Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Assembly, 15 November 2002, Corrected Copy)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Friday 15 November 2002
______

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

Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Bills: Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders

Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

GAMING MACHINES FURTHER AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 13 November.

Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter—Leader of the National Party) [10.00 a.m.]: I lead for the Opposition on the Gaming Machines Further Amendment Bill. The Liberal-National Coalition will not oppose the bill, because the Minister for Gaming and Racing said during his second reading speech that the bill is of a housekeeping nature to tidy up some of the loose ends in the legislation. I thank the office of the Minister for briefing my office on this bill, albeit after it was introduced. However, the Minister made his second reading speech just over 24 hours ago. As such, the Coalition has not had sufficient opportunity to study the bill in full and we reserve the right to oppose or amend it in the Legislative Council. While on the topic of the lack of opportunity to assess the contents of the bill, I was deeply concerned to learn that the Government did not consult directly with relevant industry bodies when drafting this bill.

I have been informed that the Australian Hotels Association [AHA] was particularly concerned that it was not afforded the courtesy of even being informed about the nature and contents of the bill. The President of the AHA, John Thorpe, was forced to sit in the Chamber to learn what was in the bill. Even then, he had to rely on the honourable member for Coffs Harbour, a member of the National Party, to provide him with a copy of the bill. I know that he appreciated the efforts of the Coalition to keep him informed; he certainly did not appreciate the Government keeping him in the dark. Surely the Government must realise that simple consultation is appropriate when legislation is being drafted and introduced. It was disturbing to hear that the Government also failed to consult directly with Clubs New South Wales. I assure the hotel and club industries that a Coalition government will consult on all legislation relevant to them. We will not guarantee to agree on every issue, but we will guarantee to keep them fully informed of our policies and legislative intentions.

This bill will make numerous amendments to the Gaming Machines Act 2001, including a requirement for so-called large-scale clubs to forfeit entitlements when transferring entitlements between premises within one kilometre of each other; a restriction on the number of approved amusement devices that may be authorised to be installed in a hotel or club; provision for the social impact assessment threshold to be decreased when entitlements are transferred from a venue in a shopping centre; extension of the capacity for poker machine entitlements to be transferred between premises of registered clubs without forfeiture, which is particularly relevant to country clubs; clarification of the power of the Liquor Administration Board to have regard to harm minimisation when approving gaming machines; provision for the board to consider whether fake or misleading information has been supplied when determining the initial allocation of poker machine entitlements to a club or hotel; and provision for a continuation of the arrangement in a repealed section of the Liquor Act, which allows the profits from the operation of gaming machines to be shared with people with a declared financial interest in a hotel.

I understand this section was inadvertently omitted from the Gaming Machines Act 2001. The Coalition will monitor the operation of this section to ensure that is does not open up the possibility of a criminal element gaining access to gaming machine profits. As I have said, on face value these amendments appear to be of a machinery nature and, as such, they will not be opposed by the Coalition. However, the bill is notable in that it does not amend the Gaming Machines Act 2001 to delay the introduction of the six-hour shutdown of gaming machines from May 2003. I understand that the Government is spending a considerable sum of money researching the impact of the current three-hour gaming machine shutdown on problem gambling. Surely this money will be wasted unless the Government waits for its findings before extending the shutdown to six hours.

The Coalition has already made a commitment to delay the extension of the gaming machine shutdown until it can be demonstrated that the shutdown reduces the incidence and extent of problem gambling. Indeed, we have said that we will abolish the current three-hour shutdown if the research demonstrates that it has no effect on problem gambling. I challenge the Minister to match the Coalition's commitment to evidence-based reform. Research must be undertaken into gaming policies and, just as importantly, the research must be analysed and used as the basis for reforms. I presume this will be the last gaming-related legislation to come before Parliament this session. Such an assumption is relevant in light of the Minister's words in a letter to a hotelier dated late October 2002. In relation to gaming machine entitlements in leased hotels, the Minister said:

… in light of some apparently ongoing disputation, I am exploring the feasibility of a legislative option through which mediation processes could be promoted and enhanced.

I ask the Minister to confirm for both lessors and lessees that there will therefore not be amending legislation in relation to gaming machine entitlements before the end of the session. Various interpretations of the Minister's intentions in relation to gaming machine entitlements have been circulating throughout the hotel industry, which is little wonder given his written statements on the issue such as the one I have just read. This is an opportunity for the Minister to clarify his intentions for all involved in the hotel industry. As shadow Minister for Gaming, I am aware that the Minister will not be leaving the industries that his portfolio affects in a stable and settled state. The Coalition will not oppose the bill unless it discovers deficiencies in it before it reaches the Legislative Council. The Coalition will be happy to discuss the future of the gaming portfolio with all stakeholders and interested parties in the lead-up to the election in March 2003.

Mr FACE (Charlestown—Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development) [10.06 a.m.], in reply: This bill is of a machinery nature. This is another example of the flight of fancy of the National Party. I have known the Leader of the National Party for a long time and I know that he is a graduate of the Leon Punch school of manufactured lies. I was with Mr Thorpe and Mr Rogan last night, and neither of them expressed any concerns with respect to this bill. The Leader of the National Party just said that they are upset. A possible explanation is that they have misunderstood some other legislation that is being drafted. However, I do not know whether it will see the light of day before the end of this session. It is wrong for the Leader of the National Party to say that the hotels did not know about this bill.

The general nature of the intent of this bill was passed on to Brian Ross, Charles Shields and others at the Australian Hotels Association [AHA], so the argument of the Leader of the National Party falls in a hole. Likewise, Mr Rogan, the Chairman of Clubs New South Wales, has no problem with this bill. Obviously, the chief executive officers and acting chief executive officers have not bothered to understand the legislation. When the Hon. Anne Cohen was Minister under the previous Coalition Government she had a reputation for never consulting the industry. During the past eight years this Labor Government has built up an enviable record with the industries. During its term three Ministers have had responsibility for the portfolio. The Hon. Anne Cohen never consulted anybody. The Leader of the National Party has obviously fallen for this evidence-based phenomena that is going around in part of the club industry.

Mr Souris: Why are you wasting money gathering evidence?

Mr FACE: Evidence will appear over a period of time. The Coalition did nothing about this issue, although it had a lot of time in which to do something.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Earlier the Leader of the National Party insulted the Minister and the Minister did not respond. I ask the Leader of the National Party to respect the right of the Minister to respond now to his earlier statements.

Mr FACE: Mediation has been a vexed problem. I indicated to the industry that if I could find some way around their problems and alleviate them I would do so. I sought advice and told them at the time that it would be extremely difficult to resolve their problems. My judgment was right, and I sought advice from three quarters. Introducing legislation to force people around the table will not resolve anything. Quite frankly, it would give them false hope. Some of these problems will be resolved only in the Equity Division of the Supreme Court. Many people who have been under a misapprehension for a period of time have been able to resolve their problems. Let us be clear: there will be a continuation of voluntary mediations as set up by the AHA. I hope that cool heads will resolve a lot of problems.

The Leader of the National Party wanted to set up a tribunal to override the Equity Division of the Supreme Court. Obviously he has a poor knowledge of what goes on in this State. I do not have a law degree, but I know that his suggestion of setting up another tribunal to tell people what they will or will not get is laughable. One can imagine what people would say, "Go away. I'm going to court." That is exactly what is going to happen with some of them, unfortunately. I thank the Leader of the National Party for his contribution to the second reading debate. This bill is a housekeeping measure. At the end of the session everybody has got a little hot and bothered—they are making certain that they earn their money. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

SUPERANNUATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

SUPERANNUATION LEGISLATION FURTHER AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 13 November.

Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter—Leader of the National Party) [10.13 a.m.]: The Coalition supports these bills. However, we had virtually no notification or warning of them. I have not had sufficient time to study the bills or to consult sufficiently with industry. Therefore, whilst the Coalition will support the bills in this House we reserve the right, upon further analysis and consultation, to consider our position when they reach the Legislative Council. These bills seek to make a number of amendments to the various State Government superannuation schemes. The Opposition will not be opposing these bills. However, while the amendments are practical, worthwhile and sensible, the Coalition is concerned that none of the amendments improve the poor management and investment losses made by the various State Government superannuation funds.

The Opposition is concerned with the level of experience, skills and knowledge contained within the State Government superannuation funds, particularly the State Super Pooled Fund. I remind honourable members that the State Super Pooled Fund made an investment loss last year of $2.25 billion. While both international and Australian share markets performed poorly last year, this is no excuse for the massive loss sustained by State Super. The average fund manager recorded a loss of 4.1 per cent last year. State Super was well below par, recording a loss of 7.3 per cent—not quite double, but heading there. It was a very poor performance. These bills do nothing to fix the endemic problems in this State's superannuation funds. I quote from an article that appeared in the Business Review Weekly magazine of 1 August 2002 entitled "Super Bad":

The article made some serious allegations about the ability of State Super to adequately perform its duty to manage the investment funds that have been paid into the scheme by the State Government, and therefore by the taxpayers of New South Wales. They deserve better than this. Because this is a defined benefit fund, the taxpayers of this State will have to pick up the tab for this incompetence. This situation also raises issues of prudential supervision by the relevant Ministers. As is clearly shown by the organisational structure diagram on page 2 of State Super's annual report, the Special Minister of State is responsible for scheme legislation and the Treasurer is responsible for financial arrangements. The financial arrangements of State Super mirror the financial arrangements of many other parts of the State's finances—that is, they are in disarray.

I refer to the amendments in the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill. The bill seeks to tie up a number of loose ends in a number of superannuation Acts, including the First State Superannuation Act 1992, the Judges' Pensions Act 1953, the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1971, the Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906, the Superannuation Act 1916, the Local Government and Other Authorities (Superannuation) Act 1927, the New South Wales Retirement Benefits Act 1972 and the State Authorities Superannuation Act 1987. First, the First State Superannuation Act 1992 is amended to make provision for the division of superannuation between spouses in the case of a marriage breakdown.

A little over 10 years ago I introduced the First State Superannuation Act into Parliament. The establishment of First State Super, a modern accumulation fund, was a major step in bringing under control this State's massive unfunded superannuation liability. However, after eight years of a Labor Government, with a booming economy and Treasury coffers overflowing with tax receipts, the general government sector unfunded superannuation liability has only fallen from $12.6 billion to $11.4 billion. As both international and Australian share markets have continued to perform dismally over the first 4� months of this financial year, it would not surprise me if the unfunded superannuation liability is now worse than it was when Labor took office.

Secondly, the Judges' Pensions Act will be amended to extend the circumstances in which spouse benefits may be paid to the surviving spouse of a former judge on the death of the former judge. Thirdly, several parts of the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act will be amended. The bill proposes that the time allowed for the trustees to forward a copy of an actuarial triennial report to the Minister be extended from one month to three months, "or such other period as is approved by the Minister". That seems to be a backward step in terms of accountability of the parliamentary superannuation scheme. The bill will also stop the current practice of the fund to automatically pay benefits to members of the fund who reach the age of 70, irrespective of whether they are still sitting members of Parliament. I note that members who are currently receiving that benefit will not be forced to give it up.

Finally, the bill will also amend the Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act, the Local Government and Other Authorities (Superannuation) Act, and the New South Wales Retirement Benefits Act to extend the circumstances in which spouse or de facto partner benefits may be paid to the spouse or de facto partner of a former member of the relevant superannuation schemes. The Coalition will not oppose any parts of this bill.

The amendments to the Superannuation Act 1992, the Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906, the State Authorities Non-contributory Superannuation Act 1987 and the State Authorities Superannuation Act 1987 will facilitate the implementation of an industrial award providing new death and incapacity benefits to certain firefighters. The Coalition recognises the inherent dangers faced daily by firefighters in the performance of their duties. I understand that the award is expected to be finalised over the next few months, and will include significant benefits where firefighters are killed or injured as a result of their work.

The bill also amends the eligibility criteria for early retirement benefits in the Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act so that officers who are at least 45 years of age but less than 55 years of age with 20 or more years of equivalent full-time service will be eligible for early retirement. This was one of the recommendations made by the police royal commission, and I understand that 300 officers will be able to commence early retirement over the next three years.

Finally, the bill amends the State Authorities Superannuation Act. As members would be aware, the State Authorities Superannuation Scheme [SASS] is a hybrid scheme, meaning that it is partly a defined benefit scheme and partly an accumulation scheme. The funds in this scheme are pooled as part of the State Super Pooled Fund, which, as I said earlier, had a very poor performance last year. While the rest of the benefits in that fund are defined benefits, and therefore the retirement benefit of members are not at risk, members with funds in the accumulation part of the SASS have directly suffered from the aggressive strategy of the State Super Pooled Fund and its poor performance. That is particularly concerning for members of SASS who are nearing retirement. They should not have their funds in such a risky investment strategy. This legislation will allow other asset portfolios to be established, with different investment strategies. The Coalition supports this move, as it will give members the opportunity to reduce inappropriate risk if they so choose. The Coalition will not oppose the bill.

Mr MOSS (Canterbury—Parliamentary Secretary) [10.22 a.m.], in reply: I thank the Leader of the National Party for his support of the bills. Initially, he said the bills were practical, worthwhile and sensible. However, he then went on to criticise them at length, and he got right off the point when he started to talk about the losses of State Super last year, a matter that has nothing to do with the bills. State Super did have losses, but I let me quote the words of the honourable member, "All funds did lose last year, and all funds performed poorly last year." Most lost money. Despite that, the Opposition concedes that these bills are practical, worthwhile and sensible. I thank the honourable member for that aspect of his contribution.

Motion agreed to.

Bills read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY AMENDMENT (GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION REDUCTION) BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 31 October.

Mr GEORGE (Lismore) [10.24 a.m.]: The Opposition will not oppose the Electricity Supply Amendment (Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction) Bill. However, it has some serious concerns about the possible implications of this legislation, and I will outline those during this contribution. I hope the Minister, or at least the Parliamentary Secretary at the table, will respond to those concerns. The Opposition recognises the importance of implementing strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We recognise that greenhouse gas emission reduction is essential, but we do not share the view of the State Government that it can be done successfully on a State-by-State basis. It is interesting that the Minister for Energy is introducing this bill, which establishes a scheme that will impose penalties for non-compliance with mandated reduction targets. Honourable members may ask why that is interesting. It is interesting in the light of the comment of the Minister, via a spokesman, in a Sydney Morning Herald article on 2 April last year which read as follows:

The Opposition would like to highlight this statement in light of the explanatory note accompanying the bill. Explanatory note (a) states that the bill will be establish State greenhouse gas benchmarks and individual greenhouse gas benchmarks for certain participants in the electricity industry and large users of electricity. Explanatory note (c) states that the bill will impose a penalty on persons who fail to meet greenhouse gas benchmarks in any year. Bearing in mind those two explanatory notes, I ask the Minister to explain why he is now introducing legislation that is directly in contradiction of statements attributed to him by his spokesman less than 18 months ago, because the bill seeks to establish a punitive regime for non-compliance with stated targets. Why the change of heart? Has the Minister been overruled by the Premier on this matter? I look forward to the Minister's explanation.

The objectives of this bill are to be commended, but the timing of its introduction should be questioned. It is now October, and the scheme set out under the bill is meant to begin operation on 1 January 2003—less than two months away! As any honourable member who has carefully examined this bill will know, this is a complex and detailed bill and one which, if implemented, will establish an entirely new greenhouse gas emission reduction regime in New South Wales. This bill has been mooted for more than 12 months—since the time Premier Bob Carr packed his bags and headed off to the June 2001 Council of Australian Governments [COAG] conference seeking national endorsement of plans for compulsory greenhouse gas reduction targets. COAG did not endorse the proposal, leaving New South Wales to carry the can on this issue.

In January 2002 the Government released a paper proposing the introduction of an enforceable reduction scheme. That paper was followed by an announcement in May this year that the scheme would commence from New Year's Day 2003, with abatement targets in force until 2012. The Government will contend that the release of a discussion paper in January, together with information about an industry consultative group, constitutes appropriate public exposure of the bill, but the Opposition believes otherwise. My question to the Minister for Energy is simple: Why the hurry? Why was the bill not released as a green and white discussion paper? More cynical observers would suggest that the Carr Government wants the scheme up and running from 1 January 2003 so that members opposite can talk up their green credentials in the lead-up to the March 2003 election.

The bill will amend the Electricity Supply Act 1995 to put in place a framework to mandate greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. It also sets down a penalty for non-compliance with the mandated reduction targets of $10.50 per tonne of CO₂equivalent above the benchmark reduction target. I draw the attention of the House to a statement released on 16 September by the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Peter Hendy, which, in part, reads:

That sentiment is being repeated across the business sector. There is genuine concern that the bill may be an active disincentive to investment in New South Wales. But opposition to the bill does not come just from the business sector. An article in the Sydney Morning Herald on 2 November quotes the Director of the Total Environment Centre, Jeff Angel—traditionally a fair-weather friend of Minister Yeadon—referring to the proposed rules that will apply under the legislation. Mr Angel states that alternative energy companies will be deprived of the only chance to develop.

According to the Sydney Morning Herald article the rules of the scheme, which the Government is still developing, allow electricity companies to buy cheaper power generation, predominantly coal, from interstate generators in Queensland, South Australia and Victoria. The bottom line is that coal-fired generators from other States are able to produce their output at a significantly lower cost than alternative generators; a situation described by Jeff Angel as making a mockery of the intentions of the scheme. Concerns about the potential impact of the bill are wide and varied. I request that the Minister deal in his reply with the issues raised in the Herald article.

The bill contains four separate mechanisms to achieve the stated outcome of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and developing and encouraging activities designed to offset the production of greenhouse gas emissions. First, the bill establishes a statewide greenhouse gas reduction target. New section 97B sets out the greenhouse gas benchmarks for the years 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2012. The benchmarks range from 25 tonnes of CO₂equivalent of greenhouse gas emissions per head of State population to 7.27 tonnes by 2012.

As part of the reduction target each participant in the benchmark scheme will be allocated a benchmark reduction target, dependent on how much each contributes to the greenhouse gas problem. The bill defines benchmark participants as retail suppliers of electricity, electricity generators or other persons who supply electricity on a retail basis. Benchmark participants also include large users of electricity, or owners and operators of projects designated as State significant by the Minister for Planning.

The inclusion of projects of State significance raises some questions. Why do these participants get a dispensation for the purposes of the scheme that is not offered to each and every business consumer? Is this an admission that, without this section, the scheme would be an active disincentive to business and manufacturing business in this State? It certainly seems that way. New sections 97BC to 97BE cover a range of measures related to the greenhouse benchmark scheme, including the way a benchmark is determined for each participant, the way a participant is determined to have complied or not complied with the reduction target and the way the greenhouse shortfalls are able to be carried forward to the next year of the scheme, if the need arises.

New division 3, which relates to the enforcement of greenhouse gas benchmarks, is the second initiative. New section 97CA sets down a penalty for non-compliance with a benchmark target of $10.50 per tonne of CO₂equivalent of greenhouse shortfall for the year concerned. The penalty amount may be adjusted according to the movements in the consumer price index. It is interesting to note that the penalty is recoverable as debt due to the Crown. The Opposition is concerned with this provision. The Government is imposing a penalty on benchmark participants that will go straight to consolidated revenue. This appears to be little more than a revenue raising strategy for State Treasury.

If the Government were serious about this initiative penalty payments would be directed to a specific purpose fund designed to encourage greenhouse gas reduction. A comprehensive report of the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal [IPART] into demand management, which was released in October, recommended the establishment of a demand management fund to facilitate sustainable generation projects, implement energy efficiency and end user fuel switching programs, assist small-scale energy efficiency projects, encourage energy efficiency measures with building industry equipment suppliers and local government, and facilitate programs between water and energy demand management.

The IPART recommended the establishment of the fund. The Opposition calls on the Minister to direct the penalty payments under the scheme into such a fund structure instead of being directed to consolidated revenue as a debt recoverable by the Crown. If the Government is not comfortable implementing a laudable recommendation of the IPART the Opposition will formally propose, by way of an amendment in the upper House, that any penalties collected under this legislation be hypothecated to energy efficiency schemes or alternative energy schemes.

The penalty money should go back into offering practical energy efficiency measures to business and householders with the end aim of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It is through the development and enhancement of such projects that greenhouse gas abatement targets can be delivered, not to the payment of penalty money into consolidated revenue. Under new division 3 benchmark participants will be required to report annually on their compliance with the scheme. The report must be furnished to the IPART, as the scheme administrator, no later than 1 March each year. A penalty will be imposed for failure to lodge a report. It is interesting to note that new section 97CF will allow the Minister to waive or suspend obligations to comply with the greenhouse gas benchmarks if it appears that, for some reason, compliance is not possible. That is appropriate because, in the event of a system failure associated with the scheme, it obviously will be difficult to comply. New division 4 sets out the requirements for accreditation of abatement certificate providers. Providers may create abatement certificates to be traded. Certificates are created in recognition of activities undertaken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Under this legislation, accredited providers may be involved in activities including demand management, generation activities resulting in greenhouse gas reductions and any other activities reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Accreditation may also be extended to parties involved in carbon sequestration activities. I understand that this will not extend to interstate carbon sinks because of the practical difficulties involved in determining the existence or compliance of forestation activities in other States. This refusal to accredit interstate carbon sinks highlights another shortcoming of the State-based regime. Why can businesses operating outside New South Wales not be allowed to count their abatement activities in other States when they are creating certificates in New South Wales? Is this not a disincentive to investment? Why does the Government seem intent on putting up a virtual barrier between New South Wales and the other States in this regard?

If the reason for not including interstate activities is the cost of checking compliance, the Coalition suggests that the task could be contracted to private industry certification bodies. An amendment will be moved in the other place to allow interstate carbon sequestration activities to be counted towards meeting abatement targets. New division 5 of the bill relates to the creation of abatement certificates. Each abatement certificate created by an accredited provider equals one tonne of CO₂equivalent of greenhouse gas emissions abated by the activity for which it is created. Abatement certificates must be registered with the scheme administrator, who must then maintain a registry of the details of the certificates. Abatement certificates remain in force until the scheme administrator cancels them. Abatement certificates created under division 5 will be able to be transferred and traded in certain circumstances.

In line with the bill, each certificate created equals one tonne of CO₂ equivalent abated by the activity for which it is created. For example, the establishment of a carbon sink in western New South Wales may equate to an abatement of 100 tonnes of CO₂ equivalent, meaning that 100 certificates will be created for that activity. Certificates created under this scheme will then be registered by the scheme administrator, which is the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal [IPART]. Certificates remain in force until they are surrendered to the IPART in order to comply with a greenhouse gas reduction benchmark.

Abatement certificates created under this scheme will be tradable in certain circumstances. Transferable certificates can be traded and transferred to any person, while non-transferable abatement certificates cannot be openly traded. They can only be created and lodged with the scheme administrator. The Coalition is concerned about the impact that the role of scheme administrator will have on the functions of the IPART. This scheme will place a massive administrative burden on the IPART as the scheme administrator if the scheme is widely adopted. I ask the Minister to indicate whether consideration has been given to boosting the financial and physical assets of the IPART to allow the tribunal to deal with the additional work associated with this scheme. Or will it be handed the responsibility with no additional resources? It is important that the tribunal be able to continue its other work while at the same time carrying out the role of scheme administrator.

The Coalition is also concerned that the Government has held off on this legislation until this late in the parliamentary calendar. The scheme is set to commence on 1 January 2003, less than two months away, yet we are only now seeing the enabling legislation before the House. Why has it taken so long? This legislation is just the administrative framework for the scheme; the details are contained in various methodologies and rules that had been developed in consultation with an industry consultative group.

A concern put to the Coalition is that we are being asked to make a decision on the framework for the scheme without all the details being available. For example, the Ministry of Energy and Utilities Internet site currently lists a demand side abatement methodology paper for download. The foreword to that paper, which was released late last month, invited submissions to be made until 1 November. That was after the Minister introduced the bill and made his second reading speech in this place. As late as this week another paper appeared on the ministry's web site, this time regarding methodologies for large user abatement certificates. In this case the period for comments does not close until 21 November, which is just over a week away. So, in effect, the nuts and bolts of this scheme are still being worked out even as we debate the legislation today. I understand that several other option papers are still to be completed. Will they be completed and the necessary rules and methodologies completed by 1 January?

It is of major concern to the Coalition that we are debating this legislation less than two months before the scheduled starting date. I note that a conference is currently under way at the Hilton Hotel to discuss the New South Wales Mandatory Greenhouse Benchmarks Scheme. The brochure for that conference lists an impressive array of speakers covering industry, business and legal representatives. I wonder whether conference organisers have arranged for a crystal ball to be available for speakers and participants, because they are discussing legislation that is not yet enacted. That is a strange position indeed. In conclusion, the Coalition will not oppose the legislation in this place. We recognise the importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and congratulate the Federal Government on current initiatives aimed at reducing emissions.

The Federal Mandatory Renewable Energy Targets Scheme [MRETS] has proven to be a success to date, and the provision of the MRETS means that Australia is well on its way towards meeting the voluntary emission reduction target. According to the Australian Greenhouse Office, Australia has made an active contribution towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions at a national level by implementing several initiatives. The initiatives include setting up the world's first government agency dedicated to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. A national greenhouse strategy has been endorsed by the Commonwealth and every State and Territory government.

The Federal Government has guaranteed almost $1 billion over five years to fund programs that include the following initiatives: boosting renewable energy actions and pursuing greater energy efficiency; investing significant resources into greenhouse research and monitoring Australia's progress towards its Kyoto targets through the national greenhouse gas inventory; investigating the possibility of a domestic emissions trading scheme; encouraging energy, business and the community to use less greenhouse intensive transport; and providing impetus for greenhouse action through the Greenhouse Gas Abatement Program. Australia is also continuing to contribute to international negotiations on the Kyoto protocol. I have outlined several concerns that the Coalition has about the New South Wales-based proposal, and we will seek to move some amendments in the upper House. I hope the Minister is able to shed some light on the issues and concerns I have raised, although he is not in the Chamber.

Mr ORKOPOULOS (Swansea) [10.49 a.m.]: What can I say in response to the Opposition spokesman's claim of supporting the Government's legislation in the face of his doctoral dissertation on the bill?

Mr Hickey: Give him a high distinction.

Mr ORKOPOULOS: I might give him a high distinction. In response to one of the criticisms made by the Opposition spokesman, I point out that the scheme will be compulsory because the Government has already tried the voluntary approach. For five years the industry had voluntary benchmarks, but the industry did not comply. Rather than resorting to an ad hoc approach, the Government favours an alternative policy, namely, a 5 per cent reduction in emissions. Currently New South Wales is 10 per cent above the emission rate, and that is why the Government has had to introduce penalties—to ensure compliance. I also point out that the Carr Labor Government is the first government to insist that Australia become a signatory to the Kyoto protocol. The Premier has been forthright in making that assertion, and I notice that the Federal Leader of the Opposition, Mr Crean, announced a similar policy at the Federal Labor level.

I support the legislation. Global warming is one of the most important environmental issues faced by this nation. The Carr Government is committed to playing its part in addressing this global problem by reducing the greenhouse gas emissions of the electricity sector. This bill will deliver abatement. However, the Mandatory Greenhouse Benchmarks Scheme will be implemented in a flexible and least-cost manner to achieve significant abatement through a number of activities, including low greenhouse intensity generation, energy efficiency, switching from electricity to other fuels such as natural gas, and forest carbon sequestration in New South Wales. The Government recognises that some of the lowest cost abatement will probably come from existing generators. Through this bill, generators will be encouraged to generate a higher output than previously was the case, or to implement efficiency programs to reduce their fuel consumption, hence their greenhouse gas emissions. This is the key to keeping the costs of the abatement scheme as low as possible.

The bill is not about preferring one form of technology over another. Participants in the scheme will be able to select the best form of abatement. The scheme is all about abatement, which is why the Government is allowing a wide range of abatement options. Retailers will have the flexibility to seek the lowest cost means of abatement so that the costs of abatement will be kept to a minimum. The penalty for a retailer's failure to comply with its benchmark obligations will be set at $10.50 for every tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent exceeding the benchmark. That will effectively cap the impact of the scheme at less than $2 per megawatt hour. There has been considerable modelling of this measure's impact on prices which has indicated that the overall impact will be between $1 and $2 per megawatt hour. I point out for the information of the honourable member for Lismore that significant consultation has taken place between the Government, industry and consumer groups. For the past six months, industry representatives have been consulted on almost every detail and consumer groups have expressed no opposition to the legislation.

It should be made clear that the impact on households and small users who are on regulated electricity tariffs should result in no impact on the prices they pay for electricity because an allowance of $1.50 per megawatt hour has already been made in existing regulated tariffs set by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal [IPART]. IPART included this amount in regulated tariffs some time ago to cover the costs of complying with the voluntary greenhouse benchmarks scheme. In effect, households are already paying for the costs of greenhouse abatement. Accordingly, it is not expected that electricity prices for households will be increased as a result of this scheme. In addition, because the scheme provides incentives for energy efficiency measures by providing, for the first time, a value for the abatement achieved by reducing consumption of electricity, retailers and other parties may seek to implement efficiency programs with residential consumers. Indeed, that will complement the activities of the Sustainable Energy Development Authority, which already operates an Energy Smart Homes Program.

It is entirely possible that the installation of greenhouse friendly, efficient gas water heaters, water-efficient shower heads, compact fluorescent lights and ceiling insulation will be used to create abatement certificates that may be traded on a market with retailers and other liable benchmark parties. Given the financial driver provided by the mandatory benchmarks scheme through the creation of abatement certificates, new programs of energy efficiency for residential customers may be created. Clearly, the installation of such energy-efficient equipment will reduce the energy costs of households. This bill delivers ongoing environmental benefits to New South Wales. It has the potential to encourage programs that will reduce residential energy consumption in a manner that should not result in an increase in costs to New South Wales households. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr HICKEY (Cessnock) [10.53 a.m.]: During his speech on the Electricity Supply Amendment (Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction) Bill, the Opposition spokesman, the honourable member for Lismore, compared the State and Federal emission reduction schemes. The Carr Labor Government has always maintained its preference for a national scheme, but other governments will not take the lead. In those circumstances, New South Wales will not sit back, complain, and do nothing. The New South Wales Government will act, because the Commonwealth Government will not. The Opposition spokesman also referred to comments made by Jeff Angel. I make it clear that the State scheme is not about preferring one type of technology over another. The New South Wales Government intends to consider all schemes in its endeavours to achieve the target. If clean coal results in lower emissions than the average of competing technologies, it should be able to be counted. After all, abatement is all about choosing the best form of reduction, but the Opposition really has not come to grips with that. If the Opposition is suggesting that the Government should pull clean coal out of the scheme, that would result in a significant increase in costs, but no greater reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

The Government does not expect any penalties to be paid into the demand management fund when industry complies with the scheme. Penalties should not be necessary if there is across-the-board compliance. The Opposition's contention that penalties are designed solely to raise revenue is false. I am surprised that members of the National Party would state in this House their opposition to carbon sinks and cite the examples of carbon sinks in other States. If the National Party does not want carbon sinks in regional New South Wales, I suggest that a review of its policy in consultation with grassroots supporters may be necessary. Surely the Opposition would prefer forestry plantations to be established in regional New South Wale, thereby leading to job creation in the bush. For every 50 hectares of plantation, one job is created. It is sad that members of the National Party are not in favour of carbon sinks in the regional and rural areas of this State.

The Government has been working over a considerable period toward the implementation of this scheme by 1 January 2003. I recognise that the time frame is tight, but, as the Opposition has stated, industry needs certainty. The time frame will obviate uncertainty that would otherwise be caused by the Government chopping and changing the commencement date. The honourable member for Swansea mentioned that consumer groups have raised no objection to this bill, but I assure him that some consumer groups have contacted me to discuss the issues. It is great that this Government is addressing issues that have been raised by the introduction of this legislation. One of the key requirements of the scheme is to ensure that emissions are reduced in the least costly way. This is particularly important for industries and businesses whose production processes consume a great deal of electricity. That is why it is important to ensure that costs are kept below $2 a megawatt hour.

However, the Government recognises the potential impact that this cost could have on industry and, in recognition of this, the bill provides a number of concessions for large users: those who use more than 100 gigawatt hours a year, including large industries such as aluminium smelters. The bill will allow large users of electricity to manage their own benchmarks by becoming elective participants. Most importantly, that will give them access to potentially lower cost greenhouse gas abatement. This arrangement will also apply to projects of State significance as approved by the Minister for Planning. Allowing large users to manage their own benchmarks does not represent a reduction in the compliance burden faced by them, but it will give large users more options for finding different ways of reducing emissions.

Under this proposal, the greenhouse reduction will remain the same, but the number of abatement options will increase. The number of tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions, arising from electricity purchases that are allowable to meet the large user's benchmark, will be calculated in the same way as for retailers. The main advantage to a large user in managing its own benchmark is that it might be eligible to create a special type of abatement certificate, known as a large user abatement certificate, with respect to a broader set of abatement options than is the case for ordinary abatement certificates. Abatement activities that are not directly related to electricity generation will be allowable as a basis for creating certificates.

For example, this would include a reduction in the release of perfluorocarbons, a particularly aggressive greenhouse gas, in the aluminium smelting industry. Other possible abatement activities that large users could undertake include the conversion of on-site boilers to more greenhouse-friendly fuels such as natural gas, or the capture and combustion of fugitive methane emissions. Methane is also a more damaging greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. These certificates will be "bankable", which means that if a large user has excess credits in one year, it can submit them for compliance purposes in subsequent years. Only sites within New South Wales will be able to create large-user abatement certificates, and the requirements for accreditation and auditing will be the same as for other abatement certificates.

Large users will be able to purchase or create abatement certificates arising from other allowable sources on the same basis as any other party seeking to meet the balance of its greenhouse benchmark requirements. The recognition of such activities has the potential to significantly reduce the cost of compliance to large users and projects of State significance, while still ensuring a greenhouse outcome. This policy is all about outcomes. The final details of allowable activities for large electricity users will be the subject of a detailed methodology. A draft methodology is currently being prepared, and will be subject to broad community consultation prior to finalisation.

I now turn to the impact on the Hunter region in particular. As honourable members will be aware, the Hunter has a fair number of large users. I have already indicated that this bill will provide flexibility to allow real greenhouse gas abatement to be achieved by large users at the least cost. The Hunter is also home to a number of coal-fired power stations. By providing financial incentives to create abatement certificates, this bill will encourage those generators to undertake programs that will lead to greenhouse gas abatement. Some examples of such programs would be to improve the efficiency of electricity generation beyond its previous efficiency levels by refurbishing major items of equipment. Another abatement option would be to co-fire a power station with less greenhouse intensive fuel.

A particularly good example might be waste mine gas that would otherwise have been vented to the atmosphere. Because the power stations already exist, this again may prove to be a very cost-effective abatement opportunity as only slight modifications to plant may be needed. The bill provides significant opportunities for consumers and generators in the Hunter. This is an important policy for the environment, and the New South Wales Government has taken an approach that will see it achieved at least cost. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr MOSS (Canterbury—Parliamentary Secretary) [11.02 a.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contributions to this debate.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

SECURITY INDUSTRY AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 12 November.

Mr TINK (Epping) [11.03 a.m.]: The Coalition does not oppose this bill, which was called for by the Leader of the Opposition on 15 October following the appalling attack upon Australians in Bali. Private security industry guards outnumber officers of the NSW Police Force by between three and four to one. Many members of the private security industry are armed and it is vitally important that the laws governing the industry are up to date. Following the attack on September 11 last year in New York there was a major review of the private security industry in the United States, the most high-profile area being the private security employees who work the x-ray machines and so forth at airports, where there has been a real concern about the quality of work done prior to September 11. The general need for a review was recognised by the Leader of the Opposition very early after the Bali attack.

A number of things concern me—not so much about the content of the bill but that it is necessary. In 1997 the Government sought to rewrite the security industry legislation in the lead-up to the Olympic Games. It surprises me that, after what was purported to be such an extensive update of the security industry legislation, it has been necessary to introduce this bill. The Government claimed that the 1997 legislation was comprehensive, but obviously it was nothing of the sort. That is of great concern, because the 1997 legislation was designed to enhance the security industry in the lead-up to the Olympic Games. One is left with the uncomfortable conclusion that the Olympic Games was free from any security crisis by default, rather than by any active preparation and planning by the Government.

This bill especially touches upon the use of firearms in the security industry. Having been assured in Parliament prior to the Olympic Games that the 1997 security industry legislation was adequate for the Olympics, I am deeply troubled to find that there are a whole range of problems with it: the difficulty of identifying security industry firearms used to commit crime, unlawful lending of firearms by companies to criminals, and the unlawful use of firearms by employees. Principal provisions in the bill include mandatory refusal of licences based on fit and proper person grounds, mandatory revocation for not undertaking firearms safety training, and a permanent residency requirement.

Given the legislation that passed in 1997, one must ask whether we got through the Olympic Games despite all those problems and despite assurances by the Government that the security industry legislation was in order. It is extraordinary to think that there was no crisis at the Olympic Games when, as we now find, there were ongoing problems identifying the unlawful carriage of firearms by security guards. It is extraordinary that there was no crisis despite there being an issue about identifying security industry firearms used to commit crimes. These are deeply troubling concerns to me. Perhaps most troubling of all, we appear to have got through the Olympic Games despite there being a big problem with the unlawful lending of firearms by companies to criminals and a problem with the unlawful use of firearms by employees.

Again, these issues should have been dealt with in 1997. The fact that this bill is now necessary begs the question of what other issues were not attended to in the 1997 review. If the 1997 review was said to be satisfactory and now all these holes have been found in the legislation, are there still further holes that have yet to be discovered? That is a troubling and ongoing concern. As I understand, there has been no consultation at all with the private security industry. As I speak, a meeting is taking place between Deputy Commissioner Madden and representatives of the Security Industry Council. I have been told by representatives of the private security industry that this bill may be discussed at that meeting. If that is so, that is a disgrace. I am deeply troubled that we are debating this bill in Parliament, yet the Government, through its servants and agents, is only now talking to the industry. Clearly, the Government is telling the industry what is going to be done, rather than consulting with it.

If the Government purports that the meeting is a consultation, and if changes may arise from that consultation, why is the time of the Parliament being wasted debating the bill? I assume that the Government is holding talks with the industry today for two reasons. The first is that the Government is telling the industry what is going to happen. That is not consultation; it is the worst example of top-down government. Unfortunately, after almost eight years in office the Government has a reputation for taking that approach. The second reason is that the Government is consulting after the fact. That means that the time of the Parliament is now being wasted. If any changes are required to the bill, the Government will have to reconvene Parliament, at great expense to the taxpayers, to clean it up. I have received a fax from Larry Circosta, President of the Australian Security Industry Association Ltd, the peak body of the security industry, dated 14 November 2002, which highlights the disgraceful way in which this legislation has come forward. Mr Circosta said:

1. Despite assurances to the Security Industry only recently by the Police Minister, there has been no Industry consultation. ASIAL only learnt of the proposal last Friday from the press release.

That is a disgrace. Mr Circosta continued:

A meeting of the Security Industry Council and Deputy Commissioner Madden is being held on Friday.

That is, the meeting is being held right now. Further, Mr Circosta said:

2. Why the haste? Surely something so critical needs to be thought out, and planned in an orderly manner.

Hear! Hear! One only has to look at this bill to see that the 1997 legislation was a dog's breakfast. The inadequacy of that legislation shows how important it is to consult the stakeholders. Mr Circosta continued:

3. Under the existing Act there is a provision for a 5 year review, which is due shortly. Why is the review not combined with this recent announcement?

4. The original Act (which has worked well) is based on a partnership with the Industry. This amendment does not promote that relationship.

5. Current compliance measures are conducted by Industry at Industry cost. No revenue from the licensing is directed to this. The amendment seeks to implement new infringements. Does it follow that increased revenue will be directed to (Industry) compliance? This surely is a way to increase standards.

A competent Minister would have asked these types of questions of this industry group and would have ensured that the Deputy Commissioner of Police met with this group before introducing the bill. I do not say that if I were in the Minister's position I would give the industry a blank cheque. I might agree with all of its points, agree with some of its points and disagree with the rest, or disagree with all of them. I am saying that there should be a process for introducing legislation. There is a group that represents the armed security guards—who outnumber police officers in this State by three-to-one—so at the very least the Government should talk to it first. Mr Circosta continued:

6. The Police Minister talks of a 5% failure in respect of "proper persons" checks, hence the requirement to fingerprint. While this is a reasonable initiative,
a) who is meeting the cost?

b) the Minister needs to produce evidence to prove his number.

They are not unreasonable points. They are not necessarily matters that the Government needs to raise in Parliament, provided the Minister is able to demonstrate to the peak body that the information and numbers are correct. Further, Mr Circosta said:

7. The amendment (reading) suggests that "all security licence applicants" will be fingerprinted, but the reading starts by talking about guards. Clarification is required to which sectors of the industry is being targeted and what is the cost and implications to the industry.

I hope the Minister for Police, who did not have the courtesy or competence to consult before the bill was introduced, will stir himself to consult with this body before the bill is sent to the upper House. We will then be able to consider it more thoroughly there. It is not my intention to oppose the bill, but the Coalition is in a difficult situation. We believe that, unfortunately, there is a need to look at the legislation in the wake of Bali. We are at the end of this session of Parliament, and we are acutely aware that after next week we will not have an opportunity to do anything about this legislation for some months. We are not needlessly trying to put obstacles in the way of the Government. That is all the more reason why the Government should have extended its goodwill to the industry—even though the Minister usually, although not invariably, does not extend it to me.

The officers and civilian staff of the Police Force are under pressure and have enough to do. This legislative clean-up should not be necessary. Unless it is demonstrated to me otherwise, I do not blame the Police Force. I certainly do not blame Deputy Commissioner Madden or the civilian staff of the Police Force. I have the strong suspicion—and until proven otherwise it will remain my view—that the staff face extraordinary and at times unreasonable pressure from the Minister's office to produce all sorts of things for the media cycle. It makes for bad government when the cart is put before the horse. The appropriate approach to this matter would have been for the Government to consult with the industry at the right time in the cycle, rather than introduce the bill in this form with these questions unanswered.

I want to compare the second reading speeches made on this bill and the previous bill to provide evidence that the concerns I have raised are not merely party political rhetoric but, rather, are serious, substantive points. In introducing the Security Industry Bill on 19 November 1997 the then Minister for Police said:

This bill is designed to provide employees with a safer working environment and a higher level of training based on national competency standards. It is also designed to exclude those whose background makes them unsuitable for this type of work.

That review lasted about 10 years, until about 1997. That being the case, why is there a need for this bill now? One central purpose of the bill is to consider the suitability of people for security work. Two key headings in the second reading debate are "Unlawful Use of Firearms by Employees" and "Identifying Security Industry Firearms Used to Commit Crime". If the 1997 bill had adequately covered those issues, they would not need to be amended so soon. To clear up any doubt about that, in 1997 the Minister for Police said:

In other words, in 1997, in the lead-up to the Olympics, the Government assured the House that people convicted of a firearms offence were being targeted and excluded from employment in the security industry. If that were so, why are those headings the subject of more amendments? Obviously, the job was not done properly in the first place. The Minister for Police further said:

If that were done and under control, why are we revisiting it now? The Minister further said:

Five years ago the Minister promised solemnly that by 2000 the industry would be cleaned up and would not have elements that were a threat to Olympic security. However, the key headings in the second reading speech to the amending bill is "Unlawful Loaning by Companies to Criminals" and, I hasten to add, "Unlawful Use of Firearms by Employees". Five years ago a bill was introduced to protect the industry against infiltration by criminal elements, but one of the central concerns addressed in the current bill is the unlawful loaning by security industry companies of firearms to criminals. Why do we still have this problem? What guarantee do we have that this bill will clean up the industry more efficiently than the first bill was supposed to? The industry group should have been consulted about this bill. In 1997 the Minister for Police said:

It remains my view that that is the right thing to do. I strongly suspect that that office, as with a number of others, including strike forces and task forces in the former crime agencies, have not been resourced to do the job properly. As a result of underresourcing, and in the wake of the Bali terrorist attack, concerns are now raised about security. There is a rush to bring in further security industry legislation. Therefore, notwithstanding the assurances given in 1997, the Government is concerned that organised criminals and terrorists can manipulate the current security licensing process. If that licensing process is to be carried out by New South Wales Police, what are the shortcomings in practical resources? I suspect they are significant, and the Minister needs to address that problem.

It is one thing to give extra powers to police, as has occurred on some fronts, but we still find that there are significant problems if there are insufficient resources to carry out those powers. I suspect that is still the case in the private security industry. The Minister is always keen to dish out blame in relation to firearms offences—and remember that this bill is primarily focused on firearms. The Minister alleges there are problems with the security of firearms in the private security industry, and in some elements I concede that he is correct. Regrettably, the Minister has a habit of dishing out blame from time to time to get himself out of tight corners. His record needs to be examined. At the beginning of this month when he was in a tight corner leading up to the early rounds of the Australian Police Ministers' Council on firearms, the Minister chose to publish some information exclusively in the Daily Telegraph of 5 November. An article referring to the Australian Defence Force [ADF] stated:

Mr Costa is to demand the Federal Government release figures detailing the true extent of ADF weapons being diverted to the black market.

That article gave the impression that the ADF has a very poor record on firearms security. As the Minister did not say anything about the record of New South Wales Police, I will cite information published by the Australian Institute of Criminology. The institute's computer file headed "National Firearms Monitoring Program 1994-2000" gives statistics on hand guns, which were of particular concern at the Australian Police Ministers' Council meeting. In the category of pistol, between 1994 and 2000 the ADF mislaid one, Customs mislaid one, and New South Wales Police mislaid seven. In the category of revolver, between 1994 and 2000 New South Wales Police mislaid five, ADF none and Customs none.

I am not hypercritical of police officers—they have a difficult job to do—but firearms should never go missing. In New South Wales 13,500 police carry arms, and quite rightly. Only one firearm going missing is not good, and I am not critical of that, because we can always do better. I am very critical of the Minister for Police, who sledged the Federal Government in the lead-up to the Police Ministers' Council Meeting on firearms by saying that the ADF has a disgraceful record on the security of hand guns, when his own ministerial responsibilities and the area he administers have a demonstrably worse record. That has been demonstrated by independent statistics.

I would not raise this issue if he were not busily misrepresenting the record of Federal bodies, while his police force does not stand up to proper scrutiny on this subject. Unfortunately, there is far too much politicking by the Minister in the general area of firearms and law reform, and I am sure it will get a lot worse. I am sure that the public, the voters, key industry groups and the police want an open, fair dinkum approach to the problems and some workable solutions.

I refer again to the fact that the security industry has not been consulted and repeat that the timetable for this bill is out of line given that no consultation has taken place. We cannot produce the best legislation on a series of issues as complicated as this without undertaking consultation. That does not mean that the groups consulted should be issued with a blank cheque. However, their concerns should be taken on board and dealt with as effectively as possible. That process would produce the best outcome in the public interest.

I am sure that those who work in NSW Police want the same thing. They understand that talking to these people will assist in achieving the best outcome for the industry and, broadly speaking, the industry will support the Government in dealing with an area that will create problems in some sections of the industry. At the moment, the industry is being marginalised and effectively being spoken down to in an after-the-event fashion rather than being taken on board in the first place. Hopefully, even at this late stage, the industry will be consulted effectively and if amendments are necessary they will be fully considered in the public interest in the upper House.

I note the reference at the end of the seconding speech and in the bill to the wider use of infringement notices. That is far from the Government's stated aim of getting police officers away from the paperwork. It is also further proof of the significant failings of this Government's legislation relating to police powers of arrest and post-arrest procedures. This bill has been introduced in the context of consolidation of police powers, but we have this ridiculous, convoluted system of procedures for police officers dealing with people following arrest. Geoff Schuberg, who is a member of the Minister's advisory council, has said that the procedures have caused the average time to deal with an arrest to blow out from about 30 minutes to three hours.

This is the Government's attempt to deal with a ridiculous bureaucratic arrest system. Rather than address the problem head-on and simplify the powers of arrest, the Government has decided to leave that massive hurdle in place and implement regimes that are designed to allow people to avoid the arrest process completely and be issued with an infringement notice instead. The problem is that the Auditor General's examination of the State Debt Recovery Office indicated that about 70 per cent of people never pay infringement notices.

Therefore, there is no deterrent. Pieces of paper are issued, data is entered on computers and the offence processing statistics look great on paper, but the reality is that the lack of deterrence means that these offences have effectively been decriminalised. People chuck the infringement notices in the bin and there is no follow-up. The Auditor General's examination has proved that. Tim Priest's evidence to the Cabramatta inquiry on related issues such as field court attendance notices was that police squads walking around Cabramatta would issue up to six notices to the same person in one day, and before they were out of sight the infringement notices were chucked in the bin. Infringement notices mean nothing. The amendments are important, albeit delayed, but no consultation has taken place. The final irony, having been assured that everything was well four years ago, is that when the rubber hits the road and we get to the penalties, there is no deterrent whatsoever.

We should be dealing with the central policing policy issue of simplifying police powers of arrest. Four years ago at the Police Association conference, in front of Mr Whelan and Mr Ryan, the Opposition offered bipartisan support for any reasonable changes to rectify this situation. Nothing happened. Earlier this year at Wollongong the Opposition repeated the offer in front of Mr Moroney and Mr Costa. Now, eight months later the provisions that we said needed amendment have been brought back into the Parliament in the context of consolidating police powers, but they have not been amended. We must address police powers of arrest; we must make it easier for police to process people under arrest rather than leave it in the too-hard basket and allow them to issue everyone with infringement notices that end up in the bin.

Mr CRITTENDEN (Wyong—Parliamentary Secretary) [11.35 a.m.], in reply: I thank the honourable member for Epping for his wide-ranging contribution. I note that he does not intend to move amendments at this stage. Perhaps the most critical thing he mentioned was that the world has changed since September 2001 and the events in Bali. This legislation reflects the degree of heightened caution that any responsible Government should adopt in these circumstances, in particular, with respect to high-risk facilities such as airports. Therefore, the fingerprinting provisions are necessary. It is all very well to compare and contrast what we may have thought in 1997 with what we think now, but the world has changed significantly. Only a foolhardy person would not concede that point. Hence the need for this legislation.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

STATUTE LAW (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) (No 2) BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 12 November.

Mr TINK (Epping) [11.38 a.m.]: We are faced with an absolute blizzard of bills as we approach the eighth anniversary of this Government's election to office. It is interesting to see how much of its program has not been implemented and how many of its promises remain unfulfilled. This bill demonstrates the mistakes that are made and the problems that occur when a Government is in panic mode at the eleventh hour and is deluging the Parliament with legislation. It is a shame that Parliament does not sit more frequently under this Government. It is also a shame that we do not have more time to consider legislation. If we did, we might be able to pick up some of these problems and fix them without having to deal with a bill comprising 66 pages that, in the main, is the product of sloppiness. The previous bill debated was a classic example of the problems that can occur.

When the Coalition is in government next year, it will regrettably be required to introduce statute legislation probably 200 pages long to fix the mess that is being created by the legislation now before the Parliament. In saying that, I do not in any way, shape or form attribute any of the blame for this to the Parliamentary Counsel's Office, which does a magnificent job under the most extraordinary pressure and with ridiculous time frames imposed by this Government. I suspect that next week the situation will become worse when the Government introduces a volume of legislation the like of which we have not seen for some time.

I will refer to the explanatory notes to illustrate some of the legislation to which this bill applies. The Adoption Act is to be amended to make it clear that the Act applies to organisations that provide post-adoption services. One would expect principal legislation that was fully considered and consulted upon to contain a provision such as that. This bill seeks to amend legislation, such as the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act, in areas where the New South Wales Government has the highest duty of care regarding those who are underage, are dependent, or have some form of disability. That is the sort of legislation that must be cleaned up. The bill contains the amazing amendment to clarify:

It does not get more basic than that: such appropriate and proper coverage should be in legislation that aims to protect the interests of people with a disability. Another fundamental duty of government is to protect, regulate and deal with markets and consumers. The Gas Supply Act currently prohibits the operation of a distribution pipeline except in appropriate circumstances. However, that provision is not sufficiently broad to cover small distribution networks, so the bill seeks to amend the Act to refer to "distribution systems". If proper consultation on the legislation had occurred initially that amendment would not be required now.

The Government has responsibility for a broad variety of areas. Another important class of legislation concerns public accountability and the protection of whistleblowers within government who seek to disclose corruption in other areas of government. The Government has a duty to protect such people. The Protected Disclosures Act must be amended—I am not sure why this is happening by way of a miscellaneous provisions bill—to ensure that it protects those who seek to blow the whistle on a public authority other than the one that employs them. There is also a problem with the formula for calculating annual rent that appears in the Western Lands Amendment Act in that if fails to allow for what appears to be the deduction of the rehabilitation rebate on the annual rent charged under that Act. The explanatory note states:

In other words, a minus sign was missing from the original formula for calculating annual rent. Where does that leave those people who pay annual rent under the Western Lands Amendment Act? I do not know but someone must. Does it mean that they will pay more or less? Will those who have paid more now pay less? Will those who have paid less now be required to pay more? Will those who have paid less be allowed to continue to pay less? Will those who have paid more receive a deduction?

Someone must explain to Parliament and to me the effects of this amendment before this bill becomes law. Will those who pay rent under the Western Lands Amendment Act receive a bill or a cheque? Will they be given time to pay the extra money and, if so, how long? Clause 2 of schedule 4 to the bill is headed "effect of amendment or repeal on acts done or decisions made". I do not understand this provision: it is double-dutch to me. Perhaps some Queen's Counsel will understand it and figure out whether those people will receive a bill or a cheque.

I have already highlighted problems with Acts about minors, commercial matters dealing with gas supply and whistleblowers. When the Government has direct responsibility for collecting money, or the oversight of those who do, it ought to get the calculations right. If the Government changes the formula it should be able to tell people whether they will receive a bill or a cheque—or even a waiver, where necessary. The Opposition will remain vigilant to ensure that the Government responds to my queries and clarifies the situation before this bill becomes law. We should know how people will be affected before an incorrect formula in an Act of Parliament is changed.

Mr MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [11.47 a.m.]: The Coalition notes with great concern the provisions relating to the transference of exemptions of freedom of information [FOI] requirements to the Ombudsman's office in relation to Child Death Review Team investigations. The history of granting exemptions to the Child Death Review Team from exposure to FOI applications is that in 1995 the Labor Government introduced the Child Death Review Team structure when the Coalition raised concerns in the latter part of its term in office. The Child Death Review Team was put under the umbrella of the Commissioner for Children and Young People, currently Gillian Calvert. The honourable member for Epping was then shadow Minister for Community Services and he expressed reservations on behalf of the Coalition about exempting the Child Death Review Team from FOI requirements.

Nevertheless, the Coalition accepted the argument that we should give it a chance and allowed the Government to introduce this exemption to enable the Child Death Review Team to work unconstrained. The argument was, and is, essentially that the Child Death Review Team undertakes reviews of individual cases only as part of the broader systemic review that is its principal focus. The assumption underlining the exemption was, in the Coalition's view, that there would be other appropriate avenues for families and interested parties to determine the individual circumstances of a child's death. However, after almost eight years of a Labor Government the circumstances have changed dramatically. We now know that the systemic reviews by the Child Death Review Team have resulted in no improvement in child protection in New South Wales. We know that the Department of Community Services [DOCS] has deteriorated into chaos, and that families are frustrated at not only the failure by DOCS to deliver child protection services but also its failure to be transparent about what has gone wrong.

There have been numerous reports from the Commissioner for Children and Young People and, more latterly, the Ombudsman expressing total frustration at the extremely inadequate child protection services in New South Wales. The record and response systems of the Department of Community Services have been described as "more good luck than good management". As shadow Minister, the honourable member for Wakehurst has dealt with numerous families who have waited years to receive any response from DOCS—and in many cases no response—following the death of a loved child.

Families like the family of Tahlia Brockmann, who died in Wellington in 1998, and Jessica Gallacher, who died in January 2000, are still awaiting answers. Those families would have had no access to the coronial system if the New South Wales Coalition parties had not intervened and supported their cries for help. Brave families simply seeking answers are left in the backwash of a system that is chaotically out of control; indeed, it appears they would not have benefited at all from the child death review system.

With this background we know that people within the Child Death Review Team structure are extremely unhappy with aspects of it. A few months ago Pat Greer, a member of the Child Death Review Team, spoke publicly about alleged ministerial interference in the publication of the report of the Child Death Review Team. It seems that two years ago the details of the deaths of children who previously had been reported to DOCS or were known to DOCS more generally were deliberately omitted from the report after the office of the Minister, Faye Lo Po', allegedly interfered and sought removal of the data. The Government's defence was that the information was still in the report, but in a different form. The Coalition would say the Government's action in that regard was designed to deceive, designed to hide.

Given this Government-endorsed deception, hiding of the truth, and hiding of the facts surrounding the deaths of innocent children, it now seems an opportune time to review why the Child Death Review Team should be given total exemption from FOI requirements. We all know that under Labor, freedom of information is not truly a transparent system anyway. The Government has become a master at effectively refusing FOI applications, under a whole host of guises. If there is no guise and no ostensible reason to refuse an application, the applicant is charged the earth—hundreds, if not thousands of dollars—to dissuade him or her from obtaining the relevant documentation.

Notwithstanding that the Government has become expert in refusing FOI applications, it may still be the only opportunity for families to gain some insight into what went wrong and what may be a failure by DOCS or other human service agents to investigate what should have been done—and should be done in the future—to protect other children. Therefore, in the Coalition's view the argument that the Child Death Review Team needs to operate effectively in a protected cocoon-like structure away from public scrutiny is no longer sustainable.

The Coalition would prefer families to be given a prima face right to access information that has been assessed by the Child Death Review Team. Equally, DOCS officers affected by decisions of the Child Death Review Team should also be given FOI rights. However, it is the families that the Coalition is principally focused upon. Families can have little confidence in the Premier when it comes to transparency. He is the master of spin, the king of rhetoric and is completely lacking in substance. Those principles cannot be allowed to be entrenched in the review process into the deaths of children in New South Wales.

The Coalition would have preferred the bill to be introduced with sufficient time to properly discuss and negotiate an effective legislative amendment that would have given families and others in appropriate circumstances access to Child Death Review Team information, with appropriate legislative limitations to ensure that the team could operate in an environment without worrying about possible repercussions for it or individuals the subject of or related to the investigation. However, the Labor Government introduced the bill at a very late hour, just two days ago, allowing no time for review or consultation. Accordingly, it has made its bed and will now have to lie in it. The Coalition places the Government on notice that whilst it will not vote against this aspect of the bill in the Legislative Assembly, it is extremely unhappy with it. The Coalition reserves the right to discuss the matter with the crossbench in the Legislative Council, and to block the bill's passage through the upper House if it is pursued by the Government without the relevant issues being properly addressed.

Ms SEATON (Southern Highlands) [11.56 a.m.]: I wish to speak to the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) (No 2) Bill, particularly the provisions relating to amendments to the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998. It has become a feature of the Government that very important legislation relating to the care and wellbeing of children is frequently introduced in this place, bipartisan support is sought—which is generally given in good spirit, to ensure the best possible changes to any legislation that deals with good outcomes for children—and the legislation is not proclaimed.

I wish to raise a concern regarding families who seek to adopt children from other countries, and I refer in particular to intercountry adoptions from Bolivia. Australian Families for Children Inc. has expressed to the Government serious concerns about its failure to proclaim the Adoption Act 2000. The Government's inaction in that regard has created an obstacle consequential to that Act whereby accreditation—which is absolutely necessary for Australian Families for Children and no doubt other non-government organisations—cannot be given. Although children in other countries are available for adoption by families in Australia, the non-proclamation of the legislation prohibits the organisations from gaining accreditation and, therefore, children cannot be adopted. Until the Government proclaims the Adoption Act 2000 organisations such as Australian Families for Children cannot be accredited, and until they are accredited it is not possible for children from Bolivia and other countries to come to Australia.

Australian Families for Children wrote to the Minister in another place, the Hon. Carmel Tebbutt, outlining the history of Australian Families for Children and also expressing concerns about the fact that accreditation has not been able to be finalised because the Act, which was passed two years ago, still has not been proclaimed. I commend Ricky Brisson of Australian Families for Children Inc. for her continuing representations on this issue. I look forward to receiving the Minister's response about why the Act has not been proclaimed and why organisations such as Australian Families for Children have been unable to gain accreditation so that children may be adopted from countries such as Bolivia.

This is not the only occasion on which the Government has been negligent in proclaiming legislation in respect of which it has sought the Coalition's support—support that has been freely given. I refer, for example, to the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Amendment Bill. The honourable member for Wakehurst expressed the Coalition's concerns that if we are to be asked for bipartisan support for legislation such as that, we need to be confident that the Government will proclaim it. We have seen no such action from the Government in that regard. It is not just the Coalition that is expressing concerns about the Government's non-proclamation of legislation. In May this year the Community Services Commissioner, Robert Fitzgerald, noted:

I would have thought care plans were important and something that this Government would want to see occur—

On 4 April Robert Fitzgerald said:

He is not the only person who is critical of the Government in that respect. I also draw attention to concerns expressed on 5 August by Jane Woodruff of UnitingCare Burnside, who said:

She said also:

On 12 April Linda Mallett, the Children's Guardian—an employee of this Government—said that she would like the proclamation to "go ahead as soon as it possibly can". Also on 12 April, Mr Nigel Spence of the Association of Children's Welfare Agencies said it "was ready to go in March, if not earlier. This delay is indefensible". The list goes on. Phillip French, Executive Officer of People with Disabilities Inc., said:

I put the Government on notice that it has neglected this important issue. The Government is leaving children who might otherwise be adopted without a permanent home. It is leaving children at risk because of essential elements in legislation which was passed in this House but not proclaimed. The Government needs to explain its actions because it is not taking seriously its responsibility for protecting children.

Mr CRITTENDEN (Wyong—Parliamentary Secretary) [12.02 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members representing the electorates of Epping, Wagga Wagga and Southern Highlands for their contributions to this debate. The honourable member for Epping, in his capacity as the manager of Opposition business in this place, made certain passing references which I will deal with. Not one member of the Opposition consulted with me, the Cabinet Office or anyone else about why this legislation has been introduced. I will give further details now. The Adoption Act has obviously been a matter of contention for both the honourable member for Southern Highlands and the honourable member for Epping.

The proposed amendment will change the term used to describe an organisation providing adoption services. The term "adoption agency" has traditionally applied to agencies that arrange placements of children for adoption. Following the proclamation of the Adoption Act, it will be possible for organisations that provide post-adoption order information, and support and reunion services to apply for accreditation as an adoption service provider. Given the historical connotations attached to the term "adoption agency", it is proposed to remove it from the Adoption Act. The preferred term "adoption service provider" is used in the Adoption Act 2000, but the terms "accredited adoption agency" and "adoption agency" are also used.

It is proposed to use the term "accredited adoption service provider" to distinguish between agencies that must be accredited to provide certain services such as placement of children or assessment of suitable prospective parents and those that may choose to be accredited when they provide post-adoption order services. I hope that issue is now laid to rest. If further information is required, I invite members of the Opposition to approach me. Obviously this legislation will go to the Legislative Council in the very near future.

The honourable member for Epping used an almost throw-away line regarding schedule 2 to the bill. I have always had a reasonable regard for the honourable member for Epping. I thought he had higher-order thinking skills, despite the fact that he is not a mathematician. He did not demonstrate that today by referring to the Western Lands Act 1901 in relation to minus and plus. In year 8 he would have learnt about equations: they have a left and a right-hand side with an equal sign in the middle. When he subtracts the rehabilitation rebate there will be a benefit to the person who pays the annual rent. On the left-hand side is the annual rent. If the honourable member for Epping needs further advice he has only to read the Macquarie Dictionary's definition of "rebate", which is:

It is obvious that the rent will be reduced from the rehabilitation rebate. I am pleased to clarify that matter for the honourable member for Epping on this occasion.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY SECURITY OF PAYMENT AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 12 November.

Mr MERTON (Baulkham Hills) [12.07 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition on the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Amendment Bill, which the Opposition does not oppose. The Opposition somewhat cautiously welcomes this legislation for the following reasons and agrees with its principal and intent. The Opposition knows about enormous problems in the construction industry as far as non-payment of subcontractors is concerned, and welcomes any steps that might be taken by this Government to rectify the situation. This legislation will amend the Act and is long overdue. This Government has been on record for some time as supporting the provision of seriatim payments to subcontractors, but it has been a very slow process and this could only be described as drip-feed legislation.

The object of this bill is to amend the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act by providing that progress payments to which persons are entitled under the Act include final payments and a single or one-off payment. It also provides for interest to be payable on unpaid progress payments. It provides claimants with the option of having their payment claims adjudicated under the Act rather than having to take court action to recover the amount owing. It provides that an adjudicator's determination of a payment claim may be set out in an adjudication certificate which may then be filed as a judgment for a debt in any court of competent jurisdiction. There are a number of other miscellaneous amendments to the existing legislation. Prior to the last election the Premier commented on problems that existed in the legislation and the law as it then was. It was suggested that it was unscrupulous or dishonest for developers not to pay subcontractors.

It was also suggested that their misconduct was essentially unAustralian. The Opposition agrees with all those statements. We believe it is unAustralian for subcontractors who do an honest day's work and provide materials not to be paid. That can happen for a variety of reasons, but it happens in particular because unscrupulous developers either have no intention of paying them or receive payment but do not pass it on to the subcontractors. Not all developers are unscrupulous but, unfortunately, there are unscrupulous people in all industries. The Opposition reminds the Government of its commitment. In debate on the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Bill in 1999 I raised a number of difficulties that I perceived with the legislation. I said on that occasion, and I reiterate today, that the Opposition does not oppose the principle of the legislation. I stated in my speech:

I acknowledged that the dispute mechanism certainly had merits. I said then, and I still believe, that it has the capacity to speed up the resolution of problems. I said that the dispute resolution mechanism did not go to the root of the unscrupulous contractor receiving money and not forwarding it to the subcontractor. I was concerned in particular about clause 25 of the bill—which this bill will repeal with a new mechanism of adjudication certificates. I support in principle the idea of the adjudication certificates. I am prepared to say that everyone has acted in good faith during this Government's term of office. I know that the honourable member for The Entrance is not the Minister concerned, but I wish him well; he may be the next shadow Minister. I believe he would be very competent. Indeed, a lot of Ministers may find they have new roles following the great day of judgment, 22 March 2003. I asked the Minister and his advisers to examine clause 25, which dealt with the consequence of not complying with the adjudicator's determination. Clause 25 (1) stated:

(a) may recover the unpaid, or unsecured, portion of the adjudicated amount from the respondent, as a debt due to the claimant, in any court of competent jurisdiction ….

I said:

I was clearly wrong in that instance because what has happened—and it is quite clear from the Minister's second reading speech—is that the matters I pre-empted have, in reality, occurred. I continued:

On page 571 of Hansard of 15 September 1999 I said:

Any civil proceedings that arise under a construction contract could well mean that the builder, or developer, could plead defective workmanship or material when the subcontractor seeks to enforce his debt in what is described as a court of competent jurisdiction. I would hate that to be the situation, and I ask the Minister to address it in his reply.

I am not trying to score points, but it is quite clear that the matter was raised by the Opposition when the bill was debated. It concerned us then—and, unfortunately, it has occurred—that people under the mechanism, which I supported in principle and I support today, were able to buy more time when it came to the actual enforcement of debts.

As the Minister said in his second reading speech, "Cash flow is the lifeblood of the building and construction industry." It certainly is. Delay is the biggest enemy; it is almost the worst nightmare that people in the building industry can face when someone has issued proceedings to recover money and a spurious, time-wasting defence is filed by the defendant. I am pleased to note that the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Amendment Bill provides, in new section 25, a mechanism for adjudication certificates, which could well, over time, solve that particular problem. We will wait, hope and trust that that happens, because the whole idea is to ensure that subcontractors are paid money that is rightfully theirs rather than have their attempts to obtain the money thwarted by delay tactics.

Turning to some of the other objects of the bill, I support the notion of interest on unpaid progress payments being at the Supreme Court interest rate or the contract rate as specified in the contract, whichever is the higher. It avoids a situation in which a contract could stipulate a very low rate of interest, which is not a commercial rate of interest. The non-payment of subcontractors has concerned Opposition members and, indeed, some Government members. Coalition members have spoken in the House previously about the tragic circumstances resulting from subcontractors not being paid even though the head contractor has been paid for work that was properly done by subcontractors. That money may have been used for some other purpose, such as running other jobs.

Some time ago in this Chamber Coalition members raised the issue in relation to works at the Parklea Correctional Centre, the Junee Railway Centre and Resitech works for the Department of Housing. The honourable member for Wagga Wagga gave considerable detail when speaking about people in his electorate who had lost money from working on Resitech projects because, although the developer or head contractor had been paid, subcontractors had not been paid for their work. The honourable member for Cronulla spoke about State Rail problems where head contractors had been paid but subcontractors had not.

I hope the bill will be a step towards redressing these wrongs in the industry. The principal legislation went through the Parliament in 1999. This parliamentary sitting probably will finish at the end of next week. Now, at short notice to the Opposition and with only seven days to the final sitting day this session, the Government has introduced a bill to amend the principal Act. In those circumstances, Opposition members have not had the opportunity to consult with industry participants. We are responding to the bill on the basis of our knowledge of previous occurrences and our dealings with the construction industry, particularly subcontractors, over many years. For that reason, some caveat must accompany the Opposition's response to the bill.

Nevertheless, the Opposition is prepared to assist the Government in any way that might redress the fundamental wrongs suffered by these hard-working Australians. These people have lost their homes, been forced to sell property and been to hell and back because they have not been paid by contractors. I do not know how many small businesses, some consisting only of a wife and husband, have been affected. For many years concerned wives have been telephoning me, particularly when I was shadow Minister for Public Works, expressing their concerns and fears and outlining their dilemmas. Some were relying on credit cards to buy groceries each week. Families have been torn apart because of the actions of unscrupulous developers and head contractors.

In essence, this bill is a further step in the right direction. However, the Coalition did warn the Government of the difficulties it saw with section 25 of the Act in that it could be used by head contractors as yet another way of stalling payment on legitimate claims. The Opposition accepts that the Government has attempted to address that issue. We hope that this measure works out. But, at the end of the day, the problem remains that head contractors who have been paid do not pass on money owed to subcontractors involved in their building projects. That problem is not addressed by the bill.

The title of this bill—the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Amendment Bill—is a misnomer. With the greatest respect to those responsible for its preparation, the bill does not assure security of payment. It deals with mechanisms by which disputes can be resolved. The only possible security provided by the bill may be the subcontractor's lien on unfixed plant or materials in respect of a particular job. But as to providing security or guarantee of payment for those contracting for a head contractor, there is no such provision in this bill. Indeed, there was nothing in the principal legislation. The Government will have to tackle that issue if it wants to be seen as being fair dinkum about addressing the issue.

The Premier has claimed that contractors who do not pay fellow Australian subcontractors are unAustralian. The Premier is correct. I do not agree with everything the Premier says, but on this matter he is right. I now ask the Minister, as Coalition members have been doing for years, what he is doing to address the Premier's concerns. What is he doing to prevent wrongs being perpetrated against subcontractors, such as those who worked on Parklea gaol, Central railway station, Resitech projects and so on? What is the Government doing to ensure those subcontractors are paid? Subcontractors in the building industry do not have security of payment for their work. This bill will not give them that security. At best, it provides a refined method of dispute resolution. I hope that refinement works in practice. It does not address the fundamental problem of security of payment for contractors. I am gravely concerned that people who read the title of the bill could be misled.

With only seven days remaining before this House rises for the session, I am concerned that nothing will be done in the four months before there is a change of government. This is a challenge which a Coalition Government will gleefully take up. We will meet that challenge to redress the wrongs perpetrated on ordinary Australians who are subcontractors. That will be somewhat of a reversal of roles. Labor has supposedly been the traditional champion of ordinary Australians. From March next year the Coalition will be their champion. We will let subcontractors know that we are fair dinkum, in very much the same way John Howard has done for the ordinary people of Western Sydney. John Howard has given them low interest rates, security and prosperity—concepts that Labor governments never even contemplated. John Howard produced the goods federally. We will produce the goods at the State level. We will look after the thousands of subcontractors in the building industry who have not had security of payment under this Labor Government or its legislation.

Mr McBRIDE (The Entrance) [12.27 p.m.]: At the outset I take up some of the issues raised by the honourable member for Baulkham Hills. First, it is a Labor Government that is introducing this legislation. These issues have been known to anyone in the building industry for yonks. It was a Labor Government that introduced the principal Act. I was involved with groups that made approaches to government about that issue. They had taken up these issues with the previous Greiner-Fahey Government. That Government refused to deal with the issue of security of payment for subcontractors. That Government was in the pocket of the big builders, who were totally opposed to introducing that legislation.

The honourable member for Baulkham Hills was, albeit for a short time, a Minister in that Government, which was continually requested by plumbing and electrical subcontractors to do something about introducing security of payment legislation. Though it had the opportunity, it did nothing. I commend Minister Ron Dyer, who, as Minister in a previous Labor Government, took action in this area. But, more particularly, I congratulate the present Minister for Public Works and Services, Morris Iemma, on introducing the 1999 legislation, because he took seriously the issues concerned with security of payment. The 1999 legislation was designed to protect subcontractors. It was designed to deal with issues like banning pay-when-paid and pay-if-paid clauses in building contracts.

When I worked in the construction industry I would prepare 10 or so tenders but I was paid only when a tender was successful, which was the norm in the industry. That applied not only at the subcontractor level but also at the professional level. Builders abused progress payment entitlements because they knew that for small subcontractors it was not worth taking out civil proceedings to enforce debts of $3,000, $5,000 or $10,000. The cost of time lost on the job and the cost of employing legal representation were prohibitive. The Act provides for an adjudication process to ensure prompt, independent decisions about a disputed amount. The Act was based on the requests of contractors in consultation with the Government. We responded directly to their requests. But for seven years in government the Coalition did not listen to them and took no action. The Coalition resisted them.

Mr Merton: All you did was stuff it up.

Mr McBRIDE: We actually did something.

Mr Merton: At least we didn't stuff it up.

Mr McBRIDE: If you do nothing you cannot stuff it up. The Act provides for suspension of work if payment is not made in accordance with the contract as provided in the legislation. Adjudications have been successful. To date adjudications under the Act have been for claims between $230 and $1,207,000. The average claim is about $100,000. Some 28 per cent of adjudications were resolved 100 per cent in favour of the claimant and 14 per cent of adjudications were resolved 100 per cent in favour of the respondent. The benefits of the Act are abused throughout the State. Adjudications for projects have taken place on the far North Coast and South Coast, in the Central West and in the Sydney region. Results of these adjudications demonstrated the balanced nature of the legislation, which is undoubtedly one reason for the widespread support of the Act.

The legislation does not favour one party, but simply requires the early notification of a dispute. The bill provides a mechanism for the disputing parties to present their cases and obtain a quick and fair decision by an independent adjudicator. Last year we delivered a discussion paper to the industry to ascertain how they thought the Act could be improved. Close to 60 submissions were received. Almost all of the responses, representing industry association contractors, and legal and other interested parties, provided strong support for the proposed enhancements that strengthen the Act and its implementation. The strengthening of the Act will improve payment to subcontractors and deal with issues that have been raised previously.

The most significant changes are aimed at delivering the benefits of the Act more quickly for claimants. Builders employ delaying tactics by refusing to settle and taking the matter to court. The Act removes the compulsion to take court action for payment when no payment schedule is received. It will give the option of providing security as an alternative to payment, if adjudication means that some claimants receive little practical benefit from the adjudication process. Most of those businesses are $2 companies. They have no assets. They can now make a claim over the property. Currently, if a respondent fails to pay following an adjudication the claimant must commence an often lengthy court process. We are trying to streamline that process. In future the adjudicator's determination will be immediately enforceable, similar to judgment of a court. Again, this will speed up payments for claimants. A claimant will have a lien over unfixed plant or materials supplied by the claimant for the unpaid portion of the plant or materials.

The legislation will provide a further avenue for a claimant to recover payment after adjudication. The Contractors Debts Act 1997 will be amended to provide for construction work covered by the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999. This will provide a claimant with additional procedures to recover debts directly from principals in the instance of non-payment by respondents. These enhancements to the legislation are designed to achieve the outcomes raised by the honourable member for Baulkham Hills. It will make security of payment even more secure for small contractors and allow them to receive payment more quickly than they have previously.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Lynch.

RETAIL LEASES AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 12 November.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [12.35 p.m.]: The New South Wales Coalition has had but a short time to consider the bill. The bill will insert a new part into the Act that applies to passenger terminals at Sydney Airport (Kingsford Smith). A number of sections of the bill deal with leases to operate at the passenger terminals and various legal matters involved with those leases. For four years the Airports Corporation has been negotiating with representatives of the Property Council of Australia, New South Wales branch, the Australian Retailers Association and the Research Institute to resolve retail tenants' operational issues at Sydney Airport. Sydney Airport and retailers are now in agreement, and that agreement has resulted in the relevant amendments to the bill. Given the specialist nature of retailers in the air side section of the international terminal, which comprises mostly duty-free shopping, it is argued that competition for these leases is really from overseas retail outlets rather than Australian outlets. Accordingly, the Coalition has a problem with the bill. We have been happy to consult with the Sydney Airports Corporation, the Federal Airports Corporation and the Australian Retailers Association.

However, the legislation is being rushed through this House. The Coalition reserves its right to consider the matter further when it goes before the Legislative Council. If necessary the Coalition will revise its position before the legislation is dealt with in the Legislative Council and consider any amendment that may be appropriate in that House. The Coalition is keen for Sydney Airport to function as the great international airport it is. It is one of the world's finest airports. The international passenger terminal has a wonderful set of shops. Anyone who has had the opportunity to go overseas—Australians like to travel overseas—has seen the vast array of shops. Obviously, it is important that they operate on a proper legal basis. As I have stated, and as the Minister has acknowledged, as the competition is mainly overseas competition they are not in the same category as shops that operate in the normal retail outlets in metropolitan Sydney or throughout the State. Accordingly I acknowledge that we do not oppose the legislation.

Ms NORI (Port Jackson—Minister for Small Business, Minister for Tourism, and Minister for Women) [12.39 p.m.], in reply: I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for his contribution to the debate. I am pleased the Opposition acknowledged that it is in accord with the need for Sydney Airports Corporation to operate effectively air side in cognisance of the special circumstances in which it finds itself. The air side of the terminal is primarily an arrival hall, an immigration checkpoint and an inspection point for the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service. If the Coalition is genuinely in accord in recognising those claims, it will find it difficult to move amendments in the upper House, because the Australian Retailers Association, the Property Council of Australia and Sydney Airports Corporation do not always see eye to eye. The fact that it took 18 months to two years to reach agreement means that every comma, dot, semicolon and colon of the agreement has been signed off.

Those three bodies need this legislation so they can get on with doing their job, which is to manage the airport, not only to ensure safety, not only to ensure that all immigration and quarantine procedures are followed properly, but also to ensure that the first impression an international visitor gets of this country is the right one. It is important that we give the right impression to the tourism industry and to potential investors coming through the airport. Therefore, I assure the honourable member that amendments will not be necessary. If the Opposition intends to move amendments it should check first with Sydney Airports Corporation, and obviously with me, as to whether it will be thanked for tampering with a bill that has taken 18 months to develop and has been signed off by all the parties.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

DEFAMATION AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 12 November.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [12.41 p.m.]: This bill amends the Defamation Act 1974, the District Court Act 1973 and the Limitation Act 1969. The purpose of the bill is to implement the recommendations of the Attorney General's task force on defamation law reform. The bill was introduced into the Parliament only this week and is being debated today. Bills like this make major changes to legislation. They are important matters that will affect many people. They will affect media outlets and citizens in our community, especially those who participate in public debate. Accordingly, a bill like this deserves proper consideration. However, we have not been given the opportunity to consider the bill properly. The bill was introduced on Tuesday night; and standing orders have been suspended, so honourable members have been denied the time normally available to examine the bill. I strongly object to that.

I indicate that the Coalition intends to amend the bill in the Legislative Council. The fact that we are debating the bill today is in no way an indication that the Opposition supports it in its present form. We need to consider the bill much more carefully. We have received representations from the New South Wales Chamber of Commerce, which objects to the way small business especially is being treated in the bill, and we will move appropriate amendments in the Legislative Council. This bill does not simply tidy up certain matters, although it does do that. For example, it makes clear that defamation cases in the District Court will be tried by a jury. That is appropriate. When the Government abolished juries for civil trials, we discussed the point that defamation is one civil action for which juries are appropriate. Therefore, it is appropriate to amend the District Court Act.

It is appropriate to ensure that defamation is not simply a gold-digging exercise, so that people who institute defamation proceedings do so within a reasonable amount of time. The Opposition does not object to the change to the limitation period, given that the court has the power to grant an extension for a further three years after the one-year period has expired. No-one would object to those essential matters. However, the change that relates to the powers of corporations, be they councils, departments, companies or commercial entities, to institute proceedings requires proper consultation and a proper opportunity for the community to examine the terms of the bill. We are conscious of the decision in the case of Ballina Shire Council. The Coalition has no objection to councils being denied the right to sue for defamation. I think most people would agree that that is an inappropriate use of council's money and power. I would be surprised if Liverpool council had not used its money and power inappropriately at some time.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Lynch): Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will return to the leave of the bill.

Mr HARTCHER: Notwithstanding the decision in the Ballina Shire Council case, it is clear that small businesses, many of which are incorporated, need to be given proper protection. I am aware that the Minister claimed to address this matter in his second reading speech, and that he did indeed make some comments about it. However, whether that is satisfactory remains to be determined. We will determine that and we will consider the matter when we have the time. I indicate that the Opposition is considering moving amendments to the bill in the Legislative Council. The final matter relates to the factors that the court must consider when assessing whether the conduct of a publisher in publishing a matter was reasonable in the circumstance, including the level of public concern about the matter. I imagine that, on balance, that reflects the modern view in our society. It is appropriate that the bill provides for that.

The bill creates a new part in the Act to allow for the resolution of disputes without litigation. I commend the Attorney for that; it is good legislation. One tradition of common law is that the courts are always seen as the final arbiter for disputes. That tradition was appropriate for its time, but court cases are extremely expensive and often are unsatisfactory as they force upon the parties a situation in which there must be a winner and a loser. A court case is not always the best mechanism for resolving a dispute. Providing for the resolution of disputes without litigation is important because not everyone wants financial damages. Many people simply want an apology. Many people want recognition of their own just position. Many people simply want to be heard; they want a fair hearing. Many people simply want the opportunity to sit down and try to work the matter through without being forced to sue for damages in the Supreme Court or the District Court. Accordingly, I indicate that the Coalition does not oppose the passage of this bill at this stage but it reserves its rights in the Legislative Council.

Mr DEBUS (Blue Mountains—Attorney General, Minister for the Environment, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Arts) [12.48 p.m.], in reply: I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for his response to the bill in which, against his normal impulse, I think he basically supported nearly all of it. I indicate that I will be asking the Chair to set this debate down for consideration next week to enable the honourable member for Manly to move an amendment in Committee. Nevertheless, it is appropriate that I now respond to the matter of substance raised by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, that is, the provision in this bill that will prevent corporations from suing for defamation.

To make it clear that all corporate bodies will no longer be able to sue for defamation, the bill defines corporations widely to include any corporation constituted by or under an Act or any other law, whether or not for a governmental purpose or a public purpose. That means that all corporations formed under the Commonwealth Corporations Act will not be able to sue for defamation. It also means that State-owned corporations, or statutory corporations formed under a New South Wales Act, and trade unions, if they are incorporated, will not be able to sue for defamation. However, nothing will prevent an individual member of a corporation who has been personally defamed from defending his or her reputation by pursuing an action for defamation.

Corporations that are prevented by this legislation from suing for defamation will not be prevented from using other options to protect their reputations. Other possible actions available to corporations include the torts of injurious falsehood or passing off as well as remedies under the Commonwealth Trade Practices Act for misleading and deceptive or unconscionable conduct. While I appreciate that the remedies available to corporations under the Trade Practices Act will be against their commercial rivals rather than against media organisations, I nonetheless consider that sufficient protection is available to corporations to safeguard their economic interests. Unlike most individuals, corporations frequently have the ability to engage in counteradvertising and are able to run effective publicity campaigns to protect their public profiles. I am confident that corporations will be able to protect their business reputations by the use of such means.

The effect of this bill on small family businesses has been the subject of most public debate. In the case of small family businesses that are defamed, it will commonly be the case that, in practice, individuals will be sufficiently identified to sue in their own right rather than in the company's name. After all, a story about a small family company is not much of a story in the media unless it is connected to and identifies actual people. In a situation in which individuals in a small company are not identified, the defamation task force which advised me on the preparation of this bill considered that there would be very few cases in that category, and that an action in injurious falsehood would in any event generally be available to those individuals. An exception for a small family company would create more problems than it would solve. For example, it would not be fair to base an exception to the proposed rules on the number of shareholders or directors because some very large and powerful businesses may have relatively few members.

I point out, although I may not need to emphasise it, that in the case of individuals who are associated with a corporation, the bill makes it clear that an individual who is a member of a company, including a director or a shareholder, can bring a claim for defamation, if he or she is defamed in a publication that also defames the company. That applies to individual members of incorporated trade unions. In other words, the new rule preventing corporations from suing for defamation does not in any way preclude an individual in a company from asserting that right. Those observations are significant in providing further explanation of the rule that the Government is introducing by this bill with respect to corporate bodies. The proposed change in the law is a rational one that will properly confine the action of defamation to individuals. By preventing actions in defamation by incorporated bodies, the Government is not robbing those who actually belong to such bodies of their rights as individuals to take action. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

CRIMES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (CRIMINAL JUSTICE INTERVENTIONS) BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 12 November.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [12.55 p.m.]: This legislation results from the decision of former Chief Magistrate Patricia Staunton to discontinue various programs which were operating quite successfully in the Magistrates Court. Previously I have referred to this matter in this House and in the media, so I will not comment upon the decision by the former Chief Magistrate any further. However, I am pleased that the Government has responded to community concerns that I presented to the House by setting out in legislation a legal basis for diversion programs. Community aid panels were the most popular of the diversionary programs operated on the Central Coast by Magistrate Errol Considine and Senior Constable Paul Dixon, as he then was. The program was a great success for 15 years, but as a result of a summary, non-consultative and peremptory decision of Ms Staunton, it was discontinued. Hopefully, as a result of this bill, the program will be revived in a form that ensures its continuance.

I take this opportunity to pay tribute to many citizens who have served on community aid panels, including the Sutherland group, whom I met, citizens from the Central Coast, and citizens from other areas in which community aid programs have operated. According to Paul Dixon's 1989 paper on a study conducted by him, the success rate was so high that only 5 per cent of people who had been dealt with by community panels subsequently reoffended. Although the study is 13 years old and relates only to the Central Coast, it nonetheless shows that the panels enjoyed a high level of success and represented a voluntary contribution by citizens to the justice system—something that always should be applauded. The panels were a fine initiative by Paul Dixon and Magistrate Errol Considine and were a worthy contribution to improvement of the criminal justice system.

I will not deal with the provisions of the bill in detail because the Minister has already done so in his second reading speech. Guidelines, intervention program orders and reporting provisions will need to be kept under review. I say that not as a criticism but to strengthen recognition by the Government, the Parliament and the community of the need to ensure the continuing satisfactory operation of the program. I expect the Minister, in a spirit of bipartisanship, to acknowledge that the program needs to be kept under review. Two inherent principles in diversionary programs, namely, assisting young offenders in particular to avoid a life of crime and involving the community as much as is possible in the criminal justice system, should be applauded. Everybody wants as much community participation as possible, and the implementation of programs designed to assist people, especially young people, to avoid antisocial and criminal activities. Anything that helps that—and these programs have a proven record of helping—is to be applauded.

The Coalition supports the exclusion from the program of people engaged in serious violent crimes, sexual crimes and child sex offences, including pornography, drug supply offences and firearm offences. Once again, we reserve our right to consider the matter further in the Legislative Council. We may consider some form of amendment to exclude further people from the program. The Minister referred to serious violent crimes. A person who committed a trivial violent crime—perhaps a common assault where no injury was caused—may remain worthy of participating in such a program. However, it would not be appropriate for a person who inflicted actual bodily harm—say, by smashing someone's head—to participate in such a program. More serious and stringent measures would be applied, and I am sure that is what the community expects. I am sure the Attorney General will be happy to consider that matter. On that basis, the Coalition does not oppose this bill in the Legislative Assembly.

Mr DEBUS (Blue Mountains—Attorney General, Minister for the Environment, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Arts) [1.01 p.m.], in reply: I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for his contribution to the debate. For a moment I thought I had entered a parallel universe, as I heard him speaking in more or less reasonable and enlightened terms.

Mr Hartcher: Almost!

Mr DEBUS: He wavered a little towards the end of his remarks, but he made an enlightened address. I am pleased to acknowledge the bipartisan support that exists for the bill. The honourable member mentioned the decision by the former Chief Magistrate, Patricia Staunton, to suspend the operation of a number of diversionary programs until this bill could be passed. Notwithstanding the relative lack of controversy about these programs over many years, a quite profound issue of legal validity was involved. The suspension of the programs by the former Chief Magistrate was accompanied by her request to me that we should overcome the perceived legal hiatus that existed with respect of the programs by the drafting and passage of the bill before us today. The bill establishes a clear framework for courts to refer offenders or accused people to programs declared by the regulations to be intervention programs. The powers conferred under the bill complement existing judicial discretion already contained in sections 10 and 11 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act and under section 36A of the Bail Act.

The bill does not limit existing discretion. Those powers remain and will be available to the court. The bill simply builds upon existing provisions. Under the bill a court can make an order for a person to be assessed for participation in an intervention program, to participate in a program, or to participate in a program and comply with any intervention plan that arises out of such participation. Such an order may be made as a condition of bail, as a condition of being discharged for the offence or as a condition of a good behaviour bond. One of the intentions of the bill is to promote consistency in intervention programs. The bill lists a series of purposes that characterise an intervention program, including treatment or rehabilitation, restorative justice type programs, and programs that promote the reintegration of offenders into the community. This includes the current programs—circle sentencing, community aid panels and traffic offender programs. The legislation will allow us to centralise information concerning such programs so that they may be monitored and evaluated, as the honourable member suggested we need to do, to avoid inconsistent court outcomes.

Through greater co-ordination, the bill will enable the tailoring of sentences to individuals. The bill recognises that a sophisticated approach to sentencing of minor offenders will be more effective in the long-term reduction of crime. This approach is consistent with the Government's repeat offenders approach, recognising that some options will work well for particular individuals, though more restrictive sanctions may be required for other offenders. The bill will assist in the promotion of programs addressing the underlying causes or circumstances that led to the offending behaviour. These sorts of programs can be effective in reducing the incidence of many categories of crime and provide restorative outcomes, in turn, for a local community. Therefore, it is with considerable pleasure that I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

VICTIMS RIGHTS AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 13 November.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [1.05 p.m.]: The Coalition does not oppose the Victims Rights Amendment Bill. In fact, we have called for improvements to victims rights. I do not intend to reiterate all the calls I have made repeatedly this year. I am especially pleased that victims are to be informed in a timely manner about aspects of criminal proceedings against a person in cases where they have been deemed to be a victim. Even more significantly, victims of serious crime are to be informed and consulted about any decision of the prosecution to discontinue or modify charges against the person accused of the crime. It is important that victims be involved in the criminal justice process. After all, it is there to protect them as well as the community. Tradition is that the community runs the prosecution in the name of the Queen, and that has tended to ignore the rights of victims. Victims' rights must be respected. The Coalition is on record as saying that it will take even further measures to ensure the proper protection of victims' rights. However, I welcome this bill, which the Coalition will not oppose.

Mr DEBUS (Blue Mountains—Attorney General, Minister for the Environment, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Arts) [1.07 p.m.], in reply: I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for his contribution to the second reading debate. This debate has proceeded without controversy. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

CHILD PROTECTION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 12 November.

Mr MERTON (Baulkham Hills) [1.08 p.m.]: Because of the urgency of matters coming before the House, the Opposition will not oppose this bill. However, the shadow Minister told me that the consultation process was hurried because the Government insists on rushing through what should be considered legislation. The Government has little thought and regard for the Coalition's desire to consult on bills. Notwithstanding those comments, the shadow Minister acknowledges that on Thursday the Commissioner for Children and Young People provided him with a briefing on the specific provisions of the bill, for which he is grateful.

The commission has worked with the Offenders Registration Scheme since its inception, originally as part of an interagency group which is chaired by the Minister for Police and comprises NSW Police, the Attorney General's Department, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Judicial Commission, the New South Wales Law Society, the departments of Corrective Services, Juvenile Justice and Health, the Pre-trial Diversion Offenders Program, the Office of the Ombudsman and Privacy New South Wales. This group advised on the previous amendment bill, and the shadow Minister assumes that it also advised on this bill. We ask the Minister to clarify that issue. As honourable members may remember, the original Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Bill passed through this House in June 2000 with bipartisan support. The purpose of the original bill was to ensure that people who have been found guilty of certain offences against children keep the Commissioner of Police informed as to where they live, where they work and what motor vehicles they drive.

The Offenders Registration Scheme followed recommendation No. 111 of the Wood royal commission into paedophilia and was aimed at ensuring that records are kept of people who offend against children. As with the previous Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Amendment Bill, which was amended in June last year, this latest amendment bill is said to involve necessary amendments to the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000. As was the case with the previous amendment, this latest amendment has come about because of the high level of community concern that everything possible be done to make sure that people who offend against children do not reoffend. The amendments in the bill aim to tighten up legal technicalities for the better protection of children. The Opposition at all times supports the better protection of children and vulnerable young Australians. They must be protected by all means available. For that reason, the Opposition does not oppose the bill.

Mr CRITTENDEN (Wyong—Parliamentary Secretary) [1.11 p.m.], in reply: I thank the honourable member for Baulkham Hills for his contribution to this important debate. As the honourable member said, the bill will close legal loopholes, remove anomalies and resolve inconsistencies in existing legislation. The changes will enhance an already effective strategy for preventing unsuitable people from working with children. I thank the honourable member for his usual cogent and lucid contribution to this House.

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 Crittenden agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to permit the introduction forthwith and progress up to and including the Parliamentary Secretary's second reading speech of the Summary Offences Amendment (Spray Paint Cans) Bill.

SUMMARY OFFENCES AMENDMENT (SPRAY PAINT CANS) BILL

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr CRITTENDEN (Wyong—Parliamentary Secretary), on behalf of Mr Woods [1.13 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Summary Offences Amendment (Spray Paint Cans) Bill will ban the sale of spray paint cans to young people under the age of 18 years. The bill is a part of the Government's wider package of new proposals being announced today to up the ante in the fight to stamp out graffiti crime. The package also includes proposals to further extend the community service order arrangements for juvenile offenders to paint out graffiti, to introduce new anti-graffiti initiatives by the State Rail Authority, and to permit direct involvement by the new police community accountability teams in reporting on graffiti crime. The Government is committed to reducing graffiti vandalism in the community, particularly the costly and damaging graffiti caused by misuse of spray paint cans. This requires constantly trying new and innovative approaches to reinforce and strengthen earlier anti-graffiti initiatives.

Similar legislative provisions to that introduced by this bill already exist in several United States of America jurisdictions. They have been proposed by the United Kingdom London Local Authorities Bill and commenced in South Australia earlier this year. In almost all these jurisdictions, the ban on the sale of spray paint cans to minors has been set at the age of 18 years. The bill will therefore amend the Summary Offences Act 1988, restricting the sale of spray paint cans to anyone under the age of 18 years. The legislation generally mirrors the legislation for the restriction on the sale of knives, which the Government introduced in 1997. Schedule 1 to the bill introduces a new section 10C, which provides for a maximum penalty of $1,100 for anyone who sells a spray paint can to a minor. However, it will be a defence for any person charged under the new section to demonstrate that he or she believed on reasonable grounds that the person buying the spray paint can was 18 years of age or over.

As in the case of the laws banning the sale of knives to young people, the bill also provides that an employer will be responsible for any illegal sale by an employee. However, employers will also have a defence to any charge arising from actions of their employee if the employers had no knowledge of the illegal sale, and if they could not, by the exercise of due diligence, have prevented the illegal sale. Provision has also been made in the bill for the issue by police of penalty notices where the law has been breached. It is intended that a fine of $110 by way of penalty notice will be included in regulations to be made under the Act. The bill also provides at clause 2 (2) that the Act must not commence until at least six months after assent. The six-month pause will give retailers time to put into place necessary safe storage requirements and other procedures to prevent the sale to minors. The Government will work closely with retail traders and other stakeholders over this period to assist them in putting into place new procedures, information and guidelines to prevent minors from illegally purchasing spray paint cans.

The bill will not prevent adults from buying spray paint cans on behalf of a minor, nor does it prevent a minor from possessing a spray paint can. There are clearly circumstances where a minor may need access to a spray paint can for employment, for education purposes or for use at home. But the bill will substantially reduce access to spray paint cans by young criminals, and it is clearly aimed at reducing the vandalism caused by these repeat offenders, who are costing the community more than $60 million per annum. The Government will also ask the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research to evaluate the effectiveness of the legislation over the two years following commencement. The Government remains committed to evidence-based policy. If the legislation does not make significant inroads into the level of graffiti crime caused by young criminals using spray paint cans, we will certainly give consideration to further legislative measures. These measures could include consideration of an outright ban on spray paint cans. I commend the bill to the House.

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

BUILDING LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (QUALITY OF CONSTRUCTION) BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 13 November.

Mr DEBNAM (Vaucluse) [1.21 p.m.]: The Government is bulldozing this bill through the lower House. The Opposition has not had time to read it, the public does not even know it exists, and it has been on the Internet for only 26 hours. The bill is a fitting end to the disaster that has landed in the lap of the Minister for Fair Trading. It was not this Minister who started off this mess six years ago, in October 1996, it was the honourable member for Penrith, who was then the Minister for Fair Trading. In 1997 a bill was introduced to privatise home warranty insurance and the Minister for Planning at that time, the Hon. Craig Knowles, implemented very dramatic changes to planning legislation. The result of all that is that after eight years of the Carr Government, builders across the State are absolutely adamant that the Government has not done its job to regulate the home building industry.

It is now two minutes to midnight. Parliament is about to shut down for the State election, and Minister Aquilina has rushed into the House and said he desperately wants this bill to pass through the lower House today. The Opposition will not vote against it, because we do not know what is in it; no-one knows what is in it. People across the State are scrambling through its various provisions and comparing them with the desired outcomes that we have all spoken about for many years. In late October, Minister Aquilina announced a number of changes to home building legislation and reforms within the Department of Fair Trading. The Deputy Premier has announced a number of changes to planning legislation. At that time I issued a press release headed "Musical chairs and increased taxes for home warranty crisis".

The Carr Government did not adopt the first recommendation, the key recommendation, of the Campbell committee's review into building quality. That recommendation was to establish a home building compliance commission separate from the Department of Fair Trading. A committee established by the Carr Government had noted that the Department of Fair Trading was the problem, not part of the solution. Various Ministers over the past five to six years have caused this problem. Today, through this bill, and just prior to the State election, we are seeing a desperate attempt by the Carr Government and the Minister who has ended up with this mess in his lap, playing musical chairs within the Department of Fair Trading.

For five years the Department of Fair Trading has failed to do its job. The department has not even had the necessary appropriate technical resources to do its job. All this time New South Wales Treasury has been creaming off most of the building licensing fees as profit to Consolidated Revenue. Those fees have been used not to administer the industry but to bolster Treasury profits. In its latest reforms the Government is once again talking about increased fees, which will clearly increase the profits for Treasury. Everything that the Carr Government promised in late October was also promised five years ago when the then Minister, the Hon. Faye Lo Po', said the Government was going to do two things: first, privatise home warranty insurance, and, second, strengthen regulation within the industry.

That is exactly what the Government has not done over the past six years. The result is that New South Wales builders have suffered five years of hard labour under the Carr Government, because various Ministers, including the Hon. Craig Knowles, the Hon. Faye Lo Po', the Hon. John Watkins, and the Hon. John Aquilina, did not do what they promised to do. In 1997 the Carr Government privatised home warranty insurance because the Premier thought it was a good idea on the day. The Government did not have any idea of how it was going to implement that privatisation and at that time the Government promised to dramatically improve the oversight of builders and certifiers.

However, year after year the Government has failed to do that. The announcement by the Carr Government in late October of various reforms within the Department of Fair Trading and the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning is not an effective solution for the home warranty crisis. The Minister for Fair Trading has outlined in detail the various proposed changes but they will not be enough to solve the problems. As I said before, the Department of Fair Trading is part of the problem, it is definitely not the solution. If the Minister wanted to make a difference to the home building industry, four months before the State election and in the last few days of this parliamentary session, he would be honest with the people.

Today he would tell people insured with Dexta what is happening with their claims. He would tell us what is going to happen with Dexta after 31 December. What will happen if Dexta withdraws from the market? What will happen in the new year when home builders come back to work after their Christmas holidays? What will they be confronted with? I have no shortage of commentary from the industry expressing extreme frustration and anger with the Minister's announcement in late October about his so-called reforms. At this stage I have no advice from the industry on this bill because, as I said, it was released publicly only 26 hours ago.

The Opposition will not oppose the bill in this House. When the upper House considers it, the Opposition will draw on the advice of every single interested party and voice their concerns. Perhaps we will propose amendments, where necessary. If there are some good provisions in the bill that add to a commonsense reform of the industry, the Opposition will embrace them and support the Government on them. However, if not, the Opposition in the other place will say no. Every builder across the State would appreciate the Minister coming clean on the future of Dexta.

Mr AQUILINA (Riverstone—Minister for Land and Water Conservation, and Minister for Fair Trading) [1.26 p.m.], in reply: I thank the honourable member for Vaucluse for his contribution to the debate. I will address, albeit briefly, some of the matters he raised. The bill has been introduced specifically in response to the report of the Joint Select Committee on the Quality of Buildings, which was released in July. The committee inquired into building processes and this bill is an attempt at implementing the majority of its recommendations.

Under this bill the Director-General of PlanningNSW will be able to take action against certifiers, including the power to suspend and fine certifiers. It will be an offence for developers to improperly influence the decisions of certifiers. Councils will not be able to rely on self-certification by building practitioners under the Local Government Act. Engineering details of buildings will be certified by a council or private certifier, someone who is accredited and can be investigated. On-the-spot fines for breaches of development consent and fire regulations will be increased. The link between the certification process and the development consent will be strengthened. The roles and responsibilities of certifiers will be clarified.

Under this bill, certifiers must inspect buildings at critical stages. All engineering details will have to be inspected and certified by an accredited certifier. Certifiers will be required to ensure that a completed building conforms with the approved plan. Consumers will have more control over who certifies their building because they, not the builder, will appoint the certifier. The auditing process will be more effective because the Director-General of PlanningNSW will also be able to fine and suspend certifiers. Builders will have to undertake a financial test before being licensed. New prescribed standard conditions in building contracts will be implemented.

Further, work will have to conform to the Building Code of Australia and relevant standards. The final 5 per cent of the contract price will not be paid until the work meets the requirements for the occupation certificate. Inspectors will be empowered to make rectification orders against builders. The consumer and builder will be able to appeal to the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal against an inspector's assessment. The tribunal will be able to accredit experts to report jointly to the parties in dispute. The experts' report and the building inspectors' reports will be the only reports unless the tribunal determines otherwise. In a nutshell, they are the primary recommendations and facets of this legislation. Detailed and technical, yes, but also specific responses to many of the issues raised by builders and consumers over the past few years to ensure that building in the State is creditable and done by creditable builders to the satisfaction of consumers.

Having said that, I am aware of discussions in the building industry about some of these measures. The Government is continuing to hold discussions with the various organisations involved. It may well be that some of the issues that are apparently under consideration will leave the door open for amendments. I signal that the Government is open-minded about some of these matters, particularly in relation to receiving a response from affected bodies. If any amendments are considered appropriate, they will be dealt with in the Legislative Council, given that a great deal of consideration and discussion is ongoing.

These matters have not been hurried through. However, the issues involved are complex and detailed and they require a substantial amount of deliberation. I believe that everyone, irrespective of whether they are in government or in opposition, wants to ensure that this legislation is of maximum benefit to the parties in this venture, both builders and consumers. It is appropriate that we continue to discuss and debate these matters until the issue is resolved, even though that may mean amending some provisions of the legislation. I again thank the Opposition for the indication that it does not intend to oppose the legislation.

Mr Debnam: Point of order: It is very important that the Minister tell us about Dexta.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Mills): Order! There is no point of order.

Mr AQUILINA: I was going to conclude with a comment about Dexta, even though it is not directly relevant to this legislation. I believe that both the Government and the Opposition are keen to ensure that this is the correct legislation to address the issues of concern to both consumers and builders and takes us one step further towards getting it right. As I have previously said to the honourable member, discussions are continuing with Dexta and, indeed, with all insurance companies about providing appropriate insurance cover for builders in this State.

This State has performed much better than all the other States. Despite the difficulties involved in the industry as a result of the collapse of HIH, 11 September, and subsequent events, we have been able to address and meet that change far more satisfactorily than the other States, and I believe that will continue to be the case in the future. Those discussions and consultations have not been concluded and decisions have not been made about how to proceed. However, as soon as I am able to provide further detail and the assurances that the builders of the State are looking for, I will do so and make those details available to them and to the Opposition.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second stage and passed through remaining stages.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Bills: Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders

Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AMENDMENT (INDUSTRIAL AGENTS) BILL

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr WHELAN (Strathfield—Parliamentary Secretary), on behalf of Mr Amery [1.34 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.

Leave granted.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Debnam.

WORKERS COMPENSATION AMENDMENT (TERRORISM INSURANCE ARRANGEMENTS) BILL

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr WHELAN (Strathfield—Parliamentary Secretary), on behalf of Mr Amery [1.34 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.

Leave granted.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Debnam.

The House adjourned at 1.39 p.m.
_______________

Last modified 13/06/2007 08:19:29 : Update this page