Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 30 November 2010, Corrected Copy)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Tuesday 30 November 2010

The Deputy-President and Chair of Committees (The Hon. Kayee Frances Griffin), in the absence of the President, took the chair at 2.30 p.m.

The Deputy President (The Hon. Kayee Frances Griffin) read the Prayers.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT: I acknowledge the Gadigal clan of the Eora nation and its elders and thank them for their custodianship of this land.

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following bills reported:

ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT: I report the receipt of the following message from the Hon. Justice James Allsop, Administrator of the State of New South Wales:

Administrator

PLUMBING BILL 2010

Bill received from the Legislative Assembly, and read a first time and ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly, on behalf of the Hon. Peter Primrose.

Motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly agreed to:

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

Second reading set down as an order of the day for a later hour.

GO HOME ON TIME DAY

Motion by Mr David Shoebridge agreed to:

www.gohomeontimeday.org.au

NEW ZEALAND MINING DEATHS

Motion by the Hon. Robyn Parker agreed to:

IRAN HUMAN RIGHTS

Motion by Mr David Shoebridge agreed to:

Washington Post

TABLING OF PAPERS

The Hon. John Robertson tabled the following papers:

Ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. John Robertson.

AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORT

The Clerk announced the receipt, pursuant to the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, of a performance audit report of the Auditor-General entitled "Coal Mining Royalties—New South Wales Department of Industry and Investment, NSW Treasury", dated November 2010, received out of session and authorised to be printed this day.

PETITIONS

Euthanasia Legislation

Petition requesting that the House oppose legislation that would legalise euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide in New South Wales, received from Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.

Byrrill Creek Dam Proposal

Petition praying that the House ensure that any dam within Byrrill Creek is prohibited in the forthcoming Tweed River Area Unregulated and Alluvial Water Sharing Plan 2010, received from the Hon. Ian Cohen.

Euthanasia

Petition praying that the House will oppose any attempts to legalise or decriminalise the practice of euthanasia to ensure that the quality of life of the elderly, handicapped or terminally ill is not subject to these unjust or unethical procedures, received from Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.

Identity Concealment

Petition opposing any face covering that conceals the identity of a person and prevents Australia from being an open society, and requesting that the House support the private member's bill of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile that prohibits within all public areas the wearing of any article of clothing that conceals a person's identity, received from Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.

Religious Education and School Ethics Classes

Petition opposing the newly proposed secular humanist ethics course in public schools and calling on the Government to support the cancellation of the ethics course and express its support for scripture classes, received from Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.

IRREGULAR PETITION

Leave granted for the suspension of standing orders to allow the Hon. Duncan Gay to present an irregular petition.

Marine Parks, Sanctuaries and Habitat Protection Zones

Petition requesting a moratorium on the creation of all new proposed marine parks, sanctuaries and habitat protection zones and rejecting extensions to existing parks, sanctuaries and zones that further restrict fishing activities and removal of the National Parks Association report "The Torn Blue Fringe" for consideration by the Parliament, received from the Hon. Duncan Gay.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Postponement of Business

Government Business Orders of the Day Nos 1 and 2 postponed on motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly.

COURTS AND CRIMES LEGISLATION FURTHER AMENDMENT BILL 2010

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 24 November 2010.

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE [3.04 p.m.]: The Opposition does not oppose the Courts and Crimes Legislation Further Amendment Bill 2010, which it believes will bring some needed improvements to the efficacy of the New South Wales justice system and, importantly, will reduce costs for the running of the justice system in this State and access to it. The Opposition also supports extending the terms of appointment for Children's Court magistrates. On 24 November 2010 the Attorney General extensively outlined the purpose of the Courts and Crimes Legislation Further Amendment Bill 2010. I note his comments that the Courts and Crimes Legislation Further Amendment Bill seeks to make miscellaneous amendments to a range of courts and tribunals and crime-related legislation in New South Wales to improve the efficiency and operation of the New South Wales justice system. I do not intend to reiterate the intention of each schedule, as the Attorney General has done so in his second reading speech. I am informed that comment on this bill was sought from the Law Society, the Bar Association, Legal Aid NSW, and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The Opposition is aware that the Bar Association has made a submission regarding the amendment to the proposed increase of jurisdiction of the Local Court. I understand the Bar Association opposes that amendment on the basis that it unnecessarily increases the workload of the Local Court. The amendments increase the jurisdiction of the Local Court sitting in its general division from $60,000 to $100,000. However, in relation to a claim for damages arising from personal injury or death the Local Court's jurisdictional limit remains at $60,000. The Opposition has carefully considered the issues raised by the Bar Association and, on balance, it is felt that magistrates will be able to adequately deal with the increased jurisdiction, and that hopefully will also ensure matters are dealt with more promptly and cheaply.

The bill amends the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 to implement a new system for determining when the trial should proceed before a judge sitting alone without a jury. Under proposed new section 132 both the accused person and a prosecutor may apply to the court for an order that the accused person be tried by judge alone. The order must be made if both agree but cannot be made if the accused person does not agree. If a prosecutor does not agree, the court may make an order if it considers it to be in the interests of justice to do so. The court must not make an order unless it is satisfied that the accused person has obtained legal advice about the effect of the order. Despite all of those provisions, the court may make an order if there is a substantial risk of jury tampering offences occurring and the risk of those acts occurring may not reasonably be mitigated by other means. Proposed new section 132A provides for the time within which applications for orders must be made and applications in joint trials.

The Opposition notes that there are several changes to the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987, mainly with aspects of youth conduct orders and offences. Schedule 5 amends the Children's Court Act 1987 to allow a children's magistrate to be appointed for a period of up to five years instead of the current maximum period of appointment of three years. The Opposition believes this amendment is a good one and provides stability within the justice system. I note that the Government consulted its Youth Conduct Orders Advisory Committee, which includes representatives from the Aboriginal Legal Service, the Law Society, Legal Aid NSW, the Council of Social Service of New South Wales, the Youth Action and Policy Association, the Victims Advisory Board, the National Children's and Youth Law Centre, the Regional Communities Consultative Council, the Intellectual Disability Rights Service and the Youth Justice Coalition on this part of the bill. I understand the stakeholders were satisfied with the amendments to the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [3.08 p.m.]: Much of the Courts and Crimes Legislation Further Amendment Bill 2010 is supported by the Greens, on whose behalf I speak on the bill. However, a number of important provisions, primarily relating to the rights of victims of crime, are strongly opposed. Indeed, a series of amendments will be moved by the Greens in Committee, and I will speak to them in more detail at that time.

The bill is a substantial compendium bill and it is unfortunate to see it presented at this late stage of the parliamentary session when substantial parts of the bill would have benefited greatly from further consultation with the community, particularly those engaged, for example, in community legal centres and representing victims of crime. I also note that it appears there has been minimal consultation with some of the peak law bodies in relation to some important aspects of the bill, notably changes to the jurisdiction of the Local Court and the increase in jurisdiction of the Local Court for civil matters. One would have thought those matters could have been dealt with more appropriately with greater consultation, particularly with the legal profession and consumers of the law, who could now face potentially increasingly costly judgements from the Local Court.

I will not speak in relation to all of the elements of the bill but simply point out some of those elements that are either substantially supported by the Greens or cause substantial concern for the Greens. It is noted that one of these proposals is to amend the Crimes (Criminal Organisation Control) Act 2009. That is a piece of legislation that in its entirety one would think faces substantial risk of being struck down by the High Court on review when or if a so-called criminal organisation, as deemed by a member of the Executive, is actually the subject of the Act. I note that the proposed amendment to the Act is to push out the period for review by the Ombudsman from two to four years. Whilst there may be some practical reasons for pushing out the review insofar as this Act has not actually been used and taken all the way through the process in the Supreme Court to declare a criminal organisation, and whilst as a matter of practice there may be some common sense in pushing it out for four years to allow the Act to actually be used, it is unfortunate the Ombudsman's review is not sufficiently broad and is not being done in a sufficiently timely way to consider what will be the likely unconstitutionality of this Act. It is a great concern that substantial legal resources may be spent by both the State and potentially organisations which will be the subject of this Act on what will likely be an unconstitutional piece of legislation.

I can say that the amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 are broadly supported by the Greens. One of those key amendments came from the referral from the Attorney General to the Standing Committee of this House to consider changes to the manner in which judge-alone and/or jury trials are determined in the criminal justice system. There was an anachronism in the Australian law—and there is as of today—which it is hoped will be amended by this bill, an anachronism in the New South Wales legal system whereby the Director of Public Prosecutions has effectively a veto as to whether or not an accused can make application to the court to seek a judge-alone trial. New South Wales is effectively one out in that regard. It is an unusual provision. Whilst the Director of Public Prosecutions is a bureaucrat for whom the Greens and I believe all members of this House have strong respect, nevertheless the provision gives power to a bureaucrat to make an administrative decision as to whether or not an application for a judge-alone trial can be made in either the District or the Supreme court. Giving that veto power to the Director of Public Prosecutions effectively gives the prosecution the whip hand in deciding the circumstances in which an accused will be brought to trial.

There was a unanimous conclusion from the members of the committee. It was a bit of a rainbow coalition in terms of political opinion, varying from somewhat socially conservative, with all due respect to the Hon. David Clarke, on one side, through to the Greens and including an array of political opinions in between in relation to the proper functioning of our criminal justice system. It was a unanimous resolution of that committee that that power should not be vested in a bureaucrat, even if it is one in the form of the Director of Public Prosecutions; the decision as to whether there should be a judge-alone trial should properly be a decision made by a judge in full and open public scrutiny in a public court here in New South Wales. Those amendments form part of this bill and they are supported.

The amendment to increase the civil jurisdiction of the Local Court does, however, raise a number of serious concerns. That does appear to be an amendment which has been presented with minimal consultation with the legal profession, and, indeed, would appear to be potentially exposing both plaintiffs and defendants to the somewhat less rigorous processes of the Local Court in determining claims in the order of $60,000 to $100,000, which could be financially crippling to some litigants. One ought not minimise the potential impact that a judgement in the order of $80,000, $90,000 or $100,000 can have on ordinary citizens here in New South Wales. I am sure it is the experience of anyone who has litigated on modest-sized civil claims that civil claims can raise just as many difficulties of legal and evidentiary complexity as claims of $700,000 or three or four or multimillion-dollar claims. By expanding the jurisdiction of the Local Court to deal with those claims in the range of $60,000 to $100,000 it is effectively placing before a busy court with a primary focus on criminal litigation a further workload in relation to civil litigation where the court is not a court of strict pleadings.

Absent strict pleadings, absent that care and attention to the pleadings and the pre-trial process that you find in the District and Supreme courts, there is the potential for that expanded jurisdiction exercised in the Local Court to lead to less just outcomes than would otherwise occur if the matters were determined in the District Court. Further, there is no compelling rationale in terms of the case load before either the District Court or the Local Court that would suggest this is an amendment which will be producing benefits for the system. Indeed, anecdotal reports from the District Court are that the civil waiting list, the numbers of matters being filed and lodged in the District Court, has been reduced over time and the waiting times to get on for trial in the District Court are being reduced, whereas the amount of business being conducted in the very stretched Local Court continues to grow. Absent some compelling argument based on statistics, it is difficult to see the benefit in putting what can be quite substantial claims for many citizens down into the lower court.

The bill also makes amendments to the Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act and the Victims Rights Act. I will speak briefly in relation to the amendments to the Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act. There is a lot of rhetoric by both the Government and the Coalition about victims' rights. When they are speaking on crime they often speak about the rights of victims, how they need to be respected, and how victims of crime need to receive adequate compensation and fair play in the criminal and civil justice systems. The amendments to the Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act take away the rights of victims of crime, substantially reduce their rights to seek compensation in relation to criminal insults that have been occasioned to them and reduce their capacity even to receive legal representation for the modest number of claims that will remain following these amendments. I will speak in more detail to those amendments when the matter is dealt with in Committee. In summary, much of this bill can be supported. Much of this bill provides a nip and tuck at the end of the year to the legal justice system in New South Wales, but in amongst it are some substantial matters of real concern to the Greens which will be opposed in Committee.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [3.18 p.m.]: On behalf of the Christian Democratic Party I support the Courts and Crimes Legislation Further Amendment Bill 2010. This bill is similar to the statute amendment bills that are presented at the end of each session. The bill makes miscellaneous amendments to court-related legislation and other legislation, and in fact amends 16 Acts of Parliament. Most of the amendments are minor ones but many of them are positive and I believe they should be supported by the House.

One of the Acts being amended is the Criminal Procedure Act 1986. The purpose of the amendments to that Act is to allow the conduct of a 12-month trial of an "online court" to manage committal proceedings at the Downing Centre Local Court; to increase the maximum value for break and enter offences that can be dealt with summarily by the Local Court; and to allow an accused person or prosecution to apply for a judge-alone trial, with the court to make a decision should the parties be in disagreement.

I note that there was a need to amend the Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996, under which persons had been seeking compensation for more than one violent act. Under the current Act such persons could be paid up to $1 million in compensation, whereas the payment in the case the death of a victim is a maximum of only $15,000. The legislation would prevent such payments of compensation in the future, which I believe is fairer and will prevent abuses of the legislation. The bill amends the Victims Rights Act 1996 to improve implementation of victims' rights under the charter. This includes establishing a Charter of Victims Rights Code of Practice and including a right to complain and to be informed about complaint processes. All those changes will assist the law in New South Wales to work more justly, and ensure that citizens have all their rights under the law. We support the bill.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Attorney General, Minister for Citizenship, Minister for Regulatory Reform, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [3.21 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to this debate. The bill makes many important amendments to courts and tribunals legislation, and crime-related legislation, that will bring benefits to the community and support the effective administration of justice in New South Wales. Many of these provisions have taken time to finalise, and some have involved extensive and widespread consultation with relevant stakeholders, including the judiciary, courts and tribunals, the legal profession, relevant government agencies and community stakeholders.

The reforms to the victims legislation were the result of extensive consultation with the Victims Advisory Board and victims support groups. Indeed, I discussed the reforms with the Victims Advisory Board and went through the various proposals. The reforms were also the subject of recommendations of the Victims Compensation Tribunal. The reforms to the Civil Procedure Act 2005, to implement a representative proceedings regime and pre-litigation dispute resolution processes in New South Wales, have also been developed following considerable consultation with relevant courts, the legal profession and other relevant agencies. The amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 to implement a new system for determining when a trial should proceed before a judge sitting alone was also the result of extensive consultation and submissions to an upper House committee of this Parliament.

In relation to the proposal to extend the period of the Ombudsman's review of the criminal organisation control legislation, Mr David Shoebridge suggested that the Ombudsman's review is not wide enough in its scope. I am not quite sure what he was suggesting. At one stage he seemed to imply that somehow the Ombudsman may have responsibility for determining the constitutional validity of the legislation, and therefore that extending the review prevented some opinion in that regard being expressed by the Ombudsman. In fact, this Parliament debated that legislation, and indeed the relevant review provisions. The specific request which is the subject of the amendment contained in the bill was put forward by the Ombudsman, who at the time did not indicate that he had any problem with the scope of the review. The review provisions are in addition to the series of safeguards that form part of the Act, and that includes the requirement that a declaration be made by a judge of the Supreme Court. Mr David Shoebridge suggested that somehow the declaration was—I think these are the words he used—deemed by the Executive. However, that is not the case.

Mr David Shoebridge also commented on the workloads of the Local Court and District Court. I am sure he did not intend to say it, but the words he used seemed to suggest that somehow the cases determined in the Local Court receive less rigorous scrutiny. I am not sure if he intended to imply some sort of criticism of the calibre of the judicial officers who sit in the Local Court. I have the highest respect and admiration for Local Court magistrates: I think they do an excellent job. That is no better reflected than in the way Local Court magistrates deal with a very busy workload, in a very timely fashion, across a range of different pieces of legislation.

The current civil jurisdiction of the General Division of the Local Court is $60,000, although the Local Court may hear matters dealing with claims of up to $72,000 where the parties consent to this extended jurisdiction. Whilst the amendment will increase the civil jurisdiction of the Local Court to $100,000, parties will retain their right to commence proceedings in the District Court for claims of less than $100,000. There will be no change in fees for filing claims in either court as a result of this amendment. I make the point that one cannot look at the civil jurisdiction in isolation. The District Court's workload has been increasing each year since 2004-05, whereas the workload of the Local Court has declined slightly over the same period, with the exception of the past year when the Local Court also experienced a slight increase in lodgements.

It is difficult to estimate with any certainty the impact this amendment is likely to have on the workloads of the Local Court and District Court. The Department of Justice and Attorney General recently conducted some analysis which found that, of the 7,202 claims filed in the District Court between 1 July 2009 and 30 June 2010, 1,149 were for amounts of between $60,000 and $100,000. This represents just under 16 per cent of District Court matters. The vast majority of these claims were filed in the Sydney area. It must be borne in mind also that as a result of these changes not all such claims would go to the Local Court; no doubt some people would still prefer, for reasons perhaps pertaining to the detail and nature of the case, to file their claims in the District Court.

The Chief Judge of the District Court was consulted in relation to this proposal. His Honour did not believe that increasing the Local Court's civil jurisdiction would have any significant effect on the workload of the District Court, and that it is likely to remain common for legal practitioners to continue to commence actions in the District Court. Similarly, the Chief Magistrate of New South Wales has indicated that the judicial resources of the Local Court can be managed effectively to deal with any increased workload.

The Bar Association has expressed concerns regarding the capacity of the Local Court to deal with the complexity of matters between $60,000 and $100,000. As I have indicated, this amendment will not preclude a party from bringing a claim of less than $100,000 in the District Court, so this will remain an option where complex issues of law and/or fact are involved. What this amendment does is to expand the choice of venue for parties with disputes of up to $100,000. The Bar Association has also expressed concerns that this amendment may lead to delays and additional costs for parties. As I have indicated, both the Chief Magistrate of New South Wales and the Chief Judge of the District Court support the proposal. Moreover, one of the clear benefits of this proposal is that in rural areas, where the District Court does not sit but the Local Court does, or where the District Court does sit but its circuits are timed less frequently than the Local Court's circuits are, there will be much more ready access by litigants to having their matters determined in the Local Court. I am confident that the Local Court will be able to deal with those matters appropriately, as it does with all the other work it is required to perform. There are other amendments that I understand will be moved in Committee relating to the issues pertaining to victims compensation. I will not comment on those amendments now. I thank members for their support for the bill, and I commend it to the House.

Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Schedules 1 to 17 agreed to.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [3.30 p.m.], by leave: I move Greens amendment Nos 1 to 9 in globo:

[31] Section 35 (3) and (4)

Omit the subsections.

Schedule 18 of the Courts and Crimes Legislation Further Amendment Bill will work to seriously disadvantage the victims of crime and that is why I am moving Greens amendments Nos 1 to 9. Greens amendment Nos 1 and 7 travel together, in terms of how the amendments will operate. This proposed provision will mean that multiple crimes committed by the same person will be treated as a single crime for the purposes of compensation. In some circumstances that may be entirely proper, for example, when a person is robbed, assaulted and battered at the one time. The person responsible for the commission of those crimes may be charged with three separate crimes when really only one act of violence or criminality has been visited upon the victim. It is therefore proper for those crimes to be grouped together and treated as one crime—albeit of an aggravated nature because of the multiple offences—when the matter goes before the Victims Compensation Tribunal. However, these amendments seek to broaden the definition of "related crimes"—namely, if multiple crimes are committed by one person against another then for all purposes they are related except in exceptional circumstances—and that will greatly prejudice victims of longstanding domestic or sexual assault who, sadly too often, may have been the victims of a series of crimes stretching over 10, 20 or 30 years.

I refer to the case of JM v Victims Compensation Fund [2009] NSWSC 1300 before His Honour Justice Rothman—which I understand has been appealed by the Government. Under the existing law the Victims Compensation Tribunal is required to turn its mind to whether or not a series of crimes are related; it does not deem them related because they have all been occasioned to the one person by another single person, which is what the amendments are intending to do. The facts in JM v Victims Compensation Fund are quite chilling. JM was only five years old when she was first assaulted. I read from His Honour's judgement at paragraph 8:

Around 1974 when JM was five years old she was sexually assaulted by the son-in-law of her foster parent. The offender had penile sexual intercourse with the child. The assault took place at a pump house near the river on the Brewarrina Mission. JM claims compensation for a Category 2 Sexual Assault.

JM also had a separate application before the tribunal. I continue to read from the same paragraph of His Honour's judgement:

Application number 131812

Application number 131814

Some eight years after the first offence—

Application number 79590 (the initial application covering all of the acts of violence)

Application number 131816

By reason of the amendments presented in this bill that array of crimes committed on this young Aboriginal woman would be automatically treated as one crime, entitling her to just one claim of compensation. That was the glib approach of the tribunal. The Victims Compensation Tribunal said they were all related under the existing legislation; they were not deemed to be related simply by the relationship between the victim and the criminal. The tribunal looked at whether or not they were related and fairly glibly said they were related. In setting aside that determination of the tribunal His Honour Judge Justice Rothman said:

His Honour ultimately concluded that the tribunal's conclusion was an error of law. He ordered that the determination that the matters were related be set aside and that the matter should be sent back to the tribunal to be determined in accordance with law. Unfortunately, the amendments proposed in this bill will deem them to be the one offence and to be all related unless the poor victim can prove exceptional circumstances. How can this House think that the rape of a five-year-old is somehow related to and effectively the same as the rape of a 12- or 15-year-old?

That is just one example. For a woman who is the subject of repeated domestic violence, some incidents may be more severe than others. Domestic violence involving a young woman early in her relationship and then 30 years into the relationship are not necessarily the same or related. The tribunal ought to have the capacity to determine on a case-by-case basis whether the matters are related and not automatically determine them as related and allow the victim only one claim of compensation in such circumstances. This amendment is being pushed through late in the parliamentary session. It is most unfortunate that the victims of crime have not been given greater consideration by the Government in its desire to push through this legislation. Victims of crime, particularly of serious serial offences, will receive less compensation than previously as a result of this amendment. Greens amendments Nos 1 and 7 relate to this amendment to the bill.

Greens amendments Nos 3, 4, 5 and 9 relate to costs awarded by the Victims Compensation Tribunal. Whenever the House deals with legal costs, it is assumed that a bunch of greedy lawyers are out to maximise costs at the expense of the broader community. On figures I have been provided with, 80 per cent of claims for victims compensation are undertaken by private practitioners. If the provisions in the bill become law, the tribunal will have blanket discretion to not award costs in respect to applications. If the tribunal ultimately determines to not award costs, in the future victims will find it harder to obtain legal representation. As I said, 80 per cent of all claims for victims compensation are undertaken by private practitioners. There is no statutory criteria against which the tribunal will exercise discretion not to award costs. The tribunal will be given broad discretion to not award costs.

In particular, community legal centres, which undertake 20 per cent of applications, are greatly troubled. If the costs entitlement to private practitioners is taken away, community legal centres will be flooded with applications to be made to the Victims Compensation Tribunal. As we can see from the amendments, it is a complicated area of law. The legal costs prescribed in this area of the law are only $907 for the application, no matter how long it takes or how complex the law. Giving the tribunal unfettered discretion to not award costs will have two results. Firstly, victims of crime will bring poorly crafted applications that will be unsuccessful or produce less compensation to which they would otherwise be entitled if they had adequate legal representation. Secondly, community legal centres will become overburdened and will face further pressures on their funding, which is already under substantial stress. I strongly urge the House to support Greens amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 9.

Greens amendment No. 2 relates to a new provision in the bill which will mean that victims who receive an award of statutory compensation under this Act will lose all rights to claim any compensation for any other act that occurred before they lodged the claim. I will give another example of a case. If Y was sexually abused by her brother and uncle and Y lodges a claim for compensation for the sexual abuse by her uncle only, she will no longer be eligible for compensation for the abuse that had been occasioned to her by her brother. As soon as she is awarded compensation for the abuse occasioned by her uncle, subject to very narrow exceptional circumstances, that will forever end her entitlement to claim compensation for any prior instance of abuse or crime occasioned against her.

Such scenarios are often seen in cases of longstanding domestic violence and child sexual assault. Practice shows that victims often deliver the full story over a number of years and not at the time they lodge their first claim. Many of these victims of crime suffer not only the physical abuse of the crime but also substantial psychological trauma as a result of the crime. Their story is given over time to their lawyer or counsellor as they develop a close relationship and they are able to give further particulars of other crimes that were occasioned to them. If the amendment to the bill is allowed, once they make the first claim and receive an entitlement to compensation, then any prior criminal assault that has been occasioned to them will not be compensable.

What is the rationale for the House taking away victims' rights, particularly vulnerable victims? We talk about supporting White Ribbon Day and supporting the victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. Yet a week after patting ourselves on the back for supporting White Ribbon Day, speaking against domestic violence and speaking in favour of victims of crime, we are taking away their rights. We are disentitling them to claims for compensation for prior acts of criminal violence visited upon them. These are particularly vulnerable members of our community. It beggars belief that the Government is pressing this bill through the House late in the parliamentary session and, as I understand, the Coalition will support it.

Greens amendments Nos 7 and 8 relate to a new provision that will result in many of these changes being applied retrospectively. In particular, it will apply retrospectively to any award of statutory compensation. That means it will apply to cases currently pending before the tribunal. Once an award of statutory compensation is made in those cases, that is, cases filed before the tribunal awaiting determination, these victims will be prohibited from bringing a claim of compensation for any prior criminal insult. These people have not had legal advice about this provision. We are moving the goalposts. We are changing the legal framework whilst their applications are pending before the tribunal. They have not been advised by their lawyers—community legal centres or private practitioners—that if they are awarded compensation after this legislation comes into force they will lose the right to claim compensation for any prior criminal assault. That is unjust.

I spoke earlier about the way in which victims give their story over time. In cases currently before the tribunal, the victims may have been involved in other incidents of crime. But once their application is determined, the victims will not be entitled to claim compensation for other criminal acts. This provision is an unkind visitation upon these vulnerable members of our community. It is incomprehensible to the Greens that the House would support retrospectivity against victims of crime. Although we are not hopeful, the Greens seek support of the Chamber for our amendments.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Attorney General, Minister for Citizenship, Minister for Regulatory Reform, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [3.47 p.m.]: The Government does not support the Greens amendments. The Government sympathises with the victims of crime, particularly those suffering from domestic violence and sexual assault and who may have been subject to several acts of violence over a period. The Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act is significant because it recognises the pain and suffering of victims of crime by awarding compensation for specified compensable injuries in relation to sexual assault and domestic violence. The compensation scheme is as much an acknowledgement by the Government of this pain and suffering as it is about helping victims of crime financially. Compensation can never fully account for the ongoing psychological trauma and pain that victims of crime may endure.

The Act is not intended to provide full compensation to victims of crime. It never has been. The intention of the Act is to give the victim of a criminal act or omission some comfort by way of compensation out of the public purse for the injuries sustained. The compensation scheme needs to be able to work within the limits of the fund from which all compensation, legal and other victims' services-related costs are paid. The main source for the Victims Compensation Fund is the Consolidated Revenue.

The number of multiple claims lodged has increased. This has occurred because of the way section 5 (3), which defines the circumstances where an act is considered to relate to another act for the purposes of determining whether a number of acts are considered to constitute a single act of violence, is currently interpreted. There is concern that individual victims could receive payouts of more than $1 million. The architects of the scheme never intended that a victim should receive such a large amount, particularly when $50,000 is the maximum amount payable in relation to the death of a victim. No other jurisdiction allows this and it would be financially irresponsible for New South Wales to continue to allow it.

As at 10 September, 30 per cent of claims lodged were multiple claims. If this trend continues, the potential impact on the Victims Compensation Fund would run into tens of millions of dollars if it enables awards to be made in respect of every single act of violence occurring during a series of acts of violence. The chairperson of the Victims Compensation Tribunal recommended that section 5 (3) be strengthened to provide that an act is related to another act if the acts were committed against the same person by the perpetrator or perpetrators. There is nothing in the provision we are putting forward that refers to exceptional circumstances. The proposed provision states:

Subsection (3A), relating to the exemption, states:

The provision I am referring to does exactly what the Victims Compensation Tribunal has sought. The Government has a responsibility to ensure that such payments do not become an unaffordable drain on public funds. Given the current financial climate and the liabilities of the fund, failing to properly manage such multiple claims will result in reduced compensation for other victims of crime. Other jurisdictions, such as Queensland and Victoria, define related acts in the same manner. The proposed amendment will bring New South Wales into line with those jurisdictions. I emphasise that the compensation assessors and the Victims Compensation Tribunal will still retain the discretion to treat multiple claims as unrelated acts. That is made clear in the section that I referred to, new section 5 (3) (a), which will allow assessors or tribunal members to consider claims as related, as and when it is considered necessary. The word "exceptional" is not contained in that provision.

Reference was made to costs in a number of the Greens other amendments. The changes to section 35 of the Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act clarify that solicitors may be paid costs based on a scale of costs. The changes strengthen and clarify the discretion already available to the compensation assessor and to the tribunal to award an amount of costs, according to a scale of costs, commensurate with the amount of work that has been performed in relation to an application for compensation. This could mean awarding costs at the top end of the scale of costs for successful or complex claims or awarding costs at the lower end of the scale for simple claims that might involve little more than filling out an application form. In some cases the compensation assessor could award no costs, as section 35 (3) already allows. The Government will consult stakeholders on developing an appropriate scale of costs.

I note that Victims Services, a branch of the Department of Justice and Attorney General, has made important changes to simplify the compensation processes to make it easier for victims of violent crime to apply for compensation without a solicitor. These changes include the introduction of a simplified online application form; a 24-hour helpline, called the Victims Access Line, with trained staff to assist victims of violent crime with their applications for victims compensation; a new medical evidence procurement form, available for all unrepresented victims, that enables Victims Services to obtain medical evidence, including counselling reports, direct from a provider on behalf of the victim usually; a new Case Manager Compensation, who will assist unrepresented and vulnerable victims through the application process; and a process that enables Victims Services to directly source relevant police and court records to support victims' claims.

By offering these improved services the need for external legal representation in the compensation application process has been reduced in a number of cases. It should be noted that compensation assessors will continue to be able to award costs in excess of the scale of costs if they are of the opinion that the special circumstances of the case justify such an award being made. Any reduction in the amount of legal costs paid out of the Victims Compensation Fund will allow a larger proportion of money to be paid to the victims in the form of compensation or counselling services. The savings in legal costs will help to fund other services to victims. One example is the expansion of the Victims Assistance Scheme to allow people who receive a compensable injury as a direct result of an act of violence to recover all actual expenses incurred. Currently, reimbursement is limited in that regard. The section will apply the new provision to claims that are brought before the commencement of the Act but which are not determined. It is not unfair to apply the new definition of related acts to such claims, as knowledge of the definition would not change the facts of the case and how a person would claim. The fact is that multiple claims are increasing and are placing a significant strain on the tribunal and the fund.

The proposal in relation to new section 23A is part of a package of amendments to improve the efficiency of the compensation process and will prevent applicants from drip-feeding claims over a number of years and ensure that applicants bring all claims at the same time. The new section will prevent subsequent claims being made in relation to acts of violence predating a successful claim, other than in exceptional circumstances. A claim from a person who has suffered multiple acts of violence may not be properly evaluated unless considered in the context of all acts of violence and all relevant claims arising from those acts of violence. It is only fair that a decision-maker be able to consider all the information that might impact on the determination of the claim.

I think that responds to the issues raised by the honourable member. As I indicated, the Government consulted very carefully over an extended period of time with victims groups, contrary to the suggestion made, and, in particular, with the Victims Advisory Board, which advises the Government in relation to this matter and has representation from victims groups from a variety of different perspectives.

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE [3.55 p.m.]: The Opposition does not support the Greens amendments.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [3.55 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party does not support the Greens amendments. As I indicated in my speech on the second reading, multiple claims mean that an applicant could get $1 million, and that was never the intention when the provisions were first introduced into the Parliament. The bill was to provide justice to victims through one payment and that is the way it should operate.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [3.56 p.m.]: There is no suggestion that any victim would be entitled to $1 million in claims. Indeed, if that was the case one would have thought the Government would address that and put aside any instance of a victim obtaining $1 million. It simply has not happened. We regularly say that money cannot adequately compensate a victim. But when we see a victim suffering an array of sexual or domestic violence, and they are entitled to compensation under the existing law determined by the tribunal in accordance with law, what is wrong with the State recognising that one of our citizens has suffered such a heinous set of events and that they are entitled to compensation of that order?

I note there was no discussion in relation to the retrospectivity aspects applied by the tribunal, other than to say that it would stop applicants drip-feeding applications before the tribunal. As I have already stated, often the slow manner in which these matters are advised to the legal practitioners and their counsellors is not by choice but by psychological circumstances. I commend the amendments.

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: How do you respond to the Hon. David Clarke's contribution?

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: I think I have responded to Mr Clarke's contribution.

Question—That Greens amendments Nos 1 to 9 be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 4

Ms Faehrmann
Dr Kaye
Tellers,
Mr Cohen
Mr Shoebridge

Noes, 33

Mr Ajaka
Mr Catanzariti
Mr Clarke
Ms Cotsis
Ms Cusack
Ms Ficarra
Mr Foley
Mr Gallacher
Miss Gardiner
Mr Gay
Ms Griffin
Mr Hatzistergos

Mr Kelly
Mr Khan
Mr Lynn
Mr Mason-Cox
Mr Moselmane
Reverend Dr Moyes
Reverend Nile
Mr Obeid
Ms Parker
Mrs Pavey
Mr Pearce
Mr Primrose

Mr Robertson
Ms Robertson
Mr Roozendaal
Ms Sharpe
Mr Veitch
Ms Voltz
Mr West

Tellers,
Mr Colless
Mr Donnelly

Question resolved in the negative.

Greens amendments Nos 1 to 9 negatived.

Pursuant to sessional orders consideration interrupted at 4.00 p.m. for questions. Progress reported from Committee and consideration set down as an order of the day for a later hour.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

__________

TILLEGRA DAM

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: My question is directed to the Minister for Planning. Can the Minister inform the House exactly how much money was spent on planning and land acquisition for the Tillegra Dam project that he and the Premier cancelled on the weekend? Is he aware of comments made by the Minister for Water, the Hon. Phillip Costa, that desalination is on the table for the Hunter? Can he promise the people of the Hunter Valley that as Minister for Planning he will never allow desalination plants to be constructed on their pristine coastal lands?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: As members would appreciate, my decision to refuse the project application for Tillegra Dam was not taken lightly. In fact, the reason it took some time is that the Government wanted a comprehensive, 14-month merit-based assessment undertaken by the Department of Planning. It involved an unprecedented technical and environmental study, and scrutiny. That is why I am confident that the right decision was made. Had that not been done, it would have hung over the heads of the people of that area, as it has for the past 40 years. It has now been put to bed.

There has never been any doubt about the fundamental need for a secure water supply for existing and future communities of the Hunter region. As part of those studies, the Government reaffirmed the need to increase the supply of water in the Hunter. However, given the scale and location of the proposed dam, it was always recognised that it should be subjected to the most rigorous environmental assessment process possible. That is why in November 2007 the proposal was declared to be a project to which part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act applied. I do not think the Opposition should gloat too much. This is a perfect example of how part 3A works; this is the first critical infrastructure item that has been rejected. Despite the protestations of members opposite, part 3A does work.

[Interruption]

Do members opposite want the answer? The proposal was declared to be a controlled action under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act based on its likely significant impact on wetlands of international importance. In recognition of the significance of the proposal, the proponent's environmental assessment of the project was placed on extended exhibition from 10 September to 13 November 2009, which is double the statutory requirement of 30 days. The department in its assessment of the proposal very carefully considered issues raised during the exhibition period, along with those raised in agency submissions.

The Department of Planning also commissioned five independent studies, which included the need and justification for the project, the costs and benefits of the dam, the hydrology of the Williams River, the hydrodynamics and water quality of the Hunter estuary and the ecology of the Hunter estuary. The department closely liaised with Hunter Water during its assessment, particularly in relation to issues raised by independent reviews and requested a range of additional information to clarify issues such as the justification for the dam, the hydrological modelling undertaken and predicted impacts on the Hunter estuary wetlands. This demonstrates the extensive amount of information that was analysed by the department in its assessment of the proposal, and the depth of its analysis in reaching its key conclusions.

The Government makes no apologies for taking the time and subjecting the assessment to the most rigorous scrutiny before making the right planning decision. While the Greens are simply ignoring the realities of providing secure water supplies, the Opposition is just as bad. Barry O'Farrell has demonstrated over this issue that he too has no plans to secure the future water supply for the people of the Hunter. The Opposition even tried to take the money from the Tillegra and use it for a bogus infrastructure fund—a hasty decision now under review apparently—sneakily announced in the shadow of the Government's decision. It has cost about $100 million, of which 75 per cent is land purchases which will now be sold.

METROBUS TRIAL OF SMS UPDATES

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport. Will the Minister advise the House on the trial of SMS updates for Metrobus commuters?

The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: I thank the honourable member for her ongoing interest in this matter. This morning the Government announced an exciting new trial on our Metrobus network. Passengers using the big red Metrobuses can now access up-to-the-minute information about when their next Metrobus will arrive via text message. The information provided via the SMS update is based on the location of the bus rather than any timetable.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Kayee Griffin): Order! There is too much noise in the Chamber.

The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: It does this by tapping into the real time updates from the public transport information priority system which tracks buses by satellite. Under the trial announced today, customers only need to SMS their bus stop number to 0488 898 287—effectively 0488 TXT BUS—and they will receive a message. The predicted arrival times of any bus within 30 minutes of that bus stop will be sent via an SMS within seconds. The bus stop number is the six or seven digit number displayed on each bus stop. Commuters can also call 131500 or visit the www.131500.com.au website—

[Interruption]

The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: If the Hon. Greg Pearce had been listening and if he caught public transport he would know like anyone else that Metrobuses do not run to a timetable.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Kayee Griffin): Order! If the level of audible conversation is not reduced, I will have no hesitation in calling members to order.

The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: It is clear members opposite do not care about public transport, and their continued interjections are positive reinforcements that they do not care.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Kayee Griffin): Order! The Hon. Melinda Pavey and the Hon. Greg Pearce will be called to order if they continue to interject.
The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: Commuters can also call 131500 or visit the www.131500.com.au website from home or their office to find out their bus stop number. This means in practice that commuters can check from home, from the office or while sitting at the bus stop. exactly when their next Metrobus will arrive. There will be no more wondering whether or not commuters have time to grab a newspaper before heading to the bus stop; they just have to send off a quick text and they will be told exactly how much time they have. Commuters are charged only for the cost of sending a standard SMS message; there is no charge for receiving next-bus information by text.

The trial SMS service will be available on the M10 from Kingsford to Maroubra Junction, the M20 from Gore Hill to Mascot, the M30 from Spit Junction to Sydenham, the M40 from Chatswood to Bondi Junction, the M50 from Drummoyne to Randwick, the M52 from Parramatta to Circular Quay and the M54 from Parramatta to Macquarie Park. The cutting-edge public transport information and priority system [PTIPS] technology can also help bus services to run on time by giving green lights to late running buses. This means that not only are we providing more information for commuters, but also we are helping to improve the reliability of our services across the network.

Metrobuses have proven to be extremely popular with passengers. More than seven million commuters have hopped on board one of the big red buses since the roll out began in late 2008 and those figures continue to grow. Metrobuses are high-frequency, high-capacity services that make travelling on public transport easy. They are all air-conditioned and low to the floor so they are easy to use for those with mobility constraints, mothers with prams and the elderly. Combined with this innovative SMS trial, I am confident Metrobuses will continue to be a huge success with commuters across Sydney.

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

The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: The Government is continually looking at ways that it can provide more up-to-date and easy-to-access information to public transport users. The 131500 information service now also has a presence on Twitter—which the Leader of the Opposition might like to try. It does not matter how big one's fingers are, one can still access Twitter on 131500. It regularly provides real time information to its followers about how the network is running. I encourage all members of the House to try out some of these new information services including the next-bus text service for the latest information on public transport.

LAND AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: I direct my question to the Minister for Planning, and Minister for Lands. Can be Minister confirm that the Land and Property Management Authority is being restructured? Will any Land and Property Management Authority jobs be removed from places like Orange, Bathurst, Dubbo, Goulburn, Moree, Armidale or Tamworth? If so, how many jobs will be cut from each location? Is it correct that instead of retaining jobs in country New South Wales, they will be replaced by a call centre in Newcastle? How does this fit with the State Plan priority to grow regional centres, or does that plan refer only to metropolitan regional centres?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: It is a bit rich, coming from the Coalition, which planned to slash some 30,000 jobs throughout the public service.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: What are you talking about?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Last election the Coalition planned that some 20,000 public servants would go.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Kayee Griffin): Order! I call the Hon. Catherine Cusack to order for the first time.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Recently a couple of advisers from the New South Wales Liberal Party went across to England to help the Conservatives win over there. Members can see what they have done there. They are sacking 490,000 public servants; 18,000 police and—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: My point of order has two parts; the first part relates to relevance. The answer has no relevance to the important question before the House. The second part relates to misleading the House. There is no policy of cutting 30,000 jobs in New South Wales.
The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Kayee Griffin): Order! The member is debating the issue. If members on both sides of the Chamber who are interjecting do not come to order, I will place them on a call to order. It is extremely difficult for the Chair to hear argument on the points of order, questions asked by members and the responses of Ministers to those questions. Members will come to order and the Minister will be generally relevant in his answer.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: As I was saying, in England 18,000 police are being sacked as part of that Government balancing its budget, on the advice of the great Liberal Party advisers from New South Wales. Let me make it clear that there are no job losses in the Crown lands division of the Land and Property Management Authority. Crown lands clients will still receive the same high-quality service whether they live in Orange, Tweed Heads, Nyngan, Sydney or Newcastle. Given that Crown land covers more than half the State, we can deal with many tasks and functions through our central unit. We have streamlined these functions by establishing a business centre in Newcastle to perform high-volume processing and to assist clients across the State no matter where they live. Clients will enjoy improved access to the authority in relation to Crown land matters and reduced processing times for applications. To achieve the establishment of the business centre, there will be a transitional increase in Newcastle staff numbers by approximately 30 to commence these customer service jobs. There is no large scale movement of people from regional areas to Newcastle and no forced transfer of staff. In the medium to long term this should free up resources in the regions and focus their important work with stakeholders.

AUBURN PLANNING

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: I direct my question to the Minister for Planning. The Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 rezones the South Western TAFE and Cumberland College from special uses education establishment in the 2000 Local Environmental Plan to medium density residential zoning by reason of the roll-out of the standard instrument. What protections are in place to ensure that these key public facilities are not sold with the benefit of the vastly increased commercial value that comes with their new rezoning, either in whole or in part, by this Government or by an incoming Coalition administration?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I thank the member for his question. Obviously it is a technical question. I cannot remember exactly the zonings of those particular sites, but I undertake to obtain an answer as quickly as I can and get back to him.

STATE ECONOMY

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: I address my question to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer update the House on the latest economic data?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I thank the honourable member for her question and interest in this matter. More good news for the New South Wales economy! This morning the Australian Bureau of Statistics released the latest data on housing approvals. The news is all good for New South Wales. We are leading the nation once again. Dwelling approvals in New South Wales increased by 14 per cent in October 2010 on a seasonally adjusted basis. This means 2,678 dwellings like houses, units and townhouses were approved in October 2010. This is the highest of all the States and above the national rate of 9.3 per cent. Victoria saw only a 4.6 per cent increase, while Queensland recorded a fall of 0.7 per cent. Today's data shows house approvals alone in New South Wales increased by 3.5 per cent in October 2010. This means around 1,376 homes were approved in October 2010. Again, this is the highest of all the States and above the national rate of 1.5 per cent. In fact, in Queensland we saw a fall of a massive 8.1 per cent.

Late last week we saw even more good news for the $400 billion New South Wales economy. The Australian Bureau of Statistics released private capital expenditure data which showed the acquisition of assets, including building and structures, plant, machinery and equipment. In the September quarter for New South Wales there was a $2.7 billion investment in building and structures. This was a massive 33.4 per cent increase on the previous quarter. This is the highest of all States and significantly higher than the 13.4 per cent national average increase, seasonally adjusted. In comparison, the figures in Victoria fell by 0.1 per cent. As part of this data, New South Wales saw investment in equipment, plant and machinery increased by 5.4 per cent. This compares to a 1.1 per cent decline nationally, while the figures in Victoria also fell by 5.9 per cent and in Queensland by 7.4 per cent. This is all good news for the New South Wales economy and I look forward to updating the House as more good economic data comes in.

TRAVELLING STOCK RESERVES AND FISHING

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Lands, representing the Minister for Primary Industries. Is it a fact that under rural lands protection regulations fishing is considered an excluded prohibited activity in all travelling stock reserves in the Western Division of New South Wales? Is it also a fact that the Western Division covers about 50 per cent of the State, including many waterways, such as the Darling, Paroo and Warrego Rivers? Is it a fact that this exclusion applies not only to visitors to the travelling stock reserves but also to western land leaseholders? If these access exclusions are a fact, will the Minister undertake to review the regulations to remove the access exclusions?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I thank the honourable member for his question. I am not aware that that is the case, but I certainly undertake to find out whether it is and to see whether we can remedy the situation. A process was started a couple of years ago—in fact it is a 100 year old process—where the old Pastoral Protection Boards have those travelling stock reserves reserved for their use, but they are Crown land and if ever they release them they automatically go back to become Crown land. Some of the areas, in particular I think around Maitland, have handed back most if not all of them and we have undertaken to ensure that they continue to be reserved for their current uses. My recollection is that a couple of years ago the director general of the Land and Property Management Authority reserved those travelling stock reserves for environmental reasons, for recreational reasons, and obviously for travelling stock reserves to ensure that long into the future they will be able to be accessed by fishermen, as a lot of them are, throughout the State. The member alluded to a particular issue in the Western Division of the State, and I undertake to get an answer for him.

GETONBOARD PTY LIMITED

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: My question is directed to the Treasurer. I refer to his primary pecuniary interest return in which he noted a directorship of Getonboard Pty Limited. Has he or any associate at any time received any financial or other benefit from Getonboard Pty Limited or from any director or their associates of Getonboard Pty Limited, or any shareholder or their associates of Getonboard Pty Limited? If so, what was the benefit and how did the entitlement arise?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: My understanding is that Getonboard was wound up many years ago. That is all I can say.

INTERNATIONAL DAY OF PEOPLE WITH A DISABILITY

The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD: I address my question to the Minister for Disability. What is the New South Wales Government doing to celebrate and raise awareness of the contribution that people with a disability make to our communities on International Day of People with a Disability?

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: I thank the honourable member for her question. The date 3 December is International Day of People with a Disability—a day designated by the United Nations as a time to celebrate and recognise the achievements, contributions and abilities of people with a disability. The New South Wales Government acknowledges this day by proudly supporting a month-long campaign entitled "Don't DIS my ABILITY". The core aims of the campaign are the creation of a more inclusive environment for everyone and to challenge commonly held misconceptions about disability. Events held for "Don't DIS my ABILITY" are designed to appeal to people of all ages and interests and include art exhibitions, picnics, movies, dance events, sporting events and musical variety shows.

Workshops will be held in schools to allow school-age children to explore and discuss a range of disability issues. We will also be the principal sponsor for the Access All Areas Film Festival. Queanbeyan's eighth annual Festival of Ability attracts more than 3,000 people and celebrates the strengths, skills and achievements of people with a disability. Throughout November and December, up to 100 events are being held across New South Wales to increase awareness and recognise the achievements and contributions of people with a disability. In support, ambassadors are selected as role models from the arts, sports and business arenas. This year 21 ambassadors have been selected to represent the "Don't DIS my ABILITY" campaign.

The ambassadors come from all walks of life and will help promote a variety of campaign activities by attending sponsor events, speaking at school workshops and liaising with the media to raise the profile of the campaign. The ambassadors are inspiring people, such as Professor Ron McCallum, AO, an intellectually gifted man who serves as Professor and Dean of Law at the University of Sydney. He has published 10 books and numerous journal articles and papers on labour law. Last week Professor McCallum became the New South Wales Senior Australian of the Year. I acknowledge the various statements made by members in this Chamber expressing admiration for Professor McCallum.

Another ambassador is Fiona Given, a Policy Officer with the New South Wales Disability Discrimination Legal Centre who serves also on numerous boards. She is committed to achieving change for people like herself who use alternative and augmentative communication, and for people who have little or no speech. I acknowledge the achievements and contributions of all 2010 "Don't DIS my ABILITY" ambassadors.

We publish also Made You Look magazine, the official publication of the campaign that is distributed in the month leading up to International Day of People with a Disability. Made You Look is designed to attract a wide audience and to appeal to young people in particular. It has a circulation of 100,000 and is distributed all over New South Wales, in regional newsagencies and in metropolitan libraries, cafes, arts and community venues. It is available also online. Made You Look writers tap into current topics within the community including stereotypes of disability in the media, accessing services at university and seeking employment. The magazine also hosts information on innovations in technology and makes a call to action to stop using language that stigmatises disability. Made You Look brings the diversity of the community together. It is a publication that can remain as an educational tool after the campaign closes, and it will continue to encourage the people of New South Wales to think beyond the normal narratives associated with disability. Through awareness campaigns such as "Don't DIS My ABILITY" and events held to celebrate International Day of People with a Disability, the New South Wales State Government hopes to reduce the barriers to participation for people with a disability. "Don't DIS my ABILITY."

POTENTIAL DAM SITES

The Hon. ROBERT BORSAK: My question is directed to the Attorney General, representing the Premier. Given that the Premier announced last weekend that the Tillegra Dam on the Williams River will not go ahead, will the Government, in an effort to harvest at least some of the water that is wasted each year, now revisit the Welcome Reef dam proposal? Can the Government provide the House with a list of all potential dam sites that currently are being considered for future major water storage areas in New South Wales? We need lots and lots more water and lots and lots more dams.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I will refer the question to the Premier.

PORT MACQUARIE FORESHORE RESERVE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: My question is directed to the Minister for Planning, and Minister for Lands. I refer to the memorandum from the Department of Premier and Cabinet relating to caretaker provisions and to other pre-election conventions that apply from the last sitting day of the Legislative Assembly this week. Does the Minister recall there being tabled in the House a petition signed by 16,000 Port Macquarie residents calling for the protection of the Port Macquarie foreshore from overdevelopment? Given the widespread community opposition to proposals to redevelop the foreshore and the Minister's lack of consultation with the Foreshore Protection Association, will the Minister now assure the House and the community that no decision will be made by him about the foreshore, in particular, with regard to Westport Park, prior to the March State election?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: As the Attorney General just pointed out to me, the conventions are set out on the website. However, I indicate that I will not give such a commitment because the decision I ultimately make might be exactly what the local community wants.

GOVERNOR LACHLAN MACQUARIE AND JAMES MEEHAN

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI: My question is addressed to the Minister for Lands. Can the Minister inform the House of the Government's recognition of two of the State's most significant historical figures—Governor Lachlan Macquarie and James Meehan?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Over the last month I have been fortunate to attend events celebrating two of the most significant figures in the development of Sydney and New South Wales—Lachlan Macquarie and James Meehan. Both men played major roles in laying the foundations of Sydney and in helping to transform Australia from a penal colony into a nation. It is only fitting that their achievements should be honoured with a public statue in the city.
This year has marked the bicentenary of Macquarie's swearing-in as the Governor of New South Wales. With these celebrations now drawing to a close, recently I had the pleasure of unveiling the well-known Macquarie statue in its new location in the grounds of the Mint Building in Macquarie Street. Macquarie was Governor of New South Wales from 1810 to 1821. His leadership, combined with his energy and enthusiasm, were key to shaping New South Wales in its early days. Macquarie played a pivotal role in exploration and surveying the colony. He revolutionised colonial architecture, revived commerce, and promoted education and social welfare. In his own words, he "found the colony barely emerging from infantile imbecility" and left it "enjoying a state of private comfort and public prosperity".

I am grateful to the Historic Houses Trust for agreeing to have the statue relocated in the grounds of the Mint Building. It is an ideal site, given that Macquarie was instrumental in the building's construction. It ensures that the statue remains on public display on the street that bears his name, and in the heart of the area of Sydney where his influence over development was greatest. For the benefit of members who want to have a look at the statue, it is located just inside the gates to the Mint Building.

Last weekend it was a privilege to accompany the Governor of New South Wales when she unveiled the statue of James Meehan on the facade of the Lands department building. Meehan rose from difficult beginnings to become an important colonial surveyor and holds a significant place in our colonial history. He was born in Ireland and was transported to New South Wales as a result of his involvement in the Irish Rebellion of 1798. England sent most of the convicts to Australia thinking it was a punishment to send them to this great country. Meehan spent two decades as an explorer-surveyor and was appointed Deputy-Surveyor of Lands by Governor Macquarie. Sydney, Parramatta, Bathurst, Port Macquarie and Hobart were all explored, laid out and measured by Meehan. The current street patterns and parts of these cities still bear the original concept of Meehan's work.

The location of the Meehan statue on the facade of the Lands department building reflects the contribution Meehan made to the development of New South Wales. The Lands department building is a major landmark that is well known for the portrait statues on its facade. Each facade of the Lands department building has 12 niches. The original intention was to fill each niche with a statue of either a famous explorer or a famous legislator involved with the settlement and exploration of the country. This was to be a testament to the importance of surveying and exploration to the nation. But of the 48 niches on the building's facade, only 23 have been filled with statuary, with no statues installed after 1901.

The Meehan statue, which is 2.1 metres high and weighs about 1.5 tonnes, was carved at the New South Wales Public Works stone yard out of Appin sandstone, which was chosen as the best match with the existing fabric of the building. Both Lachlan Macquarie and James Meehan helped to develop and define our nation. For the benefit of members who want to have a look at the statue, if they walk down to the Lands department building, past Farrer Place and past the Education department building, the statue faces east. It is a fantastic statue provided by the Department of Public Works. These statues, and their new prominent sites, are testament to the significance and standing of these two pioneering figures in Australian history.

NORTH COAST ACCOMMODATION TRUST

The Hon. IAN COHEN: My question is directed to the Minister for Lands. What is the North Coast Accommodation Trust? Does the trust have a board? If so, will the Minister provide the details of the trust manager and board members associated with the trust? What relationship does the trust and the Land and Property Management Authority have with North Coast caravan parks? Will the Minister provide details of the land managed by the North Coast Accommodation Trust?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I thank the Hon. Ian Cohen for his question and undertake to get him an answer as soon as I can.

ST GEORGE TAFE METAL FABRICATION AND WELDING SECTION

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General, representing the Minister for Education and Training. Why is the St George TAFE metal fabrication and welding section to be shut down despite it being the only provider of metal fabrication and welding courses in the area, despite national and local skills shortages in the industry, despite affecting more than 100 students already enrolled and, contrary to a statement made by the spokesperson for TAFE New South Wales Sydney Institute that the decision was based on a drop in enrolments, despite the fact that there are waiting lists for these courses at St George TAFE? Has the Minister received any representations from the local members Frank Sartor, Cherie Burton or Kevin Greene arguing for the retention of the section? Is the decision to close the metal fabrication and welding section at St George TAFE due to funding cuts?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I will refer the question to the Minister for Education and Training.

WORK AND DEVELOPMENT ORDERS PROGRAM

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: I address my question to the Attorney General. What is the latest information on the Government's Work and Development Orders Program?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: The Government is concerned to ensure that seriously vulnerable people do not become entrenched in the criminal justice system. One area of concern identified by the Government is the use of penalty notices against people who are destitute, mentally ill, intellectually disabled or homeless. The issuance of penalty notices to these people unnecessarily brings them into the criminal justice system. Because they are unable to pay due to their disadvantage they incur further costs and more severe penalties from enforcement action and, as a result, become entrenched in a cycle of re-offending from which they are unable to free themselves. To address this issue the Government, after some consideration, came up with an innovative solution known as Work and Development Orders [WDOs]. These were implemented on 10 July last year as a two-year trial.

Work and development orders allow seriously vulnerable people to apply to satisfy their fines by doing unpaid work for charitable and other organisations, or by participating in certain courses or treatment. They are designed to provide an opportunity for people whose disadvantage rather than behaviour is the cause of their offence. Applications for such orders must be supported by an approved organisation or, in the case of mental health or other medical treatment, a medical practitioner who is qualified to provide that treatment. Participating agencies and health professionals make monthly reports to the Government on the progress of the orders they are supervising. Any breaches can result in ineligibility. Consistent with their purpose there is no extra punishment, but the Government can take enforcement action for the outstanding debt.

Work and development orders are already producing some outstanding results. They have been taken up by over 102 eligible organisations and 46 health professionals. Their take-up is almost unprecedented and represents their success. As of 31 October 2010, 357 seriously vulnerable people have been issued with an order. Aboriginal people comprise 6.7 per cent of recipients. A great majority of the applications cite mental illness, homelessness or extreme economic hardship. The feedback from the participating organisations provided in reports to the Department of Justice and Attorney General has to date been outstandingly positive. The impact of work and development orders on individuals is real and very significant. Rehabilitated offenders start making positive contributions to society and stop being a drain on resources. The Glen Drug and Alcohol Rehabilitation Centre stated:

The Monaro Crisis Accommodation Centre Service stated:

This has been extremely positive as many clients are caught in a debt trap and are unable to get licences and so on. This is particularly important in a rural community. We have already received positive feedback around setting goals which previously they felt were unobtainable.

The Community Restorative Centre gave this report on behalf of a client:

Having the WDO has opened up a whole new world for me. I can now look for employment. It makes me feel like a man again.

And another participating organisation stated:

I have a young man (25 years old) who obtained his driver's licence for the first time in his life. He is now confident of gaining employment and kicking goals:

The Government made a pledge to put the most vulnerable people at its heart. Work and development orders deliver on that promise. Where people are propelled into breaches of the law unavoidably as a result of such things as mental illness and homelessness, the Government recognises that they should be treated fairly, and that doing this helps society as a whole. One would not get that from those opposite. It is important to recognise that this important achievement has been an outstanding success, and I congratulate all involved in the implementation.

COAL ROYALTIES

Ms CATE FAEHRMANN: I direct my question to the Treasurer. What is the Treasurer doing to ensure New South Wales taxpayers are getting value for their coal reserves, given that a report of the Auditor-General released today identified systemic failures in royalty record keeping, including lost royalties and a dysfunctional self-assessment system where companies are not required to submit documentation in support of their claims for royalties?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: My heart is warmed by the support for the coal industry by Ms Cate Faehrmann and her concern to ensure that New South Wales taxpayers receive value for money from the coal industry. I think it is a suitable acknowledgement of the contribution that the mining industry makes to this State. The Minister for Primary Industries is primarily responsible for mineral resources; however, I can say that coal production is the State's largest mining sector. It is valued at about $13.2 billion in 2009-10. Coal production provides substantial economic benefits to the people of New South Wales, as well as being a major economic stimulus for local communities.

WOODSREEF ASBESTOS MINE SITE

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: I direct my question without notice to the Attorney General, representing the Premier. Is the Minister aware that the Ombudsman handed down a report entitled "Responding to the Asbestos Problem: The Need for Significant Reform in New South Wales"? Is the Minister also aware that in chapter 6 of that report detailed consideration is given to the issue of the Woodsreef mine near Barraba, in the electorate of Tamworth? Is the Minister further aware that the Department of Industry and Investment recommended that $5.5 million be committed for interim remediation works at the Woodsreef site? When will the Government respond to the Ombudsman's report and will the Government immediately commit to remediating the site?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I will refer the matter to the Premier.

DISABILITY AND COMMUNITY CARE EMPLOYMENT

The Hon. IAN WEST: I address my question to the Minister for Disability Services. Will the Minister outline what the New South Wales Government is doing to boost the number of people employed in the disability and community care sector?

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: I thank the member for his question. The Government continues to fund an innovative workforce strategy, delivered in partnership with National Disability Services, New South Wales Branch. As part of Stronger Together, which is the Government's 10-year plan for disability services, an additional $4.2 million is being invested in the Carecareers and ProjectABLE workforce recruitment strategy. These projects aim to attract and retain staff in the disability and community care sector. Maintaining Carecareers and ProjectABLE is vital to ensuring that the sector has the workforce capacity to achieve quality outcomes for people with a disability, and their families and carers in New South Wales into the future. It is also important that the profile of the disability sector is enhanced throughout the New South Wales community so that we attract skilled and qualified people to work in this sector.

This additional funding extension will enable Carecareers and ProjectABLE to build upon their early successes, and to build on the Government's initial investment of $4.3 million between 2008 and 2010. This early investment has shown how innovative strategies such as Carecareers and ProjectABLE can provide valuable support to disability service providers. Carecareers was launched in January of this year by Premier Keneally, and it is proving to be highly successful. The Carecareers strategy involved television advertisements and is partnered by an Internet-based recruitment strategy, providing an effective and easy portal for people interested in a career in the industry and for organisations seeking candidates for job vacancies. ProjectABLE is an extension of Carecareers.

I was pleased to officially launch ProjectABLE earlier this year at the Spastic Centre, Ryde. ProjectABLE is a work experience and training scheme aimed at students in secondary schools and university-allied health programs. It seeks to recruit these students to work as carers. ProjectABLE gives secondary school students the opportunity to achieve an accredited certificate by attending a workshop, completing official training, and engaging in work experience in the sector with a partner organisation. Twenty-nine students and two teachers attended the first ProjectABLE workshop with our partner organisation Sunnyfield in Allambie Heights. The feedback has been very encouraging and the students were very motivated by the experience.

Esse Lanthal, a student at Danebank Anglican School for Girls, recently joined Cronulla sports star, author and entertainment presenter, Jason Stevens, at a ProjectABLE workshop to help create a film as part of the program. This film will be used to inspire other students to take part in the program in the future. ProjectABLE will assist partner organisations to hire five university-allied health students on a full-time or part-time basis in a three-month paid job placement within the sector. Selection is based on application and interview.

ProjectABLE encourages students to apply their passions and abilities to enrich the lives of people with a disability or older people, while enhancing their careers along the way. The knowledge the students gain about the challenges faced by people with a disability in their everyday life will provide them with a good foundation for their future careers, whatever they may be. At the end of June, 358 students from 28 schools had participated in the project, which has the full backing of my colleague the Minister for Education and Training. I understand there is already strong interest from schools wanting to participate in 2011. This year four of the largest disability and aged care providers signed up to provide training and work experience placements. It is through such commitment that ProjectABLE not only offers a career path but also demonstrates the importance of social inclusion.

PUBLIC SCHOOL LAND SALES

Dr JOHN KAYE: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer inform the House how much money has been raised by accelerated land sales at public schools, as foreshadowed in the November 2008 mini-budget? How much land has been sold? Has this program now come to an end?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I will pass the question on to the Minister for Education and Training for an appropriate response.

ARMIDALE HOSPITAL CLINICAL SERVICES PLAN

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General, representing the Minister for Health. Can the Minister explain how the details of a supposed $50 million pledge to upgrade facilities at Armidale Hospital as part of a clinical services plan have been publicly revealed, despite the Department of Health continuing to maintain that the clinical services plan is yet to be finalised? Can the Minister confirm that the $50 million in funds widely quoted in the local media as being attached to this upgrade is an accurate figure? Furthermore, will the Minister provide details of what works will be covered by these funds and when these funds will be delivered?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I will refer the matter to the Minister for Health.

INDIGENOUS TRANSPORT SERVICES

The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Transport. Can the Minister update the House on how Transport NSW is supporting indigenous communities in New South Wales?

The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: The Keneally Government is committed to working in cooperation with Aboriginal communities to develop transport solutions at the local level. The New South Wales Government runs a statewide network of regional transport coordinators who live in the local area and consult with indigenous communities to facilitate local solutions to transport problems. The regional transport coordinators attend indigenous forums and establish transport working groups that build partnerships and make the best use of resources available. Since the beginning of July 2009, 51 projects across New South Wales have been funded to the value of over $835,000. Transport NSW regional transport coordinator initiatives improve services for people who have limited or no access to a car and have difficulty gaining access to public transport.

A number of fantastic examples of community transport programs are delivering real benefits to local communities. For example, the New South Wales Government has provided $10,000 to Muru Aboriginal Inc. at Wyong to help Aboriginal carers access support and information to help them in their caring role. We also provided $11,500 to Wyong Shire Child and Family Services to assist Aboriginal children who require transport to speech therapists. So far, 46 children have accessed the service. Further, $18,000 has been provided to Coomealla Health Aboriginal Corporation in the Wentworth shire for indigenous people to get home from specialised appointments in Mildura and for young people to get home after attending evening events. The Rivers and Coast Aboriginal Bus Driver Training project has provided the opportunity for 23 Aboriginal people to obtain their medium rigid licence so that they can drive a bus. Under the same project, 25 people were able to get their drivers authority so that they are authorised to drive public passenger vehicles. They are examples of grassroots community development.

I draw the attention of the House also to a recent statewide initiative from the Transport Coordination Network that is designed to solve a pressing problem for Aboriginal communities. The New South Wales Government established the Events of Cultural Significance program for indigenous people in August 2010. The primary purpose of this program is to assist families and other loved ones to get to funerals within the short time frame that is available. In a few months over $10,000 has been given to assist more than 110 people to attend funerals. The Events of Cultural Significance is a highly responsive program that has, at its core, a philosophy attuned to finding ways to assist people at this important time. This initiative helps to lift some of the burdens associated with a bereavement to ensure that a safe and secure trip can be conducted with family groups.

That is not all. Our regional transport coordinators continue to find original transport projects to encourage use of public transport. One such initiative can be found on the mid North Coast. Funding of $25,000 was provided for an innovative arts project to help get Aboriginal people interested in public transport. An art competition will be held, with the winning entry becoming a complete bus wrap for 18 months. Similarly, funds were provided across the Northern Rivers to develop artworks for commercially operated buses and taxis and community transport vehicles. The Keneally Government is passing on transport skills and knowledge to the indigenous community on a day-to-day basis in the workplace to ensure the development of transport for future generations. These are the types of opportunities that indigenous people are looking for. We are solving real problems with a real job and a real outcome. These are just a few of the fantastic programs our regional transport coordinators have delivered in recent years. I look forward to providing further updates to the House as this great work continues.

BURQA MURAL COMPLAINT

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I ask the Attorney General a question without notice. Is it a fact that a Muslim woman laid a complaint with the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board accusing Sydney artist Mr Sergio Redegalli of racism because he painted a large "Say No to Burqas" mural on the exterior wall of his Newtown studio? Is it a fact that the Anti-Discrimination Board will investigate the complaint? Will the Attorney General investigate this abuse of power to ensure the protection of Mr Redegalli's artistic freedom and freedom of speech, as the depiction of a woman in a burqa does not relate to any race but to a religious, political or cultural ideology? Why should Mr Redegalli be forced to spend thousands of dollars in legal fees to defend his freedom of speech?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile's question comprises a number of aspects that invite comment. As provoked as I am, I will not dissect and respond to the question in each of its elements.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: You can do it.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I will not. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile referred to "a Muslim woman", as though that had a connotation. Are Muslim women not entitled to make applications to the Anti-Discrimination Board?

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: I am not criticising the woman; I am criticising the board.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: What is the relevance that she is a Muslim? I do not understand the relevance of that to the issue. Any citizen is entitled to make a complaint to the Anti-Discrimination Board if he or she feels the circumstances justify it. I do not know the details of the matter the member has referred to and whether or not it meets the various criteria of the legislation. I do know that experts, who know these matters inside out and in greater detail than I, are in a position to make an appropriate assessment and determination on these issues. Processes are in place to protect the rights of individuals who may be the subject of a complaint. The member seems to have predetermined views about this matter. I ask the member to let the process take its course. It may result in an outcome with which the member is satisfied. If he is not satisfied with the outcome, it may be the subject of criticism by the member and others. The member should take a deep breath. I detect an enormous amount of hidden prejudice in some aspects of the question. Frankly, it is not appropriate to ask questions of me during question time about these issues, particularly when processes are in place to deal with the merits of this matter.

GOVERNMENT BUS DRIVER DRINK-DRIVING

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Transport, and Minister for the Central Coast. Will the Minister inform the House when he personally became aware of an incident involving a government bus driver from the Brookvale depot who recorded an alcohol reading of 0.09 after driving passengers for three hours and was back on the job three days later? What action has the Minister taken since?

The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: The safety of bus passengers and employees is our number one priority.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: It should be your number one priority.

The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: It is our number one priority. Under no circumstances is it acceptable for State Transit bus drivers to drive any bus under the influence of alcohol. I am advised that State Transit undertakes random alcohol tests at all its bus depots and has a strict policy in place to manage suspicions or allegations of alcohol use. I am further advised that more than 10,000 alcohol tests have been conducted over the past five years by State Transit. I am also advised that State Transit took immediate and swift action in regard to the two Brookvale—

[Interruption]

The member asked the question but he keeps talking. If the Opposition is serious about this and genuinely wants an answer—

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Kayee Griffin): Order! I have already called the Hon. Catherine Cusack to order for the first time. If the member says one more word, I will place her on a second call to order.

The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: I am further advised that State Transit took immediate and swift action in regard to the two Brookvale bus drivers alluded to in the question by the Hon. Duncan Gay. Both had tested positive for alcohol at the commencement of a shift, and that is completely unacceptable. The drivers were immediately suspended, taken to the police station and charged. They are currently on non-driver duties while the disciplinary and court proceedings are underway. State Transit has since conducted an alcohol-testing blitz on all drivers at Brookvale depot and no further positive alcohol readings have been returned. State Transit has also confirmed that of the 10,000 alcohol tests undertaken over the past five years only five drivers have blown a positive reading.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Kayee Griffin): Order! I call the Hon. Catherine Cusack to order for the second time.

JOINT REGIONAL PLANNING PANELS

The Hon. LUKE FOLEY: My question is addressed to the Minister for Planning. Will the Minister inform the House of the progress of the Government's joint regional planning panels?

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: Why can't the Opposition ask a question like that?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Yes. Joint regional planning panels have been operating as part of the planning system in New South Wales since 1 July 2009. They were established to deal with development applications with a capital investment value of between $10 million and $100 million and certain other development over $5 million in relation to council development. As at 31 October 2010 there have been 429 development applications lodged with 86 councils throughout the State for determination by regional panels, and these represent a capital investment value of $6.1 billion. These development applications represent major investment in local communities and often have significance beyond the boundaries of the local council and are certainly a major contributor of jobs in regional New South Wales.

It should be emphasised that joint regional planning panels are independent and were introduced to take the politics out of decision-making for those important development applications. They provide strong, efficient and transparent decision-making. Decisions are being made on merit by the panels, which have a combination of experts and local knowledge. Joint regional planning panels were also introduced to improve time frames on these important development applications.

Since July 2009 regional planning panels have determined 200 applications in an average time of 166 days. That is considerably less than the 2008-09 statewide average for local councils of 249 days for development applications in excess of $5 million and 324 days for development applications in excess of $20 million. In the same period the joint regional planning panels approved $2.2 billion worth of development, representing significant investment for the New South Wales economy. Significantly, 95 per cent of the regional planning panel determinations were in accordance with the council officers' recommendation, reflecting consistency in decision-making for regionally significant development.

Recent determinations by regional planning panels have included approval for a $30 million education and research facility in Orange, but also refusal of a proposed waste facility in the Shoalhaven, a decision which was made on merit by independent experts after carefully considering relevant environmental issues. Since April the regional planning panel chairs have been working closely with local councils to reduce assessment times and to reduce the build-up of development applications that have been lodged with councils for more than six months. This new approach is working well, with the backlog of these older development applications being cut by 24 per cent over the past four months.

I have also proposed that certain applications should be returned to council officers to determine under delegation. These include straightforward applications that have not received any objections, certain designated developments and applications within certain precincts where detailed planning has occurred. The Department of Planning is currently working with 47 councils to put these delegations in place. By the end of this month delegations will apply to a third of the councils throughout the State which have committed to confer the delegation to an appropriate senior council officer. The delegation will allow panels to focus on applications that are of regional planning significance, unclogging the system of simpler and minor matters.

The early but positive indications for the regional panel system are that they are providing more timely outcomes and more certainty for applicants and for local communities and that solid merit-based decisions are being achieved with cooperation between local councils and the State Government. I commend the cooperation of the councils, which has made regional panels an integral part of the New South Wales planning system.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: If members have further questions, I suggest that they place them on notice.

LEGAL COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINARY ACTION

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: On 26 October 2010 Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile asked me a question in relation to legal complaints and disciplinary actions. I am advised:

MURRAY-DARLING BASIN PLAN

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: On 26 October 2010 Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile asked me a question, in my capacity as Minister representing the Premier, relating to the Murray-Darling Basin. On behalf of the Premier I am able to provide the following additional information:

NSW HEALTH CREDITORS

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: On 26 October 2010 the Hon. Marie Ficarra asked the Treasurer a question in relation to unpaid NSW Health bills that she claimed were driving small business owners to bankruptcy. The Minister for Health, whom I represent in this House, has provided me with the following response:

Following informal mediation facilitated by the Department of Health, Intheshed accepted an offer of settlement in relation to the disputed amounts on 10 November 2010.

AMBULANCE HELICOPTER PERFORMANCE

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: The Hon. Jenny Gardiner asked a question of my colleague the Treasurer about the EC145 rescue helicopters based in Bankstown and Orange. On behalf of the Minister for Health, whom I represent in this House, I provide the following response.

RADIOTHERAPY SERVICES

The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: On 26 October 2010 Reverend the Hon. Gordon Moyes asked me a question without notice in my capacity as Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Minister for Health (Cancer). I referred the question to the Minister and have been provided with the following response:

CHAFFEY DAM AUGMENTATION

The Hon. TONY KELLY: On 26 October 2010 the Hon. Trevor Khan asked me a question without notice about Chaffey Dam augmentation. I am advised by the Minister for Water that the Government has made clear its commitment to the augmentation project. The Federal Government has pledged a contribution of funds to the project subject to funding conditions. A key requirement was the completion of the Peel Water Sharing Plan. I refer the member to the Minister's answer to a question without notice in the Legislative Assembly on 21 April 2010 about that matter.

Questions without notice concluded.

GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE NO. 3

Government Response to Report

The Hon. Tony Kelly tabled the Government's response to report No. 23, entitled "Macedonian Orthodox Church Property Trust Bill 2010", tabled on 19 October 2010.

Ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly.

COURTS AND CRIMES LEGISLATION FURTHER AMENDMENT BILL 2010

In Committee

Consideration resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [5.13 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 10:

No. 10 Page 75, schedule 18 [42], proposed clause 44, lines 15-21. Omit all words on those lines.

This amendment relates to the amendment previously rejected by both the Government and the Coalition—that is, amendment No. 6. The proposed new section greatly expands the scope of the victims' compensation levy to apply to all offences committed in New South Wales. There is no information to suggest that the extra money raised as a result of the expansion of this levy will be directed to victims or their carers or, indeed, to the criminal justice system. I spoke earlier about the reduction in benefits that will go to victims as a result of this legislation. It will extend also the levy to all people found guilty in this State's criminal justice system. The levy now applies only to those people found guilty of offences that attract a prison sentence. The Greens have a number of concerns about the expanded scope of the levy. Many of those concerns were picked up by the Legislation Review Committee, which stated:

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: Point of order: The member commenced his contribution by referring to amendment No. 6, which he moved and which the Committee agreed would be dealt with in globo. His amendment, which proposed to delete proposed section 78 [40] of the Act, has been negatived. He is now debating amendment No. 10, which deals with the timing. Therefore, the member should be addressing the issue of timing rather than substantive issues that he could have dealt with when he moved his other amendments in globo. The Committee has resolved that proposed section 78 stand as part of the bill. The member is again debating proposed section 78, which we have already considered.

Mr David Shoebridge: To the point of order: In order to understand the effect of the timing the Committee must understand the effect of the provision. We have not debated this issue. For the convenience of the Committee I moved the amendments in globo because of time constraints. Clearly, my contribution is relevant.

TEMPORARY CHAIR (The Hon. Christine Robertson): The member is no longer arguing about the original amendment; he is discussing the timing, is that correct?

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: That is correct. I must do that so that the Committee understands the timing.

TEMPORARY CHAIR (The Hon. Christine Robertson): Order! Given that the member agrees with the Attorney General that it is not in order to argue the original amendment, he may continue. However, I remind him that he must debate the issue of timing.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: The Legislation Review Committee report continues:

The victimless crimes to which this levy will apply include breaches of the road rules. Regulation No. 256 relates to riding a bicycle without a helmet. How could it be appropriate that such an offence be subject to the victims compensation levy? There is no victim. Likewise, a driver who is not wearing a seat belt is guilty of an offence under regulation No. 264. There is no victim and therefore no valid reason to impose the levy. There is no victim if someone is charged with using offensive language under the Summary Offences Act. These criminal offences will now attract a two-size-fits-all levy in addition to any punishment imposed. This provision will be applied when the legislation is proclaimed. Its enactment should be delayed for at least 12 months. It is an ill-conceived provision. It is ill-conceived in that it does not provide a just outcome and it is effectively levying citizens to pay for victimless crimes.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Attorney General, Minister for Citizenship, Minister for Regulatory Reform, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [5.19 p.m.]: The Government does not support this amendment. The proposal the member seeks would delete the reference to the amending Act extending to offences by a person before the commencement of the subsection whether or not the proceedings concerned were commenced before the commencement but not extending to an offence for which a person was convicted before that commencement. A large part of the member's contribution seemed not directed to the timing issue but more to the content of the levy.

The Victims Compensation Fund does not pay out just to people who have been victims of offences where there has been a conviction. In fact, you do not even need a conviction to be able to get funds from the Victims Compensation Fund. A substantial number of victims to come before the tribunal are able to recover compensation despite the fact that a person may not have been convicted of an offence and despite the fact that sometimes an alleged perpetrator cannot be found. The reason for that is that it seeks to compensate victims despite the fact that the criminal process might not have brought a perpetrator to account. So the levy itself is only part of the fund; it is not the entire source of the fund for victims compensation. The levy represents just 4 per cent of the total revenue of the fund, a relatively small proportion of it.

If the member thinks about it this way: the majority of the payment of the Victims Compensation Fund comes from taxpayers, the Consolidated Fund, and, following the member's logic, it means that taxpayers in the community who have not committed a criminal offence should pay more towards victims compensation and those who have been convicted of a criminal offence should not pay. That is the logic of it. In other words, people who have been involved in criminal offending should be spared having to pay towards a levy, a modest amount towards a levy, but the taxpayers in the community who have not been involved in criminal offending should pay. I cannot see the logic of that.

There is no jurisdiction in Australia at the moment that says that the victims compensation levy should be restricted to those offences where there is a penalty of imprisonment. New South Wales is the only jurisdiction that currently has that particular provision. I do not think it is unreasonable to say that a person who has been involved in criminal offending and has been dealt with by the court should make a contribution towards that fund. A number of offences the member referred to were infringement offences. It is true that in two other jurisdictions in Australia the levy is imposed on infringements—particularly the more serious infringements, I think, in South Australia. It is not a proposal in this legislation that the levy be imposed on infringements offences; it will cover matters only where a conviction has been obtained.

I believe it is fair to require people who engage in criminal behaviour to contribute to the fund to help victims rebuild their lives. Many of those offences may not have a direct victim but there may be a potential victim involved in the offending, and the Government recognises that there may be people who, because of their financial circumstances, may have some difficulties in paying. There are a range of measures to deal with that. Registrars are able to grant time to pay victims levies if an applicant requires it. Application forms for time to pay have been simplified. In appropriate circumstances levies can be paid through the work development order scheme that I detailed in question time. If a court convicts a person of an offence it can direct that the person, if under the age of 18, is not liable to pay the levy under the existing provisions of section 79 (3) of the Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act. I have detailed already that penalty notices are excluded from the levy. People will not have to pay the levy if they receive parking infringement notices or, indeed, other infringement notices. In addition, persons dealt with under the provisions of section 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act will not be subject to the levy and the levy itself will remain unchanged.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [5.24 p.m.]: True it is, if you cop your infringement notice in the post and just pay it, you will not be subject to the levy. But if you have the temerity to go to court and challenge it and then get a conviction in court, that is when you catch the levy. Why is it that we are applying it on this ad hoc basis unrelated to the capacity to pay, related only to whether or not there is a conviction? Why are we funding it in this way? It is not the appropriate way to obtain equitable revenue streams. It is inappropriate, as is the retrospectivity of it. Applying it retrospectively to offences previously committed breaches fundamental rules of law. You should know at any given time what the penalty is you will face if you breach society's rules, and this type of retrospective application is an infringement of an essential part of the rule of law.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Attorney General, Minister for Citizenship, Minister for Regulatory Reform, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [5.25 p.m.]: There is no retrospectivity: it applies from the date that the legislation comes into force. I know the member likes to have the last say on every issue we debate in this place but I draw his attention to the fact that he has not addressed the critical issue, which is that he wants the taxpayers to pay more for victims compensation, taxpayers who are innocent, yet people who have been convicted of criminal offences should get a free ride off the taxpayers.

Question—That Greens amendment No. 10 be agreed to—put and resolved in the negative.
Greens amendment No. 10 negatived.

Schedule 18 agreed to.

Schedule 19 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee without amendment.

Adoption of Report

Motion by the Hon. John Hatzistergos agreed to:

That the report be adopted.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion by the Hon. John Hatzistergos agreed to:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and transmitted to the Legislative Assembly with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.

CRIMES (SERIOUS SEX OFFENDERS) AMENDMENT BILL 2010

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 24 November 2010.

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE [5.30 p.m.]: The Opposition does not oppose the Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Amendment Bill 2010, which comes to us as a result of recommendations made by a 2009 review of the Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Act 2006 by the New South Wales Sentencing Council and arising also from a statutory review. The Sentencing Council made some 24 recommendations for the management of serious sex offenders and the bill before us implements a number of the council's legislative proposals as well as the recommendations arising from the statutory review. The management of serious sex offenders who have completed their sentence and are considered a continuing risk to the community is a matter of deep concern to the Opposition. The community is entitled to expect full protection from such offenders and this is partly provided for by extended supervision or continuing detention of such offenders.

Specifically, the objects of the bill in amending the Crime (Serious Sex Offenders) Act 2006 are principally to require the Supreme Court to be satisfied that an offender poses an unacceptable risk of committing a serious sex offence before it can make an order under the Act; to extend the definition of a serious sex offence for the purposes of the Act; to expand the matters to which the Supreme Court is to have regard when determining whether to make an order; to permit a corrective services officer to have access to an offender's computer equipment when the offender is under a supervision order; to permit a continuing detention order to be sought in respect of an offender who is the subject of a supervision order if circumstances change and the supervision order is no longer adequate; to provide for supervision orders to be suspended or expire on the making of a detention order; and for victims to make statements about proposed orders; and, finally, to enable the Supreme Court to make an extended supervision order at the same time as a continuing detention order.

The Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 also is amended with respect to the effect that orders under the Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Act 2006 have on parole and parole orders. The bill extends the definition of "serious sex offence" to include an offence that was not a serious sex offence at the time it was committed, but which was committed in such circumstances that it would be such an offence were it committed in those circumstances at the time an order is sought under the principal act against the offender. The test to be applied by the Supreme Court when determining to make an order under the Act is amended. Currently, the court must be satisfied to a high degree of probability that the offender is likely to commit a further serious sex offence. Now the court will have to be satisfied more likely than not that the offender poses an unacceptable risk of committing a serious sex offence before it can make an order. This appears to have been in response to difficulties with the construction of the word "likely" in the previous section. The term "likely" has been construed to mean "more probable than not". Arguably, an unacceptable risk test is a lower threshold. When determining an application for an order under the principal Act, the Supreme Court must have regard to, firstly, any report prepared by Corrective Services New South Wales as to the extent to which the offender can reasonably and practicably be managed in the community, and, secondly, the views of the sentencing court at the time the sentence of imprisonment was imposed on the offender. A sentencing court includes any court that hears an appeal on sentence.

Section 11 is amended to add, as one of the conditions that may be imposed on a supervision order, a condition that requires an offender to permit a corrective services officer to have access to any computer or related equipment at the offender's residential address or in the possession of the offender. The Supreme Court's power to vary an order under the principal Act does not permit it to extend the period of an order to a period greater than would otherwise be permitted under the principal Act. Section 14 (2) provides that the State of New South Wales may apply to the Supreme Court for a continuing detention order against a person who is the subject of an interim or extended supervision order if altered circumstances mean the person cannot be adequately supervised under the supervision order. The Supreme Court must be satisfied of this before making a continuing detention order. Section 14 deals with applications for continuing detention orders. It enables the State to make such an application where a person has been found guilty of breaching a supervision order. The Supreme Court is required to have regard to the level of an offender's compliance with any interim supervision order when determining an application for a continuing detention order.

Section 17A omits a provision that deals with the interaction of parole orders and orders under the principal Act. This matter is proposed to be included in the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999. Section 18A provides that on the making of a continuing detention order in respect of a person, any interim supervision order or extended supervision order in respect of the person expires and ceases to have effect, and on the making of an interim detention order in respect of a person any interim supervision or extended supervision order in respect of the person is suspended and ceases to have effect until such time as the interim detention order expires.

Section 21A is an important section and deals with victims' statements. It provides for registered victims to be notified of applications under the principal Act and to be given an opportunity to make a statement setting out the person's views about the proposed order and any conditions to which the order may be subject. The statement may be placed before the Supreme Court for consideration. The Opposition expresses its concern that the use of the term "person" is ambiguous and might be misconstrued to apply equally to the victim and also to the person acting on behalf of the State. We also note that the section only applies to registered victims. Once again, nothing has been done to rectify the appalling situation that arose when the killer of Dr Victor Chang applied for parole without the knowledge of members of Dr Chang's family and they were unaware of the application simply because they were not on the roll of victims.

The Supreme Court and the State of New South Wales must not disclose a statement to the offender unless the person who made the statement consents to the disclosure. Proceedings under the principal Act are to be dealt with summarily before the Local Court. However, proceedings for an offence under section 12 (breach of a supervision order) may also be dealt with summarily before the Supreme Court. Section 25B enables the Supreme Court to make an extended supervision order in respect of a person at the same time as it makes a continuing detention order in respect of the person. The extended supervision order commences at the end of the continuing detention order. Section 32 provides for a review of the principal Act to be undertaken by the Attorney General three years after the commencement of the proposed Act.

Section 126 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 provides that an offender is not eligible for release on parole if the offender is the subject of an interim detention order. Section 160 provides that an offender's obligations under a parole order are suspended while the offender is subject to an interim supervision order or an interim detention order and provides that an offender's obligations under an interim supervision order are taken to be obligations under a parole order, which means the offender's parole order may be revoked if the offender fails to comply with his or her obligations under the interim supervision order. Any parole order to which an offender is subject is revoked if a continuing detention order is made against the offender.

This is an important bill and, as I indicated earlier, it is not opposed by the Opposition.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [5.39 p.m.]: On behalf of the Christian Democratic Party I am pleased to support the Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Amendment Bill 2010. This bill will implement reforms to the management of serious sex offenders under the Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Act 2006 arising from recommendations made by the New South Wales Sentencing Council and the statutory review of the Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Act 2006.

As members know, there has been some controversy over this whole issue of how to deal with serious sex offenders who have completed their sentence. Obviously there are views in the community where some say that nothing more should happen, they complete their sentence and off they go, but the public are not prepared to accept that—I certainly do not accept that—if there is still some threat from this particular person to other individuals in the community, especially children. I therefore believe that the Government has an obligation to provide that protection, and the bill, I believe, will do that.

The Act provides a new mechanism for the management of serious sex offenders who have completed their sentence but who remain a serious risk to the community by providing for their extended supervision or continuing detention, to ensure the safety and protection of the community and also to encourage serious sex offenders to undertake rehabilitation. During previous debates I have raised the tense issue about where to put these persons, and whether there should be a halfway house, so to speak, where there is still supervision. I understand that Victoria is experimenting with such accommodation for serious sex offenders in the grounds of prisons but not inside the prison walls. Quite often there is a reaction in the community when sex offenders have completed their sentences. The public are rightly still concerned about them and do not want them living in their street where there are families, especially families with children. This legislation, hopefully, will help to remove some of the fears the community has expressed in the past.

The bill will require the Supreme Court to be satisfied that an offender poses an unacceptable risk of committing a serious sex offence before it can make an order under the Act. It extends the definition of "serious sex offence" for the purposes of the Act. It expands the matters to which the Supreme Court is to have regard when determining whether to make an order. The bill will permit a corrective services officer to have access to an offender's computer equipment when the offender is under a supervision order. This is important, because if the individual has the problems that a paedophile experiences, they will find it very difficult not to use their computer to try to access child pornography material. If the prisoner accesses such material they will be breaking the requirements following the sentencing being completed, and that is why there needs to be a provision whereby the computer equipment can be supervised and checked for content.

The bill will permit a continuing detention order to be sought in respect of an offender who is the subject of a supervision order if circumstances change and a supervision order is no longer adequate. The bill will provide for supervision orders to be suspended or expire on the making of a detention order. It will provide for victims to make submissions about proposed orders. As has been said, it is very important that victims receive advice and be given the opportunity to make submissions. Clearly, victims or members of the victims' family should be given that information.

Finally, the bill will enable the Supreme Court to make an extended supervision order at the same time as a continuing detention order. Like other bills dealing with these sensitive matters, the bill needs to be monitored so it can be determined whether further changes need to be made. However, the bill seems to meet the requirements as the Government sees them and as the Christian Democratic Party sees them. We are pleased to support the bill.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [5.44 p.m.]: On behalf of the Greens I maintain the Greens' consistent opposition to the Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Amendment Bill 2010. The Greens opposed the 2006 legislation, and we oppose the expansion of this kind of constraint on our civil liberties that we see again in this bill. This legislation was introduced in 2006. However, the current bill provides what is seen as effectively the inevitable extension of this kind of anti-civil libertarian legislation that is supported by both sides of this House. The Act, although introduced in 2006, has only been applied in some 28 cases in the Supreme Court. Each and every time such an application has been made to the Supreme Court, each and every one of those applications has been granted by the Supreme Court. I was advised by the Attorney General's staff in a crossbench briefing that on each occasion the application has been granted. Yet now there is a proposal to expand the operation of the legislation, lower the thresholds, and expand the scope of the Act.
The Act is unnecessary: it violates fundamental principles of the criminal justice system and it ignores the need for greater rehabilitation measures to be made available. It is effectively predicated on the view that once a person has been found guilty of a serious sex offence, the definition of which has been expanded, statistically they are more likely to reoffend. That rationale provides the ever-onward march of these kinds of supervision and oppressive laws that we are now seeing in this bill from 2006. Statistics also show that anyone who has been incarcerated for any offence is significantly more likely to reoffend than the general populace. The rationale that was applied to this law when it was introduced in 2006 and to its expanded reach in 2010, if it is not checked and if this law and order bunfight continues between the two major parties, will lead to this kind of oppressive legislation being applied to all of us at some point.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: No, it's only for serious sex offenders.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: I note the interjection by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile. At the moment the legislation only applies to serious sex offenders. Four years ago we were told it applied to a particular class of sex offenders. It is now expanded in 2010. With the law and order auction that will inevitably follow between the major parties in the lead-up to the next State election, we can be certain there will be pressure to expand this kind of legislation well beyond the narrow class of persons stated.

Detaining a person beyond the maximum sentence imposed by the sentencing court offends fundamental common law principles—those of proportionality in the sentence and finality in the sentence. The original sentence that is imposed by a court reflects the synthesis of all the purposes of sentencing. That is contained under section 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. That sentence includes punishment, deterrence, denunciation, and protection of the community from the offender. The bill undermines that established principle of finality in sentencing, subject to appeals. It also has the practical effect of eliminating the relevance of the sentencing judge's decision altogether.

The provisions of the Act amount to a new punishment beyond that already imposed in accordance with the law. In the absence of a new offence or any new conviction, it is inappropriate, and contrary to fundamental legal principles, to further detain an offender on the basis of an assessment of future offending—because that is what it is. Our citizens will be detained under these coercive supervision orders on the basis of a guess. Predicting an offender's future conduct is a notoriously difficult task. The High Court has recognised the unreliability of these predictions. I note that in the 2004 case Fardon v the Attorney General for the State of Queensland His Honour Justice Kirby commented:

Proposed sections 9 and 17, which are really the most significant change contained in the bill, relate to the test the Supreme Court must apply when it is considering an application for an order under the Act. While I acknowledge that the current test has caused some difficulties in interpretation—the proposed wording clarifies the test—it lowers also the threshold that must be met when the court is determining an application. The test has changed from "is likely to commit a further serious sex offence" to "poses an unacceptable risk of committing a further serious sex offence". "Unacceptable risk" is defined as not requiring a finding that is more likely than not. So, not only are we moving away from a criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt, even on the balance of probabilities on sentencing, but citizens will now be deprived of their liberty for potentially ongoing cycles of five-year orders on the basis of their posing—on what basis it is hard to know—an unacceptable risk of committing a further serious sex offence.

Effectively a guess by the Supreme Court will lead to the incarceration of citizens. The new test will make it easier for a court to make a continuing detention order or an extended supervision order. Given the extremely oppressive nature of this legislation and its impact on human rights, it is concerning that the test for making an order has been watered down to below the threshold in the existing Act. I note again that the applications that have been brought have not been refused—why? What is the rationale for lowering the threshold—it has not been explained? Proposed section 14 (2) reads:

The Attorney General suggested in his second reading speech that the proposed section will apply in circumstances in wich there are practical difficulties in the continued compliance with the condition of the order—for example, where a person can no longer continue taking certain psychiatric or anti-libidinal medication because of side effects, and should therefore be locked up. The consequences of this proposed section are far too broad and are of real concern. For example, under proposed section 14 (2) (b) Corrective Services NSW could apply for a continuing detention order instead of continuing to supervise the person in the community if funding or resources are reduced.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: No, the Attorney-General can.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: I note the interjection by the Attorney General, that the Attorney General can do it. The point is well made by the Attorney General. We have never had a system of criminal justice in this State whereby persons are imprisoned on effectively the whim or application of the Attorney General, albeit taking on the veneer of judicial respectability by an inevitable application being made to the Supreme Court. For hundreds of years we have traditionally had a system in which the liberty of citizens is taken away from them only when they have been found guilty of an offence and sentenced accordingly. Allowing the ever-encroaching capacity of the Attorney General or others to make an application for continued detention, absent a criminal offence having been committed—just on speculation as to future conduct—fundamentally degrades our traditional liberties. It is surprising to see parties that style themselves as conservatives, such as the Coalition, degrading those fundamental common law principles.

Proposed section 21A deals with victim statements. It is also of concern. Proposed section 21A (6) prohibits the provision of a victim's statement to an offender unless the victim consents. Proposed section 21A (7) provides some limited safeguards to an offender when a victim does not consent but does not require the statement to be provided to the offender. There should be no limitation, as afforded by proposed section 21A (6). If a victim wishes to take part in proceedings then justice surely requires that before you lose your liberty, and before you become the subject of a supervision order or further detention order, you can see the case being presented against you. Surely you should have a right to see the statements that will be used by the judge in determining the outcome of the case. How much more fundamental a right can there be than to know the case of which you are accused and to be in a position to adequately respond to that case? Proposed section 21A takes that right away. Those concerns were also raised in the Legislative Review Committee in one of its digests. In outlining the provisions of the bill dealing with retrospectivity the committee noted in paragraph No. 6:

serious sex offence

In other words, the bill will retrospectively regrade people's offences. In that regard the committee concluded:

Crimes Act 1900

The committee flagged a fundamental common law principle against retrospective application of criminal sanctions, yet the bill will go through with not even a vague concern or quiet thought from the parties that say they represent tradition. These fundamental traditions are being jumped time and again by the Coalition and pushed forward by an Attorney General with little, if any, regard to these essential civil liberties. Earlier I spoke about lowering the threshold to qualify for orders. In that regard the Legislative Review Committee said:

In other words, it is a grab bag: an utterly unformed discretion that will provide ad hoc justice or, more likely, ad hoc injustice in its application in the Supreme Court. It is not the fault of the judges who will have to consider this misconceived application, but it is the fault of the legislators when they give that kind of uninformed discretion to a court. Finally, the Legislative Review Committee said:

The could be referring to the views of a sentencing court from decades ago. This Act will compel the Supreme Court to have regard to views that are almost always years old but, with these amendments, could potentially be decades old. The committee said in part:

The committee concluded:

Surely all members would agree that whether we like these people or not—and many of these offenders are guilty of offences that would greatly offend all members—the point is not the class of the offender but whether one has a personal regard for an individual going before the criminal justice system. It is establishing and maintaining fundamental common law principles of finality, fundamental common law principles against retrospectivity, and fundamental common law principles that one has a right to a fair hearing regardless of the nature of the citizen. All citizens have a right to a fair hearing. They have a right to know the evidence against them. They have a right to know what the punishment will be for the crimes committed. This bill, with the connivance of both major parties, simply detracts from those fundamental rights. I strongly oppose the bill.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [5.57 p.m.]: On behalf of the Family First Party I speak to the Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Amendment Bill 2010. The object of the bill is to amend the Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Act 2006 to require the Supreme Court to be satisfied that an offender poses an unacceptable risk of committing a serious sex offence before it can make an order under the Act, to extend the definition of serious sex offence for the purposes of the Act, to expand the matters to which the Supreme Court is to have regard when determining whether to make an order, to make provision with respect to the term of orders, to permit a corrective services officer to have access to an offender's computer equipment when the offender is under a supervision order, to permit a continuing detention order to be sought in respect of an offender who is the subject of a supervision order if circumstances change and the supervision order is no longer adequate, to provide for supervision orders to be suspended or expire on the making of a detention order, to provide for victims to make statements about proposed orders, to provide for proceedings for offences under the Act, and to enable the Supreme Court to make an extended supervision order at the same time as a continuing detention order.

A variety of options is available to the Supreme Court and offenders. While I note the previous speaker's concern that the bill may remove the rights of offenders, it provides an opportunity for both offenders and courts to make the right decisions. The bill also amends the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 in relation to parole orders under the Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Act 2006. Simply put, this legislation aims to ensure that serious sex offenders who have committed offences prior to 1989 will be subject to the Serious Sex Offender regime whereby they can be detained in custody or supervised in the community at the end of their sentences. Of particular interest is the amendment to item [11]. Serious sex offenders found to be in possession of child abuse material not only will be liable for prosecution for that offence but also will have their future computer usage closely monitored. The bill states:

The offender must provide access to the relevant officers, such as, through the provision of passwords, login details or user names, in order for this usage to be monitored.

This amendment is a great step towards the prevention of serious sexual offences occurring in the first place by preventing triggers such as pornography. I will briefly comment on my own experience in this field. I trained and worked for a number of years as a probation and parole officer working with offenders, particularly sex offenders. I established rehabilitation programs within the main Sydney penitentiaries and work release programs through Wesley Mission. At Wesley Centre I set up a group—similar to Alcoholics Anonymous—to support serious sex offenders. The time I spent working with these men were some of the saddest days of my life.

I have visited Kirkconnell Correctional Centre, where there are several hundred serious sex offenders, and met people there I had known from earlier days who have been reincarcerated. Unfortunately, serious sex offences cannot be punished and forgotten. They seem to be a recurring pattern in an offender's life. Some months ago I was again at Kirkconnell Correctional Centre, talking with some sex offenders whom I had known earlier in their life. Upon their earlier release from prison they had contacted me and undertook sex offender rehabilitation programs. Despite that, they reoffended and were back in jail. I want to raise some concerns about the bill, particularly in relation to recidivism. In her research paper "Recidivism of Sex Offenders", Dr Karen Gelb of the Sentencing Advisory Council states:

There are many studies in the international literature that examine the recidivism rates of sex offenders, but only a few such studies exist in Australia. The findings from this large body of research are clear: most serious violent and sexual criminals do not have previous convictions for violent or sexual offences and are not reconvicted for violent and sexual offending (Walker, 1996, pp.7-B). The rates of homologous violent and sexual reoffending (reoffending with the same specific offence as the index offence) have thus consistently been found to be lower than they are for other kinds of criminal behaviour. However, as most sexual offences are never reported to the police, the recidivism rates found in the literature are likely to represent conservative estimates.

In Australia we do not have a clear body of research on this issue. Dr Gelb goes on to say:

The most recent study from Western Australia (2002) examined a large sample of 2,165 convicted male sex offenders who had been referred to the Sex Offender Treatment Unit between 1987 and 2000. By the end of the seventh year of follow-up, 10.7% of sex offenders had been arrested for a sexual offence on their first arrest after release, 16.8 per cent had been arrested for a violent offence and 49.7% had been arrested for any criminal offence (Greenberg et al., 2002, p.113). While most offenders reoffend within the first two years of release from prison, the longer follow-up period used in this study allows for a more accurate measure of reoffending behaviour.

More research is needed in this area. In particular, we need more programs such as those provided by Wesley Mission for sexual offenders upon release. We need regular follow-up programs to help people with issues of pornography, sexuality and general offending. Rates of sexual recidivism are much higher for offenders with a prior sexual conviction—about double the rate for first-time sex offenders. Certain sexual offenders have a higher rate of recidivism. They are offenders with stable deviant sexual preferences; offenders with identifiable antisocial personality; offenders who have committed diverse sexual offences; offenders who have committed non-contact sexual offences; offenders who have targeted extra-familial child victims; offenders who have targeted male child victims; offenders who have targeted strangers; offenders who began offending sexually at an early age; offenders who have never been married; and offenders who have failed to complete a treatment program. I have worked with offenders in each of these categories. They are the most difficult type of offender to rehabilitate. The Bar Association states:

However, the Bar Association goes on to say:

There is considerable literature to support the conclusion that the prediction of the probability of reoffending is extremely difficult and highly unreliable.

If one person's experience is worth anything at all, I advise that in more than 40 years of working with prisoners I have never believed what I am told by sex offenders seeking help. So deep is their need that they will do anything and use anyone for their own benefit. The Law Society agrees with the Bar Association, stating:

Predicting an offender's future conduct is a notoriously difficult task and the High Court has recognised the unreliability of these predictions (Fardon v Attorney General for the State of QLD (2004)). In Fardon, Justice Kirby comments that predictions of dangerousness are"… based largely on the opinions of psychiatrists which can only be, at best, an educated or "informed" guess.

Although the Bar Association and the Law Society have expressed these views, I am more aligned to supporting the Government in creating a scheme to continue detention orders or extend supervision orders for serious sexual offenders in order to protect the community at large from the likelihood of future aggravated offences, as well as high-risk offenders. Earlier this year my wife, to whom I have been married for 50 years, accompanied me to Kirkconnell Correctional Centre, where I visited some serious sex offenders who had become known to me as a result of their previous crimes. My wife remained in the car in the car park. While she was in the car, the whistle blew at the woodwork factory where several hundred prisoners work, and the prisoners walked out of the factory and around our car on their way back to prison. My wife told me she had never been so frightened in her life. From the behaviour they exhibited in her presence, she said that she did not see how they could be rehabilitated. This bill deals with offenders who have committed serious sexual offences of an aggravated nature and are deemed to be at high risk of recidivism. As the parliamentary leader of Family First, I take into consideration the best interests of families and children in commending the Attorney General and supporting the bill.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Attorney General, Minister for Citizenship, Minister for Regulatory Reform, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [6.09 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate, which, by and large, underscored the importance and significance of this legislation. When it was enacted in 2002 the legislation was not without its critics. The benefit that we have had in debating the bill today is that there has been time in which to assess the appropriateness or otherwise of the scheme. Moreover, cases have been determined under the legislation and two reviews have been undertaken—one by the New South Wales Sentencing Council, which I will refer to in a moment, and the other, a statutory review, which was released relatively recently.

The New South Wales Sentencing Council, which comprises a broad range of criminal justice stakeholders including the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Senior Public Defender, police, representative of Corrective Services and Juvenile Justice, victims of crime groups and a number of retired judges, examined the situation in relation to the sentencing of sex offenders. Its report dealt particularly with the question of what to do with people who have been sentenced to imprisonment for a lengthy period in relation to a serious sex offence and who have during that time not undertaken any treatment to address their offending behaviour. In many circumstances people who are convicted of a criminal offence and who are sentenced aspire to attain parole so that they can then be released into the community where they are supervised under the watchful eye of the Probation and Parole Service, and in that way their reintegration is better achieved than if they are released abruptly at the end of their sentence.

However, many of the so-called serious sex offenders are not interested in parole. They would prefer to be released onto the street without any conditions, with no watchful eyes, with no-one to account to in relation to their treatment or their medication, and without any of the factors that one would expect in normal circumstances a parolee to be required to address. That is the category of offender this legislation targets. The bill says to these people that they can no longer do their sentence, complete it and then expect to be released at the end of it without any restraint whatsoever. We recognise the fact that there is an argument that a person who has completed a criminal penalty imposed by the court should not be the subject of yet further punishment. But this bill is about protecting the community. It is not about punishment; it is about ensuring that people are effectively managed so that they do not present a risk when they go out into the community. If a person addresses his offending behaviour whilst in custody and he undertakes the various programs offered, obviously that is a very different situation from the one I am referring to.

The bill is not unique in the world. A range of different overseas regimes, which I have examined, deal with post-sentence arrangements for serious sex offenders, and they exist in just about every jurisdiction—Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and continental Europe. The New South Wales Sentencing Council reported on those regimes. In volume 3 of its report the council referred to indefinite sentencing, which is a technique that is used in some jurisdictions where a person is sentenced indefinitely to prison and there are reviews during that period of indefinite sentencing. The report referred also to disproportionate sentencing, which reflects not the punishment for the crime a person has committed but for the risk that person represents. The report noted uncontrollable sexual instincts legislation. The Sentencing Council also reported on various other processes for dealing with supervision in the community, including the use of parole and the registration of sex offenders. Of all the regimes the Sentencing Council examined, the council indicated that this proposed legislation was the best and most appropriate for dealing with serious sex offences. Mr David Shoebridge should have referred to the Sentencing Council's report.

Mr David Shoebridge: Why should I have referred to it?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: You should have referred to it.

Mr David Shoebridge: Where is this obligation that I refer to it?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I will tell the member. Mr David Shoebridge referred to a dissenting judgement of the High Court that upheld the legislation and he referred to the parliamentary digest of the Legislation Review Committee, but he ignored two detailed reports that include a broad range of stakeholders, including the Public Defenders and Legal Aid. He just airbrushes them as though they do not exist. The Sentencing Council undertook a detailed review of the legislation—and Mr David Shoebridge obviously has not read it. I did not expect that the justification for the legislation would be seriously challenged, but since the member has challenged it, he should listen to what I am about to say; he might learn something. The Sentencing Council stated:

By reason of in principle criticisms of preventive detention noted, which are of varying weight, it is important that it be confined to the exceptional case where the offender's criminal history and personal characteristics and disposition satisfy the Court that he or she poses a serious risk to the community.

The report then referred to the various safeguards:

Earlier when we were debating the Courts and Crimes Legislation Further Amendment Bill 2010 we heard chapter and verse about cases in the Supreme Court. Not one of the 27 cases that the Supreme Court dealt with under the serious sex offender legislation was the subject of any analysis in the contribution of Mr David Shoebridge. One would have thought that if there was any criticism of the legislation and the way it was applied one would have heard it in any of the 27 cases that Mr David Shoebridge was aware of and referred to. The member did not put one case before the Legislative Council this afternoon to indicate how in his view the legislation has operated capriciously. Then we heard argument in relation to why this legislation should require the court to take account of the views of the sentencing court.

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Point of order: Mr Deputy-President, I am trying to listen to the Attorney General but Mr David Shoebridge continues to interrupt. I ask you to call him to order.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane): Order! I ask Mr David Shoebridge to cease interjecting, and I ask the Attorney General to proceed.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: One of the criticisms that was made in Mr David Shoebridge's contribution was that the views of the sentencing court under this legislation will be able to be taken into account. We are going to legislate to require the court, in determining whether to make one of these orders, to have regard to the views of the sentencing court. Mr David Shoebridge asked what the relevance of that is.

Mr David Shoebridge: I did not say that. I said it was stale.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I thank the member for reminding me of that. I will now inform the House of the source of that idea and its content. This information will be very surprising and illuminating for Mr David Shoebridge, and it will demonstrate why he should have read the review. The idea came from Legal Aid New South Wales. If I were a lock-em-up sort of person, I would ignore advice from Legal Aid. The Sentencing Council stated in its report:

The council then stated its position:

Permitting those views and the reasons for sentence to be taken into account later, would be consistent with the provisions relating to life re-determination applications.

That sinister source of advice—Legal Aid New South Wales—put forward that proposition and it has been incorporated in the bill, but the member has criticised the Government for doing so. Another proposal related to changing the wording of the test. It is not as though these things fall out of the sky. Given the contribution of the Greens to this debate one would think I had a sinister plan to lock up hordes of people and deny them their rights. The source of proposal that the Government incorporated in the provisions dealing with the wording of the test was the review, which Mr David Shoebridge again failed to read. That review was based on another review undertaken by the Victorian Sentencing Advisory Council in 2007. That review referred to a test enacted in the Queensland Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003. The council stated:

That is in the Victorian report, which, as I said, followed the Queensland proposal. From where did it emanate? It was proposed by mental health professionals—another sinister source of advice. The arguments put by Mr David Shoebridge are the product of an instinctive view about some sinister proposals that the Government has dreamed up, concocted, thrown together and introduced in the final days of a legislative session. He is ignoring the fact that the Sentencing Council has conducted a review and in the process has examined these issues and taken submissions from sinister sources such as Legal Aid New South Wales and mental health professionals. He seems to feel that they are being conned.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane): Order! I call Mr David Shoebridge to order.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I have clearly demonstrated the utter futility of the member's contribution and his criticisms. As I said, the Government takes these matters very seriously. That is why the applications are vetted by a committee comprising a team of professionals. They go to the Commissioner of Corrective Services, the Minister for Corrective Services and me. They are assessed against the model litigant policy and then taken to court. Every judgement of the court is available for people to read. The public can go into the courtroom to see what happens, assess the strength or otherwise of the arguments put and criticise the judgements, if they feel that is warranted. There has been no criticism of any judgement, of the Sentencing Council report or of the review. All we have had is a bunch of vacuous statements.

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

The House divided.

Ayes, 29

Mr Ajaka
Mr Borsak
Mr Brown
Mr Catanzariti
Mr Clarke
Mr Colless
Ms Cotsis
Ms Ficarra
Mr Foley
Miss Gardiner

Ms Griffin
Mr Hatzistergos
Mr Khan
Mr Lynn
Mr Mason-Cox
Mr Moselmane
Reverend Dr Moyes
Reverend Nile
Ms Parker
Mrs Pavey

Mr Pearce
Ms Robertson
Ms Sharpe
Mr Veitch
Ms Voltz
Mr West
Ms Westwood
Tellers,
Mr Donnelly
Mr Harwin

Noes, 4

Mr Cohen
Mr Shoebridge
Tellers,
Ms Faehrmann
Dr Kaye

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Leave granted to proceed to the third reading of the bill forthwith.

Third Reading

Motion by the Hon. John Hatzistergos agreed to:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and transmitted to the Legislative Assembly with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.

[The President left the chair at 6.34 p.m. The House resumed at 8.05 p.m.]

WAGERING LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2010

ROAD TRANSPORT (DRIVER LICENSING) AMENDMENT BILL 2010

PUBLIC HEALTH BILL 2010

Bills received from the Legislative Assembly.

Leave granted for procedural matters to be dealt with on one motion without formality.

Motion by the Hon. Michael Veitch agreed to:

Bills read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Second readings set down as orders of the day for a later hour.

TABLING OF PAPERS

The Hon. Michael Veitch tabled the following papers:

Ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Michael Veitch.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Postponement of Business

Government Business Order of the Day No. 4 postponed on motion by the Hon. Michael Veitch.

WATER MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT BILL 2010

Second Reading

The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH (Parliamentary Secretary) [8.08 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. Tony Kelly: I move:

This bill further prepares New South Wales to deal with a key policy issue of our times—water. In the context of climate change, population growth, droughts, floods and other challenges the need to conserve water, to secure water, and to manage water are now more important than ever. The Water Management Amendment Bill 2010 builds on the strong reform and management framework already in place in New South Wales. First, the bill reduces red tape for private water schemes. These schemes are statutory private schemes and include private water supply and drainage schemes, such as private irrigation districts, water trusts and drainage boards. The bill renames these bodies private water corporations and provides them with a single, consistent governance structure, replacing the current, unnecessarily prescriptive rules. The new governance structure mirrors the framework that applies to companies: each body will be able to set and amend its own rules for its members. The only restriction will be that these rules will need to comply with the regulations, which will act like the constitution of a company and will provide safeguards for members and customers of the schemes. The amendments will also allow these schemes to transform or disaggregate their group entitlements into individual entitlements which can be traded if the individual member so wishes. This will allow the schemes to comply with Commonwealth water market rules.

Second, the bill will facilitate investment by the Commonwealth and other government bodies in environmental water. New, fit-for-purpose accounting rules will ensure that environmental water obtained through government buybacks or efficiency schemes is properly recorded and does not adversely impact on existing users. These amendments make sure that such environmental water is not considered a growth in consumptive use, and so will not reduce water users' existing access to water. The bill also facilitates the investment by the Commonwealth and other government bodies in environmental water recovery programs. The amending provisions will enable a licence for environmental purposes to be granted to the Commonwealth environmental water holder, or a State when it is necessary to give effect to agreements. These provisions are intended to facilitate investment in infrastructure projects. Such projects generate water efficiencies in our rivers and groundwater sources, which ultimately result in substantial and lasting returns of water to the environment and secure real improvements in river health. But to secure investment in these projects we need to be able to create licences that embody these water savings. The licences will also offset the impacts of extraction reductions that will be implemented in the Commonwealth's proposed basin plan.

Third and last, the bill also refines the existing offence provisions of the Act. This includes closing loopholes in the current tier one offences which target the deliberate, negligent or reckless theft of water, or meter tampering; clarifying the current position that mining companies must hold a water access licence for water taken both directly and incidentally as a result of mining operations; and improving the operation of the offence provision concerning faulty water meters, which allows greater flexibility for a water user with a faulty meter to take water if they reported that their meter is not working and kept appropriate records as set out in the regulations. This is about ensuring security of the system and protecting users as well. In conclusion, these reforms build on the strong foundation set by the New South Wales Government and will put us in good stead to address looming challenges. They reduce red tape and provide greater flexibility to an important class of people for whom the ability to trade water and make money from their water savings is an important boost to their livelihood. They enable greater investment in the environment without unfairly affecting other legitimate users of water. They strengthen our regulatory tools to ensure that the water market works to the benefit of all—farms and towns as well as the environment. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS [8.13 p.m.]: I offer the Coalition's support for this bill. I say at the outset that if the bill in its original form was before the House tonight we would not be supporting it. I must put on the record my congratulations to the shadow Minister, Katrina Hodgkinson, the member for Burrinjuck, on the forensic analysis that she did of this bill, pulling it to pieces and looking at what was good in it and what was bad in it. She did extensive consultation with the stakeholders. She also held some very fruitful discussions with the Minister's staff. She put on the record her appreciation to the Minister's staff. I reiterate that. It was very good that that dialogue took place with the Minister and his staff and they were able to come to agreement before the water bill was debated downstairs as to the final form it was to take.

The bill in its original form had three main areas in it. The first was to modernise the Government's arrangement for shared water supply infrastructure by bringing private bodies such as the Irrigation Board, drainage boards and water trusts under a single umbrella that will be known as the private water corporations. That, of course, consolidates their functions into a single governance structure and reduces the amount of government regulation, decision making and management of that private water infrastructure. The second objective is to streamline the arrangements to provide water access licences for environmental purposes arising from water efficiency projects and so ensure that this water is properly accounted for and to enable the $221 million in the Commonwealth funded metering program to be properly accounted for. The third area which was the subject of controversy was allowing trade in what are called specific purposes access licences, and in particular the stock and domestic licences, which we and The Nationals were absolutely totally opposed to, given that those licences are so important to all land users and landholders throughout regional areas of New South Wales. That was pulled out. As I said, I congratulate the Minister and his staff on reaching that agreement with the shadow Minister in another place. To give members some idea of how important this issue was, Andrew Gregson from the New South Wales Irrigators Council had a lot of contact with the member for Burrinjuck. I will put on the record some of the concerns that he had about the original bill. He said:

As you know, the NSW Irrigators Council has serious concerns about the Government's attempt to rush this Bill through Parliament with unseemly haste. The Bill has far reaching implications for all water users—including environmental users—across NSW. The Bill was not seen by stakeholders until it was introduced to Parliament just over a week ago.

This email is dated 23 November. He went on to say:

The agreement that the Minister came to obviously was under some pressure from various organisations. We certainly had a lot of pressure put on us to make that happen. We are still concerned about the haste with which the bill was brought on. There should have been a lot more consultation with the community and with the stakeholders. Having said that, I again appreciate the fact that the Minister and his staff were able to get to the stage where they could have that section regarding the special access licences withdrawn. The 23 amendments in the lower House saw the end of that. I commend the bill in its new form to the House.

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI [8.19 p.m.]: I speak in support of the Water Management Amendment Bill 2010. I will start by noting that New South Wales leads the way in Murray-Darling Basin reform. We are committed to ensuring the sustainability of the basin and the communities it supports. I would like to recognise the efforts that the New South Wales Government and the regional and rural communities of New South Wales have made over the past 15 years in being proactive in reforming and modernising the way in which we use and manage water. For example, in New South Wales we lead the way through having the largest and most open water trading market, sharing 90 per cent of water used in New South Wales through statutory water sharing plans and proactively reducing entitlements in six groundwater systems. The reforms contained in this bill extend and build on the policy framework that has been developed over the years in close consultation with the community.

With our farming communities facing growing challenges such as drought, flood, climate change, pests and diseases, and the upcoming Murray-Darling Basin Authority's basin plan, it is important that New South Wales continues to ensure that our legislation meets the management needs of our State. The bill includes important reforms to the governance framework for private water schemes, and they will be particularly welcomed by the irrigation community. Private water schemes currently have an onerous and prescriptive governance structure. The bill reforms and modernises the governance structure for private water schemes, allowing flexibility, and helping businesses to be run efficiently. These reforms will allow these schemes to operate much more smoothly—it will get government out of the way when it simply does not need to be involved. For example, the current structure sets out in great detail the requirements for board meeting procedures, and it inhibits members who wish to transform their water entitlements and trade them.

The bill gives private water schemes the power to make their own rules that best suit the needs of individual schemes. Similar to by-laws, the bill outlines what must be covered by a scheme's rules, while allowing the scheme to flexibly develop and manage its own business as necessary. The rules will cover tasks such as board meeting procedures, decision-making requirements and voting rights, as well as amalgamations and extensions to infrastructure networks. This flexibility for schemes to make their own rules will be underpinned by a regulatory bedrock. Regulations will establish minimum standards with which the rules must comply and deal with any systemic issues as they arise.

Administrative processes will also be simplified and streamlined. The bill cuts red tape by applying a single, consistent governance framework to private water schemes, providing them with flexibility at the same time as stability. What are currently known as private irrigation boards and private district boards will be renamed private water corporations. The current private water trusts will remain trusts if they so choose. If they desire to become private water corporations they will be able to do so more easily under the new, streamlined process in the bill. This will come as a relief to trusts such as Pomona Irrigation Trust, which will no longer have to go through the laborious task of filling in a petition with the current occupation details of their more than 60 members.

Importantly, both trusts and private water corporations will be able to transform parts of their group entitlements to water into individual entitlements at the request of a member. This will give the individual member the flexibility they have requested, and will allow the schemes to be in compliance with Commonwealth water market and charge rules. This is good news for many irrigation trusts such as Bringan, Pomona, Bungunyah-Koraleigh, Glenview, Goodnight and Bullatale that have made representations to the Minister seeking such a reform.

We have made sure that allowing members to trade their individual entitlements will not endanger the viability of the schemes. This is because schemes will be able to impose termination and delivery fees in relation to a transformed licence, which must comply with the Commonwealth rules. The bill also introduces a "works plan" for private water corporations. This works plan defines the water supply works, and the land to which the corporations are able to exercise their powers. This plan is maintained by the corporations and does not require governmental input. The schemes will retain the right to operate on land which is owned by a former member who has transformed and traded their entitlement, as that land will remain part of the works plan. This will prevent members from becoming landlocked because of their neighbours transforming and leaving the scheme.

Private water corporations will be able to raise finance more easily and apply for loans with their group entitlements as security. The current Act does not allow this to happen easily; however, the bill introduces reforms that will give greater flexibility to the corporations to borrow and invest in new infrastructure to reduce water losses and provide for other efficiency gains. Trusts will not have access to the expanded powers to raise finance but will retain the powers that currently exist. Private water corporations will have enhanced compliance and investigative powers to monitor the works under their control and management, preventing possible water theft or non-compliant taking of water through their channels. It is important that these schemes are empowered to regulate activities within their area. However, these powers are subject to government oversight to ensure that their use is carried out appropriately.

Some members have discussed consultation on this bill. The New South Wales Office of Water undertook broad consultation on these aspects of the proposed reforms with a wide selection of stakeholders. In August face-to-face meetings were held with eight private water trusts and private irrigation districts in the south-western part of the State, along with consultation with other water users through email and teleconference. The outcome of these discussions was broad support for these reforms.

I support the bill because it helps water infrastructure bodies to survive and thrive in a changing world, and protects the rights of their individual members to do so as well. The bill benefits New South Wales water users by providing more flexibility and less bureaucracy, and allowing famers to get on with the job of farming. Management costs will be reduced, and the bill will ensure that private water corporations and trusts have the powers they need in order to effectively manage their businesses. The reforms to private water schemes are just one piece of the bill as a whole, helping to modernise our water governance and ensuring we get the balance right between ensuring the sustainability of the Murray-Darling Basin and the communities it supports. I commend the bill to the House.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [8.27 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party is pleased to support the Water Management Amendment Bill 2010. Substantial reforms to water management are occurring as a result of the expanded role of the Commonwealth, increased focus on water efficiency, and expected reductions in water exactions imposed by the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, which is still to be adopted. Given the massive protests across New South Wales, particularly in the Riverina area, in Griffith and places such as that, everyone now expects major modifications to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.

The bill focuses on three key areas: the modernisation of governance arrangements for joint water supply works; the streamlining of arrangements to provide water access licences for environmental purposes arising from water efficiency projects and to ensure that this water is properly accounted; and the expansion of water trade opportunities for local water utility, major utility, and domestic and stock licence holders.

I note that the bill has two sections, the first of which deals with the water entitlements of landholders. I am pleased that the bill states that a private irrigation board must take into account the following matters: the nature of agricultural activities on the land, the amount of water that is currently supplied to the landholder, and any present or past water sharing arrangements applicable to the landholder. This can only occur if a private irrigation board is requested to do so in writing by a landholder of an irrigated holding. The same provisions apply to the water entitlements of landholders where there is a private water trust.

I am pleased that those practical matters are contained in the bill. The Murray-Darling Basin Plan focused more on environmental outcomes than on practical issues—that is, the impact of the production side and the needs of the farmers on the economy. I understand those matters will be taken into account in the preparation of the revised plan. Many of the residents of Dungog are happy that the Government has cancelled the construction of Tillegra Dam. But I note it was reported in the media today that Tillegra Dam would probably have been the last dam to be built in Australia because of a lack of suitable rivers and land on which to build dams. In some ways that is sad.

Australia will be forced to meet the water needs of an increasing population in the future and perhaps the only way to do that will be by the construction of more desalination plants. I understand that a desalination plant is being considered for Newcastle to replace Tillegra Dam. Sydney residents were recently concerned that our desalination plant was taking water from possible areas of sewage outfall and that the bacteria levels were increasing in our desalinated water. Sydney Water has given an assurance that that was not so. But it shows that desalination plants are not the silver bullet to solve all our future water needs. We need a combination of water projects, including saving water, using runoff water instead of allowing it to run back out into the ocean, and the construction of dams in some areas. The Government should have the nerve, in spite of the ferocious opposition by the Greens, to do what it believes is best for the people of New South Wales and Australia. I support the bill.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [8.32 p.m.]: On behalf of the Family First Party I speak to the Water Management Amendment Bill 2010. I do so with a fair degree of confidence in the bill and the fact that the issue is being discussed. The object of the bill is to amend the Water Management Act 2000 with respect to the modernisation of governance arrangements for joint water supply works; the streamlining of arrangements to provide water access licences for environmental purposes arising from water-efficiency projects and to ensure that this water is properly accounted; and the expansion of the border-trade opportunities for local water utility, major utility and domestic and stock licence holders. The Hon. Tony Catanzariti has outlined in some detail how the modernisation of governance arrangements will work, the streamlining of those arrangements, and the expansion of water trade opportunities.

Good water management is essential for the survival of all communities. People need water for many obvious reasons. The United Nations Human Rights Council has affirmed that the right to water and sanitation is a human right equal to all other human rights, which implies that it is justifiable and enforceable. Almost 900 million people worldwide do not have access to clean water, and more than 2.6 billion people do not have access to basic sanitation. Studies indicate that 1.5 million children under the age of five die each year, and 400 million school days are lost because of water- and sanitation-related diseases. The World Health Organisation states:

Almost one-fifth of the world's population—about 1.2 billion people—live in areas where water is physically scarce. One-quarter of the global population also live in developing countries that face water shortages due to a lack of infrastructure to fetch water from rivers and aquifers. Water scarcity forces people to rely upon unsafe sources of drinking water. It also means they cannot bathe or clean their clothes or homes properly. A lack of water has driven up the use of waste water for agricultural production in poor urban and rural communities. More than 10 per cent of people worldwide consume foods irrigated by wastewater that contains chemicals or disease-causing organisms. Water, however, is an essential resource to sustain life. As governments and community organisations make it a priority to deliver adequate supplies of quality water to people, individuals can help by learning how to conserve and protect water in their daily lives.

I remember speaking to Commander Neil Armstrong, the first man to walk on the moon. He told me of looking over the barren moonscape at the earth in the distance; he realised that this planet is different from every other planet in the solar system. It is different because the water of the seas and atmosphere make earth the only blue planet in the solar system. Earth is covered by 1.5 billion cubic kilometres of water, and 70 per cent of the earth's surface is water. It is the ultimate recycled product. We have on earth all the water that has ever existed, and all that shall exist. No more water is being made. No water can ever be destroyed. It simply changes form and returns to the earth, the air or the sea to be recycled. We sail on it. Our nation is surrounded by it. But we cannot cheaply desalinate it. Only 3 per cent of earth's water is fresh. Of that 3 per cent, 75 per cent is frozen into the ice caps and glaziers that consist of about 1,000 years supply from all the rivers and lakes of the world. It is water that primarily shapes our land, provides our fertility, and sustains our life. Water controls the temperature of our world and creates the air currents.

The east coast of Australia is sometimes inundated—as recently happened—with water flooding our towns and valleys and with every river spreading across the countryside. Yet right now the inland of our nation, particularly western New South Wales, is experiencing one of the greatest shortages of water. For the first time in a decade Lake Eyre in South Australia is full, but the countryside surrounding it is still dying of thirst. The rains that have filled the lake have not fallen near Lake Eyre but in Queensland, a thousand miles to the north. Our national life revolves around finding, conserving, using and battling water. It is our slave and our master. The inland Aboriginal centres his life on the supply of water, and in our most sophisticated cities it is the most common topic of discussion.

There are a number of things that we must do—and this bill picks up some of them—and we must do all of them simultaneously. One of the most pressing problems confronting Australia is the vexed question of water: its conservation, distribution, use and management. In order to make more efficient use of our water there are also a number of things that we must do. First, we must stop the leaks in the Great Artesian Basin. Our largest water source is leaking 200 billion litres of water every year, mainly through uncontrolled bores. The Great Artesian Basin is an invaluable source of water in an otherwise mostly dry inland. The supply of water is not never-ending; it is dinosaur water developed over millions of years; nor is it quickly recreated. Science shows that we are taking more water than is sustainable—that is, we are on a one-way track to running the basin dry. Until recently 892 bores were running 24-hours per day. I am glad that the Commonwealth Government, supported by the New South Wales and Queensland governments, has been through the country and many of those bores have been capped with concrete and no longer run.

We must also reduce water losses in irrigation channels. The Wimmera Mallee water project, which only finished in the past week or so, has replaced 17,500 kilometres of open earthen channels with pipes. When finished, the laying of those mainly poly pipes as well as the narrowing of earthen channels, which prevents evaporation, will save 93 billion litres of water a year that would have been lost through evaporation and seepage. In Australia we have more than 70,000 kilometres of open water conduits. That type of project has to be limited and earthen channels must be closed over, concreted or waterproofed. In Libya huge black poly pipes 13 metres high—higher than the ceiling of this Chamber—take water from the coast to the heart of the Sahara, and Libya has become the major vegetable grower for the European Union. We must improve the way we irrigate. Agriculture uses 70 per cent of Australia's fresh water. In many ways the irrigation systems that are frequently used, such as in flood or furrow irrigation, represent a blank cheque for the use of water. The previous speaker, the Hon. Tony Catanzariti, a citrus grower, understands the need to use water wisely.

For 27 years I was chair of one of Australia's largest citrus orchards in Paringa, South Australia. In the early 1980s I was concerned about the amount of water we were using across our 500,000 trees. We brought a hydrologist from Israel to help us better use the Murray River water. He introduced in Australia commercially, I believe for the first time, the trickle drip irrigation method. After one year we saved over $200,000 on electricity, which was previously used to pump salty Murray River water onto our trees. This caused us great losses. All the trees were being sprayed with water but the salt would dry on the leaves, causing curly leaf and the young crop to drop. Less water dripped at the roots solved our problem and generated greater profits. When I asked the hydrologist how much water should be used on a fully matured orange tree, he said to drip water on one square foot only and the tree will survive and flourish.

Farmers are making more efficient use of water by planting crops and farming livestock that are suitable for the Australian environment. They also protect their farms from erosion and salinity, replant riverbanks and reduce water losses from their dams. I attended an exhibition in Wagga Wagga on the use of water on farms. At this exhibition I discovered that to produce an orange requires 75 litres of water. A bottle of wine requires 270 litres of water, a loaf of bread 630 litres of water, one cotton T-shirt over 1,000 litres of water and one kilogram of white rice 2,300 litres of water. The average steak requires 10,000 litres of water. These figures take into account the entire amount of water used to produce food, such as a steak, including the amount of water required to irrigate the field to produce grass for the beast to eat throughout its life time before slaughtering. The comparison is not intended to make farmers feel guilty about the amount of water used. It is to make us think about the amount of water required to grow different vegetables and produce different goods.

As a previous speaker indicated, we must recycle water. We must not waste our waste water. The waste water treatment project in Virginia, South Australia, where market gardeners grow vegetables using treated waste water effluent from Adelaide, is an outstanding example of good recycling. Last year they used 10 billion litres of water. Leading farmers in the area believe they will double vegetable production over the next 10 years, enough to support the entire South Australian market as well as for exports. I decided to practise recycling in my own home. We have lived on tank water until recently when town water came to our front gate for the first time. Currently, we use town water only for drinking, cooking and use inside the house. We collect all our roof water in a 50,000 litre concrete tank, which is used to water the flower gardens. This has been our main supply. We added a 1,000 litre tank to collect water from our barn, woodshed and chook house to water our animals. We later added a swimming pool and a 5,000 litre tank to collect water from my workshop. This water is used to top up and backwash the pool. A solar blanket covers the pool when it is not in use to stop evaporation.

The entire acreage is covered with hundreds of trees—fruit, nuts and natives—floral shrubs and gardens. Every tree, shrub and garden, even the camellia hedge, is watered by trickle drip irrigation pumped from the dam. The dam is fed by natural run-off, waste water from the house, backwash and excess rain from the pool, and the overflow from the tanks. The dam is covered with lotus, which provides beautiful flowers just prior to Christmas and extremely large lotus leaves. The leaves, two feet or more in diameter, cover the entire surface of the dam, reducing evaporation. The plants oxygenate the water and native perch in the dam reduce the nutrients. A pump recycles the water through the irrigation system to all the trees and plants. It is not enough just to recycle the water. Every leaf and fallen branch on our property is put through a mulcher. Mulch one foot high covers every garden and tree root area to the drip line. This conserves the water.

We must not waste our rainwater. With the rainfall in Sydney, an average house with five one kilolitre rainwater tanks—one for each down pipe—collecting water from the whole roof area would provide 100 kilolitres of water, or enough to supply two-thirds of indoor use for an entire year. It is feasible that rainwater can be the cheapest source of water in Sydney. The New South Wales government policy throughout most of the twentieth century was to remove rainwater tanks from urban areas and today only 3 per cent of Sydney households have them. The reduction in mains drinking water consumption is mandatory for new houses and renovations throughout New South Wales. This reduction is achieved by using rainwater tanks. The tanks are placed under driveways and backyard lawns. Rainwater tanks benefit the environment. They are the best additional water supply option for Australians and do not preclude other supply options. We must capture and reuse more of this water. Inside the home 55 per cent of household water is used in toilet flushing or on the garden. Storage of stormwater in rainwater tanks can be used to cover some of these needs and all of it must be recycled for other uses on the property. I remind members of the words of a popular song by Slim Dusty called "Matilda No More":

Every one of us is dependent upon water in our lives. Every one of us is made up of water. The percentage of water in any living being is much the same. The percentage is the same in a mouse as it is in an elephant, a potato, a grain of wheat or a person. We drink about 60,000 litres of water in a lifetime. But if we lose only 20 per cent of our bodily fluids we will die a painful death.

It is of concern that the New South Wales Government has neglected water harvesting in this bill. Desalination is very expensive, it expends a high amount of electricity and it increases carbon production. The Government stated recently that improving commercial buildings' energy efficiency is highly cost-effective because the projects save more money in power bills than they cost to implement. I was horrified last week when, after the announcement that the Tillegra Dam project was to be put to one side and the dam would not be built, the Minister for Water, Mr Costa, said, "We will rely upon desalination". That is a wrong decision.

We require not only efficiency but better harvesting of rainwater. Time does not permit me to talk about hydroelectric power, such as our Snowy Hydro scheme, but that can be a major source of inland water, particularly through the Murrumbidgee and the Murray as well as producing peak demand electricity. The New South Wales Irrigators Council represents more than 12,000 irrigation farmers across New South Wales. These irrigators access regulated, unregulated and groundwater systems. The council's members include valley water user associations, food and fibre groups, irrigation corporations and commodity groups from the rice, cotton, dairy and horticultural industries.

The Irrigators Council expressed concerns and serious reservations in relation to the proposed changes involving the trade in stock and domestic entitlements; the trade in utility licences; an effective incentive to increase usage through these trades against the National Water Initiative; the capacity for the Minister to issue new licences; and so on. Those who watched on television, I think on Landline, the debate between members of the Irrigators Council and our former colleague—now in Federal Parliament—Tony Burke, will realise how angry people are about Federal Government legislation concerning the use of water entitlements.

The Legislation Review Committee lists a few concerns about this bill: that clauses which provide for strict liability offences may give rise to concern as the prosecuting authority is not required to prove that the defendant intended to commit the offence, and that may be seen as contrary to the right to the presumption of innocence; the removal of basic landholder right as a defence in relation to doing anything without approval; and the exclusion of appeal and non-reviewable decisions. The committee noted the importance of judicial review for protecting individual rights, upholding the rule of law and reducing the potential to deny natural justice. They are all important issue and must be addressed by the Government.

I question the Government's haste to put forward a bill that so obviously contains many issues of concern. I encourage the Government to assess these concerns seriously and adequately, possibly during the Committee of the Whole, before finalising this bill into law.

The Hon. IAN COHEN [8.52 p.m.]: On behalf of the Greens I speak on the Water Management Amendment Bill 2010. With the removal of contentious provisions from the bill in the Legislative Assembly, the Greens are more comfortable with the second print of the bill. While we are generally supportive of this legislation there are still a small number of provisions that we have concerns with. Before I turn to the provisions of the bill I think it is helpful to consider the broader context of the water management debate.

On 24 September 2008 all sides of this House supported the Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2008, which referred powers to the Commonwealth relating to the Murray-Darling Basin. The bill was essential to fulfil the Intergovernmental Agreement [IGA] on Murray-Darling Basin reform and to fill in the constitutional gaps associated with the Commonwealth Water Act 2007. The Commonwealth Water Act 2007 was similarly the result of genuine multipartisan agreement on a way forward to fix the long-term problems of the Murray-Darling Basin. The basin plan process is a key reform platform established by the Water Act 2007. It behoves all supporters of the Water Act 2007 to get behind the basin plan process to achieve the best possible outcome for the environment and communities that depend on a healthy river system. New South Wales has a key role in helping to get the Murray-Darling back onto a sustainable path. We manage 13 of the 18 identified key environmental assets. Restoring the health of these sites and the river systems that support them is a major responsibility.

In the coming months the people of New South Wales will be watching carefully to see how the basin plan process plays out. The future of our river systems and regional communities go hand in hand. This is an opportunity we cannot afford to lose. This is a chance to assist rural communities that are too dependent on irrigation to diversify, so that the next long drought and the impacts of climate change will not destroy them. Some people argue that the basin plan will destroy the food bowl of Australia. From where I stand, blue-green algae, increased salinity and increased pollutants in our river systems are what will destroy the food bowl of Australia. Returning water back to the rivers will benefit the whole community—the towns relying on clean drinking water supply, the industries relying on good water quality and community members who want to swim and fish in our river systems. These are all values with an economic impact on society. Our wetlands, water birds and river systems are priceless and also need to be given the value they deserve.

We need to face up to the ecological realities of climate change as well as the legacy of over-allocation. Last week the Standing Committee on Natural Resource Management (Climate Change) delivered its report titled "Sustainably managing water under climate change". I note the work undertaken by that committee and the recommendations it made. All the recommendations should be reviewed by members interested in water management. As a member who made a submission to the inquiry and presented as a witness, I will highlight one particular recommendation of the committee that I would like to see adopted. The committee states:

In addition to recommendation 3, the committee make a number of helpful suggestions. The committee recommends continued research on groundwater and surface water connectivity, encouragement of reduced water consumption and implementation of water efficiency measures in the extractive industry, and greater integration between licensing arrangements under water legislation and environment protection legislation. It is a shame that these recommendations cannot be acted upon at this point in time and incorporated into this bill. I look forward to the next government acting upon these two particular recommendations to ensure that our water management framework delivers outcomes for all stakeholders in an equitable manner.

Turning to the substantive elements of the bill, the amendments in schedule 1, clause 1 facilitate the granting of water access licences to the Commonwealth Government. These licences are part of an agreement between the State and Federal governments and will be the vehicle for delivery and management of environmental water recovery programs run by the Commonwealth Government. Also contained within the amendment in schedule 1 are reforms to transformation. It was about this time last year, during the debate on the Water Management Amendment Bill 2009, and the removal of Section 71ZA from the Water Management Act, that I raised the policy debate about caps on the permanent trade of water entitlements out of a water irrigation area. In that debate I canvassed the concern about transformation in the context of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [ACCC] advisory report to the Federal Minister for Water and Climate Change on competition aspects of water market rules.

Schedule 1, clauses 3 and 5 outline the process for transformation of water entitlements. The legislative provisions adopted in this section have been the subject of considerable consultation so I will restrict my critique to a few key points. The conflict of interest clause in proposed section 190A (6), which is replicated throughout the bill, appears to be narrowly constructed and less encompassing than standard conflict of interest/disclosure of pecuniary interests provisions in other New South Wales legislation. Certainly it is better than nothing, but the restriction on immediate family members participating in transformation determinations is not broad enough. Proposed section 190B (5) allows a private irrigation board or trust to require a landowner to provide security as a condition of consent to transformation. It is interesting to note the absolute reluctance of the New South Wales Government to implement security or bonding arrangements in many other natural resource management and environmental regulatory areas, but we have a strong willingness to adopt it here. The Minister will need to formulate as a matter of priority criteria for when security is to be required for transformation.

Aside from the governance reforms to private irrigation corporations, schedule 2 makes changes to environmental water provisions, offences and water licensing of mining activities. Clauses 1 to 10 remove requirements for adaptive environmental water to be authorised through management plans. Additionally, the proposed amendment to section 8D gives the Minister the discretion to manage surrendered access licences and reissue with adaptive environmental water conditions attached. Clauses 2 and 10, in particular, remove the ability of management committees through water sharing plans to determine use and management of adaptive environmental water. Instead, we will have Commonwealth and State water holders wielding exclusive power to determine how adaptive environmental water is to be used. The implication of this is that the exclusion of adaptive environmental water targets in a plan may make it more difficult for the Murray Darling Basin Authority to audit them. Further, it begs the question of what role the water sharing plans will have under a basin plan.

Clause 11 makes it clear that a domestic and stock licence holder is required to obtain a controlled activity approval and that the domestic and stock right does not exempt a landholder from obtaining approval when undertaking certain works defined as controlled activities, including road construction or excavation activities on waterfront land. Clauses 17 and 42 alter the ability of the Minister to impose conditions on water access licences or approvals. Currently, the Minister can only impose conditions on water access licences and approvals, whereas the proposed amendments will allow amendment, suspension, revocation and imposition of licence or approval conditions to give effect to the Act, regulations or a relevant management plan.

Clause 16 proposes to amend the Act by requiring water access licences for certain mining activities. This is an important amendment. Many extractive industry production processes alter groundwater systems through diversion or removal and at present are not subject to appropriate New South Wales Office of Water oversight and regulatory supervision. Particularly in the context of exploration for coal seam gas, the simple tick-a-box regulation by Industry and Investment New South Wales will have significant impacts on groundwater systems across the State. It has substantial impacts on agricultural productivity and environmental management. As Ms Cate Faehrmann's call for papers on coal seam gas has demonstrated, the New South Wales Office of Water and the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water have been locked out of playing a regulatory role in relation to coal seam gas by Industry and Investment New South Wales. The amendment is the first step to rejecting the regulation-free zone for coal seam gas in New South Wales.

With reference to the amendments to part 2, division 1A, offences under the Act, the bill makes a number of changes to offences, including meter tampering, taking of water when metering equipment is not working, constructing water supply works without approval and taking water without sufficient allocation. I make note of clause 47 because it gives an irrigation corporation entry and investigation powers. Furthermore, clause 51 proposes a new section 136A allowing an irrigation corporation to impose charges for water taken in contravention of the Act or regulation under clause 51. Importantly, the standard of proof required in this context is the balance of probabilities, and the maximum charge that may be imposed under proposed section 136A may equate to up to five times the value of the water so taken. I am not convinced about the merit of providing irrigation corporations powers that really should be the responsibility of government department compliance officers.

The remainder of the bill deals with governance reform to private irrigation boards or trusts, which will be renamed private water corporations. The reforms are focused on creating simpler structures for irrigation corporations and enhancing management through greater consistency in applying the rules of private irrigation corporations. This will be particularly important with the increased transformation of individuals converting their holdings into individual water access licences. Establishing procedures and corporate rules for sale and transformation of water entitlements that ensure adequate due diligence is undertaken and members rights are adequately balanced must be undertaken hand in hand with reform to transformation.

Before I conclude my contribution on this bill I will make a brief comment on the amendments moved in the Legislative Assembly to remove the provisions relating to special purpose access licences. I acknowledge the Minister for Water for removing these provisions as they did require a higher degree of consideration. Just prior to the budget estimates committee hearings a constituent told me about proposals floating around Lachlan River communities about making domestic and stock rights tradeable. During the budget estimates committee hearings I asked the Minister about the proposal. From the Minister's answer I felt that the finalisation of the domestic and stock tradability issue was a long way off. I do think there needs to be broader consultation on this issue before we attempt going down that path.

Equally, the proposed reforms to local water utility and major utility licences will remove restrictions on trading of water licences. Sources have advised me that these amendments were specifically targeted at enabling trading by Tamworth Regional Council and Hunter Water. According to my information, Tamworth Regional Council has 30 per cent of the total supply, or 16,400 megalitres out of 48,292 megalitres, and Hunter Water has 89 per cent. However, other major utilities that are listed in schedule 2 to the Act would also be allowed to temporarily trade allocations. Again there were real concerns about these proposals and the Minister has taken the right course of action in removing them from the bill. I reiterate that most of the provisions in the second print of this bill are positive and will enhance water management in New South Wales. As such, the Greens support the bill.

The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH (Parliamentary Secretary) [9.06 p.m.], in reply: I thank all members for their contributions to this debate. The Water Management Amendment Bill 2010 provides for important changes to the Water Management Act 2000 and continues the process of world-leading reform that the New South Wales Government has overseen in recent years. The bill has been developed over a period of time in consultation with a broad range of stakeholders. The bill updates and modernises the governance structure of private water schemes and gives these schemes the flexibility to run their businesses efficiently and effectively. In doing so, it cuts red tape and removes unnecessary government involvement in matters that should rightfully be managed on a local level. Private schemes will be able to set their own rules to best match their own circumstances and will also be able to comply fully with the Commonwealth's Water Market Rules.

The bill provides for important changes that will facilitate Government investment in infrastructure and water savings projects. It does this by ensuring that we have the legal mechanism to transfer a portion of the water saved through these projects to environmental water holders. It is important to note that these savings will then be counted towards any reductions that may be required by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority's Basin Plan. The bill also ensures that environmental water will not be counted as consumptive use and so will not impact unfairly on water users. Finally, the bill provides for other less complex but important amendments to the Act.

The offence provisions that target the most serious water theft and meter tampering cases have been refined, strengthening our regulatory capabilities. This will help to ensure that these criminals, who are impacting on their neighbours and the environment, are no longer able to exploit loopholes that currently exist in the Act. A further refinement that this bill will provide clarifies that water taken by mining activities, whether through active extraction or incidentally through mining operations, must be accounted for by a water licence. In conclusion, this bill has been developed with broad consultation and support from stakeholders. The Government has listened and responded to the need for these reforms. The bill provides substantial benefit to water users in New South Wales and modernises the governance structure for private water schemes. These amendments continue the process of reform in New South Wales, and are welcomed. I commend the bill to the House.

Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Leave granted to proceed to the third reading of the bill forthwith.

Third Reading

Motion by the Hon. Michael Veitch agreed to:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and returned to the Legislative Assembly without amendment.

LEGISLATION REVIEW COMMITTEE

Report

The Hon. Kayee Griffin tabled, pursuant to the Legislation Review Act 1987, a report entitled "Legislation Review Digest No. 17 of 2010", dated 30 November 2010.

Ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Kayee Griffin.

PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYMENT AND MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT BILL 2010

Second Reading

The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH (Parliamentary Secretary) [9.09 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. John Robertson: I move:

I seek leave to have my second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [9.09 p.m.]: The Public Sector Employment and Management Amendment Bill was brought into the Legislative Assembly last week without notice. Incredibly, the Minister's agreement in principle speech was only five paragraphs long, and took about three minutes to deliver.

The Hon. Marie Ficarra: Longer than usual.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Yes, longer than usual. The Government is again trying to ram through a bill that gives the Labor Party, in the dying days of this Parliament, the opportunity to make appointments in the public sector without going through the proper process and without advertising. The bill refers to special employment divisions, which are sections of the public service agencies and State-owned corporations that employ casual employees to supplement their permanent full-time workforces. They were created by amendment to the Public Service Employment and Management Act in 2006.

Under the current Government some of the special employment divisions have been used to employ friends and associates of senior public servants and political staffers. We have had 15 years of appointments of mates and relatives. Under this bill, that practice will be expanded to allow the Government to make appointments supposedly on merit but without having to go through the usual public sector employment processes. The union-based members of the Government must have been squirming in their seats when this bill was introduced to bypass proper appointment processes.

The majority of employees of special employment divisions are casual employees with limited public sector experience. Currently, employees of special employment divisions are not eligible to apply for internally advertised positions; only permanent public servants and casual employees with more than two years service can apply for such positions. So, anyone who is dedicated to the public service, anyone who is interested in the independence of the public service and in real merit appointments should cringing at the sight of this bill passing through the Parliament. It will open up the opportunity for this Government in its last few months in office to make appointments to the public service.

The bill allows for casual employees—and some of the agencies mentioned are Forestry, WorkCover and Transport NSW—to apply for full-time, internally advertised permanent positions and to be appointed to those positions supposedly on merit. The provisions will allow for mates of some of the current Labor Party Ministers who are employed as casual appointees to apply for permanent positions without having to compete with outside applicants. It will effectively allow the Australian Labor Party to seed the public service with as many employees as it wants between now and March 2011. It is not a surprise that this is happening but it is a disgrace. Of lesser concern is the provision that the existing prohibition on bringing proceedings in relation to public service appointments does not prevent proceedings from being brought for an appointment based on grounds of discrimination or victimisation. The Opposition is not greatly troubled by this provision.

As I said at the outset, the bill was introduced with no notice and the Government suspended standing orders to have it rushed through. Only two Labor members spoke in its favour in the other place, and they provided short, vague statements that did not reveal the bill's true purpose. The bill is intended to allow the Government to bypass the normal public sector requirements for transparency and proper processing of appointments. The New South Wales Liberals and Nationals are committed to a quality public service, to transparency and to proper process. We have announced our plans for a public service commissioner to reintroduce integrity into the public service in New South Wales. I come from a background in a profession that acknowledges that people are our primary resource and that they must be supported. The New South Wales Liberals and Nationals will support the public service as we move forward into next year. The bill, which is simply designed to bypass proper process and to allow the Government to make appointments of their mates, friends and relatives, should be opposed, so we will oppose it.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [9.14 p.m.]: The Greens support the bill.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: You won't be preferencing Labor then, will you?

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: I note the interjection and I am pleased to hear the belief of the Hon. Catherine Cusack that we will not be preferencing the Australian Labor Party. It is a pleasure today for the first time to support wholeheartedly a measure being introduced by the Government. I have spoken today on three occasions, having opposed entirely an outrageous bill that was proposed by the Government and supported by the Coalition and having opposed some terribly backward thinking on victims compensation proposed by the Government and supported by the Coalition. I am pleased to see a piece of legislation that is designed to improve the entitlements of contractors and others working for the public sector.

Unfortunately there is a trend—and I can only see it continuing with any future Coalition administration—of having contractors, that is, persons engaged not as servants of the Crown but as short-term contractors, employed in what are known as specialist employment divisions and the like where they do not have security of tenure and do not have the security of their job continuing at the end of their relatively short-term contracts. The purpose of the bill is to allow those who do not have job security to make application for positions as they become available within the public service.

If there is an intellectual criticism from the Opposition—which I was listening for and did not hear,other than some general concern that all people on contracts are obviously cronies—it is that the bill fails to deal with that essential flaw that we have seen with the present administration, and that we will probably see in the next administration, of an increasing degree of contracting and impermanence of positions, and of people, by reason of the fact they are on short-term contracts and do not have security of tenure, and for that reason alone, finding themselves more subject to political pressure from their political masters than they would be if they could convert to being tenured members of the public service, as this bill proposes.

If there are a couple of people who may not have the political favour of one side or the other and they are given tenure, provided they have that tenure they are then in a position to provide what one hopes the public service will provide—free and fearless advice. Unless they have the capacity to get that security of tenure, which this bill goes some small way to allow, they will not be in the same position to provide free and fearless advice to either this Government or any incoming Coalition administration.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [9.18 p.m.]: On behalf of the Christian Democratic Party I speak on the amendments to the Public Sector Employment and Management Act 2002, which contains two proposals based on promoting public sector workforce mobility and fairness. Currently, only staff of the department who are officers or temporary employees with more than two years service can apply for internally advertised jobs. Staff employed in the 24 special employment divisions of the public sector are excluded from such jobs. The first proposal will allow employees who are associated with the public service department but not employed directly by the department to be considered for such positions. For instance, the proposal will allow staff of the Forestry Commission to apply for internal jobs in the Department of Industry and Investment. On my reading of it, this applies to people who are actually already employed. The unions and agencies support the expansion of the pool of applicants for jobs advertised internally within the department, and that is often normal practice in the public service.

The second proposal removes the statutory bar in section 22 of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act that prohibits public servants from challenging on discrimination grounds matters relating to their appointment to public service positions. I am wondering, as the Opposition has stated, whether the bill is designed to somehow tie the hands of the incoming Coalition Government. It may be that the Government is going through all the various matters on its agenda before Parliament adjourns, accepting that the Coalition will be in government after the election next year.

The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH (Parliamentary Secretary) [9.20 p.m.], in reply: I thank all members for their support for the bill, which provides for two amendments that promote public sector workforce mobility and fairness and will benefit both employer agencies and their staff. A greater pool of applicants will enhance the operation of the merit principle and ensure that the best person available in the agency is appointed to the position. Individuals in the public service should have the right to challenge decisions concerning their employment on discrimination or victimisation grounds. Departments should be required to defend discrimination or victimisation claims based on the merits of the matter and not rely on a statutory bar to prevent a case being heard. I commend the bill to the House.

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

The House divided.

Ayes, 22

Mr Catanzariti
Mr Cohen
Ms Cotsis
Ms Faehrmann
Mr Foley
Ms Griffin
Mr Hatzistergos
Dr Kaye

Mr Kelly
Mr Moselmane
Mr Obeid
Mr Primrose
Mr Robertson
Ms Robertson
Mr Roozendaal
Ms Sharpe

Mr Shoebridge
Mr Veitch
Mr West
Ms Westwood

Tellers,
Mr Donnelly
Ms Voltz

Noes, 18

Mr Ajaka
Mr Borsak
Mr Clarke
Ms Cusack
Ms Ficarra
Mr Gallacher
Miss Gardiner

Mr Gay
Mr Khan
Mr Lynn
Mr Mason-Cox
Reverend Dr Moyes
Reverend Nile
Ms Parker

Mrs Pavey
Mr Pearce

Tellers,
Mr Colless
Mr Harwin

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Leave granted to proceed to the third reading of the bill forthwith.

Third Reading

Motion by the Hon. Michael Veitch agreed to:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and returned to the Legislative Assembly without amendment.

WAGERING LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2010

Second Reading

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [9.29 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. Peter Primrose: I move:

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

Government Gazette

The Hon. RICK COLLESS [9.30 p.m.]: I place on record the Coalition's position on the Wagering Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. At the outset I indicate that the Coalition will not oppose the bill. The main purpose of the bill is to strengthen the legislation which governs racing totalisator and other betting in the racing industry. The bill implements a package of reforms. The TAB holds licences for off-course and on-course totalisator betting in New South Wales. These were conveyed with the privatisation by public float of the New South Wales TAB in 1997. Tabcorp Limited subsequently took over the company. These licences include a 15-year exclusivity period until 22 June 2013. All New South Wales race clubs also have on-course totalisator licences on the same basis as the TAB.

The bill extends bookmakers' betting to include non-sporting events or any other contingency declared by the Minister. New South Wales is the only State that restricts the conduct of betting to racing and sporting events. Of recent times interstate corporate bookmakers, internet operators and betting exchanges have significantly eroded the TAB's business, and consequently the share of revenues that would sustain the racing industry. In agreement with the shadow Minister in another place, the Minister for Gaming and Racing has excluded the possibility of declaring betting on extreme sports such as cage fighting and, heaven forbid, on elections.

The bill enables bookmakers who hold telephone and electronic betting authorities to accept or make bets at approved premises that are not on a licensed racecourse. The essential character of Australian racing featuring on-course bookmakers will be retained, and this new measure will enable them to survive in the face of 24-hour betting available through the internet. As members would be aware, not many on-course bookmakers remain at this point in time. The bill will permit bookmakers to take telephone and electronic bets from account customers at any time. It will abolish the Bookmakers Revision Committee. Since the abolition of State bookmaker betting tax in 2002 the committee has met only occasionally to issue bookmakers authorities as delegated by the three codes' controlling bodies. As a bookmaker needs to be licensed, it is simply unnecessary extra red tape.

The bill provides for the reduction of totalisator commission tax from 19.11 per cent to 10 per cent in respect of bets placed by TAB account customers with a turnover of over $3 million, and in respect of all bets placed by account customers residing outside Australia. The tax refund will be fully passed on to these customers as an incentive to remain or to return to the New South Wales totalisator system. All States make these rebates for their premium customers: it has driven significant growth in turnover from the professional market. The scheme will generate increased turnover that is predicted to more than compensate the Government of New South Wales. The scheme will operate for two years with a review in 2012. During the two-year trial the TAB will make good any reduction in tax collections below the current collection from these customersof $11 million per annum. The refund will be determined by the Treasurer in arrears each financial year.

The bill makes unlicensed retail betting outlets illegal. There is a need to reinforce Government wagering policy recently reconfirmed by the adoption of the Cameron review recommendation to maintain the prohibition on off-course bookmaker retail outlets. These outlets have been springing up in New South Wales as a computer or internet access facility in public venues and through which customers may open betting accounts. These customers use debit or credit cards to place bets with a wagering operator. The Act will be amended so that a person may not make a remote access betting facility available in a public place for use by persons frequenting that place. The shadow Minister for Gaming and Racing in another place has consulted widely with the stakeholders concerned. I commend the bill to the House.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [9.35 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party opposes the Wagering Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. The bill will extend the scheme under which bookmakers are authorised to take bets on sporting events to permit authorised bookmakers to take bets on any event or contingency declared by the Minister; allow an authorised bookmaker to take telephone and electronic bets at premises, other than a licensed racecourse, that are approved for that purpose by the controlling body that authorised the bookmaker concerned; allow or authorise bookmakers to take telephone and electronic bets at any time; and prohibit persons from making remote access betting facilities available in a public place for use by the public.

The bill obviously expands gambling in New South Wales. Members will note that I use the word "gambling", rather than "gaming". "Gaming" is the politically correct term to, in effect, disguise what we are really talking about. It is amazing that such a bill would be introduced, given that there have been allegations recently of players fixing cricket matches in Pakistan and now allegations of players fixing rugby league football matches in New South Wales and Queensland. People can now bet on who will get the first try and who will get bowled out first. It is no longer simply a matter of betting on who is going to win; people can place a bet on all these itemised activities, which allows opportunities for manipulating the results and encourages fraud in this area.

As I said, I am amazed that the Government would introduce such a bill at this stage, but obviously it is to meet the wishes of the bookmakers and others involved in wagering. Perhaps there is some benefit to those who conduct the events as well, because the bill provides for the refund of part of the betting tax paid by a totalisator licensee on commissions taken by the licensee from investments made by certain investors in totalisators conducted by the licensee. In other words, the Government is refunding part of the betting tax. That is something that does not normally happen, but obviously a deal has been made between the Government and these organisations. We oppose the bill.

Dr JOHN KAYE [9.38 p.m.]: On behalf the Greens I raise some serious concerns about this legislation. Before I do so I point out that one aspect of the legislation is very good. I refer to the provision that prohibits persons from making remote access betting facilities available in a public place for use by persons frequenting that place. This effectively places a ban on bet boxes in public places—wagering that occurs in public places whereby a gambling terminal is simply left around pubs and clubs and other places. This legislation effectively bans the current trend towards bet boxes. That is a step forward, because bet boxes are a risk for recruiting problem gamblers. Because bet boxes are entirely unregulated, and in many cases are located in places where minors can get at them, it is excellent that they are being banned.

Having said that, I see three other provisions in this legislation raising severe concern. One of those provisions is allowing bookmakers to provide internet and telephone betting services at approved premises other than a licensed racecourse. We are effectively expanding what bookmakers can do beyond just on-course betting—taking telephone and internet bets. The reach of bookmakers' business—the number of people who can engage in wagering, not only face-to-face on course but also off course—is being expanded. This will result in more wagering and more people addicted to gambling. The third provision of the legislation is the handing back of the betting tax paid on totalisator investments by certain categories of customers—being the high rollers and the overseas gamblers. Basically, the tax rate is being reduced from 19.11 per cent to 10 per cent on those bets. The Government argues this will encourage high rollers to invest, and will bring gambling business to New South Wales. The only rational response to that argument is: Who wants to have a State that is run off the basis of gambling? It is a most regressive tax that simply picks up on human frailty, and the Greens do not support it.

The final aspect of the legislation is the expansion of the types of events or contingencies on which New South Wales wagering operators may offer betting services to allow non-sporting or non-racing events to be declared by the Minister as declared betting events. The legislation is taking sport out of the definition of "wagering" and replacing it with any event that the Minister declares to be an event by publication in the Government Gazette. In response to our inquiry as to what sort of events this would involve, we received some very interesting answers. Fashion events—

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Every event under the sun.

Dr JOHN KAYE: Yes. The Government has said that it will not include elections. That is not included in the legislation; it is simply something that the Minister has said in his agreement in principle speech. I also understand it will not include betting on extreme fight events. Again, that is not included in the legislation; it is something that the Minister has said. The Greens also raised the issue of betting on the outcome of jury trials.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: What is the next government going to do?

Dr JOHN KAYE: Yes, whatever the intention of this Government, what will the next government or the government after that do? The definition of "wagering" is being changed to mean certain types of sporting events but eventually it will be open slather. We have two problems with that. First, more wagering will mean more people will be addicted to gambling, more lives will be ruined, and it will result in more damage to households and communities. Second, wherever wagering is allowed there is pressure for corruption, for people to try to change the outcome of the events. We have seen it in cricket—as Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile pointed out—with more complex betting instruments on more than the outcome of the series of matches but on specific match events.

As gambling is allowed in racing, it could be asked why that wagering should not be allowed elsewhere. The answer is simple: racing has an imperfect system of regulation. Racing has a system of stewards who try to identify where races have been thrown or where adverse outcomes have occurred, and those participants found to have been involved in adverse behaviour are punished. That could not be extended to reality television shows and fashion events, for example, because they do not have the same regulatory superstructure to avoid those sorts of outcomes. Yet the same corrupting pressure will be brought to bear on those industries. Heaven help us if it were extended to jury trials. What would happen if the outcome of a jury trial was something people bet on? Wherever large sums of money are placed on an event there will be pressure to change the outcome of that event to suit those gambling on it.

The Greens consider allowing the Minister to make decisions on what will and will not be allowed is inappropriate. We will be moving an amendment in Committee to change the provisions relating to the Minister making the determination as to those events or contingencies in which wagers can be taken onto a statutory instrument. It can then come before Parliament and there is a chance of disallowance if a future government seeks to push it too far. That being said, the Greens support the banning of bet boxes and oppose the other three aspects of the bill.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [9.45 p.m.], in reply: I thank the honourable members for their contribution to this debate. The Wagering Legislation Amendment Bill will facilitate the implementation of a package of initiatives designed to support the New South Wales racing industry. The bill will certainly strengthen the legislation as it relates to the provision of wagering services on public venues to ensure consistency with government wagering policy. The New South Wales racing industry is one of the State's most significant industries. It provides over 50,000 full-time and part-time jobs across the State and contributes in the order of $1 billion annually to our economy. The Keneally Government is a strong supporter of the New South Wales racing industry. The reforms in this bill to the operations of the State's wagering providers are the latest in a series of initiatives implemented by the Government. I commend the bill to the House.

Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Dr JOHN KAYE [9.47 p.m.], by leave: I move Greens amendments Nos 1 and 2 in globo:

No. 2 Page 4, schedule 1 [8], proposed section 18. Insert after line 29:

Interpretation Act 1987

I have already foreshadowed the intent of these amendments in my speech on the second reading: to remove the power of the Minister to state the events or contingencies on which wagers can be taken on. That power is given to the Minister in the legislation by the naming of events or contingencies in the Government Gazette. The intent of these amendments is that the adding of contingencies or events should be by disallowable instrument: by regulation. That regulation, as a disallowable instrument, would allow this Parliament to disallow any move to include new events.

The intent of the amendments is to stop betting on events such as extreme fighting or the outcome of jury trials and elections, or at least give Parliament the opportunity to say it is a step too far. Inevitably pressure will be applied to broaden the range of events for gambling. The gambling industry is becoming wealthier and more politically powerful. We can see the outcome of its power in some of the provisions in the bill before the House. Parliament must have a capacity to restrict those areas to which gambling can be extended. I commend Greens amendments Nos 1 and 2.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [9.50 p.m.]: The Government does not support the Greens amendments. New South Wales is the only Australian jurisdiction that restricts its wagering operations to betting on racing and sporting events. The bill extends the controls that apply to sports betting and will not enable wagering operators to have unfettered betting options. As with sports betting, the extended categories of events and contingencies on which New South Wales wagering operators will be able to operate will be restricted to those declared by the Minister for Gaming and Racing by order published in the Government Gazette. This initiative brings New South Wales in line with other jurisdictions. The Government believes the bill strikes the right balance between transparency and clarity in decisions being made.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS [9.50 p.m.]: The Opposition will not support the amendments.

Question—That Greens amendments Nos 1 and 2 be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 5

Mr Cohen
Ms Faehrmann
Dr Kaye

Tellers,
Reverend Nile
Mr Shoebridge

Noes, 22

Mr Ajaka
Mr Catanzariti
Mr Clarke
Mr Colless
Ms Cotsis
Ms Cusack
Ms Ficarra
Mr Foley

Miss Gardiner
Mr Khan
Mr Lynn
Mr Mason-Cox
Mr Moselmane
Ms Parker
Ms Robertson
Ms Sharpe

Mr Veitch
Ms Voltz
Mr West
Ms Westwood

Tellers,
Mr Donnelly
Mr Harwin

Question resolved in the negative.

Greens amendments Nos 1 and 2 negatived.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedules 2 to 5 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee without amendment.

Adoption of Report

Motion by the Hon. Penny Sharpe agreed to:

That the report be adopted.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion by the Hon. Penny Sharpe agreed to:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and returned to the Legislative Assembly without amendment.

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING (COMMONWEALTH POWERS) BILL 2010

Bill received from the Legislative Assembly, and read a first time and ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Penny Sharpe, on behalf of the Hon. John Hatzistergos.

Motion by the Hon. Penny Sharpe agreed to:

Second reading set down as an order of the day for a later hour.

PUBLIC HEALTH BILL 2010

Second Reading

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [10.00 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. John Hatzistergos: I move:

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

Government Gazette

Gazette

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [10.01 p.m.]: The Public Health Bill 2010 repeals the Public Health Act 1991 and replaces it with a more streamlined Act. It is designed to promote, protect and improve public health and to control risks to public health. It is aimed at promoting the control of infectious diseases and to prevent the spread of those diseases. It specifically recognises the role of local government in protecting public health. The bill contains a number of specific provisions. It incorporates a statement of the responsibilities of local government authorities in relation to environmental health; it removes from the existing legislation the need for the Premier to give approval before the Minister for Health can take action to deal with a risk to public health; and it extends the period for which a public health risk area declaration may be in force from 28 days to 90 days.

Instead of the Minister, the Director General of the Department of Health will have the power to order the closure of premises in order to protect public health. The new Act will also remove from the legislation the requirement that the Minister has to have reasonable grounds for suspecting that water is polluted before taking any action against polluted drinking water or other polluted water that is likely to cause a risk to public health, and it gives to the Chief Health Officer in the Department of Health the function of deciding whether boiled water advices should be issued. Also, the DirectorGeneral is to have additional power to give directions relating to air-conditioning and other regulated systems where offences are committed in relation to such systems, including directions requiring training to be undertaken and prohibiting persons from carrying out functions relating to air-conditioning systems.

In relation to public water utilities and the staff thereof, officers in NSW Health will also have protection under this new legislation from liability arising from the provision of information or advice concerning drinking water, if that advice is given in good faith for the purpose of executing this legislation. Some important provisions that were previously contained in the regulations under the Act relating to public swimming pools and spa pools have now been switched from the regulations into the Act so that the Director General has got additional power to give directions about pools that are likely to be a risk to public health. That will be very good news to some constituents in the Forster area.

Provisions previously contained in the regulations relating to skin penetration procedures are incorporated into this legislation. The Director General is to have additional power to give directions about persons found guilty of related offences. In relation to some provisions that relate to medical practitioners, a medical practitioner is required to report the particulars of death from a scheduled condition if the medical practitioner suspects the death was caused by the condition. That replaces the provision that a death should be reported if the medical practitioner believes on reasonable grounds that the death was caused by the condition.

The threshold for the exercise of the Director General's power to give mandatory directions relating to scheduled diseases and other conditions is lowered from a requirement to hold a reasonable belief that a person may have a certain disease or condition to a suspicion that the person has such a disease or condition, and any such direction will be required to have regard to certain sensitivities of the person concerned. Also, a medical practitioner is required to provide a person with information concerning a sexually transmitted infection if the medical practitioner suspects that the person has the infection—again, changing the threshold from the medical practitioner being required to have a belief based on reasonable grounds that a person has such an infection.

Similarly, a health practitioner has to notify the chief executive officer of a hospital if the practitioner suspects that a person or a former patient at that hospital has or has had a notifiable disease, rather than the reasonable grounds threshold. The chief executive officer of a hospital must notify the DirectorGeneral if the officer suspects that a patient or former patient has or has had a notifiable disease—again, changing the reasonable grounds threshold.

In relation to deaths after the administration of an anaesthetic or a sedative drug after treatment in a hospital or outside of a hospital, those deaths have to be notified to the Director General. To be consistent with the provisions of the Smoke-free Environment Act, the powers of entry for enforcement powers have been expanded by this legislation. Further, public health inspectors, who from now on will be called "authorised officers", will have the power to require persons to provide information and to request a name and address of persons suspected of contravening the proposed legislation or its regulations. Other provisions in relation to penalties are updated in this legislation. The Government released a draft bill designed to streamline and update the Public Health Act in February this year. Considerable consultation was undertaken with various stakeholders, and particularly with local government, which plays a major role in the public health field.

The Opposition believes that a number of the problems that local government had with the original version of the bill have been addressed in the final version. Discussions have been held about the possible cost to local government of implementing the measures in this legislation, although the Opposition does not believe they are necessarily more onerous than the current costs. Obviously that will be monitored as the legislation is implemented. Having consulted with a wide range of stakeholders, the Opposition will not oppose the bill. However, we will raise some issues in Committee, particularly those raised by the Funeral Directors' Association.

Dr JOHN KAYE [10.11 p.m.]: I speak on behalf of the Greens on the Public Health Bill 2010. As the previous speaker pointed out, this legislation repeals the Public Health Act 1991 and replaces it with a new, more modern piece of legislation. The bill carries forward many of the provisions in the 1991 legislation, but implements a number of amendments that largely, but not entirely, further encourage the promotion and protection of public health.

For the first time, this bill includes a set of stated objectives which are entirely laudable and which add more intent to the legislation. It also includes explicit recognition of the role of local government in the regulation of environmental health premises and removes the administrative restrictions that prohibit the Minister for Health from rapidly and effectively responding to public health emergencies. That provision is very important. Under the 1991 legislation, the Minister must consult the Premier before she or he can declare a public health emergency and respond appropriately. Under this bill, the Minister will not be required to do that and that will expedite a declaration, which may save lives. That is an entirely laudable proposition. A number of positive amendments are also proposed to provisions relating to safe drinking water supplies, public swimming pools and spas and premises where skin penetration occurs.

However, concerns have been raised about two key areas of the legislation. Byron Shire Council raised concerns about New South Wales Health shifting some of its responsibilities to the local government authorities as a cost-saving measure. The bill is unclear about what roles and powers are to be resourced by New South Wales Health. Local government authorities in general are not assisted in training people who are to be appointed as inspectors. The bill is also unclear with regard to water suppliers being required to undertake more water testing. The Greens are particularly concerned about the regulation of public spas and pools. The Act and regulations require local government authorities to keep registers and to enforce regulations dealing with skin penetration and water heating and cooling activities. However, the bill also introduces the issue of public spas and pools. Under the Act, the director general can require a water supplier to carry out additional testing and can inspect premises. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to address the issue of inspection of public spas and pools. Given that this will involve additional work for local government authorities, will they be provided with additional resources to undertake those activities? Of course, the Greens' concern is cost shifting to local government authorities that are already strapped for cash.

The second issue of concern relates to the partial deregulation of the funeral industry. The Public Health Act 1991 includes a number of regulation-making powers in respect of the funeral industry, but they have been omitted from the 2010 legislation. The bill omits regulations in respect of preparation rooms, equipment and apparatus in mortuaries, crematories and other matters relating to mortuaries, crematories and cemeteries for the protection of public health. It also omits registry powers in respect of the inspection of mortuaries, crematories and cemeteries.

The Hon. Rick Colless: What are crematories?

Dr JOHN KAYE: The Act refers to crematories, but I call them crematoria. The Act also refers to records that are required to be kept in respect of those activities. The Greens are concerned that the Government is further deregulating the funeral industry. We know that responsible operators in the industry have been crying out for more controls to weed out unsafe and disrespectful practices. The Keneally Government's response in this legislation has been to remove a number of important regulatory powers. This legislation creates a regulatory vacuum with regard to preparatory rooms, inspections and recordkeeping of mortuaries, crematoria and cemeteries. Disrespectful operators are being issued with an open invitation to cut corners on important public health matters. That will kickstart a race to the bottom with regard to funeral industry standards. The Greens will be moving amendments to reinstate those regulation-making powers.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [10.18 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Public Health Bill 2010. However, we have concerns about the new provision dealing with sexually transmissible diseases. The bill modernises the public health legislation and reflects the main recommendations of two reviews of the Public Health Act 1991. The bill seeks to improve the public emergency response powers to ensure rapid and effective responses to public health emergencies. The bill also deals with a number of other areas, including local government responsibilities. It contains a clause setting out the general functions to be exercised by local governments and questions have been asked about whether that constitutes cost shifting from the State Government to local government. We need a guarantee that funds will be made available to local government authorities to carry out their new roles.

The bill provides that water carters will now be regulated as suppliers of drinking water. That will allow the department to control the supply of drinking water by water carters to address their potential to supply an unsafe product. The bill requires drinking water suppliers to establish and adhere to a quality assurance program related to the safe supply of drinking water unless exempted by the Chief Health Officer. The bill improves enforcement powers in respect of environmental health premises—that is, premises containing regulated systems, public swimming pools and premises conducting skin penetration procedures. These are streamlined in the bill, with provisions similar to those in the Food Act 2003 and the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, allowing for, one, the issuing of improvement notices when prescribed requirements are not being met and, two, the issue of prohibition orders when improvement notices are not complied with and there is a serious threat to public health, or urgently when an improvement notice has not been issued but circumstances giving rise to the ability to issue an improvement notice have occurred and the order is necessary to lessen or prevent a serious risk to public health.

The bill also schedules medical conditions. Medical practitioners will be required to notify the director general if he or she reasonably suspects that a person is suffering from a scheduled medical condition. With respect to the offence of a person with a sexually transmitted infection having sexual intercourse with another person without notifying the other person of the sexually transmitted infection, the bill adds a new defence of taking reasonable precautions, and I disagree with that watering down of the safeguards to public health for the families of New South Wales. Because of that provision I foreshadow that in Committee I will move an amendment to page 43 of the bill, clause 79 (3), to omit all words on lines 8 to 10. Those words provide this new defence, which was explained by Dr Andrew McDonald in his agreement in principle speech in the other place:

That raises pretty obvious questions: What will be regarded as reasonable precautions? That is very subjective. I do not believe the Government's adding this watered-down defence adds anything to the bill, especially when the bill is supposed to be protecting public health. Subclause (3) of clause 79, which I wish to remove in Committee, states:

This new defence did not exist in previous legislation and I understand it was not in the exposure draft bill which was distributed for consultation and feedback. Obviously, if it is not in the exposure draft how can anyone disagree with it, and suddenly it pops up in the first print of the Public Health Bill 2010. As far as I am aware neither the Australian Medical Association nor the Red Cross have been consulted so they would have been unaware that this watered-down defence had been added to the bill when there is no need for it. Given the events that have been occurring in New South Wales and in other States there is a greater need for maintaining the existing wording. The legislation should not include this defence, because there have been a number of cases where people with sexually transmitted diseases are deliberately infecting their partners and not telling their partners that they have sexually transmittable diseases or HIV AIDS. There have been cases where the courts have charged persons who have carelessly and indifferently infected their partners.

As I said, the provision in the bill waters down this provision. It will allow irresponsible men particularly to endanger the lives of their sex partners by not warning them and then later claiming that they had taken reasonable precautions. The only reasonable precaution is to tell their partner that they have this infection. Nothing should water that down. There should be a black-and-white requirement. If a person knows they have an infection they must tell their partner, and I want to restore that provision that was in the Public Health Act 1991. This defence was not in the Act and now it has been added to the Public Health Bill 2010. I am very unhappy that the Government or some person in the Government has slipped this amendment in. As I said, it was not in the exposure draft but now it suddenly appears in the bill.

The bill has some other positive matters dealing with the funeral industry. We have had lots of debates about problems in the funeral industry and this bill will slightly narrow the regulation-making powers in respect of the funeral industry to ensure that the bill regulates only those matters relating to the funeral industry that have a public health impact. With the problems we have had in the funeral industry, I would not be narrowing the regulation-making powers, I would probably be increasing them with greater supervision of the industry.

The bill also creates an offence for a person who is an occupier or appears to be in charge of premises in which an offence is believed to have occurred or is occurring who does not provide their name and address or the name and address of the occupier to an authorised officer when requested to do so. It is important to ensure that authorised officers have the power to get that information, which is critical in moving on, if necessary, to lay charges. I support the bill but I am very unhappy with the new defence that has been added.

Ms CATE FAEHRMANN [10.27 p.m.]: On behalf of the Greens I speak to the Public Health Bill 2010. While my colleague Dr John Kaye leads on this bill for the Greens, I want to speak on some elements of the bill as the Greens spokesperson for healthy communities. This role has recently been adopted by the Greens, recognising that a substantial number of health issues fall outside the traditional focus on hospital and health services. It is encouraging to see that for the first time in the Public Health Bill a list of objectives is set out in a separate clause upfront within the legislation. I will focus my contribution to this debate on areas that address two of the five objects of the bill, that is, to promote, protect and improve public health and to recognise the role of local government in protecting public health.

I congratulate the Government on taking the step of recognising the role of local government in this important area, but I question if we have got the most out of this inclusion. The consultation paper on the draft Public Health Bill 2010, which informed public submissions earlier this year, included a section relating to a potential requirement for local government authorities to develop public health plans. This was a recommendation from the 2005 review of the Public Health Act. The consultation paper goes on to explain that a public health plan would articulate a local government authority's obligations with respect to public health and would help facilitate consultation in relation to public health issues between area health services and local government authorities. I would be interested to hear from the Government in reply why this recommendation was not included in the final bill. No comment is made in the Government's speech in the other place about why it was decided not to proceed with the inclusion of public health plans or make comments about whether or not submissions made in relation to the draft supported this idea. The question put in relation to the draft concerned whether the existing community strategic plans, which are developed by local government authorities, are the appropriate means by which a local government authority can set out its role in the field of public health.

I note that Victoria has municipal public health plans built into its Health Act. Through these plans every council is to seek to prevent diseases, prolong life and promote public health. Some of the means described as being available to the council include: controlling environmental health dangers; isolating the special factors affecting the health of people within the municipal district; monitoring the activities of and assisting other agencies that have a role in public health; and, if necessary, advocating on behalf of the people within the municipal district for adoption and enforcement by those agencies of appropriate standards. The plans that have been developed by Victorian councils seem to be important tools in focussing councils in local planning and other activities in that the potential to achieve health objectives is considered. For example, the protection of open space accords with providing opportunities to engage in health activities. It seems that there may be lessons to be learned by New South Wales from what is being done in Victoria about how to best achieve the objectives to recognise the role of local government in protecting public health.

Since I became a member of Parliament in September, one particular health issue has continued to rear its head—that is, the impacts of coalmining, particularly coal dust, on the health of local communities. The experiences of the communities of Muswellbrook and Singleton come to mind in particular. The National Pollutant Inventory showed this year that almost half of the State's fine dust particulates originated from coal operations in this area. The health impacts of PM2.5 fine particulates are being increasingly documented. Despite local community calls, the Government has continued to reject a coal health study. This failure of the State Government makes crucial further engagement of local councils in health planning.

One can only imagine that put into the hands of local communities, particularly those living every day with an acute health issue such as fine particulate pollution, very specific and immediate actions would result. By not being tied to the State Government's policy to support the massive expansion of the coal industry, a local health plan could depoliticise the issue and take immediate direct action, such as, implementing independent monitoring of particulate levels. Of course, local government would need to be adequately funded if this burden were to shift to it as well.

Although the Greens will be moving amendments to one part of the bill, I note that it seems to have general support, and I congratulate the Minister for Health on the degree of community consultation in progressing its development. I hope that future iterations will continue to build on this progress and introduce innovative ways of engaging local communities in their own wellbeing.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [10.33 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contribution to this debate. The bill is the first major update of public health legislation in 20 years. The changes to the legislative arrangements will ensure that the legislation continues to provide a sound basis to enable public health authorities to effectively protect and promote public health in New South Wales. On behalf of the Government I would like to thank all members of the community, particularly representatives of local government, who have given their time and expertise to bringing this bill to finalisation. The bill provides an appropriate and effective statutory framework for the promotion of public health over the coming years.

I wish to respond to a number of matters that were raised in debate. Dr John Kaye referred to swimming pools and spa pools on private premises, particularly in multi-residential facilities. Such facilities are private rather than public facilities, and they are the responsibility of the body corporate that manages the complex in which they are located. As such, they do not meet the criteria for inclusion in the Public Health Bill, which deals with significant risk to the broader public.

With regard to the resourcing of local government, the Government recognises local government as a key partner in public health and there clearly must be a mechanism to ensure that local government is properly resourced to undertake its activities in these areas. During the local government consultation workshops that were undertaken by the Department of Health, the financial implications of local government regulatory activity were raised. Stakeholders strongly supported the creation of a cost recovery regime, including inspection fees and other administration fees, so as to ensure that local government can properly fulfil its regulatory reforms. This regime is not unlike resourcing strategies currently operating under the Food Act. While the issue of funding regulatory activities through fees and charges has been appropriately raised by local government and has merit, there has been no general community or industry consultation on this matter. The issue of levying fees and charges, including the amount of any such fees and charges, should be considered during the drafting of the public health regulation and the broader consultation process that will accompany the passing of the bill. The Government recognises that for local government to play an effective role in public health a proper resourcing strategy must be included.

Ms Cate Faehrmann referred to public health plans. Local government expressed concern about the burden that would be imposed from a requirement to prepare individual public health plans. This is particularly relevant as these plans are currently effectively covered by other local government planning processes, including community strategic plans, and for that reason they have not been included in the legislation at this time.

I indicate that the Government will not be opposing the amendment that the Greens will move in Committee; however, we will be opposing the proposed amendment of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile. I will speak more about that in Committee. I commend the bill to the House.

Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Kayee Griffin): Order! With the leave of the Committee I will put the bill in parts.

Parts 1 to 4 [Clauses 1 to 76] agreed to.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [10.39 p.m.]: I move Christian Democratic Party amendment No. 1:

No. 1 Page 43, clause 79 (3), lines 8-10. Omit all words on those lines.

As I said in my speech on the second reading, the bill is very explicit. Clause 79 (1) provides:

In other words, the law states that there is an obligation on the person suffering from the sexually transmitted infection to tell the other person of that fact, and it provides a maximum penalty of 50 penalty units. The words I wish to omit provide a defence. When the person is found guilty of not carrying out the requirement of warning the other person, they may then say—if my amendment is not carried—"Oh yes, I did take reasonable precautions to prevent the transmission of the sexually transmitted infection. But I'm very sorry that I have infected my partner with a sexually transmitted disease"—which may be HIV-AIDS or other fatal disease. The person may say, "I'm very sorry that that happened, but I did take reasonable precautions." In my view, watering down this provision gives some persons encouragement to carry out their sexual activity without telling their partner, knowing they can always claim they took reasonable precautions, whatever they may be. For example, the person may say, "I wore a condom and did certain things, and I believe I took reasonable precautions. Hopefully I will get off being convicted."

I believe that the person who has been infected—which in most cases would be a female partner—also has rights, and that they should not be put at risk by irresponsible males. Those irresponsible males will take some satisfaction from this provision, believing that if they do get caught, they can claim this as a defence in any proceedings where they are before the court. It is very sad that a Labor Government has included this defence. As I said, it was not included in the exposure draft, so there has been no community discussion or feedback on the provision. It is no good to say that the Government is including the provision now as a result of some phone calls that have been made. The provision should have been included in the exposure draft. I believe that if that had been the case, responsible bodies would have condemned the provision and it would not have proceeded. To incorporate the provision in the bill after the exposure draft has been issued and the consultation has taken place in my view borders on deception. I hope the Committee will accept my amendment.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [10.42 p.m.]: The Government does not support the Christian Democratic Party amendment. Section 13 of the Public Health Act makes it an offence for a person with a sexually transmitted infection to have sexual intercourse with another person unless the person with the sexually transmitted infection tells the other person of the risk of transmitting the infection and the other person voluntarily agrees to accept the risk. An equivalent provision to section 13 was included in the draft Public Health Bill that was released for public consultation earlier in the year. The provision was heavily criticised by a number of organisations, including the Australasian Society of HIV Medicine, Haemophilia Foundation Australia, the HIV/AIDS Legal Centre, ACON, the Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society, and the National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research.

These organisations submitted that section 13 is contrary to medical and scientific evidence that focuses on risk reduction—either via condom use or different sexual practices—rather than disclosure; is contrary to public health practices by implying that disclosure is the most effective means of avoiding contracting a sexually transmitted infection; effectively targeted HIV and AIDS rather than all sexually transmitted infections; and is contrary to a medical practitioner's effective treatment and support of patients as the provision risks alienating HIV-AIDS patients and may result in a reduction in testing. The organisations also submitted that the disclosure obligation was inconsistent with public health legislation in other States and Territories.

Many of the criticisms are valid, but the Government also recognises that a complete removal of such an offence may result in a lowering of community expectations that individuals will, or should, take responsibilities over their sexual practices and the risks of exposing their sexual partners to a sexually transmitted disease. For this reason, the offence provision has been retained at clause 70 of the bill. However, clause 79 includes a new defence provision which states that a person will not be guilty of an offence under clause 79 if the person took reasonable precautions to prevent the transmission of the sexually transmitted disease.
The availability of this defence is an important inclusion for the protection and promotion of public health and is designed to encourage individuals to take reasonable precautions by practising safe sex, which is essential in the fight against the spread of sexually transmitted infections within our community. It is important to recognise that the defence provision will not affect the provision in the Crimes Act that relates to an intentional transmission of a sexually transmitted infection that will continue to be dealt with under the Crimes Act.

As a further public health measure, clause 79 also includes a requirement that where a prosecution is commenced by a person other than a staff member of NSW Health, the person bringing the prosecution is to notify the director general. This will ensure, for example, that if the police bring a prosecution against a person alleging that the person with a sexually transmitted infection engaged in sexual intercourse without informing his or her sexual partner that he or she had a sexually transmitted infection, the department will be made aware of the proceedings and can, if required, conduct contract tracing and other public health measures to determine if the defendant has placed any other person at risk of the transmission of the sexually transmitted infection. The Government believes it has found the right balance regarding this issue, and will not support the Christian Democratic Party amendment.

Dr JOHN KAYE [10.45 p.m.]: The Greens are persuaded by the argument advanced by the Parliamentary Secretary that the Government has achieved the right balance between disclosure and protecting important public health objectives. The concern the Greens hold with this legislation is that it would undermine the very important benefits of the safe sex message by reducing the sense in which it is a personal responsibility to maintain barrier methods or other practised methods to prevent the transmission of a sexually transmitted infection.

The enormous success of the safe sex message in Australia stands on its record. The concern here is that this amendment—which removes the capacity for individuals to behave in a responsible fashion and to use that as a defence—would undermine the amazing work that is being done by AIDS groups. The Greens are also persuaded by the range of bodies that would have concern about removing this provision. From ACON through to the haemophilia groups, they are all sending the same message: to take away this defence would be a move in the wrong direction. The Greens do not support the Christian Democratic Party amendment.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [10.47 p.m]: In seeking to put up arguments to defeat the amendment the Government said that if we do not have this provision, we would lose clause 79 (1), under which the person is required to advise the other person that he or she is suffering from a sexually transmitted infection. I would have thought that the act of advising the other person is safe sex, and that the individual has a responsibility to tell his or her partner. If they really love their partner, they would tell their partner. That is safe sex. Once the person tells their partner, then he or she takes safe sex precautions. But to keep the sexually transmitted infection a secret from one's partner is the opposite of safe sex. I believe the Committee should support my amendment, rather than water down the provision.

Question—That Christian Democratic Party amendment No. 1 be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 2

Tellers,
Mr Brown
Reverend Nile

Noes, 29

Mr Ajaka
Mr Catanzariti
Mr Clarke
Mr Cohen
Mr Colless
Ms Cotsis
Ms Faehrmann
Ms Fazio
Ms Ficarra
Mr Foley

Miss Gardiner
Mr Gay
Dr Kaye
Mr Khan
Mr Lynn
Mr Mason-Cox
Mr Moselmane
Ms Parker
Mrs Pavey
Mr Primrose

Ms Robertson
Ms Sharpe
Mr Shoebridge
Mr Veitch
Ms Voltz
Mr West
Ms Westwood
Tellers,
Mr Donnelly
Mr Harwin

Question resolved in the negative.

Christian Democratic Party amendment No. 1 negatived.

Part 5 [Clauses 77 to 88] agreed to.

Parts 6 to 9 [Clauses 89 to 127] agreed to.

Dr JOHN KAYE [10.56 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 1:

This amendment restores the regulation-making powers that were in the original 1991 Act but which were left out of the current Act. They relate to the funeral industry, in particular regulations with respect to embalming, interment, disposal and exhumation of the bodies of deceased persons, preparation rooms and equipment, the inspection of mortuaries and record keeping and the fees that may be charged. As I said in my contribution to the second reading debate, the Greens are very mindful that the respectable operators within the funeral industry are crying out for regulation. Those respectable owners are very concerned about the corners being cut by disrespectful operators who push the boundaries of health and cleanliness, and that impacts not only on the emotional wellbeing of those burying loved ones but also on public health. The amendment gives the Government the capacity to make regulations that will assist in resolving that situation and stop the regulatory race to the bottom that is currently occurring in the industry. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [10.57 p.m.]: The Government does not oppose the amendment.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [10.57 p.m.]: In her agreement in principle speech in the other place earlier tonight on this bill, the shadow Minister for Health, Ms Jillian Skinner, raised a number of concerns about the funeral industry. This amendment is consistent with those concerns; consequently the Opposition is pleased to support it.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [10.58 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the amendment, in accordance with the remarks I made about the funeral industry in my contribution to the second reading debate.

Question—That Greens amendment No. 1 be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Greens amendment No. 1 agreed to.

Part 10 as amended [Clauses 128 to 136] agreed to.

Schedules 1 to 5 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with an amendment.

Adoption of Report

Motion by the Hon. Penny Sharpe agreed to:

That the report be adopted.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion by the Hon. Penny Sharpe agreed to:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and returned to the Legislative Assembly with a message requesting its concurrence in the amendment.

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING (COMMONWEALTH POWERS) BILL 2010

Second Reading

The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.01 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. John Hatzistergos: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

… wherever possible each provider should have only one regulator.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER [11.02 p.m.]: On behalf of the Liberal-Nationals Coalition I speak on the Vocational Education and Training (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2010. At the outset I indicate that the Liberal-Nationals do not oppose the bill. The aim of the bill is to refer powers relating to registration and regulation of training providers and accreditation of courses to a proposed Commonwealth body to be called the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator. The establishment of a national regulator will improve the quality of training services and ensure that all training organisations in Australia are regulated by one agency.

To a large extent, the regulation and oversight of vocational education and training providers in New South Wales are of a high standard. This legislation will make sure that all of Australia has the same strength of regulation and oversight as exists in New South Wales. Currently, vocational education and training providers registered in another State are able to provide courses in New South Wales. Vocational education and training organisations can register in a number of States. However, it is difficult for New South Wales to oversee organisations that are registered in other States. The national regulator will absorb Commonwealth and State responsibilities for regulating the training of international students. This will eliminate confusion and duplication, which previously hampered regulation of this volatile market. Members would be aware of concerns in recent years about the standard and quality of vocational education and training. We want to attract international students to Australia. This regulation will give international students more confidence and certainty that we are committed to maintaining a high standard of education and training throughout Australia.

The bill will repeal the Vocational Education and Training Act 2005. It will refer powers to the Commonwealth to register and regulate training organisations. It will accredit vocational courses, issue and cancel vocational qualifications, set standards for regulators, collect and publish information, and grant powers to investigate and sanction organisations. It will protect State government powers to make laws relating to primary and secondary schooling, higher education, apprenticeships and traineeships and occupational licensing, the funding of vocational education and training and the management of State bodies, such as TAFE, that deliver vocational education and training. It means that the State government responsibilities are not tied up in this legislation. The bill will allow the Commonwealth to amend the national vocational education and training legislation. It will provide that the Governor can terminate a referral with six months notice.

Over the past two years dozens of Australian training colleges have collapsed for financial or regulatory reasons, despite an increase in demand for their services. This has disrupted the education of thousands of international students. About 1,000 training organisations are based in New South Wales. However, national rules have prevented New South Wales from taking action when it has identified training organisations from other States providing poor quality training in New South Wales. Under current agreements training organisations registered in one State are able to operate across borders. This provides flexibility for training organisations, but it does not provide the necessary protections for consumers because those organisations do not come under the control of our State regulatory processes. When problems arise the Government has no capacity to act to protect students and their entitlements. In such cases New South Wales has had to negotiate with other States to pull interstate education providers into line. This is not a suitable way to provide quality education and training. A national system should guarantee certainty for consumers.

This legislation is significant in that it has the ability to restore our international education reputation. A review of the Education Services for Overseas Students Act was conducted by the Hon. Bruce Baird, AM. Members will remember the Hon. Bruce Baird as a former member of the New South Wales Parliament. He went on to have a brilliant career here and, more recently, as the member for Cook in the Federal Parliament. In his review of the Education Services for Overseas Students Act he commented:

… there is widespread confusion and gaps between Australian and state and territory governments, where no one seems to know who is responsible for interpreting or enforcing particular aspects of the National Code.

He recommended that, wherever possible, each provider have only one regulator. We need to make sure that we rebuild Australia's reputation to ensure that we remain a destination of choice for international students. National regulation of vocational education and training will not only improve standards in consistency but also send a message that we are serious about providing high-quality training and we are committed to making sure that those high standards are maintained.

We have been assured by the Minister in the other place that the negotiations with the Commonwealth will mean that the same rigorous standards that we apply in New South Wales will continue. This was part of the commitment made at the Council of Australian Governments in November 2009. It will strengthen the regulation of training organisations and there will be greater certainty for students and for employers and industry that the students who have qualified through this form of training will be trained to a high standard. We know that we are able to be sure of that under TAFE and now this hopefully will provide the same sort of certainty. I know there are amendments to this bill, which we will discuss in Committee, but at this point the Liberal-Nationals do not oppose the bill.

Dr JOHN KAYE [11.11 p.m.]: The Greens oppose the Vocational Education and Training (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2010. This legislation has arisen from negotiations between the Gillard Government and the States and Territories, leading to what is effectively a Federal takeover of the regulation of vocational education and training. Much of the negotiation has happened behind closed doors. The only real information we have is one brief communiqué from the Council of Australian Governments in December 2009, the Minister's second reading speech in the other place and a brief document from Kaye Schofield, who is to be the interim chair of the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator. Other than that there is no information in the public domain.

The Greens recognise that there are benefits to a single national system of regulation of vocational education and training. However, this will not be a national system; it will be entirely under the control of the Federal Government, and the Federal Government has displayed nothing but total hostility to public provision of vocational education and training. Further, the secretive nature of the deal and the way in which, in particular, teachers and their union were excluded from any input into the structure for the new National Vocational Education and Training Regulator or the nature of the referral of the powers at the State level or the nature of the Commonwealth legislation points to worrying times ahead for TAFE under a national regulatory system.

The fact that a national regulator would be very unlikely to consult with TAFE teachers and would further move to a training market and allow yet more erosion of the public providers by private suppliers of vocational education and training points to a grim future not only for TAFE teachers but also for student learning and for the economic strength that New South Wales has derived from its excellent TAFE system. Even calling it a national system is completely fraudulent, not just because it is a Commonwealth-run system but also because Western Australia and Victoria, for their own reasons, have declined to be part of it. This will not be truly national regulation. Given that Victoria has about 28 per cent of the national training market, it is hard to say that it is truly a successful national regulator when it will not be looking at Victoria. It will also be interesting to see how it evolves in Queensland if there is a change of government there at the next election.

The Council of Australian Governments communiqué stated in December 2009—and there had been no public debate about national regulation prior to then—that there be a National Vocational Education and Training Regulator. It also foreshadowed the creation of a national standards council to provide advice to the Ministerial Council for Tertiary Education and Employment [MCTEE] on national standards for regulation, including registration, quality assurance, performance monitoring and reporting, risk audit and review, renewal of providers, and accreditation of vocational education and training qualifications.

There is already a national standards process, but that process is not binding on the States. Under this referral of powers to the Commonwealth there will now be a national standards council that will provide advice to the Ministerial Council for Tertiary Education and Employment and it will be that council that makes the final decision on what those national standards will be. It should be noted that those national standards will not be within the reach of any one Parliament, they will not be within the reach of our budget estimates process, and they will not be within the reach of the Commonwealth's budget estimates process; they will belong to a ministerial council and, hence, a step outside the Westminster system of accountability. We are handing over yet more power to an administrative government at the expense of parliamentary democracy.

The motivation for Western Australia and Victoria for standing outside the system is probably different in each case. One can only speculate as to what those motivations are, but they point to significant disquiet in the second and fourth largest States in Australia with regard to national regulation. Yet New South Wales, without consulting with the teachers union, without consulting with teachers and without any public consultation, is taking this State into a national system—and at this stage we do not know what it will look like. I note that the Opposition spokesperson—who is a friend to TAFE and somebody who has on a number of occasions stood up and demonstrated her commitment to the public provision of vocational education and training—says that the Federal regulation will be at the same level as it is in New South Wales.

The Hon. Robyn Parker: I said the Minister provided us assurance.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I beg your pardon. The member relied on what the Minister said in her second reading speech for the assurance that it would be at the same level as in New South Wales—the same standards of regulation.

The Hon. Robyn Parker: It will be a different Minister next year.

Dr JOHN KAYE: She also points out that there will probably be a different Minister next year. The point is that that has not been the experience. The experience of national processes has generally been the lowest common denominator. We saw that with the national attempt at a high school curriculum, a K-10 curriculum, which has now collapsed. In that regard, I pay tribute to the Minister for Education and Training in New South Wales, Verity Firth. She delivered on her promise made in budget estimates two years ago that if it did not live up to the standards in the New South Wales curriculum she would not take New South Wales into it, and that has happened. That is to her credit. But what is not to her credit and what is not to the credit of the Opposition is taking New South Wales vocational education and training into a national system when we do not know what the standards will be.

We are on a wing and a prayer that the Minister will be able to deliver equivalent or better standards than we currently have in New South Wales, but that has not been the experience of Council of Australian Governments driven processes at all. In fact, our grave concern is that this will represent a substantial lowering of standards. There are good circumstantial reasons to believe that to be the case, and they go to the behaviour of the Rudd and Gillard governments towards TAFE. It can only be classified as highly hostile to the public provision of vocational education and training. Let us have a quick look at their track record.

In 2008 the now Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, who was then the Minister for Education and Training, took a proposal to the Council of Australian Governments that all State and Federal funding of vocational education and training be contestable. That was so that TAFE would be forced into competition with private providers for every single cent of its recurrent funding. There can be no more hostile action towards TAFE than to force it into competition for funding with providers who always deliver at a lower cost because they deliver at a lower standard and pay lower wages. The Federal Government's Productivity Places Program is being delivered in such a way that training entirely bypasses TAFE and has been left in the hands of industry bodies and private providers.

The introduction of contestable funding in New South Wales for language, literacy and numeracy programs by the Federal Government has seen $50 million taken out of the TAFE budget and put into the hands of private providers. Similarly, the Adult Migrant Education Service has largely been given over to private providers. The Federal Government is hostile to TAFE. Handing over regulation of TAFE to the Federal Government is tantamount to putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. It will result in a lowering of standards, which is the goal that the Federal Government has continuously pursued. The Federal Labor Government has worked hard to undermine TAFE standards. There is no question that it will use its legislation-making power to lower the standards, to allow low-cost competition against TAFE and to further undermine TAFE's enrolment base.

According to the Teachers Federation of New South Wales teachers and their union were not consulted. Every member of this House received a document some weeks ago from the Teachers Federation raising concerns about the national regulation of vocational education and training. Their concerns, which the Greens share, focus on the transfer of regulations that will undermine the integrity of the future system and, in particular, on the quality of standards monitoring, the model of regulation and requirements for consultation with teachers, the industry and education experts. There will be trade-offs between quality and cost of provision, allowing lower-cost, lesser-quality organisations to out-compete TAFE. In particular, it will lead to the creation of "partial apprenticeships", which could undermine traditional trade qualifications and produce graduates with less portable and less flexible skills and lower labour market mobility. Each of these effects will have substantial consequences for the future of TAFE, which is currently in vigorous and growing competition with private providers.

The future of TAFE is at risk as a result of a behind-closed-doors strategy designed to remove the regulation-power from New South Wales. With this legislation the New South Wales Government is washing its hands of the skills training sector. Instead of standing up for TAFE and getting tough with the dodgy private providers, this legislation shifts regulation and auditing of training to a Federal Government that is profoundly hostile to the public provision of education. For their own reasons, the Western Australian and Victorian governments have maintained control of their skills sectors. If the New South Wales Government had been serious about a strong future for TAFE, it would have joined the Western Australian and Victorian governments in refusing to let the Gillard Government take over regulation in New South Wales. Prime Minister Julia Gillard and her colleagues are the last people anyone who cared about TAFE would put in charge of setting and enforcing standards for skills training. Since the Prime Minister became Minister for Education she has displayed intense hostility to the very idea of public provision of skills training.

Federal Labor has pushed ahead with privatisation and market policies that have led to the loss of TAFE jobs and a boom for private providers. Based on the Rudd and Gillard governments' track records, Federal regulation will see private providers with much lower standards being able to out-compete TAFE, which has a commitment to quality education and training. This will truly be a race to the bottom with regard to standards. The Greens oppose this legislation and will vote against the second reading. If the bill is read a second time—and that seems likely—we will move an amendment in Committee to protect employees of the Vocational Education and Training Accreditation Board. I implore the Opposition to think carefully about what handing over the regulation of TAFE to the Commonwealth Government—and in particular to Julia Gillard—will mean.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [11.24 p.m.]: I speak on behalf of the Shooters and Fishers Party on the Vocational Education and Training (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2010. It is rare that the Shooters and Fishers Party agrees with the Greens, but on this occasion Dr John Kaye has it right, and in many ways. I add my voice to his plea to the Opposition to think very carefully about supporting this legislation. The Shooters and Fishers Party's position is driven by a number of basic issues. First, as a party we are deeply opposed to the insatiable creep of centralisation of government.

Mr David Shoebridge: It is democratic centralism.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: Yes. Secondly, I must agree with Dr John Kaye that the tertiary and vocational education system in New South Wales is as good as, if not better than, the systems in other States. Thirdly, constituents of mine who work in the TAFE sector regularly tell me of their fears for their future. Whatever government we have at the State or Federal level, the public provision of this training will be watered down because of the urge to prove that we are getting value for money. Governments do that by forcing public providers of vocational education into competition with private providers. I do not necessarily agree that it is such a big deal when one considers some of the vocational education courses provided, particularly those offered to overseas students. However, I am concerned about our teaching of basic vocational skills in a country that is crying out for them. We should not be putting that at risk by establishing a Federal—not necessarily a national—regulatory scheme. My fear is that the standards in New South Wales will be lowered as a result.

Finally, I do not want to insult governments of any persuasion, whether they be Commonwealth or State governments, but the past Federal Government and the current Federal Government have not demonstrated much ability to manage these issues. We see evidence every day of a gradual drift of powers to the Federal Government via all sorts of arcane constitutional provisions, including those dealing with external powers. This is a basic issue when compared with those grand schemes, but it is central to the strength of this State and its ability to develop and to continue to grow.

We have debates with the Greens about whether we should have as much mining as we do or whether certain industries should be maintained in this State. However, many of the industries that we might come to rely on in the future—for example, the power generation and mining industries—will need access to personnel with good vocational training. We may see a resurgence of clever manufacturing industries, but we will not be able to attract investment to this State when investors are smart enough to know that we do not have a workforce with the necessary skills. If we were to convince them that we had the capacity to train such a workforce we might still stand a chance of attracting investment. Given those concerns, unfortunately the Shooters and Fishers Party cannot support the bill.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [11.29 p.m.]: I speak for the Christian Democratic Party on the Vocational Education and Training (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2010. The object of this bill is to refer to the Commonwealth Parliament certain matters relating to vocational education and training, principally the registration and regulation of vocational education and training organisations and the accreditation of vocational education and training courses. If this bill is passed, New South Wales will refer its powers to the Commonwealth. Therefore, the bill repeals the vocational education and training legislation now in effect in New South Wales. The proposed Act will form part of the new national vocational education and training regime being established under Commonwealth law.

Like other members who have spoken, I have strong reservations about giving anything to the Commonwealth Government. I normally support the Commonwealth Government in principle, but not the Gillard Federal Labor Government. It has a record of disasters. The history of Federal Australian Labor Party governments gives the Christian Democratic Party no confidence in their administration following the pink batts fiasco; the rip-offs in the Building the Education Revolution, when millions of dollars were wasted; the national broadband confusion, with no business plan and a wasted $43 billion; the Murray-Darling Basin water plan disaster; and now the national curriculum. Even New South Wales does not agree with the national curriculum and believes it would lower New South Wales standards if it adopted it. I believe that is correct.

New South Wales should join with Victoria, which has not agreed with the Commonwealth—and it certainly will not now under a new Coalition government. Western Australia has not agreed to it—it already has a Coalition government—and New South Wales will shortly have a Coalition government. So it should not agree to it tonight and try to tie the hands of an incoming Coalition government—which I think could be the reason for ramming through Parliament some of the legislation we are debating in the last hours of this session. Is this an attempt to lock in New South Wales before 26 March? The Christian Democratic Party also opposes this bill.

The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.31 p.m.], in reply: While the bill is about referring regulatory powers to the Commonwealth, the reason for this referral is to improve and support the quality of vocational education and training in New South Wales. We need to do this to ensure that both our domestic and international students are getting training of the highest quality. The relevant Commonwealth legislation, the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Bill and the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Transitional Provisions) Bill, are both due to be introduced into Federal Parliament shortly. Once these bills have passed into Commonwealth law, the national regulator will be a reality.

It makes sense to have a national regulator for vocational education and training. The training system is national in that training providers domiciled across Australia provide training in New South Wales. In fact, roughly half the training providers operating in this State are registered or headquartered elsewhere. When a provider is found not to be behaving to a high standard in this State, we have had to navigate a maze of interstate jurisdictions, each with their own standards and practices. Given the national, and indeed the increasingly international, nature of this sector, it stands to reason that it should be nationally regulated. This bill and its Commonwealth counterparts will move towards closing any regulatory gaps and ensuring that the students and the quality of education and training come first.

The referral legislation maintains the States' power regarding the funding of vocational education and training. Moving towards national regulation does not mean that New South Wales is losing control of vocational education and training. The States also retain management of bodies such as TAFE, which under the pending Commonwealth legislation will retain the right to self-accredit its own courses and vary the scope of delivery, such as the number of students it can teach and in what qualifications.

New South Wales is the biggest market for international students in Australia. This bill is about improving the quality of our vocational education product to international students. High-quality provision is the absolute key to enticing foreign vocational students to New South Wales. Members may be aware that significant concerns have been raised over recent years regarding quality of training for international students. The New South Wales Government has worked locally and with the Commonwealth and has made decisive efforts to address these concerns. However, in assuring quality in this sector we have been hampered by inconsistent regulation and a confusing split of responsibilities between the Commonwealth and the States. The new national regulator will assume responsibility for the regulation of training for international students. This will provide a clear signal to potential international students that they can confidently expect the highest quality education and training from all providers in New South Wales. The bill will improve New South Wales' status as a provider of this training to potential students from all over the world.

This bill is a win-win situation. It is a win for business, whose lives will be easier with less red-tape and a system that is easier to navigate. Additionally, being in an industry with a reputation for being well regulated is attractive to potential investors and customers alike. It is a win for vocational education students. They can have assurance that their training provider is accountable to a vigilant national body with a set of national standards for performance. It is a win for New South Wales. The quality of our vocational education and training system in New South Wales is already well recognised. We will continue to work with the Commonwealth and with stakeholders to ensure the continuing strength and transparency of training in this State. I commend the bill to the House.

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

The House divided.

Ayes, 27

Mr Ajaka
Mr Catanzariti
Mr Clarke
Mr Colless
Ms Cotsis
Ms Cusack
Ms Ficarra
Mr Foley
Miss Gardiner
Mr Gay

Ms Griffin
Mr Khan
Mr Lynn
Mr Mason-Cox
Mr Moselmane
Ms Parker
Mrs Pavey
Mr Pearce
Mr Primrose
Ms Robertson

Ms Sharpe
Mr Veitch
Ms Voltz
Mr West
Ms Westwood

Tellers,
Mr Donnelly
Mr Harwin

Noes, 7

Mr Brown
Mr Cohen
Ms Faehrmann
Reverend Nile
Mr Shoebridge
Tellers,
Mr Borsak
Dr Kaye

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 10 agreed to.

Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

Dr JOHN KAYE [11.46 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 1:

4 Preservation of employment of staff of NSW VET Accreditation Board

It now appears likely that New South Wales will hand over regulatory powers to the national Vocational Education and Training Accreditation Board regulator. That means that the New South Wales Vocational Education and Training Accreditation Board, also known as VETAB, will become redundant. Concern has been expressed as to the future of the professional staff and others currently employed by the New South Wales Vocational Education and Training Accreditation Board. The purpose of this amendment is to secure employment future for them so that those employees of the Vocational Education and Training Accreditation Board who do not transfer to the national regulator under this amendment would have continuing employment in the government service of New South Wales.

The staff of the Vocational Education and Training Accreditation Board have certainly delivered nation-leading, and probably world-leading, accreditation of registered training organisations. They have developed standards and they have implemented those standards in a way that is a credit to them, to their organisation, and I must say to the State. Part of the State's economic success is due to the good work done by the Vocational Education and Training Accreditation Board, in particular in trying to knock off the worst excesses of private provisions. We owe these people a debt. They should not be victims of a Council of Australian Governments process that rolls over their working life. They should, as a minimum, be given continuing employment in New South Wales government service. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER [11.47 p.m.]: The Liberal-Nationals Coalition does not support the amendment. I understand the intention of the amendment. I am advised that employees of the State will be offered protection under the new system, and therefore we oppose this amendment.

The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.48 p.m.]: The Greens amendment seeks to ensure that staff who currently work for the State-based New South Wales Vocational Education and Training Accreditation Board—as Dr John Kaye said, known as VETAB—will be ensured continuing employment when the Vocational Education and Training Accreditation Board's responsibilities are transferred to the Commonwealth. It is anticipated that many staff of the Vocational Education and Training Accreditation Board will gain employment with the Commonwealth's new central regulator. New South Wales is continuing discussions to ensure that staff of the Vocational Education and Training Accreditation Board have the greatest possible opportunity to obtain roles with the new body. Our discussions also seek to ensure that any workers who do transfer to the new system will be employed at their current level of salary and retain their current leave entitlements and superannuation benefits.

The New South Wales Government already has a policy for the management of excess employees. Employees may be declared excess for a number of reasons, one of which is that their functions are being transferred to another jurisdiction. Those staff who do not gain employment with the Federal regulator will be dealt with under the policy for the management of excess employees. We are confident that this system is fair and in keeping with current practice. Therefore, the Government does not support the Greens amendment.

Dr JOHN KAYE [11.49 p.m.]: I note that what the Parliamentary Secretary said and what the Opposition spokesperson said were at complete odds. The Parliamentary Secretary says they are going to be declared excess, whereas the Opposition spokesperson says they are going to be given continuing employment. One of those two statements has to be incorrect, which means one side has misunderstood what is going on.

The Hon. Robyn Parker: No, I said it will protect them.

Dr JOHN KAYE: The suggestion is that being on the list of excess employees is a protection. I think one would find that most people who have been through the process of being on the list of excess employees in the Government service do not view it as a protection at all; they view it as a way of being squeezed out of the system. I ask the Coalition to consider the fact that we are talking about people who have given long service to New South Wales and who, through no fault of their own, have had their jobs taken from under them. I commend the amendment to the Committee

Question—That Greens amendment No. 1 be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 8

Mr Borsak
Ms Faehrmann
Dr Kaye

Reverend Dr Moyes
Reverend Nile
Mr Shoebridge

Tellers,
Mr Brown
Mr Cohen

Noes, 22

Mr Ajaka
Mr Catanzariti
Mr Clarke
Mr Colless
Ms Cotsis
Ms Ficarra
Mr Foley
Mr Gay

Mr Khan
Mr Lynn
Mr Mason-Cox
Mr Moselmane
Ms Parker
Mr Pearce
Ms Robertson
Ms Sharpe

Mr Veitch
Ms Voltz
Mr West
Ms Westwood

Tellers,
Mr Donnelly
Mr Harwin

Question resolved in the negative.

Greens amendment No. 1 negatived.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee without amendment.

Adoption of Report

Motion by the Hon Michael Veitch agreed to:

That the report be adopted.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion by the Hon. Mick Veitch agreed to:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and returned to the Legislative Assembly without amendment.

COURTS AND CRIMES LEGISLATION FURTHER AMENDMENT BILL 2010

Message received from the Legislative Assembly returning the bill without amendment.

ROAD TRANSPORT (DRIVER LICENSING) AMENDMENT BILL 2010

Second Reading

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.59 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. John Robertson: I move:

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN [11.59 p.m.]: The New South Wales Liberal-Nationals Coalition will not oppose the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Amendment Bill 2010. The object of this bill is to amend the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1998 to increase the number of demerit points required to be accumulated before unrestricted licence holders are subject to licence suspension and other sanctions as follows: first, from 12 to 13 demerit points in the case of a driver other than a professional driver and, secondly, from 12 to 14 in the case of a professional driver. This bill follows calls from the NRMA and public pressure over the introduction of mobile speed cameras with the State Government announcing the changes to the demerit points system on 22 November. The sensitivity of the Keneally Labor Government to the introduction of mobile speed cameras was demonstrated in the budget estimates when the Minister was clearly reluctant, indeed very unforthcoming, to answer any questions about the number of mobile speed cameras. In truth it was like pulling teeth.

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: You're not going to read your own Hansard, are you?

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: I might. It was like pulling teeth to get anything approximating an answer from the Minister. Indeed, he had to be referred to public comments by various persons in order to get him to concede the number of mobile speed cameras to be introduced. This bill demonstrates that this Government lacks transparency. After announcing the introduction of mobile speed cameras with great fanfare, the Government realised the unpopularity of its decision. In the circumstances, perhaps one could say that this bill is introduced for the purposes of vote-grabbing. Conversely, one could look at it as an attempt to paper over the cracks of an ill-conceived policy approach. The New South Wales Liberals and Nationals will seek to move amendments to this bill at an appropriate time. As I have indicated already, the New South Wales Liberal-Nationals Coalition will not oppose the bill.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [12.03 a.m.]: On behalf of the Family First Party I support the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Amendment Bill 2010. The object of this bill is to amend the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1998 to increase the number of demerit points required to be accumulated before unrestricted licence holders are subject to licence suspensions and other sanctions from 12 to 13 for a driver other than a professional driver, and from 12 to 14 for a professional driver. The National Demerit Points Scheme was set in place to allocate penalty points, that is, demerits, to drivers for a range of driving offences. This scheme is to encourage safer driving and encourage drivers to abide by the law. The scheme provides for a driver to have a zero points balance if the driver has not committed any driving offences. When a driver commits a certain offence a certain number of demerit points will be added to his or her driving record for that offence within a three-year period. If a certain number of points are reached the driver's licence will be suspended or the application to issue a licence will be refused.

This scheme shows a record of a driver's traffic history relating to road rules related offences—drink-driving, drug-driving, dangerous driving and vehicle registration offences—committed within Australia. The number of demerit points allocated to a professional driver in New South Wales will now rise from 12 to 14 points within a three-year period. A professional driver is someone whose primary employment is driving a motor vehicle, truck or motorbike such as cab drivers, truck drivers, bus drivers and couriers who spend additional time on the roads. The number of demerit points allocated to an unrestricted driver in New South Wales will now rise from 12 to 13. The number of demerit points will remain the same for restricted drivers, being four demerit points for a learner or provisional P1 licence holder and seven demerit points for a provisional P2 licence holder.

In Victoria the number of demerit points allocated to an unrestricted driver is currently 12 in any three-year period, and restricted drivers such as learner or probationary drivers have five demerit points in any 12-month period or 12 demerit points in any three-year period. In Queensland the number of demerit points allocated to an open licence holder is currently 12 in any three-year period, and restricted drivers such as learner or provisional licence holders are allocated only four demerit points in a 12-month period. They have the option to apply for a special hardship order if they need to continue driving due to extreme hardship. By increasing the number of demerit points this bill will assist professional drivers who are on the road constantly and who are caught more frequently by speed cameras. The good news is that restricted drivers, who often are young and inexperienced, will not be awarded any additional points. The increase of the national Demerit Points Scheme penalties is also in keeping with the number of mobile speed cameras to which the previous speaker referred. On 12 June 2010 the Herald Sun stated:

Not only are drivers gaining extra demerit points, but the Government has agreed to ensure that warning signs are placed at least 50 metres ahead of mobile speed cameras. There will be 22 non-speeding offences to which a reduced or zero number of demerit points will be allocated. For example, overtaking when unsafe or getting too close, which previously attracted a loss of three demerit points will now be reduced to two; not using indicators or roundabout offences will incur no loss of demerit points. The Government has stated that it will establish a working party to examine and review critical road policies. It will look at drivers whose licences have been suspended who could apply for restricted "hardship" licences to enable them to drive. It will also examine whether immediate loss of demerit points should occur for drink-driving offences. In conclusion, I am glad the Government has taken on board the hardship licences concept about which I spoke in this House approximately a year ago. This bill will take New South Wales ahead of other States and Territories in the punishments inflicted for driving offences. I support the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Amendment Bill 2010 and commend it to the House.

Ms CATE FAEHRMANN [12.08 a.m.]: The Greens will not oppose the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Amendment Bill 2010. However, as expressed by the Hon. Trevor Khan, we feel this bill is a vote-grabbing exercise at this point. The Greens want safer roads, as do all members of this place. We want roads that do not present a risk to children trying to get to school and on which we can drive safely to work. However, this bill is not so much about safety. In effect, this bill will increase the number of times that drivers on open licences, including professional drivers, will be able to break road rules before questions are asked of them about their suitability to hold a licence.

I share the concerns raised publicly by the Opposition that to some degree this bill represents a vote-buying exercise. However, the Greens also recognise that for some the social penalty of losing a licence in this State can be severe. Lack of public transport services can make the loss of a drivers licence a life-changing event, and have longer-term impacts than the penalty itself might suggest. The potential is that suspended drivers feel forced to drive and face very harsh consequences if caught. Alternatively, they face difficulties in getting to work or maintaining a sense of social balance that the ability to get from one place to another can offer. The problem is not necessarily one of not enough demerit points.

The Government claims that its position on this bill is about fairness because the number of demerit offences has increased. The NRMA, a traditional advocate for safe roads, is quoted by the Government as saying that if we keep coming up with new ways to catch drivers without giving something back to motorists, the public's confidence in the demerit system may wane. I would like members to ask themselves how much confidence we can have in a system that will soon allow a person to speed by less than 10 kilometres per hour through a school zone on seven different occasions within a three-year period before they risk a licence suspension. How much confidence do we have in a system that allows a driver to speed at more than 20 kilometres per hour over the speed limit four times before being subject to a suspension, or one that allows a driver to run five red lights in a three-year period? What sort of message are we sending to young drivers who come off their provisional licences when they see adults time and again flouting road safety laws with seemingly little consequence?

The Government claims that there has been a shift away from demerit penalties focussed on offences that have safety implications. This is supposed to justify extending the demerit threshold, with the assertion that there will not be safety implications because many points are lost to non-safety demerit infringements. It makes one wonder why New South Wales has approximately 600 demerit offences compared with Victoria's 184 demerit offences. It raises the question of whether there needs to be a more thorough assessment of the number of demerit offences in this State. I also note that the Government plans to reduce demerit points relating to some 22 offences in regulations that would flow from this amendment. However, from a review of the list of offences conducted by my office it seems to me that the vast majority of existing offences, including some for which the Government plans to reduce demerit penalties, do have safety implications. The perceived need for this legislative change points to a wider concern about why it takes 600 offences in New South Wales to do what is being done in other States with less than one-third of that amount.

It would have been useful for the Government in reply to give the numbers of individuals caught in offences it deems not to be safety issues and who have found themselves the subject of licence suspensions. It is disappointing that the Government is proposing a change to regulations that will reduce demerit penalties associated with driving in bus lanes from three points to one, or potentially zero. It is very important that the Government provides strong incentives for people to catch public transport and not compromise that by reducing reliability of services. The Greens are worried the message this will send, because two points for driving in bus lanes suggests that it is okay to do so. It is a far greater incentive to not drive in a bus lane if the penalty is three points rather than one point. We hope the Government will reconsider this decision when the time comes to introduce new regulations. However, the Greens will not vote against the bill. As I said earlier, the implications of licence suspensions can be devastating and are likely to affect those members of our community who are most reliant on their private vehicles and who have fewer transport facilities in their area.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [12.13 a.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party is pleased to support the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Amendment Bill 2010, the object of which is to amend the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1998 in two ways. It will increase from 12 or more to 13 or more the number of demerit points that may be incurred over a three-year period before the Roads and Traffic Authority must suspend an unrestricted driver licence or not issue a licence in the case of an unlicensed driver. For a licence holder who is a professional driver, the number of demerit points will be 14 or more; currently professional drivers may only incur the same number of demerit points as other drivers. The number of demerit points remains the same for restricted driver licences—being four or more demerit points for a learner licence or provisional P1 licence, and seven or more demerit points for a provisional P2 licence.

The bill also requires a declaration about a person's work so that the Roads and Traffic Authority can determine whether the person is a professional driver and therefore eligible for the higher demerit points limit. The bill defines a "professional driver" as a person whose primary work is personally driving a motor vehicle on roads in or outside the State. The Christian Democratic Party supports the improvement to the demerit system. As other speakers have said, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of speed cameras, mobile cameras, et cetera. The use of these cameras has put many drivers, even if they are driving carefully, at increased risk of getting to 12 demerit points over a three-year period. Some places on our roads could be considered demerit traps. For example, the electric speed limit signs in the area closest to the runway at Mascot airport—and I travel through there regularly—changes from 60 kilometres to 70 kilometres and then to 50 kilometres. Many drivers travelling over that stretch of roadway do not realise they are being booked by the cameras for doing 60 kilometres because they are unaware that the electric speed-limit signs have changed to 50 kilometres. I have often seen this happen, and the reason is a mystery to me.

It has been noted that there are 600 demerit offences in New South Wales. It is almost impossible to for motorists to avoid incurring demerit points. This has a major impact on drivers who are totally reliant on their vehicle for getting to work and for those who need a licence for their employment even though they may not be professional drivers. In recent weeks there has been a great outcry on talkback radio programs by people who have been suspended and consequently are suffering great hardship. The bill will provide a minor concession but I believe New South Wales should be brought into line with other States in this regard.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [12.17 a.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to this debate. I note some amendments will be moved in Committee and I will save my comments on those amendments until that stage. I commend the bill to the House.

Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Consideration of the bill set down as an order of the day for a future day.

ADJOURNMENT

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [12.18 a.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

PARLIAMENTARY DUTIES AND STAFF

The Hon. SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE [12.18 a.m.]: I am often asked whether I am enjoying my new role as a member of the New South Wales Parliament, and my usual response is yes. It is great to be able to represent the people of New South Wales. I am truly privileged to have finally become a member of the New South Wales Parliament and I am grateful to all who had a hand in making it happen. First and foremost, I thank my family, my community, my party—the Australian Labor party—and the many decent union and party members and leaders.
One year has now passed since I was preselected. In some respects it has been a year of mixed feelings. At times I have feelings of gratitude, elation, sadness and excitement, and at other times feelings of disappointment. I recall my introduction to the Parliament, my swearing in, and my welcome at Centre Unity and immediately thereafter being called on to participate in a Centre Unity ballot in which I had the honour of voting for Kristina Keneally as a candidate for Premier. Late I voted for Kristina Keneally for the position of Premier. Election of the first female Premier in the history of Australia's oldest Parliament was also a history-making decision for the Australian Labor Party.

I now have the honour of serving three duty electorates—the North Shore, Ballina and the Tweed. I am thankful to our President, the Hon Amanda Fazio, for nominating me, and to the members of this House for supporting me as a Temporary Chair of Committees. I feel a great sense of honour and responsibility and a sense of apprehension every time I am asked to take the Chair and preside. Today I came close to saying "Lock the doors", but unfortunately that did not eventuate and I await another opportunity, if the future allows it.

My experience as a member of General Purpose Standing Committee No 2, No 3 and No 4 has been most interesting. The most emotional undertaking was the inquiry into the provision of education for disabled children. It taught me a lot about our education system but more about the mums and dads who fight, and fight hard, for the welfare and best care of their disabled children. I have also had the pleasure in this House of supporting most worthy causes, such as the Cancer Council of New South Wales and the White Ribbon day fundraisers. I thank Mr Vincent De Luca and congratulate him on his hard work and commitment to such worthy causes.

I take pleasure in also noting that I have been involved in the formation of the Mark Gasnier Foundation. The objectives of this foundation are to educate our youth about smoking, the effects of smoking, and the connection between smoking and drinking and mouth, head and neck cancer. Studies show that 95 per cent of mouth, head and neck cancers are caused by smoking and drinking. I thank and congratulate Dr Zoran Beckverovski, Professor Terry Diamond, Dr Ben Balzer and, of course, Mark and Claudine Gasnier on their commitment to this foundation and the awareness campaign it seeks to conduct. Each day in the United States of America alone, 4,000 teenagers try a cigarette for the first time and 1,000 teenagers become regular smokers. Mouth, head and neck cancer and smoking-related diseases are preventable. It is up to us to help our youth to get off smoking and stop drinking alcohol.

I take this opportunity to thank a few people. In particular I thank the Clerk of the House, Ms Lynn Lovelock, and the Deputy Clerk, Mr David Blunt, and all the Legislative Council staff members for their assistance throughout my first year. I thank all committee secretariat staff and all Hansard staff—all 21of them. I also thank all our parliamentary attendants—Maurice Rebecchi, Lucy Smith, Mark Muntz, Charles Barden, Mike Jarrett, John Ferguson and Richard Weber. I thank all the security staff and all staff in the Strangers Dining Room, such as Mr Freeman and others who have become my friends. I look forward to working with them for a few more years—I hope.

I also thank the staff of Cafe Quorum on level 6—in particular Alex Galanis, Tim Prewer and young Jacob for their friendship and wonderful coffee. I thank all the Parliamentary Librarians for their excellent library service and for their prompt research assistance. I thank and look forward to working with the media representatives with whom I have had little dealings, but found most friendly and welcoming. I give special thanks to the printing staff on level 6, Mr Demetrio Miraflor and Carla Chicharo, for their printing support. I wish them and all those I have mentioned and all honourable members in this House and in the other place a merry Christmas and a very happy and safe New Year.

PACIFIC HIGHWAY UPGRADE

CLOUD SEEDING

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY [12.22 a.m.]: In my capacity as duty member of the Legislative Council for Port Macquarie and the Monaro electorate, I will discuss issues of great importance to those two areas. First I draw to the attention of the House an issue of concern to everyone on the North Coast—the state of the Pacific Highway. As members know, the Pacific Highway is one of the most important transport routes in New South Wales but it is also one of the most dangerous. Earlier this year—almost 20 years since the former New South Wales Coroner Kevin Waller recommended that the highway be upgraded to dual carriageway—the NRMA has released a damning progress report on the Pacific Highway upgrade. A former member for Port Macquarie and now NRMA President, Wendy Machin, said the target of duplicating the entire length of the Pacific Highway by 2016 was unlikely to be achieved. That is simply not good enough. Communities in the North Coast region are quite frankly sick of excuses.

The NRMA's report states that only 50 per cent of the 821-kilometre route has been upgraded, despite $3.5 billion in State and Commonwealth investment since 1989. It also states that out of the projects for which there is data, almost seven out of 10 Pacific Highway upgrade projects finished late and most were concluded well over budget. Wendy Machin has also been quoted as saying:

We have been pleased to see the Federal Government pitch in, but we think the State Government has been letting the side down. The lack of planning and lack of preparedness is costing us lives.

The lack of planning is demonstrated by correspondence I have received from John Barbara, a resident of Herons Creek. The upgraded highway now passes within one metre of the road servicing his property. In an email to me he asks:

Why on 350 km of highway between Hornsby and Herons Creek, are the highway and the service road only 1m apart at Herons Creek? If it is the ecology of Walkers Creek it would have to be significant. After two years of arguing, 250m of tin fence and jersey kerb was put in place to avoid traffic confusion.

That is no doubt that just one example of poor planning process on this project can lead to significant stress for many people along the route. Many friends in my hometown of Coffs Harbour have experienced that stress. Their lives have been put on hold as they wait for decisions to be made by the Roads and Traffic Authority. The Pacific Highway now requires a spend of between $3 billion to $6 billion after 2014 to meet the 2016 target. This time last week the Leader of The Nationals, Andrew Stoner, pointed out that on 23 November 1998 State Labor released its Action for Transport 2010 Strategy, which included a promise to upgrade the entire Pacific Highway to a dual carriageway by 2012. The simple fact is that Labor has had 16 years to fix the Pacific Highway but has failed to deliver on promises.

Unlike Labor, the New South Wales Liberals and Nationals understand the need to upgrade the Pacific Highway because we represent the communities that use it every day. If elected in March, the New South Wales Liberals and Nationals will make the Pacific Highway a priority and will look to fast-track its upgrade through our independent infrastructure body, Infrastructure New South Wales. Infrastructure New South Wales will be backed by up to $5 billion in funds provided through Restart New South Wales, which will be available to fund infrastructure projects such as the Pacific Highway upgrade. I look forward to working with Leslie Williams, The Nationals candidate for Port Macquarie—and hopefully the next member of Parliament for that electorate—to ensure that the project is delivered on time and on budget for the benefit of residents of Port Macquarie and the whole North Coast and mid North Coast.

I turn now to discuss the Monaro electorate and an issue of major concern to residents. I refer to the findings of the National Resource Commission's report on cloud seeding. The Nationals candidate for Monaro, John Barilaro, has said continuation of the trial in its current form will mean that the potential advantages and job growth opportunities in the Snowy and Monaro regional economies will be missed. It is important to point out that the Natural Resources Commission report states:

Mr Barilaro has stated:

The evidence is that the trials of cloud seeding increased snowfalls by 14 per cent, so if some of the restrictions were lifted given the positive endorsement by the NRC it will have a hugely positive impact on winter snowfalls with obvious benefits for the entire alpine industry ...

It is interesting to note that the local member for Monaro, Steve Whan, who is also the Minister in the Keneally Labor Government responsible for this issue has basically allowed the Government's position to remain rather muted. It is now time for the New South Wales Keneally Labor Government to outline its plans and time line for an issue that is most important to local communities. Snowy Hydo has written to the Keneally Labor Government to have the current restrictions lifted. I understand they are supported by local shire councils, the Australian Ski Association, local chambers of commerce and irrigator groups. [Time expired.]

GREENS POLICIES

The Hon. ROBERT BORSAK [12.27 a.m.]: This will be my last adjournment debate speech before polling day next March. Tonight I take the opportunity to speak about what happened in Victoria last weekend. What happened in Victoria was significant for us in this State because it shone a light on the party that used to be a conservation party but in recent years has become a social engineering party that is driven by ideology and for whom profit for effort is an alien concept. What did that light do? It frightened the daylights out of the general public. Who paid for it? It was the Labor Party who paid for its pandering to a party that will never be a government but that wants to run any party that is government.

John Brumby should not have lost last weekend's election, but he thought he could work with the Greens. While he may have curried favour in the trendy Melbourne suburbs, he lost the Labor heartland and in turn lost Government. Indeed, as the Australian expressed it, not even a competent Premier could save the Labor brand. It reported:

The party that once stood for ordinary Australian workers has lost touch with its base.

The backlash had a lot to do with what has been going on in Canberra since the Federal election. The Greens leader, Bob Brown, seems to be in charge of the country. All his agenda items have been featured in the media almost daily. Indeed, since the Federal election I am told that the Labor-Green Government has been borrowing an average of $1.6 billion dollars each week. Is that sustainable? I hope that the New South Wales Government has taken note of what happened in Victoria. If not, it should obtain a copy of John Brumby's eloquent speech in which he conceded defeat and handed over government to the Coalition—I might add, he did it with some class.

I run a number of businesses and employ a fair number of staff. I believe I can fairly claim to know what people are concerned about in their daily lives. They are not so much concerned with same-sex marriage or euthanasia as they are about how much it costs them on a daily basis to live and the increase in costs. In this State the Greens do not want dirty coal-fired power stations. So the general public pays more for electricity. The Greens want a carbon tax. So the general public pays more for power. The Greens do not want any dams built. So the general public pays more for water. That is the common theme in the Greens policy platform. Everything they think will save the world costs us more money to live. We pay more not to improve our standard of living, but simply to stay where we are.

The Greens want to shut down the Murray-Darling Basin and take water from the irrigators and farmers, as if they are somehow to blame for the problems of the Murray and Darling rivers. The Greens go into the bush and pretend they are friends of the farmers. But they are the ones responsible for the native vegetation Act. They are the ones who shut down the river red gum area and the local timber industry. They are the ones who want to dictate to farmers what they can grow on their own land. The Greens are the epitome of the false prophet. Part of the backlash in Victoria last weekend was against the Greens policy on national parks and their obsession with not allowing sufficient fuel reduction burns. We saw the results of that policy in the dreadful bushfires of last year. I urge our Government to remain vigilant to that fact and increase our rate of fuel reduction burns to avoid a similar occurrence in this State. I note that a Greens member issued a news release yesterday lamenting the fact that New South Wales Labor had not worked "with the Greens on progressive legislation over the last four years". I believe he was being a little disingenuous. If he was not, I wonder what progressive legislation he had in mind.

AGED-CARE WORKER WAGE RATES

The Hon. IAN WEST [12.31 a.m.]: Six months ago Kerri Anderson, a personal care worker at an aged care facility in Queensland, walked into the Sydney office of Fair Work Australia and lodged a landmark low pay bargaining application on behalf of the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union [LHMU]. Currently, aged care workers, who deliver vital community services, are paid a paltry wage of between $16 and $19 an hour. I refer to the hourly rate acquired, not earned, by Commonwealth Bank Chief Executive Officer Ralph Norris this year and compare his wages with those of people working in the community services sector. Even if one swallows the much-touted notion that chief executive officers [CEOs] work 70-plus hours a week, Norris still acquires $4,500 an hour—an absurd 280 times more than the average aged care worker.

For hardworking families living on the outskirts of Australia's major metropolitan cities and paying off large mortgages, this is both insulting and demeaning. People like Kerri deserve credit for the fact that the United Nations consistently ranks Australia amongst the world's most developed countries. As the modern symbol of capitalism, Gordon Gekko, infamously said, "I create nothing. I own." Norris and his content and complacent corporate cronies would do well to remember exactly who creates the wealth and prosperity in this country. Despite the decadence of CEOs' lifestyles, the working class has always been the source and creator of wealth in our economy.

The Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union's application rightly seeks to increase the wage of aged care workers by $10, to a rate of $26 an hour. The matter is presently being heard by the Full Bench of the Industrial Tribunal, with numerous submissions being presented by a broad cross-section of industry stakeholders and representatives. It marks the first opportunity of this independent body to back up the colourful rhetoric about fairness at work—which is often bandied about in Canberra—with solid, decisive action. Labor's Fair Work Australia legislation has the power to redress the inequities of the Howard era by allowing unions to negotiate enterprise agreements with multiple employers in cases where low-paid workers are deemed to possess limited bargaining power. Aged care workers clearly fall into this category, as they are amongst the most underpaid, undervalued and disenfranchised members of our community.

For the past century the LHMU, through its predecessor the Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union, has been at the forefront of the struggle to ensure that the interests of community service workers are represented during the bargaining process. For example, until 1981 the home care sector was not even recognised as a legitimate industry and consisted of mainly good-hearted volunteers, predominantly women, with very few people actually getting paid. After much union agitation, the introduction of the Federal Home Care Award in 1985 meant that the immense contribution made by home care workers to society was finally acknowledged in minimum wage rates and basic conditions. These advancements were not merely incidental or even consensual. They were achieved on the back of organised Labor's ongoing commitment to pay equity and making sure that the collective voice of the working class was heard in the corridors of Australia's political and corporate elite.

As part of the current submission process, Chris Lonergan conducted a survey to determine exactly what the broader community thought was a liveable wage. The survey found that just over 10 per cent of Australians thought it was possible to live off an aged care workers income of $30,000 a year, which equates to $16.50 an hour or about $600 a week. Australian Bureau of Statistics figures for August this year show the average weekly wage is roughly $1,300, which translates to approximately $37.00 an hour or $67,000 per year. For decent, hardworking people like Kerri and those employed in the childcare, home care and aged care sectors, to earn less than half the average weekly wage is nothing short of shameful. I pledge my enthusiastic support for the LHMU's application for minimum wage rates that better reflect the great debt and gratitude owed to aged care workers in New South Wales. I also acknowledge the targeted, well-organised campaign conducted by the union movement over many decades to safeguard Labor values such as equality, social justice and civility. With continued union advocacy, I trust that these values will remain the foundation of Australia's industrial landscape for many years to come.

ST GEORGE TAFE METAL FABRICATION AND WELDING SECTION

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA [12.36 a.m.]: The imminent closure of the metal fabrication and welding section at St George TAFE in Kogarah is a matter of serious concern. St George TAFE currently offers three types of welding courses, all of which are in high demand, as demonstrated by the many students on their waiting lists. WorkCover-standard welding courses are especially competitive. These difficult and highly sought-after courses are the highest standard achievable. Currently, nine students are enrolled in the course at St George TAFE. About 30 automotive apprentices at St George TAFE attend night-time welding subjects applicable to their trade. This area of learning, which is so crucial for mechanics, is one of the courses to be removed from the TAFE's program in 2011.

Most significantly, St George TAFE is the only TAFE college within the Sydney metropolitan area that offers Engineering-Metal Fabrication: Certificate II to school students in years 11 and 12 as part of the T-Vet program. Currently, 16 high school students are due to undertake this program in 2011, but the section is being shut down. This closure is even more concerning because the ensuing ramifications would extend well into the Illawarra region and the State of New South Wales at a time when there is a nation-wide skills shortage in metal fitting and machinery, engineering, welding and other similar trade areas.

Students would have to undertake a one-hour commute by public transport from the St George area to attend other TAFEs. However, metal fabrication and welding courses at other TAFEs are currently full. Head teachers of metal fabrication courses at Chullora say that their evening welding courses are running at capacity. An Ultimo college teacher has indicated that their evening welding classes are also running at capacity. Gymea college's metal fabrication and welding section was closed in 2000, at which time its students migrated to other colleges, including St George TAFE. Enrolments for Chullora and Ultimo welding courses are on a first-come-first-served basis. It is clear that from next year the supply will not meet the demand.

The reason put forward for the closure of this section given by the spokeswoman for TAFE New South Wales-Sydney Institute is that the decision was based on a drop in enrolments at St George TAFE during the past five years. However, a full-time teacher at the St George TAFE metal fabrication and welding section was told, first, in 2008 not to grow the section; second, in 2010 not to enrol any new apprentices; and, third, in 2010 not to commence any new day classes that year.

The section had teaching hours reduced in 2009, and teachers were told to reduce night classes from four to three nights. The same teacher has provided information that most of his courses are in demand as they have waiting lists. What appears to be occurring is a closure of the section by stealth. There are 39 students at St George TAFE who want to finish the course that they have already started. For those 39, it appears that the college director has given approval for evening classes to continue into semester 1 in 2011 if students have only one module left to complete. However, it also appears as though the director's intention is to make the opportunity appear so unappealing as to dissuade students from staying on. The number of students will be reduced to 12 per night, so that only one teacher needs to be on duty instead of two; the course will run on three, not four, nights per week; and the course will run for three hours per night.

All this means that students can only attend a maximum of three hours per week, instead of the usual minimum of eight hours. Furthermore, this would be at the full cost of Certificate III, $343, which would have to be paid in addition to the compulsory $120 worth of materials the student must purchase. At a time when Australian businesses, particularly those in New South Wales, are reporting great difficulty in filling vacancies for metal fitters, machinists, engineering professionals, structural steel and welding trades workers and other trades people, closing such a crucial skills training section simply does not make sense. It is not in the interests of the 100 or so local students who will be affected by this decision. It is not in the interests of the New South Wales economy. I call on the Keneally Labor Government to provide the real reason for this ill-conceived and ill-planned closure. I call on the local Labor members—Frank Sartor, Cherie Burton and Kevin Greene—to insist that it does not occur.

SHOOTERS AND FISHERS PARTY

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [12.41 a.m.]: As this term of Parliament draws to an end, tonight I will speak about the achievements of the Shooters and Fishers Party over the past four years. It has been an eventful term, and as a party we have learnt a lot about dealing in good faith, particularly from the two most recent Premiers. Negotiations can be successfully concluded only if there is good faith on both sides. The two most recent Premiers did not show good faith to the Shooters and Fishers Party. The member for Toongabbie came to an agreement to allow conservation hunters to cull feral animals from more than 60 national parks around the State, but at the end of his tenure he reverted to form and reneged on the deal. The member for Heffron, the current Premier, similarly came to an agreement with the Shooters and Fishers Party to support in principle my bill for a moratorium on the declaration of more marine parks for five years so as to allow proper scientific assessment of such proposals. The Premier, too, reneged on the deal at the last minute and the Government walked away from the commitment.

It seems to me that the backdown on that bill may have been in return for the Greens supporting the Election Funding and Disclosures Amendment Bill 2010, which disadvantages small parties such as the Shooters and Fishers Party. However, these are only considered minor setbacks. I put the next Government on notice that after March next year these proposals will be back before the next Premier, and we hope that there is more good faith evident in those negotiations than there has been in the past 18 months. The Shooters and Fishers Party has been remarkably successful in getting legislation passed into law. Indeed, for a party with only two members in the Chamber, our success is probably unprecedented.

For our constituents—the shooters and hunters of New South Wales and many others—we have managed to have two separate bills passed through both Houses to remove some of the more ridiculous and meaningless parts of the firearms legislation without impacting on public safety. We negotiated $2 million in grants for shooting clubs around the State to ensure that they meet the Government's occupational health and safety requirements while at the same time being able to more easily offer shooting sports to members of the public. And despite the Greens opposition, if they care to go and have a look at Hill Top now they will see that the regional shooting complex is being constructed and is steaming ahead. For the recreational anglers of the State, who now feel that the Government is doing to them what it did to the shooters about 20 years ago and who have asked us for help, we have acted to protect their interests as well. Indeed, we were the honest broker who negotiated the retention of the Gaden Trout Hatchery at Jindabyne, which the Government tried to close.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Excuse me?

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: We have been a significant part of the negotiations for better recreational fishing opportunities in the redevelopment in and around Port Botany. I do not think the Hon. Melinda Pavey was at the meetings. We alerted the Government to a developer in the Riverina removing snags from the Murray River to form an eco resort, and subsequently had the snags replaced. On the river red gum lockup and lockout—a deal with the Greens that we could not prevent—we nevertheless managed to negotiate from the Government an extra $17 million in industry compensation funding, with valuable help from the Forest Products Association. I take my hat off to the association. We would rather have seen the timber workers and their families being able to stay and work where they lived, but if we could not do that then better separation payments were the next best thing.

The passing of my colleague Roy Smith shocked us all. He is missed by his family and his many friends. He was committed to the ideals of the Shooters and Fishers Party, and the election of Robert Borsak as his replacement has seen his work continue. Probably the biggest win for us this year has been the approval of our change of name, from the Shooters Party to the Shooters and Fishers Party, to better reflect the growing disillusionment amongst mum and dad anglers at the lockup-and-lockout attitude of the Government to their particular pastime. We are happy to step up to the plate on that. They have turned to us as experienced freedom fighters to help them fight back. They know that this year might be the last year they can take their kids to the coast, go to their favourite fishing spot and drop a line. If the Government and the Greens do not believe there is enormous resentment out there at idealistically driven agendas they have their heads in the sand. In conclusion, I wish the only real Green—it is a shame he is not in the House—the Hon. Ian Cohen, who leaves this Chamber at the next election, all the best for the future. We may not agree on much but at least we can have a sensible discussion about issues, and he is a thoroughly likeable fellow.

WORLD AIDS DAY

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [12.46 a.m.]: As we are about to pull up stumps, I note that today is World AIDS Day. I remind members that 7,000 people become infected with the HIV virus every day and that we need to do more to prevent this across the world.

Question—That this House do now adjourn—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 12.47 a.m. Wednesday 1 December 2010 until 11.00 a.m. on the same day.

____________

PARLIAMENT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 30 November 2010, Corrected Copy)

Legislative
Assembly

Legislative
Council

Members

Bills

Committees

Hansard

Research Papers

Engaging with Parliament

External Links