questions and answers - parliament of nsw · 8/31/2004 · (1) oc spray was discharged during this...

1599

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

QUESTIONS

AND

ANSWERS

No. 65

TUESDAY 31 AUGUST 2004

(The Questions and Answers Paper published for the first sitting day in each week will contain, by number and title, all unanswered questions, together with questions to which answers have been received on the previous sitting and any new questions. On subsequent days, new questions are printed, as are questions to which answers were received the previous day. Consequently the full text of any question will be printed only twice: when notice is given; and, when answered.)

Notice given on date shown

1600 Legislative Council Questions and Answers No. 65—Tuesday 31 August 2004

Publication of Questions Answer to be lodged by

Q&A No. 57 (Including Question Nos 1107 to 1120) 06 July 2004






Q&A No. 63 (Including Question Nos 1176 to 1182) 02 August 2004

Q&A No. 64 (Including Question Nos 1183 to 1206) 03 August 2004

Q&A No. 65 (Including Question Nos 1207 to 1219) 05 October 2004

1601 Legislative Council Questions and Answers No. 65— Tuesday 31 August 2004

1 JUNE 2004

(Paper No. 57)

*1107 JUSTICE—C3 PRISON CLASSIFICATION —Ms Rhiannon asked the Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship—

(1) How many prison inmates have been refused a C3 classification in the past 18 months?

(2) What is the proportion of ‘C3s refused’ to ‘C3s granted’ over that period?

(3) Is the Commissioner required to give reasons for refusing a C3 classification to the prisoner concerned?

(4) (a) Is there an official policy to restrict the number of C3s granted?

(b) If not, why has the Commissioner indicated that a prisoner can only progress from C2 classification to C3 within 12 months of earliest possible release date?

(c) If so, is the policy designed to prevent the release of inmates until no parole period is applicable, thereby:

(i) reducing the number of inmates requiring parole supervision, and (ii) cutting the cost of administering the parole system?

Answer—

(1) The resources required to compile the information needed to answer the question cannot be justified.

(2) See (1).

(3) No.

(4) (a) No.

(b) The practice that an inmate should only progress from C2 classification to C3 classification within 12 months of the earliest release date only applies to designated serious offenders, subject to the requirements of the department’s Inmate Classification and Case Management Procedures Manual. All other inmates may progress to C3 when they have 18 months to serve until their earliest possible release date, provided that half the sentence has been served.

(c) Not applicable and in any event, irrelevant.

*1108 TRANSPORT—MV ISLAND TRADER—Ms Rhiannon asked the Minister for Transport Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Forests)—

(1) Has the classification society Bureau Veritas declined to continue including the MV Island Trader in its survey?

(2) If so, on what basis can the Waterways Authority issue a Certificate of Survey for this vessel?

(3) For survey purposes, does the Waterways Authority classify the MV Island Trader as a tanker or a cargo ship?

(4) (a) Did the Government tell the Hon. Michael Gallacher last year (in Question on Notice 753) that the MV Island Trader was covered for Protection and Indemnity Insurance?

(b) Was the ship out of Bureau Veritas class at the time of that question?


(c) If so:

(i) Wouldn’t P&I cover have lapsed at that time? (ii) On what basis could the Government make that claim?

(5) When and why was Matthew Taylor removed as the chief executive officer of the Waterways Authority?

(6) (a) Is the MV Island Trader’s Certificate of Survey available for public inspection?

(b) If so, where?

(c) If not, can you provide me with a copy?

(d) If the answer to (a) and (c) is no, can you examine the Certificate and indicate whether the Gross Registered Tonnage on the Certificate is the same as when the vessel was built as a barge?

(7) Has the MV Island Trader had a bow fitted recently?

(8) (a) Would bow renovation normally cause a new Gross Registered Tonnage to be calculated for the vessel’s certificate?

(b) If so, was a new calculation done?

(c) If not, why not?

(9) If the ship’s insurance policies were predicated on an incorrect Gross Registered Tonnage figure, would this because for an insurance claim to be declined in the event of a mishap?

Answer—

(1) to (4) I refer to my previous answers to LC Questions on Notice 753 and 882.

I am advised by the Waterways Authority:

(5) Mr Taylor retired on 30 January 2004 after a distinguished career in the Royal Australian Navy and the NSW Waterways Authority.

(6) to (9) Gross Tonnage is not displayed on a Certificate of Survey. The Waterways Authority conforms to the provisions of the Uniform Shipping Laws Code, under the Commercial Vessels Act 1979, which defines vessels according to length not tonnage.

The Certificate of Survey is not available for public inspection due to provisions of the Privacy and Personal Information Act 1988. The document may be viewed with the consent of the owner.

The vessel has always had a bow.

Details of the insurance policy are a matter for the owner of the vessel and the provider of insurance

*1109 EMERGENCY SERVICES—LISMORE FIRE STATION—Ms Rhiannon asked the Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Lands)—

(1) Did Assistant Commissioner J.B. Anderson, in a letter to the General Manager of Lismore Council on 8 August 2001, indicate that Lismore Fire Station would be upgraded to a station employing a Station Officer and 3 firefighters on a 24-hour-a-day basis?

(2) Did former Emergency Services Minister Bob Debus affirm this commitment in a letter to the Mayor of Lismore Council on 12 September 2001?


(3) Did the Minister, in a letter to the General Manager of Lismore Council on 23 July 2003, provide

assurances that you would consider funding this commitment in 2004-05?

(4) Did the Minister, in a letter to the Member for Lismore dated 5 December 2003, downgrade these previous commitments, saying that Lismore was not high priority and would merely be kept under review?

(5) (a) Were there any instances in 2003 of the response times from Lismore Fire Station between 11 and 19 minutes?

(b) If so:

(i) How many? (ii) Is Lismore Fire Station adequately serviced by retained firefighters?

(6) Is the Minister aware that there are experienced firefighters living in Lismore who would like to work locally, but are instead being forced to commute to Sydney or Newcastle?

(7) Does the Minister acknowledge the particular risks in the town of Lismore, including the preponderance of wooden housing, much of it built on stilts and subject to regular flooding that makes the building materials more flammable?

Answer—

This important issue has been the subject of representations by the local member and Lismore Council.

As a result Commissioner Mullins visited Lismore on 1 July 2004 and proposed a reallocation of staff already serving in the Lismore Fire District that would provide 24-hour permanent staffing.

The proposal has the support of the local member, council and the permanent and paid staff in the area.

*1110 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS—TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS —Ms Rhiannon asked the Special Minister of State, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Assistant Treasurer, and Minister for the Central Coast—

(1) Are you aware that nearly 8 tonnes of sodium cyanide was hijacked from a truck in central Mexico in May 2002?

(2) From the standpoint of WorkCover’s regulation of the transport of dangerous goods, does the sodium cyanide being transported on the roads and rail network of New South Wales for use in the proposed gold mine at Lake Cowal pose a similar risk to the people of New South Wales?

Answer—

(1) Yes.

(2) The transport of dangerous goods is regulated under the Road and Rail Transport (Dangerous Goods) Act 1997, which falls within the responsibilities of the Minister for the Environment. As such, this question should be directed to the Minister in the other place.

*1111 POLICE—CAPSICUM SPRAY—Ms Rhiannon asked the Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship representing the Minister for Police—

(1) Did NSW Police officers use capsicum spray against students protesting at a demonstration at the University of Technology on April 19th?


(2) Are you aware of the students’ claims that the officer was not seeking to protect himself, but instead stuck

his hand through a door that students were attempting to close and released the spray at random into the room?

(3) (a) Will the Minister initiate an investigation into this incident?

(b) If not, why not?

(4) Was capsicum spray introduced as a non-lethal alternative to firearms?

(5) In how many incidents has capsicum spray been used over the past 12 months?

(6) Has capsicum spray become an additional weapon of punishment in circumstances where firearms would never have been used?

(7) (a) Will the Minister conduct a review of police use of capsicum spray?


(c) If so, will the review develop guidelines that would ensure capsicum spray is only used, if at all, in the situations for which it was intended?

Answer—

NSW Police has advised me:

(1) OC spray was discharged during this incident. I am advised that during a scuffle between student protesters, police and security officers, a constable’s hand became jammed in a door as students were applying pressure. The constable has attempted to use the spray to lighten the force being applied to the door so that he could free his hand. The spray canister has become jammed in the door, which caused it to discharge, resulting in secondary contamination to a number of protesters and security officers. The officer in question suffered a dislocated knuckle.

(2) Police has not received a complaint of this nature.

(3) (a) to (b) lf such a complaint is received, appropriate action will be taken.

(4) Capsicum spray was introduced as a further less lethal defensive option.

(5) 751.

(6) Capsicum spray is only to be used in certain circumstances and is not used simply to obtain compliance where no threat exists.

(7) (a) to (c) The NSW Ombudsman has previously conducted a review of its use. NSW Police has already developed Standard Operating Procedures that outline the specific circumstances under which capsicum spray can be used.

*1112 TRANSPORT—EASTERN SUBURBS AND NORTH SHORE RAIL SERVICES—Ms Rhiannon asked the Minister for Transport Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Forests)—

(1) For 2003, please provide the detailed data on the monthly, weekly and average daily patronage on the following lines:

(a) The Eastern Suburbs line?

(b) The North Shore line?


(2) On how many days in 2003 did buses replace trains on:

(a) The Eastern Suburbs line?

(b) The North Shore line?

Answer—

I am advised by RailCorp:

The average number of passengers is based on the actual head count of passengers as they enter and exit the station barrier. The count is conducted over a full day, which is from before the first train to after the last train, on a working weekday.

At last count the average number of passengers for the Eastern Suburbs line is 75,800 per average weekday.

At last count the average number of passengers for the North Shore line is 201,800 per average weekday.

A trackwork schedule is regularly updated on the publicly available CityRail website at www.cityrail.info.

Scheduled changes to train services and alternative transport arrangements are published on the CityRail website or publicly displayed at relevant rail stations.

In addition, due to emergencies during 2003 on the Eastern Suburbs line alternate transport arrangements were provided on four occasions and on eight occasions on the North Shore line.

*1113 ENVIRONMENT—DEPARTMENTAL LAND ACQUISITIONS—Mr Cohen asked the Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship representing the Attorney General and Minister for the Environment—

(1) What is the timeline for the gazettal of the more than 70 land acquisitions that have been purchased by the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) and approved by the Minister as additional to the conservation reserve system in New South Wales?

(2) (a) Is the Director-General of DEC delaying the gazettal process?

(b) If so, why?

(3) Were many of these areas jointly purchased by the New South Wales and Commonwealth Governments as part of the National Reserves System program?

(4) Has the Commonwealth Government inquired about the status of these areas or queried the delay in their gazettal?

(5) (a) Has the agreement between the National Parks and Wildlife Service and Treasury for payments per hectare of new areas added to the reserve system broken down?

(b) If so, is this the reason the dedication of these important areas has not proceeded?

(6) When will this situation be rectified?

Answer—

There are no delays to the National Park gazettal process. Section 7 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 requires the Director General of the Department of Environment and Conservation to consider all proposals for the addition of areas or the reservation of any new areas.

In accordance with this requirement, lands acquired as additions to the New South Wales conservation reserve system will be progressively gazetted over the next 12 months.


All but two recently acquired areas purchased with Commonwealth assistance, as part of the National Reserve System program, will be reserved within 12 months. The Department of Environment and Conservation maintains close liaison with the Commonwealth Department of Environment and Heritage regarding both acquisition and reservation timeframes. The Commonwealth is aware of the processes and timelines which operate in New South Wales relating to reserve establishment.

Since coming to office, the Carr Government has increased the area of land reserved under the National Parks and Wildlife Act by nearly two million hectares or 50 per cent.

*1114 NATURAL RESOURCES—DEUA RIVER—Mr Cohen asked the Minister for Transport Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Forests) representing the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning and Minister for Natural Resources—

(1) How many hectares of the Deua River catchment have been logged by State Forests of New South Wales since 1995?

(2) How many hectares of the Deua River catchment are proposed for logging during the life of the Southern Regional Forests Agreement?

(3) Has the department undertaken any assessment of the impact of the logging on water quality and quantity in the Deua River?

Answer—

(1) There have been 215 hectares of State Forest logged within the Deua River catchment since 1995.

(2) It is estimated that about 740 hectares of State Forest will be logged within the Deua River catchment during the life of the Southern RFA.

(3) No.

*1115 POLICE—CANNABIS POSSESSION—Revd Mr Nile asked the Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship representing the Minister for Police—

(1) (a) Have NSW Police officers been instructed to caution rather than charge those caught in the possession of cannabis?

(b) If so, how many prosecutions have been avoided under this system?

(2) (a) Does the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, Part 2, Division 1 specify that possession of such a prohibited drug is an offence under the Act?

(b) Does the aforementioned Act state that “an offence under this Division shall be prosecuted summarily before a Local Court”?

(c) Does the Police Act 1990 No 47 Section 7 (b) state that NSW Police “are to uphold the rule of the law”?

(d) If so, under what jurisdiction or authority are NSW Police then instructed to break those laws they are employed to uphold?

Answer—

(1) (a) No, police discretion is retained.

(b) Not applicable.


(2) (a) Yes.

(b) Yes.

(c) Yes.

(d) To my knowledge, they are not.

*1116 HEALTH—EMERGENCY PATIENTS—Revd Mr Nile asked the Special Minister of State, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Assistant Treasurer, and Minister for the Central Coast representing the Minister for Health—

(1) (a) Were Emergency patients forced to wait in ambulances for more than three hours outside several Sydney Hospitals yesterday (31 May 2004)?

(b) If so, why?

(2) What action is the Minister taking to rectify the problem?

(3) How long can New South Wales citizens expect to wait before there is a noticeable improvement in New South Wales health and emergency care?

(4) What procedures does the Carr Government have in place to deal effectively with emergency cases in the event of a natural disaster, terrorist attack or other contingencies involving a high number of casualties?

Answer—

I have been advised by the Hon Morris Iemma MP, Minister for Health, that the answer to the Honourable Member’s question is:

(1) to (3) On 7 June 2004, the Government announced the allocation of $57 million as part of the Sustainable Access Plan 2004, to provide nearly 1000 additional hospital beds this winter including 563 permanent acute, mental health and transitional care beds and 410 beds to cope with additional winter demands. A further $4 million was announced for Community Care Packages. These commitments are a vital part of the Government’s plan to reduce unnecessary delays, improve access and care for patients. The Sustainable Access Plan 2004 is a major step towards redesigning how hospital activity is approached, and the need to streamline patient flow from the Emergency Department, into a hospital ward and back into the community.

The Access Block Improvement Program is also part of the Sustainable Access Plan. Nine hospitals, representing 45% of all emergency department attendances in their Area Health Services, will involve expert advisors, clinicians, consumers and managers in reviewing patient flow processes and developing realistic, within budget plans to improve access block and off-stretcher times.

This methodology has recently been implemented in the Hunter and has resulted in improvements in access block, triage times, treatment time for non-admitted emergency department patients, and admission separation ratios.

The Sustainable Access Plan 2004 also contains innovative solutions to address hold-ups in our hospital system that are partly created by a lack of suitable nursing home accommodation and supported community care (both Commonwealth responsibilities).

At any one time there are as many as 900 elderly patients in our hospitals who have completed their treatment and require more appropriate accommodation or care in a nursing home, a hostel or in community care. To improve care for these senior citizens the NSW Government is providing:

160 additional transitional care beds;


35 additional acute care beds made available by providing over 2000 extra Community Care

Packages at an annual cost of over $4 million – (individually tailored care plans based around community support allowing patients to return home including community nursing, home physiotherapy and other support);

41 rehabilitation beds; 80 sub acute care beds

The Sustainable Access Plan builds on successful initiatives already in place in emergency departments. During 2002 Clinical Initiatives Nurses were appointed in a number of major Sydney metropolitan emergency departments. Where necessary, these senior nurses initiate treatment for less serious patients and can also provide information for patients on the situation within the Emergency Department.

During 2003 and 2004 patients across New South Wales have benefited from the operation of Emergency Medicine Units (EMUs) and Rapid Emergency Assessment Teams (REATs). EMUs have provided an alternative model of care for patients requiring short-term observation and treatment in hospital. REATs have substantially improved waiting times at emergency departments where they have been implemented.

(4) NSW Health has undertaken counter terrorism scenario planning and analysis which demonstrates that New South Wales can manage a considerable surge in patients.

NSW Health has established a Counter Disaster Unit, the first of its kind in the nation, with Health and Ambulance personnel working together to address all aspects of disaster planning and response.

Resources include hospital decontamination facilities; upgraded bio surveillance systems and laboratories; increased stocks of pharmaceuticals and antidotes; and, extensive training of specialist personnel.

These resources significantly enhance the NSW Health system’s ability to respond to a range of threats including conventional and chemical, biological and radiological terrorist related incidents.

NSW Health recently participated in Exercise Explorer, a national exercise designed to test the response of multiple agencies to a simulated terrorist attack, The exercise was conducted in Sydney between 25 May and 11 June 2004.

During the exercise 270 nominal patients were successfully treated using the whole of the NSW Health system. The newly developed National Burns Plan was also tested as a part of this exercise.

*1117 TREASURY—FIRST HOME PLUS—Revd Mr Nile asked the Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council—

(1) Did the Treasurer announce on 6 April 2004 that the thresholds for the ‘First Home Plus’ was to be increased from $200,000 to $500,000 and that first home buyers would be eligible for the scheme if the buyer entered into contract after midnight 3 April 2004?

(2) Prior to 14 April 2004 was the OSR and Mini-budget hotline informing prospective homebuyers that if a contract was signed prior to 3 April, they were ineligible for the scheme regardless of whether the settlement date was post 3 April?

(3) On 14 April 2004 did the Treasurer’s department clarify previous comments and state that whilst those who had entered into contracts prior to 3 April were ineligible for the scheme, first home buyers could become eligible if they rescind their previous contract by mutual agreement and enter into a new contract?

(4) Has the lack of policy clarity prior to 14 April prevented some first home buyers from enjoying the benefits of this scheme?


(5) Will the Treasurer consider refunding the applicable stamp duty to those first home buyers who had

entered into a contract prior to 3 April and settled post 3 April, and who missed an opportunity to enjoy the benefits of the scheme due to a lack of clear information?

Answer—

(1) Yes

(2) to (5) I was asked about the issue during a radio interview on 6 April 2004.

I expressed the opinion that a buyer and seller could, by mutual agreement, rescind a contract and write another one to take advantage of the benefits to first homebuyers. I repeated this view in media interviews over the following days.

Although correct, my view was initially disputed by some commentators, including by a prominent member of the Law Society of NSW.

I am advised that on the day of the Mini-budget, and the following morning, some callers to the Office of State Revenue hotline were told that contracts that were rescinded and remade would not be eligible for the new stamp duty concessions.

By the afternoon of 7 April I am advised callers to the hotline were told that the OSR was seeking legal advice on the issue.

I am further advised that by early afternoon the following day, 8 April, the staff of the OSR hotline were advising callers that rescinded and remade contracts were eligible for the new concession.

The OSR website provided no advice on the issue until 13 April when it was updated to advise readers that rescinded and remade contracts were eligible for the new concession.

*1118 YOUTH—TARNI SUTTON—Revd Mr Nile asked the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Youth—

(1) Does the Minister recognise the very real danger that the internet can pose to young and impressionable elements of our society?

(2) What programs has the Government implemented in order to educate youth of the dangers of online predators?

(3) Are current Government programs sufficient?

(4) What initiatives are planned?

Answer—

(1) Yes.

(2) The NSW Government’s Website, www.youth.nsw.gov.au provides a link to advise young people on staying safe online.

The Department of Community Services has developed material to support parents in educating their children about safe internet use in the “Parenting: The Teenage Years”, a magazine sponsored by DoCS and available online at http://docsonline.dcs.gov.au/parent_4.htm .

NSW Police have online material to support parents in educating their children about safe internet use. The site can be found at http://www.police.nsw.gov.au/prevention/internetparentguide.cfm .

(3) and (4) Educating children and young people about safe internet use is best supported through a National approach. Significant material has been prepared at a National level to educate children and young


people about safe internet use. The NSW Government is committed to further developing new initiatives and will continue to work with State and Territory governments and the Federal Government to achieve safer internet use by children and young people.

*1119 TREASURY—VOCATIONAL AND EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS—Revd Mr Nile asked the Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council—

(1) Has the Government cut $5.5 million in funding for the vocational and employment training for mature citizens and skilled migrants?

(2) Have the ‘Matured Workers Program’ and the ‘Skilled Migrant Strategy’ provided vital services to New South Wales citizens in finding employment and becoming productive members of our State?

(3) (a) Is the Government claiming that such services are the responsibility of the Federal Government?

(b) If so, does the State Government have a duty of care to ensure that vital services to New South Wales citizens are not suddenly removed before an agreement has been reached with the Federal Government on the issue?

(4) Will the Government re-instate the $5.5 million funding for these projects until State and Federal Governments have reached an agreement on responsibility

Answer—

(1) In the coming year the Commonwealth Government cut funding to New South Wales by $345 million. As a result the Government has needed to make some difficult budget decisions.

(2) to (4) The Minister for Education The Hon Refshauge MP, has advised that while the Mature Workers Program and the Skilled Migrants Strategy are worthwhile programs, employment and migration are Commonwealth responsibilities. Unfortunately the NSW Government cannot afford to continue to subsidise these types of services.

To assist with the finalisation of projects Minister Refshauge has offered to extend current funding agreements with organisations delivering the Mature Workers Program for three months to the end of September 2004. The Minister has also offered to fund professional development for project co-ordinators in both program areas.

The Department for Education and Training will continue to meet the skill needs of older workers and skilled migrants through TAFE NSW and other education providers.

*1120 TRANSPORT—BROADMEADOW STATION EASY ACCESS—Ms Rhiannon asked the Minister for Transport Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Forests)—

(1) What are the estimated cost components for Broadmeadow Station Easy Access upgrades and DDA modifications, determined by the Evans & Peck risk analysis, that were incorporated into the $47,072,800 Capex P90 value in the Base Case, Option 1, ‘Continue Operation of Newcastle Branch Line’, as shown in Section 5.2. Page 26 of the State Rail/RIC submission included in the Lower Hunter Transport Working Group’s 2nd Report?

(2) (a) Were any other costs of Broadmeadow Station, such as structural upgrades or station refurbishment, incorporated in the cost estimates determined by the Evans & Peck risk analysis for the Base Case, Option 1, ‘Continue Operation of Newcastle Branch Line’?

(b) Is so, what were the P90 values of the components of those Broadmeadow Station cost estimates?


Answer—

The Lower Hunter Transport Working Group was an advisory group established to report on transport services in the Hunter region.

The Working Group’s final report was released and submitted to the Government in December 2003.

As previously announced a Government response to the Working Group’s findings is being developed and will be publicly released later this year.

2 JUNE 2004

(Paper No. 58)

*1121 POLICE—GUNNEDAH POLICE STATION—Ms Cusack asked the Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship representing the Minister for Police—

(1) Please outline the range and cost of pest control work undertaken at Gunnedah Police Station in January, and the name of the contractor who performed this work?

(2) (a) Was further pest control work required after January?

(b) If so, please indicate:

(i) What was the date of such work,

(ii) What are the names of contractors who undertook the work,

(iii) What was the purpose of the work,

(iv) Was any reinfestation occurred after the work undertaken in January, and, if so, what contact was made with the original contractor in order to fairly evaluate the cause of the reinfestation?

(3) Is the department satisfied with the pest control work undertaken at Gunnedah Police Station in January?

Answer—

NSW Police has advised me:

(1) to (3) A major treatment to eradicate white ants was undertaken at Gunnedah Police Station in November 2003. This treatment was followed by services in December 2003 and March 2004.

Flick Pest Control indicates that there is no further white ant activity. A final clearance was provided on 28 May 2004.

*1122 HEALTH—BUDGET ALLOCATION FOR MENTAL HEALTH—Dr Chesterfield-Evans asked the Special Minister of State, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Assistant Treasurer, and Minister for the Central Coast representing the Minister for Health—

What proportion of the mini-budget allocation of $240 million for mental health over 4 years is targeted to provide integrated treatment for people with dual diagnosis of mental illness and substance abuse, especially those who are homeless and may require residential care and rehabilitation?


Answer—


The $241 million enhancement for mental health was targeted at specific priority areas including:

Additional funding for acute mental health beds; Additional supported accommodation places; $14 million recurrent for the new forensic hospital at Malabar; More community based mental health professionals; Better coordination and case management of forensic patients; Expansion of the court liaison service; Increased services for children and adolescents; Additional Aboriginal mental health workers.

As a very significant proportion of people with mental disorder also have alcohol or other substance abuse issues, the management of dual disorders is now part of the core business of mental health services.

NSW Health has developed a range of guidelines that encourages co-operation between services for people with complex needs, including:

The Interagency Guidelines for Early Intervention and management of alcohol and other drug misuse to ensure a multi-agency approach to drug and alcohol issues and treatment pathways for non-drug and alcohol services.

The Management of People with a co-existing Mental Health and Substance Use Disorder Service Delivery Guidelines have been developed to assist workers in both the drug and alcohol and mental health field to work with clients with co-morbid substance use and mental health problems.

NSW Health is also involved in a number of housing and health initiatives assisting people with co-morbid drug and alcohol problems who are at risk of homelessness, including:

The Department of Housing, in conjunction with NSW Health and the Department of Community Services, is developing three supported housing projects to be trialled in 2004 – 2006 for young people with co-existing mental health and substance abuse disorders who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. A service model is currently being developed.

NSW Health has committed funds to the Department of Housing for a 2-year mental health position for the Homeless Action Team Support and Outreach Service in inner Sydney. The position will facilitate improved access to mental health services and secure housing services for homeless people with co-morbid problems.

NSW Health and the Department of Housing have funded the Housing and Supported Accommodation Initiative (HASI) which provides high level support services in community base housing for over 100 people across New South Wales with complex mental health problems including those with co-morbid issues. HASI is designed for this vulnerable group of people who frequently experience difficulties in accessing housing and maintaining tenancies due to illness. This group includes those at risk of homelessness and those who were inappropriately housed or are already homeless.

*1123 EDUCATION—DEMOGRAPHICS OF TEACHERS—Dr Chesterfield-Evans asked the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Youth representing the Minister for Education and Training and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs—

(1) Is the mean age of teachers in New South Wales 48 years?

(2) What are the age demographics of teachers in New South Wales?


(3) Does the superannuation scheme make it financially optimal for teachers to retire at 55 and a 58 years of

age?

(4) If so, are any changes planned to encourage teachers to continue working?

(5) What schemes, scholarships or incentives exist to encourage students into the teaching profession?

(6) What incentives are there for teachers to stay beyond the first 5 years?

(7) (a) Are there any schemes to retain teachers by rewarding excellence?

(b) If so, what are the details of such schemes?

Answer—

(1) No.

(2) The age of permanent teachers in New South Wales government schools on 1 March 2004 ranged from approximately 20 to 76 years.

(3) No.

(4) Refer to (3).

(5) to (7) The schemes, scholarships and incentives are detailed in the NSW Department of Education and Training Annual Report 2003.

*1124 PRIMARY INDUSTRIES—NATIONAL LIVESTOCK IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM FUNDING—Mr Gay asked the Minister for Primary Industries—

(1) Please provide an update and detailed breakdown of current and projected expenditure of the $5.4 million grant provided by the Government for National Livestock Identification System (NLIS) implementation, with specific details of all expenditure on administration costs?

(2) Please advise if any part of this grant has been spent, or has been allocated to pay existing NSW Agriculture staff salaries?

Answer—

(1) NSW Agriculture has prepared a summary of expenditure for the 2003-2004 financial year from the Government’s $5.4 million grant for implementation of the National Livestock Identification System.

Expenditure as at 7 June 2004 has been as follows: Industry communication programs $ 40,433.33 NLIS technical support to industry $ 14,162.97 Industry consultation (all sectors) $118,309.15 NSW NLIS implementation program development $ 27,310.22 NLIS equipment grant application preparation and processing $ 19,433.44 Total $219,649.11

Budgets for the 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 financial years have not yet been finalised. The NLIS Advisory Committee plans to consider this issue at the Committee’s next meeting.

(2) No.


*1125 EDUCATION—BEACON HILL HIGH SCHOOL—Revd Mr Nile asked the Minister for Community Services,

Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Youth representing the Minister for Education and Training and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs—

(1) Is the Minister aware of the distress that the closure of the Beacon Hill High School is causing to that community?

(2) Is the Minister aware that the community believes that the closing of the school did not occur in accordance with the provisions of section 28 (3) or 28 (10b) of the Education Act 1990?

(3) Will the Minister ensure that the School will not be demolished until such time that appropriate community consultation has taken place?

Answer—

(1) to (3) The Crown Solicitor has advised that the school was closed in accordance with section 28.

Following an extensive community consultation process, a planning proposal has been approved for the former school site which will result in approximately half of the site being retained as open space for use by the adjoining Beacon Hill Public School and the wider community. The remainder of the site will be sold for residential redevelopment which will be low density and required to display environmentally sustainable features.

*1126 TRANSPORT—RAILWAY SIGNALLING BOXES—Mr Gallacher asked the Minister for Transport Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Forests)—

(1) What is the current total cost of the decommissioning of railway signal boxes following the consolidation of train control and signalling operations at Broadmeadow?

(2) What is the current total cost of the Broadmeadow train control and signalling centre?

Answer—


The country signal box consolidation program to centralise train control functions, including the functions performed by signallers, was a recommendation of the Special Commission of Inquiry into the Glenbrook rail accident.

During 2002 and 2003, the then StateRail and Rail Infrastructure Corporation undertook a signal box consolidation program. Six signal boxes were decommissioned under the program with their functions transferred to either Orange or Junee train control centres. The approximate cost was $15.3 million.

In relation to Broadmeadow, a building has been constructed at a cost of approximately $4 million.

I’m advised the Australian Rail Track Corporation is yet to make a final decision on the location of the train control centre. I have met with Hunter rail workers about the future location of signalling and train control operations.

The future use of this building will be determined after this decision.

*1127 TRANSPORT—LINE PATRONAGE—Mr Gallacher asked the Minister for Transport Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Forests)—

(1) Can you provide detailed data for 2003 on the patronage on the following lines:

(a) The Hunter line: (i) monthly;


(ii) weekly; and (iii) average daily?

(b) The South Coast line: (i) monthly; (ii) weekly; and (iii) average daily?

(c) The Newcastle and Central Coast line: (i) monthly; (ii) weekly; and (iii) average daily?

(d) The Illawarra line: (i) monthly; (ii) weekly; and (iii) average daily?

Answer—

I am advised by Rail Corp:

The average number of passengers is based on the actual head count of passengers as they enter and exit the station barrier. The count is conducted over a full day, which is from before the first train to after the last train, on a working weekday.

For stations between Hamilton and Newcastle passenger numbers are attributed to either the Hunter line or the Newcastle and Central Coast line using passenger counts directly on and off trains.

At last count the average number of passengers for the Hunter line is 9,700 per average weekday.

At last count the average number of passengers for the South Coast line is 25,900 per average weekday.

At last count the average number of passengers for the Newcastle and Central Coast line is 47,300 per average weekday.

At last count the average number of passengers for the Illawarra line is 154,300 per average weekday.

*1128 TRANSPORT—MACARTHUR SERVICES—Mr Gallacher asked the Minister for Transport Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Forests)—

(1) How often are trains that are scheduled to terminate at Macarthur in fact terminated at Campbelltown?

(2) What is the Minister doing to stop this practice?

(3) When can the commuters expect these changes to be made?

Answer—


When the CityRail network is congested or when trains experience major delays, the stopping pattern of trains may be altered to reduce delays and inconvenience to the greatest number of passengers.

This affects Macarthur services periodically.

RailCorp’s Train Operations management are working with Rail Management Centre staff to reduce the number of times when services are altered across the network.


As recently announced RailCorp is introducing adjustments to the CityRail timetable to improve the reliability of peak hour services, reduce the reliance on overtime, free up additional drivers for weekdays and to support the $1 billion Rail Clearways investment.

Macarthur passengers will benefit significantly from the $1 billion Rail Clearways program which will provide separate lines for the Campbelltown Express and East Hills services to deliver more reliable, frequent services and reduce congestion and delays.

Rail Clearways projects totalling $360 million are planned for construction on the East Hills and South Line rail corridors including:

Kingsgrove to Revesby – two additional tracks $230 million; Revesby turnback – $40 million; Liverpool turnback – $50 million; and Macarthur station fourth platform - $40 million

*1129 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS—PUBLIC SECTOR WAGES GROWTH—Ms Cusack asked the Special Minister of State, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Assistant Treasurer, and Minister for the Central Coast—

(1) (a) Has New South Wales public sector wage growth been 44% since 1995?

(b) If so, can you please specify: (i) the exact period this refers to, (ii) which budget and non budget sector employees are included in this calculation. (iii) the real figure for wages growth?

(c) If not, please advise the figures for both nominal and real wages growth in the New South Wales public sector since 1995?

(2) How do these figures compare with:

(a) New South Wales private sector?

(b) National average (all wages)?

(c) Public sector average (all Australia)?

(3) What has been the annual dollar cost of 44% wages growth to the New South Wales public sector?

Answer—

(1) (a) No.

(b) Not applicable.

(c) Unpublished data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ (ABS) Average Weekly Earnings Survey indicates that average wage growth in the New South Wales public sector between February 1995 and February 2004 was 45% (ABS – 6302.0 Average Weekly Earnings, Australia).

ABS figures also show that between 31 March 1995 and 31 March 2004 there was a change in the consumer price index (CPI) of 29% (ABS – 6401.0, CPI All Groups, Weighted Average of Eight Capital Cities).

(2) (a) According to ABS data, average wage growth in the New South Wales private sector between February 1995 and February 2004 was 43% (ABS – 6302.0 Average Weekly Earnings, Australia).


(b) The national average of wage growth for all wages between February 1995 and February 2004 was

38% (ABS – 6302.0 Average Weekly Earnings, Australia).

(c) Average wage growth in the public sector across Australia between February 1995 and February 2004 was 42% (ABS – 6302.0 Average Weekly Earnings, Australia).

(3) The Budget Papers for 2004-2005 state that employee expenses comprise almost 50 per cent of total expenses. Each one percent increase in employee expenses weakens the budget result by $180 million.

*1130 HEALTH—MEDIA STAFFING—Ms Hale asked the Special Minister of State, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Assistant Treasurer, and Minister for the Central Coast representing the Minister for Health—

(1) How many staff are employed in the media units of the 17 Area Health Services in New South Wales?

(2) What is the total budget for media units of the 17 Area Health Services?

(3) (a) How many staff are employed in the media unit of the Department of Health?

(b) What is the total budget of this media unit?

Answer—


(1) to (3) Area Health Services do not have “Media Units”. Area staff handling media enquiries 24 hours per day, 7 days per week also undertake a variety of other duties including event management, fundraising, production of publications, responses to Ministerial correspondence and other executive support functions.

For 2003-04 estimated budget and staffing for media services across all Area Health Services is $2.889 million and 34.35 EFT respectively. The NSW Department of Health Media Unit has a budget of $788,704 and staff of 5 EFT.

Combined these figures represent less than 0.05% of total budget for NSW Health in 2003-04 and less than 0.05% of the most recently available NSW Health staff numbers.

*1131 HEALTH—MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES—Ms Hale asked the Special Minister of State, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Assistant Treasurer, and Minister for the Central Coast representing the Minister for Health—

(1) (a) During the Parliamentary Inquiry into Mental Health Services, claims were made about a doubling of the community mental health workforce since 1995. Exactly where has this doubling of the workforce occurred?

(b) (i) Have additional staff augmented existing services or provided new services? (ii) What are the services concerned?

(c) Have there been any additional services offering after hours care?

(d) What additional after hours services have been introduced since the year 2000?

(e) What mental health services have ceased after hours operation since the beginning of 2003?

(f) Overall, are there more or less staff offering after hours care since the year 2000?


(2) (a) What mental health services are available in Newcastle on the weekends apart from those available

at the emergency department of the hospital?

(b) How does the availability of after hours and weekend services in Newcastle compare to after hours mental health service availability in other Area Health Services around the State?

(3) (a) Does the department keep figures on any increase or decrease of mental health cases presenting at hospital emergency departments after hours compared to during business hours when home support services are available?


(c) If so, what increase is there in after hours presentations at emergency departments?

(4) (a) Has mental health staffing in Central Sydney Area fallen by 60% since 1989?

(b) If not, by how much has staffing fallen since 1989?

(c) What is the reason for any reduction in mental health staffing?

(5) (a) Have acute care mental health beds increased 20% since 1995?

(b) Over this time: (i) How many beds have been closed? (ii) How many new beds have been opened? (iii) What is the net increase of beds?

(6) Will the new 174 bed mental health hospital in Concord be in addition to existing beds, or replace existing beds that will be closed?

(7) Regarding the new 135 bed maximum security forensic hospital to be constructed at Malabar:

(a) How many of the 135 beds will be additional to existing beds at Long Bay?

(b) Will any existing beds at Long Bay be closed?

(8) (a) Does the department have a policy of locating all psychiatric beds in general hospitals?

(b) How does placing such a hospital at Malabar fit in with this policy?

(9) (a) In the Sentinel Events Review Committee Report, why were figures for suicides under care not given for 2002 and most of 2003?

(b) Where did the figure of 8% inpatient suicides given on page 1 come from?

(c) Is the report available on hard copy version?

(d) If not, when will it be available?

Answer—


(1) (a) and (b) The Carr Government has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to improving mental health services and will continue to build on its excellent achievements to date.

The Government announced an increase of $68.0 million for the State’s Mental Health Budget in 2004-2005, bringing the total budget for NSW Mental Health Services to a record $783 million for


the new financial year. Since 1994-1995, funding for mental health services in NSW has increased by 121 per cent.

This additional funding has enabled significant development in mental health care throughout NSW. Additional resources are delivering more direct care staff in inpatient and community services, more than 300 new beds of which more than 200 are in rural and regional areas, 118 supported accommodation places, permanent Aboriginal mental health workers, the expansion of the early psychosis program, and additional mental health workers in emergency departments.

Since 1995 the NSW Government has invested heavily in attracting trained mental health staff. In June 2001, $5.4 million was allocated to implement a range of mental health nursing education strategies to build and market career paths in mental health nursing.

All Colleges and Universities providing nursing education in New South Wales are participating in the Mental Health Nursing Enhancement Program aimed at addressing the issue.

To address rural staffing issues, a rural training co-ordinator has been appointed and been successful in increasing the number of trainees based in rural Areas. A central recruitment drive for rural psychiatrists is also underway.

(c) to (f) All Area Mental Health services offered after hours care in 1995 and continue to do so.

(2) (a) and (b) The Newcastle Mental Health Team provides an appropriate case management service for existing patients of the service who require intensive community follow-up across weekends and public holidays.

(3) (a) to (c) The department has data from the Emergency Department Information System (EDIS) that operates in all 54 large Emergency Departments. These Emergency Departments receive about 87% of all presentations in New South Wales.

Mental health presentations made up 2.9% of total Emergency Department presentations in 2000 and 3.0% in 2003. In 2000, 71% of mental health presentations arrived outside of the “standard hours” period 9am and 5pm, Monday through Friday, as against 69% in 2003. This is much the same as Emergency Department presentations without mental health diagnoses, which were 67% outside “standard hours” in both 2000 and 2003.

(4) (a) to (c) Staffing data for Central Sydney Area Health Service Mental Health services in 1989 is unavailable.

(5) (a) and (b) In terms of inpatient beds, there were 1106 acute mental health beds at the end of the 2000-2001 financial year identified in the data prepared for the National mental Health Report (not yet published). At the end of the 2005-2006 financial year there will be 1,367 acute mental health beds, an increase of about 23%.

(6) The new 174 bed mental health hospital in Concord will replace existing beds.

(7) (a) and (b) The new 135 bed Forensic Hospital at Malabar will be a new Health facility entirely outside the jurisdiction of Corrective Services.

The existing bed facility at Long Bay will be demolished, and replaced by an 85 bed Prison Hospital within the walls of Long Bay Prison. Forty of these beds will be for mental health assessment and step down beds.

(8) (a) and (b) There is no health department policy of having all psychiatric hospital beds in general hospitals.

(9) (a) and (b) Some data pertaining to suicide deaths, including those occurring in 2002 and 2003, as collected by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, was not available at the time of the report. NSW Health provided indicative 2002 and 2003 data for the report based on the collation of information


contained in Mental Health Service Client Death report forms, where suicide was listed as one of the possible causes of death.

(c) and (d) Hard copies of the report are available from the Centre for Mental Health on request.

*1132 ENVIRONMENT—DRAFT KOALA RECOVERY PLAN—Ms Hale asked the Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship representing the Attorney General and Minister for the Environment—

(1) What is the cause of the delay in the completion of this Plan?

(2) (a) What processes are yet to be completed before final Ministerial sign-off of the Plan?

(b) How long is this expected to take?

(3) (a) What funding has the Government committed to the actions listed in the Plan?

(b) Will this funding be sufficient to allow for the implementation of all actions outlined in the Plan?

(c) Will funding be sufficient to allow for the implementation of all actions within the timeframes outlined in the Plan?

(4) Is there an allocation in the 2004-05 financial year budget for implementation of the Plan to commence?

Answer—

A Koala Recovery Plan is being prepared under the New South Wales Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 by the Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW). The plan considers the conservation requirements of the koala across its known range in New South Wales. During the exhibition period for the draft plan 34 submissions were received and the plan is being further developed and prepared for approval and implementation. I am advised that consultation with interest groups will occur prior to the finalisation of the plan.

The final recovery plan for the koala will identify a series of actions that are ranked in terms of priority. I understand that some actions in the recovery plan have already been initiated. These include the monitoring of koala populations and rehabilitation of koala habitat for the south coast Koala Management Area and the mapping and monitoring of koala habitat for the north coast Koala Management Area.

When the draft recovery plan for the koala was exhibited in 2003, the estimated cost of its implementation over 5 years was $830,000. The Government will implement this plan once it is approved.

*1133 COMMUNITY SERVICES—DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES HELPLINE—Ms Hale asked the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Youth—

For the following classes of users of the centralised State-wide Department of Community Services (DoCS) Helpline intake service for child protection reports could you please supply the following information for each month during the past 18 months for which records are available:

(1) NSW Police:

(a) How many notification calls were received?

(b) How many of these calls resulted in some form of contact with the notifier or the notifying institution other than a fax within: (i) One week? (ii) Two weeks? (iii) Three weeks?


(iv) One month? (v) Two months?

(c) How many of these calls resulted in an interview with the child who was the subject of the notification by a DoCS worker within: (i) One week? (ii) Two weeks? (iii) Three weeks? (iv) One month? (v) Two months?

(2) Hospitals:


(b) How many of these calls resulted in some form of contact with the notifier or the notifying institution other than a fax within: (i) One week? (ii) Two weeks? (iii) Three weeks? (iv) One month? (v) Two months?


(3) Teachers in public schools:


(b) How many of these calls resulted in some form of contact with the notifier or the notifying institution other than a fax within: (i) One week? (ii) Two weeks? (iii) Three weeks? (iv) One month? (v) Two months?


(4) Teachers in private schools:


(b) How many of these calls resulted in some form of contact with the notifier or the notifying institution other than a fax within: (i) One week? (ii) Two weeks?


(iii) Three weeks? (iv) One month? (v) Two months?


Answer—

(1) and (4) Questions 1 to 4 concern report calls to the Helpline by specified categories of reporter and whether or not DoCS contacted the reporter and interviewed the subject of the report within particular timeframes.

Helpline data is not collected in a form that corresponds to these precise questions. The resources necessary to obtain data in a form that corresponded to the questions raised cannot be justified in the circumstances.

Generally, all callers to the DoCS’ Helpline speak with a caseworker. At peak times, caseworkers may need to prioritise urgent matters. Where a non-urgent case is not dealt with at the time of taking the call, the caseworker agrees a suitable call-back time with the reporter. The caseworker then calls the reporter at the agreed time.

Where the report is made to the Helpline by fax, and not by phone, DoCS sends the reporter a letter acknowledging receipt of the report. A DoCS caseworker contacts fax notifiers direct if further information is required.

The timing of interviews with the subject of a report of risk of harm is determined as part of the Case Plan based on the initial assessment. Information regarding interviews with the child who was the subject of a report is not available for the requested period.

*1134 COMMUNITY SERVICES—INTER-COUNTRY ADOPTIONS—Ms Hale asked the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Youth—

(1) (a) How many existing clients on the inter-country waiting list did DoCS notify of the proposed increase in fees for inter-country adoptions?

(b) If none, why not?

(2) (a) Has DoCS assessed how many applicants will not be able to proceed with an application for a first child or second child due to the increased fees?


(3) How much revenue will DoCS raise in total from the fee increase?

(4) What percentage of the DoCS budget is allocated to the inter-country adoption branch?

(5) Why is DoCS proposing to only raise the fees for inter-country adoption applicants and not domestic adoption applicants?

(6) (a) What figures has DoCS used to justify a discrepancy of 300% between domestic and inter-country adoption fees?

(b) Is the increase in inter-country adoption fees based on cost recovery?


(c) (i) How many other DoCS services follow the model of full cost recovery?

(ii) Please provide the name of these services?

(7) Since December 2002 the Government has announced an increase in DoCS funding of $1.2 billion, to be rolled out up to 2008. Since this announcement DoCS has received $169.3million with a further $135.5million due on 1 July 2004.

(a) How much of this funding has been allocated to the inter-country Adoption Section within DOCS?

(b) What is the total section’s budget?

(c) What share of the $1.2 billion has gone to inter-country Adoptions?

(d) How much has their budget increased in the budgets for: (i) 2002-03? (ii) 2003-04? (iii) 2004-05?

(8) What is the cost to DoCS of processing each inter-country adoption application from expression to interest to final court order?

(9) What is the cost to DoCS of processing each domestic adoption application from expression of interest to final court order, including: services provided to birth mothers, the provision of pre placement care for the children, mediation services for both adoptive families and birth families in relation to post placement

contact, family information services, funding the post adoption resource centre to assist adoptees and birth families wishing to search for

families?

(10) Given that the Office for the Children’s Guardian has claimed it will take at least 6 months to draft the documentation to accredit inter-country adoption agencies, why is DoCS linking the fee increase to accreditation of agencies when provisions have yet to be drafted?

(11) The Hague convention on inter-country adoptions came into force in May 1993. Australia ratified the convention in November 1998. Why is it that in 2004, 11 years after the convention came into force, DoCS is yet to provide a mechanism to accredit agencies?

(12) The DoCS Blueprint for Change, dated July 2003, says “DoCS is working with non-government organisations to implement the recently proclaimed Adoption Act 2000 as well as to finalise the preferred accreditation model for agencies wishing to provide inter-country adoption services.” What has DoCS done since July 2003 to facilitate and finalise accreditation for non-government agencies?

(13) Given that DoCS subsidises domestic adoption services provided by Anglicare, Centercare, Barnados and fully funds the post adoption resource centre (primarily dealing with local adoptions), what subsidies will be available to agencies seeking accreditation as inter-country adoption service providers?

(14) What functions will accredited bodies be able to perform?

(15) What countries will accredited bodies be allowed to work with?

(16) Will DOCS relinquish existing programs, such as those with Korea and China to newly accredited bodies, or will DOCS continue to operate programs parallel with those run by newly accredited agencies ?

Answer—

(1) In April, the Department of Community Services (DoCS) distributed the paper: Intercountry Adoptions: A Reform Proposal for New South Wales to key stakeholders for comment, including local adoption service


providers, the Post Adoption Resource Centre, the Association of Childrens Welfare Agencies and intercountry adoption support organisations. The paper was also made available from the department’s website. An information evening was held on Monday 17 May and attended by current and past applicants for intercountry adoption. It should be noted that individuals who made a formal application for intercountry adoption before July 1 2004 will not have to pay the increased fees.

(2) DoCS has developed a hardship policy that will offer fee relief to applicants with household incomes comparable to the lower half of all Australian households.

(3) I am advised that the revenue estimate from the reform of inter-country adoption arrangements was in the order of $1 million. The exact revenue total will depend on the take-up of the new hardship policy.

It is noted that several other States and Territories took action a number of years ago to recover more of the costs of intercountry adoptions, however, in New South Wales intercountry adoption fees have not reflected the true cost of providing the service for some time.

The new fees are an integral part of a reform package that includes an accreditation scheme to allow new non-profit and charitable organisations to provide intercountry adoption services in New South Wales. It will not be possible to attract these organisations if the department continues to provide the services at a fraction of the true cost.

The revised pricing structure will enable the Department of Community Services to streamline and improve the efficiency of its intercountry adoption processes. This will reduce the waiting times for people seeking intercountry adoptions.

(4) Adoption and Permanent Care Services was allocated 0.34% of DoCS budget in 2003-04.

(5) Adopting a child from overseas requires significant resources. Fees charged by DoCS represent only part of the cost of an intercountry adoption. These fees have not increased since 1995 despite increasing costs, and are substantially below that charged in some other Australian jurisdictions. The Government considers that it is not inappropriate to request a greater contribution to its costs from those who seek to adopt a child from overseas.

(6) (a) DoCS engaged independent consultants to review the fee structure for intercountry adoption services to assess the costs of providing this service and to present funding options. These consultants determined the unit price of an intercountry adoption on the basis of the existing costs and processes of Adoption and Permanent Care Services.

(b) Yes, however, applicants who satisfy the criteria for the new hardship policy will pay substantially less than the full fee.

(c) DoCS’ core work is to protect children and young people from harm and to provide care for those who are not able to live with their families. The department also provides a range of community support functions, including grants for supported accommodation, assistance in children’s services, domestic violence services and financial and practical support in the event of natural disasters. DoCS does not charge fees for these services.

(7) (a) Adoption and Permanent Care Services was allocated $1.703 million in 2002-03 from the additional funding and $528,000 recurrently.

(b) Adoption and Permanent Care Services was allocated $2.743 million in 2003-04.

(c) See 7(a) above.

(d) (i) The total allocation for Adoption and Permanent Care Services was $3.010 million in 2002-03, which included additional temporary resources to assist with the proclamation of the Adoption Act 2000

(ii) The total allocation for Adoption and Permanent Care Services was $2.743 million in 2003-04.


(iii) The allocation for 2004-05 is being determined.

(8) Consultants found the total cost of the intercountry adoption process to be $10,673, which is higher than the current fee.

(9) Providing these individual costs would require an unjustifiable diversion of resources and involves costs that are not controlled by the department.

(10) These measures are part of integrated reform package. Changes to the pricing structure for intercountry adoptions were proposed for a number of reasons. Although the costs of managing each adoption have been increasing (including increased fees of private social workers and increasing training costs) fees have remained fixed for over a decade. Fees currently charged in New South Wales are also substantially below those charged in a number of other Australian jurisdictions.

(11) Historically, the NSW Government has delivered intercountry adoption services. Opening up the process to non-government organisations represents a substantial shift in the way that intercountry adoption services are delivered in New South Wales. As such it is crucial that the establishment of the accreditation system is carefully planned and considered for both children who enter Australia and for their prospective parents. Since the Commonwealth Government’s ratification of the Hague Convention in 1998, there has been an ongoing process of legislative and administrative review in this area, culminating in the proclamation of the Adoption Act 2000 in 2003.

(12) The paper Intercountry Adoptions: A Reform Proposal for NSW was released in April 2004. It outlined the proposed accreditation process, including the accrediting authority and who can be accredited. Discussions are taking place between DoCS and the Office of the Children’s Guardian regarding the design of the accreditation system, including the development of standards and conditions to be met by accredited agencies.

(13) Non-government organisations interested in providing intercountry adoption services will be expected to apply for accreditation on the basis that no government subsidy will be available.

(14) to (15) DoCS is currently working with the Office of the Children’s Guardian on the design of the accreditation system for adoption service providers.

(16) There are no plans to relinquish these programs in their present form.

*1135 EDUCATION AND TRAINING—3G MOBILE PHONE TOWERS—Ms Hale asked the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Youth representing the Minister for Education and Training and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs—

(1) How many schools are located within 300 metres of any one of the 3G phone towers installed across Sydney?

(2) Under the heading “Mobile telephone towers and installations”, the Department of Education and Training (DET) website says “Low impact facilities, i.e. less than 5 metres in height, military facilities and sites of national significance are exempt from State planning laws.” Does this mean low impact 3G facilities are exempt from DETs policy of prudent avoidance?

(3) How is the policy of prudent avoidance implemented in relation to ‘low impact’ 3G mobile phone towers?

(4) Martin Bowles, Deputy Director General (Corporate Services) has said Department of Education and Training (DET) has commissioned studies of the electromagnetic radiation (EMR) emanating from 3G towers, and claimed that in each case the EMR was well below the acceptable Australian Standard.

(a) How can the department provide this information if they do not know where the mobile phone towers are?


(b) Can you please supply copies of the studies undertaken so far by the DET into specific towers near

schools? Answer—

The department negotiates with telecommunication providers’ representatives to minimise the impact of any proposed telecommunications facility on school communities.

The Department of Education and Training does not hold records on the location of 3G phone towers. The Australian Communications Authority, the responsible agency, publishes the location of approved telecommunications facilities on its website.

Electromagnetic radiation (EMR) studies have been commissioned by the department, or by telecommunications providers on behalf of the department, where concerns were raised about proposed developments given their proposed size and proximity to schools. These studies have indicated in each case that the EMR was many times below the Australian Standard.

*1136 LANDS—3G MOBILE PHONE TOWERS—Ms Hale asked the Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Lands)—

(1) What is the name of the interagency group which has been set up the New South Wales Government and referred to in your answer to Question number 1061?

(2) What agencies are involved?

(3) What are the names of the individual members from each agency?

(4) How often is this interagency group holding regular meetings?

(5) What is the process and timetable for stakeholder input?

(6) Have key groups such as the NSW Teachers Federation and the Local Government and Shires Association been contacted?

Answer—

(1) Mobile Telecommunication Infrastructure Senior Officers’ Working Group.

(2) Premier’s Department; The Cabinet Office; Treasury; Department of Commerce; Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR); Department of State and Regional Development; Department of Lands.

(3) The Working Group is chaired by Mr Peter Loxton, Assistant Director-General, Strategic Projects, Premier’s Department. The membership comprises senior officers from the agencies listed.

(4) It meets only as required, for a minimum period of six months.

(5) The primary task of the Working Group is to guide and oversee specific programs of work led and undertaken by the Departments of Commerce and Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources.

(6) It is expected that the Department of Commerce and the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources will undertake consultation with appropriate stakeholders as required.


3 JUNE 2004

(Paper No. 59)

*1137 TRANSPORT—NEWCASTLE LINE SERVICES—Ms Rhiannon asked the Minister for Transport Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Forests)—

(1) In ‘Option 1 – Continue operation of the Newcastle Line’, part of the State Rail/Rail Infrastructure Corporation (RIC) submission included as Appendix 2 in the Lower Hunter Transport Working Group 2nd Report, what is the extent of double counting that has occurred by including CityRail track access charges as a cost of the Newcastle Line, but failing to show that access charge as a credit to offset the capital and ongoing operational cost of track and other infrastructure provision and maintenance which is also included at full cost, but for which the access charge is incurred?

(2) What is the annual track access charge that is incurred by CityRail for the operation of:

(a) Diesel train services on the Newcastle Line?

(b) Electric train services on the Newcastle Line?

(3) By how much is the $180.87 million Newcastle Line 20-year discounted cost analysis given in Table 9.2, Appendix 2 of the Lower Hunter Transport Working Group 2nd Report reduced, when those access charges are applied correctly and credited as a payments that offset the capital and operational cost for the provision and maintenance of rail infrastructure on the Newcastle Line?

(4) Please explain why in the State Rail/RIC submission included in the Lower Hunter Transport Working Group 2nd Report, the full $391,087 Woodville signal box annual operating costs, as well as the associated but non-itemised future Woodville signalling upgrade capital costs, are included as costs of the Newcastle Line, when in the same submission, under the subsequently recommended Broadmeadow Option 4A, the Woodville signal box remains at full operating costs with non-itemised future signalling upgrade capital costs, even after the Newcastle Line is closed?

(5) (a) What are the total number of track turnouts controlled by the Woodville signal box?

(b) How many of those turnouts are for passenger train access to the Newcastle Line only, as opposed to controlling through traffic on the Main Northern Line, the Up and Down relief lines or other operational rail functions?

Answer—

The Lower Hunter Transport Working Group was an advisory group established to report on transport services in the Hunter region.

The Working Group’s final report was released and submitted to the Government in December 2003.

As previously advised a Government response to the Working Group’s findings is being developed and will be publicly released later this year.

*1138 EDUCATION AND TRAINING—INTEREST RATE SUBSIDY SCHEME—Revd Mr Nile asked the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Youth representing the Minister for Education and Training and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs—

(1) Was it stated in a press release issued by yourself on Tuesday 6 April 2004, that the ‘Interest Rate Subsidy Scheme’ is to be amended?

(2) Did the Minister state that “wealthy private schools” will be “excluded from accessing the scheme”?

(3) Please clarify by what standards a non-Government school would be deemed a ‘wealthy school’?


(4) Please clarify what impact these amendments will have on those non-Government Schools which aren’t

deemed to be ‘wealthy’?

Answer—

(1) Yes.

(2) Yes.

(3) Registered non-government schools attract State Government funding based on the Commonwealth Government’s Education Resource Index (ERI) which placed schools in 12 categories based on assessed need. Within this framework, schools in categories 1, 2 and 3 are deemed to be the schools of least need.

(4) Those schools in ERI categories 4 to 12, that is, those schools most in need of the subsidy to fund their building projects, will continue to be eligible for assistance under the Scheme. All applications received by the Department of Education and Training on or after 6 April 2004 will be assessed in terms of a new maximum interest rate of 7.5 per cent. This revised rate is more in line with market interest rates.

*1139 TRANSPORT—MILLENNIUM TRAINS—Revd Mr Nile asked the Minister for Transport Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Forests)—

(1) Has any further purchases of the Millennium trains been deferred indefinitely, thus bringing the project to an end?

(2) Has there been considerable errors made in the planning and tendering process that led to the Millennium train debacle?

(3) Will rail infrastructure require a considerable investment of capital over the next several years in order to keep it a safe and effective system?

(4) What steps has the Minister taken to ensure that senior decision makers/RailCorp do not make similar errors in managing the New South Wales rail system?

Answer—

The $2.5 billion commitment to fund the $1 billion Rail Clearways plan and $1.5 billion to fast track the replacement of 498 non air-conditioned rail carriages is the biggest single investment in metropolitan passenger rail services in Australia’s history.

Following the Mini-budget announcement in April 2004, I wrote to the RailCorp Board to seek assurances that in procuring new rolling stock RailCorp meet the recommendations made by independent Victorian engineer Chris McKeown, in his report into the then StateRail’s management of the Millennium Train project, publicly released in 2003.

RailCorp’s new Steady Fleet Purchasing plan will mean regular procurement of one or two standard train types as part of a Public Private Partnership (PPP), tried and tested basic designs which can be updated and adapted to meet the network’s requirements and iron out the traditionally lumpy procurement process.

The deferral of the option to purchase 60 Millennium train carriages by the RailCorp Board has allowed RailCorp to review its operational needs and assess whether or not the 60 carriages should be added to the $1.5 billion PPP to provide 498 new air conditioned carriages by 2010, or to an extension of the current contract to provide 41 Outer Suburban Carriages.


*1140 HEALTH—ALTERNATIVE MEDICINES—Revd Mr Nile asked the Special Minister of State, Minister for

Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Assistant Treasurer, and Minister for the Central Coast representing the Minister for Health—

(1) Last month, cancer surgeon Dr Paul Crea made public comments to the effect that alternative medical therapy was costing lives. Is this statement correct?

(2) (a) Are New South Wales citizens suffering life-threatening diseases emotionally and psychologically vulnerable?

(b) If so, what steps are being taking to ensure that such persons are afforded a degree of protection and the best possible medical counsel in their time of vulnerability?

(3) Will the Minister introduce legislation to implement a registration/licensing system, with applicable professional standards, protocol and ethics for organisations engaged in alternative medicine?

Answer—


(1) to (3) Counselling is available within the New South Wales public health system for all patients diagnosed with life threatening diseases.

The issue of regulation for complementary health practitioners, particularly traditional Chinese medicine practitioners, has been debated for some time.

In September 2003, the Australian Government released a report that supports all States and Territories introducing legislation consistent with the Victorian Chinese Medicine Registration Act 2000.

NSW Department of Health is closely examining this issue following receipt of submissions to an initial departmental discussion paper released in October 2002. This paper facilitated widespread consultation with the complementary health industry and the public regarding the need for regulation of practitioners.

The department has also established a short-term advisory committee with membership expertise in research and teaching in relation to complementary health, as well as in regulatory and consumer issues.

The Committee is scheduled to report by the end of the year.

*1141 JUVENILE JUSTICE—ACMENA DETENTION CENTRES—Ms Cusack asked the Special Minister of State, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Assistant Treasurer, and Minister for the Central Coast representing the Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister for Western Sydney and Minister Assisting the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning (Planning Administration)—

In relation to the incident at Acmena Detention Centre on 28 December 2003:

(1) How many detainees were charged?

(2) What were the charges and how many detainees faced each charge?

(3) What was the outcome of those charges?

(4) (a) How many detainees who were charged are still in the detention centre system? (Please specify which detention centres they are residing in).

(b) What were the dates of discharge for those not still in the detention centre system?


Answer—

(1) 14 detainees were charged.

(2)

Charge No of Detainees Charged Armed with Intent to Commit a serious Indictable Offence 1 Armed with Intent to Commit an Indictable Offence 6 Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm 1 Assault Police In Execution of Duties 1 Behave in an Offensive Manner 5 Commit Section 114 Offence* 11 Enter Building Armed with Intent 1 Enter Building Without Lawful Excuse 3 Enter Building/Land with Intent to Commit Indictable Offence

3

Enter Enclosed Lands 6 Malicious Damage 10 Remain on Enclosed Lands 2 Riot – Threat Violence Cause Fear 14 Trespass 2

(3) All matters are still before the court.

(4) The Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) is only mandated to intervene and supervise young offenders at the direction of the courts and police. A number of the young people concerned are remain in detention or under the supervision of the department. Due to security and privacy reasons the department is unable to disclose the names of the centres where the young people are being detained.

*1142 WOMEN—MS ROBYN HENDERSON—Ms Cusack asked the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Youth representing the Minister for Tourism and Sport and Recreation and Minister for Women—

(1) What agency or agencies has Robyn Henderson been attached to since her removal as Director General of the Department for Women (please list appointments and dates; up to the time of the answer)?

(2) (a) Will Ms Henderson be entitled to redundancy payments when the Department for Women ceases to exist?

(b) If so, what are the calculations and details in dollar terms of her entitlements?

(c) If not, what are the calculations and details in dollar terms of her separation entitlements should she choose to leave the service of the Government?

Answer—

(1) Ms Henderson was separated from the Department for Women on Monday 12 January 2004. Ms Henderson has been providing assistance to the Government of the Solomon Islands under an AusAid contract organised by Premier’s Department. This assistance is part of the Australian aid program. All costs are being reimbursed by AusAid.

Ms Henderson will be removed as an unattached Chief Executive Service (CES) Officer on 30 June 2004.


(2) (a) As a departing CES officer Ms Henderson will be entitled to the payment of her unused leave

entitlements. Ms Henderson will also be entitled to approach the Statutory and Other Offices Remuneration Tribunal

(b) and (c) As at 25 June 2004, calculations and details in dollar terms of Ms Henderson’s entitlements are not available.

*1143 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS—EAST COAST BLUES FESTIVAL—Ms Cusack asked the Special Minister of State, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Assistant Treasurer, and Minister for the Central Coast—

(1) (a) Did Workcover receive notification of an accident involving a gatecrasher climbing temporary fencing at the East Coast Blues Festival at Red Devil Park, Byron Bay on or about 9 April 2004, causing it to collapse on top of a journalist with the Northern Star newspaper who was injured and required treatment at the St John’s Ambulance facility?

(b) If not, should such an incident have been reported to WorkCover by the organisers of the East Coast Blues Festival?

(2) In such circumstances, what actions would Workcover expect the organisers of such an event to take, in terms of assisting the accident victim and liaising with Workcover authorities?

(3) If a report was not made, will Workcover make inquiries why the incident was not reported, and advise what investigations can be made to ensure similar dangerous and potentially fatal incidents of this nature can be prevented in future?

(4) If this type of accident is not a matter Workcover is active in investigating or preventing, what authorities should have been involved and what action should be taken?

Answer—

(1) to (4) The incident was notified to the employer’s insurance company, as required by the new Incident Notification System. It was then notified to WorkCover.

The matter arises from an unlawful entry, which is an issue most appropriately dealt with by NSW Police and falls within the portfolio responsibilities of my colleague the Hon John Watkins MP, Minister for Police.

Organisers of public events should liaise with the appropriate local council and NSW Police on crowd control matters.

In relation to the workers compensation issues, the applicable insurer will liaise with the injured journalist through the usual claims procedures.

*1144 PREMIER—ABORTION LAWS—Revd Mr Nile asked the Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council representing the Premier, Minister for the Arts and Minister for Citizenship—

(1) Are there over 40,000 abortions carried out in New South Wales each year?

(2) When considering the reasons given for abortion, does the Premier acknowledge that very rarely does the onus probandi lie with serious health concerns, but rather life choices not covered under the state law?

(3) (a) Does the Premier acknowledge that his Government does little to police the State’s abortion laws?

(b) If so, why?


Answer—

The Premier has provided the following answer:

Detailed guidance on the many issues that face patients and medical practitioners in relation to termination of pregnancy is available from the NSW Health Department.

I am advised by the Attorney General that the law in this area indicates that a medical practitioner must possess an honest and reasonable belief that the steps taken are necessary to preserve the woman from serious danger, and that medical, economic and social factors may be taken into account in assessing serious danger.

*1145 PREMIER—INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION—Revd Mr Nile asked the Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council representing the Premier, Minister for the Arts and Minister for Citizenship—

(1) Has the Government agreed to hold a Judicial Review of the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) Act 1988 as part of a regular review after 16 years which was recommended by the Committee of the Independent Commission Against Corruption?

(2) Is the review mainly concerned with the adequacy of the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) Act 1988 in view of the developments in the Police Integrity Commission and the Office of the Ombudsman?

(3) Is the review a direct attack on the ICAC and its operations?

(4) When will a Judicial Officer be appointed?

Answer—

I have been advised of the following answer:

The Premier has recently written to the Chair of the Committee on the ICAC and has advised that he is minded to support a judicial review of the ICAC Act.

The Premier has also advised the Committee that a stand-alone corruption watchdog remains essential to ensure accountability in the public sector and any proposal to merge the ICAC with other watchdogs, such as the Police Integrity Commission or the Ombudsman, is not supported.

An announcement will be made shortly on the terms of the reference for the review and appointment of a judicial officer.

*1146 ENVIRONMENT—BOUNTY OIL AND GAS NL—Mr Cohen asked the Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship representing the Attorney General and Minister for the Environment—

(1) Will the Minister be assessing and making recommendations to the Commonwealth Government on the Environmental Plan for the Biggus-1 Exploration Well PEP-11 Permit Area, prepared by Bowman Bishaw Gorham for Bounty Oil and Gas NL?

(2) (a) Does the Environmental Plan provide enough detail of the marine environment in which the exploratory well?

(b) Does the Environmental Plan be established and adequately addresses the environmental impacts of this operation?

(3) (a) Will the Minister be requesting further baseline studies?



(4) (a) Will the Minister be requesting further information from the proponents that details the exact

quantities of known environmental contaminants (e.g. drilling fluid, hydrocarbon/metal/chemical pollution and atmospheric emissions) to be released into the area?


(5) (a) Will the Minister request independent monitoring of the operation if the exploratory well is approved, to allow the actual impacts of this operation on the environment to be accurately assessed?


Answer—

I am advised by the Department of Environment and Conservation that they have provided comments to the Department of Mineral Resources on the draft Environment Plan for the Biggus -1 Exploration Well PEP-11 Permit Area.

The proposed activity is located in Commonwealth waters and the designated consent authority is the New South Wales Minister for Mineral Resources.

22 JUNE 2004

(Paper No. 60)

*1147 JUVENILE JUSTICE—CORAKI—Ms Cusack asked the Special Minister of State, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Assistant Treasurer, and Minister for the Central Coast representing the Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister for Western Sydney and Minister Assisting the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning (Planning Administration)—

(1) Is there a community perception of a juvenile crime problem in Coraki?

(2) Are any programs in place or proposed to address this issue?

Answer—

(1) The perception of youth crime is similar to community perceptions of youth crime in towns with comparable levels of social and economic disadvantage.

(2) The critical needs for a range of early intervention programs has been identified by whole of government initiatives and are being progressed.

*1148 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS—EQUITY BETWEEN PUBLIC AND CATHOLIC SCHOOLS—Ms Cusack asked the Special Minister of State, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Assistant Treasurer, and Minister for the Central Coast—

(1) Is it the position of the Government that the work of executive staff, including Principals, is identical in public and catholic schools?

(2) If it is not identical, how is it different?

Answer—

(1) to (2) This matter falls within the responsibility of the Minister for Education and Training and should be directed to my colleague, the Hon A J Refshauge MP in the other place.


*1149 EDUCATION AND TRAINING—CORAKI PUBLIC SCHOOL—Ms Cusack asked the Minister for

Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Youth representing the Minister for Education and Training and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs—

In regards to Coraki Public School what is:

(1) The number of enrolments?

(2) The level of student attendance?

(3) (a) Is truancy an issue?

(b) If so, what special support is provided to the school to address this problem?

(4) (a) Does the student population have identified characteristics of need or disadvantage?

(b) If so, please describe: (i) These characteristics? (ii) The support given to address such needs?

Answer—

Coraki Public School has an enrolment in 2004 of 163 students. In Term 2, 2004 the attendance rate at the school was 92.47 per cent. Truancy is not an issue for Coraki Public School.

The school has implemented a range of programs to address student needs including:

the Priority Schools Funding program which provides funding and additional staffing to schools whose communities have been identified as being socially and economically disadvantaged. This program supports the implementation of projects to improve literacy and enhance student engagement in learning;

the In-Class Tuition program which provides funding to employ Aboriginal community members as tutors in class to work with teachers and students to improve outcomes particularly in literacy and numeracy. Five Aboriginal tutors are currently employed at the school; and

the Coraki Transition to School program which has been operating since 1999. This program is funded by the Department of Community Services and managed by the Department of Education and Training with assistance and support from the Northern Rivers Area Health Service. This program has been extremely successful in providing support for families and students entering school.

*1150 TRANSPORT SERVICES—UNDERGROUND RAILWAY—Ms Rhiannon asked the Minister for Transport Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Forests)—

(1) Did the Christie Report (Long-term Strategic Plan for Rail – Greater Sydney metropolitan region) dated June 2001, state that an additional railway under the city would become necessary in the decade 2011-2020, possibly as early as 2011, due to growth in passengers on the existing lines?

(2) Did Mr Christie express the view that the planning and execution of projects of that scale invariably take many years?

(3) (a) Will passenger numbers grow in line with Mr Christie’s predictions?

(b) If so, what progress has been made on planning a new railway line under Sydney’s CBD?


Answer—

I am advised:

RailCorp monitors passenger growth trends. The Rail Clearways program will place RailCorp in a strong position to manage future passenger growth. The program includes 15 key projects totalling more than $1 billion to provide additional capacity and improve reliability on the CityRail network.

A whole of government approach to discuss the future requirements of the rail system through Sydney’s CBD is being developed.

*1151 EDUCATION AND TRAINING—TAFE ENROLMENTS—Ms Rhiannon asked the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Youth representing the Minister for Education and Training and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs—

(1) How many students enrolled in TAFE in New South Wales in semester one of 2004?

(2) How many full-time equivalent students enrolled in TAFE in New South Wales in semester one of 2004?

Answer—

(1) to (2) Official enrolment data for TAFE NSW for 2004 will not be available until the first quarter of 2005.

*1152 INFRASTRUCTURE AND PLANNING—LAKE COWAL GOLD PROJECT—Ms Rhiannon asked the Minister for Transport Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Forests) representing the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning and Minister for Natural Resources—

(1) After the original development consent for the Lake Cowal Gold Project was signed by the former Minister for Planning and Urban Development, the Hon. Craig Knowles, on 26 February 1999, why did it take until 25 March 1999 for the consent letter for the Lake Cowal Gold Project to be dated and sent to the former proponents North Gold (WA)?

(2) What process does the Minister for Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources, Mr Knowles, have to follow when reviewing an application for an extension of development consent under s95B of the Environment and Planning Assessment Act?

(3) What documents did the Minister take into consideration when reaching the decision to grant an extension of the development consent for the Lake Cowal Gold Project to Barrick Australia?

(4) (a) Was the Minister for Mineral Resources aware on 2 April 2004 that Barrick had applied for an extension of the development consent for the Lake Cowal Gold Project?


(5) When did the Minister for Mineral Resources become aware that Barrick had applied for an extension to the development consent for the Lake Cowal Gold Project?

(6) Is the Minister for Mineral Resources now aware that Barrick had applied for an extension to the development consent on 24 March 2004?

(7) (a) What was the date that construction is alleged to have begun on the Lake Cowal Gold Project?

(b) How does this compare with advice given to Mr Williams’ legal representative on 16 April 2004 from Barrick’s lawyers, Blake Dawson Waldron, that construction at the Cowal Gold Project had begun prior to 25 March 2004?


(8) If construction on the Lake Cowal Gold Project had already begun, as indicated by Barrick Australia’s

lawyers, why was an extension of the development consent necessary?

Answer—

(1) I am advised that there were delays administratively.

(2) The Minister must consider the application for an extension of development consent against the criteria in Section 95B(4) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979; determine it; and notify the Applicant of the determination.

(3) An assessment of the application from Barrick Australia Limited in accordance with legislative requirements.

(4) (a) This question should be forwarded to the Minister for Mineral Resources.

(b) Not applicable.

(5) This question should be forwarded to the Minister for Mineral Resources.

(6) This question should be forwarded to the Minister for Mineral Resources.

(7) (a) The company advised DIPNR that physical commencement occurred the week commencing 12 January 2004.

(b) This is consistent.

(8) Because the validity of the Section 90 Consent 1680, issued under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, for the Cowal Gold Project was the subject of an appeal in the Land and Environment Court at the time. If this appeal was successful it could have had the effect that any construction work done at the Cowal Gold Project before 25 March 2004 could not be taken into account when assessing whether there had been physical commencement of the development consent. Consequently, it was reasonable for the Minister to determine that the development consent may lapse.

*1153 MINERAL RESOURCES—COWAL GOLD PROJECT—Ms Rhiannon asked the Minister for Primary Industries representing the Minister for Mineral Resources—

(1) (a) Was the Minister aware on 2 April 2004 that Barrick had applied for an extension of the development consent for the Cowal Gold Project?


(2) When did the Minister become aware that Barrick had applied for an extension to the development consent for the Cowal Gold Project?

(3) (a) Did Barrick apply for an extension to the development consent on 24 March 2004?

(b) If so, why was Mr Neville Williams not advised of this fact?

(4) (a) What was the date that construction is alleged to have begun on the Cowal Gold Project?

(b) How does this compare with advice given to Mr Williams’ legal representative on 16 April 2004 from Barrick’s lawyers, Blake Dawson Waldron, that construction at the Cowal Gold Project had begun prior to 25 March 2004?

(5) If construction on the Cowal Gold Project had already begun, as indicated by Barrick Australia’s lawyers, why was an extension of the development consent necessary?


Answer—

(1) This matter falls within the portfolio responsibilities of the Minister for Infrastructure Planning and Natural Resources.



(4) (a) Barrick Gold Corporation issued a press release in Sydney on 24 February 2004, announcing that construction had commenced on the Lake Cowal Mining Project.

(b) It would concur.


*1154 TRANSPORT SERVICES—TARANA-OBERON BRANCH LINE—Ms Rhiannon asked the Minister for Transport Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Forests)—

(1) (a) Has the Government received a submission from Greater Oberon Council advocating the formal closure of the Tarana-Oberon Branch line, and its replacement with a walking/cycling trail?

(b) If so, what would be the Government’s response to this submission?

(2) (a) Has Oberon Council done up to $1 million worth of damage to this line by removing sleepers and other materials from parts of the line?

(b) If so, why has no prosecution been initiated against the council?

(3) Has any party been prosecuted at any stage for damaging this line, or removing material from it?

(4) (a) Has the Government commissioned any studies examining: (i) The value of road freight to and from the Oberon area? (ii) The possibility of carrying this freight by rail? (iii) The potential for expanded freight services in the area in light of plans to set up new plant

and factories there? (iv) The cost of restoring the rail line, including cost savings from reduced truck-caused damage

to the Great Western Highway?

(b) If not, will the Government carry out such a study before making any decision about the future of this rail line?

Answer—

I am advised:

The Tarana/Oberon line has been classified as non-operational since September 1979.

Oberon Council initiated a Tarana/Oberon Cycleway project along the disused rail corridor in late 1999. Council’s proposal called for the construction of a shared walking/cycling pathway on top of the track. It did not call for the formal closure of the line.

In early 2002 council discontinued negotiations and the proposal lapsed.


Regular maintenance inspections of the line are conducted. During the latest maintenance inspection of the track in March 2004, it was found that some sections of the rail infrastructure had been removed and some covered over. It is not know who is responsible for this and consequently no party has been prosecuted to date.

Over the period 1992 to 1996 the Government worked with the developers of a local mill and a rail operator to identify possible rail freight options for the line. The volume of freight which could be committed to the line was insufficient to make rail transport economically viable.

The Rail Infrastructure Corporation has not received any submissions from parties interested in using the line on a commercial basis since this time.

*1155 TRANSPORT SERVICES—LITHGOW RAIL SERVICE—Ms Rhiannon asked the Minister for Transport Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Forests)—

(1) Is the Government currently considering any plan to terminate CityRail services at Mt Victoria instead of Lithgow?

(2) If so:

(a) Would all CityRail services be affected?

(b) What arrangements would be put in place for travel between Lithgow and Mt Victoria?

(c) What is the rationale for such a plan?

Answer—

RailCorp advises there are no such plans.

*1156 EDUCATION AND TRAINING—OPEN HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAM—Ms Rhiannon asked the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Youth representing the Minister for Education and Training and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs—

(1) What is the comparative annual cost of educating a student at a public secondary school in Armidale versus enrolling that student in distance education under the Open High School program?

(2) What are the eligibility requirements for participation in the Open High School program?

(3) (a) Is it possible for the department to exercise discretion or flexibility within these eligibility requirements, when students who are not technically eligible have unusual or particular circumstances?

(b) If not, are those students then forced to undertake HSC study at TAFE, potentially attracting fees of either $550 (course 4147) or $585 (TAFE NSW-OTEN)?

(c) If so, does this violate the principle that no secondary school student in New South Wales should be forced to pay fees for the privilege of a public education?

Answer—

The NSW Government provides the opportunity for all students in the State to attend their local government high school free of charge. The Government also provides a transport scheme to allow students to attend their local government school. Distance education is available to students who meet the eligibility criteria, should they be unable to attend their local government school due to isolation or whose special circumstances prevent them from attending school on a regular basis.


*1157 ROADS—DRIVING LICENCES—Ms Cusack asked the Minister for Transport Services, Minister for the

Hunter, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Forests) representing the Minister for Roads and Minister for Housing—

(1) How many residents of New South Wales who do not hold a driver’s licence are registered as being ineligible to apply for a driver’s licence as a result of

(a) Conviction for driving offences?

(b) Fine default?

(2) How many residents in New South Wales who do hold a driving licence have had their licence suspended due to:

(a) Conviction of driving offences?

(b) Fine default?

(3) (a) What is the total number of licensed drivers in New South Wales?

(b) What is the total number of licensed learner drivers in New South Wales?

(c) What is the total number of licensed provisional (1) drivers in New South Wales?

(d) What is the total number of licensed provisional (2) drivers in New South Wales?

(e) What is the total number of licensed silver drivers in New South Wales?

(f) What is the total number of licensed gold drivers in New South Wales

(g) What is the total number of licensed drivers in other categories New South Wales, please specify?

(4) (a) What measures are being taken by the Government to manage information about the status of driver’s licences?

(b) What plans are in place to enhance these systems in the future?

Answer—

As at the end of May 2004, there are 4,341,889 licensed drivers in New South Wales including 187,625 licensed learner drivers, 124,201 licensed Provisional (1) drivers and 148,522 licensed Provisional (2) drivers. Provision of the other information requested would require an unreasonable use of the resources of the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA).

Driver’s licence holders in New South Wales can find out the status of their driver’s licence in person at a motor registry, by ringing the RTA Call Centre on 13 22 13 or via the RTA website at www.rta.nsw.gov.au/myrta/myrecord. Licence holders can also order and pay for a copy of their driving record which will be mailed to the address listed on the RTA records.

*1158 INFRASTRUCTURE AND PLANNING, NATURAL RESOURCES—BORE LICENCES—Mr Colless asked the Minister for Transport Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Forests) representing the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning and Minister for Natural Resources—

(1) What is the status of the application for a bore licence submitted by Mr Peter Downie of “Tarcoola” Forbes NSW 2871 on 24 December 2002?

(2) How many applications are ahead of Mr Downie?


(3) How many applications have been processed since 1 July 2003, split into monthly totals?

(4) When will Mr Downie’s be processed?

Answer—

(1) Mr Downie’s application was registered by the department on 13 January 2003. The application was for an irrigation bore and had to undergo the statutory processes required by the Water Act 1912 and related legislation such as the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and the Native Title Act. At this stage Mr Downie’s application is still awaiting determination by the department.

(2) Many applications are at varying stages of the assessment process and, as such, the exact order in which they will ultimately be determined is unable to be predicted.

(3) Applications processed and licences issued in the Lachlan Valley since 1 July 2003 are as follows: July 2003 49 August 2003 53 September 2003 67 October 2003 69 November 2003 47 December 2003 91 January 2004 52 February 2004 89 March 2004 96 April 2004 84 May 2004 104 June 2004 Nil*

*Licence Administration System unavailable in June due to the changeover to the Water Management Act 2000.

(4) Mr Downie’s application is one of a number that have been lodged within Zone 5 of the Upper Lachlan Groundwater Management Area (GWMA). Departmental investigations have revealed some concerns over the sustainability of the resource in this GWMA. Mr Downie’s application will be determined as soon as possible.

*1159 MINERAL RESOURCES—PILLIGA EAST STATE FOREST—Ms Rhiannon asked the Minister for Primary Industries representing the Minister for Mineral Resources—

What State Forest compartments of the Pilliga East State Forest are currently affected by gas exploration test drilling?

Answer—

Eastern Star Gas Limited has recently announced the commencement of the 2004 coal seam gas appraisal and development drilling program in the Pilliga East State Forest compartments 532, 533, 713 and 715.

23 JUNE 2004

(Paper No. 61)

*1160 TRANSPORT SERVICES—RAILWAY BRIDGES—Mr Gallacher asked the Minister for Transport Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Forests)—

(1) (a) Has the Roads and Transport Authority raised with RailCorp or the Rail Infrastructure Corporation the need to upgrade or replace the Wentworth Avenue rail overbridge at Toongabbie?


(b) Does the RailCorp have any plans to conduct such works?

(c) If so:

(i) When are they scheduled to occur? (ii) What will be the cost of these works?

(2) (a) Does RailCorp or the Rail Infrastructure Corporation have a complete register of bridges and over passes involving the rail network?


Answer—

I am advised:

RailCorp maintains and, where needed, renews road overbridges, such as the overbridge at Wentworth Avenue, Toongabbie to their original design requirements, including load rating.

Any decision to upgrade road overbridges beyond the original requirements, due to increased traffic volumes or load limits, is the responsibility of the local road authority, as the body which approves the increased load limits.

The local road authority for the road overbridge at Wentworth Avenue, Toongabbie is Holroyd Council.

RailCorp advise the road overbridge is regularly inspected with the last inspection carried out in March 2004, and engineers confirm it safely meets original design requirements.

RailCorp has consulted with council regarding the bridge’s traffic capacity. As part of the discussion process, RailCorp commissioned independent consultant engineers to undertake a desktop review of the load rating of the overbridge in December 2003. The review indicated there is no requirement to alter the current authorised loading on the overbridge and that it is safe for existing authorised vehicular traffic.

RailCorp has agreed to commission an independent on site load test at council’s request, which is planned for August 2004.

RailCorp will continue to monitor the bridge to ensure its suitability for the traffic loading that Holroyd Council authorises it to carry.

RailCorp undertake detailed safety inspections of rail over bridges, and also conduct periodical inspections as required. In August 2003, the Ministry of Transport undertook a review of bridges. The report, NSW Rail Underbridges Structural Safety Review Interim Overview Report, is publicly available on the RailCorp website at www.railcorp.info.

*1161 LANDS—MOONEE BEACH RESERVE TRUST AND URUNGA MORGO STREET RESERVE TRUST—Mr Cohen asked the Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister for Lands—

(1) The Moonee Beach Trust and the Urunga Morgo Street Reserve Trusts have not been reappointed?

(a) Are there any plans for the sale of these caravan park lands?

(b) (i) Has the Valuer-General conducted a valuation of either or both of these sites? (ii) If so, what was the valuation of each?

(2) Have any donors to the Australian Labor Party expressed interest in purchasing or developing these sites?

Answer—

(1) (a) No.


(b) Not at the instruction of the Crown Lands Division of the Department of Lands.

*1162 PRIMARY INDUSTRIES—SPEAR FISHING COMPETITION—Mr Cohen asked the Minister for Primary Industries—

In relation to the Spear Fishing Competition held at Narooma on the Anzac long weekend this year:

(1) (a) Was a licence granted to auction to the public, with proceeds going to charity, the fish caught?

(b) If so:

(i) What safe food accreditation covered the grant of the temporary licence to sell to the public?

(ii) Did only 20% of the auction money go to the nominated charity?

Answer—

(1) (a) My department issues charity fish auction permits from time to time to recognised charities and non-profit organisations. I am advised that a permit under the Fisheries Management Act was issued to a member of the Narooma Volunteer Rescue Association to conduct an auction of fish taken during a fishing competition on 24 and 25 April 2004. Proceeds of the auction were to be used for purchasing rescue equipment

(b) A condition of the permit was that fish taken for auction must be kept on ice or ice slurry as soon as possible after capture so that any fish auctioned were fit for human consumption. Despite several requests the association has not provided the Department of Primary Industries with details of the quantities or value of fish auctioned as required by the permit conditions. This is grounds for refusal of any subsequent permit.

24 JUNE 2004

(Paper No. 62)

*1163 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS—INTERGOVERNMENTAL WORKING PARTY ON PUBLIC SAFETY—Ms Cusack asked the Special Minister of State, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Assistant Treasurer, and Minister for the Central Coast—

(1) What progress has been made by the Intergovernmental Working Party on Public Safety established in early 1993 to clarify the role of Workcover in investigating deaths of members of the public in a workplace?

(2) What is the Minister’s expectation of this Committee?

(3) What value does the Minister place on its work?

(4) How urgent does the Minister believe the issues are that are under consideration?

Answer—

I am advised that the Office of Protocol and Special Events in the NSW Premiers Department is coordinating the Interagency Working Party (which includes WorkCover) that is responding to the November 2002 findings of the Senior Deputy State Coroner regarding the death of Jessica Micahlik at the Big Day Out in January 2001.

The focus of the Interagency Working Party is on special events. Consultations have been held with venues, event promoters, event site managers, the security industry and NSW Police.


The Interagency Working Party will meet on 20 August 2004 where it will consider the results of the consultations and a draft working paper. The Office of Protocol and Special Events will formally respond to the coroner during 2004.

*1164 TREASURER—PERFORMANCE INDICATORS—Ms Cusack asked the Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council—

(1) What progress is the Treasurer making, in getting your Ministerial colleagues to understand the difference between an output and an outcome?

(2) Are you committed to linking budget reporting to performance indicators that not only show what is being done, but demonstrate in a meaningful way what is being achieved?

Answer—

(1) The difference between outputs and outcomes is well understood. My answer to your cheeky question on notice is an output. Wasting five minutes of my time to answer this question is an outcome.

(2) Yes.

*1165 TRANSPORT SERVICES—AUSTRALIAN RAIL TRACK CORPORATION—Ms Cusack asked the Minister for Transport Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Forests)—

(1) Given that Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) has taken responsibility for funding maintenance on main rail lines, and the budget papers show a saving of at least $180 million per annum and ARTC says you will save $200 million per annum will these savings to your budget of up to $2 billion over 10 years be spent on upgrading the metropolitan track, or is it to be returned to Treasury as dividends?

(2) Given this $2 billion funding is being cut from Country NSW will the Government return any of it to Country Rail Services?

(3) What action will be taken in regards to the motions passed by the Country Labor Conference in Bathurst calling the Government to cease and reverse cuts to Country Rail Services?

Answer—

I am advised:

The Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) is scheduled to take up the lease of the New South Wales interstate track and Hunter Valley rail freight corridors from 4 September 2004.

The benefit to the NSW Government from the Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) arrangements to lease the interstate lines and the Hunter Valley network will be over the life of the 60-year term of the lease.

The initial costs for the NSW Government to give effect to the ARTC proposal are substantial, and include a direct funding contribution from New South Wales to ARTC of almost $92 million for investment in rail infrastructure across New South Wales.

Any financial gains from the arrangement for New South Wales will only be achieved in the medium to long-term.

As outlined in the final report of the Ministerial Inquiry into Sustainable Transport in NSW by Professor Tom Parry, the increasing demands for funding of the country and metropolitan rail networks are considerable.


In response to the final Parry report, the Government announced CountryLink would address its cost structures through reforms including:

Restructuring country station and travel centres; Relocating restructured CountryLink staff positions to country/regional centres; Ensuring CountryLink tickets can be sold on the Internet; Reviewing discount rules, concessions and fares applying to CountryLink; and Reviewing CountryLink timetables

The review is expected to be completed this year and will be announced as soon as it is finalised.

It is anticipated that funds saved from the ARTC agreement would go towards providing support for the increased costs in subsidies required for both country and metropolitan operations.

*1166 HEALTH—MACQUARIE AREA HEALTH SERVICE—Mr Gay asked the Special Minister of State, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Assistant Treasurer, and Minister for the Central Coast representing the Minister for Health—

(1) Why has the Macquarie Area Health Service terminated the services of visiting ear, nose and throat specialist, Dr Geoffrey Hannell to the Dubbo community three months before the employment of a resident specialist in September and at a time when country New South Wales is experiencing a shortage in specialists?

(2) (a) Will the Minister provide a copy of the letter sent by the Macquarie Area Health Service to Dr Hannell terminating his employment?


(3) What action will the Minister take to investigate Dr Hannell’s dismissal by the Macquarie Area Health Service?

Answer—


I am advised that Dr Hannell, a Sydney based ear, nose and throat (ENT) surgeon, performed periodic visits on temporary contracts at Dubbo Base Hospital.

In order to ensure ongoing ENT services were maintained, the Macquarie Area Health Service recruited a permanent resident ENT surgeon to occupy the role commencing September 2004.

Inadvertently, correspondence from Dubbo Base Hospital, informing Dr Hannell of the recruitment of a resident ENT surgeon did not make clear that his services would still be required up to September 2004. As a result of this misunderstanding Dr Hannell ceased services in May of this year rather than the identified completion date of September.

In the interim, Dubbo Base Hospital has in place measures to ensure the ENT needs of its community are met.

*1167 TRANSPORT SERVICE—COUNTRYLINK XPT FLEET—Mrs Pavey asked the Minister for Transport Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Forests)—

(1) As detailed in the Parry Report Countrylink XPT rail stock is quickly nearing the end of its useful life?

(2) What arrangements does the Rail Infrastructure Corporation have to reinvest in new rail stock to replace the ageing Countrylink XPT fleet from 2010?


Answer—

I am advised:

RailCorp is currently reviewing the longer term needs of CountryLink rolling stock.

The Rail Infrastructure Corporation (RIC) is the owner and maintainer of rail track infrastructure across the non-metropolitan network, not rolling stock. When the Australian Rail Track Corporation lease comes into effect later this year, RIC will be responsible for rail track infrastructure in the country regional network (the non-interstate, non-Hunter Valley lines).

*1168 ENVIRONMENT—SANDON POINT—Ms Hale asked the Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship representing the Attorney General and Minister for the Environment—

In relation to Sandon Point:

(1) Is the Minister aware of the significance of Aboriginal cultural heritage at Sandon Point?

(2) Why was no Aboriginal Heritage Impact Study undertaken, after the discovery of an ancient burial on public land, prior to sale to Stocklands in 1999, or following a declaration of State significance by ILALC in February 2001?

(3) (a) Did the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) misrepresent Aboriginal “consultation” to complete Sandon Point Aboriginal Place Report 2001?

(b) Were oral and written stories of place given by Aboriginal knowledge-holders, in public hearings and on-site walks, at the Sandon Point Commission of Inquiry to which National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) – Department of Environment and Conservation was a party?

(4) Why has NPWS-DEC failed to complete the Sandon Point Aboriginal Place Declaration report, after stories of place were given to the Commission of Inquiry to which NPWS-DEC was a party?

(5) (a) Who informed the Minister that all Aboriginal heritage sites were on land zoned 6a public space, and therefore protected, at Sandon Point?

(b) (i) Has an Aboriginal heritage study has ever been undertaken on Sandon Point land zoned 2a and 2b, including approved stages?

(ii) If not, why not?

(c) Has the report by the Professor Peter Hiscock on its importance (2002), been ignored by DEC?

(d) Why is the land zoned 6a public space, despite the discovery by Aboriginal site officers during excavation, of a huge toolmaking site containing many artefacts – on land zoned 2a and 2b for which the Land and Environment Court ruled all of Part 6 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 must apply?

(6) Why does DEC continue to approve S90 Consents to destroy on land known to contain Aboriginal artefacts, which has never been subject to adequate archaeological or anthropological investigation?

(7) Can multiple S90 consents be given for the same area, known to contain artefacts, until it is considered destroyed?

(8) (a) How many S90 Consents to destroy have been approved at Sandon Point by NPWS-DEC in 2004?

(b) Have any 2004 Consents been approved by an Illawarra community member who is not an officer of NPWS-DEC?


(c) If so, was this the same person who approved the previous three S90 Consents at Sandon Point

subdivision, for Stockland consultants who described the huge, intact toolmaking site as an “artefact scatter”?

(9) In an answer to a question of 11 November 2003 the Minister states “I am advised by the DEC that it is attempting to ascertain the location of the access road to confirm whether it is covered by any of the three S90 consents”.

(a) Has the DEC provided this information?

(b) If so, what is it?


(10) (a) Does the Minister accept full responsibility for destruction of Aboriginal cultural heritage at Sandon Point?

(b) If not, who is responsible for the destruction?

Answer—

There have been a number of Aboriginal heritage assessments and archaeological excavations at Sandon Point. The results have been considered by the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) and the areas of greatest cultural heritage significance will be protected through a voluntary conservation agreement.

I am advised that the information provided for the Sandon Point Aboriginal Place investigation was insufficient for a recommendation to be made to declare an Aboriginal Place.

Additional information relating to the identification of knowledge holders, the extent and significance of the nominated area to Aboriginal culture and appropriate management of the place is still required. The draft Aboriginal Place report can be finalised when this information is provided from the Aboriginal community.

The report by Professor Hiscock was reviewed by DEC, and taken into consideration in the decision making process. The report provides an evaluation of archaeological investigations and does not provide a cultural assessment involving the evaluation or discussion of cultural significance. Nor does Hiscock provide any recommendations with respect of the management of Aboriginal heritage at Sandon Point.

Matters regarding zoning of the land should be referred to Wollongong City Council.

*1169 INFRASTRUCTURE AND PLANNING—METROPOLITAN STRATEGY 2004—Ms Hale asked the Minister for Transport Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Forests) representing the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning and Minister for Natural Resources—

(1) Given that the Australian Labor Party (ALP) urban policy platform has been based on selective urban consolidation and selective decentralisation for approximately 20 years, why does the Government's Metropolitan Strategy 2004 advocate “Urban Renewal” programs?

(2) What is the basis for these urban renewal programs?

(3) Is this a major shift in the government’s position on selective urban consolidation?

(4) What evaluation criteria was used to support the “Urban Renewal” program?

(5) How does Urban Renewal as proposed in the Metropolitan Strategy co-exist with selective urban consolidation and does one over-ride the other?

(6) (a) Why does the Metropolitan Strategy advocate that Sydney’s projected population growth and associated urban development for the next 30 years be directed into Sydney, rather than encouraging growth out of Sydney?


(b) What evaluation criteria was used to justify this strategy?

(7) What other alternatives were considered, and what evaluation criteria was applied?

(8) How did the Metropolitan Strategy incorporate the need to conserve agricultural lands in the Greater Metropolitan Region?

(9) Did the Metropolitan Strategy consider the protection of agricultural lands in the Box Hill area from fragmentation and residential subdivision?

(10) (a) Is the Metropolitan Strategy a Metropolitan Plan for Sydney?

(b) If not, what is it?

(c) Does Sydney have a current, effective Metropolitan Plan?

(11) Why has the Government begun to substantially implement the Metropolitan Strategy before validating it and gaining public and local government support and legitimacy?

(12) Given that the Government’s formulation of the Metropolitan Strategy and associated Government Activities is not an Environmental Plan prepared under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended), is the Metropolitan Strategy and associated Government Activities going to be subject to the Environmental Impact Study and Assessment procedure as required under part 5 of the Act?

(13) How will significant social impacts associated with the Metropolitan Strategy and associated Government Activities be assessed?

(14) Why is the Metropolitan Strategy not subject to full scrutiny and public participation as is Local Planning under the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) with full assessment and consideration of environmental and social impacts?

(15) The Metropolitan Strategy indicates that a second airport in the Sydney Region is not needed for 20 years and yet a recent submission from the NSW Government in response to the Sydney Airport Preliminary Draft Master Plan indicates that a second airport needs to be operational by about 2015, and a final decision to build a second airport required during the next few years.

(a) Why do these documents contradict each other?

(b) Which document represents the Government’s position?

(16) How is the proposed Badgery’s Creek site integrated into the Metropolitan Strategy and what other sites are under consideration that may be integrated into the Metropolitan Strategy?

(17) (a) Will the Governments proposed urban redevelopment areas and “Urban Renewal” programs referred to in the Metropolitan Strategy target areas of socio-economic disadvantage?

(b) If so, how?

(18) Is a key goal of the Metropolitan Strategy to concentrate future economic activity and jobs in Western Sydney?

(19) Why has the Government identified substantial new areas of suburban “Green Fields” housing for rezoning, without first establishing the corresponding dedicated funding mechanisms to provide the necessary infrastructure to support these developments?

(20) What new bureaucracies or organisations will the Government establish to implement its Metropolitan Strategy and associated planning activities, policies, urban management and associated activities?

(21) To what extent will the proposed new bureaucracies, such as development corporations, override local government planning, local government representation and the public participation process?


(22) Does implementation of the Metropolitan Strategy rely on revenue streams from the property

development processes and real estate activities of the Strategy?

(23) To what extent will this compromise the planning processes of the strategy?

(24) How does the Minister respond to public concern about a perceived conflict of interest arising from linking the public planning system directly to revenue raising activities?

Answer—

(1) The Metropolitan Strategy has not been completed and therefore it is not possible to answer this question.

The Government has released a directions paper which has been used as the basis for consultation at the Sydney Futures Forum and with Local Government. In the coming months the Government will conduct further consultations with the community to develop the strategy.

As a global city, Sydney and the Greater Metropolitan Region will continue to grow and change. Sydney’s population, on average, has been growing by one thousand people per week and is expected to reach 5 million by 2022. At the same time, household sizes are shrinking with the number of single and two person households the majority. The Metropolitan Strategy will set out the policies and action required to address the challenges created by this growth and change in a sustainable manner.

(2) to (24) Refer to the answer to (1) above.

*1170 INFRASTRUCTURE AND PLANNING, NATURAL RESOURCES—SANDON POINT—Ms Hale asked the Minister for Transport Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Forests) representing the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning and Minister for Natural Resources—

(1) When will the Minister make a decision on the recommendations put forward by Sandon Point Commission of Inquiry?

(2) (a) Will the Department of Infrastructure and Planning, Natural Resources (DIPNR)-Illawarra response to Commission of Inquiry recommendations be made publicly available?

(b) If not, why?

(3) Why was land owned by Ray Hannah, already subject to recommendations of an earlier Commission of Inquiry by Commissioner Simpson, included in Sandon Point Commission of Inquiry?

(4) Is the Minister aware that Wollongong City Council issued subdivision certificates to Stockland, while failing to require compliance with court consent conditions?

(5) Did the Dames & Moore Environmental Site Report 1997, for Sydney Water, found toxic, carcinogenic PAH contamination at elevated levels, in the sediment of Tramway Creek?

(6) (a) Does the Minister agree with Wollongong City Council’s submission dated 11 February 2004 that “The extent of privately owned land proposed to be zoned 7(a) Special Environmental Protection and the [Commission of Inquiry] recommendation that this land find its way into public ownership is of major concern. This not only raises issues associated with possible acquisition by Council of large tracts of land but also the issues of remediation (decontamination and revegetation) and ongoing maintenance of this land.”?

(b) Has there been adequate contamination remediation of that land for it to be remediated for protected space?

(c) Has there been adequate remediation that the land is adequately remediated for residential development zoned 2b?


(d) Has a large area zoned 6a public recreation land been excised and alienated from public use at

Sandon Point?

(7) Was an ancient Aboriginal burial ground on Sydney Water land sold to Stockland by negotiation 1997 to 1999?

(8) Was Sydney Water informed, by the National Native Title Tribunal, of a valid Native Title claim on that land in April 1997?

(9) Was a valid Native Title claim ignored by Sydney Water?

(10) Did the National Parks and Wildlife Service, now Department of Environment and Conservation, fail to undertake an Aboriginal Heritage Impact Study when a significant Aboriginal burial was found in April 1998?

(11) Will the Government adopt the Commission of Inquiry recommendations that DIPNR initially fund further Aboriginal heritage studies, in cooperation with Illawarra’s Aboriginal community, including anthropologists and archaeologists acceptable to them, at Sandon Point?

(12) Which Minister was responsible for rezoning Sandon Point in 1997?

(13) Was the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning and Minister for Natural Resources the Minister responsible for Sydney Water at the time public land zoned 6a was sold to Stockland?

(14) Does the Minister believe his capacity to decide on the Commission of Inquiry recommendations, is compromised by his previous activities at Sandon Point?

Answer—

The Commissioner’s Report has been released. I am currently considering the report.

*1171 INFRASTRUCTURE AND PLANNING, NATURAL RESOURCES—SYDNEY HARBOUR FORESHORE AUTHORITY—Ms Hale asked the Minister for Transport Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Forests) representing the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning and Minister for Natural Resources—

(1) What was the sale price for the Gloucester Street site Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority recently sold to Stamford Windsor Ltd?

(2) Was this the highest bid made for this site?

Answer—

I am advised:

(1) $22 million.

(2) This was the highest unconditional offer.

*1172 HOUSING—PUBLIC HOUSING IN THE ROCKS—Ms Hale asked the Minister for Transport Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Forests) representing the Minister for Roads and Minister for Housing—

(1) (a) Is the Department of Housing selling properties in the Rocks area?

(b) If so, what properties owned or managed by the Department of Housing (DoH) have been sold in the past 12 months?

(2) (a) Have the properties at 1-7 Argyle Place and 21-25 Kent Street been sold?


(b) If not, are these properties on the market?

(c) If so: (i) What was the terms of the sale? (ii) Was it a 99-year lease? (iii) Who purchased these properties? (iv) What was the sale price for each property?

(3) Why is the DoH selling properties in the Rocks area?

(4) What is the justification for selling properties when there is a large waiting list for Department of Housing properties, and tenants complain of inadequate services partly due to a lack of affordable commercial properties in the Rocks area?

(5) (a) Will proceeds from the sale of any properties in the Rocks be reinvested in new public housing in the Rocks area?

(b) Will this result in a net increase in public housing stock in the Rocks area?

(c) If so, what will the size of the increase be?

(6) (a) Does the commercial arm of the DoH manage commercial properties in a way that ensures the retention of essential services to DoH tenants and local communities?


(c) If so, how does the department justify the evicted of the only doctor in the area that bulk billed from the property at 1-7 Argyle Place, following the immanent sale of this property?

Answer—

The Department of Housing is not selling properties in the Rocks area. The department has been offering 99-year leases of commercial holdings in Millers Point to help fund the repair and upgrading program of the Millers Point precinct.

*1173 HOUSING—RESIDENTIAL PARKS—Ms Hale asked the Minister for Transport Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Forests) representing the Minister for Roads and Minister for Housing—

(1) (a) Approximately how many housing units have been lost from the low-cost end of the private rental market in Sydney over the past 3 years?

(b) How many of these have been in residential parks?

(2) What strategies does the Government have in place to ensure the availability of low-cost private rental housing to those unable to secure places in public housing?

(3) What strategies are in place to maintain the overall number of housing units available as low-cost housing in residential parks?

(4) Has Meriton recently closed Sundowner Residential Park at Parklea, resulting in the loss of 330 low-cost housing units and up to 1,000 people being displaced from housing?

(5) (a) Does Lansdowne Residential Park in Lansvale, also owned by Meriton, provide accommodation for approximately 800 low-paid workers?

(b) Is this park under threat of closure to make way for a development of 70 new houses?


(6) (a) Is the Minister able to safeguard these low-cost housing units by listing the land for special

purposes?

(b) If so, will the Minister do this?


(7) If low-cost housing availability is in decline and New South Wales public housing stock is inadequate to meet demand, where will these people be housed?

Answer—

I refer the Honourable Member to the answer to Question No. 1174.

*1174 PREMIER—RESIDENTIAL PARKS—Ms Hale asked the Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council representing the Premier, Minister for the Arts and Minister for Citizenship—

(1) During the 2003 NSW election campaign did you state in a letter to residents that “rest assured, my government is acting to secure the future of residential park residents” and “if re-elected, my Government will support a rezoning by Gosford City Council of residential parks from residential to special use”?

(2) (a) Are you now able to give the same commitment to the residents of Lansdowne Residential Park in Lansvale which houses approximately 800 residents who are in danger of losing their houses because Meriton, the owners, propose building 70 expensive houses?


(3) Following the “Round Table Conference into the Future of Caravan Parks across New South Wales” in 2002, the Government set up the “Government Working Party on Residential Caravan Parks” to address problems associated with park closures.

(a) What has this working party done to safeguard housing units in residential parks?

(b) What programs and initiatives have saved housing units?

(c) How many housing units have been saved as a result of this working groups activities?

(d) It is now 2004 and apart from the Gosford LEP that was an initiative of Gosford City Council, what strategies are currently in place to prevent the loss of further low-cost housing in residential parks?

(e) How many housing units have been lost in New South Wales residential parks since 2002?

(f) How has the loss of low-cost private rental accommodation, such as the decline in housing units in residential parks, been incorporated into recent discussions on Sydney Futures and the Metropolitan Strategy?

(g) Given that the number of people living permanently in residential parks relates to the lack of affordable housing and the inability of public housing to meet demand, where do these people go when the total stock of units in residential parks decline?

Answer—

The Premier has provided the following answer:

(1) Yes.


(2) I am advised by the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning that the Lansdowne Residential Park is not

currently in the process of being rezoned, as the owner’s application to subdivide the site was rejected by Fairfield City Council in late 2003.

(3) I am advised by the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning that the Government Working Party on Residential Caravan Parks had a twofold role to examine the causes of park closures and to consider options to assist displaced residents. I understand that the Working Party concluded that the Government is limited in the measures it can take to prevent park closures, as the majority of residential parks are in private ownership.

The Working Party did, however, determine a number of avenues through which the Government could assist those residents displaced by residential park closures. I am advised by the Minister for Fair Trading, that the Residential Parks Act 1998 provides residents of caravan parks with significant rights in the event of a park closure. These rights include the provision of at least 180 days notice of termination of tenancy, ensuring vacation can only be by order of the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal, and the payment of compensation to assist with relocation costs.

I also understand that the Office of Fair Trading has produced a factsheet on the rights of residents facing impending park closure, and that this factsheet has been widely distributed to park residents and their associations. I am also advised that the Department of Housing has developed protocols to provide support services where residential parks close, which may include the provision of financial assistance to help residents secure housing in the private rental market

The Government is also addressing the issue of housing affordability in its development of a Metropolitan Strategy for the greater Sydney area. The Strategy will focus upon the provision of increased housing choice and diversity for Sydney’s residents, and will include a number of measures to increase the number of low-income housing choices available.

*1175 ROADS—ROAD TUNNEL FILTRATION—Ms Hale asked the Minister for Transport Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Forests) representing the Minister for Roads and Minister for Housing—

(1) (a) Has the Road and Traffic Authority (RTA) made provision for filtration equipment to be fitted into the Cross City Tunnel (CCT) and the Lane Cove tunnels and not just the stacks?

(b) If so, what is this provision?

(c) If not, why not, given the Minister’s statement that best practice is now to install such equipment in the tunnel and not in the stack?

(2) Will the Minister guarantee that the scope and resources allocated to the filtration trial will be sufficiently comprehensive to adequately test the viability of different types of equipment?

(3) What is the budget allocation for the trial?

(4) Why is it necessary to trial EP filtration which has been used in tunnels in Japan for more than 20 years, in Norway for about 6 years and has recently been installed in tunnels in Korea and Vietnam?

(5) What new information does the Minister hope to learn from the filtration trial in relation to removal of nitrogen dioxide, given that both Norway and Japan have conducted extensive trials of nitrogen dioxide removal technology, and that Norway has already installed it in one working tunnel and Japan will begin installation in ten tunnels next year?

(6) Is it true that the main reason for conducting a filtration trial is to give RTA and tunnel company staff experience in operating and maintaining the equipment?

(7) (a) Why is this trial being conducted on such a small scale?


(b) Would the Minister consider a full-scale trial in either the Cross City or Lane Cove Tunnel that

involves a ventilation design that fully incorporates EP filtration and nitrogen dioxide removal? Answer—

The Conditions of Approval for the Cross City and Lane Cove Tunnels require that provision be made for future installation of an appropriate pollution control system to treat air emissions from the tunnels, as may be required by the Director General of the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources. In accordance with the Conditions of Approval, provision will be made at the ventilation stations for future installation of pollution control equipment to treat air from the tunnels.

The reasons for the trial and the account of tunnel ventilation in Japan and Norway are contained in the reports of the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) delegations that visited Norway in 2001 and Japan in 2003. Both reports are available on the RTA website. The scope of the filtration pilot and the resources allocated will be adequate to test the viability of the technologies.

28 JUNE 2004

(Paper No. 63)

*1176 ENVIRONMENT—NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE SERVICES—Mrs Pavey asked the Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship representing the Attorney General and Minister for the Environment—

(1) Why did the National Parks and Wildlife Service expenses in relation to vehicle and aircraft hire for 2002-2003 increase to $23 million up from $9 million in 2001-2002?

(2) Please provide an itemised details of the cost of operating plane and helicopter services during 2002-2003?

Answer—

During 2002-2003, the fire season commenced uncharacteristically early in July and continued until late February. New South Wales experienced extreme and almost unprecedented fire weather conditions which combined to produce lengthy periods of extreme weather conditions and firestorms. Fires were widespread throughout the State and required the extensive use of aircraft and ground transport to transport fire fighters to the scene of fire fighting operations.

*1177 TRANSPORT SERVICES—HORNSBY RAILWAY STATION—Mr Gallacher asked the Minister for Transport Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Forests)—

(1) What is the full breakdown of the total amount being allocated for building a fifth platform at Hornsby Railway Station?

(2) In relation to the platform:

(a) When is construction expected to commence?

(b) When is construction scheduled to be completed?

(c) When is it expected to be opened for use?

(3) What is the full breakdown of the total amount being allocated for building an additional platform at Berowra Railway Station?

(4) In relation to the platform:

(a) When is construction expected to commence?


(b) When is construction scheduled to be completed?

(c) When is it expected to be opened for use?

Answer—

I am advised:

As part of the Government’s $1 billion Rail Clearways project, an additional platform, at an estimated cost of $60 million, will be built at Hornsby Station and a $6 million platform will be built at Berowra to increase capacity and reliability for commuters on the CityRail network.

RailCorp is currently undertaking detailed costings based on engineering and architectural design investigations. The costs of the project at Hornsby are expected to include:

Detailed design; Environmental investigations; Track work; Civil engineering works such as bridges, platform, cuttings and embankments; Electrical and signalling work; Service relocations; and Re-configuration of the bus interchange.

The construction period for Hornsby is scheduled to commence around mid July 2005.

RailCorp is currently undertaking detailed design work for the Berowra platform project. The costs of the project at Berowra are expected to include:

Design work; New platform works.

The construction period for Berowra is scheduled to occur during 2005.

*1178 TRANSPORT SERVICES—SALE OF FREIGHTCORP—Mr Gallacher asked the Minister for Transport Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Forests)—

(1) Under the deed for the sale of Freightcorp did the New South Wales Government commit to a Community Service Obligation of $235 million for the six years to 2005-2006?

(2) If so:

(a) How much of this sum has been expended?

(b) How has it met the Community Service Obligation?

(3) (a) Was $135 million of this sum committed to Project Broadacre in the year 2001?

(b) If so:

(i) Has any of this sum been expended on the proposed Grain Consolidation Facilities at Werris Creek and Stockinbingal?

(ii) How much?

(c) If not, where have the funds been applied?

(4) Who will own the proposed Grain Consolidation Facilities at Werris Creek and Stockinbingal?


(5) In any modelling work used by the Government in assessing Project Broadacre:

(a) On an annual basis, what tonnages of grain were projected to be delivered to the Grain Consolidation Facilities?

(b) What assessment of the impact on country road routes by this increased road traffic did the Government undertake?

(6) In relation to the Minister’s statements such as on 30th March of this year, that the Government would be agreeable to the Community Service Obligation funds from Project Broadacre being redirected to country rail infrastructure, how much does the Government intend to divert to this process?

(7) What is the Minister’s justification for funding Grain Consolidation Facilities which will largely duplicate existing grain handling infrastructure at Werris Creek and Temora?

Answer—

The Minister for Transport Services has referred this question to me in my capacity as Treasurer.

No.

I am advised the amount of $235 million was the total estimated Government funding for 2000-01 through to 2005-06 to support freight rail services (estimated at the time of the Freight Rail Corporation sale). However, it was not a commitment contracted as part of the Freight Rail Corporation (FreightCorp) sale.

Over the same period, Government funding for the regional below rail infrastructure was estimated to be $1.6 billion.

The amount committed by the Government to Project Broadacre in 2001 was $118 million

Construction of the grain consolidation facilities has not proceeded. It was initially intended that they be owned, but not operated, by FreightCorp.

The tonnage would vary considerably from year to year depending on growing conditions, the level of storage at silos further upcountry and the “leakage of export grain to Victoria and Queensland. The sites were planned to have a storage capacity of around 40,000 tonnes each and turn around about 6,000 tonnes per day, giving each a theoretical capacity approaching two million tonnes per annum.

The Broadacre strategy was designed to support more efficient use of the rail network, not merely increase the level of locally available storage. Clearly farms close to the consolidation facilities may deliver by road rather than by road and branch rail line in order to minimise handling costs. However, whether there would be an overall increase in road deliveries may be difficult to forecast, given there are already existing storage facilities near both Werris Creek and Stockinbingal which currently service those farming communities. The issue of road traffic is ultimately a matter for local environmental planning regulation.

An objective of Broadacre project was to lower the overall cost, to Government, and farmers, of handling and transporting grain. If the project does not proceed the Government will look to any savings by Pacific National to be redirected to the same strategic outcome – reducing the total cost of moving the State’s grain harvest to Port, which could include upgrading branch lines. The amount of those savings has not been determined.

Broadacre would not have merely duplicated existing facilities. The purpose of the consolidation facilities is to facilitate operational gains, not to provide storage per se. The Government supported the Broadacre strategy as a way of reducing the total cost to it and to farmers of moving the State’s grain harvest to Port. The existing facilities at Werris Creek and Stockinbingal were of insufficient capacity to productively transact the required quantities.


*1179 INFRASTRUCTURE AND PLANNING AND NATURAL RESOURCES—LAND CLEARING—Mr Cohen

asked the Minister for Transport Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Forests) representing the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning and Minister for Natural Resources—

What are the figures by month and region of land clearing approvals for 2003 and 2004 up to the end of June?

Answer—

The monthly area approved (hectares) for clearing under the Native Vegetation Conservation Act 1997 by DIPNR in each of its regions is shown hereunder.

It is important to note that the quoted figures are for approved clearing applications. They do not, however, represent the actual area cleared and, if looked at in isolation, can exaggerate the environmental impact. For instance, areas shown as approved for clearing may include the clearing of invasive native shrubs which has environmental and agricultural benefits; removal of isolated paddock trees in already cleared and cultivated areas; clearing of only the shrub layer where trees and groundcover are retained; sustainable forestry operations where only a small percentage of vegetation is removed over the given area; and lapsed consents.

In the case of lapsed consents, the area represents applications for clearing that have been previously approved and reported outside the current reporting period, but where the clearing did not physically take place within the required statutory timeframe. This accounts for 4,085 hectares in the Far West in 2003 and 4,533 hectares in the same region for the first 5 months of 2004.

At the time of providing this information, data is not available for June 2004.

2003 (hectares):

Reg Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Central West 68 7723 193 62 646 73 829 1682 113 0 319 31

Far West 498 1564 1579 2292 448 1010 0 978 2860 471 2637 3377

Hunt 2616 2225 674 843 12 218 13 841 4406 1420 798 282

Murray /

Murrumbidgee

12 722 63 1564 1257 468 3981 168 16 110 10 2788

Nth

Cst

399 47 27 160 466 636 180 1109 612 1052 1002 1112

Sydney South Coast 91 95 30 28 23 11 24 18 22 19 15 22

In total, for 2003, some 17,000 hectares of the approved clearing was for management related clearing, which includes logging/forestry, woody weed burning, exotics, invasive native species and utilities.

2004 (hectares):

Region January February March April May Barwon 86 0 263 143 202 Central West 815 1149 546 663 524 Far West 752 3630 3171 3035 1641 Hunter 921 2439 606 3392 404 Murray / Murrumbidgee

70 48 2942 50 110

North Coast 168 0 228 190 1138 Sydney/South Cost

44 15 11 66 24

For the first five months of 2004, some 8,300 hectares of approved clearing was for management related activities.


*1180 PRIMARY INDUSTRIES—RURAL LANDS PROTECTION BOARD—Mr Cohen asked the Minister for

Primary Industries—

(1) Why are small rural landholders who are rehabilitating their land by weed removal, bush regeneration and the provision of habitat protection for native birds and animals, obliged to pay rates to the Rural Lands Protection Board when the Board provides them with no services?

(2) Why does the Rural Lands Protection Board provide a full rate exemption to sugar cane growers who have the majority of their land under cane?

(3) Does the Minister consider that this is a fair and equitable situation?

(4) (a) Will the Minister consider a rate exemption for landholders who have placed Voluntary Conservation Orders on their land?


Answer—

Rates are charged to rural landholders by the 48 Rural Lands Protection Boards in accordance with requirements of the Rural Lands Protection Act 1998. The rates are the primary source of income for the boards.

In most instances land is rateable if it has an area of 10 hectares or more. All land that is defined as rateable under the Act is subject to a general rate. The Act also provides for a board charging a supplementary animal health rate, but that is normally only payable if the landholder kept stock to the equivalent of five cattle on the property as at 30 June in the previous year.

One of the primary functions of the boards is to administer the mandatory control of declared species of pest animals under the Act. Funds from the general rate are expended on this activity.

There are significant benefits arising from the boards’ activities in pest animal control and the positive effects of such activities on the environment and biodiversity. The declared pest species include rabbits, feral pigs and wild dogs. Boards are also involved in the control of other species such as foxes. The importance of effectively controlling such species is obvious.

Landholders are strongly encouraged to undertake weed control, bush regeneration and provide habitat for native species. The importance of such activities is well recognised.

The pest animal species that boards are involved with have the propensity or potential to migrate onto virtually any property in the Boards’ districts. For this reason the rates are charged on all rateable land, thereby spreading the Board’s costs in this regard among the rural community.

Notwithstanding the comments I have just made, the Rural Lands Protection Act 1998 is currently under review. This review is being conducted partly because of a requirement in Section 248 of the Act itself, and partly because of requirements under the National Competition Policy legislation.

The review is due to be completed later this year. In due course there may be changes to the rating system arising from the review. If there are any changes to the rating system arising from the review they will be promulgated in due course.

It is not true that sugar cane growers have a full rate exemption if the majority of their land is subject to cane production. The relevant Regulation under the Rural Lands Protection Act 1998 only exempts from rating the part of a holding used for sugar cane production.

The history of this exemption goes back to the early 1980’s. At that time the sugar cane industry made representations to the then Minister for Agriculture to the effect that cane growers already pay a levy to their own organisation involved in the control of pest species in cane lands, and therefore it was unfair that they should also have to pay rates on such lands to the Rural Lands Protection Board. This argument was accepted, and the exemption has been granted ever since.


The exemption from board rates applying to sugar cane producing areas is but one of many issues being examined as part of the review of the Act to which I have just referred. It is an issue that may or may not vary as a consequence of the review.

(3) There will always be anomalies in any rating system.

I will, however, give careful consideration to the rating exemption for sugar cane lands when I receive the report on the review of the Rural Lands Protection Act 1998 later this year.

(4) (a) It is commendable for persons to negotiate Voluntary Conservation Agreements under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 in relation to their properties. These agreements with the Department of Environment and Conservation can promote the utilisation of all or part of their property as a refuge for native fauna and flora.

This is a matter being considered as part of the review of the Act itself. I will be in a position to give consideration to this matter when I receive the report of the review later this year, and the recommendations contained therein.

(b) I am not prepared to make a definitive decision on the matter at this point of time, because it would in effect be pre-empting the recommendations of the review of the Act. A decision on the matter will be made in due course.

*1181 COMMUNITY SERVICES—INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTIONS —Mr Ryan asked the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Youth—

(1) (a) How many expressions of interest did the New South Wales Department of Community Services receive for intercountry adoptions during the year 2003?

(b) What countries did applicants nominate for adoption?

(c) How many expressions of interest were received for each individual country?

(2) (a) How many applicants were under assessment for an intercountry adoption by the New South Wales Department of Community Services at the end of December 2003?

(3) (a) What countries had been nominated by applicants under assessment for intercountry adoption by the New South Wales Department of Community Services at the end of December 2003?

(b) How many applicants expressed an interest for each individual country?

(4) How many applicants have been approved for an intercountry adoption by the New South Wales Department of Community Services at the end of December 2003?

(5) (a) What countries had been nominated by applicants approved for intercountry adoption by the NSW Department of Community Services at the end of December 2003?

(b) How many applicants are approved for each individual country?

(6) (a) As at 30 May 2004, how many expressions of interest for intercountry adoptions was the New South Wales Department of Community Services working on?

(b) What countries did applicants nominate for adoption?

(c) How many expressions of interest were received for each individual country?

(7) (a) As at 30 May 2004, how many intercountry adoption applicants were under assessment by the New South Wales Department of Community Services?


(b) What countries did these applicants nominate for adoption and how many are being assessed for

each individual country?

(8) (a) As at 30 May 2004, how many intercountry adoption applicants have been approved by the New South Wales Department of Community Services?

(b) What countries did these applicants nominate for adoption?

(c) How many have been approved and are awaiting placements for each individual country?

(9) For the period 1 January 2004 to 30 May 2004:

(a) How many intercountry adoption approved applicants have been allocated children by the New South Wales Department of Community Services?

(b) How many children came from each individual country?

(c) What is the age breakdown of the children being allocated?

(10) Why has the Department of Community Services failed to publicly release statistical data for intercountry adoptions relating to the last 12 months?

(11) Can the Minister give a commitment as to when the public release of statistical data for intercountry adoptions will recommence?

Answer—

(1) (a) The department received approximately 250 expressions of interest in intercountry adoptions between January and December 2003.

(b) Eighty% of individuals and couples expressed interest in the four largest programs – China, South Korea, Ethiopia and Philippines. The remaining individuals and couples expressed interest in South America (Colombia) Thailand, Taiwan, Fiji, Hong Kong, India, Lithuania, and Sri Lanka.

(c) This data is not readily available as applicants usually nominate a number of countries they are interested in. They nominate several countries from the range of countries listed above.

(2) At any one time there will be over 100 couples/individuals undergoing assessment. This is a constantly changing number as applicants are approved and move to the waiting pool or they may elect to withdraw their application at any time, for example, if they decide to move to another state or they become pregnant.

(3) (a) At the end of December 2003, 80% of individuals and couples undergoing assessment had nominated countries in the four largest programs – China, South Korea, Ethiopia and Philippines. Countries for which the remainder of individuals and couples were undergoing assessment included South America (Colombia), Thailand, Taiwan, Fiji, Hong Kong, India, Lithuania, and Sri Lanka.

(b) As for 3 (a).

(4) Between 100-140 applicants are approved by the department to adopt through a recognised intercountry adoption program in any one calendar year.

(5) (a) As for 3 (a).

(b) As for 3 (a).

(6) (a) As at 30 May 2004, the department was processing approximately 230 expressions of interest.


(c) Most couples/individuals had expressed interest in China, then South Korea, Colombia,

Philippines and Ethiopia. Fewer couples/individuals had expressed interest in Thailand, Taiwan, Fiji, Hong Kong, India, Lithuania, and Sri Lanka.

(d) Specific data on the number of couples expressing interest for each country is unavailable. Couples and individuals nominate more than one country in their expression of interest.

(7) (a) As at 30 May 2004, there were approximately 110 intercountry adoption applications undergoing assessment by the Department.

(b) The majority of these applicants undergoing assessment nominated countries in the four largest programs – China, South Korea, Ethiopia, and Philippines. Countries for which the remainder of applicants were undergoing assessment included South America (Colombia), Thailand, Taiwan, Fiji, Hong Kong, India, Lithuania, and Sri Lanka.

(8) (a) Figures to 30 May 2004 are unavailable. For the period 2002-03,144 intercountry adoption applicants were approved, awaiting placement.

(b) The countries nominated are those provided in 7 (b) above.

(c) As for 7 (b)

(9) (a) For the period 1 January 2004 to 30 May 2004, 35 children have been placed with New South Wales adoptive parents.

(b) Specific data is unavailable.

(c) The age breakdown of children allocated from particular countries is as follows: South Korea (babies); China (infants 0-3 years); Philippines, Ethiopia and Colombia (infants up to 7 years of age). Age range depends on the country from which applicants are adopting.

(10) DoCS is committed to providing annual statistical data regarding intercountry adoptions. Summary data on intercountry adoptions is provided in the Department of Community Services’ Annual Report. The department also contributes more detailed data to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW), which is published annually in the AIHW Adoptions Australia report.

(11) The regular provision of statistical information for public release through the department’s Annual Report and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare has been undertaken for many years and the department is committed to continue to provide this information annually. The department is also committed to the provision of trend information, rather than statistics, through DoCS’ Adoptions and Permanent Care Services’ quarterly meetings with intercountry support organisations and in training sessions with adoptive applicants. Information regarding the countries where children are needing families is more useful to prospective adoptive parents and ensures that intercountry adoptions remain a child-focussed service.

*1182 ENVIRONMENT—PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS—Mr Cohen asked the Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship representing the Attorney General and Minister for the Environment—

(1) Did recent PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) advice to the Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) identify a substantial decline in Net Present Value (NPV) of the proposed Mawland Q-Station Pty Ltd lease of the North Head Quarantine Station, as compared with the NPV originally projected?

(2) Did the PWC advice raise concerns in relation to financial forecasts by the proposed Tenant (Mawland Q-Station Pty Ltd) and state that “these relate to either model construction or assumptions that are difficult to support due to the specific nature of the Q-station project and lack of directly comparable statistics”?

(3) Did PWC state that they “are not able (and do not intend to) provide a view as to the success or ultimate feasibility of the Q-station project”?


(4) (a) Will the Minister ensure that the proposed lease for the national heritage listed North Head

Quarantine Station will not proceed if the financial capacity of the proposal cannot be publicly verified?


Answer—

I am advised that the PricewaterhouseCoopers advice is that the original and current lease structures would produce similar outcomes in Net Present Value terms.

A pre-condition to the grant of a lease for the Quarantine Station required the department to engage PricewaterhouseCoopers to undertake an independent review and assessment of the financial capacity of the proposed tenant to undertake the Quarantine Station Project. The report concludes that based on the available information, evidence and advice, the test for financial capacity has been satisfied.

I am assured that, if a lease is issued, the Government will have in place a world class environmental management system for the adaptive re-use and conservation of this important place.

29 JUNE 2004

(Paper No. 64)

*1183 FAIR TRADING—RETIREMENT VILLAGES—Ms Hale asked the Special Minister of State, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Assistant Treasurer, and Minister for the Central Coast representing the Minister for Fair Trading and Minister Assisting the Minister for Commerce—

(1) (a) What is the number of retirement villages currently operating in New South Wales?

(b) What is the distribution of these villages?

(2) Approximately how many housing units are currently available in retirement villages in New South Wales?

(3) Currently, to gain entry to a retirement village, a prospective resident is required to make a down payment loan and an ingoing contribution.

(a) Does the Government define this ingoing contribution as an interest-free loan?


(4) (a) Are there any guidelines that govern how the loan is made by a resident and secured by the operator?


(5) Is there any requirement that the loan is secured by a mortgage over the property?

(6) (a) If the loan is not secured by a mortgage, how is the loan otherwise secured?

(b) What protections does the Government have in place to ensure security of these loans to operators of retirement villages?

(7) What criteria is applied when the price of units in a retirement village is being set?

(8) What requirement does the Government have in terms of pricing formulas for retirement villages?


(9) During June 2004 a number of self-care retirement villages advertised units at prices ranging from

$249,000 to $350,000+ in country New South Wales and from $250,000 to $780,000 in the Sydney metropolitan area:

(a) What are these prices required to include by law?

(b) Are these figures for the purchase of the units where the residents gain registered title to the property (as per normal freehold title), or do they include occupancy only arrangements involving the payment of an ongoing contribution and interest-free loan?

(10) The Department of Fair Trading has issued a brochure advising residents of retirement villages that, if an operator requests the residents to pay for repairs and maintenance to the buildings, residents are obliged to do so:

(a) Does the department advise residents that they must pay for insurance to cover the full replacement value of the buildings of the operator?

(b) Does the Government determine that the costs of insurance on and maintenance of the property in a retirement village, which is owned by the operator, are paid for by the residents who have no proprietary rights?

(11) (a) Does the Government exercise any control over the rate at which operators can increase levies – generally paid on a monthly basis?

(b) While increases under a fixed formula result in increases in the order of 2% each year, increases by other means, permitted under the act, have resulted in increases of 8% or more each year.

(i) Does the minister believe increases of this magnitude can be justified? (ii) If so, what is this justification?

(c) Will this issue be examined in the current review of the Act?

Answer—

(1) (a) There are approximately 750 retirement villages in New South Wales.

(b) Retirement villages are located across the State but are predominantly concentrated in Sydney, the Central Coast and other coastal regions.

(2) 40,000.

(3) ‘Ingoing contribution’ is defined in section 6 of the Retirement Villages Act 1999. It includes a range of payment options including interest-free loans. Whether interest is payable to the resident while the operator has use of an ingoing contribution must be stated in the resident’s contract.

(4) Ingoing contributions may be paid in the form of a lump sum or by instalments. The terms and conditions under which an ingoing contribution is paid and refunded must be set out in the contract.

(5) No.

(6) (a) The form and level of security of loans varies within the industry. Some operators are known to have trustee arrangements in place.

(b) The Act requires refund entitlements to be set out in village contracts which are enforceable against the current or any future operator. An application to appoint an administrator may be made to the Supreme Court if the financial security of residents is at risk.

(7) Market forces determine the price of units in a retirement village.


(8) Each operator must fully disclose its fees and charges in a prescribed disclosure statement and in the

village contracts of each incoming resident.

(9) The price paid to gain entry to a retirement village secures the resident the right to occupy specified premises and to use the services and facilities set out in the contract.

(10) (a) The Act requires a village operator to insure the village to full replacement value but does not specify who is responsible for paying the premiums.

(b) Operators are able to include insurance and maintenance costs in a statement of proposed expenditure each year but must obtain the consent of residents.

(11) (a) No.

(b) to (c) This issue will be examined in the current review of the Act.

*1184 COMMUNITY SERVICES—INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION—Ms Hale asked the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Youth—

(1) How many people have applied for intercountry adoption each year since the year 2000?

(2) (a) How many applicants are currently under assessment to adopt from overseas?

(b) What is the breakdown by country?

(3) (a) How many applicants have been approved to adopt since 2000?

(b) What is the breakdown by country?

(4) (a) How many children have been placed each year since the year 2000?

(b) Which countries have these children come from?

(5) Why has this essential statistical data not been released to the public for over 12 months?

Answer—

(1) On average, 140 applications are lodged each year for intercountry adoption.

(2) (a) At any one time there will be between 100 and 140 couples or individuals undergoing adoption assessment.

(b) Approximately 80% of applicants will apply under the four largest programs – China, South Korea, Philippines and Ethiopia. The remaining 20% of applicants apply under the programs for South America (Colombia), Taiwan, Thailand, Hong Kong, Sri Lanka, Fiji and India.

(3) (a) Between 100 and 140 applicants have been approved to adopt each year since 2000.

(b) As for 2 (b)

(4) (a) In 2000-01, the department placed 85 children in New South Wales families from intercountry adoption programs.

In 2001-02, the department placed 90 children in New South Wales families from intercountry adoption programs.

In 2002-03, the department placed 72 children in New South Wales families from intercountry adoption programs.


Figures are not yet available for 2003-04.

(b) Eighty% of the children arriving in New South Wales under intercountry adoption programs are from the four largest programs – China, South Korea, Philippines and Ethiopia. The remaining 20% of children are from South America (Colombia), Taiwan, Thailand, Hong Kong, Sri Lanka, Fiji and India.

(5) Summary data on intercountry adoptions is provided in the Department of Community Services’ Annual Report. The department also contributes more detailed data to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW), which is published annually in the AIHW Adoptions Australia report.

*1185 TRANSPORT SERVICES—2003 TICKET SALES —Mr Gallacher asked the Minister for Transport Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Forests)—

Please provide detailed data on ticket sales at the following railway stations on a weekly basis for 2003:

(1) Wyong to:

(a) Strathfield?

(b) Chatswood?

(c) The City?

(2) Gosford to:

(a) Strathfield?

(b) Chatswood?

(c) The City?

(3) Tuggerah to:

(a) Strathfield?

(b) Chatswood?

(c) The City?

(4) Woy Woy to:

(a) Strathfield?

(b) Chatswood?

(c) The City?

Answer—

I am advised:

Ticket revenue information on a weekly basis per destination is not readily available. However, over the period 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003 the number of tickets issued at the listed origin stations are:

Stations Issues Gosford 740,575 Tuggerah 185,043 Woy Woy 614,210 Wyong 256,414


*1186 TRANSPORT SERVICES—CHATSWOOD TO EPPING RAIL LINK—Mr Gallacher asked the Minister for

Transport Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Forests)—

(1) (a) Did the Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation (TIDC) and it’s contractors plan to use a cheap alternative for base plates in the construction of the tracks of the Epping to Chatswood link, even where the tunnel depth below homes is shallow, rather than using the latest technology which would significantly reduce the noise pollution affect on the residents over the rail corridor?

(b) If so, when TIDC insists that there is no diminution in value to residential properties on the Epping to Chatswood Rail Link, didn’t the Government provide the affected residents a Property Value Guarantee, similar to that granted to the residents similarly affected by the M5 East tunnel construction?

(c) Would such a guarantee gesture be equitable and have no cost impact on the project?

(2) What is the extent to which the following stations will have their peak hour rail service reduced when the Epping to Chatswood line commences operation in 2008:

(a) Eastwood?

(b) Denistone?

(c) West Ryde?

(d) Meadowbank?

(e) Rhodes?

(f) Concord West?

(g) North Strathfield?

(3) What is, the extent to which the following stations will have their peak hour rail service reduced when the Epping to Chatswood line commences operation in 2008?

(a) Waitara?

(b) Wahroonga?

(c) Warrawee?

(d) Turramurra?

(e) Pymble?

(f) Killara?

(g) Lindfield?

(h) Roseville?

Answer—

I am advised:

The Epping to Chatswood line will be integrated with the North Shore and Northern lines to create a new North-West line as part of the NSW Government’s $1 billion Rail Clearways program to improve reliability and increase capacity on the CityRail network.


The Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation (TIDC) and its contractors for the Epping to Chatswood rail line will use track system designs which will ensure compliance with the operational noise levels set by the planning approval for the project.

During the passage of the Epping to Chatswood rail link project’s enabling legislation in the NSW Parliament and in the development of the project’s planning approval arguments for and against a Property Value Guarantee were considered.

It was determined funds should be directed into additional mitigation measures to reduce environmental impacts, rather than divert these funds into the administration of a Property Value Guarantee scheme.

This decision took into account a comparison with the Airport Line, which did not carry any Property Value Guarantee and which has not had any negative impact on local property values.

Property impacts will be managed through compliance with the stringent environmental controls established in the project’s conditions of approval.

The Epping to Chatswood rail line is scheduled to open in 2008. The timetable for the line has not yet been finalised and will reflect passenger demand at that time.

*1187 ENVIRONMENT—POPRAN NATIONAL PARK PIPELINE—Mr Cohen asked the Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship representing the Attorney General and Minister for the Environment—

(1) Does a pipeline run 2 kilometres from Popran National Park on the Hawkesbury River across public land to supply certain persons with a private water supply?

(2) If so:

(a) Was public money used to fund the pipeline?

(b) When was the pipeline constructed?

(c) Was permission given for it to cross the national park?

(3) Does the Minister intend to take any action with respect to this issue?

Answer—

I am advised by the Department of Environment and Conservation that the existence of a pipeline in Popran National Park near the Hawkesbury River was first reported to staff in June 2004. An inspection confirmed the existence of a small diameter poly pipe laid on the ground surface traversing approximately 200 metres of national park and 500 metres of Crown land.

I am advised no approvals were sought or obtained from the National Parks and Wildlife Service for its installation in 1999. No public money was used in its construction.

I understand the water supplied by this line is used for bush fire fighting. I have asked the Department to look into alternative fire fighting arrangements to enable the line to be removed.

*1188 PRIMARY INDUSTRIES—LEATHERJACKET KILL—Mr Cohen asked the Minister for Primary Industries—

(1) What steps has the Department of Primary Industries taken to ascertain the cause of the leatherjack kill on the South Coast of New South Wales?

(2) (a) Has the department contacted the Fisheries offices of Queensland and Victoria about this particular fishkill?



(3) (a) Has the department ruled out aquaculture as a source of a virus which may be killing these fish?

(b) If so, what does the department think is the source of the virus?

Answer—

(1) to (3) I am advised that the recent fish kill involving threadfin leatherjackets is being thoroughly investigated by the department’s veterinary staff. Samples of live fish and preserved dead fish have been forwarded to veterinary staff for testing. Following consultation with interstate and federal counterparts, veterinary staff have concluded that the most likely cause of the fish kill was a combination of starvation and naturally occurring skin parasites, which had greatest impact on fish that were young or weak. To date there is no evidence that a virus contributed to the fish kill.

*1189 COMMUNITY SERVICES—STATUTORY CHILD PROTECTION—Mr Ryan asked the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Youth—

(1) Why does page 4-2 of Budget Paper No. 3 for 2004-05 refer to the Government’s $1.2 billion package to improve the Department of Community Services capacity as a 6-year program, rather than the 5-year program used to describe this program to date?

(2) How many caseworkers are included in the “Average Staffing” details given on page 4-25 of the 2004-05 Budget Paper No. 3 for the years:

(a) 2001-02?

(b) 2002-03?

(c) 2003-04?

(d) 2004-05?

(3) How many caseworkers were included in the headcount of employees for the Department of Community Services on the following dates:

(a) 30 June 2001?

(b) 30 June 2002?

(c) 30 June 2003?

(4) How many vacancies were there for caseworker positions in the Department of Community Services on 30 May 2004?

(5) (a) How does the rate of recruitment for new caseworkers compare with the number of caseworkers separating from the department?

(b) Has the rate of recruitment of new caseworkers been sufficient to deliver the Government’s announced projections for increases in caseworkers?

(6) (a) Does the Department of Community Services now collect statistics for performance indicators such as staff satisfaction, case worker turnover, cost per workers compensation claim, reduction in workers compensation premium, time lost through injury days lost through industrial action, diversity of staff compared to client profile and level of investment in training and development as was outlined in “Key Result Area 7: Corporate Performance” in the department’s 2001-2004 Corporate Plan?


(b) If so, which of these performance indicators are collected and what do the latest results show

compared with previous results?

(c) If any are not collected, why not?

(7) Does the Department of Community Services collect any of the data required for the performance indicators listed in the 2001-2004 Corporate Plan as “Key Result Area 3: Child Protection and Out of Home Care Services”; including (a) substantiation and resubstantiation rates, (b) subsequent substantiation rates, (c) percentage of client complaints of inconsistent practices, (e) stability of placement for children in care, (f) percentage of services complying with standards, (g) continuity of caseworkers, (h) local placement, (i) project milestones met, (j) safe return home, (k) permanent placement, (l) siblings placed together.

(8) What specific items make up the expenditure of $131.7 million listed as “Employee related expenses” as opposed to the amount of $56.6 million listed as “other operating expenses” on page 4-25 of Budget Paper 3 for 2004-05?

(9) What specific additional items account for the increases of $10.4 million and $9.2 million shown on page 4-25 of Budget Paper 3 for 2004-05 for “employee related” and “other operating expenses” respectively?

(10) (a) On page 4-25 of Budget Paper No. 3 for 2004-05 what specific items make up the expenses item listed as: (i) “Grants and subsides- child protection”? (ii) “Grants to agencies” listed?

(b) How do these items differ?

(c) Why is the “child protection” category to fall from $4.6 million to $3.5 million during the next financial year?

(d) In the category listed as “Grants to agencies”, what accounts for the increase of $1 million during the same period?

(11) What specific items make up the amount of approximately $3.6 million for 2004-05 listed as “Sales of Goods and Services, recoupment of administrative costs” on page 4-26 of Budget Paper No. 3 for 2004-05?

(12) (a) What makes up the amount of $1,440,000 listed as “Grants and contributions” on page 4-26 of Budget Paper No. 3 for 2004-05?

(b) Where do these grants come from?

Answer—

(1) The $1.2 billion major capacity enhancement program for DoCS was announced by the Government in December 2002 and the first funds were provided to the department to commence this program in early 2003. Funding under the program thus extends over 5.5 calendar years from January 2003 to June 2008. Because the initial funding was provided part way through the 2002-03 financial year, the program covers only 5 full financial years, 2003-04 to 2007-08.

(2) The allocation of total average staff numbers to individual programs for Budget Paper purposes is only done on a total basis. The information about average staff numbers does not distinguish different categories of staff. Average numbers of caseworkers for specific periods is not routinely collected and the accurate determination of average numbers is not possible retrospectively.

(3) (a) The caseworker employee headcount as at June 2001 cannot be provided due to the unavailability of a comparable data set.

(b) There were 1,084 caseworkers employed in DoCS as at June 2002.


(c) There were 1,202 caseworkers employed in DoCS as at June 2003.

(4) It is not possible to provide the number of vacancies for caseworker positions as at the 30 May 2004.

(5) (a) DoCS does not collect data on recruitment “rates”. However, there were 173 more caseworkers employed as at 17 June 2004 than there were as at June 2003.

(b) See above (a).

(6) (a) DoCS collects data about most of the performance indicators listed.

(b) DoCS collects data on the following:

Caseworker turnover

The turnover figures for caseworkers in 2002-2003 were:

All caseworkers (including temporary Caseworkers) = 13.2% Permanent Caseworkers only = 9.3% The turnover figures for 2003-2004 are not available at this time.

Cost per worker’s compensation claim The average cost per workers’ compensation claim for 2002-2003 was $13,363. The average cost per claim for 2003-2004 was $12,089.

(Source: NSW Treasury Managed Fund Comparative Statistical Analysis Workers Compensation Fund Years 2002-03 and 2003-04 – as at 31 March 2004)

Worker’s compensation premium levels compared to past premiums The department has achieved an almost 10% reduction in its annual workers compensation insurance premium for 2004-05. This reduction has been driven primarily by the work the department has undertaken to improve claims and injury management practices.

Days lost through industrial action DoCS has not lost any days through industrial action since 2002.

Level of Investment in Training & Development The total budget for Learning and Development in DoCS in 2002-2003 $2.646m. The total budget for Learning and Development in DoCS in 2003-2004 was $4.447m.

(c) DoCS does not collect data on the following:

Time lost through injury

Staff satisfaction However, there is a strong emphasis on opportunities for feedback between supervisors and their staff in the Performance Management System that DoCS has recently implemented.

Diversity of Staff compared to Client Profile DoCS collects Equity and Diversity information about staff members. This is provided by staff on a voluntary basis, which means that the response rate is not always a reliable indication of the diversity of the workforce.

(7) The department collects information in a number of the listed categories; however, shifting organisational priorities has meant changes to some data collection practices.

(8) The item “employee related expenses” comprises direct salaries and wages paid to staff including other direct salary expenses such as overtime, penalty rates and associated employee on-costs for payroll tax, workers compensation insurance, employer superannuation contributions, annual and long service leave expenses and payments to contract personnel.


The item “other operating expenses” covers non-salary costs associated with the operation of the department, including accommodation costs (property rental, utility costs etc.), postal and telecommunication costs, computer service costs, travel and subsistence for staff, staff training and development, contracted corporate services, insurance, external fees, printing and stationery, motor vehicle running costs.

(9) The increase of $10.4 million within “Employee related expenses” includes increased funding for additional caseworkers and associated front line staff received under the Government’s capacity enhancement program for DoCS. This includes the employment of additional staff to address high priority cases and strengthening the department’s Joint Investigative Response Teams.

The increase of $9.198 million for “Other operating expenses” covers the additional costs associated with the department’s increased staffing, including improving accommodation standards and related expenses for current and additional staff in Community Services Centres. Such costs include additional rental, utility, postal and telecommunication costs, computer service costs, insurance, stores and motor vehicle running costs. In addition, there are additional costs associated with staff induction, training and development.

(10) (a) (i) The “Child Protection” grant line item refers to funding provided to the non-government sector mainly for services/programs to help prevent child sexual assault and child abuse.

(ii) The item “Grants to Agencies” refers to payments to DoCS’ shared corporate service provider, NSW Businesslink to cover staff long service leave and employer superannuation charges paid in respect of contracted corporate services

(b) Child protection grants are paid to non-government agencies for the provision of direct support or prevention services, while “Grants to Agencies” refers to payments to another government agency.

(c) The reduction in the child protection line item reflects a re-categorisation of funds between grant line items in the Statutory Child Protection program and other programs, particularly the new Community Services program.

(d) The increase in Grants to agencies reflects the first full year of payment of employee related salary on-costs by NSW Businesslink. For budget funded agencies, these costs are carried directly by the Treasury, however in the case of NSW Businesslink, Treasury provided explicit funding to Businesslink client agencies, including DoCS, for on-payment to Businesslink.

(11) The $3.6 million “recoupment of administration costs” refers to the allocation to this program of approximately $5 million of revenue to be received from the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care (DADHC) for reimbursement of costs, initially borne by DoCS, for services provided directly to DADHC at offices where the two agencies share premises and support infrastructure.

(12) (a) Grants and contributions is made up of the following items: reimbursement of expenses from NSW Police Service in respect of Joint Investigative Response Teams costs; funding from other government bodies in respect of child protection training and development; Commonwealth receipts for the care of unaccompanied minors; and miscellaneous income including sale of government property, employment scheme funding and commissions.

(b) Funding is predominantly from Commonwealth or other State agencies.

*1190 COMMUNITY SERVICES—OUT OF HOME CARE—Mr Ryan asked the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Youth—

(1) How many caseworkers are included in the “Average Staffing” details given on page 4-27 of the 2004-05 Budget Paper No 3 for the years:

(a) 2001-02?

(b) 2002-03?


(c) 2003-04?

(d) 2004-05?

(2) What expenditure makes up the expenditure listed as “community-based residential care” in the Department of Community Services Out of Home Care program listed on page 4-27 of Budget Paper No 3 for 2004-05?

(3) (a) Why did the expenditure in 2004-04 exceed the budget amount by approximately $24.2 million in the year 2003-04?

(b) How will this expenditure fall again to $68.8 million in the year 2004-05?

(4) (a) On page 4-28 of Budget Paper No 3 for 2004-05 what specific items make up the expenditure listed as “Child support allowances and associated expenses for foster care”?

(b) How do these expenses differ from the items listed as: (i) “crisis care allowance”? (ii) “Family group homes”?

(5) What accounts for the increase from the budgeted amount of $100.3 million to the revised amount of $103 million for 2003-04 and for the expected increase to $109.3 million for 2004-05 in the amounts allocated for “Child support allowances and associated expenses for foster care”, as shown on 4-28 of Budget Paper No. 3 for 2004-05?

(6) (a) What are the “grants and contributions” that make up part of the “retained revenue” in the Department of Community Services Out of Home Care Program?

(b) What will make these contributions increase from $500,000 in 2003-04 to $2 million in 2004-05?

Answer—

(1) The allocation of total average staff numbers to individual programs for Budget Paper purposes is only done on a total basis. The information about average staff numbers does not distinguish different categories of staff. Average numbers of caseworkers for specific periods is not routinely collected and the accurate determination of average numbers is not possible retrospectively.

(2) The item “community-based residential care” covers the costs of residential services and support provided by the non-government sector for children in out of home care who have very complex needs and for whom direct placement with a foster carer is not an appropriate or available option. It also covers some very short-term placements for lower needs children who are temporarily unable to be placed in foster care.

(3) (a) The level of expenditure in this area matched the costs of providing services to children and young people in Out-Of-Home Care with very complex needs whose placement costs are high. Children and young people in this group can have extremely challenging behaviours together with other difficulties such as physical and/or intellectual disabilities, suicidal tendencies and other mental health problems.

(b) A number of initiatives were commenced in 2003-04 that will help to achieve improved outcomes for high needs children and young people and improvements in budget management. These initiatives include:

an Expression of Interest process for experienced service providers to provide alternative appropriate placements and support services to meet the needs of high needs children and young people;

placement monitoring arrangements have been strengthened;


quarantining fifty of the one hundred and fifty caseworkers for Out-Of-Home Care to be

recruited to DoCS over the next two years to provide case management services to these children on reduced staff to client ratios.

resources being applied to support foster carers to prevent placement breakdown

(4) (a) The item “Child support allowances and associated expenses” includes the foster care allowances and discretionary payments paid to carers, including for kinship arrangements and claims by agencies for expenses relating to children placed in their care.

(b) (i) “Crisis Care Allowance” includes payments for the provision of crisis care and support until formal care arrangements are arranged.

(ii) “Family Group Home expenditure” relates to the allowances and expenses paid to carers in DoCS premises taking care of children placed in the home.

(5) Increases in foster care payments arise from on-going changes to the number of children in care, changes to the average length of time spent in care and changes to the average level of allowances and other support provided for each child in care. These individual factors can have either a compounding or an off-setting impact on total costs. In general, the total number of children in care is changing in line with population and other socio-economic trends, while the length of time in care and the average cost per care period will change partly as a result of improvements in care planning and support for individual children.

(6) (a) “Grants and contributions” is made up of the following items – overseas and local adoption fees ($1,588,000); Hague Convention receipts ($365,000) and miscellaneous income including sale of government property, employment scheme funding, Freedom of Information requests, commission, etc ($108,000).

(b) Increases anticipated within the grants and contributions category includes overseas and local adoption fees and Hague Convention receipts.

*1191 AGEING, DISABILITY AND HOME CARE—PREVENTION, EARLY INTERVENTION AND BASIC SUPPORT—Mr Ryan asked the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Youth—

(1) Other than the outputs listed on page 4-40 of Budget Paper No. 3 for 2004-05, what key performance indicators does the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care collect and use to measure its performance:

(a) In providing services?

(b) Its staff in this program?

(2) (a) Other than the level of expenditure, what performance indicators does the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care collect to measure the amount of respite care it provides to clients?

(b) What do recent results indicate about comparative levels of service from the last year and the previous year?

(3) (a) How many places are available in all departmentally run and funded centre-based respite care facilities?

(b) How does this number compare with the previous year?

(4) What sorts of statistics are collected as part of the department’s monitoring of complaints?

(5) (a) How many complaints were received from the NSW Ombudsman between 1 January 2003 and 1 December 2003?

(b) How many individual client complaints were identified?


(c) How many of these had the department responded to by 30 December 2003?

(d) How many are still current?

(6) For complaints about the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care that were not forwarded through the NSW Ombudsman:

(a) How many complaints were received between 1 January 2003 and 1 December 2003?

(b) How many individual client complaints were identified?

(c) How many of these had the department responded to by 30 December 2003?

(d) How many are still current?

(7) (a) Listed under grants and subsidies expenses on page 4-40 of Budget Paper No. 3 2004-05, what specific items make up the “Disabilities Services Program”?

(b) Why has that program fallen from a budgeted $246 million for the year 2003-04 to an actual expenditure of $126 million in 2003-04 and a projected expenditure of approximately $130 million for the year 2004-05?

(8) (a) Listed under the expenses of the Prevention, Early Intervention and Basic Support Program on page 4-40 of Budget Paper No. 3 for 2004-05, what specific items make up the “Home and Community Care” Program?

(b) How much of these funds are spent though the operations of the Home Care Service of NSW?

(9) What makes up the “Grants and contributions” amount of $9.8 million of Retained Revenue for the Prevention, Early Intervention and Basic Support Program listed on page 4-41 of Budget Paper No. 3 for 2004-05?

(10) (a) How many case managers have been allocated to each individual region in the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care?

(b) To what extent have these increased or decreased in the last year?

(c) To what extent will they be increased or decreased in each region during 2004-05?

(11) (a) How does the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care measure outputs for therapy services?

(b) What do the results indicate about comparative levels of service between this year and last year?

(c) What outputs are expected in the year 2004-05?

Answer—

(1) (a) and (b) The Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care collects and monitors a range of performance data including those detailed on page 4-40 of Budget Paper No. 3. The performance indicators used by the department to measure its business activities include aspects such as:

quantity of service: numbers of clients, type and units of service delivered, and cost of service provision per client where appropriate;

access to services and levels of support required; and service delivery by funded services.

Further information is provided in the Annual Report.


(2) (a) The number of clients and hours of service delivered is also considered in measuring respite

services.

(b) Recent results about comparative levels of service from last year (2003-04) and the previous year (2002-03) indicate that: growth of 9.4% has occurred in hours of service from 2002-03 for respite services funded

under Home and Community Care (HACC); an increase in client numbers for respite services provided under the Commonwealth and State

Disability Agreement (CSTDA); and a 25% reduction in the number of blocked respite beds operated by the Department since

1998.

(3) (a) The total investment for all respite services that support older people, people with a disability and their carers in 2003-04 was $132 million.

(b) It is not possible to compare data between 2002-03 and 2003-04, due to changes in the national data collection process introduced on 1 October 2002.

(4) The department currently collects statistics relating to the type of matters received by the Director-General and Minister’s offices. A proportion of these matters are complaints. Statistics relating specifically to Home Care complaints are collected and reported in the department’s Annual Report.

The department is currently developing a comprehensive Client Information System (CIS) that will include a component for recording and monitoring complaints for all of the Department’s business. This will allow the department to monitor who is making complaints, what the complaints are about, how they are received and how the department is responding to them.

(5) (a) 289 pieces of correspondence from the Ombudsman were received between 1 January 2003 and 1 December 2003. This includes multiple letters in relation to the same complaint, and other matters which would not be classified as complaints.

(b) From 1 July 2003, the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care collected additional information about Ombudsman matters, allowing the identification of individual client complaints. From 1 July 2003 and 31 December 2003, 46 individual client complaints were identified.

(c) By 30 December 2003, the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care had provided a response to 39 of these matters.

(d) The department has responded to all of the 46 individual client complaints identified. A number of these matters are the subject of ongoing correspondence between the department and the NSW Ombudsman.

(6) (a) Statistics regarding the number of complaints for the period requested are not available. From 1 March 2003 to 1 December 2003, a total of 222 complaints were received by the Minister and Director-General’s offices.

(b) Of these, 200 are identified as individual client complaints. These include complaints referred from the National Disability Abuse and Neglect Hotline, and may duplicate complaints received from the NSW Ombudsman.

(c) Of the 222 complaints received, 205 had received a response by 30 December 2003.

(d) None of those 222 complaints are still current.

(7) (a) The Disability Services program under Prevention, Early Intervention and Basic Support comprises grants provided to non-government organisations for the delivery of intervention, therapy and community access services. These services include specific programs such as transition from education, therapy support for individuals, early childhood intervention, case management, learning and life skills development, and other community support services.


(b) This reflects a more informed allocation (in the second year of this reporting structure) of the

department’s directly operated services and the main target group these support. The realignment has affected comparisons between the 2003-04 budget and projected expenditure.

Realignment also resulted in an increase in HACC program expenditure for the Prevention, Early Intervention and Basic Support program.

At the total program expenditure level the realignment yielded only a 3% variation from the 2003-04 budget.

The total Disability Services grants program for 2004-05 of $448.9 million is an increase of 7.9% on the 2003-04 budget.

(8) (a) The Home and Community Care program within the Prevention, Early Intervention and Basic Support program includes:

assessment and planning activities including case management; community access services such as transport, social support and centre-based day care; and home support services such as domestic assistance, meals, home modification and home

maintenance.

(b) Total funds of $56 million are provided to the Home Care Service of NSW to deliver services under the Prevention, Early Intervention and Basic Support program.

(9) The Grants and contributions amount of $9.8 million in the Prevention, Early Intervention and Basic Support program comprises:

$5.4 million from the Department of Veteran’s Affairs to support the access of eligible veterans to HACC services;

$1.2 million from the Department of Family and Community Services to provide employment and supported employment services;

$3.2 million billed to Home Care Services for corporate services now purchased from DADHC.

(10) (a) In DADHC Community Support Teams (CSTs) a case management role is performed by Community Workers, Community Nurses, Social Workers and Psychologists. As at June 2004 there were 250.02 full-time equivalent positions for staff in these roles across all Regions.

(b) These figures have increased slightly in the past year.

(c) As announced in the 2004-05 budget, 20 case managers employed specifically for family support will be introduced during 2004-05.

(11) (a) DADHC measures outputs by the number of clients receiving service.

(b) In the period 1 October 2003 to 31 March 2004, 2,097 people accessed occupational therapy, 1,294 people accessed physiotherapy and 1,704 people accessed speech therapy.

It is not possible to compare outputs between 2002-03 and 2003-04 because data was collected on a snapshot basis until 1 October 2002 and on a continuous basis from that date onwards.

(c) DADHC does not expect any significant change in outputs in 2004-05.

*1192 AGEING, DISABILITY AND HOME CARE—HIGHER SUPPORT NEEDS—Mr Ryan asked the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Youth—

Budget Paper 4-42 for 2004-05 reports that the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care will have 10 more group homes housing 174 more clients next year, as this averages 9 clients per group home how will this number fit into the available new beds and still conform to the requirements of the Disability Services Act?


Answer—

As a result of the budget announced for 2004-05 the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care expects to provide support to 1,396 clients in 309 group homes. Accommodation provided will meet the requirements of the Disability Services Act.

*1193 AGEING, DISABILITY AND HOME CARE—HOME CARE SERVICES—Mr Ryan asked the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Youth—

In regards to the explanatory note at the foot of page 4-47 of Budget Paper 2004-05, – “hours of service provided through the Home Care Services could rise further if it successfully competes for a share of … additional funding”:

(a) If the $31 million referred to is shared across the portfolios of Health, Housing and Transport, does this mean that the Home Care Services carries out work for other government departments such as the Department of Health?

(b) If so, how much of the Home Care Service outputs mentioned on page 4-47 of Budget Paper No. 3 for 2004-05 relate to the work required within the Ageing and Disabilities Services portfolio?

Answer—

(a) No the Home Care Service does not carry out work for other NSW Government Departments.

(b) 88% of the Home Care Service outputs mentioned on page 4-47 of Budget Paper No. 3 for 2004-05 relate to work required within the Ageing and Disability Services portfolio. The remainder relates to work carried out by the Australian Government Departments of Veteran’s Affairs, and Health and Ageing under separate funding arrangements.

*1194 INFRASTRUCTURE AND PLANNING—KOSCIUSZKO NATIONAL PARK—Mr Cohen asked the Minister for Transport Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Forests) representing the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning and Minister for Natural Resources—

(1) Why is the New South Wales Government continuing to develop small private towns in the alpine region of Kosciuszko National Park given the known and predicted impacts of such development on one of the most fragile ecosystems in Australia?

(2) Why is the Government ignoring a 2-year request by NSW Environment Groups to review the Perisher Range Resorts Master Plan when the Independent Scientific Committee has provided evidence of increasing impacts of climate change on the ecological systems of the alpine region, including continued reduction of the snow line and increased bushfire threats?

(3) Will the Government call for a regional tourism strategy which would place resort development outside the Park on less sensitive land, with efficient methods of transport into the park?

(4) Is the Government continuing with an “exclusive negotiation agreement” for a Head Lease with Perisher Blue Pty Ltd and denying public scrutiny of these negotiations?

(5) What economic analysis is being used to continue to develop resorts in the alpine region of the park, with specific reference to the economic impacts on gateway towns in the region when goods and services which they traditionally supply to the park are provided by the resorts?

(6) Are the developments listed in the Land Use tables of the exposure draft ARP consistent with the objectives of the National Parks and Wildlife Act, including advertising signs, conference and entertainment facilities, and accommodation of the type already known to be a developer real estate bonanza in Thredbo?


Answer—

(1) Both the draft Plan of Management for the Kosciuszko National Park, which is being prepared by the Department of Environment and Conservation, and the draft Alpine Resorts Plan, which is being prepared by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources, do not propose any increase in accommodation capacity for the alpine resorts above the limits already set in the existing Plan of Management.

Both plans include mechanisms to ensure a rigorous environmental management and assessment regime so that proposed development proceeds in an ecologically sustainable manner.

(2) The Perisher Master Plan (November 2001) provides for a review to be undertaken after 5 years or earlier if necessary. Undertaking this review is a matter for the Minister for the Environment.

(3) This is a matter for the Minister for Tourism and Sport and Recreation.

(4) This is a matter for the Minister for the Environment.

(5) The Government recognises the economic importance of the resorts and has undertaken studies and facilitated workshops including resort operators, local government, business and State Government, to investigate the “gateways” concept in the Alpine Region. Local government has agreed to progress this work within the Region.

(6) The developments listed in the land use tables of the Exposure Alpine Resorts Regional Environmental Plan were developed in conjunction with officers from the Department of Environment and Conservation.

They reflect the types of land uses the Department of Environment and Conservation considered appropriate, and take into consideration what land use is permitted under the existing leases between the Government and the resorts.

The tables also respond to the recommendations of the Independent Commission of Inquiry into the proposed Perisher Range Resort Village Centre Master Plan wherein the Commissioner recommended a wide range of all year round land uses be permitted in the new village centre proposed for the Perisher Range Resort.

*1195 ENERGY AND UTILITIES—INTEGRAL ENERGY TRANSMISSION TOWERS—Mr Cohen asked the Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister for Lands representing the Minister for Energy and Utilities, Minister for Science and Medical Research, Minister Assisting the Minister for Health (Cancer) and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Arts—

(1) Why is the NSW Government allowing Integral Energy to build 40 metre high, 8 kilometres long transmission towers along the easement from Vineyard to Schofields when there is good evidence to suggest that serious health problems from the electromagnetic fields emitted from these lines may arise for people living in their close vicinity?

(2) Is the NSW Government treating the people of Western Sydney as second rate citizens by constructing these high transmission lines near their houses, when cables from Pittwater to the City, and at the Olympic site, are built underground?

(3) Will the NSW Government negotiate with Integral Energy to reverse their decision to erect these transmission towers and lines from Vineyard to Schofields and seek to have them placed underground in the interests of the health of the ever-increasing number of residents in the area?

Answer—

(1) Integral Energy has commenced an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a proposed upgrade of the Vineyard to Rouse Hill 132kV transmission line (feeder 9JA).


The use of 40 metre high steel lattice towers is one of many options being examined. Other types of overhead line construction, utilising either steel or concrete poles, are also being examined. Alternate routes to the existing transmission line and easement are also being considered for both overhead and underground options.

The EIS will examine all aspects of this upgrade, including any health-related issues. Integral Energy is committed to complying with the Electricity Supply Association of Australia’s (ESAA) recommendations that electro magnetic fields are well within established guidelines set by health authorities.

(2) No.

(3) The EIS outlined in Question 1 above, once completed, is subject to review by the NSW Minister for Planning.

*1196 PRIMARY INDUSTRIES—GAME COUNCIL—Ms Rhiannon asked the Minister for Primary Industries—

(1) (a) Has the chairman of the Game Council’s committee of management, Mr Robert Brown, resigned?

(b) If so, why?

(2) (a) Has the Game Council conducted an extensive survey of shooters/hunters?

(b) If so: (i) When did this survey take place? (ii) How many people were involved? (iii) What were the major findings of the survey?

(c) If not: (i) Does the Game Council intend to carry out such a survey, and when? (ii) Did the Game Council claim that such a survey had taken place? (iii) Was this false claim a reason for Mr Brown’s resignation?

(3) (a) Has the Game Council filled all positions of Game Manager?


(4) (a) Has the Game Council made a decision to license city-based shooters before country-based ones?

(b) If so, why?

(5) (a) Has the Game Council completed the design of its testing and licensing regime?

(b) If not: (i) Was this a contributing factor to Mr Brown’s resignation? (ii) When will it complete this project? (iii) When will testing and licensing begin?

(6) (a) Who is the new chairperson of the Game Council?

(b) What is the normal occupation of that person?

(c) What other positions of influence does this person hold?

(7) (a) Has the Game Council Board filled all director positions?

(b) If not, which Board spots remain vacant?


Answer—

(1) (a) Yes.

(b) Personal reasons.

(2) (a) Yes.

(b) (i) 2003. (ii) Between 5,000 and 6,000 persons. (iii) Two major things: overwhelming support for a game hunting licencing system and,

willingness to pay for game hunting licences.

(3) (a) Yes.

(4) (a) No.

(5) (a) Yes.

(6) (a) Mr Robert Borsak.

(b) Certified Practising Accountant.

(c) Company Director.

(7) (a) All membership positions on the Game Council were originally filled. Subsequently, three positions have become vacant. Action is being taken to appoint suitable replacements.

*1197 PRIMARY INDUSTRIES—NSW AGRICULTURE PROJECT OFFICERS—Mr Gay asked the Minister for Primary Industries—

(1) As of 30 September 2004, will there be no more funding to pay salaries of NSW Agriculture Project Officers employed to offer front line services to farmers of non-English speaking backgrounds in the Sydney Basin?

(2) (a) Do farmers in the Sydney Basin produce over 40% of New South Wales’ agricultural produce?

(b) Are over 95% of them from non-English speaking backgrounds?

(3) Will the Minister guarantee that there will be no axing of these vital frontline services and that ongoing funding for the Project Officers’ salaries will be provided after 30 September 2004?

Answer—

(1) The Department of Primary Industries employs another seven permanent officers to provide extension services in the Sydney Basin, and these staff are highly experienced and capable of working with farmers from Non English backgrounds. Additional officers have been employed on a short-term basis to enhance services to farmers of non-English speaking backgrounds.

(2) (a) No.

(b) No.

(3) The Department of Primary Industries advises that the effectiveness of the use of bilingual staff is currently being independently evaluated.


*1198 JUVENILE JUSTICE—WORKERS COMPENSATION—Ms Cusack asked the Special Minister of State,

Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Assistant Treasurer, and Minister for the Central Coast representing the Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister for Western Sydney and Minister Assisting the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning (Planning Administration)—

In relation to Workers Compensation:

(1) What were the number of claims for each of the following years:

(a) 1998-1999?

(b) 1999-2000?

(c) 2000-2001?

(d) 2001-2002?

(e) 2002-2003?

(f) 2003-2004?

(g) 2004-2005 (estimated)?

(2) What is the average payment made on claims, including provision for future payments, for each of the following years:

(a) 1998-1999?

(b) 1999-2000?

(c) 2000-2001?

(d) 2001-2002?

(e) 2002-2003?

(f) 2003-2004?

(g) 2004-2005 (estimated)?

(3) What is the range of payments for claims, including provisions for future payments, for each of the following years:

(a) 1998-1999?

(b) 1999-2000?

(c) 2000-2001?

(d) 2001-2002?

(e) 2002-2003?

(f) 2003-2004?

(g) 2004-2005 (estimated)?

(4) What is the cost of insurance premiums for each of the following years:

(a) 1998-1999?


(b) 1999-2000?

(c) 2000-2001?

(d) 2001-2002?

(e) 2002-2003?

(f) 2003-2004?

(g) 2004-2005 (estimated)?

Answer—

(1) to (4) The number of claims made in a given year does not equate to the number of payments for claims. The number of claims accepted and the payments made are determined by the GIO. The cost of workers compensation has reduced significantly since 1998. It is not possible to accurately estimate the claims or costs for future years without unnecessarily diverting staff resources from their operational requirements.

*1199 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS—WORKERS COMPENSATION —Ms Cusack asked the Special Minister of State, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Assistant Treasurer, and Minister for the Central Coast—

Given that Workers Compensation premiums are pegged at 2.57% please advise the average dollar cost of premiums of employers for the following years:

(1) 1999-2000?

(2) 2000-2001?

(3) 2001-2002?

(4) 2002-2003?

(5) 2003-2004?

(6) 2004-2005 (estimated)?

Answer—

(1) to (6)

Policy Renewal Year Average Dollar Cost of Premiums (Total Premium Payable/Total Number of Policies)

Category A Employer Category B Employer

1999 – 2000 $24,621 $758

2000 – 2001 $25,931 $787

2001 – 2002 $25,527 $773

2002 – 2003 $24,212 $783

2003 – 20041 $23,3011 $7451

2004 – 20052 $24,5002 $7852


Category A employers are employers whose basic tariff premium exceeds $3,000 and have their premiums experience-adjusted. Category B employers are those with a basic tariff premium of $3,000 or less and do not have their premiums experience-adjusted.

The above table contains data on the average costs of premiums by policy renewal year and employer category as at 30 June 2004.

These figures are not discounted for inflation. They include GST and the Dust Diseases Levy for each year.

Note 1: For 2003-04 the averages are based on the initial premiums that have been issued by insurers as at 30 June 2004. No hindsight premium adjustments for policies issued in this period have been included and it is anticipated these averages will increase over the next twelve months as the adjustments are made.

Note 2: For 2004-05 the averages shown are an estimate based on the likely premium paid for the policy year. To date less than $500,000 in total premium has been paid for this period.

*1200 ROADS—M4 EAST—Ms Rhiannon asked the Minister for Transport Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Forests) representing the Minister for Roads and Minister for Housing—

(1) Was the option of a tunnel to extend the M4 eastwards first floated by Macquarie Bank or a Macquarie Bank subsidiary in a newsletter of 1999?

(2) Will the M4 East contract contain a clause similar to that used in the M2, whereby no public transport is permitted if it might compete with the motorway?

Answer—

(1) The Roads and Traffic Authority is unaware of any such newsletter article of 1999.

(2) The M2 Project Deed does not preclude development of competing public transport. In fact, along a significant length of the M2, bus lanes are provided to support the operation of bus services along the M2, and to facilitate an effective link between bus and rail at Epping.

However, the M2 Project Deed does provide that if action taken by the NSW Government relating to the servicing of the transport requirements of the Northwest regions of Sydney materially adversely affects the project, the Company and a Trustee may enter negotiations with the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) or the Minister with a view to restoring the financial position of the project. The RTA has not replicated this clause in motorway agreements entered into since the M2.

*1201 TRANSPORT SERVICES—LILYFIELD-DULWICH HILL GOODS RAIL LINE—Ms Rhiannon asked the Minister for Transport Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Forests)—

(1) (a) Are any factories or businesses still transporting goods on the Lilyfield-Dulwich Hill goods rail line?

(b) If not, is that line now ripe for a light rail extension?

(2) During the planning and construction of the Epping-Chatswood Rail Link, was legal action for breach of contract ever threatened by the Hills Motorway Group or otherwise named operator of the M2?


Answer—

I am advised:

(1) (a) to (b) There is currently one active rail siding on the Lilyfield – Dulwich Hill rail line which is serviced twice daily, Monday to Saturday. The Minister for Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources recently appointed a Working Group to investigate light rail options in Sydney.

(2) Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation advises it has no record of threatened legal action from the Hills Motorway Group for breach of contract.

*1202 PRIMARY INDUSTRIES—SOUTH COAST INDIGENOUS FISHER—Dr Chesterfield-Evans asked the Minister for Primary Industries—

(1) (a) Have Fisheries Department officers been directed not to talk on the phone to South Coast Indigenous fisher, Ron Snape?

(b) If so, why?

(2) Is the Minister aware that Mr Snape recently rang the Narooma office of the Department of Fisheries to report an illegal dump of a large quantity of sea urchins, but Fisheries officers would not talk to him?

(3) Why wasn’t the advice and reports of a well-informed member of the South Coast indigenous fishing community used to find out what is really going on with illegal fishing practices on the South Coast?

Answer—

(1) Mr Snape has been advised to contact one of three departmental officers when he wishes to raise fisheries issues. Other staff have been advised to refer Mr Snape to the nominated contact officers rather than discuss matters with him directly to ensure an efficient response to issues raised by Mr Snape.

(2) to (3) I am advised that Mr Snape has ample opportunity to report illegal fishing activity to his nominated contact officers and that all credible reports of illegal fishing activity are investigated.

*1203 INFRASTRUCTURE AND PLANNING—INCINERATION OF TOXIC WASTE—Dr Chesterfield-Evans asked the Minister for Transport Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Forests) representing the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning and Minister for Natural Resources—

(1) Did Australia sign the Stockholm Convention in May this year that makes the incineration of toxic waste illegal?

(2) In the light of the Stockholm Convention, will the Minister withdraw approval for the incineration of toxic waste at Homebush Bay by the Meriton Property Group?

(3) Will the Minister refuse approval of any further applications to burn toxic waste at any other sites in New South Wales?

Answer—

(1) I am aware that Australia has signed the Stockholm Convention.

(2) No.

(3) Any future development applications made to me will be assessed and determined on their respective merits, in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as has been the case with all development applications I have already determined for remediation on the Rhodes Peninsula.


*1204 ROADS—C4 ROUTE—Mr Cohen asked the Minister for Transport Services, Minister for the Hunter, and

Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Forests) representing the Minister for Roads and Minister for Housing—

(1) Why is the NSW Government now supporting the proposed C4 route – Tugan (Queensland) Bypass, having previously withdrawn support for this environmentally damaging route?

(2) What is the justification for expenditure on the C4 route above other infrastructure and service needs existing across the State?

(3) Is legislation in place to protect ecologically unique places like Cobaki and all rivers, lakes and bio-diverse systems in the area?

(4) Will the Minister keep the Tweed community informed about all impacts of the C4 on that community and its environment?

Answer—

(1) The NSW State Government had previously withdrawn its support because of environmental concerns with the proposed C4 route for the Tugun Bypass. However, the Queensland Government has recently agreed to undertake further work to address those concerns and bring the draft Environmental Impact Statement up to New South Wales standards. As a result, I am satisfied that the C4 route can be further developed with the Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW acting as a joint proponent with the Queensland Department of Main Roads.

(2) The C4 route for the Tugun Bypass is a Queensland Government project. Funding is the responsibility of the Federal Government and the Queensland Government.

(3) The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, Threatened Species Conservation Act and Fisheries Management Act all apply to ensure that impacts of the Bypass are acceptably managed.

(4) The Environmental Impact Statement for the project will provide information on the proposal and this is expected to be placed on public display later this year.

*1205 TREASURER—LOWERING SMOKING PREVALENCE—Revd Mr Nile asked the Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council—

(1) Is the Treasurer aware of a major new report (Junor W, Collins D, Lapsley H. The Macroeconomic and distributional effects of reduced smoking prevalence in NSW. The Cancer Council NSW, Sydney June 2004) by leading economists into how reducing smoking prevalence in New South Wales can reduce social inequity and deliver economic benefits to the poorest 20% of households in New South Wales, with little impact on state aggregate output and employment?

(2) Is the Treasurer committed to increasing government investment in lowering smoking prevalence, and to supporting other proven measures to reduce tobacco harm including smoke free pubs and clubs, in accordance with legal rights under Occupational Health and Safety (OH&S) laws?

(3) Given the estimated deaths of more than 70 bar workers a year from smoky licensed venues (according to Repace, J. Estimated mortality from secondhand smoke among club, tavern and bar workers in NSW, Cancer Council NSW, 2004) will the Treasurer put lives and health concerns ahead of gambling revenue considerations and support the unanimous resolution of the Australian Labor Party State Conference in 2003 for total indoor smoke ban in pubs and clubs by end of 2005?


Answer—

I have been advised by the Hon Frank Sartor, Minister Assisting the Minister for Health (Cancer), that the answer to the Honourable Member’s question is –

On 11 June 2004 the Cancer Council NSW released a report entitled “The Macroeconomic and Distribution Effects of Smoking in New South Wales”. The key findings of this report were that:

the poorest smoking households spend an average 18% of their income on tobacco, compared to those in the highest income bracket who spend only 3% of their total income on tobacco;

if individuals in these low income households were encouraged to quit smoking then it is possible that approximately $58.00 a week which they currently spend on tobacco, could be diverted to spending on other household items such as food, clothing, heating etc;

strategies to reduce smoking levels in the community would significantly contribute to lowering the impact of poverty in New South Wales.

Currently New South Wales has one of the lowest smoking rates in the country with 21.4% of the population reporting they are current smokers. Smoking rates are, however, higher amongst the most disadvantaged groups in our community. The NSW Tobacco Action Plan 2001-2004 sets out the Government’s commitment to reducing tobacco related harm. Principal areas of activity includes:

conducting mass media campaigns to raise awareness about the health and social effects of smoking; monitoring tobacco retailer’s compliance with tobacco legislation, especially in the area of tobacco

advertising and sale of tobacco products to minors; the provision of best practice services, such as the NSW Quitline to assist smokers to quit.

Priority groups identified under the Plan include women, youth, those on low incomes and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. Recent strategies undertaken to discourage smoking amongst these groups have included:

a focus on smoking and poverty as part of this year’s; Smoking turns your cash to ash World No Tobacco Day activities;

a Women and Smoking mass media campaign entitled Lady Killer– why risk it. School-based programs such as the Rock Eisteddfod Challenge and the Smoking. Don’t be a sucker program; and

the allocation of $100,000 per year towards the development of programs to specifically target smoking among indigenous populations.

In October 2003, the Hon. Frank E Sartor announced that a working party would be convened to work towards a clear plan and appropriate timetable for the banning of smoking in the indoor areas of licensed venues that are currently exempt under the Smoke free Environment Act. This Working Group consisted of representatives from the Australian Hotel’s Association, ClubsNSW, Star City Casino, Restaurant and Catering NSW, the NSW Labour Council, the Liquor Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union and relevant government agencies.

This Working Group met eight times between November 2003 and June 2004 and the Chair of this Working Group recently presented Minister Sartor with a report of their deliberations. Minister Sartor is currently considering the findings of this report and an announcement by the Government is anticipated later in the year.

*1206 HEALTH—RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE MENTAL HEALTH INQUIRY—Dr Chesterfield-Evans asked the Special Minister of State, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Assistant Treasurer, and Minister for the Central Coast representing the Minister for Health—

In relation to the Government’s response to the following recommendations of the Select Committee Inquiry into Mental Health Services in New South Wales:

(1) Recommendation 2: Will the minutes of the CEO’s forum be routinely made public?

(2) Recommendation 3:

(a) Is there a formal response to the Baume report?


(b) Will this committee have an ongoing role?

(c) If so, will it be a prototype for expert committees oversighting government actions?

(d) If not, can some research monies be given to institutes of excellence, such as a tender to University departments to look at Government activities in the light of world research and identifiable key performance indicators to inform and report on progress?

(3) Recommendation 4: How is the Unique Patient Identifier (UPI) project progressing?


(a) When will there be accounting changes so that the Government can produce a spreadsheet of its mental health programs across Area Health Services?

(b) Are there standard Area Health Service agreements in mental health (or other areas)?

(c) If so, are they collated and available?

(d) If so, who is monitoring their implementation and outcomes and with what data?

(e) If not, why not?


(a) If the community crisis team/case management approach is not the most appropriate model, what other models have been suggested?

(b) What programs are attached to these models?

(c) Who is responsible for them?

(d) Who is responsible for evaluating them and in what time frame?

(e) What funding do they have?


(a) Has additional funding been provided to support mental health programs?

(b) If so:

(i) For which programs?

(ii) What was the existing funding and the increments made?

(c) What civil liberties safeguards are there for ‘Assertive Case Management’?


(a) Have any additional community-based and NGO services been developed?

(b) If so:

(i) What is their location?

(ii) What is their budget?

(c) What services have been defunded?

(d) What was their location?


(e) What was their budget?

(8) Recommendation 10: Why does the criticism against mainstreaming not apply to the Concord facility?


(a) What is the relationship between public and private mental health providers?

(b) Is this merely role definition, or is it coordination of public and private hospitals?

(c) If so, by what protocols?

(10) Recommendation 14: When will this information be made public and in what form?

(11) Recommendation 15: How many mental health carers are receiving funds under this program?


(a) What consultation is there with carer groups?

(b) What liaison with individual carers is there at the time of discharge from acute facilities?

(c) Do all discharges have a notified ‘responsible person’ if the diagnosis is a relapsing condition?

(d) If not, why not, even if this person is the local mental health team?


(a) In relation to the NSW Mental Health Nursing Enhancement Program, please give details of the ‘improved support for mental health clinical placements’ being provided.

(b) Why are the University placements not funded, given the huge nursing shortage?


(a) How many new mental health nurses have been employed as a result of ‘Nurses, The Real Thing’ program?

(b) If this information is not available, what is the recruitment in the period after the program compared to the corresponding period prior to it?

(15) Recommendation 19: How many Mental Health Nurse Practitioners are there now and where are they based?

(16) Recommendation 22: How many official mental health visitors are there?


(a) What is the progress of the ‘‘whole of government” review of grant application processes for NGOs, especially in mental health and disability?

(b) Will the review result in more transparency and less ‘Ministerial discretion’ than the current process?

(c) Does the government intend to address the low participation of community-based NGOs in mental health, given that the National Mental Health Report of 2002 stated that NSW was the State with the lowest percentage of the budget going to NGOs, being 1.5% compared to 9.1% in Victoria, and a National average for all States of 5.4%?



(a) What are the ‘Mental Health Quality Indicators’ referred to?

(b) By what process are these indicators being reviewed in 2004?


(a) Is the response to recommendation 29 inconsistent with the response to recommendation 28?

(b) If the process of quality control is occurring through AHS Quality Councils, how are the KPI’s incorporated into this process?

(c) What is the relationship between central monitoring of KPIs and the work of these councils?

(20) Recommendation 31: Has the document yet been published?


(a) How many beds will be supported by this increase in funding?

(b) What is the timetable for the extra beds?

(22) Recommendation 41: What exactly are the funding levels for these programs?


Can the Government define what:

(a) Models it is considering?

(b) What the process is?

(c) When the preferred model(s) will be defined?

(d) How it/they will be implemented?

(e) How it will be funded?


(a) Please define these models?

(b) What is the time frames for the pilots?

(c) What is the number of clients identified as having these needs?

(d) What is the likely budget for the implementation?


(a) What is the progress of the Boarding House Reform program?

(b) How many places are there?

(c) How has this changed over time?

(d) What are the future projected numbers?

(e) Where are they located?



(a) Is the Aftercare report available yet?

(b) If so, what are its key features?

(27) Recommendations 48 and 49:

(a) Has this referral occurred?

(b) If so, what has been the outcome?


(a) Is this tool and manual available yet?

(b) If not, will it be available by June 2004?


(a) What are the total numbers in the program?

(b) Is there any plan to increase numbers?

(c) Where are they actually located?


(a) Please list these services?

(b) What is their availability?

(31) Recommendations 57 and 58:

(a) What is the progress of this review?

(b) What is the expected finishing date of this review?

(32) Recommendation 59: Are these available to Villawood inmates?

(33) Recommendation 62: What is the timeframe of this?

(34) Recommendation 65: What is the timeframe for this?


(a) How many people are there in prison with intellectual disabilities?

(b) What screening programs exist?

(c) How effective are these at identifying intellectual disability and diverting people from prison?

(d) Who implements the program counts?

(e) Are these officers screening all people who have court appearances?

(36) Recommendation 77: What programs and resources are there for practical implementation of this recommendation?



(a) Is this draft plan now available?

(b) Will there be any additional specialist psychiatrists?

(38) Recommendations 80 and 81: What is the progress of the implementation of these recommendations?

(39) Recommendation 88: What are the alternatives to case management?


(a) When will the review be completed?

(b) When is the review expected to be available?

(41) Recommendation 98: When will the results of the review be available?

(42) Recommendation 102: What has been done to ensure secure units?

(43) Recommendation 103: Are these records public?

(44) Recommendation 116: What is the timeframe for this?

Answer—

I am advised that to answer this question in the level of detail sought would substantially and unjustifiably divert the resources of the Department of Health away from the exercise of its core functions.

I can advise that the implementation of the Government’s response to the recommendations of the Legislative Council Select Committee Inquiry into Mental Health Services is being managed through a number of forums.

The Mental Health Implementation Taskforce has been established to monitor the implementation of the Government’s response and will report to me on its progress and effectiveness. The Taskforce is chaired by Dr Brian Pezzutti and its membership includes clinicians, academics, administrators, consumers, carers and the peak mental health NGO.

Issues are being progressed through the Human Services CEOs Forum which has established a Senior Officers Group on Mental Health. The Senior Officers Group has established small implementation groups to progress each of the actions requiring a whole-of-government approach included in the Government response to the recommendations of the Select Committee Inquiry into Mental Health Services in New South Wales. Specifically, these groups will develop actions to ensure that people with mental illness are able to:

(a) access services to assist in maintaining public housing tenancies, (b) better access work opportunities through vocational and employment training programs appropriate to

their needs, (c) receive acute and responsive care following contact with emergency services (including Police,

Ambulance and Hospital Emergency Departments). (d) better access coordinated mental health and substance misuse services as appropriate to need, (e) expect that the range of human service agencies will communicate effectively regarding their needs and

safety considerations whilst ensuring privacy is protected as required by legislation, (f) better access safe and appropriately supported accommodation in the community to reduce time in prison, (g) better access a range of NGO support and services as appropriate to need.

The Government is also continuing to support the improvement of mental health care through the budget process. Under this Government, the mental health budget has more than doubled since 1995. A further increase of $241 million over the next four years has also been announced. This will be targeted primarily at acute, sub acute and community-based care for patients.

In respect of the first report of the NSW Sentinel Event Review Committee, Tracking Tragedy, a formal Government response is being prepared and will be released shortly.


The Committee is continuing.

31 AUGUST 2004

(Paper No. 65)

1207 EDUCATION—PAS PROGRAM—Dr Chesterfield-Evans to ask the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Youth representing the Minister for Education and Training and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs—

(1) (a) Has the funding for the successful PAS program been cut?

(b) If so, is this funding cut due to the increase in teachers’ salaries?

(c) If this is not the reason, what is the government’s reason for cutting the PAS funding?

1208 ATTORNEY GENERAL—PLEA BARGAINING—Dr Chesterfield-Evans to ask the Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship representing the Attorney General and Minister for the Environment—

(1) (a) How much plea bargaining is done in New South Wales?

(b) What is the percentage of cases in which there is a plea bargain?

(2) Do people on parole have the same access to social services as other members of the community?

(3) (a) Has there been any studies of the outcomes of people on parole in terms of social indices such as employment, children’s truancy etc?

(b) If so, what are they?

1209 HEALTH—RESPIRATORY DISEASES IN LIGHTNING RIDGE—Dr Chesterfield-Evans to ask the Special Minister of State, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Assistant Treasurer, and Minister for the Central Coast representing the Minister for Health—

(1) What studies have been done on respiratory disease in Lightning Ridge?

(2) (a) Is there an increased incidence of silicosis among opal miners?

(b) If this is unknown, is there an abnormally high use of respiratory support drugs and appliances in the Lightning Ridge area?

(3) What liaison procedures exist between Health and other departments to look at issues such as this?

1210 HEALTH—YOUTH SMOKING —Dr Chesterfield-Evans to ask the Special Minister of State, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Assistant Treasurer, and Minister for the Central Coast representing the Minister for Health—

(1) Is the delay in New South Wales releasing its figures on youth smoking delaying the release of the national figures?

(2) Why haven’t the New South Wales figures on youth smoking been released?

(3) Has the derisory amounts spent on tobacco control and quit campaigns led to poor results?


(4) Have the poor results made it harder to yield to the Australian Hotels Association (AHA) and further

delay implementation of smoke-free pubs and clubs?

1211 ROADS—CAMPBELLTOWN ROADS—Dr Chesterfield-Evans to ask the Minister for Transport Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Minister Assisting the Minister for State Development representing the Minister for Roads and Minister for Housing—

(1) How many people have been killed in accidents at the corner of Campbelltown and Old Campbelltown Roads?

(2) Will the risk at this intersection increase when trucks serving the Redox Chemical Storage plant gear up?

(3) What plans are there to put in traffic lights at this intersection?

1212 HEALTH—PSYCHOLOGISTS IN NEW SOUTH WALES—Dr Chesterfield-Evans to ask the Special Minister of State, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Assistant Treasurer, and Minister for the Central Coast representing the Minister for Health—

(1) Is the Minister aware that the British National Health Service (NHS) has expanded its clinical psychology workforce from 780 in the 1980s to 4,896 FTEs (full time equivalents), which is approximately 1 per 10,000 population, and that the Scottish NHS set a ratio of 1:5000?

(2) (a) How many FTE psychologists are there in New South Wales?

(b) What is this as a ratio to the New South Wales population served by NSW Health?

(c) Why is the New South Wales number so low?

(3) (a) Are there any plans by NSW Health to expand the number of psychologists to help with the chronic shortage of mental health professionals?

(b) If so, what are those plans?


1213 PRIMARY INDUSTRIES—FIRE BLIGHT—Dr Chesterfield-Evans to ask the Minister for Primary Industries—

(1) What is the risk of fire blight to orchardists in New South Wales?

(2) What is the government doing to stop New Zealand fire blight?

1214 MINERAL RESOURCES—LIGHTNING RIDGE—Dr Chesterfield-Evans to ask the Minister for Primary Industries representing the Minister for Mineral Resources—

(1) What is the composition of the opal bearing layers in Lightning Ridge?

(2) What studies have been done on respiratory disease in Lightning Ridge?

(3) Is there an increased incidence of silicosis?

(4) What education has been done on opal miners to lessen the incidence of silicosis?

(5) Why is there no tendering for exploration of mining permits for opal mining in Lightning Ridge?


(6) (a) What restrictions or regulations are there for landholders against opal miners dumping spoil on

land?

(b) How is this enforced?

(7) (a) Does the spoil of opal mining have a high salt content?

(b) Has there been an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on opal mining spoil?

(c) If so, what is the effect of the huge mounds of waste dumped on land adjacent to mines?

(d) If not, why not?

(8) (a) What regulations relate to miners vacating workings and leaving abandoned holes, caverns or earthworks?

(b) Is there danger of accident or subsidence from abandoned workings?

(c) What responsibility do miners have for these workings?

(d) How are these enforced?

1215 HEALTH—SMOKING ADVERTISEMENT—Dr Chesterfield-Evans to ask the Special Minister of State, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Assistant Treasurer, and Minister for the Central Coast representing the Minister for Health—

(1) Is the Minister aware that the August edition of “Hotel News” published by the New South Wales branch of the Australian Hotels Association (AHA) contains an A4 size advertisement for “Tally-Ho” tobacco rolling papers with the caption “Licked by Millions”?

(2) (a) Is this advertisement a breach of section 15 of the Tobacco Advertising Act which prohibits advertising cigarette papers in publications such as this magazine?

(b) If so, will the Minister for Health prosecute the AHA for publishing this advertisement for a tobacco product in their magazine?

(3) (a) Does this advertisement demonstrate a conflict of interest in banning smoking inside pubs and clubs for occupational health and safety purposes?

(b) Will the Minister remove the Australian Hotel Association from the Joint Working Group?

1216 ATTORNY GENERAL—ASBESTOS DISEASES FOUNDATION—Dr Chesterfield-Evans to ask the Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship representing the Attorney General and Minister for the Environment—

(1) What is the government responsibility to asbestos victims?

(2) (a) Has the government assisted the Asbestos Diseases Foundation of Australia in its action against James Hardie for apparently misleading conduct in attempting to avoid its obligations to victims of asbestos disease?

(b) If so, how?


(3) Does the government’s law and order agenda focus on small individuals, and not to powerful corporate bodies?

(4) Why won’t the government introduce corporate manslaughter legislation?


1217 TRANSPORT SERVICES—BUNDANOON TRAIN SERVICES—Mrs Forsythe to ask the Minister for

Transport Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Minister Assisting the Minister for State Development—

(1) Given the statement made by the Transport Minister that referred to residents in the Southern Highlands as “millionaire stockbrokers’ now can low income earners and seriously ill people access the Quest for Life Centre at Bundanoon following the axing of essential transport services to and from the village?

(2) Are there any plans to reinstate the afternoon train service to Bundanoon on Fridays and Mondays, as these are the intake days at the Quest for Life Centre, enabling people who are seriously to be admitted to the Centre at the appropriate time?

1218 TRANSPORT SERVICES—SAFETY OF STATE TRANSIT WORKERS—Ms Rhiannon to ask the Minister for Transport Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Minister Assisting the Minister for State Development—

(1) Was a State Transit Authority driver, Ms Sue Benson, raped by a passenger in 1997?

(2) Did Ms Benson allege that State Transit management threatened to sack her if she did not stop speaking about the incident?

(3) (a) What assistance did State Transit management give to Ms Benson following this incident?

(b) Was the response provided by John Stott, Chief Executive of State Transit, appropriate to the nature of the incident?


(4) (a) Are STA workers prohibited by STA management from speaking to the management about safety issues on the job?

(b) If so, why?

(5) Since the incident involving Ms Benson have any other STA workers been raped while at work?

(6) (a) Since the start of 2003 how many STA workers have been assaulted on the job?

(b) What were the nature of these assaults?

(c) How many of the perpetrators have been charged?

1219 JUSTICE—LONG BAY HOSPITAL—Ms Rhiannon to ask the Minister for Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship—

(1) (a) Does the Government have plans to rebuild and partly privatise Long Bay Hospital including privatisation of custodial and security management and educational programs at the facility?

(b) If so, please outline the exact plans for this rebuilding and privatisation process?

(2) What assurances can the Minister provide to prisoners, existing staff and relevant unions that this process will not compromise the quality of services or job security?

John Evans

Clerk of the Parliaments _________________________

Authorised by the Parliament of New South Wales

questions and answers - parliament of nsw · 8/31/2004 · (1) oc spray was discharged during this...

Documents