Mrs JUDY HOPWOOD (Hornsby) [12.33 p.m.]: I make a very brief contribution in debate on the Legislation Review Committee's "Legislation Review Digest No. 16 of 2009". This week the committee deliberated on a huge list of 22 bills. The secretariat had to undertake extensive work in preparation for our meeting on Monday and I pay tribute to them as well as to the members of the committee, who had to prepare themselves for the meeting so that this rather large digest could be compiled for this week. We all anticipated that we would sit long days this week to deal with the number of bills debated but that did not eventuate.

The digest for this week covers the Child Protection Legislation (Registrable Persons) Amendment Bill 2009, the Constitution Amendment (Lieutenant-Governor) Bill 2009, the Crimes Amendment (Fraud, Identity and Forgery Offences) Bill 2009, the Electricity Supply Amendment (GGAS) Bill 2009, the Electricity Supply Amendment (Solar Bonus Scheme) Bill 2009, the Emergency Services Legislation Amendment (Finance) Bill 2009, the Graffiti Control Amendment Bill 2009, the Historic Houses Amendment (Throsby Park Historic Site) Bill 2009, the Independent Commission Against Corruption and Ombudsman Legislation Amendment Bill 2009, the Independent Commission Against Corruption Amendment (Political Donations) Bill 2009, the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Amendment (Automatic Enrolment) Bill 2009, the Personal Property Securities (Commonwealth Powers) Amendment Bill 2009, the Public Sector Restructure (Miscellaneous Acts Amendment) Bill 2009, the Road Transport Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2009, the Save the Graythwaite Estate Bill 2009, the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 2) Bill 2009, the Surface Coal Mining Prohibition (Lake Macquarie) Bill 2009, the Swimming Pools Amendment Bill 2009, the Trade Measurement (Repeal) Bill 2009, the Trustee Companies Amendment Bill 2009, the Valuation of Land Amendment Bill 2009 and the Water Management Amendment Bill 2009.

All of these pieces of legislation are very important in their own right and again it shows the depth and breadth of the considerations that this House undertakes and that the committee needs to take into consideration in terms of trampling on people's rights. I briefly refer to one of those pieces of legislation, the Child Protection Legislation (Registrable Persons) Amendment Bill 2009. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Child Protection Offenders Registration Act 2000 and the Child Protection Offenders Prohibition Orders Act 2004 to require a registrable person to report a change in children who generally reside in the same household or with whom the person has regular unsupervised contact within 24 hours of the change occurring, rather than the three days at present; and to require a registrable person to report an intended change in their place of residence to the police commissioner at least 14 days beforehand, unless occurring from an emergency or exceptional circumstances, when the bill allows until three days after the change of address for the notification.

The purpose of the bill is also to provide for the extension of a registrable person's reporting period during the time in which they are travelling outside of Australia for a month or more or residing outside Australia; to allow the Administrative Decisions Tribunal to exempt a registrable person from the reporting obligations imposed by such an extension of that reporting period; to enable the police commissioner to direct certain agencies to provide personal information about a registrable person for the purposes of developing or giving effect to a case management plan; and to amend the Child Protection Offenders Prohibition Orders Act 2004 to enable the Local Court to make a contact prohibition order prohibiting a registrable person in relation to a particular registrable offence from contacting a victim of that offence or a co-offender who perpetrated that offence. The police commissioner can make such an application in specified circumstances. The term of the order cannot exceed 12 months and the penalty for breaching an order is 50 penalty points or 12 months imprisonment.

In relation to the discussion about this piece of legislation, in October 2001 New South Wales was the first State to introduce a mandatory system of registration for people who have committed child sex offences or other serious offences against children. Persons who are found guilty of and sentenced in respect of certain offences relating to children are required to report relevant personal information to police and to keep that information up to date, and those persons are referred to as registrable persons under the principal Act. As of 19 September 2008 there were 1,937 people on the register and they are required to tell police if they are leaving New South Wales. In an amendment to the Act in December 2007 the notification period for a child residing in the home of a registrable person was reduced to three days after the change occurred. This bill reduces the period to 24 hours based on a recommendation from the National Child Protection Register Working Party. In terms of the digests and the discussions, the issues considered by the committee were related to issues around freedom of association, privacy and commencement by proclamation. The committee made certain statements in the digest, which every member can refer to so I will not read those out. This piece of legislation is obviously very significant to the safety of children.

I refer to comments made by the shadow Attorney General and say that the register monitors only those paedophiles convicted since the laws were introduced in 2001. Hetty Johnston, Executive Director of Bravehearts, said that the case of the night stalker justifies making the sex register retrospective. She said:

It's frightening he was out there and no one was watching him. Ideally it would be better if every person convicted of a child sex offence, who is still alive, was put on the register.

Her call was backed by the New South Wales Rape Crisis Centre whose Executive Officer, Karen Willis, said it was time for a reassessment of the register. She said:

I would like to see it acting more retrospectively. So let's look closely at the evidence of recidivism among offenders and see if it warrants retrospective listing.

In conclusion, the Parliament has a responsibility to make children as safe as possible and all suggestions in relation to their safety should be taken on board.

Mr ALLAN SHEARAN (Londonderry) [12.42 p.m.]: I take this opportunity to comment on the recent Legislation Review Digest Report No 16, dated 23 November 2009, which examined a total of 22 bills and reported on one regulation, and included notifications received on the proposed postponements of the repeal of five regulations. Given the length of the report and the number of bills scrutinised, I will not name all the bills, but I will summarise for members some of the main concerns identified by the committee in the report, which have been referred to Parliament for consideration.

Some of the concerns included retrospectivity in relation to the Save the Graythwaite Estate Bill 2009, excessive punishment, reverse onus of proof, strict liability and non-reviewable decisions arising from the Graffiti Control Amendment Bill 2009, strict liability in relation to the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Amendment (Automatic Enrolment) Bill 2009, denial of compensation in the context of the Electricity Supply Amendment (GGAS) Bill 2009, Personal Property Securities (Commonwealth Powers) Amendment Bill 2009 and in the Water Management Amendment Bill 2009, excessive punishment and retrospectivity arising from the Road Transport Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2009, and the right to privacy and retrospectivity in relation to the Independent Commission Against Corruption and Ombudsman Legislation Amendment Bill 2009.

With regard to the Graffiti Control Amendment Bill 2009, the committee asks the Parliament to consider whether there are undue trespasses on individual rights and liberties when balancing the general community interests and public expectation for more serious penalties to reflect the nature and extent of damage caused by graffiti offences. The committee notes the seriousness of graffiti offences, including the defacement and vandalism of property in proportionality to the deterrence effect and severity of the proposed penalties. In relation to the Independent Commission Against Corruption and Ombudsman Legislation Amendment Bill 2009, the committee acknowledges that, with respect to the admission or exclusion of illegally obtained evidence, courts have a discretion to consider and weigh the competing requirements to protect the public interest and the individual from unlawful and unfair treatment.

However, the committee considers that the bill may adversely affect the rights to privacy of all parties who may be included on the tapes and refers the matter to Parliament. The committee is also concerned about the retrospective application of schedule 1 [3], particularly in cases such as this one, where there is the real potential to adversely impact upon individual privacy and, accordingly, refers the matter to Parliament. For specific details of the basis upon which each of the bills has been scrutinised, I suggest members go directly to the report On behalf of the committee I take this opportunity to express my thanks to the various staff from the relevant Ministerial offices for their assistance in providing information on why certain proposed Acts or their provisions require the discretion to commence by proclamation rather than on assent.

Members will recall that this was an ongoing issue in earlier reports, but now I am pleased to say that generally the committee is receiving suitable advice when this becomes an issue. In closing I reiterate, the committee does not comment on policy decisions relating to the enactment of individual pieces of legislation. However, the committee has a distinct role to scrutinise every bill that comes before the Parliament to ensure that they do not trespass unnecessarily on personal rights and liberties. In this respect, I take the opportunity to thank committee members for their dedication and, importantly, committee staff for their prompt assistance. Both the committee and staff demonstrate a commitment to providing appropriate advice within very restrictive time constraints. Hopefully, all of them will get a chance over the festive season to wind down and enjoy a period of relaxation prior to what will no doubt be a busy year ahead.

Mr DARYL MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [12.47 p.m.]: I also add my thanks to the committee and the chairman for their hard work in bringing this document to the Parliament, and for making it available electronically. As I have said on so many occasions, this document is important for members who wish to participate in debates. We all find it very valuable. I also thank the staff who work behind the scenes writing the speeches for the chairman and doing all of those things that we appreciate. I note that report No. 16 refers to correspondence received from the Hon. Carmel Tebbutt, Deputy Premier, advising the chairman, as she is required to do under the Subordinate Legislation Act 1989, that the committee be given notice of postponement of staged repeal of statutory rules for the third, fourth, or fifth time. She is seeking a postponement of a number of regulations because it is suggested that they are under review again and they will be replaced by the Act.

I checked the correspondence in particular because I was looking for the issue I raised about the rail trails bill, which has not yet become before the House and which I have raised on a number of occasions with the chairman. I have sought the committee's response to the regulations that Minister Campbell is proposing, but which none of us have seen. It has been about 1½ months since the legislation was originally tabled in the House. Since that time it has sat dormant. We found out through the media that a number of amendments are proposed that will change the original intention of the legislation, but which none of us has had the privilege of seeing to consider their effect on communities, landholders and farmers, who are bitterly opposed to the way in which the bill has been managed.

I am disappointed in the chairman for not taking up my request. I often wonder what the point of raising these issues is if the chairman does not pursue them on behalf of members. I think that is only fair. If the chairman is not going to respond to such requests, committee members should call for a spill. At the next committee meeting they should call for a spill and elect a chairman who is going to respond. Otherwise members are wasting their time and energy dutifully reading the reports, highlighting the deficiencies and requesting that something as important as amendments to the rail trails bill be tabled in the House. The Minister should at least give advance copies of the amendments to the committee so that it can assess their impact. There is no doubt that the bill will be detrimental to communities. All political parties are opposed to it, as are communities, farmers and landholders. The bill will impact on their lifestyle and business operations. I say to the committee: If the chairman does not lift his game you should call for a spill.

Question—That the House take note of the report—put and resolved in the affirmative.Question—That the House take note of the report—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Report noted.