act 1985—Report of Department of Community Services for the year ended 30 June 2004

Ordered to be printed.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON STATE DEVELOPMENT

Chair

The PRESIDENT: I inform the House that the Leader of the Government has this day nominated the Hon. Tony Catanzariti as the Chair of the Standing Committee on State Development in place of the Hon. Eric Roozendaal.

[The President left the chair at 1.07 p.m. The House resumed at 2.45 p.m.] 23 February 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14035

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGED CARE SERVICES FUNDING

Debate resumed from 21 October 2004.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [2.45 p.m.]: I have very little time to complete the remarks I started last October. I again stress that the point of the motion is to condemn the Federal Government for its absolute failure to provide adequate funding for aged care services in New South Wales. I congratulate the Hon. Amanda Fazio on putting this very important motion on the business paper. There is a lot of rhetoric about the importance of the issue of ageing in our community but the more we discuss motions of this kind addressing the issues of services and funding the more we honestly address the problem. We keep talking about the increasing number of ageing people in the community but doing something about it is a little harder. I again stress the importance of funding from the Federal Government and the need to address the whole variety of specific needs, including dementia sufferers and the problems faced by families and carers, and the increasing occupancy of aged care beds in public hospitals by those who really should be in other facilities. [Time expired.]

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [2.49 p.m.]: The motion moved by the Hon. Amanda Fazio covers many important areas. I shall comment only on the second part of the motion calling on the Federal Government to initiate bipartisan talks with the State Government to address the needs rather than continue to deny that any problem exists. It may be debatable whether the Federal Government denies there is any problem—I am not sure whether that can be documented—but I support the encouragement of bipartisan talks to resolve the situation. Sometimes there are gaps between State and Federal responsibilities but the needs of people in the ageing community should be met. I support that bipartisan aspect.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [2.50 p.m.], in reply: The motion I moved in this House on 21 October last year related to the failure of the Federal Government to provide adequate funding for aged care services in New South Wales, the impact of that lack of funding, especially in regard to families of dementia sufferers, the lack of available aged care beds in public hospitals putting pressure on nursing home care, and the failure to recognise that many aged people languish in public hospitals longer than necessary because there is no appropriate accommodation for them. As Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile stated, I also asked this House to call on the Federal Government to initiate bipartisan talks with the State Government to address these needs. We should focus on that critical issue. In my speech last year I noted that concerns existed in my local community about the lack of aged care beds, and those concerns still exist. At the end of last year the Village Voice Drummoyne-Five Dock noted "around 45 people are currently on the waiting list of St Mary's Villa Nursing Home—with at least 30 waiting for respite care places." A similar situation exists at Scalabri Village Nursing Home in Drummoyne and Concord Community Hospital at Rhodes, where local people must wait for up to six months for a place in the dementia care award.

The manager of Concord Hostel stated, "Everything's moved backwards—nursing homes are turning into palliative care units and hostels are turning into nursing homes." The member for Drummoyne has stated, "When I visit Concord Hospital the number of people who pull me aside and say, 'What am I going to do when I get out of here—where am I going to go?' is alarming." With the proportion of Canada Bay residents over the age of 65 at 16 per cent and likely to continue rising for the next 15 years, the care crisis is set to worsen. I have focused on my local area but the situation is replicated across New South Wales. The Opposition has made much of ambulances being turned away from hospitals because at times there are no available beds. I refer to the New South Wales Audit Office report for 2004-05 on the Ambulance Service, which stated:

The shortage of beds is in large part due to the difficulty in discharging aged care patients. The department estimates that up to 900 inpatient beds are occupied by patients who should be in nursing homes, or with appropriate support, back in their own homes. Health’s planned increase of 973 beds (563 permanent beds, and 40 more for winter demand) would largely be achieved if these patients could be cared for outside the public hospital system.

The Audit Office report further stated:

Decline in Nursing Home Capacity: There has been a quantitative decline in nursing home capacity with every state reporting bed shortages. As a result, elderly patients who are awaiting nursing home placement may spend prolonged periods in acute hospitals reducing the availability of beds for acute and elective admissions. Aged care shortages will also be affected by the ageing population and the decline in the "extended family" supports for the elderly. There has also been a qualitative decline in the capacity of nursing homes to manage illness or to undertake procedures such as IV antibiotic therapy or urinary catheter insertion. This puts pressure back on the acute care system.

The recommendations of the New South Wales Audit Office included a suggestion for improved capacity to treat older patients by seeking from the Commonwealth increased numbers of nursing home beds and in-home support funding for aged patients; implementing transitional care beds and programs to better meet the needs of 14036 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23 February 2005 aged care patients and to reduce the number of acute care beds they currently occupy; and including targets for aged care in performance agreements. The same conclusions were reached in the April 2004 report entitled "Access Block and Overcrowding in Emergency departments" by the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine. What was the response of the Opposition to the motion that I moved? The Hon. John Ryan disingenuously claimed:

… many elderly people are supposedly blocking beds in New South Wales hospitals leaves me utterly gobsmacked because the New South Wales Government has more than 1,000 young people with disabilities inappropriately clogging up aged care homes.

He then went on to praise the Federal Government and attack the State Government. I know that he will run any line of argument given to him, but on this occasion his performance was shameless. I want to go back to the report of the Audit Office of New South Wales and repeat a few of the things that office identified in its in-depth analysis of this problem. The report stated:

As recognised in the report, this excess demand can be explained in large part by the ageing of the population and greater reliance on emergency and hospital services due to health problems associated with older people.

The Audit Office report further stated:

In recent times, a major factor contributing to the availability of beds within public hospitals has been that the numbers of community, nursing home and hostel places have not kept up with demand. As pointed out in the report, this means that in NSW up to 900 elderly people who would be more appropriately cared for in the community or in nursing homes or hostels are being inappropriately accommodated in hospital beds. Furthermore, the Australian Government reduce the funding for NSW by about $400 million over the life of the 2003-08 Australian Health Care Agreement.

The inability of the Australian Government to increase the numbers of nursing home places or home support for the elderly patient who is no longer acutely ill but needs physical and social support is a major contributor to the availability of beds within the public hospital system, particularly within metropolitan Sydney.

The solution to this problem lies in identifying better types of care for the elderly in more appropriate settings, e.g. rehabilitation units, transitional care, care in the person's own home with appropriate support, or in nursing homes or hostels.

NSW Health is implementing a range of strategies to improve access, which focus on providing new solutions for the better care of the elderly. These include additional acute and transitional care beds as well as community-based or home care. In June 2004, the NSW Government allocated an additional $57 million to the health budget to provide over 560 permanent new beds. This will lead to an increase in bed availability, particularly for metropolitan hospitals.

I stand by my call on the Federal Government to initiate bipartisan talks with the State Government to address these needs rather than continue to deny that any problem exists. This call is, in fact, in accord with the sentiments stated in the submission of the National Alliance of Young People in Nursing Homes to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee Inquiry into Aged Care, dated 4 August 2004. Let me refer to what it had to say about this matter:

The Young People in Nursing Homes issue is symptomatic of a wider failure around systemic service provision and unmet need for young people with high-level nursing care needs. Solving this issue will not only provide opportunities for improvements in dignity, independence and meaning to the growing number of young people forced to live in aged care facilities, it will also clear systemic blockages in aged care, health and disability services and return services, facilities and funding to those they are intended to target.

To achieve this, we need to look further than the development of alternative accommodation 'models'. Such a strategy is limited in concept and carries an inherent flexibility that cannot accommodate the changing needs and life goals of young people. The answer lies instead with Young People in Nursing Homes themselves and their family members.

The submission goes on to state that the poor capacity of the Commonwealth State Territory Disability Agreement means that State-based disability systems, which are already struggling to meet demand, fail to address the needs of people who are in Commonwealth-funded facilities. This failure, ongoing jurisdictional conflicts between Federal and State governments around funding across sector boundaries, concomitant responsibility for service provision, and a lack of co-ordination and co-operation between the health, disability and community care sectors are the main reasons why Young People in Nursing Homes find themselves in aged care facilities.

To throw that blame back onto the New South Wales Government, as John Ryan did, was reprehensible. The National Alliance of Young People in Nursing Homes recommends that the Commonwealth and the States and Territories agree to a national exit project to bring 700 young people out of nursing homes every year into community-based living arrangements, provide improved accommodation and support strategies to prevent others from entering nursing homes, and enable access to disability funds for those wanting to move into the community. The alliance is calling for the same sort of action that I am calling for. 23 February 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14037

Young people in nursing homes are among the most vulnerable members of our society, with some unable to speak and advocate for themselves. A national exit project involving the aged care and disability sectors is needed to make sure these young Australians are not forgotten in their desire to return to community living arrangements. I conclude by stating that the Federal Government has not fulfilled its responsibilities in relation to the provision of adequate aged care services, that there is irrefutable evidence that this has had negative impacts on the operation of the New South Wales hospital system, and that the only way forward to solve all these problems is for the Federal Government to initiate bipartisan talks with all State governments to address these needs. I urge the Federal Government to take note of that message, because at the moment its failure to do so is having a negative impact on services for the aged, particularly services for young people in nursing homes.

Motion agreed to.

GOVERNMENT SCHOOL ASSETS REGISTER BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 11 November 2004.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [3.01 p.m.]: I am pleased to speak in support of the Government School Assets Register Bill, which is a well-structured piece of legislation that effectively and efficiently addresses a major shortcoming in the Government's handling of our school system over the past decade. Our colleague Mrs Jillian Skinner, the member for North Shore in the other place, who is also the shadow Minister for Education and Training, is to be commended for initiating and pursuing this much-needed legislation in that House. My colleague the Hon. Catherine Cusack introduced the bill in this place. The Government's appalling underinvestment in asset maintenance and infrastructure development has often been raised by members in this House as a major concern for the future of the State. Investment in growth-generating infrastructure such as our roads, railway networks, electricity grid and water supply has been woefully inadequate over the past decade. The maintenance of our State's existing infrastructure assets has been alarmingly neglected. The crisis in our suburban rail system and the crumbling state of our government school buildings are two of the most dramatic examples of the Government's poor stewardship.

This neglect of our State's assets has been a deliberate strategy by the Government in its campaign of spin—a campaign to seek to convince people that it is doing something about our State's problems, rather than actually doing something about them. In order to create a facade of financial credibility, genuine responsibilities to the people of New South Wales have been shirked. In his analysis of the Auditor-General's report to Parliament last year, Mr Tony Harris noted that the Government's series of budget surpluses "have been artificially boosted by delaying maintenance until it's critical". These delays are strikingly evident when the 2002 State infrastructure plan is cross-referenced with the budget papers and other information. Of 87 major projects examined by the Opposition in recent months, almost one in four is delayed, with nearly one in 10 either cancelled, abandoned or dramatically reduced in scope. Budget overruns on these projects exceed an estimated $750 million. With such mismanagement, it is unsurprising that the backlog of maintenance remains unaddressed by the Government year after year.

One of the most concerning areas of neglect over the past decade has been in relation to the buildings in our government schools. The Vinson report noted that "maintenance and refurbishment of the education estate has been neglected and fitfully managed" resulting in the "substandard conditions in which teaching and learning are being attempted". The catalogue of problems in our schools ranges from termites and cockroach infestations to dangerous electrical systems, collapsing buildings, raw sewage leakage, rotten carpets, rusting walls and leaking roofs. The Government's refusal to acknowledge these situations and provide an appropriate response to the need for a detailed repair schedule prompted the New South Wales Teachers Federation to conduct its own audit. More than 141 schools provided written statements. I have seen those statements, and they tell an alarming story. It is not just the state of many of our schools that is so disgraceful. The Government's response to these problems over several years has been deplorable. Problems requiring urgent attention have been ignored for long periods and as a result have become even more serious.

Several schools have complained that longstanding problems that have been reported time and again remain unaddressed with neither a resolution nor any indication of when a response will be implemented. The Government's approach to the issue of school building maintenance is itself in need of examination. The problems I have outlined are clearly illustrated in the current situations at Milton Public School and Ulladulla 14038 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23 February 2005

High School. The Government pledged that all demountable classrooms would be airconditioned by the end of last month. While airconditioning units have been installed in the demountable classrooms at Milton Public School, they cannot be switched on because the electrical system in the school is yet to be upgraded to allow for adequate electricity supply. This demonstrates the Government's inability to properly manage the upgrading of facilities at the school to an acceptable standard. Without functioning airconditioning, summer heat results in extreme conditions inside the demountables, and this severely compromises the ability of students to concentrate on their lessons.

The situation at Milton Public School as a whole is equally disgraceful. It is like a building site, with most of the open spaces declared out of bounds for students, demountable classrooms placed on the playing field, and much of the remaining grounds cleared of trees despite no start to a promised upgrade. Conditions at Ulladulla High School are similarly dreadful. Students have to endure not only demountable classrooms but also demountable toilets. The construction of permanent buildings has long been promised, but the Government remains unwilling to commit itself to a schedule for the completion of these works. Ulladulla High School, which is a small country high school, was built to accommodate a small number of students. However, with urban development the school's student population has increased to almost 40 per cent more than the student capacity for which the school was originally built. Former Minister Andrew Refshauge stated:

While I sympathise with the school community's desire for the provision of permanent facilities at Ulladulla High School, I am unable to provide the timeframe for inclusion of any project in a future Capital Works Program.

This is simply unacceptable. Not only does the Government need to get the maintenance and upgrade projects under way, but a time frame must be drawn detailing the commencement and completion schedule. Parents, teachers and students are entitled to know when the problems in their schools will be addressed and when they will be resolved. The haphazard approach to school building maintenance and refurbishment engaged in by the Government as it lurches from crisis to crisis must not be allowed to continue. This State's education system deserves a comprehensive maintenance schedule. It deserves a plan that appropriately and equitably prioritises needs. It deserves a plan that brings clarity and transparency to the scheduling of works. It deserves a plan that subjects projects to appropriate mechanisms of accountability. Our government schools not only deserve such a plan, they need it desperately.

The government school assets register proposed by the bill will deliver exactly this kind of comprehensive plan. The register will bring logic, accountability, equity and transparency to the maintenance and development of our education infrastructure. The register will provide our school communities with the information they are pleading for about the resolution of their most urgent and outstanding maintenance issues. It will restore fairness and openness to the process of school building repair and refurbishment. This bill requires that the Director-General of the Department of Education and Training establish and maintain a register of government school assets, defined by the bill as all buildings, including demountables.

The register will comprise two primary elements. The first is a set of school status reports that will detail the status of the capital assets in each government school. The second is a series of school building plans that will outline the schedule for building maintenance work in those schools over a three-year period. The school status reports and the school building plans are to be prepared by the director-general and included in each of the annual reports of the Department of Education and Training. In addition, they are to be made available for inspection, without cost, on the department's web site. The establishment of such a register will quantify the backlog of capital works in precise detail with explicit and standardised criteria. From this position a rational consideration of the claims made on the department's budget can then be undertaken with a logical and equitable selection of priority cases identified.

This will allow the Government to draw up forward plans for the execution of these cases and for the commencement of less urgent projects. These plans can then also be used as performance indicators and markers against which the execution of the works can be measured in terms of both time and budget. By making the register open to the public through the department's annual reports and web site, the care of our State's school infrastructure will also be subject to scrutiny and appropriate accountability. The learning environment of our children is too great a matter of importance for it to be compromised by a maintenance approach twisted by political agendas, short-term interests or bureaucratic mismanagement. It is entirely appropriate that the Government be accountable to the community for its management of this important asset. Of course, openness has never been a strength of the Carr Government, particularly in the field of education.

The Opposition has repeatedly sought advice as to the number of demountable classrooms and other temporary buildings in New South Wales schools and both the degree to which they are utilised and the 23 February 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14039 purposes for which they are employed. Such information has never been provided. It is not information that this Government wants on the public record. Its reluctance suggests a concern that such information could be used to measure the rate at which this Government is managing, or mismanaging, the phasing out of such substandard facilities. The need for a comprehensive register and a transparent facility and asset upgrade plan is all too apparent. It is only by thoroughly auditing the status of our government school assets that the degree of unmet needs can be properly measured and appropriate budget planning can be undertaken. It is only by drawing up a comprehensive register of required work projects that the extent of the finances needed to meet them can be determined.

Forward planning and fund allocation will tackle the maintenance backlog only when the Government is able to quantify how many projects are being delayed as a result of insufficient funds. The government school assets register provided for by the bill will enable appropriate and equitable targeting of new capital expenditure on the basis of an effective, transparent and holistic system of priority identification. As a result, this bill restores to our public education system the high standards of target completion and accountability under which the previous Coalition Government operated. When the Greiner Government was elected in 1988 it inherited a catalogue of outstanding capital works and maintenance issues from the previous Wran and Unsworth Labor governments. The Coalition Government responded to this crisis with a major funding initiative, which ensured that every school in the State had its maintenance needs met within seven years.

This cyclic maintenance program addressed both major and minor works, the status of which was determined objectively without political interference or other similar considerations. As my colleague the Hon. Catherine Cusack noted when she spoke to this bill, under the Greiner and Fahey governments "transparency was our watchword". Every year, at the time the budget was handed down, a document was produced detailing the capital works program in the State's government school system. The precise nature of asset maintenance works was detailed and the method of determining priorities was explained. Every school in New South Wales could see exactly where funding was being allocated, for what purpose and during which time frame. Every school was aware of when its needs would be addressed and it could have confidence in the fairness of the system.

If only schools had such confidence in the current Government. If only schools today received guarantees about when their infrastructure repair and upgrade needs would be met. If only schools today could be sure that urgent work would be carried out in accordance with its importance. Of course, this is sadly not the case today. Upon its election in 1995, this Government abolished the cyclic maintenance program and turned its back on equity and accountability. For the past 10 years this Government has shirked its responsibility for the maintenance and development of our school infrastructure and has instead followed the example of the last Labor Government under Premiers Wran and Unsworth and allowed our schools to fall into disarray through neglect and under-investment. Some of the examples of schools that participated in Mrs Skinner's survey that the teachers' federation has drawn to our attention are quite extraordinary. I draw the attention of the House to some of them because they are extremely disturbing.

For example, at Narooma Public School, in the electorate of my colleague the honourable member for Bega, dangerous and uneven concrete is a problem in the playground, with eroded embankments and large areas of tree roots exposed, and blocked drains and gutters that cause flooding. Lids are missing in the toilets. Timber is loose on the verandah. Obviously, a safety issue is involved. At Bronte Public School—an area I know well— there is a major problem with leakage of water above the entrance to the kindergarten classroom, which comes inside and runs down the wall. In fact, we have been told that there has been an ongoing deluge in that area for five years. At Concord High School—another area I have a bit to do with—there is inadequate lighting in the library and in the learning centre. How people are expected to learn in these circumstances is extraordinary. There is termite damage to the buildings, poor drainage is causing flooding—the list goes on.

At Mortlake Public School there is extensive white ant damage and cracked brickwork. One classroom is unable to be opened because of problems with the windows. Kensington Public School has persistent roof leaks, which has led to all sorts of problems with the carpets, which are now rotten and smelly. This has been an issue for well over two years at that school. The problems just go on and on. I am sure my colleagues who participate in the debate will talk about schools in areas that they know well. The fact that the Government did not support this bill in the other place demonstrates that it is simply not committed to open and accountable government and it does not place importance on providing State school communities with the most effective and equitable system possible for the maintenance and upgrading of our education infrastructure.

I have to ask the question: Must the students, teachers and parents of New South Wales really wait for the return of a Coalition government before sufficient funding and appropriate expenditure targeting is restored 14040 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23 February 2005 to our school maintenance programs? It seems the answer is yes. The Government has the opportunity to demonstrate a new commitment to public education in this State. I note that the new Minister for Education and Training is not in the Chamber, so I wonder whether her approach will be different. Nevertheless, this bill offers her the opportunity to raise the standard of asset management in the education sector in New South Wales.

It is in the interests of our school communities that the Minister embraces the bill, which will ensure that school capital works are conducted in an orderly and fair way. It will also relieve the anxieties of many parents and teachers about when work in their school communities will be carried out. The bill will provide for confidence in the public school system that is currently lacking. The Government must ensure that confidence in public education receives major attention in its remaining two years in office. The bill is firmly grounded in principles of sensible strategic planning and accountability in government. It represents a responsible approach to asset management and a commitment to prudent infrastructure development and investment. Consequently, I am very pleased to commend the bill to the House. I congratulate my colleague the honourable member for North Shore on introducing the bill in the other place and I congratulate my colleague the Hon. Catherine Cusack on introducing it in this House.

The Hon. KAYEE GRIFFIN [3.20 p.m.]: The Government's 2004-05 budget initiatives will provide new and enhanced facilities for students in government schools. The Government's $1.2 billion four-year schools improvement package is targeted at enhancing educational outcomes for public school students; not merely enhancing the State's $50 billion education estate but ensuring that capital works result in better education for the children of New South Wales. The 2004-05 budget provides $666.4 million in capital works and maintenance funding for works, including 45 major school and TAFE building projects throughout the State. In 2004-05 80 projects that are already under way will continue to receive funding.

The kinds of projects that are funded by this Government under its capital works program include: construction of new gymnasiums at Airds High School, Kooringal High School and Holroyd High School; construction of new communal halls, canteens and covered outdoor learning areas at Blacktown South Public School and Vardys Road High School; and stage two of the project to provide 21 additional preschools in New South Wales, with stage two providing the final five new preschools. As a former Mayor of Canterbury and someone who worked for many years as an organiser with the Municipal Employees Union, I know that early childhood education is extremely important. I commend the Government for providing additional preschools in New South Wales and looking at providing more preschools in the future. Early childhood education has been the subject of discussion over many years and is extremely important.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Point of order: The House is debating the Government School Assets Register Bill, which deals with maintenance, backlogs and problems within the public school system. It is not a debate about the preschool system in New South Wales, which is inadequate but is a debate for another day. I ask that you bring the Hon. Kayee Griffin back to the leave of the bill.

The Hon. KAYEE GRIFFIN: To the point of order: The establishment of preschools in New South Wales is certainly part of the Department of Education and Training and it is entirely relevant that the department is providing that early education process.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Patricia Forsythe): Order! I remind the Hon. Kayee Griffin that the bill before the House relates specifically to government school assets. Whilst traditionally debate on bills can be fairly wide ranging, I suggest that the member confine her remarks to the leave of this bill, which is specific.

The Hon. KAYEE GRIFFIN: I will refer again to the preschools education process. It is part of what happens in New South Wales and I support that process. However, as the Chamber has ruled it not to be part of the debate—even though those preschools have been or will be provided—I will refer to other parts of the asset process within the Department of Education and Training. Its exclusion is regrettable because it is part of the education process in New South Wales. It is the case that a well-constructed and well-maintained school has an aesthetic value that brings the community together at the school. I hasten to add that outside school hours, public schools in New South Wales are used for a variety of activities. Will those be precluded from debate? I leave that thought with the House.

This bill does nothing to achieve its objectives. It is a stunt. Indeed, the only significant impact this bill will have is to require the Department of Education and Training to spend many hours and resources completing a 44,000-page report. I am sure that the educators of our children have better things to do with their time than to 23 February 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14041 prepare such a report, which must be published every year with the department's annual report. The information in the proposed report will not assist school communities. Therefore, I question why it is necessary and how it would benefit the community and students. The Government is already transparent in its maintenance assessments of schools. When condition-based assessments are made, the report is provided to the school principals and teachers, and parents can access the assessment through the principals.

Each year at budget time the Government publishes its capital works plans for the financial year. Budget Paper No. 4 for the financial year 2004-05 lists pages of new and continuing works, some examples of which I have already provided. The Opposition has no plans to assist schools to build and maintain these assets, which are places of learning for students and workplaces for our valuable teachers. The Opposition's grand plan for schools capital works and maintenance is a 44,000-page report year after year. Even worse, the preparation of the report will actually divert resources away from educating students—which is a current debate—away from the achievement of curriculum objectives, away from the development of children into responsible adults filled with the values our society expects, away from the preparation of young people for employment and future education, and away from the professional development initiatives designed by the Government to support our teachers.

The Government would prefer to dedicate these resources to improving schools and improving the educational outcomes for students, whatever age those students may be. We want New South Wales' students to have the best facilities, designed to help them learn. That is why we have called time and again on the Opposition to support our call to their Federal colleagues to fund public schools in an equitable manner. The Opposition's friends in Canberra have designed a funding formula that disadvantages public schools. New South Wales has a world-class education system of which we should all be proud. However, this great system would be better if the Howard Government reversed its discriminatory funding regime. The Opposition's bill does not support government schools in the way that it should and, therefore, should be opposed. It is a ridiculous waste of funds and parents and teachers would be appalled to see those funds diverted from front-line education. We often talk about young people being our future. Education is extremely important to students achieving their goals and, therefore, significant funds should be expended on education to ensure the future of this State.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY [3.28 p.m.]: I support the Government School Assets Register Bill. At the outset, it is appropriate to acknowledge the work of the shadow Minister for Education and Training, Jillian Skinner, who has been proactive and has taken the initiative of seeking to have a better public school system in New South Wales. As shadow Minister she will not be diverted from that role and I commend her for the work she has done. The shadow Minister understands that a safe and healthy school environment is vital to confidence in the public education system. It is important for children to feel safe and to have pride in their schools. The importance of that is reflected in the dedicated parents and citizens associations across this State and country, which spend much of their time dealing with school maintenance. So I congratulate Jillian Skinner and her upper House colleague the Hon. Catherine Cusack, who introduced the bill.

I am sure we will get the necessary support to get the bill through the upper House. Then it will be interesting how the Government reacts to and treats the legislation. Obviously, the Hon. Kayee Griffin was sent here to read some speaking notes prepared by the Minister's office. The Minister could not even be here, and that is a shame. I realise she has been in the job for only a couple of weeks, but it seems she is not prepared to debate a bill that will have a major impact on her portfolio.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: That's unfair.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: It is not unfair. It is unfair that the Minister is not here. Parliament has not sat for six weeks and the new Minister for Education and Training could not be bothered to be here. It is important that she be here to listen to what is going on in our public education system.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Patricia Forsythe): Order! Members will not engage in conversations across the Chamber. The Hon. Melinda Pavey will address her remarks through the Chair.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: The object of this bill is to establish a requirement for the Director- General of the Department of Education and Training to keep a register of government school assets. This is not just a simple idea from the Opposition; it follows a recommendation of the Vinson report which stated that there should be better management of the school assets register. In that report Vinson stated:

So far as the majority of teachers, students and parents are concerned, the maintenance and refurbishment of the education estate has been neglected and fitfully managed for such an extended period that the tag "povo" aptly describes its standing relative to the private sector. 14042 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23 February 2005

Professor Tony Vinson is admired and respected by both sides of politics, and his report provides fundamental insight into the New South Wales education system. The Government paid Professor Vinson a lot of money to look, and he spent a lot of time looking, at many schools across New South Wales. He made the point that school maintenance is a significant problem in this State, and for that reason the new Minister for Education and Training should be in the Chamber to listen to this debate. As well as listening to the bureaucrats in the Department of Education and Training she should listen to others who have done considerable research in this important area.

As I said, a safe, healthy school environment is a source of pride and is important to ensure a successful and well-respected public education system. Earlier it was said that one of the first initiatives of the Greiner- Murray Government in 1988 was to catch up with the backlog of school maintenance for which Labor governments were responsible. A Labor backlog! And we will have another Labor backlog to fix in 2007 because it is clear that—

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Patricia Forsythe): Order! The Hon. Jan Burnswoods will cease interjecting.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: —the Government cannot manage taxpayers' money despite the pools of money that have been running into the State's coffers. The New South Wales Government has never had more money than it has now.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Patricia Forsythe): Order! All members will cease interjecting. I remind members that interjections are disorderly at all times. I remind the Hon. Melinda Pavey that if she ignored interjections the debate would proceed in a more orderly fashion.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: I will continue to ignore the interjections and I will continue to make the point that Labor cannot manage education or school maintenance. That is why when the Greiner-Murray Government took office in 1988 it had to spend $350 million and establish a register to fix the school maintenance problems. Fast-forward to 2007, and let us bring it on! Let us get in there and fix the problems. I hope the new Minister for Education and Training will acknowledge this fine idea and that this is not simply about employing more people and writing 44,000-page reports, which is the defence she offered us today. It will be about achievements and getting action. We need action before 2007.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: Like Terry Metherell—he was full of action.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Patricia Forsythe): Order! The Hon. Jan Burnswoods may contribute to the debate at a later time when she is given the call.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: It is appropriate to highlight some of the appalling conditions in local schools. Jillian Skinner has spoken passionately about her disgust and concern after returning from some school visits. She is concerned about the degradation of school toilets. She reminds the Government of the fundamental right of schoolchildren to be able to use safe and hygienic toilet facilities. Australia is not a third world country but we are forcing our students to experience third world conditions in school toilets. I should have thought that would be fundamentally easy for the Government to get right, and if the Government is not getting it right it does not deserve to be in the job.

The condition of schools in my duty electorate areas of Monaro and Port Macquarie swing from one extreme to the other. Some days are so hot in classrooms on the mid North Coast, although the median temperature is not the required 30 degrees in order that schools become eligible for airconditioning. On some days in the classrooms it can still be 38 or 40 degrees, even with a sea breeze and with fans going. That is not a proper environment in which children can learn. At the southern end of the State in Cooma heating in one school was so poor that year 7 and 8 students were asked not to come to school. In some schools children are unable to attend classes because it is too cold and the heaters are not working, and in some schools on the mid North Coast it is so hot that children cannot go into their classrooms without expiring.

It is worth detailing some of those issues. In July last year Monaro High School threatened to remove students because the heating was not working. A stop-work meeting was called. I hope that the local union representatives were fighting on behalf of the teachers to get the heating fixed. Queanbeyan East Primary School has serious drainage problems involving rusted guttering and blocked underground drains, causing flooding of classrooms and mould. Roofs are unsafe because of rust, there is no ventilation in the toilets, threadbare carpet is 23 February 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14043 a tripping hazards and a hole in the library floor allows vermin and ants in. I can only imagine what happens with the school books after vermin have finished with them. At Queanbeyan South Primary School a dangerous hole in the carpet has not been fixed.

These problems are major issues in people's minds when they are faced with a decision about where they should send their children to school. They want the school of their choice to be proud and well maintained. It is important that the grounds are looked after and that roofs are not falling apart. More often than not, because proper maintenance is not undertaken throughout the school system, public schools look second best, and because they look second best parents are sending their children to private schools, even though for many families private school fees are out of their reach. It comes back to a fundamental sense of school pride and a proper environment in which children can learn. Education is not only about having great teachers; it is also about having a safe and healthy work environment.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: Under Terry Metherell all the teachers were sacked. How many was it?

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Patricia Forsythe): Order! The Hon. Melinda Pavey has the call.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: At Bellingen High School, which is quite near my home, the sewage pumps are not working properly. It is an ongoing maintenance issue. With the high humidity experienced by the community of Bellingen, when those sewage pumps are not working it is not a very pleasant place to be. Bowraville Central School is one of the greatest little public schools on the mid North Coast. It has a high proportion of Aboriginal students. We used to supply books to that school. Its very committed and strong teaching staff have to put up with leaking demountables, mouldy carpets and leaking toilet blocks. The foundations of the school library are sinking and there is no dust extraction machinery in the woodwork room. Woodwork classes are conducted but students cannot use the power saws because the dust extraction fan in the room is not working.

The Hon. Ian West: They have a flagpole, what more do they want?

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: That is the contribution from the Hon. Ian West, is it?

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: No, we want you to answer it.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: So, they do not need anything more than a flagpole, is that what you are saying?

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Patricia Forsythe): Order! I remind all members that interjections are disorderly. I ask the Hon. Melinda Pavey to continue her contribution without being distracted by interjections.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: They are the issues that Bowraville Central School has to deal with. It is not good. At Crookwell High School the evaporative cooler in the library needs cleaning. This is information that the schools have been sending to members of the Opposition. The schools have nowhere else to turn, because the Government is not doing its job.

The Hon. Robyn Parker: No faith at all!

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: They have no faith in the Government at all.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: Have you been to Crookwell?

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: Of course I have been to Crookwell. Will the Hon. Jan Burnswoods stop interjecting? At Crookwell High School the library's evaporative air cooler needs cleaning, there are torn carpets and there are problems with the boys toilets. At Deniliquin TAFE—I have been to Deniliquin, it is one of the finest towns in the Riverina—a range of issues are not being addressed because annual maintenance reviews are no longer conducted. These reviews provided an opportunity for people to raise maintenance issues and for those issues to be prioritised. So the school has asked for a maintenance register in order that its problems can be documented and prioritised and, hopefully, fixed. 14044 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23 February 2005

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: Did you ask Terry Metherell?

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: Madam Deputy-President, at what point does the Hon. Jan Burnswoods get called to order?

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Point of order: Members of the Government are unceasing in their provocative interjections while the Hon. Melinda Pavey is attempting to speak. I ask you to call those members to order, including those members who have repeatedly ignored entreaties in the past to allow the honourable member to speak.

The Hon. Eric Roozendaal: To the point of order: I have been keenly listening to this debate and I am shocked by the Hon. Catherine Cusack's comments. The Hon. Melinda Pavey has been provoking members of the Government by continually interjecting on her own speech. The member should be called to order and directed not to interject upon herself.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Patricia Forsythe): Order! At this point there is no point of order but I remind all members that interjections are disorderly at all times.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Melinda Pavey.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL VACANCY

Joint Sitting

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Patricia Forsythe): Order! I shall now leave the chair for the joint sitting. The business of the House will be suspended during the joint sitting. The House will resume at the conclusion of the joint sitting following the ringing of the bells.

[The Deputy-President (The Hon. Patricia Forsythe) left the chair at 3.45 p.m. The House resumed at 4.15 p.m.]

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL VACANCY

Joint Sitting

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile): At a joint sitting of the two Houses held this day Gregory John Donnelly was elected to fill the vacant seat in the Legislative Council caused by the resignation of the Hon. Michael Rueben Egan. I table the minutes of proceedings of the joint sitting.

Ordered to be printed.

GOVERNMENT SCHOOL ASSETS REGISTER BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY [4.16 p.m.]: I acknowledge the presence at the table of the Minister for Education and Training, and I thank her for being in the Chamber for whatever time remains for debate on this bill. As I pointed out at the beginning of my contribution, this is a very important bill. It has come about as a result of real passion and commitment on the part of the honourable member for North Shore, the shadow Minister for Education and Training, and her desire to create a better school environment for New South Wales students. For that reason it is appropriate that the Minister should be present.

Taking up what I was saying earlier, we need to go no further than the report of Professor Tony Vinson, who conducted a broad-ranging inquiry into the state of public education in New South Wales. At the beginning of his report he explained that the reason for his examination of buildings and amenities was because the ways in which buildings impact upon human life range from the purely functional to the aesthetic. These qualities are as important, if not more so, to a satisfying and productive life within schools, as they are in other institutions.

That is the starting point. The Opposition has established a school assets register of its own by asking schools to send their problems to us. There has been a litany of examples of the state of disrepair that exists in 23 February 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14045 the New South Wales public school system. I mentioned that in the electorate of Monaro we had a problem that the school might close because it was so cold and the heating was not working. In the north of the State at Port Macquarie and in my own home town of Coffs Harbour it is often the case that children are sent home from school during very hot conditions. There is no airconditioning because the mean average temperature of 30 degrees is not met. However, 30 degrees in Coffs Harbour and Port Macquarie is a lot more unpleasant than 30 degrees in, say, Armidale because of the high humidity that gives rise to stifling conditions.

If a temperature of 38 degrees within a classroom is accompanied by high humidity, when you look out the window you can see the condensation dripping down the fly screens—if there are fly screens. There are numerous problems throughout the State and this is a proactive way of establishing a register so that a proper maintenance program can be instituted. It is not merely a matter of a register; I think there also has to be a commitment from the Government to better fund the school aesthetic.

The Minister for Education and Training said on her appointment that she wants to stem the flow of students from the public to the private system and I commend her for her vision. This would be a good way to start, to establish pride in our schools, and in the school environment; to enable parents to be proud of the school their children attend and the children in turn to be proud of their school. I commend the bill to the House. I commend the work of the shadow minister and the Hon. Catherine Cusack, and I look forward to the Minister’s contribution to the debate. I know she has a lot on her plate with her new portfolio, but I think this is a good place to start and I urge the Government to support the bill.

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Education and Training) [4.20 p.m.]: The Government opposes the Government School Assets Register Bill. I understand that this is not the first time the Coalition has pursued this bill in the Parliament. It is an opportunistic bill to be dragged out whenever the Opposition believes it expedient to do so. While I note the comments of the Hon. Melinda Pavey about her commitment to public education, the reality is that nothing does more to undermine the public's confidence in our school system than this type of activity: the constant carping and attacks on the State's public schools. The proposals in the bill are totally impractical and demonstrate the lack of thought about its terms.

The bill would do nothing to improve the condition of our schools. What it would do, I am advised, is increase the size of the annual report of the Department of Education and Training by 44,000 pages. It will cost more than half a million dollars to implement and it will not provide a coat of paint, a new roof or a new playground for any school in New South Wales. The Government would rather spend this money improving schools than creating a 44,000-page document that does nothing to improve the standard of our school assets.

What we would really like to see from the Opposition are real plans, real ideas and real vision, rather than an opportunistic attempt to put forward a bill that has been put forward before and is about attacking our school system. The New South Wales Government wants the best for our students. We want to provide a quality learning environment. Since coming to office the Government has spent more than $1 billion on school maintenance. This year we have committed $184 million for day-to-day maintenance in more than 2,200 government schools. Maintenance works regularly undertaken in our schools include replacing roofs and guttering, internal and external painting, upgrading and repairing outdoor areas, replacing floor coverings, fixing paving, concrete and brickwork, upgrading stormwater and sewerage systems, and replacing perimeter fencing.

The Government has totally overhauled the way school maintenance is done in schools. We introduced a condition-based maintenance approach to determine the program of works that needs to be undertaken to ensure schools meet agreed building standards. We want to make sure our school maintenance system continues to meet the needs of schools. That is why the former Minister appointed a task force in 2003 to examine the provision of maintenance services. The task force focused on not simply maintaining public assets but ensuring school facilities created a better learning environment for students.

The Government endorsed all 36 of the task force's recommendations, and they are now being implemented. In 2004, in line with the task force's recommendations, the department established new asset management teams in each region to support schools. The report also recommended new school maintenance contracts, and these will be in place this year. Further changes arising from the task force's considerations include improved maintenance design, giving principles for day-to-day control over the maintenance and upkeep of their schools, a new maintenance hotline giving all schools advice and support, and long-term maintenance plans to be developed for each school together with the local school community. These changes will result in clear guidelines and standards for contractors, schools and the department, and a more efficient system that provides value for money. It will mean that the best possible outcomes are achieved when it comes to school maintenance. 14046 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23 February 2005

The $184.4 million we will spend on maintenance this year is just one component of the Government's plans to enhance our schools. The Government's overall spending on education and training now stands at a record $9.7 billion, an 8.1 per cent increase on last year. We will be spending more than $1.2 billion on capital works over our third term of government. We have committed $462.5 million for the class size reduction program, to employ more teachers and provide extra classrooms by 2007. We are spending $447 million on capital works in preschools, schools and TAFE colleges in 2004-05.

We have a world-class education system in New South Wales, and it is time the Opposition recognised this instead of constantly trying to denigrate our schools. Indeed, the Opposition's bill will do nothing to improve school maintenance. It will have no positive outcomes for local communities. It will simply result in more paperwork. The Opposition's bill will mean countless hours of the department's time, and it will mean that tens of thousands of pages will be added to the department's annual report. Instead, Opposition members ought to focus on the enormous funding disparity between public and private schools that has been promoted by their Federal colleagues. I suggest it would be a more useful way for Opposition members to spend their time. They should join with us in calling on the Howard Government to adjust its funding practices.

The Department of Education and Training has well-developed asset management procedures in place. In consultation with school communities, the department prepares asset acquisition, maintenance and disposal strategic plans for schools. It is also important to note that assessments of school maintenance have been available to school principals and their communities since the inception of the school facilities maintenance contracts in 1997-98. We are now improving the contract system to provide even more information to local communities and flexibility for principals in managing their assets. Every year the Government lists its major capital works programs in the budget. The Opposition has only to go to Budget Paper No. 4 to see what capital works projects are listed for the forward years. The Government opposes the bill, which is impractical. It will result in available resources being spent on collecting material that will have no effect on improving maintenance in our schools.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [4.26 p.m.]: I join my colleagues in supporting the Government School Assets Register Bill, which is a great initiative of the Liberal and National parties. The bill would require the Director-General of the Department of Education and Training to keep a register of government school assets. It would mean that all buildings, including demountables, would be recorded on the register. The register would comprise reports on the status of the capital assets of government schools, to be known as school status reports, and three-yearly plans on building and maintenance work in those schools, to be known as school building plans. School status reports and school building plans would be prepared by the director-general and included in each of the department's annual reports, and be made available for public inspection.

In her rejection speech the Minister for Education and Training described the bill as being opportunistic. The fact is that the Carr Labor Government has had a decade's worth of opportunities to fix the maintenance backlog in New South Wales but it has failed to do so. So it is left to the Opposition to be, as the Minister describes it, opportunistic in trying to force some improvement in the situation.

The Minister said the bill would require 44,000 pages of problems to be added to the annual report of the Department of Education and Training. That comes as a huge shock to the Opposition. We knew that there was a problem across New South Wales and that it was a very bad and extensive problem, but not even our research had dug up 44,000 pages worth of maintenance problems in the New South Wales education system. That is an extraordinary revelation by the Minister, and it only serves to reinforce the need for this bill to go through both Houses of this Parliament. I know that the Minister has been doing a round of familiarisation visits to schools—

The Hon. Carmel Tebbutt: As you do.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: As you do. The Minister is to be commended for that. For example, I know that recently the Minister was in western Sydney visiting, I think, five schools in one day, which is good.

The Hon. Carmel Tebbutt: You must be following me around.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: No, but I have my spies. My colleagues remind me that as there are 2,500 schools in New South Wales, there are 22 pages of maintenance problems for each of them. 23 February 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14047

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: That's their defence.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: It's not a very good defence, is it? It indicates that obviously some of those problems would be minor problems but we obviously have to accept that a lot of them are very serious problems. Of course, they need to be fixed and if the Government after 10 years has not fixed them according to its own planning frameworks within the department then obviously there should be some legislative framework in which they can be fixed up.

I would suggest to the Minister that when planning her visits to schools throughout the State she should know that a number of schools in northern New South Wales would welcome a visit from the Minister and she could look at and see for herself some of the maintenance problems. I will briefly mention several of those. For example, the Farrar Memorial Agricultural High School at Tamworth has had an absolutely terrible problem this summer with the failure of its airconditioning system. It is a boarding school and Tamworth at this time of year is a very hot and sometimes extremely humid place. The boys at that school have had a pretty terrible time of it and there is a very great deal of concern about the failure of the department to provide a proper sleeping environment, let alone a proper working and studying environment, for those boys at that school. One wonders how long it will take to fix it up. Hopefully, it could be fixed before the end of this summer.

West Tamworth Public School is another school in dire need of extraordinary maintenance works—but probably a brand new school would suit the Tamworth community better. It is one of the oldest schools in the city of Tamworth, and that community is crying out for much better conditions in which to teach the kids and for the kids to learn in. I have spoken in the House before about Gunnedah South Primary School. That school is in a very hot part of the State in the summertime but it does not even have an appropriate undercover assembly place, despite the fact that issue has been raised by the community for years. The community has raised a large sum of money to assist the taxpayers in providing proper shelter for the children, not only from the summer heat but also from the rain in the winter.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Tony Windsor said he fixed that in 2000.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: Mr Windsor says a lot of things that are not necessarily accurate. The Government has claimed that that particular problem will be addressed in the life of this Parliament, and I challenge the Minister for Education and Training to ensure that the Gunnedah South school gets a proper undercover assembly point in the forthcoming State budget. If it is not included in the 2005-06 budget then certainly the community of Gunnedah will not believe that they will see such a school hall—which would be useful for the community as well—being built during the life of this Parliament. In other words, it will be a broken promise. I regret to inform the people of Gunnedah that the Minister has now chosen to leave the Chamber. I am not quite sure whether she considers that Gunnedah is a priority or not, but certainly I will continue to raise this matter until a hall appears. At that school there is also the extraordinary situation that it has demountable toilets—not just demountable classrooms, but demountable toilets for little kids.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Is it a demountable sewerage system?

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: Maybe it is not a proper sewerage system. One has to wonder why people who send their children to that particular school have to put up with such conditions year after year after year. Another school that deserves very serious upgrading—maintenance work, if not a complete rebuilding—is Tamworth High School. That school has basically remained untended for decades—

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: That's not true.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: It is true. Go and ask anybody in Tamworth.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Rubbish!

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: It is not rubbish, but I am happy that the Hon. Amanda Fazio says it is rubbish.

The Hon. Eric Roozendaal: You said it goes back decades. That is right back in the Liberal government time, is that what you are saying?

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: I am saying that the Labor Party has been in office for 10 years— 14048 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23 February 2005

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: You said "decades".

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: No, I said the Labor Party has been in office for a decade and it is about time that there is proper—

The Hon. Eric Roozendaal: That is what you said.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: Don't misrepresent me yet again.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: You are doing a pretty good job of misrepresenting yourself.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: Some people think that members on this side should be afraid to utter the words "Terry Metherell". Well, I am not afraid one iota, because Terry Metherell did quite a lot of very progressive and good things for the Department of Education after a decade of another Labor government—

The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: He launched my video on quit smoking because the others didn't have the courage to do so.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: Well, there you are. So as far as I am concerned we need another new, strong education Minister as soon as possible who can have these things righted, and if this Parliament will not pass this bill then we need a new government that will. I challenge the new Minister for Education and Training to come to the north of the State and undertake a tour of the schools, some of which I have mentioned, and have a look at the particular circumstances at Gunnedah South Primary School, Farrar Memorial Agricultural High School at Tamworth, and Tamworth High School. She can see for herself that some of these schools need to be upgraded, and they need to be fixed up. They need to not be put way down the queue, they need to be raised to a high priority and properly attended to.

I commend the Hon. Catherine Cusack for introducing the bill into this Chamber and also to Mrs Jillian Skinner for having initiated it in the other place. I urge the House to support the bill because it fills a giant gap— 44,000 pages worth of gaps—in the New South Wales Labor Government's performance in the basic matter of school maintenance in New South Wales.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [4.36 p.m.]: It is not a pleasure to speak on the Government School Assets Register Bill, but I welcome the opportunity to draw attention to some of the stranger and more foolish claims made by Opposition members in speaking to this bill. I was here when Catherine Cusack spoke on this bill last October. On checking the Hansard I discovered, to my horror, that I interjected at one stage and that she replied. The reason why I interjected then was very similar to the reasons why I have been unable to believe my ears today: of that back in October the Hon. Catherine Cusack kept telling us about the golden era, the golden age, that she alleged occurred under the Greiner and Fahey governments.

Like Melinda Pavey today, the Hon. Catherine Cusack seemed unable to ever bring herself to mention those two dreaded words "Terry Metherell". Somehow all of the Opposition speakers have managed to get through an entire debate about the alleged period when all government schools had their maintenance carried out—this alleged period from 1988 to 1995, or perhaps they are talking about 1988 to 1992, I am not quite sure—but at no stage have they ever been able to bring themselves to mention the name of the Minister for Education, Terry Metherell. What is so important to mention is that it would come as an absolute shock to anyone in this House, and I am sure to anyone in the teaching service or to parents who had anything to do with schools in that period, to think that that Government ever looked after school maintenance. It is an out and out lie. But if that man, the man who was Minister, indeed was spending anything on school maintenance, he was doing it at the expense of sacking 2,500 teachers.

I have just heard a member talk about the horrors of a demountable toilet. Demountable toilets exist in many schools; they are often provided after there is a storm or a plumbing disaster or whatever. The Opposition can talk about this but it somehow thinks that schools can operate without teachers. Terry Metherell—their great hero, the man from the golden era that the Hon. Catherine Cusack talked about—sacked 2,500 teachers. The other name that, to my surprise, was not mentioned was Virginia Chadwick. Greiner gave her the job of going out to school communities to try to cheer them up after Terry Metherell. One reason we hear a lot about juvenile justice is that the Hon. Catherine Cusack was working for Virginia Chadwick—

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Point of order: The Hon. Jan Burnswoods is misleading the House when she says that Virginia Chadwick's name was not referred to. It clearly was referred to during the debate. She is making statements that are totally untrue and I ask her to withdraw the allegation. 23 February 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14049

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: The point I was about to make, which is significant, is that the names of these two Ministers in the former Liberal-National Government—Metherell and Chadwick—have not been mentioned. While Terry Metherell was cutting 2,500 teachers jobs—and they are pretty crucial—Virginia Chadwick was cutting 1,000 people from community services. The Hon. Catherine Cusack said, "It really was a golden era for rebuilding and securing our government school infrastructure, under the Greiner and Fahey Government, when transparency was our watchword." In speech after speech, not one of the Opposition speakers was able to bring himself or herself to talk about the real record of those two Ministers and what they did to children in this State. When Chadwick was the Minister for Community Services she cut 1,000 child care workers. While Metherell was in education he cut 2,500 teachers. Yet the Opposition has the unmitigated gall to talk as if those years were a golden era of maintenance—there were no teachers, no child care workers, no early intervention, no system for dealing with disability, no nothing, but let us talk about maintenance.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Further to the point of order: The Hon. Jan Burnswoods is in a fantasy world when it comes to teaching numbers and class sizes. My point of order relates to the content of the bill, the Government School Assets Register Bill. She is quoting remarks I made related to that bill and to school infrastructure. I ask you to draw the member to the leave of the bill, instead of indulging in a fantasy of lies about other aspects of education. This bill is about infrastructure and the establishment of a school assets register by the department. The honourable member is making irrelevant comments.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile): Order! Members may refer to the content of speeches of other members during debate on a bill. This matter was referred to by the Hon. Catherine Cusack.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: Mr Deputy-President, I thank you for that fine ruling. The third point I want to make in relation to the performance from the Opposition is the appalling ignorance behind the points of order taken when the Hon. Kayee Griffin was speaking. She was speaking from her broad knowledge of the child care and preschool system in this State. Only yesterday the Minister for Education and Training pointed out that the Government has met its program of an extra 21 government preschools sited on government school grounds. The Hon. Kayee Griffin referred to the Government's record, amongst other things, in relation to the 100 preschools that operate in the grounds of government schools. These ignorant members opposite took points of order to suggest that what she was saying had nothing to do with maintenance and assets in government schools.

This is the most opportunistic, ignorant and stupid piece of legislation that has come before the House for a long time. I shall now give some detail. The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner tried to be clever—although she was not terribly successful—in referring to the Minister's argument that the proposal encapsulated in the bill would create a bureaucratic nightmare and transfer masses of human resources away off from the real work of educating our children in our schools and away from carrying out maintenance, rebuilding and renovation. Instead, it will divert significant funding and human resources towards the massive task of creating a register dealing with every building, demountable, toilet block, covered outdoor learning area and so on. It has been calculated that a massive 44,000 pages would need to be created and maintained. Contrary to the arguments of the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner, some of those entries would deal with buildings that might not require maintenance for 20 years, but they would need a page in this silly register.

The Opposition is trying to jump on the bandwagon of alleged maintenance problems—as usual ignoring the Federal Government's role in cutting to the bone New South Wales funding for education and other matters. The Opposition will not repair a toilet block or classroom, nor will it do anything about their sob stories with respect to guttering. Instead, it will employ bureaucrats in head office to use large numbers of computers and lots of paper to create 44,000 pages in an assets register. Remarkably, the Opposition believes that teachers, students and parents in the 2,200 government schools in New South Wales will be impressed by its genius. We have heard a lot about Jillian—I presume they are talking about Jillian Skinner. If this is the best that a shadow Minister for Education and Training can do after all the years she has been in that shadow portfolio, I am not surprised that the bill has been foisted on the Hon. Catherine Cusack in the Legislative Council. It would have been even more embarrassing if the bill had been introduced in the Legislative Assembly.

Those in the education system struggling with continual cuts to education funding, particularly cuts to government schools by the Federal Government, will be remarkably unimpressed by this collection of geniuses who, having cut 2,500 teachers and 1,000 child care workers when the Coalition had the rare opportunity to be in government—to the great detriment of the State—now think the great solution is to have fewer teachers and employ more bureaucrats, paper shufflers, to create 44,000 pages in a register. One might ask: Where will the 14050 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23 February 2005 department get the money to employ all these bureaucrats without reducing the numbers of teachers or maintenance? As I said, this is one of the silliest bills ever introduced into the Legislative Council. It does nothing whatsoever to help government schools in New South Wales.

Before I conclude I shall give some detail of the Carr Government's achievements over its term in office to increase spending on school maintenance. Expenditure on school maintenance alone—and that is a relatively narrow definition—has been more than $1 billion. In 2004-05 the Government is spending $184 million on day-to-day school maintenance. That program relates to $15 million worth of assets in our schools. Most recently, as many members would know, major maintenance works have been undertaken in schools over the school holidays in readiness for the new school year. These works include minor and major works, internal and external renovations, and painting.

In addition to that work, the Government is currently providing $50 million in global funding directly to school communities for them to use as the school principal, in consultation with parents and teachers, sees fit. As those of us with any knowledge of education know, much of the $15 million in global funding that goes to schools is spent on a variety of maintenance projects. That is what is happening at the moment. This is the sort of money the Government is spending at the moment, and it is increased money. In addition to that, to keep an eye on what is a complex program, in 2003 the Government appointed a school assets maintenance task force chaired by Mr David Gates, which was entitled "Focusing on Educational Outcomes". That included representatives from the Premier's Department, Treasury, the Department of Commerce and the Department of Education and Training.

That task force undertook the job of checking the state of the maintenance program and determining improvements that needed to be carried out to the asset management system. The task force looked at a range of issues and its report, which was released in late 2003, had 36 recommendations. The Government has endorsed all 36 of the recommendations, and since that time work has continued to implement them. I stress that some detailed and sensible work has been carried out to increase the amount of money made available for maintenance and to look at the difficult system of establishing priorities among all the competing claims for projects in more than 2,000 schools. The Government has also done the hard work of going through the asset management system. It has done that sensibly and by taking advice, and it is implementing the recommendations in the guidelines and standards that came out of the work of the task force.

I stress that in some detail because I want to draw attention to the fact that the Opposition seems to be completely unaware that all of that work has been done, and that it has been done with considerable input from schools and their communities. Of course, all of that stands in stark contrast to this ludicrous asset register notion, with its enormous increase in bureaucrats, paper, computer time and discs, and all the rest of it to achieve nothing—to achieve not a single extra penny to be spent on making our schools better places for teaching and learning. The Opposition ignores everything that has been done. We have heard a lot of bleating from members opposite about what is happening where. They totally ignore, or are again ignorant of, the two pilots that are currently under way in the Riverina and on the Central Coast, which are trialling the new facilities maintenance framework proposed by the task force.

None of that is worthy of attention by members opposite. They do not want to do any of that. All they want to do is set up 44,000 pages of a register, send all this stuff to schools—I guess that is what they plan to do with the speeches made today—and pretend that the New South Wales Opposition has the slightest clue about the problems in education in New South Wales. They have shown silliness, ignorance, contempt for the education system and a degree of breathtaking opportunism in trying to pretend that a register, a collection of figures on paper, will make any difference in addressing the maintenance needs of our schools. Of course there are maintenance needs; there always will be, with all the buildings in more than 2,000 schools.

Members opposite should talk to the Howard Government. Why do they not talk to the Federal Government and do something about the continual shift in funding from government schools to private schools? Why do they not talk to Brendan Nelson and John Howard about the continual cutting of funds to New South Wales under the various Commonwealth-State financial arrangements? Why do they not talk to the people who keep providing extra funds to institutions such as the King's School, while in the meantime starving all the government schools in Parramatta located around the King's School of funding? Why do they not do something that might help a single government school, a single government schoolteacher, a single parent or single student in New South Wales? But, no—

The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: This is absolute humbug. 23 February 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14051

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: —they do not believe in any of that.

The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: You are talking absolute humbug.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: I know there are not many Democrats left, but I had hoped that the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans would not rush into this House and yell. I know it has been a long day but I am surprised and disappointed that he rushed into the House yelling support for the Opposition. In conclusion, not a single word in everything that has been said either last October or today by Opposition speakers and not a single word in the Government School Assets Register Bill would improve anything that happens in the teaching and learning process that takes place every school day in New South Wales. All it would do is set up this massive bureaucratic register. It would simply set up a little list whereby the Opposition could collect examples of schools with certain needs. We listened to the entire debate as if members opposite knew something about the needs of schools in New South Wales. As honourable members would gather, I am disgusted by both the bill and the debate I have so far heard. People who cannot even bring themselves to mention the name of former Ministers such as Terry Metherell and Virginia Chadwick lack not only guts but sense. I ask all honourable members to oppose this most foolish and wrongheaded bill.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER [4.56 p.m.]: It was amazing to listen to members of the Carr Government try to cover up the incredible neglect of maintenance in New South Wales schools. It was simply a tirade of abuse. Government members were unable to mention the real issues, and they failed to grasp what we are talking about in the Government School Assets Register Bill. The Hon. Jan Burnswoods made many comments about former Liberal education Ministers. I did not hear her utter one Labor Minister's name—not once! I did not hear her apologise for the neglect of school maintenance in New South Wales. I did not hear her apologise to the parents, children and teachers of New South Wales, who are crying out for more information and for transparency from this Government.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods has walked out of the Chamber—she is so interested in what is happening in New South Wales schools! She even commented about Opposition members not understanding what happens in schools. I would have thought she would want to listen to what is happening in schools. We have been listening to what is happening in schools. This afternoon I was interested to hear the Minister for Education and Training talk about 44,000 pages that this assets register would apparently present. What an amazing comment! This afternoon the Minister talked about 44,000 pages that the register would produce. Those 44,000 pages are an incredible admission of a failure to address assets in schools and maintenance of them, and an absolute inability to grasp what is happening in our schools.

According to information obtained under freedom of information, the list of outstanding maintenance referred to in the Auditor-General's report of 2003 amounts to $124 million. It does not total 44,000 pages; it amounts to 11 pages. Perhaps the Minister can refer to that information, which was obtained from the Daily Telegraph.

Pursuant to resolution business interrupted.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Postponement of Business

Government Business Orders of the Day Nos 1 to 6 postponed on motion by the Hon. Eric Roozendaal.

GOVERNMENT SCHOOL ASSETS REGISTER BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER [5.00 p.m.]: It takes only one line to make comments such as "sewerage system", "ceilings need fixing", "internal doors damaged, replace folding accordion doors". They are the doors that fold on children's fingers. What does "sewerage system" mean? It means some schools that the shadow Minister for Education and Training and I have been to have sewerage problems. In some cases when there is flooding there is sewage in the school playgrounds, and the teachers, the parents and the students do not know 14052 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23 February 2005 from this Government when those works will be addressed. The Government School Assets Register Bill is recreating a situation so schools will have some idea when maintenance will be addressed. Under the maintenance program of the Greiner and Fahey governments, schools knew when works were going to be happening. It was a seven-year cycle, and it meant that schools were all attended to within that period. At least they had some idea when they would get some maintenance.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: It was a golden era.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER: As the Hon. Catherine Cusack says, it was a golden era. We are not talking about another report or inquiry. We are talking about basic information to children, parents and teachers about what is going on in their schools and when some of the maintenance might be addressed. Teachers, parents and children are entitled to that information. In a lot of schools the role of the parents and citizens association is to raise funds to cover extra things not provided in their schools. If they have some idea when something is going to be addressed, they can direct their fundraising accordingly. If they know they are on the list to get airconditioning, they will not have to raise funds for airconditioning. Instead, they can raise funds for something else that has not been provided by the Carr Government. The Minister thinks the register is 44,000 pages. A lot of lamingtons will need to be sold—or whatever fundraising is carried out—to cover the backlog of school maintenance this Carr Government is accruing. That is what parents and citizens associations are directing their efforts to now. Instead of providing nice extra things, they are raising funds for things they should not have to provide. The Carr Government has no capacity to address these needs.

The bill will identify problems. At least 141 schools—and they are coming in all the time—have identified maintenance problems to the Opposition. They have raised issues such as termite and cockroach infestation, dangerous electrical systems, collapsing buildings, raw sewage leakage, leaking roofs, mouldy and rotting carpets, and flaking paint. The shadow Minister for Education and Training, the honourable member for North Shore, and I have visited a number of schools in my area. The occupational health and safety in some of the schools is appalling. I pay credit to the shadow Minister. One of the schools in my local area, Belmont North, had a canteen that was substandard. Sewerage pipes were running across the front of the canteen. The shadow Minister's visit generated a press report and finally shamed the Carr Government into doing something about it. The teachers, parents and students at that school are very grateful for the shadow Minister's visit, which highlighted the neglect of the Carr Government.

Teachers are frustrated by these issues. Our teachers are doing a fantastic job. We want them to be doing face-to-face teaching and interacting with children. Instead, they are not only dealing with day-to-day teaching issues but they are having to work in appalling conditions, which need urgent attention. There was a report of some teachers complaining of possum faeces falling from ceilings. It would be very hard to maintain morale in conditions such as that. The bill is aimed at addressing outstanding maintenance, guaranteeing that it will be addressed and providing some idea of when that might happen. The Vinson report talked about a more equitable method of planning, funding and keeping a register. Parents and citizens associations tell me that bizarre things go on with maintenance. For example, they tell me of paths being concreted when a demountable is to be placed over that path in two weeks. They tell me of skirting boards in a classroom being replaced and painted nicely and at great cost when a room around the corner is being eaten away by termites. There seems to be no plan, and parents and citizens associations have no idea when things will be addressed.

Schools in my local area of Maitland were in that list of 141 public schools. For example, students and teachers at Francis Greenway High School, Maitland Grossmann High School and Thornton Public School commented on some of the issues. Francis Greenway High School referred to electricity and telephone cabling that cannot support the demand and which people trip over. Stair rails are missing, the canteen needs upgrading, there are termite problems and a lift that was installed in 2002 has never carried one single student. Gresford Public School talked about the urgent repair to septic pipes, an ongoing problem for many years, and a canteen that has failed council health inspections. If a canteen fails council health inspections, the Carr Government has failed the school. There are wires across walls and hanging from the ceilings, mould, no insulation, sinking foundations and a leaking roof. They sound like problems to me and they need to be addressed. It only needed a couple of lines—not 44,000 pages—to tell me that they are horrific circumstances. The school does not know when those problems will be addressed, and that is the issue. It needs to know the Government's timetable

Iona Public School had wood rot in the main building, damaged blinds, torn carpets, decayed flooring on verandahs, nails that constantly pop up and problems with its septic system. Largs Public School had uneven paths and play areas, rusted access ramps, and rusted and leaking gutters. Only two of the three classrooms were airconditioned, despite the school's status as a hot spot. I will mention airconditioning shortly. 23 February 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14053

Much of the electrical wiring at Maitland Grossmann High School does not have earth leakage protection in spite of two instances of students having cut power leads, threadbare carpet and loose, lifting and cracked tiles. Thornton Public School canteen does not meet council regulations. Other canteens in New South Wales public schools do not meet council regulations and the schools do not know when the Government will address the problem. Thornton Public School toilets need upgrading, the school's classrooms leak, its buildings are subsiding, its perimeter fences are incomplete and its carpets need repair. The incomplete fencing at the school, which is across the road from a shopping centre, borders a park—a thoroughfare for people travelling from the shopping centre to their houses. I would have thought that fencing was a priority to stop people and dogs from entering school grounds without permission. In some places syringes have ended up on school grounds. I would have thought that the Government would address that problem quickly. But how would it know? That is the point.

I have a document from Irrawang Public School—I am sure it is only part of a file on that school— asking for a school hall and for information about when the hall will be built. Members of Parliament have raised this matter with the Minister but the school is continually fobbed off. Students are being forced to sit outdoors and there is no place that the whole school can meet under cover. Last year I wrote to the then Minister, the Hon. Dr Andrew Refshauge, about this request. A response from the Minister's office in July 2004 stated, "I refer to your representations dated 30 June 2004 to the Minister for Education and Training on behalf of the Irrawang Public School Parents and Citizens Association. The matters raised by you have been noted and are presently receiving attention." That is good news for the school, but I do not know what "receiving attention" is.

The response also stated, "A further reply will be forwarded to you as soon as possible." Well, that was in July 2004, and I am not holding my breath about receiving a further reply "as soon as possible". The new Minister might respond appropriately; the former Minister certainly did not. I would have thought "soon" means in the short term, but it is obvious that for this Government "soon" has no meaning when it comes to school maintenance. The school would like an indication of where its request has been placed on the list—this mythical 44,000 pages that the Government has somewhere; the list of outstanding maintenance that I talked about before. The Auditor-General's Report of 2004 found that $124 million of maintenance was outstanding. I note that the figure has been reduced to $115 million because some of the works are so bad that they now appear under the capital works budget. A return to a maintenance schedule would enable people to know what is going on and where they stand. Airconditioning has been an issue for Hunter Valley schools, as it has been for a number of other schools, and in that regard we have implemented a hot watch program. It seems that the Opposition has to do the Government's work on these matters. We can manage to maintain a register; the Government does not seem to be able to do that.

A number of schools in the Hunter have been told that government policy will be reviewed in 10 years time. There is no satisfactory response from the Government about where schools are on the list. I was pleased to hear the honourable member for Maitland, the Deputy Speaker, John Price, MP, last week say that a number of schools are ahead of local government in the provision of airconditioning. He must have more information than all other members because no-one else can find out when schools in their electorates will become eligible for airconditioning. The locations at which temperatures are taken to determine these things are nowhere near the hot classrooms in which the children are compelled to sit. Schools need to know where they stand so that they can make up the shortfall from this Government. Some are airconditioning their schools only to find that the Carr Government has not provided adequate wiring for airconditioning units. More transparency and fewer reports, excuses and apologies from Government members might enable parents, teachers and students to get answers and address the problems. I doubt this will happen until 2007 when the Coalition Liberal-National parties are in government.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [5.16 p.m.]: The Greens will support the bill. Hearing the major parties squabbling about public schools would be entertaining if the betrayal of our public education system were not so extreme and so serious. I often walk past the historic sandstone College Street campus of Sydney Grammar and ponder the obvious wealth that supports its upkeep—the finely tended gardens, the beautifully maintained buildings and the sandstone and cast iron fence that encloses the great wealth of facilities within. In sharp contrast is Robert Townson High School, a school in south-west Sydney that I was invited to visit last year by parents and teachers. The school once had a fence, but it was a temporary fence. It was made of steel spikes and plastic canvas webbing. The fence was always a disgrace and it quickly fell into total disrepair and became extremely dangerous to people walking past. I understand that a general assistant lodged a compensation claim after being injured while attempting to fix storm damage arising from the failing fence. A student and parent have also been injured. When it rained the fence would deteriorate further because silt, which poured down an 14054 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23 February 2005 embankment above the fence, would break through the fence and build up on the nearby road. The parents, students and staff I met were understandably very angry with their local member, Minister Craig Knowles, and also the Government about this situation.

Despite years of letter writing and meetings the Government failed to carry out the necessary work to ensure that the earth embankments in front of the school did not erode every time it rained. It is a sad truth that it is often only through concerted public campaigns that schools get a result on maintenance problems. If you do not have a story fit for a Daily Telegraph headline, it is bad luck. It means you probably will not get a result. The temporary fence at Robert Townson High School put up by the department subsequently became so unsafe it was removed. The Greens again took up this matter with the education Minister and a promise was given towards the end of the year—after continuous community action on the issue. But since that promise months have passed and there has still been no action, no commitment to a date. The perfect state of Sydney Grammar is in sharp contrast with the condition of many schools such as Robert Townson. The Greens agree that we should implement Vinson's recommendations for an asset register. We support a system that promotes transparency and accountability.

I understand the establishment of the register is supported by the Auditor-General and by the New South Wales Teachers Federation. The federation has been running an excellent campaign asking schools and school communities to report to the federation and to the Premier the exact nature of the existing maintenance problems. I have received an enormous stack of reports from teachers stemming from this campaign. These reports show that some students are being asked to attend schools to study and to play in conditions that are simply not acceptable.

It is shocking to hear stories of public schools in New South Wales attempting to sell off land to pay for basic infrastructure and maintenance. To my mind this is akin to cannibalism. It is just unacceptable that such a valuable public asset should be sold off because schools are desperate to find money to pay for maintenance. On the issue of the sale of public land—particularly in Sydney but generally along the coast where land is now so expensive—if vacant school land is sold, it will be virtually impossible to buy back the land when it is needed for additional buildings to cater for growth in school populations.

We need to make sure that if and when the Government allocates funding to fix capital works and maintenance problems, the money is taken from general revenue and that the education budget is protected. This is a very important point. Having tracked the Government's handling of the education portfolio for many years now, I find that many of the Government's promises become a matter of concern when they are delivered in a way that robs another section of the public school community. If the education budget is not protected, there will be very little left for other areas with dire needs in our public school system.

The Greens support the bill. Much of the Opposition's criticism of the Government is largely valid, but the Opposition is ignoring another aspect to the funding shortfall. When we talk about maintenance we are clearly talking about funding. Members should remember that in the lead-up to the Federal election the Howard Government promised $700 million to government school communities nationally to fund capital projects. This promise, jaundiced as the Federal Government was in handing money to parents and citizens groups directly and not some central government fund, has not yet been fulfilled. We are still waiting. When one considers the rate at which promises have been broken by the Howard Government, it may be that waiting is all we can do.

Then there is the Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Act, which locks in ever-increasing flows of public funding to private schools. That legislation was introduced under the Howard regime, and it is another point of relevance to this debate. Funding is being looted from the public school system and public money is being bled out to the wealthy private schools.

As I said, this bill arises from a Vinson recommendation. The Government has robbed the students of New South Wales by failing to act on key recommendations made by Professor Vinson. As a result he has had to commence an audit of the Government's progress in implementing the recommendations of his independent inquiry. I was certainly very pleased that Tony Vinson was in a position to take on this job, but I am most disappointed that the Government has provided such an inadequate response to this necessary action.

In the meantime, the department is plugging away with its Better Futures project, asking parents, schools and community groups to take part in yet another round of consultations. It is just another form of the spin that we get from this Government. It is misusing the process of consultation to the point where I find that many communities are becoming cynical and asking, "Why do we need to discuss this again? We have discussed it endlessly. We need the action now. Talking is just another reason for not doing anything." 23 February 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14055

This latest round of consultations is an unnecessary duplication of consultations that have already taken place in respect of the Vinson inquiry. Public schools urgently need capital works improvements—I cannot believe that anyone would disagree with that—but they also urgently need better funding, and these issues are clearly connected. Hundreds of millions of dollars must be spent on public education to restore it to the healthy state it enjoyed in the 1970s, when the vast majority of people in New South Wales proudly and confidently sent their children to public schools.

I congratulate the Minister for Education and Training, the Hon. Carmel Tebbutt, on her decision to send her young son to a public school. It would be an interesting exercise to ascertain the extent of any maintenance problems at the school that her young son will attend, and what the Minister will do about them if there are problems. The Greens are putting the Government on notice that, when it comes to the work that this Minister will undertake, the funding trail will be followed closely to see how the money is directed to schools. The newly appointed Minister has a chance to refill the public funding tank so the trail leads to public schools and not private schools in New South Wales. The Greens will be watching closely.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [5.25 p.m.]: This bill is probably one of the most important pieces of proposed legislation that this House will debate in the term of this Government. It is about the future direction of education in New South Wales. The Opposition is very proud of the bill, because we believe that it marks a clear distinction between our view of government and the actions of this Government. It further clearly marks the distinction between the Opposition's view that government should be open and accountable and the view of this Government, which is not interested in accountability. And it is more than a lack of interest in accountability; this Government punishes bureaucrats who speak up. The Government punishes whistleblowers.

Whether it be in information supplied to members of Parliament or to committees of the Parliament, we see time and again that anyone associated with the Government—government employees and consultants—is reluctant to put his or her name to it because of the way in which this Government penalises those who speak up. The Opposition does not want our teachers and our bureaucrats to be in that situation. We believe in an open and accountable system, and the creation of an appropriate register of government assets when dealing with schools is a step in that direction.

One of my greatest difficulties during my time as shadow education Minister was how to get action for a school or TAFE college when I received information about, for instance, the quality of the assets of the school or TAFE college. It is a catch-22 situation. If you go public to highlight problems relating to maintenance or the assets of a school, you risk bringing into disrepute, if you like, the reputation of that school.

On many occasions parents and teachers wanted the Opposition to be in possession of certain information, sometimes as a last resort, knowing that the information would be reported in the media. But they were invariably reluctant to provide the information because it meant that the school would be given a black mark, and that would be reason enough for parents to decide not to send their children to that particular school. The Opposition does not want that; it wants a situation that is open and transparent.

A most extraordinary development in this debate has been the creation of the straw man. We heard some time ago about a register comprising 44,000 pages. One member of this House referred to that number and it was picked up and used by each of the Government members who have contributed to this debate. That figure could have been just plucked out of the air by someone. There is no basis for it. It has been set up as the Government's straw man and put forward as the basis for not supporting the bill. We have no knowledge of the so-called 44,000-page register; it is simply a red herring.

It is obvious the Opposition is on the right track because the Government has chosen, as it frequently does when it is on the back foot, not to debate the substance of the bill and the issues before us. Indeed, one Government member effectively devoted his entire speech to insulting members of the Opposition. His speech was not about the issues before us but a personal denigration of Opposition members. It is a ploy used by the Government whenever it is on the back foot. It does not deal with the issues; rather it attempts to shoot the messenger. It seems that the Government believes that if you insult people sufficiently, if you attack personalities, somehow or other you can mask the real issues. And the real issues in this debate are the level and the quality of maintenance in our schools.

We have heard in this debate some extraordinary arguments from Government members. One member suggested that Opposition members were not prepared to talk about our time in government. I have no difficulty talking about the history of government in this State between 1988 and 1995. Indeed, I am more than happy to 14056 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23 February 2005 talk about the role in eduction of the Hon. Terry Metherell and the Hon. Virginia Chadwick. Perhaps Government members who were critical about our time in government have overlooked the Coalition's record in education. I well recall the editorial that appeared in the New South Wales Teachers Federation newsletter upon the Coalition's loss of government. In that editorial the federation thanked and acknowledged the work of, and role played by, the Hon. Virginia Chadwick as education Minister. On that occasion the Teachers Federation went as far as it could in offering a compliment to a Coalition Minister.

We know that upon the retirement of senior federation members since then, on more than one occasion at an off-the-record retirement dinner senior federation officers acknowledged the role of the Hon. Virginia Chadwick as education Minister. If it is the Government's intention to debate the history of the Coalition, I, for one, would be more than happy to embrace such a debate because I know there is much about which we can be proud.

This debate is not about the Coalition's time in government; it is about the Carr Government and the fact that it is just months short of its 10 years in government. What was done between 1988 and 1995, as interesting as it may be, is not relevant to this debate, which is about the record of the Carr Government and its failure to properly maintain the assets of our State's schools and TAFE colleges. We know that the Government has failed to maintain them, because teachers and parents are highlighting to the Opposition the extraordinarily bad conditions in so many of our schools.

We have heard much in this debate about the conditions in some schools. I congratulate the Hon. Carmel Tebbutt on being given the enormous privilege of being appointed Minister for Education and Training. It is one of the rare joys of a Government member to be able to serve in a portfolio that does so much to mark the future of the young people of our State. The Minister has an enormous task, because three of her predecessors have left her with a record of which the Carr Government could not possibly be proud, particularly in relation to the quality of our government school assets.

I was enormously privileged to serve as shadow Minister for Education and Training for three years. During that time I had the opportunity to visit schools and TAFE colleges right across New South Wales. Interestingly, many of the schools about which I commented at that time are still on the list of schools with significant maintenance issues. Some relatively new schools are also on the list. For example, Batemans Bay Public School, a school I visited late last year, is only two years old but it has already appeared on the list. Batemans Bay Public School has a wonderful principal and staff who have put in place some exciting programs, and they have a lovely-looking school. But, like all new schools, Batemans Bay Public School was not built large enough and it is already bulging at the seams. Demountables have had to be put in, and they have been placed on grassed areas of the school that had been earmarked as playground.

Already there are major maintenance problems with the school's demountables, as occurs with so many demountables. One of the unfortunate features of demountables is that they do not have guttering or adequate drainage—and the reason for that is clear: they are meant to be temporary. However, the fact is that many of these demountables have been temporary for 20 years or more! When it rains, ponding occurs around the temporary buildings and water collects under them. This leads to mould, which in turn leads to health problems. This is the situation in every school with demountable buildings, particularly if they are located on flat ground, as is the case at Batemans Bay Public School. Two other schools stood out on the list of schools requiring maintenance because I remember visiting them: Queanbeyan East Public School and Queanbeyan South Public School. The description of the problems at Queanbeyan East Public School reads:

Serious drainage problems involving rusted guttering and blocked underground drains causing flooding of COLA and classrooms and mould. Roofs are unsafe because of rust, no ventilation in toilets, threadbare carpet causing trip hazard, hole in library floor allows in vermin and ants.

I last visited Queanbeyan East Public School in about 2000, on a visit approved by the then Minister, to look at issues that were raised by parents about conditions at the school. I could have written a description when I made that visit in about 2000 identical to that which I have just read. Nothing has changed. That is the point of our register. It will enable a full description of problems in schools, and it will be able to be used as a guide in determining priorities.

The problems at Queanbeyan South Public School are described as a hole in the carpet, and an occupational health and safety issue. What is so sad about that is that late last year Queanbeyan South Public School won a national award for its Koori education programs. The school, which is a school of excellence, is regarded as a national leader in the provision of programs to support some of its students. It attracts many 23 February 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14057 visitors as a consequence of the efforts and achievements of its principal, Paul Britton, and teachers. A school that is regarded as a school of excellence and has won a national award ought not at the same time have issues such as "a hole in the carpet".

I could go on. So many of the other schools are in communities that are disadvantaged; they are priority schools. These are schools that are meant to get additional funds. I do not want to name them all but some of them are in very disadvantaged communities where coming to school is the way forward for young people. They ought to be the schools for which there is a real priority. When the Coalition was in government it believed that cyclical maintenance was the way to go. It meant that every school and every TAFE knew where it sat in the priorities and knew when it was to get expenditure. Whether it was minor or major works, there was a clear direction, a clear program: cyclical maintenance.

I cannot tell the House the number of times that I visited schools when people spoke to me about the value that they found—perhaps sometimes with hindsight—in the concept of cyclical maintenance; it gave them certainty. It might have meant that they knew that they were not going to get something painted or repaired in that year, but they knew when it was to take place. There is something about certainty that enables a school to cope with a problem, because they know that they are going to get the problem fixed. That is what has been missing with this Government. I thought one of the most interesting of all the comments in the 141 replies that the Opposition had was from Deniliquin TAFE:

We have a range of issues which are not being addressed because we no longer have annual maintenance reviews which provide the opportunity to raise maintenance issues and prioritise them.

That is what we had under the Coalition. There was cyclical maintenance, there were annual reviews, and everything was documented. In identifying that, I think that the comments from Deniliquin TAFE, more than any of the other comments, encapsulate where the Opposition was and where the Opposition wants to go. As part of that, we believe that if people are open and transparent there is no need for so-called whistleblowers. We are asking people to be open and frank. We are not about spin, we are about substance. We want it out there and clear. As the next government we are saying that we are prepared to put our record in government out there in a document so it will be possible to see when money was spent and the condition of buildings.

We are talking about: a clear register, a clear set of priorities, something that is open and accountable but does not affect one school or TAFE and ignore others, and certainly avoids the need for parents or teachers to have to speak out and resort to the media to get action. As difficult as it sometimes was for teachers and parents to dob in their school—to use that great Australian colloquialism—for the condition it was in, I used to say that my name was "Magic" because the mere mention to the Government of the fact that I was going to, or had been to, a school was almost guaranteed to get some action. I well recall, for example, that Warners Bay Public School, along with Hill Top school, was in the most difficult circumstances I had ever seen. The Warners Bay parents and citizens representatives told me after my visit how grateful they were that the Opposition had heard their plea. They had written to me, I had visited them, and they had spoken up. As difficult as it was for them, at the end of the day they got action.

At the time I visited Warners Bay Public School the school counsellor's office had been condemned by the local council because of white ants, and children were not allowed near it. There was a school counsellor's office that the children could not enter! In terms of occupational health and safety it was appalling that the school counsellor was expected to work inside that office. Indeed, had it not been a government building I suspect the council might have taken greater action. It is absurd that a building can be condemned and then be allowed to be used. It is a terrible indictment on the Government.

This is an important bill. It indicates the importance that we place on our school assets and our public education, and it marks the direction that the Opposition sees for the future. It is about openness and accountability versus the record of this Government, which is one of cover-up and spin and, if you like, the fear and loathing of any bureaucrat or any teacher who speaks up on behalf of their school about conditions there. Let us go forward on this one; support the Opposition's bill on a government school assets register; send a clear message to the Government that its direction is not good enough, that its record is woeful, and support the Opposition with this important legislation.

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG [5.45 p.m.]: I support the Government School Assets Register Bill, which has been introduced by the Opposition. I note that this bill is consistent with some of the recommendations made by Dr Tony Vinson. I have heard some members speak against the bill. However, apart from attacking the Opposition, I found the arguments totally unconvincing. Perhaps, as a result, this bill will 14058 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23 February 2005 highlight the inadequacies of our public school system. But surely these deficiencies can only bring about improvement and, hence, will be good for the government of the day.

I was not going to speak on this bill, but I believe that certain erroneous and unfair comments made by the Hon. Jan Burnswoods cannot be allowed to be on the record without a proper and just reply. I note that she attacked Virginia Chadwick in her role as Minister for Education. I put on record that Virginia Chadwick was an excellent education Minister. She was dedicated, conscientious and caring, and she knew her portfolio very well. She was well respected by her department, teachers and school communities and by the ethnic community as well. How do I know this? Because I had the privilege to serve under her ministry as a founding Chair of the Ethnic School Board of New South Wales. In that role I came into contact with many schools, teachers, parents and students. Virginia Chadwick was greatly admired for her knowledge, dedication, intelligence and humour. This cannot be said about the subsequent education Ministers under the Carr Government.

The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: They are a dour lot.

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG: You have said it. On behalf of the parents and children of the ethnic schools and the ethnic community I put on record that we are grateful and appreciate the contribution Virginia Chadwick made to this State. I therefore support the bill.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [5.48 p.m.]: I support the Government School Assets Register Bill. I have never heard such a sad lot of humbug, particularly from the Government, but also from the Opposition, in the discussion of this bill. I first became interested in the issue when I was called to see some people who had repetitive strain injuries [RSIs]. These people were taking folios of Water Board plans out of a Lektriever machine—a revolving bookcase—which involved them reaching forward at a very bad ergonomic angle and taking plastic plans off a shelf in order to photocopy them for plumbers who were trying to locate drainage mains. Of course, the people with RSI were accused of being bludgers, et cetera, and were hounded, but that is by the by.

Eventually the folio system was seen to be ergonomically unsound and information was put onto microfiche. Sydney Water decided to change to a computerised register so that people could be faxed electronic copies of drainage plans, which would be immensely more convenient to people working in the area and would remove the need for members of the public to attend a central office to obtain photocopies. Sydney Water was very proud of its register, which was developed with considerable public funding from Sydney Water. When it was corporatised Sydney Water wanted to sell access to the asset as a money-making strategy as the register covered the Sydney catchment, including the Blue Mountains, and the Illawarra down to the Shoalhaven, an area encompassing much of New South Wales. My understanding is that a government policy decision was made for the register to be taken over by the Lands Department, preventing the newly corporatised Sydney Water receiving profits from it.

When I became a member of Parliament I pursued the concept of computerised records for land assets. These records would include historically relevant buildings; they would enable public assets to be maintained and allow the activities of developers to be monitored. I have pursued this issue ever since. On 29 June 2001 I asked a question on notice on this very subject and I received a reply on 11 September 2001, under the heading "Government Land Ownership Database, which stated:

The database is referred to as the Government Property Register (GPR). The GPR was established by the NSW Government to facilitate effective management of government property assets and to provide an overview of the government held land for future planning purposes …

The GPR was not established for the purpose of public inquiry. Rather, it was established by the NSW Government to facilitate effective management of government property assets and to provide an overview of land holdings for future planning purposes …

The GPR was transferred to DITM from the Department of Land and Water Conservation on 1 July 2000. It requires redevelopment as it operates as a "Property Hub" platform, which will soon be completely replaced by the Integrated Property Warehouse.

I continued to ask whether it would become public and on 2 September 2003 I asked:

In relation to the register or database of government-owned lands is the register now complete? Will the register be made public? If so when? If not, why not?

The answer was: 23 February 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14059

(2) No.

(2) The register has not been established for the purpose of public inquiry but rather for the Government to facilitate management of its property assets and to provide an overview of land holdings for future planning purposes. Nevertheless, the Department of Lands will provide information to the public from the register at a fee, depending on the purpose for which the data is required.

Basically, the register was used as a source of revenue rather than an asset to enable the public to find out what is going on. Nevertheless, the Government intended to use the register. I asked a follow-up question on 17 September 2003 and I received an answer on 28 October 2003. Indeed, the Government was so keen on this register that on 18 March 2004 the Hon. Tony Catanzariti asked a question without notice—a Dorothy Dixer as they are known—of the Minister for Natural Resources, which stated:

What is the Government doing to improve the Government Property Register?

In reply the Minister for Lands waxed lyrical as follows:

The Government Property Register is an electronic database containing information about land owned, occupied or leased by New South Wales Government agencies. It ensures the accuracy and currency of data provided by owner agencies, by validating it against the authoritative Department of Lands databases. It was created in 1988 [which was probably when I was at Sydney Water] with the intention to be able to provide comprehensive information about government-held land and to fulfil the requirements of the annual reporting legislation. In late 2001 a performance audit of the register by the Auditor-General indicated the need for its redevelopment to ensure that it continues to be a dependable, high-quality register of all New South Wales Government property. The Auditor-General also identified the need to encourage owner agencies to improve their property data collection.

In 2001 the Government was told to maintain this existing register by no less than the Auditor-General, despite the Minister saying that it would cost a fortune and be difficult for the Department of Education and Training to maintain. The Hon. Jan Burnswoods said that it would be an expensive exercise that would require large amounts of money being wasted. I am disappointed that the Opposition has asked for this government schools asset register when a far more extensive register already exists. It is not necessary for the Department of Education and Training to have a special one. All honourable members should take on board the general principle that assets need to be managed and if the Department of Education and Training does not have such a measure, it should implement one. It is humbug for honourable members to tout that it will be too difficult and should be done at a later stage. Indeed, it is extraordinary that no-one has considered this issue before.

Honourable members may recall that on 5 September 2002 I introduced the Government (Open Market Competition) Bill into this House. Amazingly, the House passed it on the same day. On 22 May 2003 Clover Moore introduced the bill into the lower House. Apparently it was too difficult for the lower House, which referred it to the Public Accounts Committee. That committee reported back in 2004, having undertaken a trip to the United States of America and the United Kingdom, but not to New Zealand. At that time the Public Accounts Committee resolved to do nothing to ensure more open government and, unfortunately, on 9 December 2004 the Opposition did not support the bill and the motion was negatived.

I have taken a great interest in open government. Indeed, in December 2001, during a seminar of mine, Sir Brian Elwood, the New Zealand Ombudsman, presented an outstanding paper on open government. He spoke about the New Zealand Official Information Act, which had been in force for approximately 13 years and which stipulated that all government information must be published unless a request is made to the contrary. Any department wishing information to be kept secret had to make an application to the Ombudsman and, if the application was refused, the department was required to appeal to the New Zealand Supreme Court. Following commencement of the Official Information Act, the Ombudsman received a mountain of requests from numerous departments for exemptions. At that time he was unsure of what action to take so he refused every application. Some departments then appealed to the New Zealand Supreme Court but were unsuccessful.

Following those unsuccessful appeals the Ombudsman had very few problems and only a few exemptions were sought on the grounds of national interest. He considered those applications to be reasonable and did not have difficulty with any of the negotiations. The system did not collapse and people did not photocopy large volumes of documentation. To the contrary, Sir Elwood said that the efficiency of New Zealand government generally improved. At that time the Leader of the Opposition, Kerry Chikarovski, said that the Opposition was well disposed towards this sort of philosophy but, sadly, the Opposition has not followed through on that. One Opposition member on the Public Accounts Committee, John Turner, did not push the issue, perhaps because he thought the idea had come from Clover Moore, with whom he may have had a personal antipathy. On a number of occasions I suggested that members of the Public Accounts Committee visit New Zealand, and although there is no record of that fact, the chairman of the committee, Matt Brown, acknowledged that I had made such representations. 14060 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23 February 2005

The idea that it is impossible to have openness in government, and that an assets register is extremely expensive and has a huge opportunity cost, because we could have people there with paint pots, is complete nonsense. This assets register exists. In 2001 the Auditor General recommended that the register be kept systematically, and there was some doubt about whether it was being done as such. Surely any government department with assets worth billions of dollars, as the Department of Education and Training has, would have a systematic collection of assets information. There is no reason that that should not be a public document and that it should not be the basis of an ongoing cyclical management program. I am disappointed that the Government is opposing this bill, which I do not believe it needs to do.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans.

ADJOURNMENT

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister for Lands) [6.00 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE [6.00 p.m.]: For generations Australians have taken their religious freedom for granted and we have gained a well-deserved reputation as a haven for religious freedom and a beacon for others to emulate. It is the reason that so many have made their home here—so that they can exercise freedom of religious belief or freedom to have no religious belief. Even though history records that Australia was established on Christian foundations and institutions and in accord with 2,000 years of Christian western tradition, not only do we now have adherents of most Christian denominations; all major non-Christian faith traditions as well are encompassed in our community. Our right to religious freedom has been unfettered and unchallenged. That is, up until now. That is, until the thought police got into action and until the passage of the Victorian Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001. And now the thought police in other parts of Australia, including New South Wales, are gushing with enthusiasm to impose the religious provisions of the Victorian Act throughout the nation.

The passage of Victoria's iniquitous legislation in 2001 was a black day for freedom of religion, freedom of thought and freedom of speech. If the cheer squad touting to impose these provisions on the rest of us is successful it will be a black day for the entire nation. What has been the effect of these Victorian provisions? It is simply this: Whilst purporting to preserve and promote religious freedom and tolerance, the provisions, when applied in practice, are having the opposite result, in much the same way that the constitution of the former Soviet Union guaranteed all manner of religious and civil freedoms but in practice extinguished those very freedoms that it proclaimed.

In 2002, at the apparent prompting of an official of the Islamic Council of Victoria, who was employed by the Equal Opportunity Commission, certain persons attended a Pentecostal Church in anticipation and in the hope of collecting evidence from a lecture on Islam to mount a prosecution. As a result, the Islamic Council of Victoria brought a complaint of religious vilification pursuant to the Victorian Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 against Pastors Daniel Scott and Danny Nalliah. On 17 December 2004, after an expensive and protracted case, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal found both pastors guilty of vilifying Islam. Having expended several hundred thousand dollars to defend themselves against the lavishly financed case brought by the Islamic Council of Victoria, both pastors now find themselves facing further huge financial obligations in order to purse an appeal.

As a consequence of this Act and the Tribunal's decision, people will be inhibited from making religious statements for fear of prosecution by people supposedly offended by their statements. Religious scholars, academics and others will be bludgeoned into silence for fear of being sucked into expensive court proceedings to defend themselves. There is widespread community revulsion with the Act and its consequences. The ramifications are serious and far-reaching. Many churches, including the Presbyterian Church of Victoria, have called for the repeal of this Act. Last year during an appearance at Scots Church, Melbourne—an appearance that the Age newspaper reported the Islamic Council of Victoria criticized because it claimed he could give legitimacy to the defendants in the case before the tribunal—the Treasurer of Australia, the Hon. Peter Costello, in referring to the case, said:

It is not my intention to influence those proceedings, but I will not be deterred from attending a service of Christian thanksgiving. Since the issue has been raised I will state my view. I do not think we should resolve differences about religious views in our 23 February 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14061

community with lawsuits between the different religions. Nor do I think that the object of religious harmony will be promoted by organising witnesses to go along to the meetings of other religions to collect evidence for the purpose of later litigation.

He said further:

I think religious leaders should be free to express their doctrines and their comparative view of other doctrines. Differing views on religion should not be resolved through civil law suits.

He continued:

The proceedings which have been taken, the time, the cost, the extent of the proceedings, the remedies available illustrate, in my view, that this is bad law.

He concluded by saying:

We would be better to forget litigation and work to reinforce the values drawn from the tradition that underlie our society— respect for individuals, tolerance within a framework of law and mutual respect. This is the legacy of our Judeo-Christian tradition.

No fair-minded Australian could disagree with the eloquent comments of Treasurer Peter Costello. Maybe the Islamic Council of Victoria would be doing more for religious harmony if it endeavoured to reign in and moderate a prominent Islamic religious leader in Australia who, to use a quote from media commentator Andrew Bolt, has "praised suicide bombers as 'heroes'", accused Jews of using "sex and abominable acts of buggery, espionage, treason and economic hoarding to control the world", and called September 11 "God's work against oppressors" as well as the work of 100 per cent American gangs. Maybe the Islamic Council of Victoria could provide some assistance in that situation.

I hope that the Government of New South Wales does not succumb to the thought police by proceeding down the Victorian path, because it leads not to tolerance and harmony but to certain descent into restriction of religious freedom, curtailment of free speech and the undermining of our social fabric and religious openness and goodwill. We need frank and open discussion, as Senator Chapman from South Australia has observed: "It is the role of teachers in every religion to demonstrate why their faith is worthy of adoption and this may involve showing why—in their opinion—other religions may be less truthful, or even in error." I can only agree with these sentiments.

DEATH OF FIREFIGHTER COLIN JACKSON

LISMORE AUSTRALIA DAY CELEBRATIONS

The Hon. PETER BREEN [6.05 p.m.]: This evening I express my condolences to the family of Colin Jackson, who died in Lismore last Sunday. Colin was a voluntary firefighter with the Rural Fire Service. He was attending a combined emergency services prayer service on Sunday when he was called to an accident at McKee's Hill in Lismore. Colin's wife, Barbara Jackson, who is also a member of the Rural Fire Service, was travelling with Colin in the fire truck when it suddenly veered off the road and crashed. Colin had suffered a heart attack and died, although I am pleased to say that Barbara was not injured in the accident. Yesterday the Minister for Emergency Services and the Leader of The Nationals in this House both conveyed the good wishes of the House to Colin's family.

I want to add my own words to those of the Minister and the Leader of The Nationals because Colin was a member of my party, and over the years we had some robust discussions about the legal system. Mostly, these discussions took place through our mutual friend Father Vince Doyle. One way or another, Colin had plenty to say about the administration of justice in New South Wales, and what he said was sensible and practical. More significantly, Colin was a tireless community worker in Lismore and his activities in the Rural Fire Service as a member of the Caniaba Brigade was just one aspect of his community work. He was also active in the Lismore Show Society, and he worked to promote rural youth. Colin is survived by eight children and six grandchildren.

On the subject of the Rural Fire Service, I take this opportunity to congratulate the Lismore Rural Fire Services on receiving the community services group award at the Australia Day celebrations on 26 January this year. These were firefighters who have clocked up more than 20 years service to the Rural Fire Service, and they were presented with the award by Lismore Mayor Merv King at a function at Lismore city hall. The function was organised by Sue Wade of the council, and it was a huge success from a community point of view. This was the third consecutive year I have attended the council's Australia Day celebrations, and the growth of the function has been spectacular. 14062 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23 February 2005

This year a marquee and annex were required to accommodate the large crowd. The coveted award of Citizen of the Year went to 82-year-old Marie Sourry, who has dedicated her life to the community at St Joseph's nursing home. Although suffering poor health herself since 2003, Ms Sourry continues to organise activities. She helps to feed residents and she continues to make a positive contribution to the community. Another important award at the Australia Day celebrations was the art and culture award, which was presented to another senior citizen, Robin Moore, who is the founder and benefactor of the Robb Road community at Lillian Rock near Nimbin. Ms Moore is also a founding member of the Nimbin School of Arts and the regional arts gallery.

I mentioned that Lismore mayor Merv King presented the Australia Day awards, but I also compliment the council's general manager, Paul O'Sullivan, who was a masterful master of ceremonies, and local musician Luke Vasella, who sang his celebrated song Lismore Girl. Others to feature in the awards were councillor Jenny Dowell, who gave a wonderful presentation on the history of Australia Day and its emblems; Bundjalong elder Mavis Davies, who gave the welcoming address; and special guest Duncan Armstrong, OAM, former Olympian and media personality.

Finally, the usual gaggle of State and Federal politicians attended the ceremony. I make special mention of the Hon. Brian Pezzutti, a former member of this House, who had just returned to Lismore after serving with the Australian medical team in Banda Aceh following the horrific Boxing Day earthquake and tsunami in the Indian Ocean. Today this House passed a motion of condolence to the survivors and families of victims. During the debate several members mentioned the Hon. Brian Pezzutti, including the Leader of the Opposition and Greens member Mr Ian Cohen, who happened to be on the beach in Sri Lanka when the wave struck that country.

As always, Dr Pezzutti was one of the first medical people to volunteer his services and he was in the first aircraft to land on the Banda Aceh peninsula after the wave subsided. He gave a very moving account of his experience in Banda Aceh at the Australia Day celebrations. He spoke of people queued up in sickbeds waiting for lifesaving surgery, and of hundreds of lives saved in the time he was working to assist Indonesian victims of the tsunami. Almost 240,000 Indonesians died in the tsunami. The death and destruction in Banda Aceh literally brought Dr Pezzutti to tears on Australia Day. I was very proud at the Lismore Australia Day celebrations to be associated in some small way with Dr Pezzutti and his volunteer work in Banda Aceh. Brian Pezzutti made an outstanding contribution in Banda Aceh, and this House is entitled to take pride in the work of its former member.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS SYSTEM

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE [6.10 p.m.]: Late last year helicopters were used to drop outlaw bikers and other thugs as paid strike breakers behind picket lines at a Victorian packaging plant. We had already witnessed similar appalling stunts in New South Wales involving hired thugs and professional strike breakers at Morris McMahon and other local industrial disputes. The rights of workers are increasingly coming under assault. At a factory not far from here, a young Vietnamese woman complained to her supervisors of sexual harassment. The result? She promptly had her employment terminated. Her husband was then sacked from an associated company. Last Christmas it was back to the future with the infamous Chris Corrigan, who celebrated the festive season by provoking an industrial dispute at his Patricks auto care sites, confronting his employees with an ultimatum that they either sign the new company agreement or face lockouts. Corrigan's record on employee relations is now legend. His dealings with the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union and the Maritime Union of Australia have been textbook examples of the worst excesses of the ideologically driven, union-bashing tactics practised in American-style industrial relations. And so it goes on.

I refer to the example of another young woman whose family had survived human rights abuses in China and who came to Australia for a better way of life. Last year she was sacked at a New South Wales factory because her boss said she spent too long in the toilet! The company had eliminated structured toilet breaks to increase productivity. The young woman in question, who was not confident in English, was told to ask permission for toilet breaks over a public address system! When she continued to take so-called unauthorised toilet breaks, she was subjected to the humiliation of being followed and timed while on the toilet. In the past couple of years thousands of New South Wales workers have lost everything when companies such as Champion Forms, Austral Pacific, Plastyne, Steel Tank and Pipe, Stortek, Genoa Plastics, Creative Catering, Co Design, David Graphics, the Walters Group and others have collapsed.

Then, of course, there is greatest scandal in Australian corporate history—Hardies. In the face of this litany of shame, what is the response of the Federal Government? Is it corporate law reform to ensure that there 23 February 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14063 can never be another Hardies? No! Is it corporate law reform to ensure that no more employees lose their homes, their marriages and in some cases their lives in the face of financial and personal ruin when their employer locks the gates and enters administration? No! The Federal Government has told these workers, the victims of corporate greed and mismanagement, that the Government intends to introduce new industrial relations laws to stop their unions entering workplaces, to reduce the number of working conditions protected under awards, to remove so-called unfair dismissal laws, and to impose a whole new raft of legal and other sanctions against unions who dare to support their members. Modelling itself on that paragon of industrial relations finesse, Chris Corrigan, the Federal Government is now threatening a hostile takeover bid for our State industrial relations system.

At the same time, while it bleats about family values, the Federal Government opposes wage increases for the most disadvantaged working poor, so that both parents are forced to work, forced to use unsatisfactory childcare, forced into inadequate housing and unable to provide their children with a good education. The hypocrisy of this Federal Government is breathtaking! While it consistently refuses to legislate to protect innocent workers from the likes of James Hardie and their mates, it is salivating as it waits for the opportunities that July will bring when it will be unfettered in its rampage through the lives of workers and their families in this and other States. This Federal Government stands condemned for its blatant and ideological hypocrisy. I call on all reasonable members to stand shoulder to shoulder with workers in this State against the ravages of the Liberal-National Federal Government.

MELANESIAN IMMIGRATION

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN [6.15 p.m.]: The threatened collapse of island nations in our Pacific neighbourhood and the scourge of terrorism have awakened Australia to the need for a more proactive leadership role in the region. While the problems have been decades in the making they have gone largely unnoticed because of our disengagement from anything smacking of neo-colonialism in the region. Australia is well respected on the world stage and has punched well above its weight with its achievements in penetrating international markets, winning the bid for the 2000 Olympics and lining up as America's most loyal ally in the international fight against communism and the more recent threat of terrorism. However, while our political gaze has been well beyond the Pacific horizon, the benign neglect of our Melanesian neighbours has caused an annoying blip on our radar. The Bougainville crises, the collapse of governance in the Solomon Islands, economic disaster in Nauru, and instability in Papua New Guinea [PNG] have caused us to re-engage on a more intimate level with our neighbours in the region.

Recent reports have documented the failed outcomes of our aid policies in Melanesia since they achieved independence in the mid 1970s. Those with expertise in the region warn of catastrophic consequences for Australia and these island nation states if the impending crisis is not averted. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute regards our relationship with PNG as one of our three top-priority foreign policy challenges, along with China and United States relations and the future of Indonesia. This realisation has led to direct intervention in Timor and the Solomons, a change in our aid policy from a magic pudding concept to a tied-aid formula, a more forthright role in the Pacific forum, and the implementation of an enhanced co-operation program [ECP] for PNG costing around $800 million over the next five years. While the sudden injection of aid through the ECP is a high-risk reactive policy to the threat of transnational crime and terrorism in our region, it provides a timely opportunity to bring about some necessary long-term generational reform in PNG. We should particularly heed the warning of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, which has advised, "Nothing lasting can be achieved in three or five years, and little enough in a decade. We need to think instead in terms of generations."

If we are dinkum in our desire to commit to a long-term strategy of generational reform we will have to address the unmentionable issue of Melanesian migration to Australia. No other issue bites deeper in our relationship with PNG than this. During a recent meeting with a senior Minister in the PNG Government I asked how PNG citizens were treated when they applied for visas to come to Australia. "Like lepers", was the candid response. Australia has reciprocal arrangements for working holiday visas with Belgium, Canada, Cyprus, Denmark, Eire, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Italy, Japan, Korea, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Taiwan and the United Kingdom, but none with PNG! As PNG is a Commonwealth nation, young people from PNG are eligible for working holiday visas in the United Kingdom—but not in Australia!

Last month it was reported that the shortage of seasonal labour for fruit and vegetable picking was so chronic that the Sunraysia Mallee Economic Development Board is planning to import 10,000 Chinese temporary workers. Why not 10,000 PNG workers? After all, 85 per cent of PNG citizens live in rural areas on a subsistence basis. Harvesting fruit and vegetables has been part of their daily life for thousands of years. The 14064 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23 February 2005 money they would remit back home to their villages would provide welcome relief. Concerns that some might overstay their working visas are easily addressed. Just apply the same rules to PNG workers as we do to British, Chinese, Arabic and South-East Asian short-term workers! Of course this will be less of a problem for PNG workers as their attachment to family, village and wan-tok communities provides a powerful incentive for them to return home. Such a program would not only provide substantial economic benefits to remote villages in PNG but would also provide each of us with a greater understanding of each other. It would help establish the missing link in our relationship—a genuine people-to-people dialogue.

Over the years I have heard Australians complain of their treatment when they arrive in Britain as visitors. They claim there seems to be no special recognition for us as a former colony, wartime ally, trading partner and fellow Commonwealth member. Many of those aggrieved by this treatment have become vocal proponents of the call for an Australian republic. So it is with PNG. Many see Australians as disinterested visitors who travel to PNG, participate in meetings, join a tour, visit a village, offer some patronising advice— then leave!

A review of the number of times Australian politicians have chosen Papua New Guinea as a destination for their overseas study trips over the past decade would be a good indicator of our dinkum level of interest in the country. "Melanesian" is a Greek term for "black islands". Regrettably, it is a place where the White Australia policy still applies. We will never succeed in our endeavours to understand and help them until we address this great taboo and dump our unofficial White Australia policy against our black Melanesian neighbours.

FLAG OF CONVENIENCE SHIPS WORKING CONDITIONS

Ms LEE RHIANNON [6.20 p.m.]: Last Friday morning I visited the Tongan registered vessel Capitaine Tasman with Dean Summers, spokesperson for the International Transport Federation [ITF]. I had the opportunity, along with Dean, to meet many members of the 26-person crew, all of whom, except for the security guards, were banned from setting foot in Australia. This action imposed by the immigration department and Minister Amanda Vanstone's office has been taken in defiance of international conventions. Shore leave is a basic right for seafarers, but is not one recognised by the Howard Government. The crew told me that in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane they were not allowed to go ashore. Dean explained that this is becoming an increasing problem for seafarers around the world, who are being victimised as part of the so-called war on terror. I understand that in the United States an armed guard is usually found at the bottom of the gangplank with orders to allow no-one ashore. Sitting in the mess room with members of the multinational crew of the ship we were told about some pretty harsh conditions.

Their total wage for a month is $US350, including overtime and all entitlements. The standard set up by the International Labour Organization is more than double that, $US870. The crew told us that they cannot get off the ship to ring home, have a beer or visit the sights of Sydney—something seafarers have a right to do. Not only are the owners of the Capitaine Tasman exploiting their own workers; the very presence of the ship in Australian waters is robbing Australian seafarers of work. The once great Australian National Line, ANL, plied our coastline providing work over the years to thousands. How can Australian ships crewed by Australian seafarers compete against ships such as the Capitaine Tasman? In the current era of globalisation international trade is increasing at exponential rates as commodities are transported around the world. Most of this trade is carried out on the world's oceans. While international shipping increases, regulation of the shipping industry is increasing as the shipping lines seek to circumvent international regulation, with disastrous consequences for ships, their crews and many local communities.

The most common method for avoiding international regulation and best practice is ships that operate under so-called flags of convenience. A flag of convenience ship is one that flies the flag of a country other than the country of ownership. Cheap registration fees, low or no taxes and freedom to employ cheap labour are the motivating factors behind a shipowner's decision to "flag out". Without the will of the flag state to enforce international minimum standards on its vessels, the working conditions of seafarers are exposed to the whims of the ship's owners, as Dean and I saw so graphically on the Capitaine Tasman. The results are shocking. Poor safety practices and unsafe ships make seafaring the most dangerous of all occupations. It is estimated that there are more than 2,000 deaths a year at sea. Seafarers employed on flag of convenience ships are denied the basic human and trade union rights. Accidents are frequent. Seafarers injured in falls down open hatches, or who suffer severed limbs, scalds and burns, and other injuries, are often not treated sympathetically by flag of convenience ship owners. The delivery of cargoes and the costs of any delay are their only concerns. It is virtually impossible for the crew to pursue and receive compensation from the ship owners. It is near impossible 23 February 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14065 to find out who actually owns flag of convenience ships. The captain of the Capitaine Tasman acknowledged that it would be very hard to track down who the real owners are.

The home countries of the crew can do little to protect them because the rules that apply on board are often those of the country of registration. As a result, most flag of convenience seafarers are not members of a trade union. For those who are, the union is often powerless to influence what happens on board. Most concerning is that the situation is getting worse not better, as witnessed by the increasing trend to stop crews going ashore when their ship docks. The Greens congratulate the International Transport Federation on its great achievement in winning decent wages for seafarers. Last year the ITF won $131 million in back pay for crews on flag of convenience ships. The Greens support the campaign of the International Transport Workers Federation for elimination of the flag of convenience system and the establishment of a regulatory framework for the shipping industry based on the concept of a genuine link between the flag the ship flies and the place where it is beneficially owned and controlled. Without such changes, seafarers will continue to be denied their basic human rights in the pursuit of profits. [Time expired.]

GREENS POLITICAL DONATIONS

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL [6.25 p.m.]: Members of this House would be aware of my interest in the topic of campaign finance regulation. This morning as I enjoyed my breakfast I was most fascinated to read Tim Dick's article in the Sydney Morning Herald outlining the City of Sydney Council's new tough stand on political donations. The move, the journalist explained, is designed to boost the Greens-backed campaign against developer donations. This makes particularly disturbing reading considering the revelation that the Greens have been soliciting developer donations themselves and conspiring to disguise them. While criticising major parties for accepting contributions from the building industry, the Greens have been greedily planning to line their pockets from the very same source. The hypocrisy is breathtaking. What makes this matter even more alarming, however, is the fact that members of the Greens have conspired to keep their developer donations a secret. The New South Wales Greens have set out to deceive the public, setting up a covert and illegal scheme to conceal the true source of their funds, by channelling money through a non-government organisation, the innocently named Rainforest Information Centre.

Ms Lee Rhiannon: Point of order: The member is misleading the House because it is on the record at an estimates—

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! There is no point of order.

Ms Lee Rhiannon: It is on record that it never occurred.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! There is no point of order. The Hon. Eric Roozendaal has the call.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: This represents a conspiracy to breach section 305B (2) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, which requires disclosure of such indirect donations. To debase the scheme even further, Greens donors are also encouraged to benefit from the charity status of the Rainforest Information Centre and claim tax deductions. This illegal conspiracy was not only intended to evade Federal legislation, it was intended to defraud the Commonwealth of taxation revenue as well. These are very serious allegations that I make to the House, and the evidence to support them is truly sensational. Leaked copies of minutes from the Queensland Greens Management Committee and emails between party officials in August 2002 show that an agreement existed between the Queensland and New South Wales branches of the party to funnel donations through the Rainforest Information Centre. This was well documented on the Crikey web site in 2003 and in the Courier Mail this month by Lachlan Heywood. The leaked minutes and emails were even tabled in Canberra at a Senate estimates meeting of the Finance and Public Administration Committee. I happen to have in my possession a copy of the minutes, and they make very interesting reading. I quote the Queensland management committee:

The NSW Greens are having a "We don't take money from developers" campaign and have asked us to abide by this. We have been asked to ask ecological sensitive developers— which I assume means developers who donate to the Greens—

to donate to the Rainforest Information Centre who will reroute the money to the Queensland Greens. 14066 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23 February 2005

This shows what hypocrites the Greens are. A motion to this effect was moved by the high-profile former Queensland Greens convenor and Senate candidate Drew Hutton. He is a man at the top of the Queensland Greens organisation—this conspiracy starts at the very top. In later emails Mr Hutton wrote of the need to keep the rainforest scheme secret and covert. He wrote in an email on 12 August:

I agree with Richard [Neilson] about not mentioning the rerouting

This was in response to Mr Neilson's email suggesting that the plan to reroute donated money is "not good minute material". It was a trail of emails showing a plan to doctor the minutes in a blatant cover-up. And yet Mr Hutton and his accomplices seem to be very casual about it. Perhaps this comes from experience. Of course, when they say "rerouting money to the Rainforest Information Centre" they really mean a conspiracy to launder money to hide the true source of donations. The cumulative weight of the minutes and emails, all now tabled in Federal Parliament, proves that there was a directive issued at the very top of the Queensland Greens organisation from the New South Wales branch to hide developer donations so that it would not expose the hypocrisy of its campaign against accepting developers donations—a gross conspiracy.

We know that a high-ranking member of the Queensland Greens received the directive. We know who was involved at that end and who implemented it. We are yet to discover who from the New South Wales Greens gave the order for the cover-up. It had to be somebody senior. It is a sure bet that Hutton was not acting on the orders of a rank-and-file member of the Greens. It had to be someone intimately involved with the organisation of the Greens party. It had to be someone with the authority to make Drew Hutton act. Until we know the identities of those involved the public cannot be sure that the Greens parliamentary representatives were not complicit in this nefarious and illegal scheme. After all, the parliamentary wing of the Greens has been driving the campaign to ban developer donations. It would now appear that getting their interstate comrades to hide the donations was also part of their campaign. If the Greens are true to form, those responsible will have properly minuted their clandestine meetings and emails, and their identity should come to light soon. It is time for the New South Wales Greens to own up to their hypocritical and corrupt behaviour, and come clean about what has been going on with their cover-up.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m. until Thursday 24 February 2005 at 11.00 a.m. ______