Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Assembly, 10 April 2002, Corrected Copy)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Wednesday 10 April 2002
______

Mr Speaker (The Hon. John Henry Murray) took the chair at 10.00 a.m.

Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.

DEATH OF HAROLD GEORGE COATES, OBE, A FORMER MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Mr SPEAKER: It is with regret that I inform the House of the death on 9 April 2002 of Harold George Coates, a former member of the Legislative Assembly who represented the electorates of Hartley and Blue Mountains from 1 May 1965 to 2 April 1976. Harold was the Treasurer of the Former Members Association since its formation. On behalf of the House I have extended to the family the deep sympathy of the Legislative Assembly in the loss sustained.

Members and officers of the House stood in their places.

RACING LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (BOOKMAKERS) BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 19 March.

Mr ARMSTRONG (Lachlan) [10.02 a.m.]: I lead on behalf of the Opposition. This is the first debate I have had the opportunity to participate in since my appointment as the shadow Minister for Gaming and Racing. I have looked forward to this appointment for some time, and I look forward to working with and participating in the colourful and important racing industry, which in New South Wales comprises the three codes of greyhound, harness and thoroughbred racing. The racing industry is a major employer and entertainer and a major generator of income and contributor towards the wealth of this State. Further, greyhound and horse racing are very much a part of the culture of New South Wales. I look forward to working with the Minister for Gaming and Racing, whom I know very well. We will work for the betterment of the industry at all times, despite the fact that, no doubt, we will hurl a few hand grenades at each other from time to time in this place.

The Opposition, after extensive consideration of this matter and rigorous debate—lasting no longer than three minutes—decided to support the legislation, for a few simple reasons. As I have said, racing is an important industry in this State. One area that has made racing successful in this country has been the continuity of bookmaking in the old British tradition. I believe that bookmaking began in Britain. We have had healthy debates about the need for bookmakers. The industry has always had colourful characters, and a race meeting without a bookmaker is not a race meeting. I have been to a race meeting without bookmakers in Hong Kong and in Malaysia, where there was electronic betting and electronic horses. The races were run on a screen. The meeting was as dull as yesterday's newspaper. There was no character or spirit. We need bookmakers for no other reason than to add colour and excitement to race meetings and to cater for Australians of Irish backgrounds and other backgrounds who enjoy a bit of humour. Bookmakers are an integral and essential part of a successful racing industry.

As the Minister said in his second reading speech, in recent times there have been significant threats to the future of bookmakers and the bookmaking industry because of interstate rivalry, particularly from the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory. Recently, the Northern Territory racing industry has been expanded by the migration of a couple of New South Wales bookmakers—I believe Mark Read was one such bookmaker who went to Darwin—and the creation of Centrebet out of Alice Springs. Those businesses have grown. More importantly, there is an intention—I believe it may have already happened—that Ladbrokes and Hills, two of the largest betting organisations in the world, will have access to the racing industry through the Northern Territory.

It is a simple equation: if we allow the racing industry turnover in New South Wales to be captured in part by other States, let alone by international companies, then we damage the viability of our racing industry and we will probably lose the bookmakers. First, we lose the income; second, we damage the future of the industry; and, third, we take out the colour and character that bookmakers add to the racing industry. As the Minister indicated in his second reading speech, the bill will allow bookmakers to form their operations into companies. The Opposition does not oppose the process that would apply in that regard. Previously the three controlling bodies of racing could register or license only individuals as bookmakers. The bill provides bookmakers with the option of structuring their operations as a proprietary company. Persons who are licensed as bookmakers with one of the three racing controlling bodies will be able to apply for registration as a bookmaker company within the same controlling body. That is the key to the whole process.

Part of the objects of the bill is to provide that any debt incurred by a company in carrying on business as a bookmaker so authorised is enforceable jointly and severally against all persons who are directors of the company at the time the debt is incurred. That is a very important part of the legislation. Gambling is gambling and many a punter has lost his money. But sometimes the bookmaker loses his money too. It is essential that bookmakers are able to honour their debts. On that basis, the Opposition supports the bill. To put a personal view, I would like both the bookmaking industry and, in particular the TAB, to pay more attention to the communication process with the public and first-time racegoers. All of us go to the races at some stage in our lives for the first time. With the complexity of particularly totalisator betting these days, the opportunities to place bets are enormous.

There are seven or eight different ways to place a bet, but it is a bit of a closed shop in its spreading of the knowledge. I would like to have endeavours made to educate or encourage the public to gain a better understanding of the betting processes so that they can also join in the great variety of opportunities and enjoy the excitement of the racing industry. That is another aspect in relation to bookmakers. Honourable members have often seen a punter ask a bookmaker at a track how to place a $2 bet on a horse at odds of two to one, to try to walk away with $5. The bookmaker will often give the punter another point—not another 500 points—because it is their first bet. Opening up the closed shop would be a service to the racing industry, particularly in the TAB in country towns. For example, touch screens, which were very popular during the Olympics and were in the foyer of Parliament House, could be used. After much deliberation and on that basis the Opposition has decided not to oppose this legislation and will not be calling for any divisions.

Mr McGRANE (Dubbo) [10.10 a.m.]: I support the Racing Legislation Amendment (Bookmakers) Bill and endorse the words of the honourable member for Lachlan in relation to the racing industry. I also endorse what the Minister said in his second reading speech. If I were in another place, for example, in local government, I would have to declare a pecuniary interest. I would have to say that I have and do own horses and harness racers, and I have owned dogs. It is a great sport. A lot of people love harness racing, horse racing and the dogs.

Bookmakers play an integral part in the colourful part of the lifestyle of Australians. They have been with us for a long time and since the introduction of other agencies it is more competitive for a bookmaker to survive. We all say that bookmakers are wealthy because if we punt regularly we tend to lose. It is a fact of life that at all levels the bookmaking industry is declining. The number of bookmakers at the various races is on the decline for a number of reasons—because of the TAB and interstate operations and the taxes being paid to the State Government. It is refreshing to know that the Minister has come to grips with the problem and will try to curb the decline in the number of bookmakers.

I, like the previous speaker, have been to overseas race meetings where there are no bookmakers and where bets are placed at the TAB and the Tote. It is colourless compared with having seen bookmakers give that extra odd, which gives more thrill to the gamble at a track. Whether the horse wins or loses it is always a challenge to get the right odds when punting, something that is not available through the TAB and other agencies. As the honourable member for Lachlan said, the ways that bets can be placed these days is complex and there is a need for the TAB and the Tote to explain to the general public these new and confusing innovative methods. In other States a much better explanation of these competitive methods is given compared with New South Wales.

The racing industry depends on owners of animals without which there would be no industry. Presently owners and trainers are drifting out of New South Wales to Victoria because of the prize money offered there compared to New South Wales. That problem does not relate to this bill but it will be detrimental to having quality racing in New South Wales because of the prize money being offered in other States. Owners chase the prize money because of the large amount of money that has to be paid these days for quality horses and harness racing animals. This bill is one step forward to making the bookmaking industry more competitive in New South Wales. I support the bill.

Mr FACE (Charlestown—Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development) [10.15 a.m.], in reply: I thank the honourable member for Lachlan and shadow spokesman for his contribution. I am happy that he has been appointed as the shadow spokesman on racing, which is not an industry or a pastime in which many political points are to be made. I believe that I can work with him in a more co-operative and challenging way to meet the challenges in the racing industry now and into the foreseeable future. As he and other honourable members would know, in my time as Minister I have presided over the most administrative changes in each of the codes. I will introduce a few more bills during this session in a genuine attempt to try to insulate the racing industry against further erosion of its base.

The honourable member for Lachlan and I have a common belief in the need for country racing to be able to continue in one way, shape or form as it is an integral part of the life of country people. They enjoy their meetings, whether they are picnics or non-TAB events. I have wandered around the country during the past 10 or more years as the shadow spokesman and as the Minister, which is one of the delightful aspects of holding this portfolio. As the honourable member for Lachlan said, the big challenge for racing at the moment is to attract people back to the track. We have lost a couple of generations of people away from the track for a whole host of reasons, one of which is the way people spend their disposable dollar in gambling and entertaining pursuits. At the end of the day going to the racetrack is a form of entertainment.

Unfortunately younger people have not been encouraged to go to the track in the way they were in my younger days and we have lost them. It is interesting that at the big races, the Doncaster and the Golden Slipper, a dramatic increase has occurred in the attendance of younger people. On Easter Saturday at the Doncaster and the previous week at the Golden Slipper a very large percentage of the people in attendance were under 30 years of age and that has not been seen for some time. I believe that is due to the industry finally coming to grips with marketing racing as a form of entertainment and a whole host of other things that keep people at the races during and, most importantly, after the conclusion of the race meeting.

Therefore, the big challenge in the near future is to make certain they keep the momentum. They have to sort out what race meetings are economically viable. There is no sense in running eight or ten race meetings a year if half of them lose money. The Thoroughbred Racing Board, despite some criticism from the Country Racing Council, is making some progress, which is evidenced by the number of people I see at larger race meetings. It was also evidenced by the large number of people I saw last year at the picnic race meeting on the June long weekend, and I am glad the member for Dubbo contributed. It was a picnic meeting, which was held for insurance reasons at the major club in Parkes. It was one of the largest country meetings I have been to for a long time.

Mr Armstrong: Good people.

Mr FACE: Yes, they are good people. It is interesting to note that half of the people at the meeting were probably under the age of 35, and more likely under 30. They were not necessarily watching the racing, but they were there to have a good day out.

Mr Armstrong: Watching the fillies.

Mr FACE: Yes, I imagine that they were watching the fillies both on and off track. It is a challenge to ensure that country racing, and racing generally, is preserved. It is a great sport and a great form of entertainment. I look forward to going to the Dubbo Cup on Monday week. The Dubbo club has experienced great difficulties, but it has risen above them. If Dubbo council goes ahead with its hair-brained idea to run a new road through the 1,000-metre shoot, and closes down the club for 15-odd months while it shillyshallies around with this road, which it will not build for five years, the Dubbo club will be in trouble. Recently, the Murrumbidgee club at Wagga Wagga was supposed to close down for three months, but it was ultimately closed for some 15 months. The Orange club has also suffered difficulties because it was closed down for some 18 months. I will not go into why it happened, but the club has still not recovered.

It is useless to transfer meetings to nearby towns because people will sponsor racing only in towns from which they can get some possible return or to which they are committed. With a bit of goodwill the problem with the Dubbo club should resolve itself. The legislation is an initiative to assist bookmakers in New South Wales, and demonstrates the Government's commitment to that important sector of the racing industry. We hear all about the colour provided by, and the need to have, bookies on the course. In New Zealand, our near neighbours, bookies have been outlawed since the 1920s or the 1930s. The things that make racing appealing are not apparent in New Zealand, and exactly the same thing applies to any track in America.

Coupled with the recent decision to establish the State bookmaking betting tax, the Government has provided New South Wales bookmakers with a platform to assist in ensuring their ongoing viability. The number of bookmakers has diminished because of taxation and for a whole host of reasons. At the end of May, I will intend for the first time a conference of racing Ministers. Honourable members might wonder why I have not attended all the time. In more recent years New South Wales has done most of the preparatory work for the conference, and usually it is New South Wales versus the rest, regardless of the political persuasion of the Ministers. I hope that commonsense will apply this time.

Quite rightly, the honourable member for Lachlan alluded to the problems we will have with the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory corporate bookmakers, and threats to New South Wales racing. I am pleased to hear that he has joined with me in issuing a word of warning that racing, which is an important and integral part of our community, is under threat. Currently, New South Wales and Victoria supply about 70 per cent of the racing product in this country. If we include Queensland it is probably well into the 80s. The territories and the smaller States supply the rest. I do not know how we are going to resolve this, but there are some options open to us. If the Northern Territory continues to take away turnover in this State, and there is no return to the owners who, in turn, employ the jockeys, trainers and various other people associated with the industry, we will see the demise of the industry.

As the honourable member for Lachlan said, that equates to 100,000 people. In this State alone, 50,000 people are employed either directly or indirectly in the racing industry. That is under threat at the moment because of the actions of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. The territories are racing around saying that we are trying to stifle competition and that they will take us to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. To the contrary, we are trying to preserve an industry that is important to this State. For more than one century the New South Wales racing industry has provided employment and a degree of government revenue, and it is a major recreational outlet for millions of people in this State, especially for those in the country.

Last month in this Chamber I indicated that the racing industry is confronting a crisis. For some years the Northern Territory and the ACT governments have pursued policies of licensing large bookmaking firms by enticing them with very low betting tax rates and operator-friendly regulatory regimes. The governments undertake licensing of such firms. The Ministers in both the territories can bleat all they like, but their governments are licensing the firms, which is against the respective racing industries that will receive little or no revenue from these corporate bookmaking operations. If the revenue stops there will be no more prizemoney and we will race for ribbons.

For most of this century betting or racing throughout Australia has been predicated on an unwritten agreement between the various States, Territories and racing industries. That is, the wagering operators in States and Territories—the TABs and the bookmakers—are permitted to bet on each other's racing product without the requirement to pay a fee to the racing industry in the jurisdiction conducting the racing. Once again, I emphasise that about 70 per cent of the racing product is provided by New South Wales and Victoria. There is no overt poaching of betting customers across the State or territorial borders. These principles are now being completely ignored by the two Territory governments and their wagering operators. Corporate bookmakers operating in the ACT and the Northern Territory source very little of their betting turnover from within their jurisdictions.

One does not have to be a mathematician to work out that, with the population in both the Territories, the amount of money that is physically turned over does not come from within those Territories. Rather, they target the wagering markets of the major Australian States. For the past five years I have endeavoured to alert the racing industries and governments of the major States about the dangers arising from the incursion of these operators into our betting market. I am not being critical, but up until recently I have been ignored. To date the New South Wales Government has taken a variety of measures to combat these threats. In other words, we have been on our own on this particular one.

These measures have included various legislative initiatives, increased enforcement and legal action, and the strict maintenance of restrictions on cross-border advertising by wagering operators not licensed in New South Wales. Recently, the manifestation of this threat has reached new levels. The Northern Territory Government has now licensed the United Kingdom based bookmaking firm Sportingbet to operate from the Fannie Bay racecourse in Darwin. This firm, in turn, has acquired the Vanuatu-based Number One Betting Shop, formerly owned and operated by convicted starting-price bookmaker Allan Tripp. The company and the Northern Territory Government strongly deny that Mr Tripp is still involved in the business, but some doubts remain about that matter. For instance, Mr Tripp has been quoted extensively in a Melbourne newspaper regarding the manner in which the company will now vigorously market its services in jurisdictions such as New South Wales and Victoria, in direct competition with the respective TABs.

The New South Wales Opposition says that is not a bad idea. But if the New South Wales TAB is not turning money over, there will be less money going to the race clubs and in turn to the industry, not to the government. The Opposition spokesman entirely missed the point. He probably went off half-cocked when he spoke to the newspaper. He certainly did not understand the ramifications of this attack upon the TAB, and that money generated from turnover goes back to the industry, which in turn pays prizemoney to participants. This new company, Sportingbet, will be operating side by side with Mark Read's International All Sports, Terry Lillis's Centreracing and Jupiters' Centrebet. In all four cases a major proportion of their Australian wagering business is sourced from New South Wales and similarly from Victoria. Running almost parallel to the above developments in the Northern Territory, the Australian Capital Territory Government recently licensed Sportodds.com, which is owned and operated by the prominent Sydney bookmaking family of Peter and Con Kafataris.

Ultimately, a proliferation of these types of operations will have dire consequences for the whole of the Australian racing industry. I spoke with Bob Charley of the Australian Racing Board at the recent Doncaster meeting. That board's figures show that about 100,000 people are employed in the industry, which has a capital infrastructure of hundreds of millions of dollars. All of that will be put at risk by the Northern Territory and Australian Capital Territory governments. Government taxation revenues obviously will be put at risk. Laughably, the only benefit to those two Territories is about 100 or so jobs. Compare that to the loss that will be sustained by racing in New South Wales. Remember, those two governments receive very little by way of taxation or racing industry revenues from those bookmaking operations.

I am currently meeting with senior racing industry and TAB Limited officials to identify and implement a range of measures to respond to those incursions into the New South Wales industry. Many of the measures may well be described as drastic and far-reaching. They will undoubtedly have significant effects on the racing industries and the governments of the two Territories. In that respect, I have already met with the Australian Capital Territory Minister. I also wrote to the Premier yesterday. The proposal put by the Australian Capital Territory Minister leaves a lot to be desired. In this respect, some of the measures that we will be likely to take will evoke strong criticism of the New South Wales Government and our racing industry by their counterparts in the Territories.

At this stage, although I have had some preliminary discussions with the Australian Capital Territory Minister and I am hopeful that eventually we will be able to produce a satisfactory outcome, I do not hold the same view regarding the Northern Territory, regardless of who is the responsible Minister. I wanted to put those remarks on the public record because, in the fullness of time, unless this matter is addressed, the New South Wales racing industry will face serious problems, no matter what government is in office in this State. Apart from what I said earlier about trying to get people to the track and making racing more appealing as a sporting, recreational and entertaining activity, I believe our industry is at the crossroads because of what is happening in the Territories. What is happening in those Territories could not have been anticipated.

I will repeat what I have said, what my deputy director has said on a number of occasions, and what Warren Wilson of the TAB has said about the intrusion of these international bookmaking companies into the Australian racing industry: we will be racing for ribbons, as they do in the United Kingdom, which has a different form of racing to that which we have enjoyed in New South Wales and throughout Australia. Once again I thank those who have contributed to the debate on this bill, which I commend to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

COURTS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 21 March.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [10.35 a.m.]: The Coalition does not oppose the Courts Legislation Amendment Bill. Since 1976 it has been the custom in New South Wales to appoint judges from other courts and tribunals to courts and tribunals in this State. That practice has become well-established. It is appropriate in view of the National Competition Policy and the High Court decision on restrictive practices regarding lawyers wishing to be admitted to practice in Queensland. Basically, the High Court said that there should be essentially one legal system and that a person qualified in another court should be regarded as qualified for appointment in New South Wales, either to a permanent position or to an acting position.

This bill will make various amendments that will qualify a person for appointment as a judicial officer if that person holds or has held judicial office in this State, the Territories or the Commonwealth. Alternatively, it retains the requirement that the person must have the qualification of having been for at least seven years a solicitor or a barrister. The bill provides also that the appointment of an acting judge to another office does not require that person to vacate the original offices held. This allows, for instance, a person from the Supreme Court of Victoria to be appointed an acting justice of the Supreme Court of New South Wales without that person being required to stand down from the earlier position.

The Coalition believes that the legislation is sensible. In our view, it will achieve the desired results of making sure that New South Wales courts work efficiently, ensuring that appropriate qualified people are available to take office in New South Wales, and working towards having one legal system and one court system in Australia. Though the Coalition would not be advocating that State rights in this respect be abrogated, it is important that the States, the Territories and the Commonwealth work together, on the basis of co-operative federalism, to ensure that Australia has one effective court system and one effective legal admission system, so that those qualified in one State can practise without restriction in other States, and judges from one State can hold judicial office in any other State. This will achieve the desirable objective of Australia being one country rather than a series of separate historic colonies as far as the law and legal matters are concerned. The States have had, and will continue to have, a valuable role, but there are many respects in which co-operative federalism can be properly and appropriately advanced, and the legal system is one of those areas. With those words, I indicate that the Coalition does not oppose the legislation.

Mr DEBUS (Blue Mountains—Attorney General, Minister for the Environment, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Arts) [10.40 a.m.], in reply: I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for his contribution to the debate. It seems unnecessary for me to add further to remarks made in the second reading speech. Accordingly, I commend the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

BAIL AMENDMENT (REPEAT OFFENDERS) BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 20 March.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [10.41 a.m.]: The Coalition has been raising the issue of bail for repeat offenders in and out of Parliament over a period of time. It is an issue in respect of which the Government has, as with so many other matters relating to criminal justice, been reluctantly dragged to the table. The Government cannot claim any credit for allowing a situation to develop over the past seven years in which repeat offenders simply get bail and then go out and commit further offences. One issue in particular that the New South Wales police, the Opposition and talk-back radio listeners have complained about is that of people on bail committing further offences, or being in a position to commit further offences.

I think Don Weatherburn said that the statistics reveal only a small percentage of repeat offenders, contrasted with the very high number of repeat offences, and that that is justification for the introduction of this legislation. The Coalition has long believed that it is appropriate that those who have a bad record should suffer the consequences of that bad record in bail applications. That does not in any way prejudge the fact that they are entitled to a fair trial. Of course they are entitled to a fair trial and they are entitled to have all available evidence presented at the trial. If they have served any time in custody prior to trial, they are entitled to have that take into account in respect of any sentence that is passed.

Honourable members should bear in mind that we are not dealing with first offenders; we are dealing with people who repeatedly engage in car theft or break, enter and steal offences, and who build up a record of not merely one or two offences, but hundreds and hundreds of offences. They violate people's homes and their vehicles. A significant point about this Government was made, not by the Opposition or a radio commentator, but by Michael Sexton, the Government's own Solicitor General. In his book he pointed out that the offence of break, enter and steal from a dwelling had effectively been decriminalised in New South Wales.

That is an indictment of the Government by its own Solicitor General, an indictment to which neither the Attorney General nor the Minister for Police has responded. On all accounts the offence of break, enter and steal, whether it be of a dwelling or commercial premises, is prevalent in our society. Often it is carried out in order to raise money to buy drugs. Regardless of its rationale, only a small percentage of people, around 17 per cent, are charged with break, enter and steal, a smaller percentage are convicted of the offence, and an even smaller percentage are imprisoned for that offence. As the Solicitor General said, the offence has been effectively decriminalised.

That was taken one step further when this Government instituted the police assistance line which operates at Tuggerah and at Lithgow. People have been told that if someone breaks into their home they should ring the police assistance line. A note will be made of the complaint and a number issued so that the victim of the theft can make a claim on his or her own insurance. The same procedure applies if their vehicle is broken into or stolen. It is because of the inaction of this Government, and the fact that offenders have virtually been given carte blanche to obtain bail and continue to commit offences until they come before the court, that this effective decriminalisation has occurred.

The Opposition acknowledges that the legislation is an important step in the process of re-establishing the crime of break, enter and steal from a dwelling as a criminal offence. The Government should not take any credit as it set up the police assistance line as an excuse for taking no action against this offence. It has effectively eroded the morale of the Police Service in this State so that police officers have little interest in following up complaints of break, enter and steal. The Government has centralised police so much that there is no longer good local intelligence available to enable reported offences to be followed up. Accordingly, people no longer feel that their own homes are secure or that their cars are secure.

The anecdotal evidence and the criminal justice statistics all point to one simple fact, that the number of these offences continues to rise and people have lost faith in the capacity of the State Government to resolve them. The community will hear a lot about this over the next few months. The Government and the Premier can look into the television cameras as much as they like. The Premier loves doing that. On one occasion when the Premier announced this legislation—he has announced it several times, of course—he said, "I will build more gaols. I will lock them up. You can be assured that I will build more gaols." It is the cry of the man who, after seven years, suddenly realises that he has allowed law and order to slip and slide, and that the New South Wales community has lost confidence in his ability to maintain an effective criminal justice system to protect their property, indeed to protect themselves, from criminal acts.

The Opposition believes that repeat offenders should face a presumption against bail. That does not deny that in certain exceptional circumstances there may be a reason to grant them bail. The Opposition supports the ongoing discretion of the courts in that respect. But the Opposition would also expect that if the Government is serious about the legislation as part of its campaign to combat break, enter and steal offences, car theft and other property offences that do not attract a presumption in favour of bail, it would also strengthen the Police Service, strengthen police intelligence and follow through with prosecutions to ensure that those who repeatedly commit these offences receive a gaol sentence.

There may well be arguments for a bond for adults who have committed one offence, possibly even a second offence, but offenders who repeatedly break into other people's homes or steal other people's cars should go to gaol. I and 90 per cent of the New South Wales community believe that such offenders should go to gaol. That means full-time gaol, not weekend detention or any other form of clayton's punishment. Gaol is the only remedy for repeat robbers or car thieves who have not learned a lesson. Let the Attorney General bring forward legislation to ensure that repeat offenders go to gaol. Let the Minister for Police bring forward programs to ensure that police are available to catch them.

Let us have an emphasis on using the police assistance line for intelligence gathering so that information can be gathered and effectively used instead of merely being a means by which people complete their insurance claims and notify their insurance company that the police have been informed. Let us have the police follow up those reports and provide protection to people in our community. This legislation is but one of many measures that will be necessary to make the community feel safe. It behoves the Government to make sure that the community is safe.

The safety of the community is one of the fundamental responsibilities of government. Indeed, a tenet of Roman law is that the safety of the people is the highest priority, and the safety of the people remains a fundamental responsibility of government under our legal system. People do not feel safe in the administration of this State by this Government. They are right not to feel safe because criminals have had carte blanche, and the Government's belated recognition of that problem in bringing forward this legislation shows that for the whole seven years of the Australian Labor Party's period of government in New South Wales, criminals have had carte blanche. I indicate that the Coalition does not oppose the legislation but it certainly does not believe that this bill is the answer to rising crime or to improving the community's sense of safety. The Coalition believes that much more action and many more measures will be required to fix the crime problem. I and the community doubt the capacity of the Government to meet community expectations by ensuring that a sense of safety returns to people's homes, to the streets, and to each of us when we leave our property, either our homes or our cars parked in the street.

Mr IEMMA (Lakemba—Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for Sport and Recreation, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [10.51 a.m.]: I welcome this bill, as everyone in this State should. This bill sends the strongest message yet that this Government will not tolerate criminals on our streets. If people commit crimes, the Government will lock them up. The removal of the presumption in favour of bail for certain offences does two things. It makes it harder for offenders to get back on the streets and it provides an incentive for offenders not to commit crimes. We have to get tough on repeat offenders. Police research shows that they commit 80 per cent to 90 per cent of all crimes. That means that if those people are stopped, we are well on the way to stopping crime. This bill will ensure that if people do the crime, they do the time. There will be no ifs, buts or easy options. We will haul them back in and lock them up. Some people may say that that is too harsh, but let us examine the facts. More than one person in seven who is granted bail does not front up at court. They have so little respect for the system which tries them that they simply do not front up. Rates are particularly high for people who are charged with certain offences.

The worst offenders are those who are charged with property offences. These people are quite happy to front up to a person's street to steal that person's car, to front up to a person's house to steal that person's television, or to front up to a local supermarket to steal a person's wallet or handbag, but cannot be bothered fronting up to face the music when they are caught. The passing of this bill will mean that offenders will have to face the music. If they are caught and they have committed similar offences on previous occasions, the presumption in favour of bail will be removed. All honourable members have heard the stories of the bloke who is charged with a string of offences being released on bail to commit more crimes. Well, no more: This Government is drawing a line in the sand. If criminals step over it, the Government will push them back. This bill will reinforce the tough measures that have already been introduced by the Government. The honourable member for Gosford might want to note them.

There are tough new laws on gangs that are used to recruit children, and the penalty for that offence is seven years imprisonment. Home invaders' gaol terms have been increased to 20 years. The maximum penalty for a drive-by shooting has been increased to 20 years imprisonment. The penalty for malicious wounding has been increased to 10 years imprisonment. The penalty for actual bodily harm has been increased to 10 years imprisonment, and offences involving people who have pushed drugs onto children attract a penalty that has been increased to 25 years. The use of a gun to resist arrest will result, on conviction, in imprisonment for 15 years, and carrying an illegal firearm has a penalty of 14 years. Car-jacking offences are addressed with periods of imprisonment of up to 14 years. This bill complements those changes. The people of this State will not only feel safer, but will be safer.

Mr WEST (Campbelltown) [10.56 a.m.]: This Government is committed to making communities safer. Just look at some of the Government's initiatives such as allowing people to be stopped and searched for knives, restricting access to knives, improving rights to stop and search vehicles, introducing drug house legislation that targets those dens of iniquity, and working with communities and police to develop local solutions for local problems. The Government is also working with communities to tackle some of the causes of crime. It is working to improve job prospects through projects such as the information technology summer school which was held at Campbelltown and supported by Microsoft. The Government requires consultation between councils and the police on new developments, creating safer streets by design, and is working with families at risk. Some people make a mistake in their lives and sadly end up before the law for criminal offences. The mistakes have a profound impact on an offender's future. For many, this is a once-off experience, and after having learned their lesson, they return to a productive life in our communities. There are others who continue to offend.

For offenders who are afflicted by the scourge of drugs, the Government has introduced the Drug Court trial. However, whatever the cause, repeat offenders—recidivists—continue to cause our communities many problems. Of great concern are those who reoffend while on bail. Local police spend valuable time and energy in bringing these people—those who commit the offences of shoplifting or car stealing, or who engage in other criminal behaviour while on bail—back before the courts. The police and the community are understandably unimpressed when bail is once again given to repeat offenders. The Bail Amendment (Repeat Offenders) Bill is an attempt to address the release of repeat offenders and to increase safety. Schedule 1 of item [3] to the bill removes the presumption in favour of bail when a person at the time of the alleged offence was at liberty on bail or on parole, or was serving a sentence but was not in custody, or was the subject of a good behaviour bond. The community, through the courts, places a burden of trust on the offender and gives the offender a chance. This bill deals with those who break that trust.

The bill removes the presumption in favour of bail if a person has been convicted previously of offences against section 51 of the Bail Act, namely, the offence of failing to appear before the court without reasonable excuse while on bail. Such a person is one who has previously broken the trust placed in them by the courts. The bill also removes the presumption in favour of bail for a person who has been convicted previously of one or more indictable offences. It also expands the criteria to be considered in bail applications and sets up provisions for agreements to be made for residence in accommodation by persons on bail while at liberty on bail. To ensure that the amendments are working in reducing the number of repeat offenders who commit crimes while on bail, the bill also allows for a review of the amendments in 12 months time. The Bail Amendment (Repeat Offenders) Bill builds on the Government's commitment to help police and communities work to reduce the effects of crime. This is yet another piece of legislation that is designed to enhance community safety. I commend it to the House.

Mrs PERRY (Auburn) [10.58 a.m.]: I support the bill, which makes significant amendments to the Bail Act to tighten the requirements for bail for repeat offenders. As mentioned by honourable members who preceded me in this debate, the bill will remove the presumption in favour of bail for any person who is charged with any offence while on bail, the presumption in favour of bail for any person who is charged with any offence while on a good behaviour bond or parole, the presumption in favour of bail for those who were convicted previously of failing to appear in court, and the presumption in favour of bail for any person who has previously committed any indictable offence. The bill also removes the presumption of bail for those who commit offences while serving a community-based sentence. These changes are built into a responsible framework of an overall approach to reform which includes procedural reforms by the police and the courts to bring offenders on remand to trial more quickly.

Significantly, programs such as MERIT—Magistrates Early Referral into Treatment—under which offenders are bailed into health services to treat drug problems associated with their offending, will remain a bail option. Interagency joint initiatives will be developed to both monitor and facilitate improvements in court processes, and existing programs such as MERIT and other options for early intervention will be developed in an effort to divert young people away from offending. Importantly, the bill provides for the review of these changes within 12 months. This overall approach will enhance the chance in many cases of breaking the cycle of recidivists offending and, as such, seeks to "treat the cause not only the symptom".

It is clear that there is community concern about the issue of bail. Repeat offenders while on bail, as a group, are said to be responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime in New South Wales. My constituents are rightly concerned about such activity and this bill will offer further protection to the community from the risk of repeat offenders. These reforms provide a disincentive to offenders to commit further crime while on bail. At the same time the amendments and the wider strategy of reform and monitoring provided for will strike a balance between the rights of the accused and community concern about the protection of their person and property.

As the Attorney General stated in his second reading speech, the bill is a response to a report by the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research [BOCSAR] that highlighted the increasing incidence of persons failing to appear in compliance with their bail conditions to attend at the next court date, and in response to police concern about the incidence of offenders who are granted bail and continue to reoffend whilst on bail. Police from my electorate have told me about instances of persons while on bail continuing to commit multiple offences and also failing to appear several times before the court. In one case in the past two years a 16-year-old Auburn youth has been charged with 62 offences including stealing, assault, intimidate police, assault police, resist arrest, steal motor vehicle, breach community service order and five counts of breach of bail along with numerous traffic offences. He has been arrested by police 20 times in the two-year period. On 18 occasions he was not bailed by police but was later released at court with various reporting conditions.

In another case in the past two years an 18-year-old has been charged by police 11 times with a total of 30 offences, including possess and supply prohibited drugs, two counts of goods in custody, two counts of failure to comply with bail conditions, affray, seven counts of assault police in execution of their duty, use offensive weapon to prevent lawful detention, intimidate police officer in execution of duty, resist officer in execution of duty, threaten injury to person with intent to prevent lawful detention, possess housebreaking implements, robbery in company and receiving. On the occasions the offender has been charged in the past two years while on bail he has continued to offend and has been charged with fail to appear on two occasions.

These examples highlight that reoffending on bail has a significant impact on the community, police and court resources. The very purpose of this bill is to target these offenders who are at high risk in order to prevent their reoffending while the matter is being dealt with by the courts. They may also be diverted into appropriate programs. It could be argued that we already have adequate laws about repeat offenders in the Bail Act. The Bail Act 1978 adequately addresses the issue of "serious" repeat offending. In 1998 the Act was amended to strengthen these requirements. The court must take into account when assessing bail for a person charged with a serious offence whether it is likely that the person will commit any serious offence while at liberty on bail. That is dealt with under section 32 (1) (c) (iv).

If the offence for which bail is being considered is a serious offence the court must consider whether at the time the person is alleged to have committed the offence the person had been granted bail or released on bail in connection with any other serious offences. That is dealt with in section 32 (1) (c) (v). Further, section 32 (2A) outlines matters to be considered in determining whether an offence is a serious offence, but does not limit the matters that can be considered. In my view there is a gap in the law in relation to offenders who commit less serious offences and who are likely to do so again. The aim of the amendments in the bill is to close this gap, together with the overlay of reform provided in the more general context of the bill.

Given the broad criteria for removing the presumption in favour of bail, the bill seeks to further clarify the criteria in relation to repeat offenders that should be considered by magistrates. One consideration is whether the person is a juvenile offender or has an intellectual disability. This recognises that gaol may not be appropriate for these types of offenders. Another important criterion to be considered by the courts is the nature and seriousness of the person's prior criminal history, including the number of offences and the length of time between those offences. The bill seeks to balance police and community concerns about offenders at the bail stage whilst providing a wider framework of reforms, including continued development of programs such as MERIT and options for early intervention to divert recidivist behaviour. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr LYNCH (Liverpool) [11.06 a.m.]: The bill is now quite well publicised and discussed. I will deal with a number of the arguments that are popularly referred to justify the bill. Many of these arguments are deeply flawed, although there are other arguments in support of the bill that I will not comment on. One of the arguments sometimes propounded is that there has been a significant increase in the number or percentage of people failing to answer their bail; that is, failing to appear in court. This argument starts with the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research [BOCSAR] report from September 2001 entitled "Bail in NSW: Characteristics and Compliance". The head note of the report states:

To me, 14.9 per cent appears quite a high figure. I do not think anyone, including those with a civil libertarian background such as I have, would view that figure with any equanimity without a whole lot of further investigation. However, the problem I have with some of the debate around the bill is that people jump from that figure to a conclusion that this represents a significant increase in the rate and/or number of failures to appear. There is no warrant to make that assertion. The true statistical position emerges when one reads beyond the head note of the BOCSAR report. Page 9 of the report records that no figures are available prior to 1999. With only two years of figures for this category, it cannot be rationally argued that there has been a long-term trend of a significant increase in the number of failures to appear. It is just not statistically true to say that. That does not detract from the fact that the figures that are available are quite high, but it certainly does not allow some of the rhetoric surrounding the bill to stand. Some people participating in the debate also assume that magistrates and judicial officials have become slack or lax in granting bail too easily and frequently. The BOCSAR report reveals that the reality is quite different and far more complex. Page 3 records:

Another set of assumptions should be commented upon. One is that those on bail who fail to appear are likely to be out committing offences. That may be right, but there seems precious little evidence to clearly establish this. A related assumption is that repeat offenders, recidivists, are responsible for the vast bulk of crime. One media report from January quoted someone who should have access to information as saying repeat offenders are responsible for 80 to 90 per cent of crime. Therefore, targeting repeat offenders, including while they are on bail, will make a dramatic reduction in crime levels. This current legislation is part of that strategy. The first problem with that media report is that the recidivist contribution to crime levels, while certainly significant, is far more modest than the figures I have just given.

In the Sydney Morning Herald of 14 January 2002 Don Weatherburn was quoted as saying that 10 per cent of recidivists are responsible for 30 to 40 per cent of crime. That is still very significant, but it is well short of the 90 per cent that some people have been ranting and raving about. Last Friday night on Quentin Dempster's television program, Don Weatherburn said that 70 per cent of people who appear before adult and juvenile courts do not appear again. That means that a lot of offences are not committed by recidivists. That goes back to the point that simply targeting recidivists is not a silver bullet. If the Weatherburn figures are correct, crime will not be miraculously reduced by denying bail to recidivists or possible recidivists, there is some fairly well-sourced scepticism on that point. Indeed targeting recidivists to reduce crime rates has been widely discussed in recent years.

Recently the year two report was released under the qualitative and strategic audit of the reform process [QSARP]. QSARP is a critical and central document for anyone interested in reform of the Police Service and, by extension, the work of police on crime rates. The recommendations of the Wood royal commission, dating from May 1997, included a process to review and report on the progress of reform of the Police Service. The Police Integrity Commission Amendment Act empowered the Police Integrity Commission to engage an auditor for that purpose. The QSARP report to which I referred was the second annual report of the auditor. Interestingly, the QSARP year two report questioned significantly whether targeting recidivists would do anything other than create a temporary reduction in crime rates and not create long-term reduction that some people have talked about. Page 107 of this QSARP year two report referred to another report of BOCSAR, this time entitled "Operations and Crime Review Panels: Their Impact on Break and Enter". The QSARP report stated:

If members turn to the BOCSAR report QSARP's year two reservations become even more significant. The report concedes theoretically that the incapacitation of repeat offenders could exert a substantial suppression effect on many kinds of crime—but that it might only be transient. Indeed the report records more repeat offenders flowing into the criminal justice system since 1998 as a direct result of police strategies. If that were the case—if some of the hyperbole surrounding the bill were accurate—I would have expected more dramatic results than have occurred. Don Weatherburn was quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald on 14 January 2002 as saying things broadly consistent with the BOCSAR report's comments about the short-term nature of this solution. It is also worth remembering that repeat offenders, according to BOCSAR, are already less likely to get bail, even without these changes. Finally, there is the issue of what that means for the prison system. Some less than sensible commentators suggested that this would lead to an immediate increase of 1,500 in the prison population. Don Weatherburn provided the more realistic figure of 400 in that newspaper article.

The other side to the coin should also be remembered. The BOCSAR report recorded that from 1995 to 2000 just over half—51 per cent—of all persons in custody because of a bail refusal at the time of final appearance in the local court were sentenced to periods of imprisonment. Rates admittedly were higher in higher courts, although there were fewer defendants and prisoners. That means that 49 per cent of people who are denied bail at the time of sentencing are not sent to prison. The average rate of convictions for 1995 to 2000 in the Local Court for those held without bail was 85.2 per cent. So almost 15 per cent of those in custody in the Local Court were found not guilty, and another 33.9 per cent were not sentenced to gaol. That is not to necessarily argue against these changes—it is just to make the point that this involves real problems for some individuals—there are real social costs involved. We should not blithely ignore them. Tightening up bail is not a silver bullet and may well be a sensible and rational strategy. It is not the end-all solution that members have suggested it is, and I do not refer to the Minister.

Mr KERR (Cronulla) [11.14 a.m.]: The contribution of the honourable member for Liverpool was made from the wrong side of the Chamber. He spoke about a number of arguments in support of the bill being flawed. I suggest that any constituents of the honourable member for Auburn who heard that speech will be similarly floored by his reasonings. I am not aware of anyone who has said that this legislation is a silver bullet. Far from there being any suggestion that the legislation is a silver bullet, it does have considerable flaws. It is important to remind honourable members of the history of the bail legislation introduced—no doubt with the support of members on the other side of the House, in whatever capacity they may have been in the Labor Party at that time—by Frank Walker. When the bill was introduced on 14 December 1978 it was a fairly unfortunate premature Christmas present.

Mr Brown: I was six years old—I can't remember that.

Mr KERR: The honourable member for Kiama cannot remember the introduction of the bill—I hope his name did not appear on the attendance book of the Kiama branch of the Australian Labor Party at the time! The then Attorney General said when introducing the bill:

This bill indicates that it was mission impossible for the then Attorney General when his bill came into being. I refer now to the contributions by Government members. The Minister for Public Works and Services gave an impassioned speech and a more convincing display of supporting lynch laws than did the honourable member for Liverpool. The Minister talked about criminals having to face the music from now on, but he could not orchestrate his speaking notes and we were treated to some non sequiturs. Nevertheless, his rhetoric was what one would have expected from the deep south: we are not going to put up with these people and in future we will send them all to gaol. The honourable member for Auburn gave two examples which were actually scandalous indictments of the failure of the criminal justice system under this Government. Her contribution and the examples she gave are worth reading—they refer to a complete failure and why people should be very concerned about their safety. The Government should be called to account for those incidents and explain why people were put in jeopardy—and I suggest that they are not isolated examples. I return now to the history of the bail legislation introduced by the then Attorney General.

Mr Debus: It existed well before 1978.

Mr KERR: Yes, but I am talking about an attempt to substantially reform the bail law. The then Attorney General, referring to repeat offenders at that time, said:

and I stress the word "only"—

if the authorized officer or court is satisfied that such further offence is likely to involve violence or otherwise to be serious by reason of its likely consequences. In such a case it must be shown that the likelihood that the person will commit the offence, when considered with the likely consequences, outweighs the person's general right to be at liberty.

That was basically the genesis of the problem we are dealing with today. Honourable members have referred to car theft and break and enter offences being committed when people are on bail. That happens time and again in the Sutherland shire. It is a source of great frustration to police that people breach their bail conditions by not reporting or by committing offences while on bail. The watering down in 1978 of protection for the community provided the basis for these sorts of practices and was sanctioned by statute introduced under a Labor administration. The legislation was introduced as a result of the Western inquiry and removed the presumption of bail for armed robbery offences but maintained the presumption of bail in respect of murder. This curious legislation was simply a response to a particular set of political facts that existed at that time following considerable publicity about an armed robbery being committed while the offender was on bail.

Many of the comments of the honourable member for Auburn were the legacy of the attempt to reform the Bail Act in 1978. The Opposition does not oppose the bill, although there is nothing particularly contemporary about it or the problems it seeks to address. The arguments in the second reading speech are timeless—it could have been delivered 10 or 15 years ago. However, problems relating to repeat offenders have not been addressed in the seven years of the Carr Labor Government. I welcome the fact that the matter will be reviewed in 12 months time. However, this is a fairly small step towards addressing a legacy that was left by a previous Labor administration.

Miss BURTON (Kogarah) [11.22 a.m.]: This bill continues the Government's commitment to cracking down on crime. The Government has introduced a range of tough new laws and increased police powers, and given police the technology to track down criminals and lock them up. The bill aims to keep recidivist and repeat offenders, even for the not so serious crimes, locked up by denying them bail. The object of the bill is to remove the presumption in favour of bail for certain offences where the offender committed the offence concerned while on bail for an offence, while on parole for another offence or while subject to a sentence, but not in custody, or to a good behaviour bond relating to another offence; to remove the presumption in favour of bail where the offender has previously been convicted of the offence of failing to appear before a court in accordance with a bail undertaking; to remove the presumption in favour of bail in respect of indictable offences where the offender has previously been convicted of one or more indictable offences; and to require a court or authorised officer, when determining whether to grant bail to an offender who is a child or has an intellectual disability, to take into account any special needs of the offender arising from that fact.

The object of the bill is also to require a court or authorised officer, when determining whether to grant bail to an offender who has been previously convicted of one or more indictable offences and when considering the interests of the person, to take into account the nature of the criminal history of the person, having regard to the nature, seriousness and number of those offences and periods between them. A further object of the bill is to enable a court or authorised officer, when determining whether to grant bail, to grant it subject to a condition that the offender, while at liberty on bail, resides in accommodation for persons on bail and to provide for the matters to be considered when deciding whether to impose such a condition, including the availability and suitability of that accommodation. Finally, the bill makes other consequential amendments and provisions of a savings and transitional nature.

Once again, the bill is part of an overall package to send a message to criminals that if they commit crime, they will do the time—not run around the streets free and easy, thinking that they can work the system. Those days are over. I agree with the Minister that there must be a proper balance between protection of the community and the rights of the accused. However, we have heard anecdotal evidence, and I have some of my own, about the granting of bail conditions. The Kogarah local area command would lock up two or three people a week who have breached their bail conditions, with 95 per cent of offenders who breach their bail conditions being repeat offenders who commit domestic violence, break, enter and steal or robbery offences. They are repeat offenders while on bail because they need to commit crime for financial reasons or to support their drug habit. This bill will ensure that those people are not set loose on the community to commit further crimes while they face other charges.

I will give a couple of recent examples. A repeat offender was given bail for breaching four apprehended violence orders. A condition of bail was that he report four days a week to the Kogarah local area command. He failed to report, and the Kogarah police found him and locked him up for those breaches. However, the court again granted him bail and even reduced the reporting conditions from four days a week to two days a week to make it easier for him to comply with the bail conditions. That is an absolute joke. Also, a repeat offender on bail for five counts of break, enter and steal was arrested the next day and charged with further break, enter and steal offences, yet he is currently out on bail again. This practice must stop. When it is obvious that people are repeat offenders they should not be let out into the community.

I commend Kogarah police for their hard work in locking up offenders. They have taken a tough stand on breaches of bail conditions and when a breach occurs offenders are locked up without negotiation. That tough stand sends a strong message to the community. The bill is part of the Government's overall package to introduce tough new laws, DNA testing, increased police powers and more technology for police. It is about the Government's commitment to cracking down on criminals and crime, and protecting the community to ensure that our streets are safer by getting rid of undesirable elements. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr TORBAY (Northern Tablelands) [11.28 a.m.]: I support the Bail Amendment (Repeat Offenders) Bill and congratulate the Government on introducing it. For some time I have wanted to place on record my support for targeting repeat offenders with this type of legislation. As previous speakers have pointed out, that is a source of substantial frustration to police. I congratulate officers of the New England area command, who have faced many challenges in recent times and have often expressed to me their concerns about repeat offenders. I record not only my support but that of all communities in the New England area for the tremendous work that the police do under difficult circumstances.

I do not think anyone in this place anticipated the extent of the fallout from the police royal commission and its impact on police operations and morale. The Minister for Police, by introducing a range of law and order reforms, is fulfilling long-standing community expectations. It is fair to say—as an Independent member, I like to give credit where it is due—that those reforms are supported overwhelmingly by the community. This legislation will also enjoy popular support because it reflects community views about dealing with repeat offenders.

Superintendent Lyons from my local area command has furnished statistics regarding bail in my electorate which reaffirm my support for this legislation. I will not give specific examples as I do not think that will serve any valid purpose. Suffice it to say that police are aware of a number of individuals and groups who continue to offend and to cause damage that horrifies the community. Break and enter statistics are an ongoing issue in the New England area, and I believe legislation such as this will assist with that problem. The community will support measures that aim to remove the presumption in favour of bail for certain repeat offenders. I commend the bill and the Government for introducing it.

Mr BROWN (Kiama) [11.32 a.m.]: My constituents are most concerned about ensuring that their communities are safe. It does not matter whether those constituents live in Albion Park, Warilla, Berry, Shoalhaven Heads or Robertson: they are all concerned about community safety. We can deliver that outcome by preventing offenders from roaming our streets. Lake Illawarra, in the Lake Illawarra area command—which takes in most of the Kiama electorate—makes police mobility difficult. The Bail Amendment (Repeat Offenders) Bill will assist those officers to allocate resources better and create safer communities. Concerned constituents often come to my office—I was visited recently by representatives of the Kiama Chamber of Commerce—wanting to know how to make their streets safer. Local people want not a police state but a safer community. This bill strikes a good balance between protecting the community and safeguarding the rights of the accused, who is presumed innocent in law. That important point continues to warrant attention from Parliament.

The bill is based on statistics and considered research. The Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research recently released a report entitled "Bail in NSW: Characteristics and Compliance", which highlighted the increasing evidence of persons failing to appear in compliance with their bail condition to attend at the next court date. In 14.6 per cent of cases finalised in the Local Court in 2000 warrants were issued against accused persons who failed to appear for their next court date. That is a staggering statistic: almost 15 per cent of accused persons did not attend court and had to be apprehended and brought to court by police. In some cases it is suspected that those people were on the streets committing further offences. Unlike the Opposition's proposal to impose mandatory life sentences on those convicted of murdering police officers, which was mentioned in this place yesterday, this bill is considered and researched. It is not a knee-jerk, populist reaction to an issue that the Opposition is seeking to debate in Parliament for no reason other than political expediency.

The bill aims to address repeat offending by removing the presumption in favour of bail for the following classes of offenders: those who commit offences while already on bail, those who commit offences while on parole, those who commit offences while serving a community-based sentence, those who have a previous conviction for an indictable offence, and those who have a previous conviction for the offence of failing to appear. These provisions will be inserted in the Bail Act 1978 by new section 9B. The bill's main aim is to remove the presumption in favour of bail and the Government, through the Attorney General, is seeking to clarify the broad criteria that magistrates should consider in that context. Those criteria include whether a person is a juvenile offender or has an intellectual disability, recognising that gaol may not be the appropriate place for these types of offenders. The bill also directs magistrates to consider the nature and seriousness of a person's prior criminal history, including the number of offences and the length of time between those offences, and the length of time between those offences and the charges for which the offender is appearing before the court and seeking bail.

The bill provides for the amendments to be reviewed after 12 months of operation to assess their impact. Parliament must be able to review these changes to our criminal law to ensure that the bill is making our communities safer and that our criminal justice system is continuing to work well. It is also important to note that the bill's provisions are only one part of the move to reform our bail system and make our streets safer. These measures include procedural reforms that will allow the police and the courts to bring offenders on remand to trial more quickly. The Government also supports the Magistrates Early Referral into Treatment [MERIT] program. Under that program offenders are bailed into health services to have their drug problems treated, those problems often being associated with the offences they have committed. That bail option will remain in place.

The Government also supports interagency joint initiatives that will be developed to monitor and facilitate improvements in the courts processes, the continued development of the MERIT program and options for early intervention to divert young people away from committing offences. The category of accused persons who commit crimes that are not considered overly serious is growing. Most of those offenders commit property crimes, as opposed to rapes and murders. Nonetheless, those crimes cause angst in many sections of the community. The offenders need to be dealt with in a considered and reasonable way. For that reason I am pleased to support the Bail Amendment (Repeat Offenders) Bill.

Mr STONER (Oxley) [11.40 a.m.]: The Opposition does not oppose the Bail Amendment (Repeat Offenders) Bill. We believe it is time the Carr Labor Government tackled serious crime in this State. Statistics indicate significant increases in most categories of crime. As was recently reported, armed hold-ups are a major problem in this State. The bill addresses part of the cause of increased crime in New South Wales. The first three objects of the bill are:

People who commit crimes whilst on bail, who fail to appear before a court in accordance with a bail undertaking or who have committed indictable offences on multiple occasions have no respect for the justice system and have no remorse for the crimes they have committed. The Government should get serious about bringing repeat offenders to justice. As previous speakers have said, law enforcement officers are extremely frustrated when hard-core criminals who have already been apprehended for prior offences commit further crimes whilst on bail and then fail to attend court. I am pleased that the Government has finally made a legislative response to this ongoing problem, which is causing great frustration to our police officers. The next three objects of the bill are:

I regard those objects of the bill to be commonsense requirements of a court. A court should take into account all relevant factors when deciding to grant bail. Every so often in my electorate of Oxley on the mid North Coast there is a flare-up in criminal activity, particularly at South Kempsey. I have been told anecdotally that most of the crime is committed by repeat offenders. Many of the speakers who have contributed to this debate have quoted statistics which reveal that large numbers of offences are being committed by people who have committed prior offences. When the flare-ups in crime occur in my electorate, the phones start to ring in my office, at the police station and at the local council office. The calls are from citizens who are concerned about the increase in antisocial behaviour, car thefts and break and enter offences.

These flare-ups in crime, which occur every few months, are a source of great frustration to the community. On many occasions I have spoken to the local area command about this issue. Almost always the local area command informs me that they know who the villains are and where they come from. They tell me that they are repeat offenders who have come out of gaol or have been away visiting relatives. The Government should address this situation and provide adequate resources so that police can deal with repeat offenders, who commit a high proportion of nuisance crimes, and that in turn makes life difficult for the law-abiding citizens of this State. The problems caused by recidivist offenders are generally resolved once they are put away in gaol. Offenders should not be given the option of bail if they have a proven record of failing to appear before a court, a proven record of committing serious crimes or commit offences whilst on bail. This bill addresses that issue.

The presumption in favour of bail for repeat offenders is a perfect example of the community's belief that criminals have too many rights and victims do not have enough rights. As many people say on talkback radio and in the street, for too long criminals have had all the rights and none of the responsibilities and victims have had few rights. This bill takes away one of those rights, In the case of hardened criminals who are repeat offenders the bill removes the presumption in favour of bail. We do not oppose the bill because it addresses one aspect of the crime problem in New South Wales.

However, if we are to make the lives of police officers easier, as well as legislative measures we need adequate resourcing of police. In the Wauchope district, which is serviced by the mid North coast local area command, only two of five officers are on deck. That means 60 per cent of the police in the district are not on duty. In addition, police officers who are on long-term leave—such as stress, sick or maternity leave—or restricted duties are counted in the local area command numbers. Police are unable to be on the street to act as a deterrent to crime and to apprehend criminals. Although I welcome legislative measures that will make the lives of police easier, we must get serious about ensuring that police have adequate resources and that there are police on the beat.

Ms SALIBA (Illawarra) [11.50 a.m.]: I have never heard so much rot from the Opposition as I have heard in this debate. I want to know why the Opposition does not follow the example of the Independent member for the Northern Tablelands and congratulate the Government on introducing the bill. This morning we have heard a load of garbage from the Opposition. Members of the Opposition say, "We do not oppose the bill." They should stand up and congratulate the Government. The Labor Government is prepared to change legislation whenever necessary to meet the needs of the community. This bill is an example of that. Traditionally, bail was refused to offenders who were considered a flight risk and when there was a possibility that they would not appear at their next court date.

Recently the courts have had to consider the important criterion of the protection of the community. The community wants bail to be refused for repeat offenders. People who commit crime while on bail should not be given the opportunity to reoffend. Denying bail is the only way to achieve that. Bail is not new. It was considered as far back as the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights, in 1689. The amendments will strengthen the Bail Act, which dates back to 1978. The community has the right to expect the court to deny bail to career criminals. My community, particularly the Illawarra Business Chamber, which is headed by Terry Wetherall and Mark Grimson, are strong advocates of the bill. Only this morning Mark telephoned me to tell me that he supported the bill.

The business community in my electorate is 100 per cent behind the introduction by the Government of the bill, which will take offenders off the street and out of the marketplace and put them behind bars where they belong. As a member of the Government, which is doing whatever it can to ensure that our communities are well protected, I will continue to have the support of the local business community. The police in my electorate are certainly frustrated when they pick up criminals, present them to the court where they are granted bail, then have to pick them up again. The Government is endeavouring to ensure that repeat offenders are dealt with appropriately. My community has the right to feel safe. The Minister will review the operation of amendments as soon as possible after the expiration of 12 months from the date of commencement of the new section. It will be an ongoing process.

When necessary, the Government will continue to change legislation to meet the needs of the community. The Opposition should get behind the Government. Instead of saying that it does not oppose the legislation, it should stand up in this House and congratulate the Government on taking this action to ensure that the community is protected. My community expects that it will be safe. Only last week in Dapto I attended a community meeting about policing issues. One of the main topics of discussion revolved around those who commit crime, go before the courts and are let out on bail. Before you know it, they are committing offences over and over and the police have to pick them up again. We want to tighten the screws to ensure that repeat offenders are not continually granted bail. As a member of the Government I will support any legislation that protects my community and allows it to feel safe. I congratulate the Minister on the amendments, and I congratulate the Government on taking a tough stand. I look forward to the Opposition's support. I expect the Opposition to fly the flag rather than oppose legislation. I expect members of the Opposition to be responsible for their communities.

Mr MERTON (Baulkham Hills) [11.55 a.m.]: The Opposition certainly does not oppose the legislation. One of the few things the previous speaker said that was clear and readily understandable was her reference to the Magna Carta. The entitlement to bail of a person charged with a criminal offence is deeply rooted in the judicial system and goes back as far as the Magna Carta. For many years bail has been a presumption and almost a right. In most cases people were entitled to be given the benefit of bail until their criminal trial was heard. The court would then decide whether they were guilty. But the situation has changed somewhat dramatically in 2002. The community does not believe that offenders should be granted bail readily and freely.

The community believes that offenders should have to prove that they are worthy of being granted bail. In the past 20 years the presumption of bail has been eroded and toned down—the legislation continues that thrust—to the extent that bail will be granted in only a minority of cases, depending on the overall circumstances of the case. The legislation states clearly and emphatically that in certain cases there should be no presumption in favour of bail, that bail should be refused. The ultimate decision is made by the magistrate in the Local Court and by the judge in the District Court. But the reality is that initially the majority of offenders appear before a magistrate, whether it be at the Parramatta Local Court, the Fairfield Local Court, the Liverpool Local Court or wherever. A magistrate has the power to deal with an offender who is charged with crimes as serious and as grave as murder.

The legislation deals specifically with repeat offenders, those who have previous criminal convictions for particular offences. The legislation specifically provides that repeat offenders will find it difficult to get bail. Honourable members have referred to various cases, and most people know of instances of a person who has been released by a court on bail committing another offence before the original charge is heard. Police officers then have to rearrest that person. They have been through it before: same guy, similar offence. Yesterday he was in the station, the police wheeled him down to the court, the magistrate gave him bail, and today they have brought him back. That happens too often and the community does not want it to continue. The community is right: it is entitled to protection. The wheel has turned. The accused person, who was once entitled to the presumption of bail, now has to provide reasons why bail should be granted.

The bill removes the presumption in favour of bail for an offence committed by a person while on bail for another offence. I referred earlier to the example of an offender picked up on Tuesday morning, let out on Tuesday afternoon, and arrested on Wednesday for a similar offence. Honourable members have no doubt heard of serious crimes being committed by people who have been granted parole. What is parole? Parole is granted when a convicted person has completed part of his sentence and the Parole Board says: "You have satisfied us that you are half reasonable and that you intend to do the right thing. We will put you on parole for the remainder of your sentence."

Some years ago the Coalition, in office, dramatically tightened the law relating to parole and introduced what was called truth in sentencing. Under truth in sentencing legislation a person sentenced to six years imprisonment served six years—no remissions and no parole after four years. If the judge said you had to serve six years, that is what you did. People on parole sometimes commit offences and sometimes offences are committed by people who have been remanded on bail and are awaiting sentence. The judge hearing a case may say to an offender: "I will grant you bail. Come back in two weeks time and I will tell you what is going to happen to you." Yet during that two-week bail period the offender may commit an offence.

The community accepts that people of that calibre who commit offences in those circumstances should not be entitled to bail. Further, the bill removes the presumption in favour of bail if the offender has previously been convicted of the offence of failing to appear before a court in accordance with a bail undertaking. Some people are granted bail and that is the last time they are seen. They do a runner, to use a classical Australian expression. They bolt for freedom. When apprehended, often a long time afterwards, they are brought back before the court and charged with that offence. This legislation says that if you do not answer your bail, if you do not return to court to face the music, you will not be granted bail if you get into strife again down the track.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Lynch): I take this opportunity of welcoming to Parliament the school captains from Catholic secondary schools. I particularly welcome those from All Saints Catholic College and the Good Samaritan Catholic College at Liverpool in my electorate. I also welcome the niece of the honourable member for Strathfield, who I understand is among the school captains. There are some who have unkindly suggested that I should in fact be extending commiserations to her, but I will not.

Mr MERTON: I welcome the young people in the gallery today and thank them for their attention. I hope they have not been too bored. The bill also removes the presumption in favour of bail in respect of indictable offences by an offender who has previously been convicted of one or more indictable offences. An indictable offence is one that goes before a jury or a senior court, as opposed to a summary jurisdiction before a magistrate. Proposed section 9B, set out in schedule 1 to the bill, removes the presumption in favour of bail established by section 9 of the principal Bail Act 1978. It removes the presumption of bail if, at the time the person is alleged to have committed the offence concerned, the person was on bail or parole for another offence or was serving a sentence but was not in custody, or was subject to a good behaviour bond, in relation to another offence.

The expression "good behaviour bond" is often misconstrued. As one magistrate put it some years ago, if you are on a good behaviour bond you become your own gaoler. That is not unreasonable. Proposed section 9B also removes the presumption in favour of bail where a person has previously been convicted for failing to appear before a court in accordance with a bail undertaking, or a person is charged with an indictable offence and has previously been convicted of one or more indictable offences. The message is that repeat offenders, persons who have skipped bail and persons who have committed offences while on bail in respect of another offence are going to find it extremely difficult to get bail.

The Opposition does not oppose that proposition. The Opposition appreciates that the community demands, and has demanded for some time, that the question of bail should be given more scrutiny; that rules relating to bail, particularly in respect of repeat offenders, should be tightened up. For those reasons the Opposition is of the view that the bill contains a number of excellent provisions that will in some way meet community expectations. On the other hand, the Opposition believes there is still a long way to go. This is a start, a step in the right direction. I believe there are not enough police officers. We need more police on the beat, on the streets, protecting the community.

The Coalition does not oppose the bill. We believe that valuable police time can be saved by them not having to rearrest people who have been granted bail in circumstances set out in the legislation. That in itself will assist the community and allow police officers to be more effective and proactive in their search for offenders who remain on our streets. Police officers should not have to arrest offenders on one day and see them granted bail, only to have to arrest the same offenders within two or three days for a similar offence and go through the same time-consuming process. The Coalition does not oppose the legislation. Indeed, I personally commend the provisions in the bill.

Mr COLLIER (Miranda) [12.07 p.m.]: This bill will target repeat offenders. It is welcomed by my community and by the hard-working police of the Miranda and Sutherland local area commands. If honourable members do not consider repeat offending is a problem, one particular statistic may change their minds. Police state that repeat offenders—that is, people who have committed crimes previously—constitute approximately 20 per cent of the criminal population,. However, that same 20 per cent of the criminal population is responsible for 80 per cent of the offences committed. Clearly, we need to target repeat offenders and get them off the streets, and this bill targets those repeat offenders.

The bill seeks to remove the presumption in favour of bail for the following classes of offenders: those who commit offences while already on bail; those who commit offences while on parole or while serving community-based sentences, such as community service orders or weekend detention; those who have previous convictions for an indictable offence; and those who have previous convictions for fail-to-appear offences. In my previous occupation as a solicitor practising criminal law at Sutherland Local Court, doing bail applications day in and day out and appearing for people in custody, the most common feature of offenders—other than behavioural difficulties in dysfunctional families—was that they were repeat offenders. Many offenders had criminal records as long as my arm.

I remember in particular a person who was charged with 300 break and enter offences committed across Australia. He was in custody and the police, quite rightly, refused bail. He was down in the cells, telling me, "I really want bail. I am going to go straight". The court did not grant him bail because they could not be sure that he would not reoffend. One of the common scenarios is that of a young man with a drug habit being picked up for a break and enter offence and granted bail, and a short time later is out committing further break and enter offences.

The bill is designed to target such people. It provides a deterrent to repeat offenders. It gets them off the streets and makes it more difficult for them to get bail. In many cases it will mean that their case is heard much earlier, because they are in custody. In the case of the young man I mentioned, if he has a drug problem he will get into treatment much earlier. It is necessary to clarify who should get bail and what factors the court should take into account in deciding whether to grant bail. The bill provides that the court should take into account whether the person is a juvenile offender or has an intellectual disability. Some other form of treatment may be more appropriate to that class of person.

The nature and seriousness of the person's prior criminal history, including the number of offences and the length of time since the last offence, should also be taken into account. If the person is an Aborigine or a Torres Strait Islander it may be that there is a more suitable place to detain that person. There might be a better way to deal with that person pending the decision of the court. As I said, the bill is welcomed by my community. Police in my area are sick and tired of people getting bail and reoffending. The community is tired of seeing that happen time and again. The bill will introduce more certainty into the judicial system because magistrates, and judges in the higher courts, who hear bail applications will have much more bite. They are also given more guidance as to who should not get bail. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr RICHARDSON (The Hills) [12.11 p.m.]: I have been listening with interest to the debate and heated agreement on both sides that something needs to be done to target repeat offenders. The honourable member for Miranda stated that 80 per cent of crime was committed by the 20 per cent of prisoners who are repeat offenders. If those statistics are true then targeting people who are likely to reoffend makes eminent good sense. Back in 1998 the Government tightened bail criteria in relation to serious offenders, making it imperative that the court take into account in assessing bail for a person charged with a serious offence whether it is likely that the person will commit any serious offence while at liberty on bail. If the offence for which bail is being considered is a serious offence, the court is to consider whether at the time the person committed the offence the person had been granted bail or released on parole in connection with any other serious offence. That change made eminent good sense, although if the Government had been genuinely concerned about serious offenders committing further crimes while they were out on bail one would think that it would have supported my dangerous offenders bill, which has been introduced into this place twice over the past six years.

It is interesting to consider the difference those changes to the Bail Act have made. The change in the percentage of persons appearing in the higher court who gained bail has been minimal. In 1998, when the changes were introduced, the percentage was 60.3 per cent and it has fallen to 57.8 per cent. The numbers of people involved is comparatively small—160 only. I wonder what difference the Government's changes will make in relation to people who are, in the words of the Minister, "lower down the scale in criminality". Earlier this year the Minister for Police made all sorts of outlandish claims about the expected reduction in crime levels as a consequence of this bill being passed by the Parliament. Figures of 20 to 25 per cent were given. I am highly sceptical of those claims. A reduction of that magnitude may be wishful thinking by the Government. By saying that in no way do I suggest that I do not support the bill. I just think that the Minister for Police may have been guilty of more than a mild degree of hyperbole in suggesting that result for the legislation.

The Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research report entitled "Bail in NSW: Characteristics and Compliance" pointed to the fact that in 14.6 per cent of Local Court finalisations in 2000 for persons on bail the defendant failed to appear and a warrant was issued by the court. The highest category of persons who failed to appear in court, 28 per cent, were those charged with the crime of theft except theft of a motor vehicle. That is consistent with the thesis that people who are drug addicts, who are stealing to feed their habit, continue to do so when they are released on bail. That is an area that certainly needs to be targeted. The bill is primarily aimed at that classification of people.

I commend some of the comments made by the Minister in his second reading speech regarding use of the Bail Act to divert defendants with drug problems into treatment as a condition of bail. Getting people who have not committed violent offences down the scale of criminality into treatment programs is to be commended. Members on this side of the House on many occasions have expressed concern that the Government is not providing sufficient resources to fund rehabilitation and treatment programs. Indeed, there is a question mark over the effectiveness of some existing programs, including those that have "intensive supervision" provided by the Department of Health. There is no point in continuing to feed a habit. The ultimate goal of drug rehabilitation and treatment programs should be to get drug addicts off drugs.

The bill will remove the presumption of bail for any person who has previously committed the offence of failing to appear before a court in accordance with a bail undertaking. It will remove the presumption in favour of bail for any person accused of an indictable offence if the person has been convicted of one or more indictable offences. Importantly, the court must also have regard to the type of criminal history of the accused person as part of the criteria when considering bail. Someone with a recent history of offences is far more likely to reoffend than someone who committed an offence five, six or eight years ago. That will be an important consideration for magistrates and judges.

I conclude with the caveat that if there is to be a major change in the number of people who are denied bail as a consequence of this bill the Government must convince the public that it will make sufficient places available in prisons to house the enormously increased population of offenders. Currently there are 7,752 people behind bars in New South Wales and, therefore, there is a real shortage of places for further offenders. With that major caveat I repeat that I do not oppose the legislation.

Ms BEAMER (Mulgoa) [12.21 p.m.]: I support the Bail Amendment (Repeat Offenders) Bill. Many members of Parliament have talked about frustration expressed by their constituents, communities, police officers and victims at the ease with which repeat offenders are granted bail. Many honourable members have referred to people citing examples of offenders committing similar offences and being granted bail while on bail or parole. The community has been calling for this type of legislation for some time, arising out of frustration at the presumption in favour of bail for those awaiting trial who had been previously convicted of a similar offence. Removal of that presumption in favour of bail for certain offences is welcomed by the community.

One result of this legislation will be that certain people who are not granted bail will be diverted into treatment, and they will be within the system. Treatment has to be to be adequately resourced and places have to be made available for people who are held in custody. The Government will have to allocate budgetary provision for that consequence of the bill. The community welcomes the provision of diversion for treatment, particularly for offenders who reoffend to gain money for an addiction.

One of my constituents came to my office after an apprehended violence order [AVO] on a former partner had been breached. The former partner had appeared before the court, was granted bail, breached the AVO again, and was granted bail again. I wrote to the Attorney General about that, incredulous that people can continue to reoffend and breach bail conditions. That person has no incentive to obey the AVO. I have received complaints from women who feel that the law does not protect them. Police officers have said to me that there is no point in taking those matters before a court.

This morning honourable members have given statistics about repeat offenders being granted bail and then being found not guilty. When a person is charged with a crime there is a balancing act between the rights of victims, offenders and the community. Removal of the presumption in favour of bail for an offender who has previously been found guilty of an offence will protect the community. The community demands that protection from this Parliament. The bill is very welcome, as are increased police crime-fighting powers, new police technology, and increased punishments for serious offenders.

The community is sick and tired of hearing about the increasing number of break and enter offences and other crimes. Along with other members of this House I support the bill because it removes a presumption that has dumbfounded the community, a presumption that has enabled repeat offenders to walk free from court. This amendment to the Bail Act of 1978, which established that presumption, is a step forward in fighting crime in the community. I commend the bill.

Mr WEBB (Monaro) [12.25 p.m.]: I support the Bail Amendment (Repeat Offenders) Bill, legislation that goes to the very heart of law and order across the State. The bill is important to small and large communities and to all levels of society, and impacts on repeat offenders who decide to act against the law and who end up in court. The bill will help them in both the short and long term. The bill will benefit country people and city people, children and business people, and all those who have a basic right to not only feel safe in their homes and communities but to be safe there. This measure will assist the law and order process and aid police in carrying out their duties.

The bill sends a very strong message to criminals and potential offenders that the weight of the law will come down on them and they will lose bail privileges if they committed an offence previously. The bill is a tool that will assist crime prevention, and has an educational component that will aid the Department of Corrective Services to commence offender rehabilitation much earlier. Those costs will be borne by the community and will make people feel safe and enable them to go about their business and recreation without constant threat of criminal activity. Most honourable members who contributed to the debate acknowledged that a large proportion of crime is committed by repeat offenders.

We have to weigh up the cost of crime prevention against the cost of crime to society. We see barred windows and stolen and burnt-out motor vehicles, and are aware of the social cost of people being unwilling to leave their homes for fear of becoming victims of criminal activity. This measure will send very strong messages to the criminal fraternity. I congratulate the Government on introducing the bill. I hope that its provisions will be endorsed by the broader community and enforced. I commend the bill.

Mr BARTLETT (Port Stephens) [12.28 p.m.]: I support the Bail Amendment (Repeat Offenders) Bill, which addresses what has become a huge frustration for both police and the public. The bill removes the presumption in favour of bail for many adolescents. On the other side of the coin, the Government has introduced many initiatives to try to change irresponsible behaviour. Government initiatives include the Magistrates Early Referral into Treatment [MERIT] program, the graffiti program, the Machismo program—which seeks to reduce alienation of young males and reconnect them to society—and the introduction of 925 reading recovery teachers to undertake one-on-one reading. Indeed, in 1988 the New South Wales literacy rate was 22 out of 28 for the OECD countries but we are now in the top band. These teachers are encouraging children to perform to their ability and improving their self-esteem.

The Government has introduced non-association legislation for both place and person to break up cliques that tend to get into trouble. The Government has also trialled the medically supervised injecting room at Kings Cross. Local communities, with the help of the State Government, spend significant funds on sporting facilities. The Government has introduced circle sentencing for young Aboriginal offenders in an effort to keep them out of gaol. Despite all that, repeat offenders are causing huge problems in the community.

The purpose of the bill is to amend the Bail Act 1978 to tighten the requirements for bail for repeat offenders. It is said that repeat offenders constitute 20 per cent of the criminal population yet commit 80 per cent of crime. They fail to appear in court in compliance with their bail conditions. Indeed, for break, enter and steal offences one in four offenders fail to attend court. As a result of this bill, the number of prisoners in remand will increase, which will send a clear message to the court that 80 per cent to 90 per cent of crime is committed by the same category of offenders, who commit similar offences while on bail. An additional 1,805 new places will be created in the New South Wales prison system over the next few years as a result of tightening the Bail Act. The Government is constructing three new gaols to house 900 inmates because the remand population has increased by approximately 900 since 1995.

On Monday 8 April I attended a meeting convened by the Tilligerry Neighbourhood Watch Committee, chaired by Frank Martin, in which 200 people came together to discuss issues of co-operation and communication between the Tilligerry community and the police, and to recommend appropriate actions. The antisocial behaviour of young people was the major concern of residents of Lemon Tree Passage. Of a Friday and Saturday evening a number of police vehicles in the Port Stephens area cover a wide geographic area, with travel times up to 40 minutes between small population centres of 6,000 to 7,000 people. The police officer who attended the meeting said that people as young as 10 years to 16 years cause problems in the park every Saturday night. If those young people will not tell the police officer their names or addresses, they have to be taken back to the police station where they must be kept under the supervision of police. Two police officers, who must cover this huge area, are basically babysitting 12-year-olds or 14-year-olds and are prevented from carrying out their other duties. Under the regulations police must keep an eye on these young people while they are under their care and control.

When the police eventually find out their identity and take them home they are often told by the parents that they allow their children to drink, so the police really have their hands tied. This inappropriate behaviour is frustrating for police and for the Lemon Tree Passage residents. I told the meeting that this bill was to be introduced and there was unanimous support for it. The view expressed at the meeting was that the pendulum of excusing inappropriate behaviour had swung too far. Regular underage drinking in waterside reserves with repeat offenders on Friday and Saturday nights was driving local residents to inappropriate vigilante behaviour to preserve the safety of their homes and environment. The meeting was in favour of all the programs I mentioned earlier designed to change inappropriate behaviour. However, the view was that repeat offenders had to have a rubicon, a measure that triggered a new and appropriate response to inappropriate behaviour.

If young people break their bail conditions they now face being sent to remand centres while awaiting trial. The message now is, "Don't offend again or else." Law-abiding citizens are swinging the pendulum in favour of appropriate behaviour, through the New South Wales Parliament, because they are frustrated by the inappropriate behaviour by young people. Coupled with the move-on legislation and the non-association legislation, the previous level playing field is being weighted against repeat offenders. The community and police are tired of them using the courts to get a slap on the wrist before repeating their offences. The bill gives the courts power to stop repeat offenders in their tracks. I am pleased the bill has bipartisan support; it certainly has my full support. I hope that the legislation changes the inappropriate behaviour of young people.

Mr FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [12.38 p.m.]: I take this opportunity to support the bill but in doing so I wish to outline why the legislation is necessary. It goes back to 1987 when Frank Walker, the then Attorney General—who hailed from Sawtell in my electorate—removed the Summary Offences Act. That gave a clear message to juveniles and criminals that it was okay for them to commit offences which previously could have been prevented under the Summary Offences Act. Almost 15 years later a certain group of juveniles are now recidivists and 80 per cent of crime is carried out by 20 per cent of the criminal population. Government members have waxed lyrical about the past and present actions of the Government in introducing legislation to try to stop the crime wave, criminal activity and lawlessness in the community. For example, it has introduced the Drug Court legislation, which was supported by the Opposition, and gang-related legislation allowing police to stop and search people suspected of carrying knives.

The Premier waxes lyrical about the sentencing guidelines that he intends to send to the courts in order to combat lawlessness and criminal behaviour. This bill says that repeat offenders will not be eligible for parole or bail and places an obligation on courts that I believe would not have been necessary if the then Labor Government had not removed certain powers from the Summary Offences Act in 1987. That simple action by the then Attorney General, Mr Walker, has caused massive problems in our communities, and especially in regional and rural New South Wales. In many cases police are unable to act against juveniles who commit what I consider to be criminal offences. Police must often take out apprehended violence orders against young criminals who know that they cannot be touched by the law. That is ludicrous: an entire generation of young people has no respect for the law and the law officers of the State. Constable Glenn McEnallay was shot and killed recently by criminals who had stolen a car. I believe incidents such as this are proof of the fact that there is no respect in the public arena for our law enforcement agencies.

The courts are not doing their job and we, as legislators, must again instruct magistrates how to act. I believe this State's sentencing laws are adequate, but the courts are refusing to impose appropriate sentences. That fact was recognised clearly by the Premier in his statements about sentencing guidelines. He said yesterday that the courts cannot always impose mandatory life sentences. However, this country's laws should be based on Christian principles and, as far as I am concerned, our courts are not following the principle of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. It is an absolute disgrace that the courts could impose anything less than a life sentence on those who wilfully murder police officers in the course of their duties. I believe we should lock them up and throw away the key. Murderers should not be allowed back into society.

There is a lack of faith in the New South Wales justice system because magistrates are not applying the law in the way that Parliament intended. I agree totally with the separation of powers as set down by our constitution. I do not believe Parliament should have to pass laws to force certain sentencing outcomes when sentencing bands exist for those who commit crimes such as murder. However, I think the courts have gone soft. That is why we need legislation of this type. That is also why police turn a blind eye to some offences these days: they know the courts will not administer the law in the way that the law makers intended. That is an indictment on magistrates and the judicial system. The fact that this bill is necessary is proof that Parliament is not supporting police in the way that I think it should. Police officers like Glenn McEnallay put their lives on the line every day of the week because an entire generation of young people has no respect for the laws of the land and because the courts are not imposing sentences that I—and I believe the majority of people in my electorate—consider to be appropriate.

When the police cannot act it leads to a lack of morale within the force and actions such as today's resignation by the Commissioner of Police. I believe he has resigned because he knows his officers are not receiving proper and necessary support from Parliament and from this Government. His resignation will cost the taxpayers of the State about $500,000. That is disgraceful. The issues addressed by this legislation could have been dealt with some 15 years ago but the then Labor Government changed the Summary Offences Act. I appeal to magistrates and the court system to implement the existing laws in the way that Parliament intended and to pass sentences that are appropriate to the crimes committed.

Mr TRIPODI (Fairfield) [12.45 p.m.]: The Bail Amendment (Repeat Offenders) Bill will bring real and immediate quality-of-life benefits to residents in my electorate. Evidence indicates that the existing law is comparatively ineffective in reversing behaviour at the lesser end of the criminal scale. Although lesser offences on the index of criminality, they have serious social impact. The advantage of reform at this end of the criminal justice system is that it focuses the law on events that affect the lives of average people. Offences such as theft, receiving stolen goods, breaking and entering, minor assaults and the like directly reduce the quality of life of average citizens. Offenders create an apprehension of fear, which is endemic in our community, and make people's lives uncomfortable. Equally important, such offences take up much of the time of the New South Wales Police Service, with little lasting benefit.

It is a common complaint among police that their work is not appreciated—that magistrates let loose the people whom they spend so much time apprehending. This occurs because there is a presumption in favour of bail in the case of such offences, which is detailed in section 9 of the Bail Act. We must consider the time that police spend apprehending and arresting repeat offenders and the continual torment caused to victims and to their family and friends, who must live with those people who are released on bail terms that are inevitably breached. We must also consider whether the perpetrators benefit in the long term from the decisions of magistrates that appear to be lenient or presumably in the best interests of all involved—the victim, the community and the offender. Many cases in my electorate lead me to conclude that the current arrangements are not in the long-term interests of any of those involved.

Several weeks ago the family of a young man who passed away late last year came to my electorate office to express their concerns about the rulings of magistrates based in the Illawarra and the leniency of current bail laws. That young man was a perpetual offender. The family detailed to me the offences with which he had been charged—many of which were mentioned earlier in the debate—including break and enter, theft, larceny, driving without a licence, driving an uninsured motor vehicle, driving a vehicle without a number plate, and entering a building and committing a felony. They are all common offences. Even though magistrates had tried to act in the best interests of all involved, the family believe that if tougher sentences had been imposed, if this young man had not been released so many times on bail—he had continually breached his bail terms and been charged with those offences—and if the law had prevented the presumption in favour of bail, he could be alive today.

The family felt that although it would have been hard on this young man, tougher laws could have saved his life. They believe the young man, a member of their family, would have benefited in the long term. The family's view is important. The family also said that police, who were involved in the case time and again, would have felt that their efforts were not appreciated. They believed that the effort, time and resources of police were not expended properly or effectively. That is a common complaint amongst police, and that is why the Minister for Police was so quick to act on this issue. Police have felt that a great deal of their work is pointless and fruitless because the system has allowed these offenders out of gaol.

Two days ago in my electorate office I spoke on the phone to some people who detailed the problems their son was experiencing. They believed that a process that put people in remand in the Corrective Services system would act not only in the interests of the offender but also in the interests of the offender's family because bail conditions often require the offender to reside with family members. Further, such a system would act in the interests of the community and people who are adversely affected by the freedom granted to offenders under their bail conditions. I believe that my electorate will collectively benefit from this legislation. We are being kind when we are tough on offenders and put them in the Corrective Services system at an early age. In the first example I raised the young man started to offend in 1996. He died just before Christmas last year. His family is of the view that the community, offenders and the offenders' families will benefit from this legislation. That is why the Government has introduced this bill and why I support it. I recommend that the Opposition support the bill as well.

Mr McBRIDE (The Entrance) [12.52 p.m.]: I also support the Bail Amendment (Repeat Offenders) Bill. With respect to repeat offenders, information reveals that 20 per cent of the criminal population causes 80 per cent of the crime. The Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research recently released a report on bail entitled "Bail in New South Wales—Characteristics and Compliance", which highlighted the increasing incidence of persons failing to appear in compliance with their bail conditions and to attend at the next court date. Previous speakers have spoken about a number of issues, but I would like to speak specifically about the category of accused persons who commit less serious crimes repeatedly. These offences are generally low on the scale of criminality and fit within the category of general presumption in favour of bail. This type of crime has been an issue in my electorate on the Central Coast.

To give a specific example, my electorate had a Fagan-type gang operation where a number of young people, organised by a person in his early twenties, systematically worked over the area. Every time these young people were arrested and appeared before a magistrate they were granted bail on the basis that they had not committed serious crimes, and their youth. This situation continued for almost 12 months and we had what was considered to be a crime wave in our community. It related fundamentally to a small group of individuals, albeit a well-organised group. This ongoing situation was of concern to the community and to shopkeepers. Many elderly people in the area believed that they were insecure, that there was a crime wave and that society was out of control. Worse, they took a dim attitude of young people in our community and believed that they needed severe disciplining and perhaps should go to gaol.

This crime situation was dividing the community, separating young people from old people and breaking down their attitudes towards each other. As a result, we end up with a divided community that will not co-operate with each other and one in which elderly people live in fear of young people. That is an unsuitable state of affairs. Elderly people should not fear that they are in danger or at risk when they see a group of young people. This is an important issue. I congratulate the Minister for Police and the Attorney General on dealing with the hub of the issue in the bill. Many times we believe the answer is to increase sentencing powers and impose harsher penalties. With this legislation the Government is attacking the administrative elements and procedure, which will make an enormous contribution to our community. As I have said, one-fifth of the criminal population commits four-fifths of the crime. If we can deal with that issue, we can make a significant change in our community.

Every time we talk about crime we say that we need to increase penalties, that we need stiffer penalties and that we need more mandating. Such initiatives do not resolve the problems in the community or deal with the public's perception of crime. Recently I was in the company of the local area commander in my electorate. He made the point that petty crime—that is, petty theft not robbery—was a major issue in our community. Further, he said that it tied up an enormous amount of police resources and time, eroded the confidence that people have in the Police Service and eroded the confidence people have in their general community. I congratulate the Ministers on the bill, which I believe will have an enormous impact.

I also note procedural reforms involving police and courts. Offenders on remand are to go to trial more quickly. The implementation of the Magistrates Early Referral into Treatment [MERIT] program, where offenders are bailed into health services to treat drug problems associated with their crimes, is important. It has been pointed out to me that one of the issues involved in theft is the price of heroin. The heroin supply in New South Wales has been drying up over the past two years, which has resulted in an enormous increase in petty crime. If we can do something about the social issues associated with these offenders we can get major improvements in our community.

Mr GIBSON (Blacktown) [12.57 p.m.]: Many of my constituents who have spoken with me, particularly over the past three to five years, are concerned about repeat offenders who commit various acts of vandalism, petty crime, drug running and motor vehicle theft. Many people often say to me, "I notice that so and so was charged and arrested the other day and I see he is out again and another offence has been committed." Their confidence in the system has suffered tremendously. People are right to think that crime in some areas has gotten out of hand. This bill strengthens the law and restores to the ordinary pundit, the ordinary member of the community, some faith in the system. The object of the bill is to amend the Bail Act 1978. The bill will introduce major bail changes and tighten the net on career criminals who abuse the system. It has been forecast that the tough new laws will increase the prison population by 800 prisoners. The Government must back up the bill with extra funding. In that regard, the Government will provide an extra $135 million to cater for the increase in the prison population. Police advise that most crimes are committed by repeat offenders, often while they are on bail.

It is interesting to note that 20 per cent of the people on bail commit 80 per cent of all crime. One does not have to be Einstein to work out that something has to be done. The legislation, which could produce a significant drop in the crime rate in every electorate, has been a long time coming. It will remove the presumption in favour of bail for any person charged with any offence while on bail, any person on a good behaviour bond or on parole who is charged with any offence, any person convicted of failing to appear at court and any person who has previously committed any indictable offence. The community expects the court to deny bail to career criminals. Some 28.8 per cent of people on bail fail to appear at court. A large number of those are charged with stealing motor vehicles. The bill will boost community confidence that the Government is concerned about repeat offenders who are granted bail and that it is doing something about it. A bill that restores the community's faith in the system and allows police and ordinary members of the community to live in safety can only be good legislation. I fully support it.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Campbell.

[Mr Acting-Speaker (Mr Lynch) left the chair at 1.01 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]

PETITIONS

Australian War Graves Site French Airport Proposal

Petition asking that the House join with the Federal Government in lobbying the Government of France to stop development of land occupied by Commonwealth War Cemeteries containing Australian war graves, received from Mr O'Farrell.

North Head Quarantine Station

Petition praying that the head lease proposal for North Head Quarantine Station be opposed, received from Mr Barr.

Freedom of Religion

Petitions praying that the House retain the existing exemptions applying to religious bodies in the Anti-Discrimination Act, received from Mr Brown and Mr Souris.

Hazardous Material Burning

Petition asking the House to amend legislation in relation to the regulations governing the burning off of hazardous material, received from Dr Kernohan.

Young Offenders Legislation

Petition asking the House to amend the Young Offenders Act 1997 and the Parental Responsibility Act, received from Mr Stoner.

Brothel Regulation

Petition praying for legislation to allow for more flexible zoning in relation to the operation of brothels, received from Mr Torbay.

Wilderness Access

Petition praying that the Government allow continued access to public lands, abandon plans to declare the south-east wilderness study area wilderness, and repeal the Wilderness Act 1987, received from Mr Webb.

Manly JetCat Services

Petition seeking reversal of the decision by Sydney Ferries to stop JetCat services to Manly at 7.00 p.m., received from Mr Barr.

Lane Cove Tunnel Works

Petition praying that the House initiate a review of Lane Cove tunnel works, received from Mr Collins.

Cammeray Traffic Arrangements

Petition praying that pedestrian traffic signals be installed at Raleigh Plaza on Miller Street, Cammeray, and that the 1997 traffic study be implemented, received from Mr Collins.

Sydney Harbour Bridge Toll

Petition requesting that the Sydney Harbour Bridge toll not be increased, received from Mrs Skinner.

Kempsey and Macksville Pacific Highway Upgrade

Petition praying that the House improve safety on the Pacific Highway and fast-track the proposed bypassing of Kempsey and Macksville, received from Mr Stoner.

Manly Lagoon Remediation

Petition praying that funds be made available to assist in the remediation of Manly Lagoon, received from Mr Barr.

John Fisher Park

Petition praying that the Government support the rectification of grass surfaces at John Fisher Park, Curl Curl, and oppose any proposal to hard surface the Crown land portion of the park and Abbott Road land, received from Mr Barr.

Queanbeyan Preschool Services

Petition praying that funds be made available to construct a new and permanent preschool in Queanbeyan, received from Mr Webb.

Queenscliff Geographical Names Board Classification

Petition praying that Queenscliff be reinstated as a suburb by the Geographical Names Board, received from Mr Barr.

Northbridge Primary School

Petition seeking permanent classrooms to replace temporary demountable classrooms at Northbridge Primary School, received from Mr Collins.

Currans Hill Public School

Petition asking that air conditioning be installed in all demountable classrooms at Currans Hill Public School, received from Dr Kernohan.

Malabar Policing

Petition praying that the House note the concern of Malabar residents at the closure of Malabar Police Station and praying that the station be reopened and staffed by locally based and led police, received from Mr Tink.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Reordering of General Business

Mr BROWN (Kiama) [2.25 p.m.]: I move:

That General Business Order of the Day (General Notice) No. 19 [Coastline Protection] have precedence on Thursday 11 April 2002.

Nothing is more important than the protection of New South Wales' fantastic environment, particularly the coastline. New South Wales is blessed with one of the world's most beautiful coastlines. It embraces a huge diversity of landscapes—city, bushland, vineyards, coalmines and country hamlets. The coastline on the South Coast, including in my electorate of Kiama, is indeed one of the world's most spectacular. Currently, most of the New South Wales population lives and works in the coastal areas of the greater metropolitan region of Sydney, the Hunter and the Illawarra. That coastline is also a mecca for those who flock to it. One only needs to look at areas such as Byron Bay—

Mr Richardson: Point of order: The honourable member is supposed to be debating urgency. He is not supposed to be speaking to the substance of his motion, which clearly he is doing.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Kiama is not seeking to establish urgency. He has moved that the motion of which he has given notice should be reordered. There is a difference.

Mr Tink: I am happy to indicate that the motion is not opposed.

Motion agreed to.

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

Mr SPEAKER: I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of a former member of this House, Tony Windsor. I welcome him back to the premier Parliament in Australia.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
_________

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE RESIGNATION

Mr BROGDEN: My question without notice is directed to the Premier. Has the Premier used $450,000 of taxpayers' money to buy a scapegoat for his failure s over the last seven years to stop rising crime and violence and falling police numbers?

Mr CARR: $400,000!

Mr Brogden: $450,000.

Mr CARR: Oh, $450,000! That is a mere bagatelle compared with the $3 billion in spending promises made in only the last seven days by the Opposition.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Monaro to order. I call the honourable member for Hornsby to order.

Mr CARR: The new team has only been in place for two weeks or so and it has made $3 billion in new spending commitments.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Oxley to order.

Mr CARR: They are halfway to the pork-barrel level that the honourable member for Lane Cove reached at the end of the last State election campaign. I repeat that $450,000 is a mere bagatelle compared with the Opposition commitments: a six-lane highway over the Blue Mountains, $800 million in the first four years; a tunnel under Mosman and the Spit bridge, $1.5 billion; 14 police officers for 10 schools, $4.2 million; Mona Vale Road upgrade, $150 million; scrapping the Harbour Bridge toll, $112 million; scrapping the premium property tax, $53 million; rebuilding an old-fashioned mental health hospital at Rozelle, $226 million.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Liverpool to order. I call the honourable member for Canterbury to order.

Mr CARR: A royal commission into the Department of Community Services would cost, let us say, $80 million. Look at the cost of the royal commission into the Police Service! That shows the reading on the spendometer under the Coalition leadership. We look to the other side of the Chamber, at Brad Keeling and Jodee Rich. It was that sort of inexperience that sent One.Tel bankrupt.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Gosford to order. I call the honourable member for Hawkesbury to order for the second time. I call the honourable member for Wakehurst to order.

Mr CARR: That sort of inexperience will be rejected by the people of New South Wales when they face such reckless irresponsibility.

NON-GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS REVIEW

Mr GREENE: My question is to the Minister for Education and Training. What is the latest information about the Grimshaw review of non-government schools in New South Wales?

Mr WATKINS: Over the last 18 months Mr Warren Grimshaw, AM, the director of the Coffs Harbour education campus, has been undertaking an extensive review of non-government education in New South Wales.

Mr Hazzard: Point of order: Clearly the Minister is announcing an important policy in relation to the Grimshaw report. The Opposition should have the opportunity to address the issues relating to education and the funding of private schools. I ask you to direct the Minister to provide the policy by way of a ministerial statement so that the Opposition can make its position clear. In all likelihood the Opposition will not support what the Government is doing but if we have the opportunity to hear the Government's policy we can at least make an informed response.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.

Mr WATKINS: Today I am releasing for public consultation the first report arising from that review. I will come back later to the need for a second report. The first report responds to the terms of reference on school registration and accreditation, educational and financial reporting, and whether cross-sectoral school planning can contribute to a more efficient use of resources. The report contains 62 recommendations. The Grimshaw review attracted 128 submissions and consultations were held with more than 30 individuals and groups, some on more than one occasion. Mr Grimshaw has advised me that regardless of where respondents stand on the issues covered in the report all have shown a concern for the best interests of students in New South Wales. The opportunity to participate in moulding the future of non-government schools in the State was welcomed.

The review maps out suggested changes to non-government schools. I should stress at this stage, before dealing with some of the recommendations in detail, that the Government wants to hear from interested parties before responding formally to the report. I can inform the House that I have allocated two months from today for those consultations to proceed. After that I will finalise a submission to Cabinet. I strongly believe that because the territory covered in this report has been contentious in the past the Government will achieve the best result by working closely with all the interested parties in finalising the Government's position.

I turn to the detail of the report. The first series of 27 recommendations relate to registration and accreditation of non-government schools. The report proposes new criteria for school registration, focusing on the policies, practices and processes that lead to ongoing quality learning. In short, the report finds that current requirements are out of date. For instance, the report says that it is no longer good enough not to refer to issues such as child protection, student welfare, corporate governance, boarding conditions or reporting to parents. They should be dealt with in registration and accreditation. The second area that the report covers relates to accountability. Eighteen recommendations were made in this regard.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! the honourable member for Murrumbidgee will resume his seat.

Mr WATKINS: Grimshaw proposes a new framework that would result in more consistent reporting on educational performance.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Murrumbidgee to order.

Mr WATKINS: In short, the theme of the review is that parents and others in the school community have a right to better, more comprehensive information about a school's performance. Some non-government schools provide that now but many others do not. The report argues that there should be annual school reporting, as currently undertaken by our State schools. Better accountability, as outlined in the report, also means better financial accountability. The community currently contributes about $500 million per year to non-government schools in New South Wales. The review argues that accountability in this area should be strengthened. Currently, non-government schools must certify that payments have been distributed for the benefit of schools. The reviewer, Grimshaw, suggests that we need to tighten this condition.

The third major area covered in the report relates to cross-sectoral school planning. Ten recommendations are made in that regard. Since the Commonwealth Government abolished a planning framework in 1996 there has been no set policy in New South Wales to fall back on. Warren Grimshaw concludes that some form of co-ordinated planning is desirable in establishing new schools or where an established school expands or dramatically changes what it does. The review proposes a collaborative approach to that, relying on consultation and information sharing. The report proposes a new body, the non-government schools council, to be established to assess applications and make recommendations to the Minister.

Turning to the terms of reference not covered in this first report, the terms of reference require the review to explore funding issues relating to non-government schools—those important areas of how much of their budget they draw from the State Government, interest support and other financial issues. Not surprisingly, those aspects of the report caused robust debate. The review conducted extensive research into past and current funding policies and analysed a substantial body of State and Commonwealth information. The limitations of the review's capacity to adequately address these terms became apparent. Without actual financial data on the income or expenditure of non-government schools, Mr Grimshaw found himself unable to assess the impact of alternative models to those that currently exist.

He was unable to explore actual shifts in schools' financial policies and practices in relation to the new Commonwealth model introduced by Dr David Kemp. Consequently, Mr Grimshaw has informed me of the need to continue his work in this area. He will provide a second report and further research covering these specific terms of reference. He wants the opportunity to test the validity of any funding model and take into account the full impact of the Commonwealth's new funding policy before he finalises advice to the State Government. He also wants the opportunity to take into account developments that might emerge from the national task force that was established to look into school funding issues. I have accepted Mr Grimshaw's proposal that, rather than delay release of the whole report, he report to me at a later stage on the terms of reference relating to funding.

The history of relationships between government and non-government school sectors has not always been positive. The policies of the current Commonwealth Government and particularly the former education Minister sharpen these divisions. Some common ground needs to be found to avoid reopening the bitter divisions of the past. That is why I have decided to release this report and consult directly with interested parties. I am hopeful that consensus can be reached on many issues. I welcome the report and pass on my personal thanks to Mr Warren Grimshaw and those in his team. I wish him well in his further review and look forward to working with interested parties on how we progress with the first 62 recommendations. The report is made public from today.

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE RESIGNATION

Mr SOURIS: My question without notice is directed to the Premier. Why has the Premier paid Mr Ryan $450,000 when his number one performance criterion, reduction of crime in New South Wales, has not been met?

Mr CARR: Two days ago Police Commissioner Peter Ryan's solicitors wrote on his behalf to the Director-General of the New South Wales Premier's Department, Dr Col Gellatly. The correspondence listed the major expectations of Commissioner Ryan's contract, his lead responsibilities and other matters. Commissioner Ryan was called on by the people of New South Wales to manage the 13,500 people in the Police Service. He was called on to rebuild the Police Service after the shattering of a royal commission that exposed systemic corruption in that Police Service. Commissioner Ryan was required as well to run security for the biggest peacetime event on the planet, the Olympic Games. Commissioner Ryan ran that security and our security successes during the Sydney 2000 Games and Paralympic Games were one of the reasons that those Games were regarded as the world's best. That is a major achievement, and not one anticipated in full when he was recruited by the State in 1996.

Commissioner Ryan's role was to implement, as he has done, 174 recommendations of the Wood royal commission. He inherited a corruption-prone organisation, to the disgrace of New South Wales. Commissioner Ryan has chased crooks out of the Police Service. Today at a press conference I said that the people of New South Wales waited a long time to have a police commissioner who said, "Here is evidence of systematic corruption and I will chase the crooks out of the Police Service." That is important. Commissioner Ryan's appointment came after revelations of a sickening kind from the royal commission. Which one of us will ever forget that video footage of money being handed over to a police officer in the front seat of a police vehicle parked at Kings Cross?

Mr Whelan: Chook Fowler.

Mr CARR: Yes, Chook Fowler. That was the sort of revelation that came from the royal commission that required someone to be brought in from outside to fix up the Police Service. Anyone can sit on the sidelines and say that the job is not completed. But, as the commissioner warned today, we will be challenged by these problems as long as heroin is allowed to flow into this country through open borders, and guns can be sent to Australia through the mail from overseas.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Lachlan to order.

Mr CARR: Why do the armchair critics opposite not call on the Federal Government to put a bit of money back into customs and quarantine services so that more than four containers in every 1,000 can be searched to keep out the heroin and the guns? The customs officers do not search more than four containers in 1,000. Until they do, guns and heroin will keep coming into this country, making the job of the men and women of the Police Service, from the commissioner down to police on the streets, all the harder.

Mr Tink: Point of order: The point of order is relevance. The question was about the contractual obligations of reducing crime rates.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No point of order is involved.

Mr CARR: I have just addressed that point. How can we bring down a crime rate if we have a Federal Government saying that it will not do anything serious about reinstating the cuts that it made in Customs searches of containers?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting.

Mr CARR: The Leader of the Opposition has to answer this today. He has been spending $400 million a day in unfunded election commitments.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Leader of the National Party to order. I call the honourable member for Lachlan to order for the second time

Mr CARR: Listen, Brad and Jodee, you just explain this away, because the people of New South Wales will not want your inexperience to rob our State of its triple-A rating and plunge it into chronic deficit.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Hawkesbury to order for the second time. I call the Leader of the National Party to order for the second time.

Mr CARR: Listen, Jodee, you were the most profligate shadow Treasurer in the State's history. Can members imagine any shadow Treasurer ticking off on $3 billion of spending commitments in a mere seven days?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Leader of the National Party order for the third time. I call the honourable member for Oxley to order for the second time. I call the honourable member for Myall Lakes to order.

Mr CARR: That Luna Park experience must have shaped him for all time, it must have been seminal. As Jodee contemplated how easy it was to lose $54 million on an amusement park, he really got worked up about what he could do if he were shadow Treasurer. And over there is Brad Keeling, who has allowed him to tick it off. Can honourable members believe that—$2.9 million in a mere seven days in spending commitments out of the State Government! If he ever attempted to honour the promises there would not be a cent left over to increase the police budget.

BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH

Mr CRITTENDEN: My question without notice is to the Premier. How is the Government supporting the growth of the biotechnology sector in New South Wales?

Mr CARR: A modern, sophisticated economy, such as that in this State, needs a long-term commitment to biotechnology. Backing the commercialisation of research, a strong commitment to supporting Australia's research excellence is unquestionable. But consider this fact: With just over 0.3 per cent of the world's population, we produce 2.7 per cent of global medical research. It is a great tribute to this country, this regional power, Australia. We punch above our weight! While there has been a national focus on embryonic stem cell research—and I was proud to participate as I did in that debate—it is worth noting that just today there is news of a global breakthrough in treating heart disease using adult stem cells.

This comes not from Oxford or Yale or San Diego, this comes from our own Hunter Medical Research Institute at Newcastle. Our research is world class and the challenge is, of course, commercialisation, getting good research ideas into the marketplace. That is why last year we launched our $68 million Bio First plan, to help make New South Wales a world leader in that field and help ensure our top scientists are attracted to work in Australia, not Harvard, Cambridge or Singapore. Already our biotechnology industry is strong. New South Wales is the base for 40 per cent of the nation's biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies. That is a terrific figure, 40 per cent of that growth sector anchored in New South Wales. We are securing it with our plan for biotechnology.

The industry employs 7,000 people and generates $2.8 billion in annual sales. Its exports are worth around $1 billion a year. I am advised that the biotechnology industry in this State is growing at 20 per cent per annum. With our Bio First plan the industry will become stronger, more competitive and more export focused. It will become adept at commercialising its discoveries, with research institutions and businesses working more closely together. The Government has selected six companies to share $600,000 in grants to support world-class research and development. That money is there to bridge the gap between good ideas and marketable products, precisely the area where Australia needs to do better.

With these grants the Government is helping six Australian companies to ensure that their good ideas do not end their life in a laboratory or go off-shore. Uscom, a company based in Coffs Harbour, has an idea that stands to change the way doctors across the world treat their patients. The company has developed a device that measures heart activity using an ultrasound monitor attached to the chest—a huge improvement over the surgery doctors are currently forced to use to look inside the heart. The chief executive officer of the company, Gary Davey, says the grant will enable the company to get the best brains to carry out the research and development needed to take this concept forward.

Five other enterprises have received grants. ACTYE Biotech is based at the University of New South Wales. It has developed a way of replicating cells injected with human gene sequences, which can then be used as antibodies against disease. Al Medics has developed a monitor to detect abnormal blood sugar levels without having to take blood. Imagine the difference that will make for diabetes sufferers! The project is based at the University of Technology, Sydney. Centec is using antibody cells to target disease molecules leaving the immune system intact. Proteome Systems Discovery at North Ryde is developing early detection tests for a banned endurance drug. One need only consider the impact of those drug scandals at the Winter Olympics to imagine how useful the product might be. Vaporex in Balmain is developing a gas treatment that will prolong the shelf life of a range of foods.

These companies and their peers will improve our health and quality of life. They deserve our support. They are getting it. Today I am pleased to report on another aspect of our Bio First strategy. The Government is calling for proposals from organisations interested in setting up a BioFirst business incubator. The incubator will be a place where start-up companies are nurtured. They will have access to research, they will receive advice and the Government is providing $2.5 million over five years for the project. After five years we expect the incubator to be self-funding. Last year one of the nation's most outstanding medical researchers, Professor John Shine, said of our Bio First plan:

With today's announcement we are keeping faith with Professor Shine and his research colleagues across the State. We are saying to the biotech firms and entrepreneurs that we will support them and back them. Their good ideas will be given every support to make it in a global market. I warmly congratulate the six winners of the research and development grants announced today. I look forward to advising the House on the successful tenderer for the biotechnology incubator.

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE RESIGNATION

Mr BROGDEN: My question without notice is to the Premier. Will he now admit that the appointment of Michael Costa as Minister for Police was designed to undermine Mr Ryan and force his resignation?

Mr CARR: No wonder the report in the Illawarra Mercury today said, "Brogden blows it" after the question time performance yesterday. What an absurd, crazy, insane question, because I have three pages of criticisms of the commissioner from the current Leader of the Opposition. I have to say "current" because we do not know how long he will last and there are three other party leaders now on the front bench and two deputy leaders behind them—and they are sitting together. A lot of people have forgotten that Kevin Rozzoli was deputy leader of the party. With all this big spending, wouldn't you think the Coalition would have on its list of big commitments—$2.9 billion in seven days—a memorial statue to Kerry Chikarovski; the Statue of Liberty on Fort Denison perhaps.

Mr Hartcher: Point of order: Mr Speaker—

Mr E. T. Page: Et tu, Brute.

Mr Hartcher: I will speak in English, Mr Speaker. Hansard can correct the Latin. The question was about Mr Costa and the undermining of Mr Ryan by Mr Costa. The Premier should have the courage to answer a single question on the dismissal of the police commissioner today.

Mr CARR: Wouldn't you think the honourable member for Gosford would lie low for a while, perhaps under a doona. I thought he and Barry O'Farrell were as thick as thieves. They would come into the Chamber together, look quizzically at Kerry, and I always thought of the stage direction from Macbeth, "Enter two murderers". I thought they were as thick as thieves and then the member for Gosford does the unpardonable. He picks up a stiletto and cuts deep into the kidney fat. The Coalition do not even find a position for the member for Ku-ring-gai on the front bench. I am told that today in Chifley Square there was an interesting lunch with Merton, O'Farrell, Chikarovski and Debnam.

All my criticisms of the Souris spending plan for New South Wales are designed to achieve the elevation of the shadow Treasurer, my old friend the member for Willoughby. But I think he might aim to use it as a platform to do a Kennett and go after the leadership again. Brogden just got there but, Peter Collins, I know you nearly as well as your colleagues and you are very ambitious. Peter, ambition is your middle name. I say to the Leader of the Opposition, "John (or should I say Brad Keeling) I would not trust Peter very far at all." I was asked about the undermining of the police commissioner. What about the comments in the Daily Telegraph of 4 April by the current Leader of the Opposition in which he said:

He said:

That is what that the current Leader of the Opposition said about the police commissioner. He also said:

He further said:

It goes on for two full pages. He was also at it this morning on radio, again attacking or, one might say, undermining the police commissioner. What a hypocritical question. When I made the announcement with the police commissioner today I said, "We accept with regret the decision he has made. We congratulate him on his dignity and determination during his six long years as commissioner and we install in place the new leadership as of today."

Mr Brogden: Has crime dropped in seven years?

Mr CARR: The one thing that is not dropping is your spending commitments. They are going up and up and if ever implemented they would have one result: the New South Wales budget would be in chronic deficit and our triple-A rating would be stripped from us. Jodee and Brad, we are not going to let you do to this State what people who think like you do did to One.Tel.

DUBBO CONSTRUCTION AND INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITIES

Mr MARTIN: My question is directed to the Minister for Public Works and Services. What is the latest information on construction jobs in the Dubbo region?

Mr IEMMA: When it comes to government support for regional cities such as Dubbo, the story does not get any better. As far as job creation in construction and investment, Dubbo can truly be said to be boomtown New South Wales. Over the past two years this Government has invested $77 million in capital works projects in Dubbo and has created more than 1,400 jobs. This partnership between the Government and the private sector has added to jobs growth, confidence and investment in that thriving rural city.

I will give some examples of those capital works projects. Some $20 million was allocated to completing the stage three upgrade of Dubbo Base Hospital. More than 250 subcontractors worked on the project, 87 per cent of whom were locals. I am sure the honourable member for Bathurst is pleased about that. Eight major capital works projects have been initiated to rebuild Dubbo's education facilities, the major project being construction of the new $18 million senior campus. Those education projects have yielded a total of 750 jobs, most of which have gone to local subcontractors. Some $21 million has been invested in water and sewerage capital works in Dubbo and the surrounding townships, which has yielded 200 jobs—most of which have gone to local subcontractors. Completion of the city's Juvenile Justice Centre not only created 75 construction jobs but also added 60 jobs to the store of permanent employment in Dubbo.

That is the support the Government has given to Dubbo. The private sector has also responded by investing significant amounts in developments in the city. Investment in commercial development is now outstripping investment in residential development. There is strong growth in real estate and the retail and finance sectors. Dubbo is traditionally a strong freight centre, and that industry continues to grow. A particularly pleasing aspect of private sector involvement in Dubbo is the investment in information technology. Both K-net and Scolari Software have announced that they will expand their facilities. That private sector investment and State Government support stands as a model for partnerships between those two sectors and the community in an important, vibrant and strong rural city that is growing and meeting the challenges of the future. The Government is providing the infrastructure and the services that a community such as Dubbo needs in order to continue to expand and to provide a strong, vibrant future for its people.

SYDNEY STAR OBSERVER AGE OF CONSENT ARTICLE

Ms MOORE: My question is directed to the Premier. In light of accusations that a member of his staff faxed a Sydney Star Observer article to country newspapers to whip up homophobia for political advantage, will the Premier give a commitment that in future homophobic prejudice will not be used as a political tool by any member of his Government?

Mr CARR: I know nothing of the incident to which the honourable member for Bligh refers. I will say this: I can think of no substantial argument against introducing a uniform age of consent. The last time the matter was debated in Parliament it failed by one vote to pass the upper House. Therefore, any new legislation presented to this and the other place would need to address the concerns of whatever element in the upper House found it impossible to accept the previous legislation. Members of this House and the other place would look to such legislation to provide guarantees regarding the protection of people aged under 16 years. I will seek the advice of the Attorney General and inquire about the matter to which the honourable member for Bligh has referred. However, I repeat: provided that such legislation offered an appropriate guarantee, the matter would be considered as reasonable for debate in this and the other place. However, any future legislation would have to go further in addressing community concerns than the legislation that was recently rejected by a narrow margin in the Legislative Council.

COALITION FUNDING COMMITMENTS

Mr BLACK: My question is directed to the Premier. What is the Government's response to community concerns about remarks yesterday by the Leader of the National Party about Luna Park and related matters?

Mr CARR: I notice—

Mr Hazzard: Point of order: Mr Speaker, you have indicated to the Premier on many occasions that instead of escapades using props—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst will address his remarks through the Chair. I call the Minister for Transport to order.

Mr Hazzard: Mr Speaker, you have said on many occasions that the Premier's escapades in this House should not involve the use of props. He has yet again come to the Chamber with a prop, which he was waving around. He does not have it now, which is fine. If he leaves it on the chair I will not pursue the matter. We have had enough of the Premier's silly games.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The Premier has the call.

Mr CARR: This is a very serious matter of public finance. Following question time yesterday the Leader of the National Party attempted in this place and elsewhere to clarify the matter of Luna Park.

Mr Scully: How could he?

Mr CARR: Indeed.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Myall Lakes to order for the second time. I call the Minister for Public Works and Services to order.

Mr CARR: The Leader of the National Party began by saying:

I never claimed that Luna Park had lost $50 million; I claimed that, as a result of his administration, Luna Park had lost $54 million. I do not quote J. R. R. Tolkien, Joseph Conrad, Christopher Columbus or William Shakespeare: my source is the performance audit report on Luna Park. The then Auditor-General, Tony Harris, said:

… the costs incurred to reach the current state of completion ($49 million) of the Park were significantly greater than originally forecast.

He continued:

Luna Park Reserve Trust currently owes $5.4 million in additional claims.

According to the rules of arithmetic, 49 plus five equals 54. That is why no less an authority than the then Telegraph Mirror attached a figure of $54 million to the amount lost at Luna Park under the careful administration of the man who is now shadow Treasurer. Yesterday the Leader of the National Party said:

That is what I said in my speech: I said he started after $25 million had been allocated but went on to wheedle money out of the Government to spend on the roller-coaster. The member who emerges with credit from this whole shabby affair is that old friend to many of us on the Labor side, the honourable member for Willoughby. Perhaps he should be the shadow Treasurer. In September 1994 in a letter to his colleague he said:

I am surprised [Consolidated Fund appropriations to the Luna Park Reserve Trust] have been used to fund the construction of the roller coaster in lieu of loan finance, without further consultation with me.

That is what the honourable member for Willoughby said in a letter to the current shadow Treasurer in September 1994. That was not enough for the Jodee Rich of Macquarie Street. Yesterday, trying to explain all this away, he said:

My reputation has been impugned by the Premier …

That is right so far. He said his reputation had been impugned. I thought I had thoroughly trashed his reputation. Faced with material this rich, you do not stop at impugning. He went on to say:

… maliciously twisting the facts …

That is not Bob, is it? Listen to what he said next:

… of Luna Park so that it implies that I had some involvement, which I did not have.

The shadow Treasurer had no involvement! He is like an offender in a murder trial in court: he was not there, the gun was not loaded and he did not pull the trigger. I will go back to the documentation and the undeniable facts. I have here the secret document signed off by the then acting Treasurer in 1983. What did John Fahey write on the file notes, which we released yesterday, about this matter? John Fahey wrote:

I do not believe the Trust should invest in any way. If the investment fails, the Government is ultimately liable.

That document was signed by John Fahey. John Fahey emerges with credit from this but the Leader of the National Party does not. The Leader of the National Party finally wrote back to the honourable member for Willoughby. We have their file and their correspondence. He said:

As Acting Treasurer, I was concerned that I was approving a matter related to my portfolio.

That is the application signed by him and the approval signed by him, which I referred to yesterday. He went on to say:

I noted this concern on the file at the time.

He said that in his letter to the honourable member for Willoughby on 19 October 1994. That is simply untrue. There is no notation to that effect on the file. There is no mention of a potential conflict of interest or crossing the line of any possible impropriety. Further, the Muswellbrook Midas went on to say:

To ensure my impartiality over the recommendation, the file was referred to the Premier for his approval.

He said that in a letter to the then Treasurer and the Minister for the Arts on 19 October. Was it really approved? I publicly released these files yesterday and they say no such thing. Just remember this: the person we are talking about does not hold a minor portfolio. He is, in fact, the shadow Treasurer. In the last week he has ticked off official spending commitments from the State Opposition—I presume they go past the shadow Treasurer—worth close to $3 billion. The man who gave you Luna Park, the Jodee Rich of the State Opposition, is now giving you the potential to run a massive chronic deficit in New South Wales and to cost this State its much prized and valued triple-A rating.

MINISTER FOR POLICE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE

Mr TINK: My question is to the Premier. How can police have confidence in the Premier when with the honourable member for Strathfield and Commissioner Ryan gone the only person left standing is his new Minister for Police, who has personally bungled the introduction of the new promotion examinations?

Mr CARR: The only person left standing? After what they have been through, they frame a question that refers to "the only person left standing". The member who asked the question was locked out of the conspiracy and resigned from the Liberal Party for two days in protest.

Mr Tink: Rubbish.

Mr CARR: We got the full story. "The only person left standing"—after what they have been through? The honourable member for Epping barely held onto his seat on the front bench. He had to be counselled, coaxed and psychiatrically treated to be strung together and propelled back into it. The only person left standing? You want a real statesman in the Liberal Party, someone who stands in the tradition of Vernon Treatt—someone like the honourable member for Baulkham Hills. All his career he has been stuck on the front bench and then he is pulled off. He is on the front bench for a couple of months and the shepherd's crook comes down and yanks him back. What about the treatment of the former Deputy Leader of the Opposition? He has been vindicated. All he said was that John Brogden is no Nick Greiner. For that he is relegated to the back bench.

What would Nick Greiner make of the Opposition's spending commitments? The Opposition has made spending commitments of $3 billion in seven days. No Opposition has ever performed like this. When the honourable member for Lane Cove was the Leader of the Opposition, during the election campaign her pork-barrel register got up to about $5 billion but she was funding it by privatising the electricity industry. She had the funding coming in from somewhere. The honourable member for Lane Cove cannot keep a straight face about what they have done. She has the decency to laugh at what has happened over the past seven days. In all of this the humanity of the honourable member for Lane Cove shines through. When she was the Leader of the Liberal Party in opposition, for the better part of three years she did not promise this kind of thing. It took the Leader of the National Party to tick it off. Which of their wordsmiths came up with "the only man left standing"? This has been a wonderful question time.

Mr Hazzard: Point of order: I plead with you, Mr Speaker, that we not have to listen to this inanity any more from the Premier. Instead the House should be listening to the humanity on this side. I ask that the Premier finish his answer.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.

Mr CARR: I conclude on this thought-provoking observation. The honourable member for Wakehurst was terrific during the leadership turmoil. I love this quote of the Leader of the Opposition:

I walked in the door this morning and Brad Hazzard said, "Happy birthday, I hope you don't win." After the ballot he said, "Congratulations, mate, I'm here to back you all the way."

Mr TINK: I ask a supplementary question. The Premier might like to joke about psychiatric matters, but when is he going to do something serious about police who have psychiatric injuries?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a supplementary question.

COMMUNITY DISASTER RELIEF FUND

Mr W. D. SMITH: My question without notice is to the Minister for Community Services. What is the latest information on a permanent disaster relief plan and a standing committee to oversee the distribution of public donations to future disaster victims?

Mrs LO PO': On 12 March the Premier outlined to the House a progress report on the distribution of funds from the Christmas 2001 bushfire appeal. I now wish to update the House with further developments. Due to the overwhelming public generosity to the appeal fund, which totals in excess of $10 million, a further grant of $7,500 can now been made to bushfire victims most in need. This third-round grant will be made to 85 bushfire victims, comprising 53 households, 16 small businesses, and 16 primary producers and farming families. These grants will be deposited into recipients' bank accounts this week. I also wish to advise the House that there is a longer-lasting legacy from these devastating fires, in the establishment of a permanent public disaster relief fund and a standing committee to administer the distribution of publicly donated funds to future disaster victims.

The Community Disaster Relief Fund will be additional to the money that the New South Wales Government already provides to disaster victims under the Government's disaster relief fund. Between July 2000 and June 2001 more than $4.4 million of government money was spent assisting more than 4,040 families from a wide range of disasters, most of which did not receive the publicity of the recent Christmas 2001 bushfire. I am thankful that these disasters were on a smaller scale, but many of the people who were directly affected by them experienced an equal sense of loss. These disasters included localised bushfires, hail and wind storms, electrical storms and flooding. They affected communities not only in the Sydney metropolitan area where we have seen a more recent spate of electrical and severe wind storms causing loss of power and wide-scale damage to homes, but also in more remote areas of the State where people have often suffered damage to or loss of their homes in relative silence, having had little public knowledge of their difficulties.

We have had major disasters such as the bushfires of 1994, 1987 and Christmas 2001. It is understandable that, due to their larger scale, they are given substantial media attention. Often in these circumstances a public appeal is launched to provide additional assistance to victims. The establishment of a permanent fund will help to provide assistance to all disaster victims above and beyond the existing government support system. By their nature, bushfires are devastating experiences for our community, but like the bushfires of 1994 and 1997 the community can learn much from these experiences to move forward and benefit in the event of future disaster. Part of the major bushfire effects lessons have been learned.

Lessons learned from the 1994 and 1997 bushfires included improvements to communications between firefighting services and improved community fire preparedness, which resulted in the establishment of community fire units that have been attributed with saving many homes in the Christmas 2001 bushfires. Following the Christmas 2001 bushfires, an appeal committee was established to oversee the equitable distribution of public money raised to assist the victims. The committee, chaired by Carmel Niland, the Director-General of the Department of Community Services, set criteria for households, primary producers and small businesses. I congratulate the committee on being able to distribute appeal money so quickly and equitably among the Christmas 2001 bushfire victims.

A great deal has been achieved and learned from managing the bushfire appeal. The establishment of a permanent public appeal fund and a standing committee are our legacy of learning from this most recent major bushfire experience. I congratulate Carmel Niland and the Christmas 2001 bushfire committee on developing criteria for the disbursement of public appeal funds. The general assessment criteria and the points system for household assessment proved particularly useful in providing for fair and equitable distribution. I have no doubt that members on both sides of this House are pleased to know that people who suffer such disasters will be looked after.

Questions without notice concluded.

CONSIDERATION OF URGENT MOTIONS

Pacific Highway Upgrade

Mr NEWELL (Tweed) [3.24 p.m.]: The motion is urgent because in just a few weeks the Federal Treasurer will deliver the Commonwealth budget, which will include forward estimates for the 2006 financial year. The joint State and Federal government-funded Pacific Highway upgrade has contributed significantly to the economic and social wellbeing of the North Coast of New South Wales. So far the Commonwealth Government has refused to commit funding beyond 2006. The motion is urgent because it is time for all honourable members to reaffirm the national importance of continuing the Pacific Highway upgrade past 2006. The time for that is now so that Peter Costello and John Anderson can put the continued upgrading where it belongs, in this year's forward estimates.

Crime Rates

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.25 p.m.]: My motion is urgent because on this day the Commissioner of Police has resigned or has been pushed. The State is without an effective head of the police, yet the State is battling the biggest crime wave in its history. My motion seeks to condemn the Government for failing to stem increasing crime in New South Wales, because crime seriously affects everyone in this State. Under this Government we have seen a massive increase in every level of crime. For example, the incidence of attempted murder has increased by 86 per cent. Abduction and kidnapping offences have increased by 64 per cent. People cannot feel safe as these figures rise.

Robbery without a weapon has increased by 61 per cent. People are being attacked with knives, blocks of wood, syringes and contaminated blood. The police system is ineffective at every level because it is poorly led. The Government is so indifferent to rising crime that even today, during question time, the Premier was unwilling or unable to answer questions about his failure to stem rising crime in New South Wales. Nothing is more urgent to a person who is in danger of assault or robbery than personal safety, but the Government is not dealing with that issue. Other offences against the person have risen by 208 per cent. We have extraordinary levels of crime that are unparalleled in the history of New South Wales. Crimes such as extortion and blackmail have increased by 83 per cent and crimes such as demanding money with menace have increased by 48 per cent.

Malicious damage to property has increased by 64 per cent. These increases have occurred in the six years of this Government. The Bureau of Crime Statistics has reported on these figures, but not one question was answered by the Premier. During question time the Premier had several opportunities to refer to police, crime rates and falling police numbers in this State, but he did not answer a single question. For all his puffed-up peacock-like carrying on, he did not answer a single question. My motion is more urgent than the motion of the honourable member for Tweed, who, in a desperate attempt to hang on to his seat, wants to make the Pacific Highway an issue. I can tell him that the Pacific Highway will be an issue, but the issue will be the failure of Minister Scully and his Government to put money into it.

Mr Gibson: Let's debate it and find out.

Mr HARTCHER: We will debate it and find out. As the honourable member is probably aware, there are more Government members than there are Opposition members. I know that comes as a surprise to the honourable member. He cannot count.

Mr Gibson: Point of order. I am very reluctant to take a point of order on the Deputy Leader of the Opposition when he is speaking to his motion. But nothing in the standing orders gives him permission to advocate the argument from this side of the Chamber as well as from his side. My point of order is very succinct. The honourable member must establish why his motion is more important to be heard today than the motion of the honourable member for Tweed. He cannot enter into the substance of the motion, although all of us would like to do that when we get our five minutes to impress on honourable members why our motion is urgent. But he has no liberty to do that. He must establish why his motion is more important to be heard than the motion of the honourable member for Tweed. It is no good talking about what the Premier said earlier. He must establish why his motion is urgent.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The point of order is upheld.

Mr HARTCHER: Are you going to allow this? When I take a point of order it is all over in five seconds. That took one minute.

Mr SPEAKER: Sometimes I have given the Deputy Leader of the Opposition two minutes.

Mr HARTCHER: Yes, we know all about that. In the 18 seconds remaining after you allowed the honourable member for Blacktown to take up one minute with his point of order, I will make the valid point that a motion about the Pacific Highway, for the purpose of saving a member's skin by being the subject of a press release in his local newspaper, is not as urgent as a debate on the rising crime rate in this State. The real issue is rising crime. The honourable member is attempting to hang on to his endangered seat.

Question—That the motion for urgent consideration of the honourable member for Tweed is proceeded with—agreed to.

PACIFIC HIGHWAY UPGRADE

Urgent Motion

Mr NEWELL (Tweed) [3.31 p.m.]: I move:

The Pacific Highway upgrade, commenced in 1996, has been one of the great bipartisan nation-building exercises. I am sure my colleagues along the route of the Pacific Highway would agree that projects such as the Taree bypass, the Buladelah to Coolongolook freeway, and the Ewingsdale interchange are already providing significantly improved travel conditions and safer roads for transport operators, local residents and tourists. The people of the Tweed will shortly benefit from one of the most impressive projects along the entire Pacific Highway, the Yelgun to Chinderah freeway. I will say more about this exciting $348 million joint State and Federally-funded project in just a moment, but without an ongoing commitment from the Federal Government, continued joint projects beyond 2006 are now in doubt.

It is worth remembering that the Federal Government collects $12.2 billion in fuel taxes but returns only $1.8 billion to the States. This motion calls on the Federal Government to continue its commitment to this nation-building exercise to ensure that the crucial artery of the North Coast continues to be upgraded. I know that my colleagues the Minister for Local Government and the honourable member for Port Stephens will wholeheartedly endorse this position. I hope that the National Party will join us in asking their Federal counterparts to back this call for funding to continue beyond 2006. The economic returns from the Pacific Highway are significant. Consider the following facts.

Quicker travel times and smoother road surfaces create some $3 billion worth of travel efficiencies for the road transport industry. Some 2,500 jobs have been created during construction, and there will be flow-on benefits to regional economies of $1.6 billion and the creation of 1,400 jobs. If one takes into account the economic costs and benefits to road users alone, the investment in the Pacific Highway is delivering a 300 per cent return. For every dollar we spend on the upgrade, the community, the trucking industry and the travelling public reap a $3 return. That is an impressive return on investment for economic reasons alone and the Federal Government should see its continuing commitment to this project as vital.

One of the biggest projects to be constructed so far is the Yelgun to Chinderah freeway. The economic benefits will now be delivered right to the heart of my electorate. I keep a close eye on the construction of this road and I am delighted with the progress. In fact, it appears that the construction of the freeway is running ahead of schedule and should be open to traffic by the end of this year. The Yelgun to Chinderah freeway bypasses the Burringbar Range, a notoriously difficult stretch of road. It shortens the distance between Yelgun and Chinderah from 43 kilometres to 28 kilometres. Currently, the Pacific Highway varies in speed limit from 60 to 70 to 80 to 90 to 100 kilometres per hour through the Burringbar Range and its approaches.

The freeway conditions will enable the speed limit to be increased to 110 kilometres per hour for the entire route, which will mean that travel times will be cut by around 25 minutes. The benefits to the local community will be significant. Travel up and down the electorate will be much safer, the old Pacific Highway route will be returned to the community and there will be improved access from the far North Coast into the booming economies of south-eastern Queensland, providing new opportunities for local businesses. The old Pacific Highway and the Tweed coast road will be able to be converted into a scenic tourist route, creating tourism opportunities for my electorate. It will also eliminate the need to travel through the Burringbar Range section of the Pacific Highway which in turn will mean that the restriction on 25-metre B-double trucks will be lifted.

That is the last remaining restriction along the entire length of the highway. Large trucks will now be able to travel seamlessly between Sydney and Brisbane. The statistics relating to the construction of the freeway are impressive. Some six million cubic metres of soil and rock had to be moved to for the construction of the road; 50 of the 54 bridges and overpasses on this section of the road are now complete, and the arch units for the fauna arch south of Cugera Creek Road are now in place; 462,000 tonnes of rock were extracted to produce aggregate and coarse sand for paving—most of it extracted from the tunnel section of the new freeway; 90,0000 cubic metres of concrete pavement have been laid for the road; 300,000 square metres of mulch was used for landscaping and 300,000 trees, shrubs and ground covers are being planted.

I believe the most significant feature of the project is the Cudgen Road tunnel. The tunnel avoids the need for a deep road cutting or a steep incline on the road and preserves an important fauna corridor, which was the subject of quite a degree of debate and consultation in the period prior to construction of the freeway. There are two major tunnels, each 134 metres in length, up to 20 metres wide and 9.5 metres high. Construction of the tunnel is now complete and it is a very impressive structure. I pay tribute to the contractor, Abigroup, and its 500-strong workforce for the progress they have made and the quality of work. On behalf of my community I express my appreciation to the workers, and to the State and Federal governments for this project. I mean that in all sincerity.

The Pacific Highway upgrade was announced in 1995 and signed off in a memorandum of understanding, if I could put it that way, between the State and Federal governments in January-February 1996. I was involved, together with the honourable member for Clarence and current Minister for Local Government, Mr Harry Woods. The relevant State Minister at that time was Mr Michael Knight, a former member of this Chamber, and the Federal Minister was Mr Laurie Brereton, also a former member of this Chamber. I remember at the time the publicity given to that joint sign off. I think it was almost with disbelief that the public heard the facts and figures about how big this Pacific Highway project would be. I think it was a $1.6 billion project.

Mr Woods: It was $2.2 billion.

Mr NEWELL: I beg your pardon, it was a $2.2 billion project. It was the biggest infrastructure project undertaken in Australia since the snowy Mountains project. It was a pleasure to be part of the ceremony to kick it off back in 1996, but it is an even greater pleasure to be able to stand here and report on the results of that project. It is certainly important that we continue the upgrade of this highway. The State Government will continue to provide more overtaking lanes and stretches of dual carriageway. The Pacific Highway is not quite the cattle track of 20 or 30 years ago. But at the same time as there have been improvements traffic has increased, leading to increased accidents. The need to improve safety caused the Minister for Local Government and me back in 1994-95 to bring the State and Federal governments together to kick off the upgrading.

It is tremendous to report to the House that many improvements in are in place in my electorate and to the south. At the start of my speech I mentioned the Taree bypass, the Bulahdelah to Coolongolook Freeway and the Ewingsdale Interchange—something that the residents of Byron shire were calling out for many years. They are grateful that that section is in place. I firmly believe the work must go on and I know that the Carr Government is committed to that happening. Mr Costal and Mr Anderson now have a window of opportunity to complete more projects up and down the New South Wales North Coast beyond the year 2006. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr J. H. TURNER (Myall Lakes—Deputy Leader of the National Party) [3.41 p.m.]: The Pacific Highway stretches 800 kilometres along the eastern seaboard, linking Sydney to Brisbane. It is also the main access route between the fastest growing non-metropolitan centres in New South Wales and southern Queensland. It carries about 5.4 million vehicles a year, making it one of Australia's most heavily used interstate road corridors by all classes of vehicles. In New South Wales the 700 kilometres of highway north of Newcastle serves our region with a population of more than 470,000. It is also a State road and its upgrading is principally the responsibility of the New South Wales State Government and the Queensland State Government. It was heartening that in his motion the honourable member for Tweed congratulated the Federal Coalition Government on providing money to bail out the State Government in relation to the road upgrading. Often when the State Government is asked for money for State roads, which the Pacific Highway is, or the many other roads around the State, it baulks at providing the money.

I do not know whether the Minister for Local Government will make a contribution in this debate but the honourable member for Tweed bent history a little, with all due respect. Negotiations were entered into between the State roads and transport Minister, Mr Baird, and Mr Brereton. After the change of government there was an undertaking from Mr Knight and the Federal Coalition Minister for Transport to bring into place the memorandum of understanding with the Queensland and New South Wales governments for the acceleration of the upgrading of the Pacific Highway. Commonwealth funding was provided on the basis that Queensland and New South Wales matched the Federal contribution and maintained their existing financial commitments to the highway. In that way the Federal Government initiative acted as a catalyst to bring forth more than $3 billion to be spent on the highway. I thank the honourable member for Tweed for understanding that the upgrading of the Pacific Highway has been funded primarily at the initiative of the Federal Government, probably with the State Government having to be drawn to the table.

There is no doubt that the upgrading has been significant, certainly in my area with the opening of the Bulahdelah to Coolongolook deviation, which has been very successful, and the Taree bypass, with more work to go. But there have been frightening cost blow-outs. It means that the State Minister and the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] are totally mismanaging projects. For example, the Karuah to Bulahdelah dual carriageways were estimated in 1997 to cost $150 million but in 2001 the estimated cost was $235 million, a percentage increase of 56.6. The Coopernook deviation was estimated in 1997 to cost $30.8 million but the estimated cost in 2001 was $66 million, a percentage increase of 114.3. The Bonville bypass was estimated in 1997 to cost $86 million but the estimated cost in 2001 was $127 million, a percentage increase of 47.7. The Tandy's Lane deviation was estimated in 1997 to cost $33 million but in 2001 the estimated cost was $57 million, a percentage increase of 72.2. The issue we are debating today is the Yelgun to Chinderah dual carriageway. In 1997 the estimated cost was $230 million. Even though the length of the upgrade has been decreased by 10 kilometres the estimated cost in 2001 was $348 million, a percentage increase of 51.3.

Just in those projects there has been a blow-out in costs of $300 million since 1997. That is a quarter of the contribution by the State Government to the overall project. This shows clear mismanagement by the Government and the RTA in relation to the projects. And the Premier today had the hide to talk about irrelevant amounts of money associated with a project long ago. This is a current project and the Minister for Roads, the Premier and the RTA stand condemned. They should explain why there has been a $300 million blow-out just on the projects I have mentioned. Imagine what we could have done with $300 million of surplus funds to go on to the Lakes Way or the Buckets Way in my area or the many other regional roads that have been neglected by the Government. It was promised that the upgrade of the Lakes Way would work in conjunction with the deviation but the Minister for Transport and Roads reneged on that agreement. The promise that he made will be wrapped around his neck time and again if he ever visits my area.

The Government must rein in the blow-outs. There must be certainty in the costing. A problem with the current Minister for Roads in relation to not only the Pacific Highway but many other projects in association with the RTA is that he is pre-empting the costs. He is sending a message out to the sectors that build the roads the parameters in which they can build. Instead of going through the proper tendering process by which people approach the Government with a price for which they will do the work the Minister big notes himself with announcements and reannouncements. It is interesting to read the newspaper clippings from around the State. I have never seen more announcements in the last week or two than I have seen from the Minister for Roads. He is pretty well the champion reannouncer of the Labor Government.

People in rural New South Wales who are now being told that they will get an extra $100,000 here or $200,000 there for a bridge or a piece of road should look at the announcement sceptically because really it is a reannouncement of work announced two or three years ago. The process has been delayed and, strangely enough, the project has been reannounced 11 months out from an election.

How much could he announce, rather than reannounce, if he had proper stewardship of his road portfolio to the extent that he was not allowing massive blow-outs in the Pacific Highway upgrade? It is a disgrace. The Federal Government should call for a full accounting of the State Government's handling of the project. I mentioned just five aspects of the upgrade, and there are many other projects under way. The $300 million blow-out in just those five projects demands answers from the Government. This is on top of the $250 million blow-out in the M5 extension. There was not even a word about it. There was no excuse for getting it wrong.

Mr Iemma: The project changed. It was put underground.

Mr J. H. TURNER: Who is responsible for it. If any Minister is responsible it is him. What conditions were put in? How can the project change? The M5 East cost has blown out by $250 million and the Pacific Highway upgrading has increased by $300 million. The Minister for Public Works and Services has a total disregard for taxpayers' money, the same as the Premier and the Minister for Roads. If that is his arrogant attitude he can kiss his chair goodbye in about 11 months. The Opposition will be working with the Federal Government in relation to the extension of the project for the continual upgrade of the Pacific Highway. We will be in government at the time and we will negotiate with the Federal Government to extend the upgrade past 2006.

It has to be done because there have been far too many accidents on the Pacific Highway, and there continue to be. My colleague the honourable member for Coffs Harbour will outline some of the problems with that part of the highway. Until we can get a dual carriageway from Sydney to the Queensland border and beyond we will not have completed the project. We remain dedicated to completing it, and to completing it within budget restraints and not have utterances such as "the project changes". The project did change, it changed from Chinderah, where 10 kilometres were knocked off but $118 million was added on. Perhaps the honourable member for Tweed will tell us how there can be a project change of an extra $118 million when 10 kilometres has been chopped off the road. That shows mismanagement. The Ministers are arrogant and lazy in their portfolios; they are not prepared to make their departments accountable.

Mr OAKESHOTT (Port Macquarie) [3.51 p.m.]: I support the motion. Without doubt the best and most significant project on the mid North Coast is the upgrade of the Pacific Highway. It is broadly recognised that it is a bipartisan, State and Federal, project of significance. It is so bipartisan that members on both sides of Parliament, State and Federal, have claimed success and claimed to lead on it, from former Prime Minister Keating to current Prime Minister Howard, from the current State Minister for Transport to the former Federal member for Coffs Harbour, Garry Nehl. When members on both sides claim success we know that it is a significant and good project. In the electorate of Port Macquarie a great deal of work has been undertaken, including the Taree bypass. Without doubt the Bulahdelah to Coolongolook bypass is the most significant part of the highway upgrade—it takes out O'Sullivan's Gap and the Bulahdelah mountain, and knocks about 20 minutes of the trip. It is now a much safer trip.

The Herons Creek deviation, just south of Port Macquarie, is a significant upgrade. At the moment there are plans to improve the highway near Moorland, Johns River and Kew—all desperately needed work that is long overdue. The improvements will be more than welcomed by everyone. I encourage more debate and more support on the upgrade of the highway. Without doubt that is a most critical nation-building exercise as greater growth pressures are placed on the mid North Coast. The area has experienced a huge influx of population and a change in its character. The increases in business activity make the area no different from the cosmopolitan-metropolitan centres of Sydney and Brisbane. That arterial route is significant and I am pleased that the upgrade will go ahead. It will result in quicker travel and a smoother trip. The upgrade will provide 2,500 jobs to an area of high unemployment rates. It will be the biggest employment project on the mid North Coast.

Today travelling along the Pacific Highway is safer than it was in the past. The upgrades have resulted in less loss of life—previously there were some horrific accidents on the highway. Unfortunately, some accidents still occur and I hope that those statistics are used as a driver to completing the project and to making this a dual carriageway from Hexham to the Queensland border as soon as possible. I support the motion. I call on the Federal Government to commit to the funding arrangements beyond 2006. I also call on the State Government to not play the toing-and-froing State-Federal game of blame, but to get on with the project in a bipartisan manner as soon as possible. I take this opportunity to raise some local concerns about the highway. Property holders have been left up in the air regarding the selection of properties through which routes may be constructed, which would result in the purchase of their properties. In some areas there has been a delay in the purchase of properties.

I encourage the State Government and the Roads and Traffic Authority to keep communities on side. I mention in particular Moorland where in January 2001 three property owners were told that their properties were to be acquired, but nothing has been settled. One owner, a bean farmer, does not know from season to season whether to plant a crop or whether he will still have his property. He is happy to go ahead with the acquisition, but needs to see the dollars on the table and a contract signed. That could be done with hardships money, through the Roads and Traffic Authority, as has been used in some locations, or it could be done through other means. I encourage the State Government to keep local property holders on side during this bipartisan, well-supported, community-wide project of national significance.

Mr FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [3.55 p.m.]: I support the motion, but in doing so I highlight problems that are constantly experienced on the Pacific Highway because of a lack of funding by the State Government. For example, in the Coffs Harbour electorate the Bray Street to Arthur Street intersection blew out from $25 million to $72 million. The Englands Road to Lyons Road upgrade increased from $26 million to $72 million and took about four years to complete—it should have taken two years. The Roads and Traffic Authority redirected funding from the Coffs Harbour and other North Coast electorates to Raymond Terrace—a pure politicisation of the funding of the Pacific Highway upgrade. The Raleigh bypass, which was supposed to cost $29 million, was opened by Minister Woods although he did not have a lot to do with it. He sits there and smiles, but he did not even know where Raleigh was until the day he turned up there. The cost of that bypass blew out from $29 million to more than $70 million.

I refer to the Bonville bypass, which was to commence in 2002 and be completed by 2005. Last Friday the Coffs Harbour Advocate carried the headline "Killer Road" and referred to a horror smash on the highway. The parents of young Jamie Hampton had just flown to Thailand. They were met by Interpol officers who informed them that their 20-year-old son had been tragically killed on the Bonville bypass. A truck driver from Queensland, who was carrying a load of power poles, was also killed. Jamie was in his prime—who knows what his future may have been? I express my condolences to Jamie's mother and father, Geoff and Johanne Hampton, his sister, Beka, and the family. Incidents such as that are caused by the Roads and Traffic Authority not programming funding into the areas of need and playing politics in the lead-up to next year's election.

The figures speak for themselves. The upgrade of the road was supposed to start in 2002 and will now not start until 2005. The honourable member for Tweed plays games, he congratulates himself and says how well he has done. I challenge him to support my call to the Government and the Roads and Traffic Authority to commence work on that road immediately. I refer to the Coffs Harbour bypass, plans for which were released during the Federal election campaign because the Federal Labor candidate was the mayor. The plans blighted hundreds of properties from Bonville to Woolgoolga because a route was not marked out. If this goes ahead it will cost $500 million, but I do not believe that it will. Already $279 million has been allocated for the upgrading of the road from Sapphire to Woolgoolga.

Why would the Government spend another $350 million to put a bypass through the middle of Coffs Harbour—which is not even a real bypass—and blight people's homes? This is nothing more than a political exercise. It is high time that the Government, which controls the department and prioritises the funding requirements for the Pacific Highway, stopped playing politics and sat down and discussed these problems with local people. We all know that officers of the Roads and Traffic Authority are not allowed to speak to local members unless they carry an Australian Labor Party badge and Coalition members have to seek information from the Minister. Deaths have occurred on the highway—it is passed being a joke. I refer to an article in the local paper of 12 February in relation to the honourable member for Tweed. The article states:

The article then referred to the Tugun bypass as follows:

This is his own Government. The article further states:

He should pick up the phone and give the Premier a ring. [Time expired.]

[Debate interrupted.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Urgent Motion: Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders

Motion by Mr Woods agreed to:

PACIFIC HIGHWAY UPGRADE

Urgent Motion

[Debate resumed.]

Mr WOODS (Clarence—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Regional Development, and Minister for Rural Affairs) [4.00 p.m.]: After the dreadful bus crashes of 1989 at Cowper and Clybucca in which more than 40 people died there was great pressure on both State and Federal governments to do something positive about upgrading the Pacific Highway. At the time I was a candidate for the Federal seat of Page and I travelled the highway, along with my campaign team. We researched and noted on the maps dangerous areas with black spots. We distributed hundreds of copies of the map to travellers through service stations. I hope that it enabled them to travel more safely. What is now known as the black spot program was then born.

Immediately upon election to Federal Parliament I started lobbying the then Federal transport Minister, the Hon. Bob Brown, for direct Federal Government involvement in highway development. Until that time the Federal Government had spent its funds only on national highways. For historical and, I suspect, political reasons, the national highway ran inland through National Party electorates. In Bob Brown I found a great ally. He was a champion of Pacific Highway upgrades and convinced Federal Cabinet to allocate substantial funds for highway developments. These were to be done in co-operation with the then New South Wales Coalition Government. The agreement that formed that partnership lapsed in 1996. Fortunately, at that time we had Labor governments operating at a State and Federal level and it was not difficult to convince both governments of the value of a continuing relationship. In 1996 the then Federal transport Minister, Laurie Brereton, and State Minister for Roads, Michael Knight, joined me in South Grafton for the signing of the new agreement. That agreement in the sum of $2.2 billion is still in force and has meant continuing improvements to the highway.

The highway now is a far cry from the highway that was presented to travellers in the late 1980s and through the 1990s at the time of those dreadful bus crashes. A few projects in my electorate that have benefited from this funding include the building of a new bridge over the Clarence River at Mororo; a deviation at Swan Creek; the upgrading at Gap Road, south of Woodburn; a $5.6 million realignment at Tyndale north of Grafton; a $14 million realignment between Byrons Lane and Shark Creek; and a $3.5 million upgrade through Ulmarra. A couple of weeks ago I signalled the start of work on a $21.5 million upgrade at Halfway Creek. These projects have been possible only because of the co-operation between the two levels of government. To say that the condition of the highway has improved is an understatement. But to say that more does not need to be done is naive in the extreme. Also, to suggest that there is no longer any need for agreement between the two governments is foolish. I call on the Federal Government to demonstrate its continuing support with financial commitments.

In a few weeks the Commonwealth will be setting down its forward estimates for 2006. That is when the present agreement ceases. Those forward estimates need to contain a substantial financial commitment to continuing Pacific Highway improvements. If those forward estimates contain such a commitment I will be the first to applaud; if they do not I will be the first to criticise. I will not be alone. I will be joined by a chorus of local government, industry, tourism and motoring leaders up and down the coast—the same group of people who lobbied with us so strongly in the first place. The National Party holds every Federal seat on the North Coast and is in government. Those members should be able to achieve the sort of commitment that is needed. Now is the time that they should be banging on doors. If they fail they will demonstrate that they are ineffectual and their communities will rail against them.

I hope that commonsense will prevail. I hope that the Federal Government recognises the enormous benefits of a co-operative approach, not just in economic terms but in the saving of life. If it does not and if there is a bus crash similar to the one at Cowper in 1989, which cost many lives, people on the North Coast will be able to justifiably point the finger at the Federal Government. We should remember that two State Labor governments entered into this agreement. We will see if a Federal Coalition Government can do the same.

Mr D. L. PAGE (Ballina) [4.05 p.m.]: I support in general the thrust of the motion moved by the honourable member for Tweed. I note that the Pacific Highway is a major road link between Sydney and Brisbane. Indeed, in relation to traffic it is a more significant link than the New England Highway, which is a national highway. The Pacific Highway is a national arterial road. The agreement that was reached in 1996 between the Commonwealth and State governments was a landmark agreement, which provided $2.2 billion over a 10-year period—60 per cent State and 40 per cent Commonwealth. This constructive agreement in many ways has taken the politics out of the much-needed construction works on the Pacific Highway. All members, irrespective of their political complexion, would be keen for a rollover similar to the funding commitment we have seen in the past. This may not be necessary for 10 years but it will certainly be necessary for another five years and will ensure that projects designated in the 10-year program are at least completed.

I suspect that other projects on the Pacific Highway will also need to be completed in addition to those that were identified in the first 10-year program. As inevitably happens, whichever political party is in government, many of these projects have suffered significant cost overruns and the $2.2 billion allocated under the original agreement will not be sufficient to complete the necessary projects. I have a particular interest in this because the Ballina bypass is a major project, valued roughly at $260 million. Unfortunately, this project is due to commence towards the end of the 10-year program. I have been informed that only about 80 per cent or less of the projects will be completed with the original funding—there is a shortfall because of cost overruns.

My only concern with respect to the motion relates to paragraph (3), which calls on the Federal Government to commit the current funding arrangement beyond 2006. Obviously, it is equally important for the State Government to commit to an increase in funding. I believe that the present 60-40 arrangement is fair. I urge the Federal Government, if it now must commit money beyond 2006, to do so and I urge the State Government to do likewise. I ask both governments to continue their bipartisan and non-political commitment to upgrade the Pacific Highway. This significant road services the fastest-growing areas of New South Wales. Demographers suggest that most people want to live on the coast. Although the Pacific Highway is an important link between Sydney and Brisbane, in many ways it is a regional road.

The Pacific Highway is an intra-State road. A lot of local inter-regional traffic travels on the road, which is very important to the population along the coast, and will continue to be so if population projections are correct. I welcome this opportunity to contribute to the debate. My electorate has been a major beneficiary of this project. The $348 million Chinderah to Yelgun project will be completed in about September. There are some problems with the route from Yelgun to Brunswick Heads, but the upgrade from Brunswick Heads via Tandy's Lane to the Ewingsdale turn-off is fantastic and much needed. Access to and from Byron Bay is now much safer. Another project is planned from Ewingsdale to Bangalow and when it is completed there will be dual carriageway basically from Bangalow to Brisbane. That is great, but I remain concerned about the Ballina bypass.

Mr BARTLETT (Port Stephens) [4.10 p.m.]: I am pleased to support the motion moved by my Country Labor colleague the honourable member for Tweed. In the past few years a large part of the Pacific Highway upgrade has occurred in my electorate. The $2.2 billion—$1.6 billion from the New South Wales Government and $600 million from the Commonwealth Government—10-year program has already been mentioned. It is delivering real benefits to the people of Port Stephens, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and anyone else who drives along the east coast of Australia. Over the past 10 to 12 years the cost of road upgrades in my area has almost reached the amounts mentioned by the honourable member for Tweed. The Raymond Terrace bypass completed 10 or 12 years ago cost $90 million or thereabouts, the Raymond Terrace to Karuah project cost about $90 million and the Karuah bypass—on which we should turn the first sod in the near future—will cost another $90 million. Honourable members have spoken about incremental improvements to the Pacific Highway that took place when funding became available. Over the past 10 years the Port Stephens electorate has received $270 million for road upgrades from Hexham to Karuah.

North of Karuah is the 22-kilometre Bulahdelah to Coolongolook freeway, which was referred to locally as the Bulahdelah S-bends. There were 650 major accidents, including tow-aways and fatalities, on that road in the 10 years before the bypass opened. Since then there has been a marked improvement in road safety in the area. When completed, the Karuah bypass will include 34 kilometres of uninterrupted dual carriageway through my electorate. The contract was awarded to Thiess in December last year and the company is currently finalising detailed design and planning for the project. The site office is being established and I hope that the first sod will be turned some time next month. The contract provides that the bypass will be open by December 2004. It involves the construction of almost one kilometre of bridges and nine kilometres of dual freeway across wetlands, but it already has a projected opening date of December 2004.

Residents of the small Karuah community located on the Port Stephens foreshore are concerned about the bypass. I have talked to local citizens and businesspeople, who have expressed their concern that the town should not decline. However, experience along the coast has shown that towns blossom when bypassed. This occurred in Raymond Terrace, where the bypass removed one million truck movements a year. Last week I placed an advertisement announcing the establishment of the community liaison group for the Karuah bypass. It will consider the important matter of community ownership of bypass design and construction. There will be community input regarding the preservation of wetlands, the construction of lay-bys and the like.

The community must have ownership of the project and be satisfied with the bypass design. It must also consider how to redesign the three, four and five-lane road through the middle of Karuah that causes huge bottlenecks. Four or five years ago traffic from Hexham to Karuah was delayed for five hours. We hope to resolve such problems by December 2004. The community is consulting about the redesign of Karuah's main street. The Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads and I inspected the bypass the other day. We drove along the bypass route, looking at where bridges and the like will be built. Improvements to Karuah are part of the bypass design. We will ensure that the Karuah community has a future, looks the part and is ready for the opening of the bypass.

Mr NEWELL (Tweed) [4.15 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members on both sides of the House who contributed to this debate—some more positively than others. Nevertheless, it was a good bipartisan debate. The honourable member for Myall Lakes raised several funding issues and acknowledged the cost increases from 1996-97 to 2001, when the latest figures were available. I refer the honourable member and the honourable member for Coffs Harbour, who also mentioned increased costs, to what happened with the Chinderah to Yelgun section of road. It was costed initially at $250 million, as the honourable member for Myall Lakes pointed out, but additional costs were caused by changes in the project following proper consultation with the community. The road was altered substantially, which led initially to additional technical specification costs—it was difficult to construct the road through acid sulfate soil and so on. However, it had the secondary effect of ensuring that the cane industry in the Tweed was not wiped out by the construction of a major dual-carriage freeway through the middle of cane country. I think we got good value for money.

The honourable member for Myall Lakes also referred other cost blow-outs. He drifted off the subject when talking about the M5 extension, but it was explained that that project had changed as well. Perhaps he should do more research. For the honourable member's benefit, I point out that John Anderson's Federal Department of Transport and Regional Services wrote recently to the relevant Queensland department praising the cost management procedures of the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] and recommending that Queensland follow our example. So much for the honourable member's criticisms. The NRMA has offered nothing but ongoing praise for the RTA's hard work in eliminating black spots. The NRMA, which has been awaiting this work, has agreed that the RTA has effectively prioritised its work to eliminate black spots first. The audit from the State's peak motoring organisation confirmed that the Carr Government has got it right.

The honourable member for Port Macquarie and the honourable member for Ballina made particularly constructive contributions. I thank the honourable member for Port Macquarie for his comments, and I will ensure that his remarks about property acquisitions are referred to the relevant Minister. I thank the Minister for Local Government for his contribution to the debate, and in particular for giving the House the benefit of his knowledge of the history of the area, including the 1989 bus crashes on the Pacific Highway that caused such a tragic loss of life. I am pleased that the honourable member for Ballina acknowledged the landmark agreement in 1996 between the State and Federal governments. I hope that agreement continues to roll over from this funding agreement, which expires in 2006.

This motion is about bringing the two governments together. At the moment they are of different political persuasions. However, there has been bipartisan support for this motion and that bipartisan support will ensure that representations are made to both Federal and State governments to continue the agreement. The State Government has given a commitment to ensure that the upgrading work required in other areas is completed. At the time of the agreement we acknowledged that our aim was to upgrade 60 per cent or more of the Princes Highway into a dual carriageway. For technical reasons and because of deviations to routes which occurred after consultation with community groups the costs have exceeded the projected estimates. Organisations such as the NRMA have acknowledged that the work of the Government has been exemplary and the comments of the Federal Minister for Transport indicate that we have done a good job. I thank the honourable member for Myall Lakes, the honourable member for Port Macquarie, the Minister for Local Government, the honourable member for Coffs Harbour, the honourable member for Ballina and the honourable member for Port Stephens for their contributions to the debate.

Motion agreed to.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Matter of Public Importance

Mrs SKINNER (North Shore) [4.21 p.m.]: The Coalition is committed to upgrading and improving the State's psychiatric hospitals, increasing the number of psychiatric units in general hospitals, dramatically increasing the coverage of community-based mental health teams across the State and boosting the role of non-government organisations in the provision of mental health services. The Coalition believes that the Carr Government's ignorance and failure to address problems have left mental health services in this State in total disarray. The Coalition has already pledged the first tranche of its mental health policy, and there will be many more to come. Following the submissions that are expected to be made to the upper House inquiry into mental health services, we will make further announcements about extra beds and services for mental health patients in country New South Wales.

Honourable members who are present in the Chamber would no doubt be aware of the critical problems in mental health services, particularly on the mid North Coast and the Far North Coast. I look forward to the members who represent those electorates raising those matters at a later time. The Coalition will look at the evidence provided to the inquiry by the public, particularly by patients and their families. We will also look at the evidence of those who work in the mental health system and who are bold enough to ignore the Minister's decree not to provide submissions to the parliamentary committee without his approval. The Coalition will listen to what they have to say.

This week the Coalition announced the first tranche in our mental health policy. We propose to establish a centre of excellence for mental health on the Callan Park site at Rozelle. The site will remain in public hands. That is in contrast to the plan of the Carr Government, which is to sell eight hectares of the site to raise money to relocate mental patients. Our plan is to locate at that site up to 400 beds for psychiatric care. The centre will include a comprehensive range of care, including psychogeriatric care, adolescent care, extended care and long-term rehabilitation. It will provide teaching and clinical research opportunities, which will be developed in consultation with the Commonwealth Government and the National Mental Health Council. There will be multidisciplinary health care and purpose-built outpatient facilities and non-government organisations and support services will be located there for the benefit of those who have the responsibility of caring for people with mental illnesses.

The Leader of the Coalition made it clear in his announcement that all recurrent costs for the provision of mental health services will be met by the government. We have allocated approximately $80 million per annum for that purpose. I believe that the cause of the Minister's extraordinary outburst in this place yesterday in response to the announcement was his guilt. We have touched a sore spot. He knows that his Government is in serious trouble—not only with the medical profession and people working in the provision of mental health services, but also with the community—because of his failure to meet the needs of those with mental illnesses. For example, the Minister said in this House yesterday that the people of Sydney will be locked out of the site. The people of Sydney will have access to the site and they will own it. This site will remain in public hands. The Minister said that the walls will go back up.

Mr Knowles: You are going to privatise it.

Mrs SKINNER: The Minister will have an opportunity to speak in a moment. We are not privatising it. The Minister does a terrible disservice to those with mental illnesses when he demeans their circumstances and conditions. He told Parliament yesterday that the walls will have to go up, there will to be barbed wire around the site and bars on the windows because the public would not be safe from mental patients. Speaking about patients in that way is an indictment of the Minister for Health. He has the gall to talk that way about seriously ill patients for whom he is responsible. He is a disgrace. He owes an apology to everyone in this State who has a mental health problem. The Minister also claimed there would be no public access to the site.

Let me look at some of the reasons why the Minister is so sensitive. A 2001 report by an advisory committee, which was headed by the Minister's chief of mental health services, Professor Beverley Raphael, indicated a shortfall of about 800 beds for people with mental illness. Professor Raphael was quoted in an article in the Sydney Morning Herald as saying that the shortage of beds was causing people to be left on the streets. She is not the only one to say that. There have been a number of reports from organisations such as the Council of Social Service of New South Wales [NCOSS] and the St Vincent de Paul Society about a significant waiting list of sick people who are homeless, live in boarding houses or are in gaol. In relation to the need to provide more psychiatric beds Professor Raphael said:

We are moving from the situation where we thought everyone whose illness is chronic could be cared for in the community, which we now know is not the case at all, to trying to find the right balance.

That is what the Coalition is doing in the first tranche of its mental health policy. In relation to the public reaction to the Minister's comments in this House yesterday, I refer to an email, which I presume has been sent to all members of Parliament because it is a votergram sent on the fairgo.org web site. The email states that the Minister's response is hypocritical in the extreme and continues:

Far from securing Labor's next term in office, this mindless comment—

referring to the Minister's comment—

The Coalition will retain this beautiful, peaceful surround for mental health patients, many of whom have lived there for many years. In fact, some of them are veterans from the Second World War. Our briefing statement makes it absolutely clear that we will not privatise health services on that site. Recurrent services will be funded from government funds. There may be co-located facilities, such as aged or residential care for the ageing carers of those with psychiatric illnesses, and there may be opportunities for private-public partnerships.

Mr Knowles: There may be, there may be.

Mrs SKINNER: The Minister should be careful not to lie in this House, as is his wont. They are not mental health services. I am sure the Minister has received correspondence from Michelle McKenzie, one of the Friends of Callan Park, who says:

So much for the Minister claiming, "All the locals will be unhappy", as he did in this House yesterday. The locals love it. People with mental illness think it is terrific. Their carers think it is a real step forward. Those who have been concerned about the lack of beds and the Minister's big talk about doing something when, in reality, he is doing nothing are thrilled with the lead taken by the Coalition. The Minister is a fraud. He lied to this House when he said that the plan would include privatisation. There will be no bars. No big St Vincent's blocks will be dropped on the site. The service will be excellent. That is why we are putting it on the Rozelle site; that is why we are calling it a centre of excellence. The centre will provide modern treatment ranging from long-stay care to overnight care through to rehabilitation. It will provide a home for all those who have been out in the cold. It will address the problem that carers have raised with me on many occasions: the number of people who ultimately commit suicide because the Government has failed to provide mental health services. Shame on the Minister!

Mr KNOWLES (Macquarie Fields—Minister for Health) [4.31 p.m.]: As I said yesterday, make no mistake, when we hear the New South Wales Liberal-National Coalition use the words "public-private partnership", that is code for privatisation. The honourable member for North Shore should ask the people of Port Macquarie whether they think Port Macquarie Base Hospital, a public-private partnership, is a little bit of privatisation. Today we have learned that, contrary to the published documentation in the Sydney Morning Herald, we will have a little bit of privatisation at Rozelle. Which little bit? Which little bit of the Rozelle hospital site will be privatised?

Until the Coalition answers that question, it is reasonable for the community to assume that under the Coalition policy of public-private partnership, which gave us the Port Macquarie Base Hospital, every square inch of Rozelle hospital will be owned, operated or managed by the private sector. Our proposal is a park; the Coalition's proposal is a private mental hospital. The good people of the Balmain peninsula and Rozelle will have to determine whether that is what they want. When the Coalition's plans are up and running, if they ever reach fruition, a private operator will not let the 40-something dads like me jog through that area with their three-wheel tricycles and their little babies because there is a funny thing called public liability. There will be no more walking Fifi down those wonderful dog trails. They will be off that site forever. The bottom line is that the Coalition dropped a clanger yesterday.

Mr Fraser: The bottom line is that 11 beds remain closed at Coffs Harbour.

Mr KNOWLES: We built a mental health facility at Coffs Harbour Base Hospital that Ron Phillips could never get through Cabinet. I will bring the Cabinet papers down to demonstrate it. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour knows that as well as I do because he has been told precisely the value of the facilities in his area. The choice is a reconcentration of services back in central Sydney, the old Callan Park asylum model, or a dispersal model that takes mental health facilities to where people live. The Government has provided facilities in the Tweed and Coffs Harbour. Taree has a terrific new facility at the Manning Base Hospital and Kempsey also has a new facility. We have provided facilities on the Central Coast and in Western Sydney. Recently, the Governor and I opened a terrific adolescent psychiatric facility at Campbelltown.

The Government has provided facilities in places where families live, in places where people with mental illnesses live and in places that deserve the facilities. The Coalition can re-establish a mental asylum in the grounds of Rozelle and add insult to injury by making it a public-private partnership, which is code under its policy for privatisation, or it can adopt the model of linking mental health facilities with acute care facilities. That is logical under contemporary clinical practice. The Opposition has been caught out. It wants to privatise Rozelle, put a wall around it and put all the mental health patients from around the State in the one location because, for some perverse reason, the Opposition has this zeal for privatisation. Members of the Opposition will wear it like a noose around their necks every single day.

All the clinical practice, all the science surrounding mental health treatment, understands that services for people with mental health problems should be provided in acute care, mainstream settings. Much has been written about that, and I could quote many people. However, for protocol reasons I choose not to quote from one of the State's leading psychiatrists. But the views of some of these individuals about what the Opposition proposes for Rozelle are well known. The Opposition is on a hiding to nothing. I might have discovered something else today: the real reason why the Opposition had to rush a policy into place to get more acute beds under a Coalition Government. Today I discovered that their mates in Canberra propose to cut $2 billion from the pharmaceutical benefits scheme [PBS].

Let us do the cause and effect. People in the community who are currently under pharmacotherapy management will not get their drugs or, if they do, they will have to find a hell of a lot more money to pay for them. People who are currently on proper therapy and treatment will need those beds because nothing will be left for them. Howard rips the guts out of the PBS, and that means that the Opposition has to provide more beds under its plan. Let us be clear about this. This is a plan of the Opposition's private mental hospital. Public-private partnership under the Opposition is Port Macquarie Base Hospital. I will get a big photograph of it and put it right on this table for Opposition members to look at for the rest of the year. Nobody will believe the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for North Shore, the Leader of the National Party or anyone on the Opposition front bench because their mitts are all over a model of public-private partnership that is called Port Macquarie Base Hospital.

Mrs Skinner: Point of order: This is a serious subject. There are rules in this House about props, especially untrue ones that trivialise important subjects. I ask you to tell the Minister to take this subject seriously and get rid of his fake props.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Lynch): Order! What the Minister is using is not a prop as defined in previous rulings. I note the honourable member for Coffs Harbour is doing the same thing as the Minister.

Mr KNOWLES: This is an extremely important subject, and that is why I am comparing the Liberal Party plan for a mega mental hospital at Rozelle with the construction programs taking place all around the State to provide mental health beds proximate to where communities, carers and consumers live. We are doing it at a rate that the Opposition simply cannot cope with. The Coalition's alternative plan, the real choice for mental health consumers and their carers, is a dispersed model of facilities located close to where people live, or the private megamental hospital in the grounds of Rozelle, moving people away from the opportunity of acute-care services linked to mainstream health services and lumping them into a mental hospital—the old Callan Park asylum-style facility.

The Government's plan is to repatriate a hospital site into a 48-hectare foreshore park, the biggest foreshore park in the Sydney region with full access for the community. It will be truly a park. For the past 100-odd years it has been a mental hospital site where people have jogged and walked their dogs in the grounds. We will make it a park and release the funds tied up in this old health asset to build a new health asset at Concord Hospital, linked to a brand new hospital which has been endorsed by every leading mental health clinician in this State. That is a matter of good public policy. It was the policy that the honourable member for Willoughby followed, I might add, when he chose to relocate the Camperdown Children's Hospital to Westmead. It was the principle that underscored the relocation of the Royal Women's Hospital at Paddington to Randwick, and it makes sense.

As the honourable member for Willoughby said in his policy statement at the time, and I repeat today, it is about equity and a fair go and locating services closer to where people live. This might be good for psychiatrists who live in Glebe and Balmain who want to walk to work, but it is no good for someone who does not live within a bull's roar of this location. It certainly compounds the problem when the Coalition wants to make it a privately operated facility. Under the Liberal-National Coalition PPP is code for privatisation. Port Macquarie hospital is exhibit A, exhibit B and exhibit C. The Coalition has nailed its colours to the mast. We know what is going to happen if ever it is elected to office.

Mrs HOPWOOD (Hornsby) [4.41 p.m.]: The Coalition has a strong record of appropriate and efficient mental health service provision in New South Wales. Annual spending on mental health services was at record levels when we were last in government. The landmark Mental Health Act 1990 was enacted and there was ongoing review and monitoring of its effectiveness. Many facilities were upgraded and crisis teams had extended hours, confused and disturbed elderly [CADE] units were increased and community mental health teams received boosts in staffing levels. It is obvious that services have slipped since 1995 and people are unable to access the care they need. There are too few mental health beds and not enough policy commitments to offer solutions.

The idea of creating a centre of excellence in mental health services demonstrates that the Coalition has a wealth of initiatives to work towards solving serious issues for some of our society's most vulnerable. It greatly distresses me that a large number of people with mental illness are residing in public housing without the support and treatment systems they need available to them. Over the past six weeks that I have been the member for Hornsby I have met with at least half a dozen people who live in public housing in my electorate who thought their unit complex was supposed to be providing housing for those over the age of 55 years. In a number of the complexes, 50 per cent of the residents are not elderly and have a disability or a mental illness of some kind. Many of the latter rely heavily on the older residents for support and crisis intervention.

Older people under these circumstances are stressed and distressed that they are providing the safety nets for mentally ill people when the Government should be doing this. Additionally, with such horrific lack of available public housing—for example, waiting lists of 3,000—those most in need of accommodation are unable to acquire it when people who should be cared for within the health system are placed in public housing because there is nowhere else to put them. Both the elderly and the mentally ill are being let down by a system that has failed. The homeless in our society are another example. These men and women have demographics that show 75 per cent suffer from a mental illness.

Places such as the Matthew Talbot Hostel for Homeless Men and the Society of St Vincent de Paul are straining under the burden of dealing with the complex needs of the individuals who frequent these wonderful services. Thousands of homeless people sleep in the streets of Sydney each night, some of them around this Parliament. Research tells us that the number of people with a mental disorder who approach such charities for assistance is steadily increasing. They have grossly deficient access to treatment. That compounds their situation, and it appears they are made to seem invisible because little is done for them. They will not go away. Good government needs to provide solutions for all people in our community and not place sections in the too-hard basket.

Mental health is a most important part of health care provision. When almost one in five adults has at least one of the common mental disorders at some time in a 12-month period, responsible government must ensure that there is adequate access to services that can assist in management of this situation. A centre of excellence in mental health services at Callan Park will provide this care. There is currently a gross shortage of beds in the present system—a situation that cannot continue into the future. The centre will provide care that deals with the whole person, and attend to multidisciplinary health care including outpatient services, the needs of carers, and teaching and clinical research opportunities.

Non-government organisations and other relevant industry groups will function through a mental health co-ordinating council. There are numerous ways in which people with mental illness can be assisted to live better lives and a centre of excellence will provide them. Social dislocation is an everyday occurrence for many of those who suffer mental disorders. Deinstitutionalisation of patients with mental illness did not provide the level of care needed and left patients with little support. More funding must be allocated to this complex area of health care provision. The Coalition has a clear and positive plan to turn around the burden shouldered by people who cannot acquire the mental health care they deserve and should be able to access. The centre of excellence in mental health services is the answer.

Mrs SKINNER (North Shore) [4.46 p.m.], in reply: I thank my colleague the honourable member for Hornsby for her contribution to the debate and for the very serious approach she took to this very serious subject. Her contribution was in contrast to the game playing and nonsense promoted by the Minister for Health, who is deliberately trying to mislead this House and the public with maps drawn in his office. God knows how he has time to do such things. Why he would allow his staff to do so, when they could be channelling their energies to serving people who need health care, is beyond me. The reality is that the Coalition has indicated that it will allocate $80 million annually in recurrent expenditure to run this service. Honourable members opposite are aware of that and the Premier has made a great deal of it. It is quite obviously nonsense for the Minister for Health to suggest that this program is not going to be run by the Government.

I remind the Minister of the Premier's comments on the future role of private-public partnerships in the provision of services—and will be happy to send a copy to his office—and, indeed, the Minister's own use of private-public partnerships in many areas of the State. I reiterate that this will be a centre of excellence to be located on the Callan Park site. The site will remain in public hands. There will be public access to the foreshore and the site. There will be no lockout. There will be no great mental asylum, as the Minister has attempted to portray it, located on the site. It will be a multidisciplinary team with a multidisciplinary approach that provides long-stay, rehabilitation, geriatric and adolescent services, and opportunities for research. I believe it will provide a very exciting element of mental health services in this State.

People all across New South Wales are crying out for better access to psychiatric care. Whether those patients are Sydney people or country people, they are crying out for it. The Coalition will announce its commitment to increasing the number of psychiatric beds in rural New South Wales and the regional centres, particularly after it has consulted with and listened to people through the submission process for the Legislative Council review into mental health services. I know that the honourable member for Coffs Harbour and my colleagues from that part of the State will raise these issues regularly. It is particularly in that part of the State that, for example, magistrates are saying from the bench that people have to be held in custody because psychiatric assessment cannot be carried out before they can be dealt with by the court.

The Association of Relatives and Friends of the Mentally Ill [ARAFMI] and other mental health support groups have sent emails to me, to the Minister for Health, to other members of Parliament and to the media about the number of people who are threatening to commit suicide and the number of people who have committed suicide because they are unable to get appropriate hospitalisation and other mental health services. That means a whole range of services. It means overnight in a hospital bed on occasions. It means support in the community. It means support for families. The Minister has ignored the warnings of his own department. He has ignored the warnings of Professor Beverley Raphael, the head of his mental health centre, who said there are 800 too few psychiatric beds in New South Wales.

The Coalition has heard that. The Coalition has heard patients, their relatives and their friends. It has heard psychiatrists, psychologists and doctors. It has heard local government and committed country members of the Liberal Party and the National Party who have raised this matter. And we are responding. The Government, and the Minister in particular, protesteth too loudly. He knows that he has let these patients down. On his conscience has to be the very serious distress families have been put through. There has been absolute tragedy in some cases. We are talking of hundreds—I repeat hundreds—of suicides of mental health patients who were not treated appropriately by the Health Department.

Discussion concluded.

GAME BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 9 April.

Mr BLACK (Murray-Darling) [4.51 p.m.]: What a great pleasure it is to speak yet again in support of city Labor and a great Minister, Richard Amery, who is responsible for the Game Bill. The bill will require all people hunting game animals on public and private land, and pest animals on public land, to be in possession of a game hunting licence. To obtain a licence hunters must adhere to a code of practice which emphasises humane hunting. Those who do not comply with this code will lose their licence. It must also be emphasised that the Game Bill does not apply to national parks and wilderness areas.

In western New South Wales the bill has been greeted ubiquitously. We do not have people out there in the front paddocks who would oppose a bill such as this. I will come back to that point shortly. The Game Council will issue three licences, which will replace the many existing hunter permits and licences administered by State Forests, the National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Department of Land and Water Conservation. A general licence is required to hunt game on private land. A restricted licence is required to hunt game on public land and is to be issued only to more skilled hunters. An occupiers licence will permit the holder or another person to hunt a specified number of ducks—I will deal with that in a moment—on private land for pest mitigation purposes once the director-general of national parks and wildlife has set a quota.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Lynch): Order! I call the honourable member for Coffs Harbour to order. Making duck noises does not help the debate.

Mr BLACK: If he wants to be a goat he can be a goat. There are also plenty of them out there. The New South Wales Game Council will comprise seven persons nominated by hunting organisations, a nominee of the State Council of Rural Lands Protection Boards, a nominee of Landcare organisations, two wildlife management scientists, a nominee of the New South Wales Aboriginal Lands Council, a nominee of the Minister administering the Forestry Act, and a nominee of the Minister administering the Crown Lands Act. Game animals are any of the following non-native animals living in the wild: deer, quail, pheasant, partridge, peafowl, turkey and hare. The following pest animals living in the wild on public land will also be classified as game animals: feral pigs, feral dogs, feral cats, feral goats, rabbits and foxes. Coming back to the duck issue, the following species of ducks will continue to come under current pest mitigation provisions: black duck, grey teal duck, wood duck and mountain duck.

The bill is important to my electorate as a massive rice crop is coming in down south. Rice paddies were put in first at Tullah in my electorate by Italian prisoners of war at the time of the Second World War. The rice industry has expanded ever since, and so has the duck population. The bill was first introduced late last year. There has been a long period of consultation with a range of interested parties, particularly in my electorate. They have included local government, shooting organisations and all those who have a genuine interest in conservation. The original bill has been amended in the following ways. The definition of "hunt" has been altered to take account of concerns that the previous definition might have been misconstrued as authorising harm to animals in a manner inconsistent with the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. The term "pest" has been removed from clause 5 (2) and other parts of the bill to improve consistency with the Rural Lands Protection Act. Hares have been moved from clause 5 (1) and are now classified as a clause 5 (2) game animal to take account of the fact that they are regarded as nuisance animals by farmers in some parts of New South Wales.

The bill has been amended to make it clear that dingoes are not game animals. I will come back to that point in a moment. The term "feral" has been removed from clause 5 (2) to improve consistency with the Companion Animals Act. The composition of the Game Council has been increased from 14 to 16 members, with an additional member nominated by the Minister for Agriculture and an additional member nominated by hunting organisations. Clause 18 (1) (d) has been amended to make it clear that a game hunting licence is not required by anybody suppressing wild dogs as part of a duty imposed under the Wild Dog Destruction Act 1923. A requirement that a person must carry a game hunting licence when hunting has also been introduced in clause 53. Under amendments to clause 30 the hunting code of practice will now contain mandatory provisions to be observed by licensed game hunters. Clause 35 has been amended to require the Game Council to suspend or cancel a person's game hunting licence if that person is found guilty of an offence involving cruelty to animals.

Clause 35 has been amended to give the Game Council the power to disqualify a person from holding a game hunting licence for an indefinite period. A new clause has been added requiring public notification of the declaration of areas available for hunting. A clause has been added stating that the Game Bill does not exempt people from their responsibilities under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. There was consultation over the summer period. Wild dogs are of considerable interest in my area, with the dog fence, the provisions of the Wild Dog Act and all that sort of thing. In response to concerns that the Game Council might impact on wild dog control an amendment has been included that makes it clear that a game hunting licence is not required by anybody suppressing wild dogs as part of a duty imposed under the Wild Dog Destruction Act 1923.

I was involved with this bill from the beginning. I asked a question of the Minister leading to the introduction of this bill. I have had long contact with the various gun groups and those interested in feral pest control. There is consensus in western New South Wales about the bill. So imagine how I felt when I was hit with a mail campaign from the Greens and other elements. Last week I was at a meeting at Moama talking to local mayors. I was told that they had found another greeny. I said, "Good heavens, that means I have got six greenies in my electorate", the same as the number of fingers on each hand of some of the people opposite. I have circulated the documents the greenies have sent to me to mayors in my electorate for their information. The Total Environment Centre issued a media release that stated:

In the west there is a consensus that this is a great bill. In the west we do not have any members of the Total Environment Centre and we do not want them interfering in anything to do with western New South Wales, including the Game Bill. Another media release from the Total Environment Centre, under the heading "Amery and Carr Legislation Hands Over Powers, Land and Resources to Hunters, Shooters and Pig Doggers", stated:

According to the Total Environment Centre, there we all are in western New South Wales, with.22 rifles, shooting rabbits and other animals. The media release continued:

Cowardly? We fought for this, and I welcome the support of the National Party. The release continued:

Mr Armstrong: Point of order: In the interests of the record, I inquire whether the member supports or opposes the bill?

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Lynch): Order! No point of order is involved.

Mr BLACK: I welcome your support. You will be the Lazarus of the National Party when you take over. In the past two days the Leader of the National Party has failed abysmally. We will welcome you back as leader.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! I suggest that the honourable member for Murray-Darling direct his comments through the Chair. He needs no assistance from the honourable member for Lachlan.

Mr BLACK: Let us get back to the subject. I received a fax that stated:

I circulated that fax on behalf of the sender, and it is worth at least a 2 per cent increase to my vote base. The fax continued:

although I think most of those groups have only two members—

people who call themselves Angels (the Jeff Angel group)—

I am pleased to report that we do not have any of those groups in western New South Wales. We do not want them interfering with this bill. I have received yet another media release from the Total Environment Centre which stated:

Mr Fraser: Why are you reading that into Hansard?

Mr BLACK: Because my speech will be circulated very widely throughout my electorate, that is why. This speech will get me another 2 per cent support next March. I heard the honourable member for Coffs Harbour refer to feral cats, and I have a picture of one with me. I repeat the fax that was sent to me:

I will tell honourable members what happened. Someone let the calicivirus loose too early in South Australia, and it spread very rapidly. As a consequence calicivirus has just about wiped out the ground parrot population of western New South Wales. Why? Because the cats climb the trees and eat the parrots instead of dining on bunnies, as they should. Some people say that it is wrong to shoot feral cats. But I show this picture to the goat man opposite.

Mr Fraser: Are you shooting them?

Mr BLACK: No, we are keeping them. Last January people were very upset because we sent a boat load of 40,000 goats across to Saudi Arabia, through Port Adelaide. The live goat exports raise $42 a head at Portland, and they raise $33 from skinners at Wanaaring. But people complained because the goats were in Adelaide, and no-one had been told about the change of address. What a shocking thing to happen—they were all lined up for the great and glorious export of feral goats. We have to get this bill through the upper House. It is a great bill and will benefit western New South Wales. It is a great bill for anyone who has a token interest in the control of feral pests. The honourable member for Lismore nods his head in agreement.

We have to get this right. I refer now to Ian Cohen, one of the great members of the upper House, the person who has a great interest in recipes involving koalas. Last March Ian Cohen visited the west, changed his mind and supported the kangaroo cull. He said, "Goodness, look at all these kangaroos, there are more than we have ever had. We have just put off the cull, but we will have to have a kangaroo cull so that we can look after the native vegetation." What a wonderful argument! I wonder which way he will vote on this in the upper House. He should support the bill because, at the end of the day, it is about conservation. The bill is about elimination of feral pests. [Time expired.]

Mr R. H. L. SMITH (Bega) [5.06 p.m.]: I have interviewed a number of people belonging to shooting organisations in my electorate of Bega. I have interviewed members of the Sporting Shooters Association and gaming shooters. Generally speaking, the sporting shooters do not believe that this bill provides very much for them. In fact, if the bill is not amended that group would prefer that it not go through. However, the gaming shooters see this as a great breakthrough, something that would assist them in their sport. When I informed both groups of some amendments which were proposed for removal in the other place they were very impressed. Many amendments will give a lot more opportunities for shooters to enter national parks.

Currently, shooters need only a firearms licence to go onto a private property, with the permission of the owner. Under the Game Bill shooters would also need a gaming licence to shoot game on private property. That is another level of licensing and red tape. I am a farmer, probably one of the few in this House. I know of the effects of feral animals on private land. As the honourable member for Murray-Darling said, there has been a massive increase in kangaroos. I add that since duck shooting has been prohibited in New South Wales ducks are unbelievably prolific. I planted an oats crop and a few weeks ago I went to inspect it. A number of hectares of oats around the dam have been eaten out. I estimate that there are probably 200 or 300 ducks on that dam. They are extremely destructive of crops.

If foot and mouth disease were introduced into this country it would devastate rural industries. Indeed, pigs are major carriers of the disease. Feral pigs are prolific in almost all parts of New South Wales, particularly in many newly declared national parks and public lands. The National Parks and Wildlife Service and other government landowners have not been able to deal with their rapid growth. The gaming licence and appropriate amendments used by disciplined game shooters will help to greatly reduce the incidence of feral animals and, therefore, reduce the risk of foot and mouth disease. All honourable members would be aware of the destructive nature of feral cats, which consume many protected animals within national parks and public lands. Although they cannot be completely eliminated, their numbers could be reduced with the introduction of the gaming licence. The measure will also broaden the role of responsible sporting shooters to enable them to more widely participate in their sport on public land.

The bill has a number of benefits. However, it is inadequate in its present form. Therefore, I recommend that the Government seriously considers the amendments that will be moved in the other place. If the amendments are agreed to the bill will allow legitimate and responsible shooters to assist in reducing the proliferation of feral animals in national parks and public lands. The bill may also alleviate the wild dog problem about which we have heard in recent times, particularly in the Monaro electorate. The honourable member for Monaro said that in his electorate wild dogs come from the national parks and maim and kill sheep on grazing properties. The same applies to my electorate. Officers of the National Parks and Wildlife Service were not willing to go to the centre of the park to deal with the problem. They have not got on top of the problem.

A gaming licence for the shooting of feral dogs will certainly help to alleviate the problems on the perimeter of national parks. It will enable farmers to seek permission to engage responsible shooters to reduce the number of wild dogs in areas bordering national parks so that they do not enter private land and destroy sheep. I have been informed that wild dogs are killing calves, which is unusual. Indeed, they are becoming so prolific that they may even attack humans—and that would be tragic. I again ask the Government to consider the amendments that will be moved in another place because they will add weight to the bill, which, in its present form, achieves little. The amendments will allow shooters to enter national parks, an initiative that is welcomed by gaming and sporting shooters in my electorate.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Gaudry.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS
_________

NORTHBRIDGE PRIMARY SCHOOL

Mr COLLINS (Willoughby) [5.15 p.m.]: I bring to the attention of the Minister for Education and Training the condition of Northbridge primary school, the subject of a petition currently presented on a daily basis to the Parliament. I visited the school and the accommodation is a real problem because in bad weather the classrooms leak. I have photographs that depict the flooding. Honourable members are not allowed to use visual aids in the House, but I will make the photographs available to honourable members who wish to view them. All honourable members would be concerned for the safety of students at a school that can be ankle deep in water. Needless to say, the school community, students, parents and staff are angry about the poor facilities in what is a long-established but still growing school. I extend an invitation to the Minister for Education and Training to make his first visit to my electorate in his new ministerial role and to visit the school. In my new shadow ministerial role I would be more than happy to welcome him and show him these problems.

Last year an audit of the school showed that of 14 classrooms only four are permanent—and they were constructed in 1923 and are only 47 per cent of the recommended facility standard. The only building to meet current standards is the library, which was constructed 21 years ago. Seven modern demountables take up valuable playground space. When it rains water is ankle deep at the entrance to the rooms. The compliance of these buildings is only 68 per cent of the facility standards set by the Department of Education and Training. There are also what are called bristol classrooms, which are only at 56 per cent of the required standards. There is no covered walkway between buildings. The canteen is a demountable and doubles as a clothing shop. These kinds of conditions may not be unique to my electorate. Indeed, there may be other schools in the State that face similar problems. However, it is important to raise the problems at this school because they are significant and compounding. I am sure that the Minister would want to be made aware of them so that he can allocate the necessary funds to enable Northbridge primary school to continue to attract more students.

There has been an upsurge in enrolment applications to government schools in my electorate, particularly in areas such as Northbridge. This is the result of the medium-density housing policy of this Government and its predecessor. These days many more people wish to live closer to the city and schools forecast for closure by the Department of Education of Training—which has never been great at making demographic projections, predicting population trends or analysis—are seeing increasing student enrolments. As a consequence, these schools must be retained and developed. I have endured my share of school closures in the past. Honourable members may recall the closures of Naremburn Public School and Castlecrag Public School in my electorate, both of which were situated pretty close to Northbridge primary school. It is all very well to close schools but the corollary must be to boost and build up the surviving schools with proper maintenance and refurbishment. My invitation to the Minister is genuine; I will write to him about the matter. I hope that he will visit Northbridge primary school with me and ensure that students at that school receive the very best that government education can offer.

Mr MARKHAM (Wollongong—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.20 p.m.]: I acknowledge the comments by the honourable member for Willoughby and I will ensure that the Minister for Education and Training is made aware of them. I will personally deliver a copy of Hansard to his office tomorrow morning and make sure that he reads the honourable member's speech. I understand his position: it is important to keep public schools in the best possible shape so that they can attract more students. The honourable member for Willoughby pointed out that more working-class families are moving into the area, which augurs well for us in the future. There should be a good local public school in his electorate so that those kids know what a good Labor Government can provide. I take this opportunity to welcome the honourable member for Willoughby back to the Opposition front bench. When he was Leader of the Opposition we worked closely on several matters affecting Aboriginal families and communities. It is great to see the honourable member for Willoughby back in his rightful place.

LAKECOAL PTY LTD COAL HAULAGE OPERATIONS

Mr GAUDRY (Newcastle—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.22 p.m.]: Today's edition of the Newcastle Herald carries the headline "The end of the line" and the associated article refers to the final voyage of the MV Wallarah, the fourth vessel in the 99-year run between Catherine Hill Bay and Newcastle. This issue greatly concerns my constituents and those of the honourable member for Swansea and the Minister for Gaming and Racing, who is in the Chamber. BHP Billiton and its subsidiary Coal Operations Australia Ltd are selling the Moonee mine, the Wallarah colliery, the Catherine Hill Bay coal plant and the Chain Valley colliery to a new consortium, LakeCoal Pty Ltd, which has decided not to use the Wallarah to transport coal from Catherine Hill Bay to Newcastle. That can mean only one thing: increased transport of coal by road, with an associated impact on the environment and the amenity of residents along the route from Catherine Hill Bay to the Port Waratah Coal Services' operations in Carrington. It also raises the issue of road safety.

The Wallarah could transport 5,500 tonnes of coal at maximum capacity—which is equivalent to 60 to 80 coal trucks—every day, and sometimes the vessel made two trips. It is not clear why the new coal operators believe they do not need the vessel. The company has already closed the Wallarah and Moonee mines and the Catherine Hill coal preparation plant will close in June or July. There will be no further coal washing on those sites and the company believes the remaining 250,000 tonnes of coal can be transported to Newcastle by road. I do not see why Coal Operations Australia cannot reach an agreement with the new owners—I understand the purchase is being settled now—to use the vessel to carry that 250,000 tonnes of coal to the port of Newcastle before the operations are changed. The Chain Valley Bay operation currently produces about 350,000 tonnes of coal that is bought by Vales Point power station, which is part of the Delta Electricity network of stations. There is no doubt that the mine has further capacity and, according to the newspaper article, the new owners propose to increase production by up to 800,000 tonnes.

I believe this matter should be referred not only to the Minister for Mineral Resources but to the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads and the Minister for Planning. An increase in road movements of that magnitude must necessitate a new development application or environmental impact statement. Our policy is to transport most coal by rail. I understand there is the possibility of using in future the coal offloader that services the Vales Point power station. If an onloader could be produced perhaps it could be used in conjunction with short road haulage. However, I am not sure whether that proposition would be economical. The current proposal will mean increased road traffic, increased danger and increased adverse environmental impact for residents of the electorates affected. I ask the relevant Ministers to consider the proposal very carefully.

Mr FACE (Charlestown—Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development) [5.27 p.m.]: I support the comments of the honourable member for Newcastle. This is an absolute disgrace. It is interesting to note that Allan Davies—one of the owners of LakeCoal, who caused industrial relations strife for miners in the valley—is attempting to continue his Gestapo activities by transporting coal through the suburbs of my electorate and the electorates of Swansea and Newcastle. Just this weekend people were picking coal on the grass. For the first time in years there was coal lying in the streets of Charlestown—obviously the result of overloading or of trucks failing to secure their tarpaulins. On Saturday afternoon while driving to Sydney to open a bowling club I was overtaken by three trucks playing chasey through Belmont and travelling in excess of my speed of just over 60 kilometres in a 60-kilometre zone. We have seen cowboys like this before.

Mines that opened in the past were required to transport coal by rail or on the Wallarah, which I laid the keel on in Ube in Japan and which was built specifically for this purpose. When the Charlestown west bypass—which has less steep gradients—opens towards the end of the year, those trucks will travel down Carnley Avenue and Bridges Road, into the inner-city suburbs of Newcastle and through Carrington. That is not acceptable. Mr Davies and his mates should get this clear message from the word go: I will do everything in my power, with the assistance of the Minister for Mineral Resources, the Minister for Planning, the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads and anyone else who counts, to ensure that coal is not loaded onto trucks and sent down the Pacific Highway through the electorates of Swansea, Charlestown and Newcastle. That is completely unacceptable to our constituents and the company will have to think again.

COFFS HARBOUR ELECTORATE HEALTH SERVICES

Mr FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [5.29 p.m.]: I raise in the House yet again the issue of health in the Coffs Harbour electorate. I refer to an article in today's Coffs Harbour Advocate which carries the front-page headline "Coffs Left Out". The article states:

The article continues:

Dr Moran goes on to say in the article:

Dr Moran further said:

I also refer to correspondence from Dr Bill Ross from my electorate. He states:

I reiterate that health care in Coffs Harbour is in a parlous state. An 81-year-old has to travel to Sydney to receive chemotherapy. That is an absolute disgrace. I call on the Government to immediately increase funding so that Coffs Harbour has funding parity with other regional areas in New South Wales.

INTEGRAL ENERGY TREE CUTTING

Mr GIBSON (Blacktown) [5.34 p.m.]: I refer to the tree cutting policy of Integral Energy. It seems that every time there is a major storm trees come down over powerlines and through substations. The community then faces difficulties, such as food rotting in freezers, because of the lack of electricity. I believe the commonsense approach to this problem is that large trees should not be allowed to grow under powerlines. Integral Energy should have a policy that any large trees growing under powerlines are put to sleep. At present Integral Energy dismantles these trees, but the result looks like someone has gone bonkers with a chainsaw. It seems as though Integral Energy tries to get the greatest visual pollution that one could imagine. As I said, the simple answer is that large trees should not be allowed to grow under powerlines. All honourable members would agree that powerlines should be underground because of the visual pollution of aboveground powerlines. Integral Energy should look at that issue as well. To dismantle trees, which are items of beauty, for the sake of powerlines is cruel. It is like going to a tailor, the tailor ripping out a sleeve from your suit coat and saying, "The rest of the suit coat is all right. Just go and wear it the way it is."

Mr George: It's all right if you've got only one arm!

Mr GIBSON: The tailor might then rip out both sleeves. It is like having a pair of shoes that are too small, so you cut a hole in the toes to make them fit better. That is what Integral Energy is doing to the trees. Mr Dilio Figueira of Seven Hills asked me to have a look at the work of the tree cutters from Integral Energy to a 20-metre gum tree in the front of his home. He said that he did not question the right of Integral Energy to cut the tree, but he did question the way in which the work was done. He was assured by Integral Energy that the tree was stable. However, he was not swayed by that assurance because only a few weeks before a 21-metre pine tree out the back of his property was pulled out of the ground in a storm.

When I saw the gum tree, I thought I was looking at a version of the Leaning Tower of Pisa. The 20-metre gum tree had grown on a tilt back towards the house. Integral Energy cut all the branches off the tree on the road side, and now the tree, which is only half a tree, is tilting back onto the house. You would not have to be a Rhodes scholar to realise that as the tree gets older and heavier there is a great possibility it will fall, and it can only fall one-way—on this man's house. The fallen tree would cause tremendous damage or possibly kill someone.

Integral Energy told Mr Figueira that the tree was one metre inside his boundary and, although its employees had hacked at it, it was no longer its responsibility. This tree should be put to sleep. It is right outside Mr Figueira's home and is visually ugly. I do not believe that anyone in his right mind could do the damage that the tree cutters have done to this tree. It is absolutely absurd that a 20-metre gum tree should grow under powerlines. The commonsense answer is to cut down the tree and to cut down similar gum trees and other large trees that grow under powerlines. If we do that we will not experience electricity disruptions during storms and people's lives, property and homes not be placed in danger.

PARRAWEENA ROAD, TAREN POINT, TRAFFIC ARRANGEMENTS

Mr KERR (Cronulla) [5.39 p.m.]: I draw to the attention of the House the appalling consequences that flow from the Government's decision not to provide right-turn arrows at the intersection of Parraweena Road and Taren Point Road, Taren Point. I have received a number of representations from residents, one of which states:

Parraweena Rd East: There is a right hand turn lane but no right hand signals. This is a disastrous situation and near head on collisions that I have witnessed turns ones stomach.
Parraweena Rd North: Travelling east and trying to drive straight across to get to our street is impossible. There is no right hand signal, therefore traffic turning right holds up the traffic that is trying to drive straight ahead. There is, however, a left-hand turn lane!
There is a NO RIGHT right hand turn sign for peak morning traffic but during the day and afternoon peak hour this area is not worth travelling along. Again traffic on the northern side trying to travel east straight across Taren Point Rd, take dangerous chances, as after sitting through 3 and 4 sets of lights.

I made representations to the Minister. It is unfortunate that in the afternoon peak hour travelling through this intersection can take up to six phases of traffic lights. Many near misses have occurred due to frustrated drivers trying to make illegal right-hand turns against oncoming heavy traffic. A suggested solution would be to phase out Parraweena Road lights in one direction at a time similar to those at the intersection of the Kingsway and Wandella Road at Miranda. Instead, the solution offered by the Minister is that motorists can use The Boulevard or Koonya Circuit signals to access Taren Point Road. That is a ridiculous option for residents and businesses in Parraweena Road, who would have to take a trip around the block of up to five kilometres to access those alternative intersections.

The Minister's decision shows a total disregard for road safety. He is responsible for ensuring that signal-controlled intersections operate efficiently and safely, and Parraweena Road certainly does not do that at present. The installation of right-hand arrows would provide an ideal opportunity to improve the safety of motorists and pedestrians alike: it would provide right-turn arrows as well as pedestrian signals. This is literally a life or death situation. It is something that transcends policy. I am sure that anyone who travels along that road, whatever locality they come from, would certainly echo what I have said.

DEATH OF HAROLD GEORGE COATES, OBE, A FORMER MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Mr MARTIN (Bathurst) [5.43 p.m.]: It is with great sadness that I inform the House of the passing of Harold Coates, OBE. From May 1965 to 1968 he was the honourable member for Hartley in this House, and from 1968 to April 1975 he was the honourable member for Blue Mountains. Harold sat as an Independent, and at one time he was the Acting-Chairman of Committees. Harold was born in 1917at Hampton, which is just outside Lithgow. He was a life-long resident of Lithgow. Harold passed away yesterday after a fatal collapse at the weekend. He is survived by his wife, Kit, sons Ian and Doug, and daughters Bronwyn and Olwyn. I extend my sincere sympathy to them and to Harold's extended family.

Harold was a builder by trade and succeeded his father, George, in operating a successful timber and hardware business in Lithgow. Harold's son Ian continued in the business, and his grandson Michael now operates a very successful business that has been an important part of the Lithgow business sector for many generations. Harold Coates' record in public life is impressive by any standard. It stretches over more than 60 years. The Parliamentary Library curriculum vitae of Harold Coates reveals that as well as his service in this House he was a member of Lithgow council for almost 40 years. I served on that council with him. For 40 years he was the foundation President of the Lithgow Aged People's Home.

Harold was President of the Lithgow Chamber of Commerce and member and President of the Lithgow Show Society. He was involved with the New South Wales Planning Authority and the Development Corporation of New South Wales. He was President of the Hartley District Boy Scout Association, a member of the Lithgow Technical College Council, a distinguished Rotarian and, I believe, a Paul Harris Fellow. He was an alderman on Lithgow council from 1945 up to the early 1980s. There was a short period when he was not on the council. He was mayor on a number of occasions from the late 1940s; his last term as mayor was 1976. Harold Coates performed long and distinguished community service. He will certainly be missed in the Lithgow community.

Harold contacted me as recently as last week. Often he would ring me to give me the wisdom of his advice as a former member. In the mid-1970s I was a fresh-faced young fellow on the council who thought he knew everything and Harold was the elder statesman. We had opposing philosophies, but if we had the odd dust-up in a council meeting we were always good friends after it. He was always prepared to give advice, and eventually I learned to listen. Harold had a very successful political career. I was involved in some of those campaigns on the other side of politics. The people who worked for Harold, Bede Leighton of the Lithgow Mercury and Alan McInanty, were great personal friends of his. They are also great personal friends of mine. On many matters we agreed to disagree.

Harold's inaugural speech in this House revealed that Harold was a great lover of institutions and traditions. He was a great supporter of the Royal Family. He was a Mason and he held the highest office of Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of New South Wales for a record term. In that capacity he did a great deal of charitable work. As honourable members know, Masonic lodges are famous for such work, particularly the Frank Whidden Homes. For many years Harold was very much involved with that organisation and its spread throughout New South Wales. He was one of the people in Lithgow who was responsible for the Masonic Brethren and the St Vincent de Paul Society getting together and working at charitable events.

It is unfortunate that recently the Rector of the Anglican Church at Lithgow decided that Harold, because he was a Mason, could no longer practice at the church where he was a member for 60 years. On Friday I will attend Harold's funeral. It is particularly sad to note that he will be buried from the Uniting Church because he is not allowed to be buried from his beloved Anglican Church. I know that his family are quite sad about that. In recent months it caused Harold some stress. I am hopeful that the lesson of Harold Coates' life will persuade the people who made that decision to recant. Harold Coates will be greatly missed by the community of Lithgow. I am pleased to be able to pay tribute to him in the House tonight.

Mr FACE (Charlestown—Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development) [5.48 p.m.]: I thank the honourable member for Bathurst for paying tribute to the late Harold Coates. I am one of the few who would have been members of this Chamber when Harold served here. That was during the period of conservative Government from 1965 until the Labor Party returned to the Treasury benches in 1976. One thing that Harold never lost was his enthusiasm for Lithgow and for the place he came from. Obviously, we were on opposite sides of the political fence. Although he came into this place as an Independent, there was no doubt about his philosophy. However, that never stood in the way of my friendship with him. Whenever I went to Lithgow I would ask the former member for Bathurst, Mick Clough, or the present member how Harold was going. If Harold knew I was in the area he would always try to contact me. As I said, he never lost his enthusiasm for the myriad activities he was involved in.

During the time I served with the police and the time I have been a member of this House I thought the prejudice between Catholics and Protestants and between the Masons and various sections of the Catholic Church, such as the Knights of the Southern Cross, had disappeared. Harold wore his heart on his sleeve with regard to being a Mason. He made a great contribution to the organisation. As the honourable member for Bathurst said, Harold was the Grandmaster of the United Grand Lodge of New South Wales for a record term. I credit him with opening up that organisation, through the medium of the Frank Whidden Homes and other charitable activities. He publicly acknowledged what that organisation did.

The fact that people were better able to understand the Masons as a result of that was a tribute to him. He broke down barriers that many people believed could not be broken down. Harold was a member of his Anglican Church for 63 years. The refusal by a Minister of that church to allow Harold and his family to attend that church and the refusal to conduct Harold's burial service because he happened to belong to the Masonic Lodge harks back to the bad old days. Harold deserved better than that. He was a great son of Lithgow and he was a good member of the New South Wales Parliament. I am pleased this issue was raised in the House tonight. May he with rest in peace.

LACHLAN VALLEY WAY FUNDING

Ms HODGKINSON (Burrinjuck) [5.50 p.m.]: I, too, am saddened to hear of the death of the most distinguished and highly respected Harold Coates, a former member of this House. I extend my sympathy to his family and his loved ones during this time of grief and mourning.

I have spoken many times in this House about the need for the Government to pay more attention to roads in rural New South Wales. Today I shall specifically address local concerns about the state and future of Main Road 56, the Lachlan Valley Way. That road runs northwards to Boorowa from the Hume Highway just to the west of Yass. From Boorowa it continues north to Cowra and then follows the course of the Lachlan River as it flows west through Forbes and beyond. In my electorate of Burrinjuck the Lachlan Valley Way has a reputation as a bad road. It has been the site of many accidents. Some, unfortunately, have been fatal. There are few overtaking opportunities on the road, and that leads to heightened driver frustration and an increased risk of accidents. This year the Federal Government has allocated about $503,000 to fix black spots in two locations to the north and south of Boorowa. About $500,000 of Federal black spot funding has also been allocated towards work on the approaches to the Kangiara Bridge in Yass shire. The state of the Lachlan Valley Way in Boorowa and Yass shires is such that this year the Federal Government has decided that it is necessary to spend over $1 million to repair identified black spots.

Why is the Lachlan Valley Way in such dire straits? I have been informed that for several years maintenance funds for the Lachlan Valley Way were diverted to rehabilitation work on the Burley Griffin Way between Harden and Yass. That was done with the agreement of the Boorowa Shire Council on the understanding that a similar arrangement would be put in place when the work on the Burley Griffin Way was completed. That agreement is not being honoured by the Minister for Roads and the Lachlan Valley Way is now, and I quote those who maintain it, "in poor condition because of past starvation of maintenance funds". This year the maintenance budget for the Lachlan Valley Way in Boorowa shire is $1.4 million. In Yass shire $231,000 has been budgeted for expected maintenance work. Boorowa Shire Council has written to me informing me that it is being forced to undertake maintenance in a piecemeal and unsatisfactory fashion. The council stated:

Council is carrying out stabilisation within areas marked out for heavy patching. The fact that a full patch is not being remedied has led to criticism that Council is only patching patches with no perceived benefit to the road user.

Boorowa Shire Council further wrote:

In order to achieve economies of scale, a decent length needs to be patched at one time … The money spent on the stabiliser should have been concentrated in the one area to achieve economy of operation and those areas which were deemed to be unsafe or requiring attention will be given a 'Band Aid' patch until the next round of funding.

That clearly shows that the funds allocated to maintain the Lachlan Valley Way are barely sufficient to maintain a bad road in its existing poor state. Council is reduced to patching patches with insufficient funds being provided by the State Government. In response to this clear need, the Minister for Roads will jump up and proudly point to his recent announcement of $9 million funding for this road as a result of the hike in the Harbour Bridge Toll and other Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] charges. I welcome additional funding for the Lachlan Valley Way; I have asked for it often enough in Parliament and in representations to the Minister. I will, however, believe it when I see it.

We all became very excited about the Premier's 1997 promise of an additional $6 million a year for 10 years for roads in the area of operation of the Visy pulp and paper mill. That promise, as with so many promises made by the Carr Labor Government, was subsequently rewritten into a commitment to maintain the existing level of road funding for a period of ten years. The roads on the south-west slopes are now crumbling under the assault of a massive increase in heavy logging traffic servicing the Visy mill while the Carr Labor Government refuses to accept its responsibility, make good on its promise and properly maintain these roads.

In circumstances such as these I fear for the Lachlan Valley Way. The Minister is well known for repeatedly announcing funding programs spread over many years that are later quietly rewritten. The additional $9 million which he has announced for the Lachlan Valley Way is spread over three council areas—Yass, Boorowa and Cowra—over three years. I am told that of that $9 million, $5 million will be spent in Boorowa shire. Over three years that equates to about $1.67 million a year in road maintenance on the Lachlan Valley Way. That figure is suspiciously close to the existing parlous budget being spent on this important but badly maintained road. The councils that maintain this road have asked, but have not been told where, when or how the Lachlan Valley Way money will be spent. I call on the Minister to come clean and give a firm unequivocal commitment to how much additional funding will be given, when it will be realised and where it will be spent.

BANKSTOWN SENIORS WEEK ACTIVITIES

Mr ASHTON (East Hills) [5.55 p.m.]: Tonight I want to talk about the events that took place in the Bankstown City Council area during Seniors Week, a great tradition that dates back many years. I know that just about every member of this House tries to attend as many functions as possible during Seniors Week, and it is a pity that this year Parliament was sitting during that time. The title for this year's Seniors Week was "Inspiring, Imagining and Interacting". Many groups in the Bankstown area play a role in making Seniors Week a success. One of those is, of course, Bankstown City Council, which puts a great deal of time and effort into conducting various events.

I want to go through some of them to show the variety of events that took place in Bankstown. The Bankstown Sports Club is a great supporter of Seniors Week and the official opening was held at the club. Ron Lockwood was Mayor of Bankstown on six or seven occasions and the Memorial Essay/Poetry Competition is named in his honour. This year second prize in the competition was won by Neville Bryce, a wonderful man who lives in Padstow. He has lived in the Bankstown area for over 50 years and has been a tremendous supporter of a whole range of activities including the RSL, youth movements and the like. His story was entitled "My First Impression of Bankstown".

I will not read the piece of poetry he wrote, which is entitled "The Bicentennial Dunny", but I am sure the honourable member for Wollongong, who is at the table, would appreciate it if he gets an opportunity to read it later. During Seniors Week there was a mystery tour of Bankstown. One of the local bus companies transported seniors around Bankstown to look at some of the sights, and there were many to see. There was a seniors golf day. That is the type of event I would have liked to attend, although I would probably have needed a cart even if some of the seniors did not.

A luncheon was arranged for Meals on Wheels recipients and frail aged day care patients, courtesy of the Greyhound Social Club, another local club that is in the business of helping members of the community and it is doing good work. Meals on Wheels virtually began in Bankstown back in the 1960s, something that the community is proud of. A bus trip was arranged to the Bowral and Berrima areas and those who went on the trip were able to take in the sights of the Southern Highlands. The frail aged and nursing home patients enjoyed a concert hosted by the Bankstown Trotting and Recreational Club. I have been told it was fantastic.

There was also a Healthy Ageing Expo at the Bankstown RSL. A lady I knew when I was teaching at Picnic Point High School was very much into healthy food. She was able to convince some senior citizens of the need to eat good, healthy food. Revesby Workers Club has a tradition of holding seniors concerts. It can take 1,200 to 1,500 people and it was packed. The concerts are free. Throughout the year the club holds other such functions. I am now the patron. Federal member Daryl Melham and other State members and former members such as Pat Rogan and the Minister for Gaming and Racing have visited the club, which does a great job for seniors and young people.

The New South Wales Department of Sport and Recreation promotes the shoot and shuffle senior titles at Bankstown Square. Steve Mortimer, the former great Australian and Canterbury-Bankstown rugby league player, is the brains behind shoot and shuffle. Other clubs and frail aged villages may be interested in holding such functions. Primary and high school kids are also involved. A town hall dance was also held. The closing concert for Seniors Week was held at Bankstown Square. I thank Neville Bryce; Wendy Oliver; Pat Pride; Olive Flynn; Norma Smith, who is the President of Revesby Workers Club; Max Treuer, former President of the Bankstown and District Trotting Club; Merv Cook, a director of the Bankstown Sports Club; Mr Bill Crouch; Mrs Hien Tran; Mrs Lidija Sestakova; Chris Passanah, manager of corporate communications at Bankstown Council; and Kerry Sebio, Julie Hayes plus the council and mayor of Bankstown for the fine work that is done every year in Seniors Week. [Time expired.]

NORTH-WEST RAIL LINK PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Mr TINK (Epping) [6.00 p.m.]: I raise matters concerning public consultation regarding the north-west rail link. In general terms I strongly support the concept of the project, not least because it will draw many people who would otherwise use cars on major roads throughout my electorate onto public transport, where many of them should be. There is also strong support for the project in the electorate. Nevertheless, there is an understandably real concern about the fine detail, especially exactly how, when and where the link will be built, properties that will be affected, design concepts and so forth. For that reason I was disturbed to receive on 4 April from Quay Connection, consultants for the north-west rail link, a fax indicating that there was a meeting that same night. The workshop was to be held at the Asquith Leagues Club.

After speaking to my staff and drawing on my recollection I can confirm that at no time prior to 4 April did I receive any communication from Quay Connection. In the material that was sent by fax on 4 April there was reference to a copy of the overview report in relation to the proposal being enclosed. No such report was enclosed with the letter that is purportedly dated 19 March 2002 to me but which was received in fax form only on 4 April. I did not receive a copy of the report until going to a Beecroft-Cheltenham Civic Trust meeting, where one was in evidence. I then wrote to the transport Minister's office and obtained a copy. The trust said that it got its letter on 19 March but the trust president, Mr Bob Raymond, said that as the meeting was at Asquith the trust did not feel that it needed to be represented.

I am extremely concerned that any meeting relating to the north-west rail link would be held at Asquith. For one thing, it is on the wrong railway line. The project affects the main north-south railway line coming through Beecroft. The maps provided to me from the Minister's office indicate that the link is immediately south of Beecroft railway station and north of Cheltenham railway station. I would have thought that any workshops that relate to that end of the rail link as distinct from The Hills end—I understand that workshops will be held in the Baulkham Hills area—ought to be held at Beecroft. Strong suspicions are raised when a workshop relating to Beecroft matters is held at Asquith. There is great suspicion generally about public consultation of that type. Nothing would be more likely to raise the suspicions of people affected than the holding of the meeting at Asquith. Whether it was by design or incompetence or for some other reason, I do not know.

My plea to the Government and Quay Connection is to ensure in the future that any stakeholder meetings or workshops that affect the eastern end of the proposal are held in a place that is proximate to the people who are affected. A number of churches at Beecroft have halls that could have been used for the meeting. Cheltenham Recreation Club could have been used at a stretch. The Epping Club or Pennant Hills Bowling Club could also have been used. Holding the meeting at Asquith simply excited suspicions that the meeting was deliberately held a distance away from the people affected precisely so that they would not attend. The Cheltenham- Beecroft Civic Trust did not believe that the meeting related to it and other people were not informed, which was what happened with me. By 4 April when I found out about the meeting I had something else arranged on the night and could not go. The consultation meetings should be held in the immediate area of people affected by the proposal. There is good will and general support for the project. People want to know how it will affect them and they want to have a say in real time and at a place they can reach practically. [Time expired.]

LAKE MACQUARIE ELECTORATE SCHOOLS

Mr HUNTER (Lake Macquarie) [6.05 p.m.]: Tonight I bring to the attention of the House and the Minister for Education and Training a number of issues relating to public schools in the Lake Macquarie electorate, namely, Dora Creek Public School and Wangi Wangi Public School. Recently I received a request from both schools for assistance in gaining improvements. Subsequently I contacted Mr Barry Wheeler, the manager of the Department of Education and Training Property Services Unit in Newcastle, and arranged for him to visit the schools with me on Monday 8 April. At Dora Creek Public school we were met by the principal, Lyn Barrows, the president of the parents and citizens association, Sue Warry, and the vice-president, Bill Carr. We discussed the problems at the school and then spent considerable time inspecting the school. There is a problem with the lack of space on the school site. Only one building at the school is permanent; the rest of the school buildings are demountables. In addition, part of the land at the rear of the site is waterlogged for a number of months of the year.

Basically, the school community is looking for assistance in improving the make-up of the school, with a view to new buildings being provided down the track. Barry Wheeler was very co-operative. He offered to rearrange the layout of demountables at the school and took on board the concerns raised by the parents and citizens association in relation to a number of other issues at the school. Initial improvements will be made over coming months. Today I notify the Minister for Education and Training that I will be sending to him the letters that have come from the parents and citizens association outlining the problems at the school. I invite him to visit the Lake Macquarie electorate at some time in the future to visit Dora Creek Public School, meet with representatives of the parents and citizens association, inspect the school and listen to the concerns of the parents and citizens association. I hope that in coming budgets he will allocate funds for further improvements at the school.

Following the visit to Dora Creek we travelled to Wangi Wangi Public School, where we were met by the principal, Shaaron Moore, and representatives of the parents and citizens association, Chris and Peter Hobson. Chris and Peter pointed out to me and Barry Wheeler a number of problems mainly relating to the administration block and the library both of which are demountable buildings. It is hoped that in the future funds will be made available to replace the demountables, which have been at the school for some 20 years, with permanent buildings.

The representatives of the parents and citizens association also raised concerns about school security. Over the past few years approximately $50,000 worth of school equipment has been stolen from the school. Probably in excess of $20,000 damage has been done to school buildings. I was hoping that, as the Minister has announced in the past allocations of funds for improved school security, he could look at Wangi Wangi Public School and allocate funds for the installation of a security alarm system. Following on from the meeting at Wangi Wangi school, Barry Wheeler and I travelled to Fassifern Public School to see progress with the installation of three new demountable buildings.

Previously I have raised in Parliament concerns of the school principal, Annette Bradley, and the Fassifern parents and citizens association. On this visit we were met by the new association president, Debbie Scott, and vice-president, Helen Waldon. Together we inspected the work that is taking place at the school. I thank the Minister and the Department of Education and Training for their swift response to the concerns previously raised by the school. Following this we travelled to Biddabah Public School and met with a representative of the parents and citizens association, Daryl Broxom, and the school principal, Graeme Mason. We talked about the future planning for the upgrading of that school. Today I raise the particular concerns of Dora Creek and Wangi Wangi public schools and ask the Minister to consider the written representations to him soon to arrive from my office. I ask him to set aside time to visit the Lake Macquarie electorate and inspect the schools to assess their problems.

Mr MARKHAM (Wollongong—Parliamentary Secretary) [6.10 p.m.]: I congratulate the honourable member for Lake Macquarie on bringing this matter to the attention of the Chamber. I congratulate him on doing a fine job as the local member by going to the schools and seeing their problems at first hand. I assure the honourable member that I will bring his concerns to the attention of the Minister when I take Hansard to him tomorrow. I have already given an undertaking to the honourable member for Willoughby that I would do that and I give the same undertaking to the honourable member for Lake Macquarie.

WINGHAM HIGH SCHOOL CAPITAL WORKS

Mr OAKESHOTT (Port Macquarie) [6.11 p.m.]: Along with the honourable member for Lake Macquarie, I raise concerns about growth demands on public education facilities and capital works at schools in my local area. I mention specifically Wingham High School and its multipurpose centre catering for drama and music facilities. As mentioned by the honourable member for Lake Macquarie in relation to his electorate, many schools on the mid North Coast feel population pressures. We are heading towards demountable education as capital works cannot keep up with the huge influx of people.

Tacking Point Public School is only a few years old, but it has nine demountable classrooms. Camden Haven High School, only 18 months old, now has a third demountable. A teacher at Laurieton Public School, on the main street, has never taught in a brick building. In a 20-year-career on the mid North Coast that teacher has taught only in demountable classrooms. We are facing a huge problem in education. I hope these concerns are recognised in future budget allocations and that there is an increase in the provision of permanent buildings over demountables.

I have looked at the drama and music facilities at Wingham High School. Drama is taught out of—you guessed it—a demountable classroom. This major high school has a significant student population and does not have appropriate facilities for the teaching of arts. Currently a storage room is being used as part of the school's music facilities. That is not appropriate for quality education. The local community and the parents and citizens association have done some significant fundraising to try to access the department's dollar-for-dollar grant scheme. The Wingham community does not have a high socioeconomic demographic and made a significant effort to raise $60,000, one that deserves enormous support.

The Wingham community, the parents and citizens association, the teachers and the school community are right behind this project. However, $60,000 on a dollar-for-dollar grant simply will not be enough to build a new facility. The principle underlying the grant scheme causes concern in many rural and regional areas, where fundraising is not as easy as in other areas. The dollar-for-dollar grant scheme needs to be looked at, because it is harder to raise a dollar in a town such as Wingham than it is for public education facilities on Sydney's North Shore, for example.

I hope that the Minister for Education and Training can reassess the way the dollar-for-dollar funding grant scheme is run by the department. The Wingham community needs about $300,000 to build a brand-new drama facility at a high school, but it will never raise $150,000, half that amount. I hope that the Government can show some flexibility and support the schools that are trying to support themselves and make up the shortfall. I hope that school can get the new drama facility that it much deserves and that will be much supported by the Wingham community in the Manning Valley.

Mr WATKINS (Ryde—Minister for Education and Training) [6.16 p.m.]: I thank the honourable member for his comments about Wingham High School and acknowledge his hard work. Wingham High School has a multipurpose centre which is a combined performing arts and gymnasium space, containing a stage and various support spaces, including change and ablution facilities and various stores. The school also has two general learning spaces that could be utilised as a dedicated 100 square metre performance workshop.

Notwithstanding this current provision, I have arranged for the manager of the properties service unit to visit Wingham High School, hopefully before the end of this term. If he cannot make it before Friday, certainly he will visit in the first week of the new term and determine how existing facilities at the school could be developed to enhance the school's performing arts program. I understand that the performing arts program at Wingham is of high quality and brings great value to the school, the community and the students in particular. It has some very supportive and hard- working teachers. I acknowledge the comments of the honourable member for Port Macquarie and will be interested in the suggestions by the property services manager to further assist the school.

Private members' statements noted.

MOTOR ACCIDENTS COMPENSATION AMENDMENT (TERRORISM) BILL

In Committee

Consideration of the Legislative Council's amendments.

Schedule of amendments referred to in message of 9 April

(2) Any lawful activity or any industrial action cannot be characterised as an act of terrorism for the purposes of this section. An act can only be so characterised if it:

(2) An act cannot be characterised as an act of terrorism for the purposes of this section unless it can be so characterised under section 15A (2).

Legislative Council's amendments agreed to on motion by Mr Whelan.

Resolution reported from Committee and report adopted.

Message sent to the Legislative Council advising it of the resolution.

[Mr Deputy-Speaker left the chair at 6.20 p.m. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m.]

BAIL AMENDMENT (REPEAT OFFENDERS) BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr GREENE (Georges River) [7.30 p.m.]: I am pleased to have the opportunity to support the Bail Amendment (Repeat Offenders) Bill, which will undoubtedly tighten the provisions for granting bail to repeat offenders. The proposals in the bill are strongly supported by the community. The bill aims to address the problem by removing the presumption of bail in favour of the following classes of offenders: those who commit offences while already on bail, those who commit offences while on parole, those who commit offences while serving a community-based sentence, those who have a previous conviction for an indictable offence, and those who have a previous conviction for failing to appear when previously on bail.

The above criteria will undoubtedly make it more difficult for those who continue to wreak havoc in our community to be granted bail by the judicial system. In November last year I wrote to the Minister for Police and the Attorney General, who introduced the bill, because of my concern about the lack of support the court system was providing to police. Although the Government has increased the powers and resources of police, they work hard to catch people who commit offences, but all too often when they take them before the courts they find that the offenders are granted bail by the courts. Not long after, a day or two later, the same police catch the same offenders and take them back before the same court, where they are again released on bail.

That practice will stop with the passing of this bill. I congratulate the Attorney General on his preparation of the legislation. The community is sick and tired of repeat offenders. Indeed, I am led to believe that 80 per cent of crime in our community is committed by recidivist offenders. That situation is not helped by the current bail system. I wrote to the Minister for Police and the Attorney General because at that time it was brought to my notice that police in my area had arrested an offender who, it was alleged, had committed 11 armed robberies of local chemists. In fact, within a week the offender committed an armed robbery on the same chemist on two occasions. Originally, the police refused bail but the offender was later released on bail by the court, despite his record being as long as his arm. Whilst on bail he committed further offences, and the police again arrested him and took him before the court. Fortunately, on this occasion the court had enough sense to place the offender on remand.

In a press release in January I said that I was horrified that a man charged with all these local armed robberies had been granted bail, and I believe that horror is shared by the community. On Monday evening I attended a number of meetings, the first of which was held by the Oatley West Neighbourhood Watch. I informed the meeting that this bill was to be debated this week and I outlined the purpose of the bill. Those present at the meeting expressed wholehearted support for the bill. Also that night I attended a meeting of the Lugarno Progress Association. I again put this matter on the agenda where it received the full support of those present.

Last night I had the pleasure of hosting the Georges River Lionesses in the Parliament. At one stage I thought the bill would be called on, so I mentioned it to my guests. They were 100 per cent behind the Attorney General on this bill. These three local community groups are frustrated with the current system and are pleased to support the bill. Sadly, criminals are exploiting the judicial system. It is my view that the police also fully support the bill, and that has been borne out by the fact that the Minister for Police—and I congratulate him on this—has been moving among the police community speaking to front-line officers. There is no doubt that front-line police are very pleased about these proposals—in fact, they have made the same suggestions. We must get tough on repeat offenders. People who continue to commit crimes must be locked up—it is a simple as that. Repeat offenders will no longer be able to take the easy option.

Let us be realistic. Suppose someone is arrested for a break-and-enter offence. That person has been convicted of a string of 10, 15 or 20 such offences and knows that the court will again find him guilty. Why would that person not commit more offences when granted bail? Unfortunately, that is the mentality of the criminal element. I have another example. Last weekend in my local area a newsagent was assaulted by a knife-wielding criminal who demanded money. That very afternoon the same person reported to the local police station in accordance with his bail conditions. Fortunately, he was not very smart: he was wearing the same clothes he had worn when he committed the offence that morning and was promptly arrested. This legislation would not allow someone like that to be released on bail. This bill is proof that the Government is drawing a line in the sand, and if criminals step over that line we will be pushing them back. The Attorney General has formulated strong legislation. I applaud him and congratulate both him and the Minister for Police on their work in this area. The community will undoubtedly support the legislation fully.

Mr ASHTON (East Hills) [7.42 p.m.]: I support the Bail Amendment (Repeat Offenders) Bill. The key words in the bill's title are "repeat offenders", and there is no better place to take on repeat or serial offenders than at the bail stage. This bill will remove the presumption of bail for certain repeat offenders and send a strong message to those who continue to commit crimes while on bail that they face the prospect of waiting in a gaol cell for their day in court. They will no longer be granted bail, released to commit another crime, arrested and then bailed again until a court date is found. Offenders could spend more time in gaol waiting for their day in court than if they had pleaded guilty in the first place.

This bill will not only have the real effect of taking off the street serial offenders who have effectively thumbed their noses at a system that allows for the presumption of bail in all but the most serious cases but send a reassuring message to the New South Wales community in general and our police force in particular that recalcitrant offenders will not be back on the streets two minutes after their bail is granted and committing the same offences. The honourable member for Georges River confirmed what many honourable members on both sides of the House know: people who rack up lengthy criminal histories are not deterred by the prospect of gaol time; they simply learn new ways to get around the system.

I will draw an analogy—which is probably not totally appropriate—from my career as a teacher. Teachers never have to deal with certain students because they are good students who do the right thing. However, they must deal all the time with those students who do not do the right thing. By the time the rigmarole of interviewing them, putting them on detention and contacting their parents is completed, students have realised that teachers can do little else other than suspend and expel them. Of course, teachers want to be fair so they continue to give those students another chance.

I believe the current Bail Act is being exploited, particularly by young people who commit not murder, rape or crimes involving physical violence but crimes of a less serious nature that nevertheless cause great upset in the community. For example, they might blow up letterboxes or harass and intimidate people. Charges can be laid for such offences but magistrates are then likely to set bail at a certain amount and say, "Don't do it again; we'll see you in a month's time." Those offenders leave court threatening to get even—we have seen that on television and heard about it from people who come to our electorate offices. A common condition of bail is that the accused must stay away from witnesses or other parties to the dispute, but we know that some people will use their time on bail to convince potential witnesses not to give evidence against them on pain of great physical suffering.

This bill sends a great message to the police force and the community. Police occasionally say, "We're struggling here: we arrest these people, they are bailed and then we arrest them again, week after week." I fully support the move by the Attorney General and the Government to tighten the Bail Act through this bill. It is not a matter of telling people that they will not get bail and that to be charged with a crime is to be presumed guilty. We are not saying that. However, we are shifting the goalposts a little. There will no longer be an automatic presumption in favour of bail. The courts will now consider a person's criminal history and, if a person appears for the seventh or eighth time in the same court in the same country town and is charged with the same offence, it is reasonable to remand him in custody rather than granting bail in the knowledge that he will be before the court in a few days.

This bill is an appropriate government response to the increasing evidence revealed by official police and court figures that much crime is committed by repeat offenders. That point is clear. We should not believe increases in the number of crimes committed indicate an increase in the number of criminals. It is often the case that the same people commit more crimes. To diverge for a moment, figures produced by Don Weatherburn, for example, might show that crime in a certain area has risen by 30 per cent, 40 per cent or even 100 per cent. However, percentages are not great indicators of what is really happening. For example, in one year there might be only one robbery in a particular street but the following year two robberies occur. That will appear in the figures as a 100 per cent increase. If there are three robberies a year later, it will be recorded as a 150 per cent increase. I want to hear not the percentages reported in the tabloids and on shock jock radio but the real figures. If the number of robberies in a street increases from 20 to 50 that is a real increase and cause for concern. The percentage increase in that case would be astronomical and everyone would go to bed fearing for their lives. I want to know the real situation, and percentages do not reveal it.

Mr Debus: The police arrested two boys in Katoomba a while ago and the rate of stolen vehicle offences dropped by 75 per cent.

Mr ASHTON: The Attorney General said that the arrest of two boys in his electorate reduced the rate of vehicle theft by 75 per cent. It would be good if the arrest of just two or three people in each suburb reduced the number of crimes. I recently read that the crime figures in the Canterbury-Bankstown area had risen dramatically, but the Bankstown numbers were lower than the Canterbury numbers. The Canterbury area takes in Marrickville and Campsie and goes as far as Leichhardt. If these areas are lumped together the percentages can be high. We should also remember that we want our police to do their job and catch more criminals. We cannot have it both ways. We do not want to go back to the Askin days when the figures showed that no crimes were being committed. If anyone said a crime was being committed, he was locked away and made persona non grata—like Phillip Arentz who was badly treated for many years. We want police to catch criminals and we want the figures to reveal the crimes. But we should not focus on percentages.

The Minister said in his second reading speech, and it was repeated by a previous speaker, that up to 80 per cent of crimes at the lower end of the criminal scale are being committed by few people. As the Minister said, if police catch just a couple of people the crime rate drops. I know anecdotally from my good relationship with the police in the Bankstown local area command that the police can give the names of people who commit certain crimes. They know the people who commit the crimes, but those people are granted bail or protected by alibis from relatives. Under our legal system, which we have taken from our British heritage, a person is innocent until proven guilty. It is time that we make sure that bail is not presumed. It should not be a matter of saying, "I want bail" and getting it. I am sure that all honourable members have seen news stories where people are charged with very serious crimes and are granted bail. I wonder what the community thinks when they see such news stories. What do the police think? They might have risked their lives to drag these people to the dock only to see them put $10,000 down and walk out with their thumps up to the camera. It is a terrible situation.

Sadly, persistent offenders are often young people who take advantage of a previously understandable belief that young alleged offenders should be given the benefit of the doubt and be granted bail. In many cases that faith shown by magistrates and the courts has been misplaced. Most of us in our lives give children and young people not a second chance but a third, a fourth, a fifth or a twentieth chance. We keep hoping that the messages will get through to them: Do not commit crimes; do not take drugs; do not hang around with the wrong people. I am afraid the message does not always get through. We do not need to discuss alleged criminals who have committed very serious crimes because the bill does not focus on that type of criminal.

The bill targets those who commit less serious crimes persistently. I believe we as a society need to do these persistent offenders a favour by telling them clearly that persistent reoffending will mean a long wait to have their case heard. With court backlogs lengthening and a six-month wait in a gaol to have a case heard, persistent offenders of vandalism, graffiti, damage to public property, low level assault, harassment or the breaking of an apprehended violence order [AVO] will get the message and they will not have a presumption of bail. Sometimes a couple take out an AVO against each other and then, after getting along for a couple of days, meet again. That is an offence and such cases clog up the system.

The figures also reveal that too many offenders on bail ignore the conditions of their bail. They are bailed and then refuse to attend the police station as required or to attend court hearings. Valuable police time is wasted chasing up these offenders. In a worst case, offenders are not chased up at all because police have to attend to major crimes. That sends the wrong message about the privilege of bail and further exacerbates the idea that offenders do not have to worry about bail conditions. They think if they are granted bail and do not turn up for reporting, it does not really matter. Honourable members would also be aware that older criminals deliberately use young people in the full knowledge that the young people will be granted bail. I believe that was a particular problem in the Cabramatta area where very young people knew that they would get bail. The young people are told not to worry about committing the crime because they are 12 or 13 years of age. The person organising the crime—who may be 19, 20, 35, 40—knows that the young people will be sent back out on the street. They may be referred to counselling or they may be told to go back to school and wait until their case is heard.

The bill provides that people with a disadvantage will receive sympathetic consideration of their application for bail. The Attorney General has said that the bill will be re-examined in 12 months time to gauge the effectiveness of the bail amendments. I am sure they will be as effective as we hope. I know that this legislation will be well received. The community will feel that they will not be subject to persistent attacks by the same people who use an overly generous Bail Act. There was a story in a newspaper a couple of weeks ago about a student allegedly taking a pistol to a school in my electorate. On inquiry I found that the student was on bail. He had been arrested late last year at a station on the East Hills line. He was part of a "gang" or a group of young people who harassed people and took skateboards, school bags and shoes off children travelling on the East Hills line between Holsworthy through to Bexley and Turella.

The police organised a raid and arrested 10 or 12 young men at Bexley North station. The offenders, given their age, were all granted bail. That offence occurred last November, yet by April they still have not appeared in court and one of the young offenders has had the hide allegedly to turn up at school with a pistol. There were many witnesses to the offence. I congratulate the Government on the introduction of this bill, which I fully support. The legislation is part of a series of reforms. The Government will make it obvious to repeat offenders that they will spend more time in gaol waiting for their day in court than they would putting their hand up and pleading guilty in the first place.

Mr GAUDRY (Newcastle—Parliamentary Secretary) [7.57 p.m.]: I congratulate the Attorney General on this legislation, which is in response not only to the frustration of our Police Service, who witness time and again offenders being granted bail and reoffending whilst on bail, but also to the frustration in the community about the level of petty crime and ongoing and repetitive crimes committed by the same people. Such offenders do not seem to have any sense of concern about the impact they have within the community or any respect for the legal system or policing. The Attorney General has put together a package of reforms that are designed to target those repeat offenders at the bail stage. In doing so, the reforms will remove the presumption in favour of bail for certain repeat offenders. The bill does not target everyone and it is not unduly harsh. It is targeted towards a group of people who are recidivists—people who go back time and again before the system. The bill provides the opportunity to remove the presumption of bail for those people. In his second reading speech the Minister said:

I could not but agree with that. When the legislation is introduced it will be monitored over 12 months to gauge its level of effectiveness and whether it should be further amended. That pattern has been very much established in legislation brought forward by the Attorney General and in much of the legislation of this Government. The legislation is responsible in its approach, it is targeted in its approach and it is reviewable. The bill targets offenders who commit less serious offences and are likely to continue to do so. New section 9B (1) removes the presumption in favour of bail for those who are charged with other crimes whilst on bail, parole, a bond or a community release sentence.

A recent report of the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research highlighted the increasing incidence of persons failing to attend their next court in compliance with their bail conditions. The legislation is focused. It will have, and has received in my community and others, a very positive response. All honourable members see the results of antisocial behaviour in their communities, premeditated assaults, harassment of people within the community and continuous—to a degree petty, but in many cases serious—property crime associated in most cases with drugs. I note that in question time today the Premier highlighted the fact that we need co-operation with the Federal Government and to achieve better customs surveillance on containers and guns, particularly handguns, coming into this country.

Both those issues are an increasing problem in the community and a problem that is, in most cases, associated with the commission of large numbers of break and enters, and petty crime. The bill sends a very strong signal to recedivists: if you are a repeat offender and you come before the court you should not expect the presumption of bail. Repeat offenders will need the strongest argument to prove that they deserve to be readmitted to the community on the basis that they will continue to be safe citizens until the time they appear before the court. For certain offenders the bill will remove the presumption of bail. It is very deliberate, well-thought-out legislation. I congratulate the Attorney General.

Mr CAMPBELL (Keira) [8.03 p.m.]: I support the bill and understand that its main purpose is to amend the Bail Act 1978 to tighten requirements for bail for repeat offenders. During the three years I have been in this place I have spoken to many groups of residents within the Keira electorate, people in suburbs such as Balgownie, Keiraville, Thirroul, Austinmer, Bulli, Woonona, Corrimal and more recently in Fairy Meadow. Without doubt all those people are concerned about the so-called level of policing in our community. Their view is that more police should be available. They have also discussed with me their concern that people who are charged with an offence are too easily let go by magistrates. When one considers that perhaps 20 per cent of repeat offenders commit about 80 per cent of the crime in this State their concern is reinforced.

I have also had many discussions with local police officers, whether it be those engaged in police management, police who work on the truck or police officers I have known for many years. They also echo the view that all too often they arrest a person who they know has committed an offence, they take the person to court, and the magistrate lets the person out on bail, often on the condition that the person must report to police daily, which does not happen. The crime rate in the area in which that break-and-enter expert or that car thief operates peaks while that person is out on bail. The police then go after that person again. It is as frustrating for the police as it is for the community. If people were not let out on bail as easily and as often as they are, police could be spread further across the community that I represent and the community as a whole.

I have little doubt that people who live in the Keira electorate and people who work in law enforcement in the New South Wales Police Service who live in the Keira electorate would support the legislation. It is on their behalf that I make these comments. The bill seeks to address the problem by removing the presumption in favour of bail for offenders who commit offences while already on bail, those who commit offences while on parole, those who commit offences while serving community-based sentences, those who have a previous conviction for an indictable offence and those who have a previous conviction for a fail to appear offence.

The bill seeks to clarify further the criteria that magistrates should consider in relation to repeat offenders. Such criteria includes whether the person is a juvenile offender or has an intellectual disability, recognising that gaol may not be appropriate for these types of offenders; the nature and seriousness of the person's prior criminal history, including the number of offences and the length of time between those offences; and whether a bail hostel might be appropriate if the person is deemed suitable and a place is available, particularly if the accused person is an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. The bill also provides for the amendments to be reviewed after 12 months operation to assess their impact.

The bill is balanced. People who are not career criminals will continue to have the presumption of bail. They will have the opportunity to prove that they made a mistake and that they want to do the right thing. But those who have consistently done the wrong thing and continue to do the wrong thing and those who are on bail or some sort of sentence will be more harshly treated under this legislation. I understand that, as result of the legislation, we might have some 800 additional prisoners in correctional facilities around the State over the next two years. It is important to acknowledge that and realise that it will come at a cost. If the estimate is correct, we could expect $135 million worth of additional expenditure over the next couple of years.

I make those points to demonstrate that this is by no means an inexpensive exercise, but I believe it is one that the broad community supports. The community want to see police resources used to best effect. They want to make sure that people who continually offend are punished; that they pay for those offences. Equally, they want to see police resources used to continue to attack antisocial and petty crime, as it is called, that impacts on people in our communities—the break and enters, steal motor vehicle and those sorts of offences that cause so much inconvenience to families. The community also want police to be chasing those who commit the more serious offences of armed robbery, assault and murder. I consider that there is balance in the legislation. I have little doubt that two significant parts of the constituency that I represent—the people from the suburbs and the Police Service—will support it. I sometimes marvel at the way the Attorney General is able to continue to tackle these very serious issues in a balanced way. I think that is what is in place in this bill and I commend it to the House.

Mr DEBUS (Blue Mountains—Attorney General, Minister for the Environment, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Arts) [8.11 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for the informed debate on the Bail Amendment (Repeat Offenders) Bill. It is quite obvious from the number and the unanimity of speeches that we have heard in the course of this debate that this bill addresses an exceedingly important issue within the community. The issue of repeat offenders and the cycle of crime is one that the Government takes absolutely seriously. The probability of a person committing further offences while on bail for a previous offence, or while on parole or subject to a community service order, will be significantly reduced with the implementation of this bill.

The bill removes the presumption in favour of bail for certain high-risk categories with the aim of preventing the commission of further offences, both as a deterrent to future offenders and to incapacitate offenders by refusing them bail. In our criminal justice system we have a presumption of innocence for all people charged before the courts. That means that all persons are entitled to their liberty until convicted, unless there is good reason for curtailing that basic right. The Bail Act recognises that there are situations where the court must make a determination to refuse a person their liberty, and sets out the presumptions and criteria for making that determination. This bill, however, removes the presumption in favour of bail if the person has been previously convicted of a fail to appear offence.

Let me clarify that point. This bill is not targeting those people who are recorded as "not before court", who may have good reason not to be present when their matter is being considered. The bill targets those who have been convicted of the offence of fail to appear. There are many circumstances in which it is permissible for a person not to be before a court, for example, if the person has a proven medical emergency or a matter has been finalised in their absence, or if they have been excused if legally represented. The reason that persons who have a fail to appear conviction have been targeted in this bill is on the assumption that accused persons who have failed to appear in compliance with their bail condition to attend at the next court date are more likely to be committing more offences whilst on bail.

The study by the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research highlighted a particular issue for persons charged with property offences or with prior convictions, or with multiple offences, who are more likely to fail to appear than other accused persons. This may be due to the drug and alcohol problems common to many property offenders. The types of offences many repeat offenders are accused of committing are, relatively speaking, less serious offences for which there is a presumption in favour of bail. Whilst the seriousness of each offence may not be at the higher end of the scale, the sheer number of offences a single person may be responsible for can pose a significant problem for the community.

Those repeat offenders, by virtue of the fact that they are highly active in committing crime, present a significant drain on police resources. They tie up substantial resources in investigating their criminal activities. The presumption in favour of bail is removed for those offenders who have a prior conviction and who have been accused of committing further crimes. It should be noted that the bill requires the court to consider the type of previous conviction, the seriousness of that offence, the number of previous offences and the length of time between offences in determining whether or not they should be granted bail. The prior criminal history of the person is only one criterion of many that the Court must have regard to when making a bail determination.

If the accused person is under the age of 18 or has an intellectual disability, the court must consider any special needs of the person arising from that fact when assessing the interests of the person in making a determination about the grant of bail. New provisions provide the court with more options when granting bail in relation to the conditions that might be imposed upon the accused person. Often the lack of employment or appropriate residence will be a debilitating factor in deciding whether or not to grant bail. That is particularly important for vulnerable accused persons, such as juveniles, intellectually or mentally disabled persons, or persons of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander background.

The provisions in new section 36 (2A) simply allow the court to consider the appropriateness of bailing accused persons, particularly those of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander background, to supervised bail accommodation if they are suitable and a place is available. This is in line with the recommendations made by the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody in relation to gaol as a last resort and the overrepresentation of Aboriginal persons in custody. As the present debate has again demonstrated, the issue of bail remains a matter of acute and ongoing community concern. The proper balance between protection of the community and the rights of the accused, who is legally presumed to be innocent, is an important matter that warrants regular monitoring. A provision is therefore made in the bill to review these amendments in 12 months.

The Government has dedicated much time to consideration of this bill and its effects. We are aware that there will be an increase in the size of the prison population in coming years in consequence of the application of this bill. This is a regrettable but unavoidable fact which perhaps more than anything else reflects the corrosive effects of drugs in contemporary society. The Government recognises that in order to attack the problem of crime we need to address the issue at all levels. As with any complex problem, there must be a multilayered solution. As I said in my second reading speech, these amendments are part of a wider strategy of reform with respect to the administration of bail.

In addition to procedural changes by police and the courts, joint initiatives are being developed by an interagency working party chaired by my department. Representatives from a number of government agencies have been consulted on these reforms and will continue to meet to develop further programs, including procedural changes to further reduce court waiting times as they affect remand prisoners, and the development of more options for diversion from custodial bail conditions. In summary, the bill recognises that there is a growing category of accused persons who commit less serious crimes but do so repeatedly. These offences, generally lower down the scale in criminality—at least compared with murder, malicious wounding or drug supply—before today fitted within the general presumption in favour of bail category. The point should also be made that the court can only make a decision based on the information before it. Improvements to procedures are being made that will address that issue.

Finally, I would like to make a couple of remarks about the statistics used during the debate. According to the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research 14 per cent of persons who have been convicted more than twice account for 40 per cent of all court appearances in the Local Court. That is somewhat less than the 80 per cent figure that has been cited by a number of speakers today. That figure is one that is promulgated by the Police Service. In turn, it is based on figures from an extensive study in the United Kingdom. Clearly, there is no exact science attached to the fact that there is a relatively small percentage of offenders who commit a disproportionate amount of crime. I suspect that the amount of crime committed by repeat offenders lies somewhere between the two estimates I have just mentioned. Either way, what is significant is that this figure represents a significant concern to both our police and our community. Nothing could have demonstrated that fact more clearly than the speeches in the debate today. The bill addresses police and community concerns about repeat offenders, and I commend it to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

LEGAL PROFESSION AMENDMENT (NATIONAL COMPETITION POLICY REVIEW) BILL

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr DEBUS (Blue Mountains—Attorney General, Minister for the Environment, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Arts) [8.22 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Legal Profession Amendment (National Competition Policy Review) Bill continues the process of reform of the regulation of the legal profession which the Government has undertaken since 1995. The changes to the system of regulation represented in the bill will reinforce the position of New South Wales as the pre-eminent Australian jurisdiction in terms of the effective and transparent regulation of the legal profession. Many of the reforms outlined in the bill were first recommended by the Attorney General's Department in its report on the National Competition Policy Review of the Legal Profession Act. Since that report was completed, a detailed consultation process has taken place, and the result is the bill before the House.

The first major reform contained in the bill relates to the practising fees for solicitors and barristers. The Act already provides that membership of the Law Society, in the case of solicitors, or the Bar Association, in the case of barristers, is voluntary. However, the practising fees levied on solicitors and barristers include the cost of both membership services, and the regulatory activities that the Law Society and Bar Association conduct, as required by the Legal Profession Act. The bill provides for the practising fee to cover only the costs of the regulatory activities undertaken by the Law Society and Bar Association. This fee will be approved by the Attorney General. The membership, or representative activities, will be included in a separate, optional membership fee, which solicitors and barristers will not need to pay unless they propose to join the Law Society or Bar Association.

This reform will bring about a true separation of the regulatory and membership functions of the Law Society and Bar Association. The resulting benefits will include more transparent cost structures of the Law Society and Bar Association, and potential savings for consumers; and the ability for solicitors and barristers to choose whether they wish to contribute to the cost of membership activities conducted by their professional associations. In order to ensure the accountability of the Law Society and Bar Association, the Attorney General may request that budgets be submitted to him or her before approval of the practising fee. The bill also provides for a person to be appointed by the Attorney General to examine the accounts of the Law Society and the Bar Association as necessary. These measures will ensure that the Law Society and Bar Association are accountable for their regulatory activities to the profession and to consumers, who ultimately bear the cost of practising fees paid by lawyers. The amendments will commence on 1 July 2004. This will allow enough time for the Law Society and the Bar Association to implement the internal management and accounting changes necessary to accommodate the formal separation of practising and membership fees.

The second reform contained in the bill makes it clear that a contravention of the rules governing advertising is capable of being professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct. Honourable members will be aware that the Government moved quickly to ban certain kinds of advertising by solicitors and advertising relating to personal injury services, when the depth of community concern about solicitors' advertising, and its relationship to the public liability crisis, became clear. Similar restrictions are also in force in relation to advertising for workers compensation services. Amendments made to the Act last year allow the regulations made under the Act to state that certain conduct is capable of being professional misconduct. However, the amendment to the Act included in the bill before the House sends a powerful message to the profession about the need to scrupulously observe the advertising restrictions. The bill makes it clear that breaching these rules can be grounds for a disciplinary action against a solicitor or a barrister.

The bill also promotes multidisciplinary practice in the legal profession by removing the power of the Law Society to make practice rules preventing solicitors from practising with other professionals in multidisciplinary partnerships. Honourable members may be aware that the Law Society in fact removed restrictions on the sharing of profits between lawyers and non-lawyers, paving the way for multidisciplinary practices in late 1999. While I am not aware of any intention by the Law Society to reintroduce restrictions, the legislative statement of this principle is an endorsement by the Government of solicitors practising in flexible business structures. This reform is a key plank of competition policy reform, and will facilitate competition between solicitors and other service providers.

The bill requires solicitors rules and barristers rules to be publicly exposed before they are made. The solicitors rules and barristers rules cover aspects of day-to-day practice by the profession, including ethical precepts, the conduct of practitioners before the court, dealing with fellow practitioners and clients, and the disclosure of costs. I have a keen interest in ensuring that the Bar Council and the Law Society Council are accountable for the content of the practice rules, and the proposed reform will ensure that the general public has an input into the rules before they are made.

Honourable members may be aware that I have recently commissioned a report on the rules, which was conducted by Michael Chesterman, Emeritus Professor of Law at the University of New South Wales. Professor Chesterman has made a number of recommendations to improve the rules, such as, for example, including a statement of ethics as part of the rules, and making them more accessible to consumers. While the making of rules is a matter for the Law Society Council and the Bar Council respectively, I take this opportunity to express my support for Professor Chesterman's recommendations and my hope that the councils will consider them carefully.

In order to promote the development of a national legal services market, the bill provides that any practitioner who holds a practising certificate from another Australian jurisdiction can practise in New South Wales as long as he or she meets certain standards set out in the Act. In 1996 the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General endorsed a national practising certificate scheme, which allows the solicitors and barristers in each State and Territory to practise in another jurisdiction if both the jurisdictions concerned have enacted the provisions.

The requirement for reciprocity has hampered the development of truly national practice, because some States have yet to pass the necessary amendments. The bill will remove the reciprocity requirement, so that any Australian solicitor and barrister can practise in New South Wales. I am pleased to advise honourable members that I hope that this amendment will soon become redundant. At the recent meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General my colleagues from Western Australia and Queensland expressed their intention of enacting the provisions in the near future. If they do this all jurisdictions will have the scheme in place, and I look forward to these reforms as a milestone in the continuing development of national practice.

I turn to a reform of great importance to consumers of legal services. The bill requires the Law Society Council and the Bar Association to publicise disciplinary action that is taken against solicitors and barristers, and requires the Legal Services Commissioner to set up a public register of such action. The establishment of a public register will allow consumers to find out whether the barrister or solicitor they plan to engage has, for example, been subject to disciplinary action taken by the Administrative Decisions Tribunal following a complaint. The register will be available by Internet on the web site of the Legal Services Commissioner. The register will enhance the transparency and accountability of the disciplinary process and allow consumers to make an informed choice about engaging a solicitor or barrister.

As I have indicated in the case of the other reforms in this bill, this amendment forms part of a broader examination of the reform of the regulation of the profession. Honourable members would be aware that I released a discussion paper late last year on the disciplinary scheme in the Act, and I plan to bring forward a comprehensive reform package in that respect in the near future. However, I considered that the establishment of a public register of disciplinary matters warranted urgent attention and sought its inclusion in the bill. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr R. H. L. Smith.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AMENDMENT (SEXUAL ASSAULT COMMUNICATIONS PRIVILEGE) BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 21 March.

Mr R. H. L. SMITH (Bega) [8.31 p.m.]: The object of the bill is to make clear that confidential communications between a counsellor and a sexual assault victim are privileged and cannot be used in court proceedings. The bill also makes it clear that a person may be a counsellor even if the person lacks formal training, qualifications or experience in the diagnosis of psychiatric or psychological conditions. The bill is certainly in the interests of sexual assault victims and the Opposition does not oppose it.

Mr ASHTON (East Hills) [8.33 p.m.]: I thank the Opposition for its support of the Criminal Procedure Amendment (Sexual Assault Communications Privilege) Bill. The main object of the bill has been outlined in the Minister's second reading speech. However, it is worth restating and I am committed to it. If a person has been the victim of an alleged sexual assault, it is important that any counselling that takes the form of listening to the thoughts and feelings of that alleged victim and providing verbal or other support or encouragement, rather than providing expert medical advice, is protected. Communications with counsellors who may lack formal training or qualifications in the diagnosis of psychiatric and/or psychological conditions should be protected by privilege.

Much of the sexual assault counselling undertaken in New South Wales involves social workers, who do not make diagnoses of illnesses. Such counselling may take the form of listening to the thoughts of the victim about what took place. Those communications should also be privileged, and that is the essence of the bill. A defendant will not be able to access information that passed between the victim of an alleged assault and a counsellor—that is to say, off the record—and use that information against the alleged victim. A properly trained psychiatrist or psychologist with proper medical training will not always be the first person to provide counselling to a victim of an alleged sexual assault.

The bill seeks to insert a new definition of counselling into the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 which will require that the person who is said to be a counsellor has undertaken training or study or has experience that is relevant to the process of counselling persons who have suffered harm, and that the counselling process involved the councillor listening to and giving verbal or other support or encouragement to the alleged victim. That does not necessarily mean making a list of notes about what the counsellor might feel that the alleged victim is suffering; it would mean providing help and reassurance. As the case proceeds the victim will have an opportunity to discuss his or her feelings. Victims will feel confident that they can discuss their concerns with counsellors and that that discussion will not be used against them.

Victims of sexual assault will be better protected because the confidential details of their counselling discussions will not be exposed in court. That happened some time ago and that is what led to this amendment to the Act. Trained counsellors and social workers will be able to claim privilege if they are called on to take the witness stand to give evidence about their clients. All members of Parliament know that in sexual assault matters a great deal is done to muddy the waters about what did or did not take place in the alleged sexual assault. In the past that worked too often against the alleged victim and in favour of the defendant. However, that was not always the case.

A defendant has every right to expect a fair trial. However, if part of the defence is to call for information provided to a counsellor or notes that the counsellor may have made while taking the victim through some of the more positive aspects of resolving feelings of harm, distress, anger and worthlessness, it is only fair that those matters should be privileged. Previously that privilege applied only to psychiatrists and psychologists. Through this bill the Government is trying to include in that privilege social workers and other counsellors who do not have medical qualifications and do not make diagnoses of illness. They will not be able to be called to give evidence about what they have been told.

In Lee's case the communications that were thought to be privileged were revealed in evidence. Those communications were not taken on a proper medical basis and the counsellor had allegedly made notes to the effect that the alleged victim had suffered mental illness, depression, delusional statements, periods of memory loss and was likely to misconstrue the truth and get things confused. However, the counsellor was not in a position to come to that conclusion at all.

When those matters are put before the court the judge makes a decision. The accused still has the discretion to request that the information be made available and it may be produced. However, this bill makes it much more likely that any information given to counsellors to help alleged victims to cope will not be used against them in a court. If counsellors are experienced and have undertaken training and study, their advice will be relevant and the same privilege afforded to psychiatrists and psychologists will be afforded to those counsellors. I support the bill and congratulate the Government on introducing it.

Mr COLLIER (Miranda) [8.41 p.m.]: It is important that alleged victims of sexual assault have confidence in the criminal justice system. In recent years changes to the law regarding the nature of complaint evidence and the timing of a complaint of sexual assault have assisted in that regard. Alleged victims must have confidence in their counsellors. It is crucial that they should feel free to confide in their counsellors without the fear that those communications may be the subject of prolonged and unhelpful cross-examination, which, in many cases, serves only to further humiliate the alleged victim of a traumatic sexual assault.

It is important that communications between alleged victims of sexual assault and counsellors be privileged. In the recent case of Regina v Norman Lee [2000] NSWCCA 444, the Court of Criminal Appeal gave an unduly restrictive interpretation of part 7 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, leading to a danger that counselling provided by persons not qualified to diagnose mental illnesses or counselling that does not entail the provision of expert advice may not be protected by privilege. In many cases sexual assault counsellors are not experts qualified in psychiatry or psychology. However, they provide significant support to victims of sexual assault. They are experienced, they listen, they comfort and they provide support to the victims, who, after all, have suffered extraordinary trauma. Indeed, counsellors can and do make a significant difference to the prospects of eventual recovery for sexual assault victims.

The bill amends part 7 of the Criminal Procedure Act to make it clear that confidential communications made in connection with counselling which takes the form of listening to the thoughts and feelings of alleged sexual assault victims and providing verbal or other support or encouragement, rather than merely providing expert advice, or communications made by counsellors who lack formal training or qualifications in the diagnosis of psychiatric and/or psychological conditions are protected by the sexual assault communications privilege. The bill inserts a new definition of counselling into the Criminal Procedure Act which will require that the person who is said to be the counsellor has undertaken training or study or, importantly, has experience that is relevant to the process of counselling persons who have suffered harm and that the counselling process involved the counsellor in listening to and giving verbal or other support or encouragement to the alleged victim. The privilege will, therefore, apply to sexual assault counsellors who do not have formal qualifications in the diagnosis of psychiatric and psychological illnesses. This bill is important to sexual assault victims and makes an important contribution to the evolving law with respect to sexual assault.

Another important aspect is the limited disclosure of counselling communications to defence lawyers. The New South Wales Bar Association has proposed that there should be limited disclosure to defence lawyers of subpoenaed documents which are subject to a claim of privilege so that the trial judge may have their full assistance in determining the claim. It was suggested that confidentiality could be maintained by requiring lawyers to give strict undertakings, breach of which would amount to professional misconduct, not to disclose the documents to any other person, including the person accused of the alleged sexual assault. However, in circumstances where counselling communications have been disclosed to a defence lawyer and the judge decides not to order production, the lawyer would be left armed with material that he or she is forbidden to disclose to the client or to use in the general conduct of the defence of the accused person.

The risk of inadvertent disclosure or improper use of the material in such a situation is obvious, and the threat of a complaint of professional misconduct would not provide adequate protection against that risk. Those arguments have been run in relation to privilege on the ground of public interest immunity. In that context it has been judicially accepted that lawyers should not have access to material the subject of a claim of privilege. This is an important bill, particularly for alleged victims of sexual assault. I congratulate the Attorney General on introducing this important amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act, and I commend the bill to the House.

Mr LYNCH (Liverpool) [8.46 p.m.]: I support the Criminal Procedure Amendment (Sexual Assault Communications Privilege) Bill. It is a pleasure to support without qualification a bill introduced by the Attorney General. The Criminal Procedure Act 1986, as amended, establishes a regime under which significant restrictions are placed on the use in trials of what are termed sexual assault communications. In plain language, sexual assault communications are usually notes that have been prepared by counsellors who have tried to counsel sexual assault victims. Under section 150 of the Act those communications cannot be required to be produced in a trial unless certain requirements are met.

The first requirement is that the communications must have substantial probative value. The second requirement is that there is no other source of that type of evidence available and, third, that the public interest in revealing that material substantially outweighs the public interest in keeping it confidential. Although I am far more comfortable with defence lawyer traditions, I regard this as good policy which secures good results. It allows sexual assault victims to have the benefit of counselling without fear of those communications being exploited in criminal proceedings. Effectively, the bill protects the counselling process. Counsellors have certainly had a longstanding concern about the use to which some of this material may be put. A number of serious possibilities could have arisen if the current regime in section 150 had not been introduced.

The necessity for this legislation stems from a Court of Criminal Appeal decision in Regina v Norman Lee [2000] NSWCCA 444. In that case the Court of Criminal Appeal effectively narrowed the potential scope of the regime that currently exists under the Criminal Procedure Act. From that decision it appears to be the case that for the privilege to apply, the victim must be suffer a defect, illness or disease. The victims of sexual assault do not necessarily suffer a defect, illness or disease; they are victims of sexual assault. If that restriction were added to the current regime, the scope of existing provisions would be narrowed significantly.

The other point that flows from the decision by the Court of Criminal Appeal is that, in developing the logic of the decision, it would appear possible to require a counsellor to be a psychiatrist or specialist of some sort. Simply being a counsellor—someone who counsels—would not be enough to attract privilege under the current regime. This legislation does several things to attempt to deal with those potential problems arising from the decision by the Court of Criminal Appeal. For example, it removes the word "treating" from the definition of "counselling communication", thus removing the concept of treating an illness. Another significant, and in some ways more important, change is that the meaning of "counselling" or "counsels" is defined very broadly. Someone who claims to counsel must have undertaken some study or have some relevant experience but counselling need extend only to listening or giving encouragement—which is a commonsense understanding of what counselling involves. I believe those amendments will maintain the integrity of the original regime established under the Criminal Procedure Act to protect the process of counselling and to avoid the fears that counsellors and potential victims would otherwise have.

It is worth remembering in these discussions that the regime is a balancing act: it does not prohibit absolutely making this material available to the defence; it simply points out substantial barriers that must be overcome before that material is made available. There is clearly a bias in that procedure against allowing the material to be made available and, as I said earlier, I think that is a good thing. It is good public policy. The original regime is certainly good public policy and these amendments simply maintain that policy in light of some potentially unfortunate consequences from the Court of Criminal Appeal decision. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr DEBUS (Blue Mountains—Attorney General, Minister for the Environment, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Arts) [8.51 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members who have contributed to the debate and acknowledge especially the unqualified support that I have received from the honourable member for Liverpool.

Mr Lynch: It won't happen again.

Mr DEBUS: I do not expect it will—or at least not very often. Following the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal in the Lee case that subpoenaed documents were not "counselling communications", those documents were produced and inspected by counsel for the accused. They apparently revealed evidence relating to the complainant of mental illness, severe depression, delusional statements, periods of memory loss, drug use, deceptive conduct and lies, a motive to fabricate false allegations against the accused, and inconsistent accounts of the offences that the accused was alleged to have committed. Counsel for the accused in the Lee case proceeded to make a no bill application to the Director of Public Prosecutions, which was successful.

The Bar Association argued that the subsequent history of the Lee case showed, first, that the sexual assault communications privilege has the potential to infringe on a defendant's right to a fair trial; and, secondly, that a trial judge may not fully appreciate the significance of material contained in counselling communications unless he or she has the benefit of arguments put by the defence. However, there is already a safeguard against the possibility that a trial judge may underestimate the importance of material that is subject to a claim of privilege: a defendant has the right of appeal. That right was exercised in the Lee case, and the Court of Criminal Appeal found that it did not need to consider whether the trial judge had fully appreciated the significance of the documents in question because the judge was wrong in deciding that they recorded "counselling communications" in the first place.

In Regina v Norman Lee that privilege was held not to apply and the supposed counselling notes were inspected by counsel for the accused. It makes no sense to suggest that this outcome shows the sexual assault communications privilege may infringe on a defendant's right to a fair trial as that clearly did not occur. There is no reason why the privilege should not be capable of protecting communications made between an alleged sexual assault victim and a member of her family or a friend, provided those communications fall within the definition of "counselling communication". As amended by the bill, this definition will require that the communications were made in confidence; that the person who is said to have been the counsellor has "training, study or experience that is relevant to the process of counselling persons who have suffered harm"; and that the counselling process involved a counsellor listening to and giving verbal or other support or encouragement to the alleged victim. That clearly means the requirements will not be satisfied merely by a discussion with friends and relatives. The definition is wide enough to include an Aboriginal elder, for instance, who might act as a counsellor or a school counsellor who has not received formal psychological training.

I reiterate, as others have, that the application of privilege will remain discretionary. Trial judges will continue to inspect material that is subject to a privilege claim and to determine whether to order its production or permit its introduction in evidence in accordance with a statutory balancing exercise. A defendant's right of appeal will be unaffected. The effect of the amendments will be to ensure the Government's policy that the benefits of counselling services provided to a sexual assault victim should not be compromised by the prospect that communications made in connection with those services may later be revealed to the accused or disclosed in court. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

GAME BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt—Minister for Agriculture, and Minister for Corrective Services) [8.57 p.m.], in reply: I thank each honourable member who has contributed to the debate on the Game Bill, which has taken place over many days. I am particularly grateful to the honourable member for Bligh for her contribution, which highlighted the real reasons why groups such as some animal welfare and environmental organisations oppose the bill. Her speech illustrated clearly the spurious and highly emotive arguments to which those totally opposed to hunting will resort in an effort to scuttle this bill. I have asked myself many times why these people would oppose a bill that brings more regulation to hunting. Like the honourable member for Bligh, I have also had the benefit of the many comments that individuals and organisations have made about the bill since it was tabled in this place in November 2001. I again record my thanks to those many individuals and organisations who provided those comments. As I have said before, I have made several important changes to the bill in response to those comments. These changes address substantive concerns raised about the bill by animal welfare and other groups, and they make it a better bill.

The public consultation phase was also highly instructive as it is now clear to me that whether one supports or rejects this bill rests not so much on the fundamentals of the bill itself but on whether one believes there is a place for hunting in our society. Some people clearly do not see a place for hunting and are acting accordingly. I of course respect and support their right to oppose the bill, but some of their arguments have been extremely economical with the truth—to put it mildly. For example, they claim that the bill will not have a positive impact on pest control and will lead to a worsening of the vertebrate pest problem.

Why they think that a bill that establishes a register of the most skilled marksmen and women available in the wider community of New South Wales who can be called upon to assist with emergency feral pig culling in a foot and mouth outbreak will not be of benefit in the area of pest animal control is, I regret to say, completely beyond me. This is the equivalent, in pest control terms, of saying that the volunteer registers organised as part of the State Emergency Services or the Rural Fire Service are pointless. I also point out that private hunters have a proven track record in this area. I have referred often to the example of Operation Bounceback in South Australia. I draw the attention of honourable members to the very recent example of a goat control initiative conducted in the Buckingbong State Forest, near Narrandera, last Easter.

The exercise involved the Narrandera Rural Lands Protection Board, State Forests, neighbouring landholders and the Hunting and Conservation Branch of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia. It was undertaken as part of a wider footrot control program. Twenty goats were killed by the hunters in this very effective exercise. At a time when the use of 1080 poison for browsing animal control is being re-evaluated and when plantation forestry is being expanded for both ecological and economic reasons, this type of initiative is likely to become more, not less, common. I also draw the attention of the House to the situation in Tasmania where, to provide landowners with a cost-effective alternative means of controlling crop and pasture damage, the Bacon Labor Government is actively encouraging hunters and landowners to develop property-based pest control and game management plans.

The honourable member for Cessnock has asked me about the public safety impacts of hunter access to State forests. In the course of preparing this bill I was advised that State Forests carefully considers public safety impacts and the interests of other people using State forests before issuing hunter access permits under section 32 (b) of the forests Act. I advise the honourable member for Cessnock that I expect this bill to encourage the development of new hunter access protocols and, as a result of this bill, the supervision of hunters in our State forests, whether they are assisting with a threatened species management plan or hunting privately, will actually be improved. Critics of the bill also make the spurious claim that holders of game licences will distribute wild pigs and dogs and other pests in State forests in an effort to give them more to shoot at. Let us ignore for the moment that it is a crime under section 178 of the Rural Lands Protection Act to do this.

Saying that licensing will lead to an increase in the number of hunters spreading pest animals or that the Game Bill will be responsible for a wide-spread explosion in the vertebrate pest population is blaming the Game Bill for things that are, at best, only indirectly related to it. This is the logical equivalent of arguing that we should not issue drivers' licences because some people are involved in motor vehicle accidents or run red lights or because criminals use motor vehicles as "getaway" vehicles. Despite what the opponents of the bill say, hunters in the main are not feral animal lovers intent on driving wild pigs further and further into our State forests and national parks and shooting at every native animal that moves. This false image has been spread far and wide in the course of the discussion on this bill.

I not only receive correspondence about the Game Bill from people throughout New South Wales and Australia but, as many organisations that oppose this bill are international organisations, I receive letters from all over the world on this bill introduced into the Parliament of New South Wales. I am waiting for the day when I receive email from Spain, the United Kingdom or Timbuktu accusing me of introducing legislation that will allow hunters to kill all the kangaroos and koalas that are currently roaming George Street, Sydney. I suspect that day is not far off, considering the correspondence I receive from various points around the globe. But that is indicative of the degree of misinformation being circulated by some groups, particularly those who have international post boxes.

Those opposed to the bill have already attempted to scare urban pet lovers into believing that the Game Bill will lead to people shooting domestic cats and dogs in and around our towns and cities. They have been equally misleading by claiming that the bill paves the way for the future introduction of hunting by licensed game hunters in national parks. I could go on, but frankly it is more important and more productive to address the more sensible remarks made about this bill, both in the public comment period and in the course of this debate. The public comment phase was an important sounding board for the underlying principles of the bill. As I said, I made a number of important changes to the original bill as a result of this feedback.

These changes include, one, the definition of "hunt" being altered to take account of concerns that the previous definition might have been misconstrued as authorising harm to animals in a manner inconsistent with the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. Two, hares have been moved from clause 5 (1) and are now classified as a clause 5 (2) game animal to take account of the fact that they are regarded as a nuisance animal by farmers in some parts of New South Wales. Three, the term "pest" has been removed from clause 5 (2) and other parts of the bill to improve consistency with the Rural Lands Protection Act. Four, the bill has been amended to make it clear that dingoes are not game animals. Five, the term "feral" has been removed from clause 5 (2) to improve consistency with the Companion Animals Act. Six, clause 6 has been amended to clearly state that the Game Bill does not exempt people from their responsibilities under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. Seven, the composition of the Game Council has been increased from 14 to 16 members, the two extra members comprising an additional member nominated by the Minister for Agriculture and an additional member nominated by hunting organisations.

Eight, clause 18 (1) (d) has been amended to make it clear that a game hunting licence is not required by anyone suppressing wild dogs as part of a duty imposed under the Wild Dog Destruction Act 1923. Nine, clause 21 (7) has been amended to require public notification of the declaration of an area as available for hunting. Ten, under amendments to clause 30 the hunting Code of Practice now contains mandatory provisions. These will be a condition of the game licence and must be observed by licensed game hunters. Eleven, clause 35 of the bill has been amended to require the Game Council to suspend or cancel a game hunting licence if a person is found guilty of an offence involving cruelty to animals. Twelve, clause 35 has been amended to give the Game Council the power to disqualify a person from holding a game hunting licence for an indefinite period. Thirteen, a requirement that a person must carry their game hunting licence when hunting has been introduced at clause 53.

The composition of the Game Council continues to receive my close consideration and has been the subject of many representations and comment. I am aware of calls to include a significant block of environmental and animal welfare interests on it. It is ironic because these are the same people who are opposed to the bill outright. As I said earlier, I have also noted that many of these groups are strongly opposed to the concept of hunting, yet they want representation on a Game Council which has been set up mainly to regulate aspects of hunting. I therefore need to be sure that a change to the composition of the council along these lines would result in an effective Game Council able to realise its statutory obligations.

I have also closely considered the amendments that the Liberal-National Party Coalition members have said they will move in the Legislative Council. Before commenting on these, however, it is worthwhile to remind ourselves what exactly is being debated here. What we are talking about is hunting. Hunting, as I said earlier, is a legal pastime in New South Wales as long as it is carried out in a manner consistent with the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979, the Firearms Act 1996, the Weapons Prohibition Act and other legislation. I was pleased to note that most speakers in the debate acknowledged the legitimacy of hunting. I make this point because hunting is legal, despite the fact that we have a Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. I am sure all honourable members who have followed this debate would know by now that that Act is referred to as POCTAA.

The basis of this apparent contradiction lies in the fact that POCTAA, while designed to prevent animal cruelty, also permits a limited range of acts, some of which might be regarded as cruel, to be performed provided they are carried out in accordance with certain standards and in specific circumstances. Section 5, for example, states that where pain is being inflicted upon the animal, the perpetrator is to take such reasonable steps as are necessary to alleviate that pain. Section 6 states that a person shall not commit an act of aggravated cruelty upon an animal. As a mark of the seriousness it attaches to such offences, the Government has set a maximum penalty for the offence of aggravated cruelty of 500 penalty units in the case of a corporation and 100 penalty units or imprisonment for two years, or both, in the case of an individual.

These amounts equate to $55,000 and $11,000 respectively. On the other hand, clause 24 states that a person charged with a cruelty offence is not guilty of that offence if the person can prove that the actions were undertaken in the course of various activities. These include acts of animal husbandry, such as earmarking or ear tagging the animal or branding, other than firing or hot iron branding of the face, castrating, dehorning, tailing and mulesing; destroying the animal or preparing the animal for destruction for the purpose of producing food for human consumption; for the purpose of providing the animal with veterinary treatment; in the course of and for the purpose of carrying out animal research, or supplying animals for use in connection with animal research in accordance with the provisions of the Animal Research Act 1985; and for the purpose of hunting, shooting, snaring, trapping, catching or capturing the animal.

I use this example to illustrate that standards set by POCTAA are more performance based than absolute. They have been drafted to help the community strike a balance between acceptable or warranted levels of harm and unwarranted cruelty. Finding the right balance is never easy. As Minister responsible for administering the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act I am often called on to arrive at what is essentially a compromise between an ideal situation and an achievable outcome. Perhaps the biggest challenge I face as Minister responsible for animal welfare involves revising the minimum standards set under POCTAA and setting new standards. In this regard I am grateful for the advice on animal welfare matters provided to me by the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee and, similarly, on research protocols by the Animal Research Review Panel.

I also acknowledge the important work undertaken by New South Wales Agriculture, both by staff in the animal welfare unit and those who deal regularly with animal welfare issues from animal industry, pest control or legal perspectives. The combined input of this staff is vital to ensure that the outcome reflects both the community values of the day, and the cost and availability of alternative technologies and production regimes. As the examples of layer and poultry meat production, and intensive production of large livestock such as pigs or cattle clearly show, some of these debates will be ongoing. However, I am pleased to say that in my tenure as Minister for Agriculture I have made well over 30 major changes to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. The changes have been in areas as diverse as animal husbandry where it is now an offence to tether a sow in a piggery or to operate a feedlot without regard to prescribed guidelines for the welfare of farm animals, or to grind the teeth of sheep or fire the tendons of horses.

In relation to hunting, it is now an offence to set a steel-jawed trap with the intention of using it to trap an animal, or even to possess a trap for that purpose. In animal baiting and fighting, offences have been extended and clarified. It is now an offence simply to be found in premises where dogfighting occurs. Coursing laws involving live quarry have been similarly revised. It is now an offence to use certain electrical devices that give an animal an electric shock. I banned the use of dogs to hunt and kill pigs when it was clear that existing practices were unnecessarily cruel. I outlawed the steel-jawed trap because the violence inflicted on caught animals constituted aggravated cruelty, and because too many non-target animals were captured.

Ms Moore: What about battery hens?

Mr AMERY: In relation to the interjection from the honourable member for Bligh, we also upgraded the standard in which hens are kept in intensive industries. Through ministerial council meetings we have increased the size of cages for layer hens and improved the standard of egg-laying farms throughout the State. So far as POCTAA is concerned the question is whether specific forms of hunting are acceptable when weighed against animal welfare concerns. Hunters often asked the same question. For example, codes of practice of hunting clubs usually specify minimum cartridge or bullet size for certain target animals because the small calibre or low-powered bullet, which is more likely to wound than to kill a certain animal immediately, is inconsistent with the principle that a kill must be undertaken as quickly as possible for it to be humane.

These codes also stipulate the body area where the animal should be shot to achieve a quick, clean kill. It may also be instructive to the honourable member for Bligh to hear that hunter-generated codes usually stipulate that animals should not be shot if the quick-kill target area is not available to the hunter. Several important points to note in the debate are, first, hunting is legal in New South Wales. That is one of the fundamental oppositions to the bill by some groups. They do not like that aspect of it, but it is legal. Second, the Game Bill proposes no amendments to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. Moreover, clause 6 of the bill explicitly states that nothing in the bill exempts people from their responsibilities under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. The bill does not give a green light to recreational hunters to use any means at their disposal to injure, maim or kill any cats, dogs, deer, pigs, foxes, goats or other animals that cross their path, to quote a statement in a letter to the editor of the Sydney Daily Telegraph by one national animal welfare rights group. Rather, the bill addresses the composition, powers and activities of the new statutory body, the Game Council.

In doing so, the bill consolidates some of the hunter permit systems that are currently used by State Government agencies to provide hunters with access to game and pest animals on public and private lands. The duck hunting permit currently issued by the National Parks and Wildlife Service when culling becomes necessary for agricultural protection purposes is one such permit. Overall, control of duck hunting, including quota setting, will not change under the Game Bill. Control is retained by the National Parks and Wildlife Service. But, as I said earlier, regulating hunter behaviour and animal cruelty remains with bodies other than the Game Council. These include the New South Wales Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, the Animal Research Review Panel and various units within New South Wales Agriculture. Although it does not agree with all facets of the bill, the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee has provided me with sound advice, and I thank individual members for that.

The fact that judgments about the animal welfare component of hunting are made by bodies such as the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee and are largely out of the hands of hunters, in the same way that questions about the welfare aspects of animal husbandry are not given over to industry bodies, has been conveniently ignored by those who are opposed to hunting. What else will the Game Council do? Under the bill pest animals on public lands and a limited number of animals on private lands are defined as game animals. The Game Council will administer a new two-tier licensing system as hunters of these game animals will be required to be in possession of a game hunting licence. The council will work with government agencies to co-ordinate hunter access to game animals. The National Parks and Wildlife Service, for example, will continue to have overall control of the hunting of ducks and other protected fauna.

The Game Council will advise government and other bodies on opportunities to involve holders of the game hunting licence in pest animal control on public and private lands, and prepare a statutory hunting code of practice detailing the standard of behaviour expected of holders of the game hunting licence. Those parts of the hunting code of practice that address key hunting issues and behaviours will be made a mandatory condition of the game hunting licence. They include animal welfare, firearm safety, access to private and public lands, and recognition of target species, among others. Failure to observe these mandatory provisions will constitute an offence under the Act and the ground for cancellation or suspension of a licence. By creating a revocable hunting licence linked to a code of practice, the New South Wales Government, via the Game Council, will also actively promote responsible firearms use among hunters. Although it will not extend to all hunters, currently there is no comparable hunting licence in New South Wales.

The State Government currently has few opportunities other than through POCTAA to directly promote ethical and humane hunting among hunters who are not actively involved in hunting or shooting club activities. The Game Council will address this vacuum. These features of the bill underpin, rather than undermine, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. Through the two-tier licence system the Game Bill will promote high levels of competence among hunters who hunt on any public lands in New South Wales. Although people can be issued with a general game hunting licence, it will be illegal to hunt on public lands unless the hunter is in possession of an unrestricted game hunting licence. As my colleague the honourable member for Illawarra correctly pointed out, the proposed licensing system consolidates existing licences and hunter access permits into one system and brings them under the administration of one authority, the Game Council. This will benefit both hunters and the wider community.

As it currently stands, the bill will yield environmental, conservation and other benefits for the wider community. For example, it creates a pool of experienced private hunters who can assist in pest animal control; a pool of experienced private hunters who can assist in threatened species recovery programs; a pool of licensed hunters for use in an exotic disease emergency or to reduce the risk of transmission, for example in the case of foot and mouth disease about which we have all heard so much in recent times; an opportunity for improved public safety by emphasising responsible hunter behaviour through a code of practice; and a framework to ensure that hunting can continue to deliver economic benefits to regional New South Wales.

The balance between hunter interests and those of the wider community contained in the bill is, I believe, about right, particularly when we consider that it will give rise to an entirely new Act containing new controls for hunting on public lands. It is a balance that provides hunters with an opportunity to demonstrate the important community benefits that hunting can produce for the wider community. But it also challenges hunters to demonstrate that they can act both safely and responsibly. It is a balance that enables hunters to demonstrate that the trust that will be placed in them is deserved, if the bill receives the support of this Parliament. There are several avenues in the bill to restrict hunter activity if that trust is not respected.

A hunter can be banned from hunting on all public land in New South Wales for an indefinite period of time, even permanently, for animal cruelty and other offences. And in more extreme cases whole areas of public land to which hunters currently have access can be closed to them at the Minister's discretion. In spite of what some say about it, this is a balanced bill. It is also a bill that creates a broad platform for debate about the future place of hunting in our community. It is not, as I said in this place on 19 March, a bill that gives hunters all they asked for, nor should it be. The bill does not give private hunters unrestricted access to all animals on all lands in New South Wales. It does not give private hunters access to national parks and other lands reserved for similar conservation purposes.

It does not give hunters control over access to land for hunting purposes. Access to public and private lands will be controlled by the landowner or manager, whether that is a private individual or a New South Wales Government agency. It does not restrict the activities of farmers and other land-holders who need to control pest animals as a normal part of land management practices. Indeed, regulations made under clause 18 (1) (g) of the bill will ensure that it does not reduce the effects and ability of land-holders to conduct joint pest control activities—nor should it do any of the abovementioned things—and it is not a bill that throws POCTAA out the door, as others have suggested.

I regard the fact that I have received support for and comments against the bill from hunter groups and animal welfare groups alike as confirmation that the current balance is about right. This balance reflects the difficult task that governments have, particularly where animal welfare issues are involved. That is why I will be encouraging my colleagues in the Legislative Council and other honourable members in that place to reject the various amendments flagged by the Liberal-National party Coalition in this House. Their amendments seriously undermine the balances and safeguards built into the bill, balances and safeguards which benefit the wider community as much as hunters.

The Opposition has flagged a number of amendments to the bill but I would not support an amendment giving the Game Council the power to add new species of game to the current list of game animals. If such an amendment were agreed to in the Legislative Council I believe that the council would have to seriously consider other amendments to restore the current balance between hunter interests and the interests of the wider community. An amendment to change the composition of the Game Council to include a significant block of environmental and animal welfare interests would be one possible option. An amendment requiring advance public notification of the intention to declare an area as available for hunting and a call for submissions regarding the proposed declaration would be another.

I am sure that if an amendment to change to the composition of the council were accepted, the other place would also have to give serious consideration to whether it would still be appropriate to allow the Game Council to solely represent the interests of hunters, which is currently one function given to it under clause 9 of the bill. Another amendment flagged in this place—removal of the two-tier licence structure—is equally provocative. Apart from anything else the two-tier licence system provides a means of ensuring that only the more skilled and responsible hunters can have access public lands. Removing the two-tier structure would also seriously undermine the potential benefits the bill offers the community in the event of an exotic disease outbreak.

The Opposition should support the licence system as proposed for this reason alone, if no other. The occupier’s licence and the general licence also mirror the existing duck licence system and should be retained. The honourable member for Lismore asked why a person assisting another person hunting pest animals in accordance with a duty imposed on them under the Rural Lands Protection Act 1998 or the Wild Dog Destruction Act is not exempt from the need to hold a game licence. The short answer is that only certain people hunting the animals listed in clause 5 (1) of the bill on private lands need to hold a licence. The animals in clause 5 (1) are deer, ducks and a limited number of other recognised game birds, most of which currently exist in very low numbers around the State.

As I said earlier, a licence is currently required to hunt ducks. What the honourable member for Lismore is really asking is why there is no exemption for people hunting deer. I point out that many of those who are likely to assist a land-holder to control deer, other than the private hunter, are also exempt from the need to hold a game hunting licence. They include a professional hunter contracted by a land-holder complying with a pest control order; professional kangaroo shooters and other professional hunters licensed under the National Parks and Wildlife Act and the Meat Industry Act undertaking commercial hunting activities; workers employed by any public or local authority, including Rural Lands Protection Boards, who are acting in their normal duties as such an employee; and a veterinary surgeon acting in the course of his or her professional duties.

The bill actually requires very few people hunting pests on private land to be licensed, other than when deer are being hunted, and then the person most likely to be required to be licensed is the private deer hunter. If I were to shoot rabbits, or for that matter hunt pigs, feral dogs, cats, goats, hare or foxes on private land, I would not need a licence. The honourable member for Lismore may also be aware that deer are classed as game animals in Victoria and a licence is required to hunt them in that State, as it is in Tasmania. Many hunters have told me that they also support the proposal for deer to be similarly classified in this State in view of the fact that very few people who would be disadvantaged will object to buying a licence, and because the benefits of the bill in its current form outweigh the disadvantages.

Also, regulations can be made under clause 18 (1) (g) of the bill to ensure that a future Game Act does not unnecessarily impinge on routine pest control activity. The honourable member for Lismore asked that this regulation be made as soon as possible. He may have been absent from the House on 19 March when I said in my second reading speech that I will ensure that a regulation exempting land-holders from the need to hold a game hunting licence when taking part in joint pest control programs is made as soon as possible, should this bill receive the support of Parliament. The honourable member for Lismore also asked me to guarantee that game licences will not be recognised as providing proof of genuine reason to hold a firearms licence.

This is a matter for the Minister for Police, who administers firearms legislation, not the Minister for Agriculture, and I will draw the honourable member's suggestion to that Minister's attention. Several Opposition members, including honourable members representing the electorates of the Upper Hunter, Barwon, Oxley and Coffs Harbour, have made much of the fact that this bill does not include the national park estate and lands reserved for similar conservation purposes in the definition of public land. They have also flagged that an amendment will be moved in the other place to provide for a two-year trial to be conducted of the hunting of game in three national parks under the supervision of the National Parks and Wildlife Service.

The Opposition does not seem to realise that these lands are declared as national parks for specific reasons associated with environmental or other values. Hunting has not been a routine management practice in national parks, unlike State forests, which are addressed in this bill. Permits are currently issued by State Forests for this purpose and a similar permit will continue to be required under a future Game Act. At the outset of this speech I gave an example of a recent pest control program undertaken in the Buckingbong State Forest. However, the proposal to give private hunters access to national parks is not consistent with the current management regimes of these areas. The Opposition has suggested including national parks in the bill, in an effort to differentiate itself from the Carr Government on this bill. It is purely grandstanding.

This amendment will seriously undermine the important checks and balances built into the bill, and it is therefore contrary to the long-term interests of hunters. It is a pretty shabby effort by the Opposition to curry favour with a few One Nation voters who are still left out there who might fall for some of these tricks. Frankly, I regard the suggested amendments as reckless to the point of being destructive to the intent of the bill and to the success of the bill. I am sure that the wider community of hunters, who support the bill in its current terms, will agree. I hope that the Opposition reconsiders each of its proposed amendments. As I said earlier, if the amendments were agreed to by the Legislative Council I am sure it would also have to seriously consider other amendments to restore the current balance between hunter interests and the interests of the wider community represented in the bill.

In relation to the question by the Leader of the National Party and the honourable member for Coffs Harbour about western lands leases, I have written to the Minister for Land and Water Conservation seeking his agreement to exempt lessees from licensing requirements. The honourable members for Oxley and Port Macquarie also suggested that the powers of inspectors under the bill are far too broad. They are extensive but they are also broadly consistent with the powers given to inspectors under other New South Wales Acts of Parliament. I thank all members who have contributed to the debate, the great majority of whom supported it, particularly Country Labor members and Government members. Opposition members will pursue amendments in the Legislative Council which I think will be destructive to the intent of the bill. I hope that the bill is passed by the Legislative Council. This is really groundbreaking legislation that I believe will be widely supported by the general community when all the emotion and misinformation are behind us. I commend the bill to the House.

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

Division called for. Standing Order 191 applied.

Noes, 1

Ms Moore

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Bill: Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders

Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow the resumption of the adjourned second reading debate on the Gaming Machines Amendment Bill forthwith.

GAMING MACHINES AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 9 April.

Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter—Leader of the National Party) [9.36 p.m.]: I am pleased to have the opportunity to lead for the Opposition on the Gaming Machines Amendment Bill, which predominantly will make various mechanical adjustments and corrections to the original bill. I am thankful to the Minister and the director-general of the department, Mr Ken Brown, for the briefings provided to me. This amending bill and the principal Act bring about momentous changes to the liquor, hotel and club industries. The Government and industries should be able to ascertain the benefits and impacts of the legislation, particularly the reduction in gaming hours, before the second phase, the further restriction of gaming hours, is implemented. I realise that the review would have to be conducted in the period leading up to the next election.

When hotels were allowed to introduce gaming machines some hotels did not apply for them. I have received representations about the Linga Longa Hotel at Gundy, which is near Scone. At the time of the introduction of gaming machines it was not considered a profitable investment to install them because of the nature of the hotel, the expected turnover and so on. Only recently the owners of the hotel applied for funding to make improvements and additions. They were told that, unfortunately, the bank would not be able to assist with mortgage finance because of the absence of gaming machines.

Therefore, it seems that hotels were valued by the turnover and number of kegs, but it seems that they are now predominantly valued by the turnover and number of gaming machines. A consequence that was never intended by the bill was that a very small hotel in a very small country community would be unable to acquire finance for improvements, extensions and renovations because, inadvertently or unknowingly, it did not take up the opportunity to acquire gaming machines. I ask the Minister to address that issue in his reply. Perhaps the amendments will cover the example in the way I have given it. I am pleased to advise that the Coalition will not oppose the bill.

Mr FACE (Charlestown—Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development) [9.41 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions and I thank the Leader of the National Party for his comments. Section 216 of the Act provides that the Minister is to review the Act as soon as possible after a period of five years after the date of assent of the Act. Since becoming Minister for Gaming and Racing I undertook to review and audit everything that is implemented. I have no doubt that this legislation will come before Parliament from time to time. It is obvious that there will be some scallywags, for want of a better word, who will try to find their way around it. The bill will have flaws, and if they are found it is my intention to try to rectify them. The Gaming Machines Act was passed by Parliament in December 2001. It is landmark legislation and is already recognised in other Australian jurisdictions as leading the way in gambling harm minimisation reforms. The Act has been viewed by overseas jurisdictions as trailblazing legislation. On 4 April the Adelaide Advertiser carried an article entitled "Time for Pokies Study as NSW Ups the Ante". The article stated:

The new laws, which commenced on 2 April, introduced the toughest controls over gaming machines that have ever been seen in Australia. It is little wonder that there are calls for other States and Territories to follow suit. The bill does nothing to change the significance of those reforms. The amendments are necessary to rectify drafting anomalies, to which I understand the Opposition agrees, and to provide necessary clarification in certain areas where the implementation process has identified some possible confusion. We will continue to review the bill because other problems will arise from time to time. I am advised that the Linga Longa Hotel at 2 Riley Street, Gundy, is owned by Lymqua Pty Ltd, a Brisbane-based company.

The hotel has never had any gaming machines and an argument has been made that in special circumstances small country hotels such as that should be able to acquire gaming machines without having to pay for entitlements. The situation facing small country hotels was raised during the development of the original gaming machine legislation. I remind honourable members that in my second reading speech on the Gaming Machines Bill 2001, on 30 November last year, I undertook to keep the plight of small country hotels under review. I noted that the Australian Hotels Association of New South Wales had indicated that there was a fear that small country hotels with fewer than nine gaming machines might be seriously affected by the new measures to the extent that some may be forced out of business.

I indicated at the time that I would monitor the impact of new legislation, as I have just indicated, on small country hotels and the legislation generally, but more so on hotels in developing areas. I noted that the association had sought further concessions for those hotels and I indicated that if in the future any favourable consideration were to be given to those concessions, consideration would require a clear business case to be provided by the association which establishes that hotels in those categories are suffering serious difficulty as a direct result of the Government's gaming reform package. I stand by those statements.

In the meantime, if any individual hotels such as the Linga Longa Hotel at Gundy can demonstrate that the financial viability of the hotelier's business as a whole will be seriously threatened if they are unable to keep additional gaming machines, they are able to apply for hardship gaming machines under division 3 of part 3 of the Gaming Machines Act. Item [15] of this bill clarifies that even hotels that currently have no gaming machines will be eligible to apply for hardship gaming machines. Section 27 (1) of the Act provides that only hoteliers who were, as at 19 April 2001, authorised to keep less than 15 poker machines are entitled to make a hardship application. That restriction was meant to prevent hoteliers with 15 or more poker machines from applying for hardship gaming returns.

Before the freeze hoteliers were generally permitted to keep a maximum of 15 machines. However, it has been suggested that the way in which section 27 (1) is drafted would also prevent hoteliers who currently have no machines from applying for the hardship machines, because such hoteliers have not been authorised to keep fewer than 15 machines; in fact, they have not received any authorisation. Item [15] amends section 26 to clarify that hoteliers and registered clubs that have no gaming machines are entitled to make a hardship application. Copies of the hardship application form and expanded information sheet are available from the web site of the Department of Gaming and Racing. I make that information available to the Leader of the National Party; it is effectively hot off the press in the past few days. We are trying to make this process easier for those who are affected. That information can be passed on to the Linga Longa Hotel. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

BILLS RETURNED

The following bill was returned from the Legislative Council without amendment:

The following bill was returned from the Legislative Council with amendments:

Consideration of amendments deferred.

The House adjourned at 9.49 p.m.
______________

Last modified 13/06/2007 08:19:09 : Update this page