Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Assembly, 30 November 2007, Corrected Copy)

Mr Speaker (The Hon. George Richard Torbay) took the chair at 10.00 a.m.

Mr Speaker read the Prayer and acknowledgement of country.

Messages received from the Legislative Council returning the bills without amendment.

Bill introduced on motion by Mr Barry Collier, on behalf of Mr David Campbell.

Mr BARRY COLLIER (Miranda—Parliamentary Secretary) [10.01 a.m.], on behalf of Mr David Campbell, I move:

That this bill be now agreed to in principle.

The Courts and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2007 provides for miscellaneous amendments to court-related legislation and is part of the Attorney General's regular legislative review and monitoring program. Schedule 1 to the bill makes some important clarifying amendments to the Coroners Act 1980. Coroners are responsible for investigating the circumstances surrounding reported deaths, fires and explosions. They are required to investigate deaths and establish the identity of the deceased, the time and place of death, and the cause and manner of death. Coroners are also required to establish the cause and origin of fires or explosions.

Section 19 of the Coroners Act 1980 provides that if a person is charged with an indictable offence in relation to a death, fire or explosion, the Coroner may decide not to commence an inquest or inquiry until criminal proceedings are concluded. Similarly, if the Coroner forms a view during an inquest or inquiry that a person should be charged with an indictable offence, the Coroner will terminate the inquest or inquiry and refer the case to the Director of Public Prosecutions to consider initiating criminal proceedings. The purpose of section 19 of the Act is to ensure that any criminal proceedings take precedence over coronial inquests and inquiries. Once criminal proceedings are either concluded or a decision has been made not to prosecute, then section 20 of the Act was intended to permit a coroner to commence or continue an inquest or inquiry.

However, the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Innes & 2 ors v NSW Senior Deputy State Coroner [2007] NSWSC 1209 held that section 20 did not achieve this objective. Prior to this decision the view was held that section 20 enabled coroners to recommence an inquest or inquiry once proceedings for an indictable offence were finalised. Coroners relied on section 20 as the authority to continue proceedings for the purpose of making findings in relation to the cause and manner of death or the cause and origin of fires and explosions, and to make any recommendations when handing down these findings. Accordingly, the proposed amendments in this bill are intended to clarify provisions relating to the termination of inquests and the subsequent continuation of an inquest or inquiry and restore the legislative interpretation that existed prior to the Supreme Court's decision.

The proposed amendments will confirm that the role of the Coroner has not concluded when an inquest or inquiry is terminated and that it is open to the Coroner to continue proceedings at a later stage to complete the proceedings. In some instances it will be unnecessary to do so, for example, where criminal proceedings have fully exposed issues relating to the cause and manner of death. However, in other instances there may be issues relating to the death that have not been fully canvassed in the criminal trial and the Coroner may therefore wish to continue the inquest or inquiry. The proposed amendments will make it clear that the inquest or inquiry may be continued either by the original coroner who terminated proceedings or, if that coroner is unavailable, by another coroner who is informed of the case. They will also create an express right for persons who had a right of appearance at the original inquest or inquiry to request that the inquest or inquiry continue.

The bill also makes some amendments to the Land and Environment Court Act 1979. Under section 34 of that Act a commissioner can meet informally with the parties on site to discuss the issues in a case and help them to reach an agreement. Legal representatives, experts and objectors can also attend this conference. If an agreement is reached at or after a conference, the commissioner must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the agreement. If an agreement is not reached, then the case will proceed to a hearing. Evidence cannot be adduced about what occurred in a section 34 conference without the parties' consent.

Section 34 conferences are similar to mediations in that both are designed to bring about agreements between the parties in a less formal environment. There is currently a prohibition on the disclosure of information about section 34 conferences, which is similar to the prohibition that applied to court-ordered mediations before the Civil Procedure Act 2005. Prior to the Civil Procedure Act 2005 evidence could not be called and was not admissible about what occurred in the mediation. However, the recent Courts Legislation Amendment Act 2007 amended section 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 to allow evidence to be called and to be admissible, first, about an agreement or arrangement that is reached following a mediation; and, secondly, in circumstances where the court is being asked to make an order to give effect to the agreement or arrangement.

This change was modelled on the Civil Procedure Act 2005 provision relating to mediation. However, section 30 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 also provides that the same privilege that applies to judicial proceedings with respect to defamation also applies to a mediation session and to documents produced for the mediation. But there is currently no similar provision in relation to section 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979. Without the protection afforded by section 30 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005, parties involved in a section 34 conference might be less frank and less willing to make concessions to settle a dispute. Accordingly, the proposed amendment to section 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 will apply the approach taken in relation to mediations under the Civil Procedure Act 2005 to section 34 conferences. This will ensure that the same privilege that applies to judicial proceedings with respect to defamation also applies to section 34 conferences and to documents produced for these conferences.

Schedule 3 to the bill makes some minor amendments to the Legal Profession Act 2004 in order to tidy up provisions relating to references to "legal practitioners" in several older pieces of legislation. Many pieces of legislation refer to "legal practitioners" in a variety of different senses. The proposed amendments will help to clarify the intention of these older references to legal practitioners, and to have those intentions reflected in the Legal Profession Act 2004. The bill also amends the Young Offenders Act 1997 to improve the operation of the system of warnings, cautions and youth justice conferences in New South Wales. A number of these amendments have arisen as the result of a recent statutory review of the Young Offenders Act 1997 undertaken by the Attorney General's Department of New South Wales. In addition, the bill contains amendments that implement recommendations made by the New South Wales Law Reform Commission in its recent report No. 104, entitled "Young Offenders".

The Young Offenders Act 1997 provides an alternative process to court proceedings for young people who commit certain types of offences. The Act provides for the use of warnings, cautions and youth justice conferences to rehabilitate young offenders and to deter reoffending. Very serious matters like murder, manslaughter, other offences resulting in the death of a person, sexual offences, drug trafficking, and apprehended violence matters cannot be dealt with under the Act. In October 2006 the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research released a report that found that the Young Offenders Act 1997 is succeeding in reducing juvenile reoffending in New South Wales. The report concluded that juveniles who receive a caution or attend a youth justice conference are notably less likely to reoffend than those who are referred to the Children's Court. Accordingly, the young offenders scheme is playing an important role in achieving the Government's State Plan priorities of reducing reoffending and reducing antisocial behaviour. By strengthening and improving the operation of the Young Offenders Act 1997 this bill will further contribute to these priorities.

I will now detail some of the key provisions in the bill concerning the Young Offenders Act 1997. The first key amendment is to allow a broader range of victims of crime to confront young offenders at youth justice conferences. Under the Act a victim of crime is able to participate in a youth justice conference when they have suffered harm as the result of an act committed by a child in the course of a criminal offence. The definition of "harm" in section 5 of the Act currently applies where the victim has suffered "mental illness" or "nervous shock". Both of these concepts now have narrow medical and legal meanings. The definition will therefore be expanded to include anyone who has suffered other sorts of psychological harm as a result of an offender's actions, including fear, humiliation, shame or stress.

The definition of "harm" will also be expanded to cover victims who have suffered purely financial loss, in addition to those whose property has been lost, destroyed or damaged. By allowing a wider range of victims to attend youth justice conferences, this amendment will ensure an even greater role for victims of crime in the juvenile justice system. By allowing more victims to have a say in how a young offender is to be punished, the amendment will force even more juvenile offenders to face up to the consequences of their behaviour and the effect that it has on the community.

The second key amendment in the bill will allow victims to have their voices heard as part of the cautioning process under the Young Offenders Act 1997. Under the Act, both police and the Children's Court have a discretionary power to issue a formal caution to a young offender. Being given such a caution is a serious matter—the young offender must face a senior police officer at a police station with their parents or guardian and confront the offence they have committed. Under the amendment being put forward in this bill, a young offender receiving a caution will also have to face up to the impact that their behaviour has had on their victim. Victims will be allowed, in appropriate circumstances, to prepare a written statement detailing the impact that the young offender's behaviour has had on them.

These statements may then be read to the offender as part of the formal cautioning process. Through this process, victims will be able to have their voices heard, and young offenders will be made to understand the impact their behaviour has had on others. The third key amendment in the bill will confirm that police officers, where appropriate, can notify the parents or guardians of a juvenile offender, either in writing or in person, that a warning has been administered to their child or to a child in their care. This amendment confirms current police practice, and will ensure that parents and guardians are aware of their children's offending behaviour, particularly when it involves risk of harm to the young person or other members of the community. This will allow parents and guardians to play a greater role in monitoring the behaviour of their children.

Another key amendment in the bill will confirm that a young person who is cautioned or undergoes conferencing would have to declare that fact when applying for child-related employment later in life. This is an important amendment because, while many young offenders are given the opportunity to rehabilitate and put their offending behaviour behind them, the New South Wales Government is not prepared to take any risks when it comes to people working with children. The bill will also amend the Young Offenders Act 1997 to make it clear that the Act is consistent with the Children's (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 in relation to the age at which persons may be dealt with under the Act.

The New South Wales Law Reform Commission in its Report No. 104, Young Offenders, recently recommended this clarification. The bill will give effect to this recommendation and rectify the anomaly. This bill also contains a provision to amend the Young Offenders Act 1997 to allow police officers to observe the administration of warnings and attend youth justice conferences for training purposes. This will allow individual police officers to develop a first-hand appreciation of how cautions and conferences impact on both offenders and victims, and to appreciate the important role that the young offenders scheme plays in reducing re-offending in New South Wales.

The final key amendment that I wish to speak to is an amendment to repeal provisions in the Young Offenders Act 1997 relating to the Youth Justice Advisory Committee, which is also known as YJAC. The Youth Justice Advisory Committee is a statutory body that was established under the Act to advise the Attorney General and relevant Ministers on its implementation. Now that the young offenders scheme has been established for some 10 years, and is operating well, the Youth Justice Advisory Committee has met the majority of its statutory terms of reference. The Government has therefore decided to combine the functions of committee with those of the Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee, which is also known as JJAC, into a new single body. This body would be able to provide independent and more coordinated advice to the Government on matters relating to juvenile justice.

The Government is considering terms of reference for this body to best reflect the priorities of the New South Wales State Plan. By removing the statutory basis for the Youth Justice Advisory Committee, this bill will allow the Government to move forward with combining the two bodies, and thereby ensuring that coordinated advice is provided to the Government on the full spectrum of juvenile justice issues. As I noted earlier, many of the amendments contained in this bill are based on the recommendations of a statutory review of the Young Offenders Act 1997, as well as those put forward by the Law Reform Commission in its Report No. 104, Young Offenders. The amendments will make the young offenders scheme even more effective in reducing antisocial behaviour amongst young people in New South Wales, and in reducing re-offending.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Greg Smith and set down as an order of the day for a future day.

Mr BARRY COLLIER (Miranda—Parliamentary Secretary) [10.15 a.m.], on behalf of Mr David Campbell: I move:

That this bill be now agreed to in principle.

This bill was introduced in the other place on 15 November 2007, and the second reading speech appears in the Hansard galley for that day. The bill is in the same form as introduced in the other place and I commend it to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Greg Smith and set down as an order of the day for a later hour.

Bill introduced on motion by Ms Noreen Hay, on behalf of Ms Reba Meagher.

Ms NOREEN HAY (Wollongong—Parliamentary Secretary) [10.16 a.m.], on behalf of Ms Reba Meagher: I move:

That this bill be now agreed to in principle.

This bill proposes amendments to a number of pieces of health legislation, namely various health professional registration Acts, the Health Administration Act 1982, the Health Services Act 1997, the New South Wales Institute of Psychiatry Act 1964, the Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 1966, the Public Health Act 1991 and the Smoke-free Environment Act 2000. I will first address the amendments to various health professional registration Acts contained in schedule 1 to the bill. The Acts amended by this schedule are each of those health professional registration Acts that establish a tribunal to hear serious complaints about registered health practitioners, including the Medical Practice Act 1992 and the Nurses and Midwives Act 1991. Each tribunal has a chair and a number of deputy chairs each of whom must be an Australian legal practitioner with at least seven years experience, or in the case of the medical tribunal a judge of the District Court, and who are appointed by the Minister for Health for a fixed term of office of up to seven years.

The situation has previously arisen when a tribunal chair has been in the middle of a number of disciplinary hearings when his term of office expired. This unfortunate turn of events resulted in a situation where the Minister has been forced to reappoint that person to the relevant tribunal in order to allow for the finalisation of the hearings. The only alternative would have been to allow the relevant hearings to be aborted and recommenced under a separate chair or deputy chair. This approach would have caused significant cost and inconvenience for all parties and could possibly have resulted in some disciplinary proceedings being abandoned all together. The proposed amendments provide that a chair or deputy chair whose term of office has expired is to be deemed to continue as a deputy chair for the sole purpose of finalising any partially heard inquiry or appeal.

The amendments in schedule 1 to the bill also provide for a tribunal to be able to order the non-publication of any information that might identify a party to a hearing or a witness in a hearing. These amendments complement existing tribunal powers to order the non-publication of the name and address of a party or a witness. The amendments will ensure that other identifying information such as photographs can be suppressed if the tribunal considers it necessary to do so. Schedule 2 to the bill also contains a number of minor amendments to a number of health professional registration Acts.
Firstly, the amendments in schedule 2.1 and 2.2 relate to the Dental Practice Act 2001 and the Dental Practice Regulation 2004. The first amendment proposes the deletion of section 33 (2) from the Act. Section 33 (2) of the Act essentially provides that dental therapists may only practise in the public sector. New South Wales currently has 2.6 dental therapists per 100,000 head of population. This compares unfavourably with the national average of 7.1 per 100,000 of population. This dearth in the number of dental therapists has a detrimental impact on the delivery of oral health services to the New South Wales community. It is expected that removal of the restriction will, over time, result in an increase in the number of dental therapists engaged in clinical practice in New South Wales with a positive impact on oral health and a reduction in public sector waiting lists. All other Australian jurisdictions have removed the equivalent restrictions over the past decade.

The second amendment to the Dental Practice Act relates to notifications of mentally incapacitated practitioners. The various health professional registration Acts provide that if a registered practitioner becomes a mentally incapacitated person, that is, a person who is an involuntary patient or a forensic patient within the meaning of the Mental Health Act or a protected person within the meaning of the Protected Estates Act, the relevant registration board is to be notified of that fact. At the moment these provisions apply to dentists and dental auxiliaries but not to dental students. The board registers dental students, like medical students, due to the significant patient contact that they have and to ensure that the impaired practitioner provisions of the Act apply to them. In keeping with this approach it is appropriate that the board be notified of dental students who become mentally incapacitated so that, if appropriate, support structures may be put in place by the board to assist those students to overcome their mental health problems.

The amendments in schedule 2.6 and 2.7 relate to the Medical Practice Act 1992. Firstly item [1] in schedule 2.6 amends section 4 of the Act and deals with qualifications for registration as a medical practitioner. The proposed amendment will establish a mechanism for approved international medical graduates with appropriate qualifications and experience to obtain registration following a period of supervised workplace training. Appropriate international medical graduates would be granted advanced standing by the Australian Medical Council following which they would be eligible for temporary registration on the condition that they practice in a supervised position whilst being assessed as to their competence and eligibility for general registration. The proposed mechanism will provide a streamlined pathway to registration for appropriately qualified and experienced international medical graduates and has received national endorsement.

Secondly, item [5] in schedule 2.6 and the amendment in schedule 2.7 relate to notifications of mentally incapacitated practitioners. These amendments are in the same terms as the amendments to the Dental Practice Act that I have already discussed. Thirdly, items [10] and [15] in schedule 2.6 relate to the power of the Medical Board to delegate its functions. Unlike other health professional registration Acts the Medical Practice Act does not expressly authorise the board to delegate its functions to a committee. Rather, section 136 of the Medical Practice Act provides that the Medical Board may delegate its functions to a person.

In October 2000 the Medical Board established a performance review program to address concerns about medical practitioners who may have been practicing at a sub-optimal level. The program is designed to provide an alternative pathway for dealing with practitioners who are neither impaired nor guilty of professional misconduct, but for whom the board has concerns about the standard of their clinical performance. The program is designed to address patterns of poor practice and provides an avenue for education and retraining where inadequacies are identified, while at all times ensuring that the public is properly protected. Relying on the broad power of delegation in section 136 of the Act the Medical Board has delegated its functions in respect of performance assessment to a committee called the Performance Committee.

This delegation has recently been challenged on the basis that a committee is not a person. The Medical Board has received advice from senior counsel that the delegation power in section 136 of the Medical Practice Act should be construed so as to include a reference to a committee established under section 133 of the Act. If the power of delegation were construed in this fashion the board's delegation is valid. However counsel considers that the matter is not beyond doubt and that it would be advisable to amend the Act to put this matter beyond argument.

If the current challenge to the validity of the delegation to the performance committee were successful it may call into question all actions taken by the committee and all performance reviews undertaken by the board since the program was introduced in October 2000. All such actions by the board in implementing the performance review program have been undertaken in good faith and for the purpose of protecting the public from underperforming medical practitioners. Undermining the actions of the board in these matters would not be in the public interest and, in order to prevent protracted legal argument, the board's previous delegation of its functions to committees established under section 133 of the Act should be retrospectively validated.
Lastly, the other items in schedule 2.6 relate to those provisions of the Medical Practice Act that permit the board to order a medical practitioner to undergo a medical examination. The proposed amendments will allow the board to order that a medical practitioner undergo an examination by a registered health professional designated by the board. The Medical Board has sought the amendment so that it may, in appropriate cases, require a practitioner to be examined by a psychologist or other health professional with particular qualifications and skills. Similar broad powers to require practitioners to be examined by a registered health practitioner rather than a medical practitioner already exist in the Nurses and Midwives Act 1991.

The items in schedule 2.9 relate to the Nurses and Midwives Act 1991. The Nurses and Midwives (Performance Assessment) Act 2004 amended the Nurses and Midwives Act. That Act inserted part 4A to provide a performance assessment program for nurses and midwives. The program is modelled on the successful performance assessment program in the Medical Practice Act. Due to a drafting oversight at the time performance assessors were not provided with the standard statutory protection from personal liability for acts done in good faith in the exercise of their duties. The proposed amendments correct this oversight. Schedule 2.10 proposes an amendment of the Optometrists Act 2002 to permit the Optometrists Registration Board to charge an application fee when a registered optometrist applies for an optometrist's drug authority. Any such fee to be charged is to be determined by the Minister following consultation with the board.

Schedule 2.11 proposes an amendment of the Pharmacy Practice Act 2006 to allow for regulations to be made establishing infection control standards to be followed by registered pharmacists in their professional practices. The pharmacy profession has expressed its interest in offering to the public a range of health care services such as vaccinations and blood glucose screening. In the event that pharmacists offer this type of service, involving skin penetration and the associated risk of blood born infections, it is important to ensure that robust infection control standards are in place to protect public health. Infection control standards are currently proscribed for a range of health care practitioners including medical practitioners, dental practitioners, nurses and midwives.

The proposed amendment to the Health Administration Act 1982, which is contained in schedule 2.4 to the bill, will clarify that the employment-related costs associated with New South Wales health service staff who are engaged to provide services for the wholly self-funding health professional registration boards may be met from the funds of the boards. Schedule 2.5 to the bill contains proposed amendments to the Health Services Act 1997. The amendments in items [1], [2] and [3] in schedule 2.5 propose a structure to allow the Director General of Health to delegate her functions with respect to the provision of ambulance services to a body appointed for that purpose. The Director General of Health currently has the power to delegate her functions with respect to the provision of a range of health support services to appointed bodies. The proposed amendment will allow for a similar power of delegation with respect to the provision of ambulance services.

The amendment in item [4] of schedule 2.5 provides that a committee of review, appointed under part 4 of chapter 8 of the Health Services Act, may refer concerns about the performance or competence of the applicant to the Medical Board or the Dental Board as appropriate. Committees of review are appointed by the Minister to hear appeals from visiting practitioners who have had their clinical privileges reduced, who have not been reappointed, or who have had their appointment suspended or terminated. Appeals are generally heard in camera and the committee's report is confidential to the parties and the Minister. Committees of review are currently unable to refer any concerns they may have about a practitioner's ongoing competence or performance to the appropriate registration board. This is an important public safety matter and the proposed amendment will allow any such concerns to be addressed in an appropriate manner.

Item [5] in schedule 2.5 contains an amendment to the Health Services Act to provide protection from personal liability for any person who in good faith assists in a review of the performance or conduct of a member of the New South Wales health service or a visiting practitioner. This will assist public health services in obtaining the assistance of practitioners, and other people, in assessing and reviewing the performance or conduct of employees within the public health system. Item [6] in schedule 2.5 contains an amendment of the Health Services Act 1997 to include the provision of prostheses and medical devices within the definition of health service.

The question has previously arisen as to whether the supply, as opposed to the fitting, of prostheses and medical devices—such as heart pacemakers—is included within the definition of "health service". While this matter has always been addressed by treating the supply and fitting of medical devices and prostheses as a single instance of service, and therefore within the definition of "health service", in order to avoid any dispute it is considered prudent to amend the Act to clarify that the supply of therapeutic goods, such as medical devices and prostheses, is a health service.
The amendment proposed in schedule 2.8 relates to the New South Wales Institute of Psychiatry Act 1964. The purpose of this amendment is to allow for additional flexibility in appointing the board. The amendment will allow for an experienced clinician from the public health system to be appointed to the board of the institute whilst ensuring that clinical expertise is not lost to the system. The amendments proposed in schedule 2.12 relate to the Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 1966. The proposed amendment in item [2] will allow the Director General of Health to suspend or cancel the right of a medical practitioner, dentist, nurse practitioner, midwife practitioner, pharmacist, optometrist or veterinary surgeon to possess and supply drugs and substances in schedules 2, 3 and 4 of the Poisons List.

Currently the Act confers an automatic right for the relevant professions, other than optometrists, to possess these medications. There are a number of substances in schedules 2, 3 and 4 of the Poisons List, including benzodiazepines, anabolic steroids and pseudoephedrine, that are from time to time subject to misuse including unlawful supply and self-administration. The Director General of Health currently has the power to restrict, suspend or cancel the right of a practitioner to possess and supply drugs of addiction. The proposed amendment will ensure that the same powers exist with respect to all scheduled substances.

The amendments proposed in Schedule 2.13 relate to the Public Health Act 1991. The amendment proposed in item [1] in the schedule addresses a technical difficulty with the operation of the New South Wales Cancer Registry, which is administered by the New South Wales Cancer Institute on behalf of the Director General of Health. Approximately 7 per cent of cancer notifications made to the registry each year are incomplete or contain discrepancies between the notification and the pathology report that accompanies it. The number of these cases detracts from the overall accuracy of the Cancer Registry and therefore the ability of the registry to achieve its objectives in monitoring the rates and trends on specific types of cancer in New South Wales. As the law currently stands, the Cancer Registry is unable to contact treating medical practitioners to resolve these discrepant and incomplete notifications. A medical practitioner who provided patient information to the registry would, in the absence of an express authorisation by the patient, breach his or her obligations under privacy laws. The proposed amendment will ensure that the registry can obtain from medical practitioners the information it needs to fulfil its public health surveillance role.

Items [2] to [4] in schedule 2.13 deal with the sale of tobacco products. As members will be aware, tobacco smoking kills approximately 6,500 people and is the main cause of over 55,000 hospital admissions in New South Wales each year. The cost of smoking to the New South Wales community is some $7 billion per annum; of this the direct health care cost is almost half a billion dollars. The nicotine in tobacco smoke is an extremely addictive drug. Both the former United States Surgeon General and the Royal College of Physicians are on record as stating that the pharmacologic and behavioural processes that determine tobacco addiction are similar to those that determine addiction to drugs such as heroin and cocaine.

It is estimated that more than 90 per cent of adult smokers commenced smoking during their teenage years. Fruit and confectionary flavoured tobacco products are marketed to young people and are often promoted as having a cleaner and healthier image than traditional tobacco products. This image is misleading. These products are just as dangerous and addictive as other types of tobacco. The amendment proposed in item [3] of schedule 2.13 will allow the Minister for Health to ban, by way of order in the Government Gazette, fruit or confectionary flavoured tobacco products that appeal to minors. Similar bans have previously been implemented in South Australia, and Tasmania has recently passed amendments to its public Health Act to ban the sale of fruit and confectionary flavoured or scented tobacco and tobacco products.

The sale of tobacco products to anyone under the age of 18 years is a criminal offence. Therefore, it seems somewhat anomalous that tobacco products are aggressively marketed at youth events and music festivals. Accordingly and in keeping with the Government's commitment to reduce the exposure of children and young people to tobacco, this bill contains amendments to the Public Health Act to prohibit the sale of tobacco products from mobile or non-permanent premises. The ban on mobile sales of tobacco products will also apply to the sale of tobacco products carried by a person for sale in a public place. This part of the amendment is designed to prevent the sale of tobacco by the so-called tobacco girls who are often found selling tobacco products in licensed premises. I emphasise for the benefit of members that this amendment is not designed to affect the activities of workers who deliver tobacco products to shops and other premises for regular retail sale.

Finally, I turn to the amendment to the Smoke-free Environment Act 2000 that is contained in schedule 2.14 to the bill. This amendment, and the cognate amendment to the Fines Act in schedule 2.3, will allow for penalty notices, or on-the-spot fines, to be issued by authorised officers for breaches of the Act. Penalty notices would be issued subject to strict guidelines approved by the Department of Health and only for offences prescribed by the regulations as penalty notice offences. I commend these amendments to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Daryl Maguire and set down as an order of the day for a future day.

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr GREG SMITH (Epping) [10.41 a.m.]: I speak on behalf of the Opposition on the Evidence (Audio and Audio Visual Links) Amendment Bill 2007. The Opposition does not oppose the bill, despite strong opposition from the Law Society, which I will refer to shortly. The bill amends the Evidence (Audio and Audio Visual Links) Act 1998 in the following ways. It provides that all accused detainees, adult or child, charged with an offence must, unless the court otherwise directs, appear in all court proceedings not defined as "physical appearance proceedings" by audiovisual link. The bill defines "physical appearance proceedings" as any trial or hearing of charges, any inquiry into a person's fitness to be tried for an offence, or any proceeding relating to bail, first, in respect of the period between the person being charged with the offence and the person's first appearance before the court or, second, on a person's first appearance before a court in relation to the offence that does not occur on a weekend or a public holiday or that relates to an accused detainee who is being held in custody at a place prescribed by the regulations.

The bill specifies additional factors to be taken into account by a court in deciding whether to make a direction for the accused who is detained to appear in person. It also specifies special factors to be taken into account by a court when deciding whether to make a direction for the appearance of a person in the case of a child accused. It enables government agencies to apply for the making of directions for appearances in person, which is a significant change. It requires government witnesses to give evidence via audio or audiovisual link, with certain exceptions. They are not all government witnesses but they are specifically defined witnesses. Finally, the bill clarifies that children's registrars may give directions for the use of audiovisual links in care proceedings.

This bill is a significant departure from standard legal practice relating to the presence of the accused. Under the proposed Act, detainees will no longer be required to appear physically in committal proceedings, sentencing hearings or hearings of appeals, with a displaceable presumption in favour of appearance via audiovisual link. Furthermore, physical appearance shall not be required for bail appearances occurring during public holidays or weekends, or that relate to an accused detainee who is being held in custody at a place prescribed by the regulations. Discretion is given to the court to displace this presumption and make a direction that the accused detainee appear in person, and sets out factors to be taken into account in making such a direction.

The bill also provides that government agency witnesses must give evidence by audio links or audiovisual links from any place in New South Wales. However, the court may direct that such witnesses appear physically if it is satisfied that the evidence is likely to be contentious and that it is in the interests of the administration of justice for the government agency witnesses to give evidence by appearing physically before the court. The argument in favour of this legislation is that it will significantly increase the use of audiovisual appearances in New South Wales courts and reduce the need for accused persons to be transported to courts. This should lead to significant financial savings, as well as reducing the transportation of prisoners.

In the second reading speech in the other place the Attorney General specifically mentioned the safety and welfare of child detainees during transportation where there are attempted or actual escapes, violent altercations and so forth. It is argued that the procedures to transport accused persons to court causes unnecessary disruptions to their work, rehabilitation and education programs, and that videoconferencing will enable them to participate in court proceedings just as effectively. The main reason they are in custody is that they have been charged with the offence which brings them before the court, so it seems a little ironic that they will not be before the court.

One argument against the legislation—I will come to the Law Society's arguments shortly—is that the proposed changes are a significant departure from centuries of legal precedent allowing the accused to face his accusers and that the presumption should remain in favour of personal appearances. Also, it may be argued that the provisions relating to the mandating of government agency witnesses to give evidence by audio or audiovisual link may be seen as overly broad. The discretion to mandate physical appearance only if the evidence is likely to be contentious or problematic, particularly as in many instances it may be unknown whether the evidence is likely to be contentious, may be interpreted as reducing the rights of a defendant to be able to provide a robust debate.

It may also be argued that it is more difficult to interpret body language via audiovisual link—that is certainly correct—and it makes it more difficult for solicitors or barristers for accused people to get instructions and adequately communicate, particularly with child offenders. The Law Society's Criminal Law Committee has provided me with a detailed submission dated 28 November, in which it acknowledges the benefits associated with audio or video link appearances for brief administrative and interlocutory appearances, and it supports the further installation of audiovisual links to all local courts in New South Wales. The committee says that this will minimise the current difficulties for practitioners and their clients associated with matters being transferred from a Local Court lacking audiovisual link facilities to another Local Court with such facilities.

However, the committee says that the amendments in the bill extend well beyond audio or audiovisual link appearances for brief administrative and interlocutory appearances to committal proceedings, sentencing hearings and appeals which are substantial criminal proceedings. For such proceedings it is essential that the legislative presumption is in favour of an accused being physically present in court unless the court determines otherwise. The committee is therefore opposed to the bill. The committee has specific concerns relating to the impact of the amendments on children, and it details those concerns. It says that new section 5BB revises the existing presumption that an accused person is to appear physically before the court in committal proceedings, sentencing hearings and appeals. The committee also says that the amendment will mean that accused detainees, both adults and children, will appear via audiovisual links in those proceedings where the equipment is available unless the court orders otherwise in the interests of the administration of justice.

From my experience, audiovisual links sometimes malfunction. Often a witness is giving evidence by audiovisual link and an accused is at court some distance away. If the equipment malfunctions the hearing has to be adjourned. It might be said that this is only a rare occurrence. I know that the Government is spending more money but court staff are not technically trained or knowledgeable and often prosecutors, police and defence people are forced to try to get machinery working. This may have more to do with video surveillance equipment and cassette tapes that monitor conversations, whether by telephone interception or listening devices but it also applies to video link facilities. Therefore, it may take some considerable time before these proposals work efficiently. The Law Society stated:

The Committee is deeply concerned about the significant expansion of AVL appearances that the Bill seeks to introduce. The Committee's view is that, in relation to substantial criminal proceedings, the presumption should be in favour of an accused being physically present in court unless the court determine otherwise.

I must concede that the cases I am talking about were trials. I wonder whether that will be the next step because we have moved to committals. Admittedly, most committals are paper committals. I would have thought that the Act should have specifically accepted committals where the magistrate has directed that witnesses be called for cross-examination because it is vital in those cases that instructions are available from the accused person to his or her counsel. Nevertheless, there is provision for the magistrate to exercise his or her discretion to order the appearance of the defendant in those proceedings. However, it would be better if defendants were always present when evidence is given involving cross-examination. The Law Society states:

The Second Reading Speech of the Attorney General refers to persons in custody travelling great distances to and from court for appearances which last no longer than a minute. The Committee appreciates that there are benefits of AVL appearances for brief administrative and interlocutory appearances. However, the amendments in the Bill relate to committal proceedings, sentencing hearing and appeals which are substantial criminal proceedings.

I note the provisions already in the Audiovisual Evidence Act 2002 to cover appeals. Accused persons do not have a right to appear at the Court of Criminal Appeal, although in my experience it is the norm that appellants are present. The Law Society further correctly states:

It is a fundamental right of the accused to appear physically before the court to participate in these proceedings—

that has always been the understanding of the common law, but it is being varied here—

Contrary to the Second Reading Speech AVL appearances in these proceedings are not "a perfectly viable and pragmatic alternative approach" to the physical appearance of an accused in court.

An accused person must have the capacity to provide confidential written and oral instructions to his or her practitioner throughout the proceedings and AVL appearances do not facilitate this.

On occasions in sentencing procedures, evidence may be led on the question of disputed facts. It is not common but it does happen. Sometimes it is difficult to anticipate when this will happen, particularly when there is a change in defence counsel. New counsel may take issue with the facts of the case whereas the former counsel had not given notice of any dispute. In those cases it is clear that the accused should be present. Generally an adjournment would be granted if previous notice had not been given that the facts are disputed. The Law Society continued:

AVL appearances seriously inhibit an accused's ability to communicate with his or her representative. It is vital for the proper conduct and expeditious dealings of the proceedings that the accused is physically present in court.

Indeed, one practitioner said to me that the only time practitioners, particularly country practitioners, are able to obtain proper instructions from clients before the actual hearings is during bail or committal proceedings. It is expensive for lawyers to travel, sometimes hundreds of kilometres, to obtain instructions. There may be a saving to government through prison's revenue, but it can cost government if an accused is granted legal aid and counsel has to visit more often to obtain instructions because the accused does not trust the mail or the telephone system. The Law Society further stated:

It is clear that the principal reason for the amendment is to save on transport and security costs. If the Bill proceeds this will occur at the expense of the rights of the accused, and will in many cases result in court time and legal costs being wasted on applications requesting the physical appearance of the accused.

That was the primary submission of the Law Society. However, the society included a document entitled "Impact of the Amendments on Children", which states:

The Bill revises the presumptions that an accused child will appear in person for committal proceedings, sentencing hearings and appeals. In future, "accused detainees will appear via audio and visual link in those proceedings where such equipment is available unless the court orders otherwise in the interests of the administration of justice." …

Present position

2002 amendments to the Evidence (Audio and Audio Visual Links) Act 1998 created a legislative presumption that accused detainees should appear in person in first bail hearings, unless these occur on a weekend or public holiday, in trial proceedings, inquiries into fitness to be tried, committal proceedings, sentencing hearings, and in appeals. The 2002 amendments introduced presumption in favour of accused detainees appearing before the court via audio and visual links for all other bail proceedings and interlocutory proceedings. The amendments were equally applicable to children and adults. Submissions were made to the Attorney General that the 2002 amendments were contrary to established principles of juvenile justice, and would place children in a worse position than adults. These amendments have now been implemented.

Section 9 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 calls for expedition where a child is in custody. Section 9 (1) states:

(1) If criminal proceedings are to be commenced against a child otherwise than by way of court attendance notice, and the child is not released on bail under the Bail Act 1978, the child shall be brought before the Children's Court as soon as practicable.

(2) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), a child who is not released on bail under the Bail Act 1978 shall, for the purposes of making a further determination of bail, be brought before an authorised justice:

(a) no later than the next day, or
(b) if the next day is a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday—no later than the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday,

if, within that time, the child has not been brought before the Children's Court.

It seems that the use of video and audio may well impinge upon that provision. The Law Society committee continued:

An AVL weekend bail hearings trial commenced at Parramatta Children's Court on 19 May 2007. The stated purposes of the trial were to:

Reduce transport time for detainees,
Ensure legal representation for all detainees,
Obtain more consistency in weekend bail decisions,
Benefit from the expertise of children's legal services and the Children's Court,
Reduce the security risk of transporting detainees, and
Save costs associated with transporting detainees.

The Evidence (Audio and Audio Visual Links) Act 1988 provided the legal basis for the commencement and expansion of the trial, which will be extended and made a permanent feature of the work of the courts as soon as courts and Juvenile Justice Centres have installed the necessary equipment, and provided the equipment is in good operational order.

Since May 2007, all children and young people refused bail and admitted to custody on a weekend or a public holiday to Acmena (Grafton) and Riverina (Wagga Wagga) JJCs have participated in bail hearings while remaining at the JJC. Following the evaluation of the first two months of the trial, the scheme was extended to children and young people at Baxter (Central Coast) and Orana (Dubbo) JJCs.

Children who are arrested and refused bail by police in Sydney continue to appear in person at Parramatta, Campbelltown and Bidura Children's Courts. Children who are arrested and refused bail in rural and regional areas of NSW are taken to the nearest JJC.

Some of the pressing issues raised by the trial include:
The lack of privacy afforded to children in the JJC when giving instruction to solicitors over the 'phone (there is no way for the solicitor to be fully confident that calls are not being recorded),
Difficulties in building rapport and trust with the child over the phone and on the screen,
The lack of privacy for the child and the child's solicitor in taking further instructions during the course of the bail hearing, and
The standing of the judicial officer. During the initial trial period, Children's court registrars presided at the hearings. Since then, Local Court Magistrates have been presiding at some of the hearings. This raises this issue of whether this is a breach of section 7 of the Children's Court Act 1987 (NSW), which stipulates that only specially appointed magistrates, with expertise in the fields of children's law and child development, can sit in the Children's court. Where there are inconsistencies between them, the Bail Act prevails over the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act. No similar provision applies to any inconsistencies between the Bail Act and the Children's Court Act.

The problems with the amending Bill in its application to children

The criticisms of the application of the 2002 amendments to children and the issues raised by the trial are strongly applicable to the amending Bill.

The legislation remains contrary to established principles of juvenile justice, and moves NSW further from compliance with these principles than the 2002 amendments.

The Law Society's Criminal Law Committee further reported:

Separate provisions for children
The Bill is specifically applicable to both children and adults. If the Bill is passed by Parliament, the separate provisions for children in the original Act will be removed and replaced by provisions that are applicable generally.

Those previous provisions included section 5BB of the Act; the bill omits sections 5BA and 5BB and inserts new sections 5BA and 5BB in the Act. The committee report continued:

This is inconsistent with the Beijing Rules, which stipulate that separate and special provisions should be made for children alleged to have breached the criminal law.

UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
No mention is made in the second reading speech about the long accepted principle from the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child that all actions concerning children should be in the best interests of the child.

Rule 2.3 of the Beijing Rules states:

Efforts shall be made to establish, in each national jurisdiction, a set of laws, rules and provisions specifically applicable to juvenile offenders and institutions and bodies entrusted with the functions of the administration of juvenile justice and designed:

(a) To meet the varying needs of juvenile offenders, while protecting their basic rights;

(b) To meet the needs of society;

(c) To implement the following rules thoroughly and fairly.

The Law Society's Criminal Law Committee report continued:

Instead, the amendments speak of the "interests of the administration of justice," which the court is not specifically required to balance with the best interests of the child.

Article 12: Right to participate:
Section 6 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 enshrines article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Section 6 (a) states: "children have rights and freedoms before the law equal to those enjoyed by adults and, in particular, a right to be heard and right to participate, in the processes that lead to decisions that affect them.

Section 12 (4) of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 requires that: "A court shall give the child the fullest opportunity practicable to be heard and to participate in the proceedings."

The right to participation includes the child's right to be kept fully informed about the progress of a matter. When the child appears via video link, the child's legal representative will have little opportunity or time to ensure that the child has understood the outcome of the appearance. It is not apparent from the Bill that any time or facilities will be available for children's solicitors to ensure that children in custody understand what has happened after they have appeared by video link.

I urge the Government to implement systems and financial assistance so that children may be more fully aware of what has been going on in relation to the case. Referring to the Law Society's representation principles the report continued:

The Principles are extremely difficult to honour when instructions are taken from the child over the telephone or via AVL. In particular the principle that legal representatives should see the child in person in all but exceptional circumstances cannot be honoured in AVL "circumstances", which are not those envisaged in the Principles.

The health surveys of children in custody and on community orders indicate that children in custody are more likely to have mental illnesses or disabilities, hearing problems, to have left school before completing grade 10 and have low reading ages. Identifying that the child is in one of these high needs categories (and getting appropriate support for the child) is challenging enough for solicitors when children are seen in person on busy list days. Taking instructions from these children by telephone or video link makes these tasks even more difficult, and diminishes a solicitor's capacity to act professionally and competently.

Discrimination against children in custody and children in rural and regional NSW

The proposal further disadvantages children in custody. Children at liberty, appearing on bail or by a court attendance notice, will continue to instruct their solicitor in person, provided they are in metropolitan Sydney. Under the AVL proposal children in custody must be seen at the convenience of the court and do not have the "fullest opportunity practicable to be heard and to participate in the proceedings".

Children arrested and refused bail in rural and regional NSW are not taken directly to court, but to the nearest juvenile justice centre, and appear at Parramatta Children's Court via audiovisual link from the juvenile justice centre at the convenience of the court. Even if they are granted bail by the court because of access to representation by the specialist children's lawyers in Legal Aid's Children's Legal Service, for some this will mean that they will have spent time in custody waiting for the AVL bail link, when their city cousins will not.

Standing for Department of Juvenile Justice

The standing that designated government authorities such as the Department of Juvenile Justice will have to apply to the court for a direction about the appearance of the child will, given the expressed intention to save costs, almost certainly be used to argue against having the child in court. The Bill does not indicate when or how applications can be made, or whether, and if so how, the child's legal representative will be able to take instructions from the child to ascertain whether the application should be opposed. Applications from the Department of Juvenile Justice against transporting a child to court will almost certainly need to be opposed in some instances. Identifying who is the child's lawyer and how and when they will be able to take instructions from the child for this purpose are issues that are not addressed in the second reading speech or the Bill. In deciding whether the child should be present, the court will be required to take the interests of the administration of justice, rather than the best interests of the child, into account.

Rationale for the Bill

The Bill is transparently and primarily a further cost saving measure for the Department of Juvenile Justice. No consideration has been given in the Bill to the costs for children, or to the additional costs that will be incurred by the courts or by Legal Aid.

The Committee is strongly of the view that the presumption in favour of physical appearance by children should remain. It is said that fully implementing this system will lead to increased short-term capital expenditure as more audiovisual systems are set up, with $42.9 million budgeted in 2007-08 for further expanding the network and a potential for further expenditure in terms of capital and training. In the long term there is the potential for significant cost savings, as the costs associated with the transport of prisoners decline significantly.

On the other hand, as the Law Society points out, consideration must also be given to the costs for children, and perhaps their parents who may be paying for their legal costs, and for the community generally because of the delay that may occur when applications have to be made and adjournments granted. Despite the very persuasive argument put forward by the Law Society, and despite the fact that there are and will continue to be glitches in the system which cause delay, the Opposition does not oppose the bill.

Mr BARRY COLLIER (Miranda—Parliamentary Secretary) [11.14 a.m.], in reply: I thank the member for Epping for his considered contribution to this debate. The Evidence (Audio and Audio Visual Links) Amendment Bill better facilitates the appropriate use of audiovisual link technology for appearances by accused detainees before New South Wales courts. The bill also improves the taking and receiving of evidence via audiovisual links in New South Wales. In this way, it is an important and progressive step towards further modernising judicial administration in this State. As the Attorney General pointed out in his speech in reply in the other place, the bill is largely modelled on the Western Australian provisions, which have worked effectively in Western Australia.

The member for Epping raised issues in relation to the Law Society. It is important to point out that consultation regarding the bill has occurred with the Chief Justice, the Chief Judge, the Chief Magistrate, the New South Wales Bar Association, the Law Society of New South Wales, the Legal Aid Commission, Aboriginal Legal Services, and the Director of Public Prosecutions. Where possible those stakeholders' views have been taken into account. Further consultation will take place with those groups regarding implementation issues prior to commencement of the legislation.

The Law Society's criticism about the difficulty of country solicitors getting access to their clients if they appear via audiovisual link is somewhat misplaced. The first appearance of the accused will always be in person. So, even if the solicitor has not met with the client beforehand, he or she will still be able to do that at the court. Furthermore, with the extension of audiovisual link facilities across the State—with almost 200 audiovisual link systems implemented, including at legal aid offices—it is becoming increasingly easier for lawyers to have remote access to their clients via this new technology.

As part of the expansion of the audiovisual link network, the Government is committed to increasing the number of audiovisual link legal suites to ensure that legal practitioners are able to effectively and confidentially obtain legal instructions from their clients. There are currently audiovisual link legal suites in more than half of the Department of Corrective Services correctional facilities, and there are plans to install further legal suites in the immediate future. Additional audiovisual link legal suites will shortly also be installed in a number of juvenile justice centres, including Cobham, Frank Baxter and Reiby, to better facilitate legal practitioners obtaining confidential legal instructions from their clients. In cases where these facilities are not available the presumption in favour of appearance by audiovisual link will not come into effect and there will be a return to the previous situation whereby physical appearance before the court is the norm.

The member for Epping and the Law Society raised issues about the time-honoured legal principle of the accused facing his or her accuser and appearing in court in person. It is important to point out that the amendments in the bill do not alter in any way the right of the accused detainee to be physically present before the court at his or her own trial. As is the case under the current Act, the bill contains a legislative presumption that the accused detainee is to appear physically before the court for "any trial (including an arraignment on the day appointed for the trial) or hearing of charges". The bill also provides that the accused is to appear physically before the court in inquiries into a person's fitness to be tried and first appearance bail hearings. The right of the accused person to be tried in his or her presence is not affected by the bill.

However, as is the case under the current Act, the bill preserves the residual discretion of the court to order that the accused detainee appear at trial via audiovisual link if to do so would be in the interests of the administration of justice. At common law, while the right of an accused person to be physically present at his or her trial is a paramount consideration, it is not without qualification and may be displaced if the accused's conduct is such that the orderly procedure of a trial is not permitted to function. The relevant authority for this is Eastman v The Queen (1997) 158 ALR 107 at 138. I note that the member for Epping nods in agreement. The right of the accused to be physically present at his or her trial must be balanced against the need to protect participants in the justice system, including judicial officers and members of the public, and to preserve the integrity of the due administration of justice.

Rather than radically overhauling the conduct of criminal proceedings, the amendments in the bill merely revise the default position for appearances by accused detainees in committal proceedings, and sentence hearings and appeals—where such equipment is available—thereby encouraging and better facilitating the use of the available audiovisual link technology. Those default presumptions will not always be invoked. If the necessary audiovisual link equipment is not available or cannot reasonably be made available then the presumptions will not apply. The court may also make a direction on its own motion or on the application of any party to the proceedings that the presumption is not to apply and that the accused detainee is to appear physically in the interests of the administration of justice.

In relation to committal proceedings, the restriction on permitting witnesses to give oral evidence means that a large number of committals are conducted as paper committals, that is, no oral evidence is given by prosecution witnesses. In a paper committal the magistrate determines the matter on the basis of written evidence. The magistrate may excuse the accused person from attending during the taking of prosecution evidence if he or she is represented by a legal practitioner or if the evidence is not applicable to the accused person. There are no compelling reasons to require an accused detainee to appear physically before a court for most committal proceedings. The proposed amendments will remove the current presumption in favour of the accused detainee appearing physically before the court in these proceedings.

Applying a presumption of appearance by audiovisual link to committal proceedings will not, however, override the court's inherent jurisdiction to generally control proceedings and to protect the rights of the accused. The need to protect the rights of the accused in criminal proceedings where the accused may be in danger of losing his or her liberty is recognised by the ability of the court to override the presumption. The court will retain the power to make a direction that the accused person appears physically in committal proceedings where this would be in the interests of the administration of justice. A direction can be made to that effect. Such directions are most likely to be made where prosecution witnesses are called to give oral evidence, that is, in non-paper committals. In these circumstances the interests of the administration of justice are likely to be served by having the accused detainee physically present at court in order to face his or her accusers. Therefore, a direction for the accused detainee's physical attendance could be made.

For the benefit of members, where a person is charged with an indictable offence a magistrate will conduct committal proceedings to ascertain whether or not there is a prima facie case to justify committing the accused for trial to the district or supreme courts. Under the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 the accused person may apply to have the committal hearing waived. The magistrate may direct prosecution witnesses to attend committal proceedings to give oral evidence; however, the scope for this to occur is rather limited. Generally, unless all parties consent, the magistrate will give a direction only if satisfied that there are substantial reasons why, in the interests of justice, the witness should attend to give oral evidence.

In relation to sentencing hearings and redetermination of sentence proceedings, once an offender is found guilty, or pleads guilty, the court imposes a sentence. In the local court the magistrate usually passes sentence immediately after the hearing or as soon as the accused pleads guilty. However, if the case goes to the District Court or Supreme Court there may be a special sentencing hearing. At the sentencing hearing the court will be presented with the facts of the case. The court may also order that a pre-sentence report be provided. Both the prosecution and the defence may present such other reports and evidence as may be considered appropriate, including the accused's previous criminal record and victim impact statements.

Sentencing is significantly more procedural in nature than a trial or hearing. It usually involves a judicial officer, the defence and the prosecution. There is no jury involved. It is the judicial officer who must make a determination as to what is the most appropriate sentence based on the evidence presented to him or her. Most of the evidence is paper based: for example, sentencing reports, psychiatric reports and victim impact statements. In these circumstances there really are no compelling reasons for retaining a presumption in favour of the offender being physically present in the courtroom for sentencing hearings. It is recommended instead that the presumption in favour of appearance by audiovisual link be the default position.

Applying a presumption of appearance by audiovisual link to sentencing hearings will not, however, override the court's inherent jurisdiction to generally control proceedings and protect the rights of the accused. The need to protect the rights of the accused in criminal proceedings where the accused may be in danger of losing his or her liberty is recognised by the ability of the court to override the presumption. The presumption of appearance by audiovisual link can be displaced where the court is satisfied that it is in the interests of the administration of justice to do so. This may be so, as mentioned by the member for Epping, where there are disputed facts in relation to sentencing proceedings.

In relation to appeal proceedings against conviction or sentence, the Court of Criminal Appeal hears appeals against conviction and sentence from the District and Supreme courts. In the Court of Criminal Appeal there is no automatic right for the appellant to be present during proceedings. Legally represented appellants can only be present with the leave of the court where special circumstances are shown. The proposed amendments accordingly will have no impact on appeals to the Court of Criminal Appeal because the amendments only apply where there is a requirement for the accused detainee to appear before the court.

In other proceedings on appeal against conviction or sentence the amendments will create a presumption in favour of appearance by audiovisual link. This will not, however, override the court's inherent jurisdiction to generally control proceedings and protect the rights of the accused. The need to protect these rights in criminal proceedings where the accused may be in danger of losing his or her liberty is recognised by the ability of the court to override the presumption. The presumption of appearance by audiovisual link can be displaced where the court is satisfied that it is in the interests of the administration of justice to do so. One example that comes to mind where the court might make such a decision is in a fresh evidence case in the Court of Criminal Appeal.

In relation to presumptions being applied to children, in the years since the introduction of the presumption that accused child detainees are to appear physically before the court in all criminal proceedings it has become apparent that this presumption is in fact operating against the best interests of the child. The image of transporting young people in a cramped and caged environment over vast distances to and from courts, for a brief appearance, clearly illustrates this. Of particular concern are considerations around the safety and welfare of child detainees during transportation where there are attempted and actual escapes, violent altercations with other juvenile detainees, and sometimes further offences committed while in transit or at the court.

Equally concerning is the fact that the physical attendance of child detainees at brief court proceedings unduly and unnecessarily disrupts the child detainee's rehabilitative and education programs and may sometimes even interfere with the child's ability to complete such programs and attain educational qualifications. A recent survey conducted by the Department of Juvenile Justice found that approximately 80 per cent of court appearances by juveniles were brief mentions, administrative or interlocutory proceedings. In a large number of instances child detainees had travelled long distances to attend court. As an example, a child detainee was recently flown from Sydney to Wagga Wagga in order to withdraw an appeal. This was a disruptive movement that could easily have been managed by way of audiovisual link. The bill accordingly removes the requirement for an accused child detainee to always appear physically before the court in criminal proceedings. In relation to the reference by the member for Epping to the Beijing rule, it should be noted that, as required by this rule, there are special arrangements made for children charged with criminal offences in comparison with adult accused.

In recognition of the special nature of proceedings before the Children's Court, the bill refers to special factors to be considered by the court in determining whether it is "in the interests of the administration of justice" for the accused child detainee to appear before the court otherwise than in accordance with the presumption. In addition to the factors that the court considers when applying the test to adult detainees, the court is to consider additional factors pertaining to children as specified in rules of court. These include the right of the accused child detainee to be given the fullest opportunity to be heard and to participate in the proceedings; the need for the accused child detainee's lawyer to obtain initial or detailed instructions from the accused child detainee; the maturity of the accused child detainee; and the wishes of the accused child detainee. It should be noted in this respect that additional audiovisual link legal suites are being installed in a number of juvenile justice centres, including Cobham, Frank Baxter and Reiby, to better facilitate legal practitioners obtaining confidential legal instructions from their clients.

I stress that, whilst the default position for committals, sentencing hearings and appeals is to be revised by the bill, the ultimate discretion rests with the court. The court will ultimately decide whether the accused detainee is to appear physically or via audiovisual link. I think we should have confidence that the courts will exercise that function properly, making directions that are in the best interests of the administration of justice, and of course in the best interests of child detainees.

In relation to the efficient use of available judicial and administrative resources as a cost factor, any decision by a court as to whether a certain course will be in the interests of justice will always involve a balancing exercise. In making such a determination the court will weigh issues such as procedural fairness to the accused with matters such as security of the court system and the health and safety of users. A number of specific factors are currently contained in the Act, and two further factors will be inserted by the bill to guide the court in making such determinations. However, the court is not limited to considering the factors specified in the bill in deciding whether to make a determination regarding appearance "in the interests of the administration of justice".

The reason that "the efficient use of available judicial and administrative resources" is included as an additional factor is that sometimes it will not be a good use of resources, or even viable, for currently limited audiovisual link facilities to be utilised exclusively on one particular matter. For example, a sentencing hearing in the District Court may last for several hours or even up to a day. Having an accused detainee on an audiovisual link for that entire time may mean that the audiovisual link equipment cannot be used for other matters. In those instances, the court will be able to consider the efficient use of available judicial and administrative resources and, if necessary, direct that the accused detainee appear before the court in person.

In relation to the additional factors that come into play in "the interests of the administration of justice" test, the bill makes provision for a number of additional factors. These include: safety and welfare considerations in transporting the accused detainee to the courtroom or place where the court is sitting, and the efficient use of available judicial and other resources. The Government appreciates the importance of ensuring both court staff and the staff of correctional facilities are appropriately trained in the use of audiovisual link technology. We are continuing to work with agencies and court staff in relation to ongoing training in that technology.

It is also important to recognise that to date the Government has installed almost 200 audiovisual link systems in courtrooms, correctional facilities and other justice agency sites. Audiovisual link equipment is currently installed in 40 courtrooms around the State, every Corrective Services detention centre, every juvenile justice centre, and numerous Legal Aid offices. The Government's 2007-08 budget allocated $2.9 million to further expand and improve its audiovisual network. This is a priority project for the Attorney General's Department. Some of the courts where audiovisual links are installed include: Bidura, Burwood, Campbelltown, Central, the Downing Centre, Dubbo, Goulburn, Lidcombe, Liverpool, Newcastle, Parramatta, Sutherland, Penrith, the Supreme Court, Wollongong and Woy Woy. These courts are capable of providing audiovisual links to correctional and juvenile justice facilities and other justice agencies such as the police, Director of Public Prosecution's offices and the Legal Aid Commission across the State. There are also legal suites in most of the correctional facilities, with more planned in the near future.

The amendments in the bill remove the existing presumption that accused detainees are to appear physically before the courts in committal proceedings, sentencing proceedings and appeals. The court makes appearances by audiovisual links a default position in such proceedings where the necessary equipment is available. Importantly, the bill preserves the court's residual discretion to displace the presumption and direct a detainee to appear physically before the court where to do so "would be in the interests of the administration of justice". The court may make such a direction on its own motion or the application of a party or designated agency. The bill does not affect the right of a person to be present at his or her trial.

The amendments to the bill reflect the Government's continuing commitment to supporting and facilitating the appropriate use of audiovisual link technology in the administration of justice in this State. The bill will see the benefits of modern audiovisual technology being more fully realised, while importantly safeguarding the rights of accused persons to a fair trial. I commend the bill to the House.

Question—That this bill be now agreed to in principle—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Bill declared passed and returned to the Legislative Council without amendment.

Bill introduced on motion by Ms Tanya Gadiel, on behalf of Mr David Campbell.
Ms TANYA GADIEL (Parramatta—Parliamentary Secretary) [11.34 p.m.], on behalf of Mr David Campbell: I move:

That this bill be now agreed to in principle.

I am pleased to introduce the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Amendment Bill 2007. This bill amends the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 to make further provision with respect to registration and reporting requirements for certain persons on the New South Wales Child Protection Register, which hereinafter I will refer to as the register. New South Wales was the first Australian State to introduce a mandatory system of registration for people who have committed child sex offences and/or other serious offences against children. Since October 2001, registrable persons have been required to report their personal details to the New South Wales Police Force for a set number of years while they are living in the community. I strongly support this system, which is legislatively underpinned by the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000.
While one of the aims of the register is to provide a deterrent to reoffending, it is important to recognise that the existence of the register will not stop every person who has been convicted of a registrable offence from ever abusing another child. However, the register does provide police with a valuable tool to assist in their management and monitoring of registrable persons living in the community. Registrable persons are required to tell police where they live, where they work, what car they drive, any children they live with, and more. They are also required to inform police in advance of their intended interstate or international travel arrangements. As well as being held on the New South Wales Child Protection Register, information regarding registrable persons is uploaded to the Australian National Child Offenders Register.

This database, which is managed by CrimTrac, is used to assist police from other jurisdictions in monitoring child sex offenders. The Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Amendment Bill 2007 introduces improvements to New South Wales's child protection registration system, including allowing police to take and retain DNA samples of registrable persons, and increasing the maximum penalty for breaching reporting obligations from two years to five years. The changes aim to provide police with the information they need when investigating and prosecuting child sex offences that may have been committed by recidivist offenders, as well as in the police management and monitoring of child sex offenders in the community. The recommended changes follow a period of extensive consultation and a review of the Act.

In November 2005, the New South Wales Ombudsman's review of the register was tabled in Parliament. His review found that the implementation of the Act had been largely successful and that the register had the capability to be a significant child protection tool. The Ombudsman's review informed the statutory review of the Act. I now seek leave to table the report to Parliament by the Ministry for Police on the review of the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000, dated November 2007.

Leave granted.

Report tabled.

I will now outline the provisions of the bill. Registrable offences are listed in two separate categories under the Act. Class 1 includes the most serious offences such as child murder and sexual intercourse with a child. Class 2 includes other offences such as acts of indecency against a child and possession of child pornography. The bill only makes one change to the definition of registrable offences, which is to recognise the offence of sexual assault by forced self-manipulation, where the person against whom the offence is committed is a child, as a class 1 offence. The bill also tightens the circumstances in which adults are required to comply with the reporting obligations of the Act by extending registration requirements to all adults convicted of a class 2 registrable offence—it will no longer matter whether the sentence includes a term of imprisonment or requires the person to be supervised.

While the penalty imposed by the courts on such offenders indicates that their conduct is at the lower end of seriousness in relation to registrable offences, the nature of the offences, such as possession of child pornography, are still serious offences that potentially endanger children and warrant monitoring by police through the registration process irrespective of the sentence received. Young persons will continue to be exempt from registration if they commit certain class 2 offences on a single occasion, such as an act of indecency or possessing or publishing child pornography.

The bill also ensures that all persons arriving into New South Wales, who would be required to register with police in their country of origin, will be required to report their details to the New South Wales Police Force. Police can currently apply to the court for a child protection registration order when a person is found guilty of an offence that is not a registrable offence. The bill expands the circumstances in which courts can issue child protection registration orders to require someone to comply with the reporting obligations of the Act.

Firstly, the bill allows courts to issue orders for persons convicted overseas of an offence or offences for conduct that would have constituted a registrable offence if committed in New South Wales. For example, a person may be convicted in another country of possession of pornography in a jurisdiction that does not have the specific offence of possession of child pornography on its books, as is the case in a number of our neighbouring South-East Asian countries. Secondly, the bill allows courts to order persons to comply with the reporting obligations of the Act—persons who completed their sentence for what is now defined as a class 1 registrable offence before the Act commenced in October 2001. These orders will not be able to be applied to persons who completed their sentences prior to October 2001 and who were children at the time they committed the offence.
Finally, the bill allows courts to order people charged with a registrable offence or offences and released on bail under the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 to report to police under the Act. Such persons can be on bail for long periods while their fitness to be tried is assessed and a decision is made as to whether a special hearing under the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 should be held. Consequently, there is potential for significantly longer delays between a person being released on bail and the court issuing a sentence for forensic patients rather than for others released on bail. In all cases, courts will be able to issue child protection registration orders only when they are satisfied that the person poses a risk to the lives or sexual safety of one or more children, or of children generally.

The bill introduces a requirement that registrable persons are to report to police all their active electronic communication identifiers, details of service providers, service type and any changes to those details. This includes all their active email addresses, chat room identities, as well as all landline and mobile telephone numbers. This information may assist the investigations of the New South Wales Police Force, particularly in relation to child pornography or grooming and/or procuring of children. While this additional reporting requirement will not stop convicted child sex offenders from using the Internet, it may deter persons on the register from inappropriately using telecommunications and provide an added layer of protection for children while using the Internet.

I am advised that currently it is difficult to prove a breach under section 9 (2) of the Act as police must provide evidence that a person on the register has lived with a child for more than 14 days or had more than 14 days unsupervised contact with a child over a 12-month period, without telling police as is required under the Act. The bill proposes that in future this information will need to be provided to police when persons on the register have lived with a child for only three days or more, or had unsupervised contact for three days or more in a 12-month period. Furthermore, they will need to let police know of any change in this information within three days of the change occurring. Similar amendments were recently introduced to Victoria's registration scheme and are intended to make it easier for police to gather evidence when they become aware that a person on the register has breached their reporting obligations in this regard.

The bill requires registrable persons to make their initial report to police within seven days. This reduces and simplifies the current time frames in which registrable persons are required to make this report. The introduction of this provision will align New South Wales with legislation in Western Australia, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory. Registrable persons will also now be required to present to police any current passports they hold as part of their reporting requirements. This will assist police in confirming the identity of registrable persons from New South Wales upon their departure from or their entry into Australia. Police advise that failure to comply with reporting obligations can be an indicator of further offending; it can also be evidence of a disregard for the register, the seriousness of the offence or offences they have committed, and the register's overall objective of protecting children.

In order for the Act to be effective it is imperative that registrable persons have a sufficient deterrent to encourage them to comply with their reporting obligations. Therefore, the bill increases the maximum penalties for breaching reporting obligations under the Act from two years to five years imprisonment. Persons on the register are currently required to report to police in New South Wales their names, together with any other names by which they are known or have previously been known. Based on similar reforms recently introduced to Victoria's scheme, the bill requires registrable persons to apply to the Commissioner of Police before changing their names. If the commissioner believes that the name change is reasonably likely to be regarded as offensive by the community, the person's victim or the victim's family—or where it might undermine the ability of the New South Wales Police Force to supervise and monitor the person—the commissioner will be authorised to prevent him or her from changing his or her name. This proposal represents an operational improvement to the current scheme.

Schedule 2 to the bill will amend the Crimes (Forensic Procedure) Act 2000 to allow police to take and retain the DNA of registrable persons. This change will provide police with a powerful and crucial investigative tool to identify offenders and/or eliminate suspects when new child sexual offences occur. By having the DNA of persons on the register more persons who commit child sex crimes will be identified, they will be identified faster, and they will be more likely to be successfully prosecuted. Police have advised me that the DNA sample could be taken when registrable persons either make their initial report or make their annual report to police, as required under the Act. All persons on the register should be eligible to have their DNA tested by police, irrespective of sentence.

It was Parliament's original intention that information held on the register should not be available to the public. To ensure that this is the case, the bill exempts documents relating to the register from the Freedom of Information Act 1989. Clarifying in legislation that information held on the register is not accessible to the public will encourage even higher levels of compliance with reporting obligations and further minimise the risk of vigilante activity. I commend this bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Greg Aplin and set down as an order of the day for a future day.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Before the House deals with private members' statements I note that radio personality John Laws is about to finish his final radio shift after 55 years of service to radio in Australia. During the past 55 years the service Mr Laws has presented to the Australian community has been, by any standards, a benchmark for radio presentation and broadcasting in this country. Mr Laws has always demonstrated an empathy with people. During his many interviews he never talked at people; rather, he talked with them. New South Wales and the Australian nation will miss John Laws. On behalf of all members of the New South Wales Parliament I wish John Laws on his day of retirement all the best for the future.

Mr GREG APLIN (Albury) [11.48 a.m.]: On Friday 18 January 2002 the New South Wales Minister for Health, Craig Knowles, and the Victorian Minister for Health, John Thwaites, signed a memorandum of understanding that, in their words, made "a single cross-border health service a reality". The Ministers proclaimed:

This historic agreement will see patients from both Albury and Wodonga benefit from two excellent hospitals, under one management, working together to deliver the best possible health care.

They noted that a single health service is a commonsense solution to years of cross-border anomalies that have hindered health service provision. Dr Andrew Watson, the chief executive officer of Wodonga Hospital, was appointed as joint chief executive of both Wodonga Hospital and Albury Base Hospitals. The Ministers stated that the creation of a single cross-border health service had been a complex process and they paid tribute to local doctors, nurses, health professionals, community leaders and members who had shown great leadership to arrive at that point.

The next step was for a heads of agreement to be signed. This duly took place in July of 2003 with the then Minister for Health, Morris Iemma, attending a media event at Albury Base Hospital to announce the three-year agreement with a mid-term review. Since that time the most notable changes have been the resignation by and frustration of Dr Andrew Watson, the conduct of the mid-term review near the end of the three-year agreement, the refusal to release details of the review after sitting on it for almost two years and the anger and frustration of local stakeholders at the slothful approach of the Government to this project. So frustrated were the local clinicians that the Australian Medical Association of New South Wales and Victoria held a forum in Albury in July in an effort to gain information from both State governments on amalgamation of the health services. The acting chief executive officer of the Australian Medical Association (NSW) Limited, Mr Allen Thomas, noted:

The medical practitioners of Wodonga and Albury continue to participate in reviews and meetings despite receiving little ongoing information about the status of amalgamation. We are concerned that the lack of information on the proposed moves towards amalgamation results in local hospitals and medical practitioners struggling to attract and retain a medical workforce to provide the required services to the public.

I have repeatedly questioned successive Ministers and warned the Government of the community's concerns at the lack of commitment, the lack of resources and the absence of any timeline to achieve what we had been told was already a reality. It was significant that the Greater Southern Area Health Service annual report 2005-06 pointedly failed to identify cross-border health as one of its key issues or future directions for area health care service planning. Yet in May 2006 the then Minister for Health responded to my questions, advising of support for the integration of Health Albury Wodonga and explaining that discussions between the New South Wales and Victorian Ministers for Health were ongoing and an announcement was expected shortly.

That announcement never came. Then in August last year the Minister for Health advised me that there was no body or institution called "Health Albury Wodonga". The denial of a body of their own creation was symptomatic of the lack of commitment the New South Wales Government had exhibited to that point. For the past five years I have called for the provision of dedicated personnel and funding to complete the merger. Now that Dr Andrew Watson has quit the process in frustration and local specialists and doctors have demanded a timeline, project officers have belatedly been brought in. It is difficult for many local people to understand how private health providers can operate hospitals and specialist services across the two States with little difficulty, but after all these years the Labor State Governments still cannot work it out.

The latest push to achieve some action from the Government came from local mayors who met with the Ministers to reiterate community concerns and to call for the release of the report conducted by Professor Stephen Duckett, the introduction of a communication strategy between the health departments and border health professionals and the release of a plan with a timeline so that everyone could be persuaded the commitment was more than just lip service. Indications are that there will, at last, be some positive moves. Both Ministers have indicated a desire to meet in Albury and a Health Albury Wodonga integration update newsletter has been introduced. The commitment has been stated to me time and again by Ministers Iemma, Hatzistergos and Meagher, so the realisation of the Government's deep-seated but little realised commitment is welcome. Together with the community, I look forward to realisation of some of the benefits to health services on the border.
The integration update newsletter states that health services in the region are unique and that a cooperative approach between the two health services is vital for the border's future health care. This was acknowledged years ago; nothing has changed. It is enlightening to note that the chief executives are seeking participation from stakeholders by calling for input from staff as part of the initiative. I well recall sitting in a meeting back in 2001 when the then chief executive of the area health service delivered a speech to employees and clinicians on the proposed introduction of the merger. Six years on—with several changes of chief executive, a new area health service, several damaging disputes and closures, the loss of visiting medical officers, a reliance on fly-in locums and the threat of impending resignations and retirements—NSW Health has finally got the message. A plan is required, a senior project officer is necessary, proper resourcing and funding are fundamental and cooperation, collaboration and stakeholder inclusion are all necessary. Most important of all is a true commitment to build on the goodwill, stretched thin as it may be, to actually deliver the outcomes we know are possible. I look forward to the Minister's visit to Albury next month.

Mr PAUL McLEAY (Heathcote) [11.53 a.m.]: Movember, the month formally known as November, is a charity event held this month each year. At the start of Movember guys register with a clean-shaven face. The Movember participants, known as Mo Bros, have the remainder of the month to grow and groom their moustache and along the way raise as much money and awareness about male health issues as possible. Members would have noticed that I have been participating in this event. Whilst the aim is to groom one's moustache, it has taken me a whole month to get it to the stage where I have to stand out of the wind. I have been proud to show my lack of masculinity this month for this worthwhile cause. The organisers claim that whichever way you look at it, men are far less healthy than women. The average life expectancy for men is five years less than it is for women. Why? The answer is because men lack awareness about the very real health issues they face, they take a "she'll be right" attitude and they are reluctant to see a doctor about an illness or to go for regular medical checks.

The aim of Movember is to change these attitudes and make male health fun by putting the Mo back on the face of fashion and in the process raise serious funds for key male health issues. One of those key issues is prostate cancer. Every year in Australia 2,900 men die of prostate cancer. That figure is equivalent to the number of women who die from breast cancer annually. Another key issue is male depression. One in six men experience depression at any given time, but most do not seek help. Movember's aim of changing the face of men's health in Australia is conducted in partnership with the leading foundations that focus on prostate cancer and depression in men. They are the Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, whose aim is to reduce the impact of prostate cancer on Australian men, their partners, their families and the community; and beyondblue, the national depression initiative with a specific focus on increasing community awareness of depression in men and addressing the associated stigma of men living with depression. Beyondblue supports the safe and responsible use of alcohol.

I would like to thank those precious souls who sponsored me to raise funds for these two organisations. They are Doug Dean, Gabrielle Trainor, Davina Langton, Marcela Garrett, David Tierney, Didier Silarsah, Lisa White from Washington, the Nanbaree Childcare Centre girls who look after my child, Maree Shepherd, Adam Dansie, Matt Thistlethwaite, Steve Turner, Ophelia Cowell, Stephen Griffin, Jack Flanagan, Lee Baxter from HSM, Rob Furolo, Simon Burt, Elizabeth Konza, Justin Di Lollo, Cameron Milliner, Peter Doyle, Meriana Baxter, Linda Doherty, my brother Mark McLeay, my mum Janice McLeay, Mehal Krayem, Nicholas Sozou, Janelle Lindsay, Angela Humphries, Naomi Dinnen, Elizabeth Pemberton, Sandra Neilley, Catherine Wade, Helensburgh Lions, Margaret McGuire, Sheena Johnston, Graeme Morrison, Theresa Chidiac and my parliamentary colleagues Phillip Costa, Kayee Griffin, Tony Catanzariti, Geoff Corrigan, Noreen Hay, Sharon Bird and Shelley Hancock and the Parliamentary Secretary in the chair, Tanya Gadiel.

Together we have raised a massive $2,257. I give special thanks to Doug Dean and Gab Trainor for their larger than most donations, which gave it a good kick along. I have a promise of more sponsorship to come from my wife, who will pay me to shave the moustache off. Congratulations to all those Mo Bros and Mo Sistas who took part in this charity event. I sponsored Nick Sozou from Parliament's Information Technology Service, who managed to grow his moustache in about three days. I also sponsored the pathetic moustaches of Matt Thisthlewaite from Unions New South Wales and Steve Turner from the Public Service Association. Probably the most pathetic moustache anyone has ever seen was on Rob Oakeshott, the Independent member representing Port Macquarie. This is his second year as a participant in Movember, and he challenged me to participate this year. I thank him for encouraging me to help raise awareness of men's health issues. Rob challenged me to raise more money than he did. I believe I have raised about three times as much. Thank you, Rob, and keep up the good work. Thank you to all those Mo Bros and Mo Sistas who participated in the event this year or sponsored participants.

Ms TANYA GADIEL (Parramatta—Parliamentary Secretary) [11.58 a.m.]: I congratulate the member for Heathcote on his contribution today and on his participation in Movember. He has copped a fair amount of cajoling this month, but has remained strong. Movember is a worthwhile initiative. It is a frightening to note that 2,900 men die of prostate cancer every year and the prevalence of male depression. These facts are not generally recognised in our society. I congratulate the member on bringing this issue to the attention of Parliament today and on his participation in this event, together with all the other Mo Bros and Mo Sistas—although I did not see many Mo Sistas around Parliament. I once again congratulate the member on his initiative to raise funds for this cause. He did an outstanding job. If Cass needs a hand to get him to shave off the moustache, I am sure his daughter, Holly, will be happy to oblige.

Mr JOHN TURNER (Myall Lakes) [12 noon]: The increase in national park fees in my electorate is impacting on my constituents and, of course, on visitors to the area. The fees were increased on 1 November, in most instances by 100 per cent. It was alleged that the increase was according to the consumer price index as there had been no increase in five years. I know Mr Costa has some debits as Treasurer but if he believes the consumer price index has increased by 100 per cent in five years he should go back to economics school. Clearly, this is a gouging exercise by the State Government. In a letter to me Barbara Jones from Forster said that she was protesting against the exorbitant rise in camping fees at national parks. Her family has been a keen user of the parks. She said:

As an example of the price hike the Booti Booti National Park costs have risen from $170.00 to $300.00 for 2 adults and 2 children per week … The facilities in most National Parks, if not all, comprise of antiquated systems of pit toilets and cold water.

The costs to which she refers now are $300 per week. She said that for that sort of money people will start looking for accommodation in other areas, such as caravan parks, which have more hygienic services and facilities, such as hot showers, laundries and the like. She said further in her letter:

During our stays in various National Parks we have met many family groups who like to encourage their children to bond with the ecology and learn to protect birds and animals they come in contact with.

We appreciate that some price rises are necessary to keep up maintenance etc, but consider a smaller rise rather than nearly 100% would be more justified.

I took the opportunity to compare fees in camping areas in my electorate. The Ruins camping area at Booti Booti National Park will cost a family of two adults and two children $112 for a weekend to camp in their own tent on a bit of dirt and to use a flushing toilet and a shower, but with no access to electricity. Similarly, at Neranie Head, it will cost two adults and three children $42 for one night and $84 for a weekend. Neranie Head has only toilet and barbecue facilities, but no showers. I believe this increase is a bit steep. I appreciate that fees are necessary for running national parks, but the Government applying these increases in this manner—surreptitiously especially, of course, one month before the popular camping time of Christmas—raises the question of why. I have a letter from Brad and Gaye Duggan, who camp at Diamond Head in Crowdy Bay National Park. Mr Duggan said:

I set about finding out the cost of a 2 night stay in the park for my family of 2 adults and 2 children aged 8 and 6. To my astonishment it was going to cost us $60.00 for a 2 night stay plus an additional $21 for a park usage fee for the 3 days or part thereof we would be in the park. That is a total of $81.00 for a weekend away with no clean drinking water no hot water no electricity no free firewood and no marked out sites.

I believe the Government has got this wrong and should re-examine this increase. It is simply misleading for the Government to justify the increases because the consumer price index has increased. It is clearly a gouging exercise and it is very evident not only from the letters I have received but also from a check of the various campsites on the National Parks website that the fees have increased by significantly more than the consumer price index. The Government should reconsider the matter. The imposition of these increased fees will result in people not using the national parks facilities or doing the wrong thing by camping for free in other areas. This will create all sorts of problems with irresponsible people leaving rubbish. At least National Parks has some control over what happens in the camping areas, but these increased fees will price people out of those camping areas. I call on the Government to reconsider the situation.

Mr GRANT McBRIDE (The Entrance) [12.05 p.m.]: Today, like workers across Australia, I acknowledge the sad passing of Bernie Banton, a champion of the rights of workers and a champion person. I first met Bernie Banton while waiting for a lift on level seven in Parliament House. He was in the company of Greg Combet on his way to a meeting with the then Premier Bob Carr. It was in the early stages of his campaign to seek justice from James Hardie Industries for workers who had contracted cancer during their employment with Hardies in the manufacture of asbestos-based building products.

The natural bonhomie, ready smile, engaging personality, absolute sincerity and dedicated commitment to justice for workers was patently obvious in the shortest of conversations with Bernie. I had worked in the building and construction industry and had handled asbestos products without protection before the risks were fully appreciated, so I was more than interested in Bernie's crusade. Given that his crusade was based on actions taken more than 30 years ago, I really thought he was pushing the proverbial uphill. Like so many, I thought this was a mountain too high even for a man of Bernie's character and determination. He proved us all wrong. Bernie was an example to all in that no matter the size of the job, a determined, courageous and indefatigable character can climb mountains and overcome seemingly impossible tasks. In the Sydney Morning Herald of Wednesday 28 November 2007 under the obituary headline "A fighter's farewell" the article spoke of Bernie in these terms:

Banton once described himself as "hard to live with at the best of times" and admitted to a stubborn streak and a lively temper. He also had a quick sense of humour, spoke plainly and hid none of his emotions.

After a long meeting last year to persuade John Howard to give favourable tax treatment to the new compensation fund, he recalled that he began to cry while describing the impact of asbestos diseases on sufferers and their families. Moments later he berated the lawyer who accompanied him to the meeting, Slater & Gordon partner Ken Fowlie, for ignoring his advice to get a haircut to meet the Prime Minister.

Bernie was a character—indeed, one I believe everyone admires. Bernie's success in partnership with the trade union movement and the support of former New South Wales Premier Bob Carr to take on a huge multinational company, which even moved offshore to Holland to avoid the Australian legal system, arguably is one of the great wins for working people in Australia. The success of his campaign rippled right across the western industrialised world: an international company was held accountable for the damage done to workers during their employment.

The problems associated with asbestos are now well known to the broader community and changes have been made to the raw materials in the manufacture of fibreboard, which is used in the building industry throughout the world. This change in material to fibre-reinforced cement by replacing asbestos fibres with wood pulp fibre was in recognition of the cancerous effects of asbestos. Despite the company's recognition of the carcinogenic nature of asbestos, it decided to take the fight to the victims in an effort to avoid compensation. I would have thought that the popular view at that stage was that the workers would be crushed underfoot—but it was not to be so.

Bernie became the public face of the campaign and sat through every day of the court hearings, his health permitting. In a tribute to Bernie I heard it said that his objective was to put a human face to the legal action. When the legal tussles were going on in the courts, everyone in the courts was reminded that this case was about victims—victims who, through their contact with asbestos, were doomed to a long and painful death. Having watched the slow and painful death from cancer of my elder brother over a three-year period, and I acknowledge that every member of this Parliament has experienced similar situations in some form or another, I believe the plight of these workers touched the spirit of all Australians.

Bernie is the Australian story. He was a humble man—a hard, tough, manual worker who worked in what we would now call a dirty industry, with his brothers, who have predeceased him. When compensation for affected workers was going nowhere, when the company put up the legal walls to fight off the challenge of the workers, when the workers in that industry were rapidly passing away due to illness, one man stood up and gave the rest of his life to seeking justice for others. With the help and support of the Australian trade union movement, led by Greg Combet, and of the New South Wales Carr Labor Government, Bernie won the battle. As Kevin Rudd, the Prime Minister of Australia, said on the evening of Saturday 24 November, which was repeated by Premier Morris Iemma in this place on Tuesday 27 November, I now say, "We salute you Bernie Banton."

Ms TANYA GADIEL (Parramatta—Parliamentary Secretary) [12.10 p.m.]: I thank the member for The Entrance for his acknowledgment of Bernie Banton. Bernie was, and is, an Australian hero, but in the electorate of Parramatta—which I am privileged to represent—he was, and is, our local hero because James Hardie was located in the electorate of Parramatta and Bernie was a local boy. I will remember him with love and gratitude. He was a tremendous fighter and my condolences go to Karen and his family. One of the things I will never forget about Bernie, aside from the way he fought, is his wicked sense of humour.

One of the last times I saw Bernie was at the opening of the Church Street Mall in Parramatta when he proudly showed me a photograph and said, "Guess who this is?" I looked at the photograph of a very buxom brunette. It was a photograph of Erin Brockovich, whom he had met the night before. I said, "Wow!" He said, "I don't think they're real, but she was great." I will never forget Bernie for that. He was a wonderful, wonderful man, and I again congratulate the member for The Entrance on putting on record our love of him.

Mr DARYL MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [12.12 p.m.]: I raise concerns on behalf of 13 individuals with a disability and their families who have recently received notification from the Baptist Community Transport Service that they will no longer be eligible to use the service from 1 January 2008 due to the service's funding arrangements, which permit it to only transport people for day-to-day living activities in the community. The sole purpose of the service for these people was for medical, social and shopping needs.

The 13 adult individuals affected attend Kurrajong Waratah services and are all aged between 35 and 53. The policy that the Baptist Community Transport is now enforcing has been the policy since the community transport service was initiated many years ago. Previous management of the service authorised these individuals to be picked up at times outside the times set out in its policy. The current Baptist Community Transport management team inherited what they are calling a "grey area", although they had spare capacity funds available to cover the cost.

Baptist Community Transport has been in service for the past 3½ years and has known about this situation but has not taken action until now. Families were not informed that their position was tenuous and that they could be removed from the service at any time. The exit strategy for these people has been left to the last minute and without a solution to date. Public meetings were held on 5 November 2007 and 13 November 2007 to try to find a solution to this problem. Representatives from the parents, families, Baptist Community Transport, the Ministry of Transport, Kurrajong Waratah, DAN and several other services attended, but to date no real solution has been achieved.

Andrew Proctor, Regional Coordinator, Riverina Murray, from the Ministry of Transport has attended the two meetings. He explained to the families that there is currently no budget or pot of money available from the Government to ensure a long-term solution to this matter. There are three possible solutions. First, transport by taxi, but taxis are at 100 per cent of capacity now, and there is also the cost factor. For example, it will cost one family $24.30 one way, and that is with a half-price taxi concession docket. One family already transports their daughter more than 50 per cent of the time and requires transport for only four trips a week.

Another solution is bus spare capacity, using the local Wagga Wagga services, Kurrajong Waratah and other outlying community transport services that travel to Wagga Wagga. In time, no doubt, these services also will adhere strictly to policy and the same situation will arise. This is also not a long-term solution. Baptist Community Transport's solution was for Kurrajong Waratah to fundraise to buy a bus and employ a driver, and also cover associated costs to pick up the people affected. Kurrajong Waratah's current transport situation is the same as exists with the taxi company: they are at 100 per cent of capacity and do not currently have spare funds just lying around to alleviate this problem. Fundraising takes time, which is something people do not have because the cut-off date is 1 January 2008.

Parents and families transport their children at their own cost and in their own time. Most parents are elderly and have relied on this service for their own wellbeing and financial relief. In some cases if a transport service is not available the individual will not attend his or her employment or service and the respite the families receive will be lost, which will more than likely affect their health as well. The solution is additional State Government funding. The families' preferred outcome is for Baptist Community Transport to continue its service for these individuals and not to take on new individuals outside this policy. Some of the individuals have been transported by the service for up to 15 years.

I understand that the Minister for Transport has stated that no funds are available to fix this problem. Clearly, these people have been let down by the system. I understand that Baptist Community Transport has been, of its own volition, transporting individuals with disabilities, and these are some of the same people I referred to earlier in this place who required respite care but who had been lost in the system. Many of these individuals are the same people who did not have allocated respite care, which severely disadvantaged them. It appears that they have been forgotten again in the system.

I appeal to the Ministers in charge to put this on the agenda and solve this crisis. They are great people; they work in our community and we are very proud of them. In fact, I attended Kurrajong Waratah's fiftieth anniversary to celebrate the great achievements of people with disabilities. I urge the Minister responsible to find some funds to give these young people the services they need to continue to have an enjoyable and productive life in our community.

Mr DAVID HARRIS (Wyong) [12.17 p.m.]: Many in our community are not really aware of the extent to which our police members and local citizens put their personal safety on the line every day to protect our society. I was very pleased and honoured therefore to attend the Tuggerah Lakes Local Area Command Medal Ceremony last Monday 26 November. This ceremony was to present national and police medals, police medallions, Commissioner's Commendations for Courage, Region Citations, Certificates of Service and Command Certificates. The ceremony started with a wonderful rendition of the National Anthem by the Wyong Christian School Choir followed by a blessing from Police Chaplain, Reverend Peter Mumford. Medals were presented by Assistant Commissioner Peter Parson, APM, Northern Region Commander and other awards by Superintendent Geoff McKechnie.

Today I highlight some specific deeds. At another time I will mention those who were presented with service medals, but today I will highlight specifically some of the efforts of our brave police officers and members of the public. The Commissioner's Commendation for Courage was awarded to Senior Constable Justin Baker and Senior Constable Allison Ferry for their actions on 4 January 2006. Senior Constable Baker, along with Senior Constables Allison Ferry, Todd Weston and Constable Joan Raper, attended premises at Lake Haven in response to a request for assistance from a local mental health crisis team.

Inside the premises the four police found themselves in a confined area where they were confronted by a male person armed with a sharpened pitchfork. A knife was visible in his back pocket. Upon being challenged this person lunged at the four police, despite capsicum spray being deployed defensively. A violent struggle ensued during which this person also struck out at police with the large knife he had in his possession. The male was eventually restrained by the combined efforts of the four members of the Police Force. A second knife was later found secreted on his person. These officers displayed outstanding courage, devotion to duty and bravery, and their actions are highly commended.

A Commissioner's Certificate of Merit is a New South Wales Police Force award issued under the authority of the Commissioner of Police to recognise outstanding work under hazardous circumstances or outstanding performance of duty. This certificate was awarded to Senior Constable Anthony Hampton who, on 13 June 2003, whilst performing highway patrol duties, chased and subdued an offender with the assistance of bystanders, even though he was injured in the struggle. He had attended the vicinity of the Wyong railway station and located the offender in a nearby store. He closed on the suspect and attempted to place him in custody. A violent struggle ensued where the offender produced a screwdriver and inflicted injuries on Senior Constable Hampton. During this incident Senior Constable Hampton received significant ankle injuries. He refused to release his grip on the offender despite these injuries. He finally disarmed the offender and effected the arrest with the assistance of bystanders.

In relation to another incident, a Northern Region Commander's Commendation was awarded to Mr Craig Gilday. On 8 August 2006, without regard for his own safety, Mr Gilday, along with another member of the public, Mr Castle, tackled an armed offender who had committed a bag snatch within the Tuggerah SupaCenta. A violent struggle ensued, with the offender producing a 15-centimetre knife to avoid apprehension. Despite suffering injuries from the struggle and while the armed offender continued threatening further harm, the commitment of both Mr Gilday and Mr Castle did not waver in maintaining their hold on the offender until the arrival of police. Mr Gilday was commended by the New South Wales Police Force for his courageous actions and community spirit. In addition to the actions of Mr Gilday and Mr Castle, three other members of the public were recognised for their assistance in this incident: Mr Arthur Czarnecki, Mr Dennis Ryan and Ms Moria Ryan. They also provided valuable assistance to Mr Gilday and Mr Castle in securing and removing the knife from the offender's grip and detaining the offender until the arrival of police.

A Commander's Commendation was awarded to Constable Matthew Hudson for his actions during a domestic violence incident when he subdued a violent offender who was under the influence of an illicit drug, while maintaining concern and support for a fellow officer who had been injured. On 14 October 2005 Constable Hudson, in company with Senior Constable Michelle Stone, responded to a domestic violence incident at Gorokan. Upon arrival an extremely aggressive and violent male, who was under the influence of an illicit drug, confronted the officers. As a result of the offender resisting arrest and assaulting police, Senior Constable Stone sustained a dislocated elbow and was unable to continue to assist Constable Hudson in restraining the male any further. Constable Hudson was able to subdue the offender until other police officers arrived. The community's thanks go to all of these upstanding private citizens and police. I look forward to bringing to the attention of the House further stories of awards ceremonies highlighting the bravery and efforts of people in our community and our police officers.

Mr JOHN WILLIAMS (Murray-Darling) [12.22 p.m.]: On behalf of the Deniliquin community, which has a population of 7,000 and is situated on the Edwards River, I draw to the attention of the House that for the past three years the community, particularly the business sector, has suffered the effects of the drought and more recently a reduction of 70 from the workforce at the rice mill. The Deniliquin community not only has witnessed a collapse in the economy of the district but also has had the challenging problem of a loss of water from the weir pool. Traditionally throughout the Christmas holidays Deniliquin is host to Victorian visitors and visitors from other parts of New South Wales who enjoy the area's summertime water sports. As a result of the reduction of water in the weir pool, visitation numbers are reducing dramatically. Fishing competitions and other events associated with water sports have been cancelled. The Deniliquin business community is very concerned about the immediate future to the point that, if the water level of the weir pool is restored, they are prepared to contribute $100,000 to cover evaporation.

It is the usual annual practice for the weir pool's water level to be lowered in the winter months and for restoration of the weir pool to occur in spring. This year the weir pool water level was lowered, but there was no restoration. The water level needs to be raised by 810 centimetres. The weir pool is a tributary of the Stevens Weir. If the water level could be raised, Deniliquin could revive its traditional activities and the district's commerce over the Christmas holidays. The Deniliquin community relies heavily on tourism. Christmas time and the summer holidays are of major significance to the economy of the region as the district is host to many families who visit the area to enjoy its traditional recreational pursuits.

The other issue concerning my electorate is associated with the West Corurgan Irrigation Scheme, which is east of Berriga. The area has 281 registered irrigators and stock and domestic users of water. They have had no access to stock and domestic water. Consequently attempts to resolve problems associated with stock and domestic water resources not being available have led people in the area to purchase water from tankers. Farmers obviously are feeling the effects of not being able to access stock and domestic water in the usual manner. With a minimum pulse through the water supply system, they would be able to access a water supply, as has been their practice in the past. If that access could be restored, it will enable them to enjoy their lives a little more than they are at present.

I am well aware of problems in the border district of my electorate as regards the plans for the Murray River. I recognise the efforts of the Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water, Mr Phil Koperberg, and the support he has given to irrigators in my electorate. Obviously it behoves me to speak on behalf of communities and irrigators who are continually challenged by events that cause them distress. Most recently I visited Merrin Creek. The Minister took steps to have water pulsed through Merrin Creek so that local families could access water. A similar arrangement could be made for irrigators associated with the West Corurgan Irrigation Scheme.

One only has to visit farms in the area and see an irrigator pulling fly-blown sheep out of an irrigation channel or see farmers hand-feeding stock to realise that concerns of farmers who are experiencing difficulty in providing a secure water supply for domestic and stock use are very real, and that farmers are under great pressure. Last week a group of farmers visited me to express their concerns. I draw those concerns to the attention of the House because I am well aware of their situation as a result of restricted access to water. On behalf of the people of Deniliquin and the irrigators of West Corurgan, I ask the Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water, if possible, to give consideration to satisfying the water supply needs of my electorate to put Deniliquin back on the map. It would enable my constituents to enjoy the tourism benefits derived from events they traditionally hold throughout the Christmas holidays, thereby putting back some Christmas spirit into the community.

Mr MATTHEW MORRIS (Charlestown) [12.27 p.m.]: I share with the House recent information on completion of stage one of a road works project on Hillsborough Road in the Charlestown electorate. It was very pleasing that yesterday at 10.00 a.m. new traffic signals were activated. That was the icing on the cake for the $3.5 million project that has been funded by the Iemma Government. I am very pleased that the project has passed through the planning stages and has been brought to completion. I am sure that in due course, as motorists at settle into the new arrangements on Hillsborough Road, they too will acknowledge that, while the procedure has been challenging, the outcome will be of great benefit to the community. Well into the future, the new signals will provide a means of safe traffic management, particularly for people turning right onto Hillsborough Road from service roads catering for numerous businesses in the area.

The project did not come about easily. It took many months of planning and meetings in my office with key people. I take this opportunity to mention some of the key players: Ms Jenny Barrie from the Warners Bay Business Chamber, Mr Ken Smith, who is one of our local business people, Mr Ken Freestone and David Pavey from the Lake Macquarie City Council who have been fantastic in getting the project together, and Mr Ken Saxby and Mr Kevin Webster from the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA]. Over many months of meetings in my office, a proposal was formulated. Later the proposal was exhibited. On two occasions I briefed the Warners Bay Business Chamber to relay the scope of the work, the timetable and the benefits to be derived from the project.

I place on the record that our work is not finished. The historically more dangerous section of Hillsborough Road still requires a great deal of work. Stage two is subject to a development application for a private development that has been lodged with the Lake Macquarie City Council. If the development is approved, it will generate a need for significant road works further along Hillsborough Road. We are working with the council to try to obtain the best outcome possible from that development. Obviously, as part of that, we will endeavour to obtain a contribution towards the cost of upgrading Hillsborough Road.

Further along Hillsborough Road we need to think about stage three of the project, which must run from Crockett Street to the Charlestown bypass. Crockett Street has been a problem for the community for quite some time, and I will be pleased when major upgrade works commence officially to address safety issues at the Crockett Street intersection. But the aim of the game is to have a dual carriageway from Warners Bay to the Charlestown bypass. We have a lot of work ahead of us but we have an excellent team—all the right players—together. We are all of the same mind—which can be difficult to achieve in itself—and we are committed to seeing through future stages to finalise the work on Hillsborough Road.

About 24,000 vehicles use the road each day, and I have travelled along it on numerous occasions. The commercial area on Hillsborough Road is particularly chaotic at Christmas. In coming weeks it will be interesting to see the effect of the current roadwork, as people get used to the altered traffic arrangements. Our priorities are safety and traffic management. The traffic signals have been structured in such a way as to ensure that there is minimal disruption to through traffic as well as safe access for consumers who frequent the businesses situated along Hillsborough Road. We have also factored in cycleways and pedestrian movement, because pedestrian traffic will increase over time. It is a great project and a credit to the team, which worked extremely hard to complete stage one. I look forward to the challenges that lie ahead and to the ultimate completion of work on Hillsborough Road.

Mr ROB STOKES (Pittwater) [12.32 p.m.]: I wish the member for Charlestown all the best with the Hillsborough Road work. As members will be aware, most high schools organise very successful work experience programs. At present I am pleased to be hosting two students from schools in my electorate of Pittwater, who are spending time both in my electorate office and in Parliament House. Myles Farmer from Pittwater High School and Sam Bason from Northern Beaches Christian School are in the Speakers gallery, but they are playing a far more active role than merely observing the proceedings of Parliament. Sam and Myles told me about an issue of particular concern to young people in Pittwater and asked whether it could be raised in Parliament. My private members' statement addresses this issue—using some of their very own words.

Skateboarding is a vital element of youth culture in Mona Vale, and there is a large and growing need for enhanced skateboarding facilities in Pittwater. There is a large skating community and culture in the area, which has three separate skateboarding-specific stores. The problem is the current skateboarding facilities are scarcely adequate. If a decent skate park were provided in Mona Vale, graffiti and damage to private property could be minimised. This has proven to be the case in Canberra, which has many high-class skate parks that are used regularly. If skaters used parks located on private property the risk of damage and vandalism would be reduced significantly.

Myles and Sam explained to me that a proper skate park at Mona Vale would greatly benefit local businesses as it would attract young people and their parents to the area. Proof of this is found in the Avalon skate park, which, when redeveloped, attracted people from all over the northern beaches. The Avalon skate park is the only decent skate facility in the area. It attracts parents, who drop off their children and have lunch or coffee while their children skate. The teenage skaters make trips to the shops for lunch and then return to the park. Beyond a doubt, a skate park would encourage local economic growth and help small businesses, such as the skateboarding shops that I have mentioned.

But Myles and Sam have informed me that a skate park would benefit more than the local economy. If the program were to go ahead it would provide an artistic outlet in the area for people who might otherwise use their skills to spray illegal graffiti. Instead of employing their skills nefariously, young artists would have the freedom to practise their art and develop culturally. Graffiti is a bit of a scourge in the electorate of Pittwater, and I am sure that many members will commiserate with me on that score. The Avalon and Manly skate parks have been successful in reducing the incidence of local graffiti. In this way the project would beautify a civic space and prevent private areas from being defaced. Another welcome aspect of the park is that it would discourage bored youths, who have nothing particular to do, from loitering in the area.

A local skateboard shop owner made the point that there are many different types and styles of skateboarding and the current skate-bowl facility at Mona Vale—among its other inadequacies— accommodates only one of them. The skate-bowl at Mona Vale is an iconic skating facility but it caters to only one form of skating. The shopkeeper went on to note that an increasingly popular form of skating that most skate parks accommodate is street or urban skating. The urban style of skateboarding uses terrain such as steps and ledges, and is probably responsible for a lot of damage around the Mona Vale commercial area. Enhancing facilities at the existing skate park would minimise the risk of such damage in the future.

Skating is also a great way of addressing the serious problem of childhood obesity. A skate park would give young people more opportunities to get off the couch and participate in the great sport of skating. It would also provide enhanced social opportunities. I am pleased to note that plans are already underway to upgrade the current skate park at Kitchener Park in Mona Vale. I am working closely with the council in preparing the plan. I understand that the council intends to draw up a master plan for the entire Kitchener Park precinct incorporating many sporting facilities, the linchpins of which will be the skate park and the skate-bowl that I mentioned. Obviously the reason that Myles and Sam were eager for me to raise this matter in the House today is that the program will involve funding from the Government, for which we will apply in due course. I congratulate Myles and Sam on their work in preparing this statement. I think there is a very good chance that in future we will see them not in the gallery but on the floor of the House, delivering their own statements.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY (Maroubra—Parliamentary Secretary) [12.37 p.m.]: Today I again raise the issue of Malabar Headland. I referred to it in my inaugural speech and during private members' statements on 6 April 2006 and 10 May 2007. Malabar Headland is an area in my electorate located between Maroubra and Malabar that is one of the largest and best areas of quality bushland left in the eastern suburbs. It covers 177 hectares of headland, and since 1907 has been used as a rifle range. Malabar Headland is recognised as an area of national significance, and the eastern and western sections of the headland are listed on the register of the National Estate and the New South Wales heritage register. It contains many bird and animal species, Aboriginal engravings, middens, burial sites of the Dharug-speaking Aboriginal people who used to inhabit the area, and significant World War II coastal defence historical sites, including forts, gun emplacements, underground defence facilities and a sunken munitions railway. All these items are abandoned and ruinous.

The position of the local Labor representatives at Federal, State and local government levels—indeed, councillors of all political persuasions on Randwick City Council are unanimous in their views—is that the rifle range activities currently conducted on the site must be relocated. We have consulted the shooters involved and secured their agreement in the matter. We believe the site should become public open space and a national park. This has been my longstanding position and it is the position held by my political predecessor in the seat of Maroubra, former Premier Bob Carr, Laurie Brereton and the new Federal Minister for Environment, Heritage and Arts, and member for Kingsford Smith, Peter Garrett. I take this opportunity to congratulate Peter Garrett on his re-election as member for Kingsford Smith—with an increased margin—on Saturday last and on his ascension yesterday to the post of Federal environment Minister.

The problem is that the Commonwealth Government's position with regard to the headland has been inconsistent over the years. In 1998 John Fahey, the Commonwealth Minister for Finance, announced that $9 million had been set aside in the Commonwealth Federation Fund to relocate the shooters, to provide open space on the headland and to hand that land over to the people of my electorate and the State. Following that former Premier Bob Carr announced that a new site had been located for the shooters because they required a range of about 1,000 metres for the Queen's Shoot. However, since 1998 the Commonwealth position has remained inconsistent.

The Minister responsible for the headland, Gary Nairn, recently sent letters to various parties saying that the Commonwealth believed that the shooters should be allowed to remain on the headland indefinitely and that he was in the process of negotiating a new licence agreement. I understand that that licence has not been executed. The election of the Rudd Government on Saturday changes the situation with regard to the headland. As I said, the New South Wales Government's position and now the Federal Government's position is likely to be that the shooters be relocated and that the headland be handed over.

How do we progress this now? Firstly, we should acknowledge that the shooters conduct themselves legitimately and that their activities on the headland for a century or more have resulted in its being so well preserved: the fact that people cannot walk across it means that the bushland has been preserved. If it were not for the fact that shooters have been using the area there would probably be home units all over the site. I have spoken to the Hon. Robert Brown from the Shooters Party, who eloquently makes the case for his members, and to Minister Tony Kelly this morning, who concurs with my position. The New South Wales Government and the new Federal Government should talk to the shooters and reassure them that we respect their activities and acknowledge that they need to negotiate in good faith and find a suitable alternative facility. After that we must find out what has happened to the $9 million in the Federation Fund. I hope it is still there. We should expend those funds to take care of the shooters and to give them guaranteed tenure and security—they certainly do not have it now. We should then hand over the headland as open space, and possibly a national park. [Time expired.]

Mr PETER DRAPER (Tamworth) [12.42 p.m.]: It is of great concern that I must again speak on behalf of school bus and truck operators in the Barraba district regarding an issue we believed was resolved in August last year. However, yet again a question mark is hanging over the future of the Roads and Traffic Authority's heavy vehicle inspection scheme in the town. In May last year I wrote to the Minister for Roads, the Hon. Eric Roozendaal, regarding a decision by the Roads and Traffic Authority to cancel inspections in Barraba. A response from the Minister in July 2006 stated:

I am further advised that the Barraba inspection site possesses basic inspection facilities and will remain as a HVIS inspection site. Should an alternative inspection site with improved facilities and equipment in the area become available, Barraba inspection site will be reviewed.

I fast forward to November 2007 and my recent meeting in Barraba with the local bus operators. When they tried to make bookings for 2008, Tamworth Roads and Traffic Authority office informed them the Barraba facility's ongoing operation was again under review. One bus operator rang the Tamworth office on 9 September to book an inspection anytime during November, right through until 26 January 2008, when his vehicle registration is due. He was told that the only available date in 2007 was fully booked and that no further bookings were being taken for the Barraba site in 2008. A further letter from Minister Roozendaal in August 2006, stated:

HVIS inspections must be conducted within a three month period prior to the registration renewal date. To allow operators a reasonable time to arrange inspections, bookings can be made up to 6 months in advance. The RTA also monitors bookings, and can open additional time slots if there is increased demand for inspections.

The situation being experienced by heavy vehicle operators in Barraba and the information I have received from the Minister are in direct conflict. Barraba residents are now questioning whether the Roads and Traffic Authority is trying to close this vitally important service by stealth, while at the same time providing the Minister with misleading information. Previously the Barraba service was open for three days in every three months, giving local bus and truck owners 12 days a year to have their vehicles inspected in the town. Currently the authority has reduced the service to one day every two months, or only six days per year. Naturally it is much harder to secure a booking.

The Government must carefully consider the consequences of closing this service in Barraba, especially the inconvenience and additional costs for heavy vehicle operators from across the Barraba district. It is nearly 200 kilometres from Barraba to Tamworth and back. If the 11 Barraba school buses are forced to travel to Tamworth for inspections this will involve 22 trips per year. If we add to this the many local trucks needing to make the journey we see that the result is a large number of unnecessary heavy vehicle movements, increasing the wear and tear on what is already a very busy local road. Surely it makes more sense to have two inspectors jump in a ute, travel to Barraba and provide the service, rather than to have large numbers of heavy vehicles on the road increasing risks to other road users.

Economic consequences must also be considered because a driver is required for at least three hours to travel to Tamworth and back, at a cost of more than $110. In addition, fuel costs around $90, and there is unnecessary wear and tear on the vehicle And they still have to pay an inspection fee of $100. These bus operators are single-vehicle owner-operators who all have other jobs or activities between runs, causing a further loss of income. Any inspection in Tamworth must be carried out between the morning and afternoon school runs. The Roads and Traffic Authority insists that the buses must be clean inside and out, including under the body, and this is virtually impossible to achieve when the vehicles must travel nearly 100 kilometres from the home base after completing the morning run and be back in time for the afternoon run.

Because the operators' depots and mechanics are in Barraba, if a vehicle is found to be defective in Tamworth there is no opportunity for the owner to have the problem fixed and return to the inspection site to have the defect notice lifted on the same day. Not being from Tamworth, these operators do not have a relationship with the city's mechanical repairers, making it extremely difficult for them to get rapid assistance. These people give priority to their regular customers and for someone from out of town to be fitted in is not always possible.

Another bone of contention is that the authority seems to be intent on closing the Barraba service. The Tamworth office regularly sends inspectors to Barraba to undertake roadside checks, particularly during the harvest season. It seems hypocritical that inspectors will still travel to the town, while the Roads and Traffic Authority forces all the local heavy vehicle owners into an unnecessary journey, causing road damage that will cost much more than providing the service would in the long term. Locals believe that good Roads and Traffic Authority management could see a combination of roadside inspections with a regular inspection service. Towns such as Barraba have had far too many services withdrawn over the past 30 years, and the community has had enough. This service is vital for Barraba and it must be retained. I ask Minister Roozendaal to intervene and preserve Barraba's ability to have regular local heavy vehicle inspections.
Mr ANDREW FRASER (Coffs Harbour—Deputy Leader of The Nationals) [12.47 p.m.]: I wish to praise the Young Achievement Australia organisation. I had the privilege earlier this week to attend its thirtieth annual presentation awards. Young Achievement Australia involves a group of people who, on a limited budget, do a great job in fulfilling the organisation's motto of "empowering our next generation of business leaders". It was fantastic to attend this function and to see what young secondary and tertiary students have done across New South Wales and Australia. These young people set up companies with the goal of producing and marketing a product. They work with mentors, who oversight what they are doing and provide assistance, and turn these small companies into profit-making businesses, and compete with one another for these annual awards.

Schools from throughout the State are encouraged to participate in this scheme each year. I have attended the Young Achievement Awards presentations and demonstrations in my electorate every year. I suggest that every member take the opportunity to attend one of these functions. However, if they do they should take a few bob because they will probably have to buy the products. One cannot show favouritism. At last year's event in Coffs Harbour we had wristbands, wine stands and many other products.

These young people do a great job and are very proud of what they have achieved with the assistance of Pam Smith, the chief executive officer, and Helen Smith. I had the privilege of sitting with them at the function. They work with a shoestring budget and a great deal of enthusiasm. The organisation's regional representatives generally work on this scheme on a part-time basis. In reality they are involved in charity work, because the remuneration they get is not great. Channel 10, BHP Billiton, Indigenous Business Australia, Accenture, Amcor, the Australian Taxation Office—it is always into business—De Bortoli Wines, Fisher and Paykel, MasterCard, the New South Wales Business Chamber and Swiss Re sponsored the evening and the prizes. Prize sponsorship is not the only thing needed but I encourage the New South Wales Business Chamber to look at increasing its support of Young Achievement Australia because the young people involved are often the leaders of tomorrow. Over the years many people who have gone through this program have become middle or senior management within small business and other related business activities within Australia.

I do not want to single out anyone because so many people from all over Australia received an award but the one that took my fancy was the Secondary Company of the Year award. It went to Yabra, which comprised a very enthusiastic group of young kids from Narooma High School, from a town of about 8,000 people. They did not have the mentoring that others got: for example, some schools and tertiary organisations in Sydney got sponsorship from Sydney University and the University of New South Wales. Yabra did it tough and on its own and produced environmentally aware stickers of the type seen on the back of cars—about an inch high by six inches. The stickers showed a light bulb and a dripping tap with the slogan "Turning off is a turn on".

The sticker promoted consciousness of environmental issues, especially the carbon into the atmosphere that electricity generation causes, and asked people to turn off lights and taps. By simply turning a light off when leaving a room people are improving the atmosphere. In the middle of one of the country's most drastic droughts we all know that turning off a tap is vital to preserving water and to ensuring a good, clean water supply. I appeal to the Government and businesses to support Young Achievement Australia, and Pam and her crew, not just with lip service. Businesses and the State and Federal governments should provide money to ensure that these awards are carried on year in, year out because they promote the business people of the future who are needed by our great economy and country.

Private members' statements noted.

The House adjourned at 12.52 p.m. until Tuesday 4 December 2007 at 2.15 p.m.