Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Assembly, 9 June 2005, Corrected Copy)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Thursday 9 June 2005

______

Mr Speaker (The Hon. John Joseph Aquilina) took the chair at 10.00 a.m.

Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.

CRIMINAL ASSETS RECOVERY AMENDMENT BILL

PETROLEUM (SUBMERGED LANDS) AMENDMENT (PERMITS AND LEASES) BILL

RURAL WORKERS ACCOMMODATION AMENDMENT BILL

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

SUPERANNUATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

SURVEYING AMENDMENT BILL

Messages received from the Legislative Council returning the bills with amendments.

Consideration of amendments deferred.

BRIGALOW AND NANDEWAR COMMUNITY CONSERVATION AREA BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 8 June 2005.

Mr JOHN MILLS (Wallsend) [10.03 a.m.]: I am pleased to support the Brigalow and Nandewar Community Conservation Area Bill It has been a long time coming and I welcome it. It is welcomed because it does something new and something special. I particularly welcome the establishment of the Community Conservation Area as part of this legislative package, which will deliver a modern timber industry in the region, deliver a secure future for the region's timber, gas, minerals and apiary industries, as well as deliver 352,000 hectares of new conservation reserves with high conservation values.

The Community Conservation Area is an entirely new land management tenure, which I understand has been developed specifically for this part of western New South Wales. We heard earlier in the debate that 70 per cent of the original vegetation of this area has been cleared; that the rate of extinction of species is high; that the Commonwealth Government recently declared the Brigalow region as a "biodiversity hotspot", as was mentioned by my colleague the honourable member for Heffron, with this legislation reversing that trend; that the land to be protected contains quality habitat for the most endangered species, the best of the remaining vegetation and biodiversity; and that the land to be protected contains forests of high cultural significance to Aboriginal people.

It will be managed to support Aboriginal cultural heritage and cultural practices. Jobs will be set aside for Aboriginal people. This is all part of the package. Aboriginal people will participate fully in the future management of the Community Conservation Area. The two iconic forests—Goonoo and Terry Hie Hie—have been identified as areas that could be managed through indigenous land use agreements. The model for this is the successful Arakwal National Park at Byron Bay. I have been bothering the Minister for the Environment, on behalf of the Aboriginal people of the region, for several years, and specifically since the hand-back last year of Mount Grenfell Nature Reserve to Aboriginal ownership. Therefore, on behalf of the people on whose behalf I was bothering the Minister, I welcome this package as a resolution of those issues.

The Community Conservation Area was described in the Minister's second reading speech as an internationally recognised reserve concept new to Australia, but based on recognised International Union for the Conservation of Nature Reserve categories. The Minister advised that this is a different way of resolving forestry assessments by creating a framework for the co-ordinated management of all public lands. I put on record that this will achieve both permanent conservation outcomes and provide certainty to the various industries operating in the region.

The Community Conservation Area will have three statutorily defined conservation zones. The first will be a conservation and recreation zone, the second will be a conservation and Aboriginal culture zone, the third will be a conservation, recreation and mineral extraction zone. No commercial extraction of timber can occur in those three zones. Statutory responsibility for those three conservation zones will reside with the Minister for the Environment. The fourth zone in the Community Conservation Area will provide for commercial timber extraction and mining. Statutory responsibility for this zone will reside with the Minister for Primary Industries. The Minister told us in his second reading speech that management of the new Community Conservation Area will also link directly to management of the existing reserve system, including the iconic Warrumbungles and Mt Kaputar national parks.

On Thursday 24 February 2005 a joint media release was put out by the Terry Hie Hie traditional owners and the Western Conservation Alliance. The media release made a renewed call for an Aboriginal-owned national park and contained this statement by Mr Lou Swan, an elder of the Terry Hie Hie traditional owners:

Terry Hie Hie is our special area. We are here to make an offer to the government and the people of NSW. If you give us back this little bit of our traditional land, we promise to work with you to protect it forever in a beautiful National Park. I reckon that's a fair deal.

On 23 March the Western Conservation Alliance had an information session in the Parkes Room here in Parliament House. I attended to hear in particular the advocacy on behalf of the Aboriginal people who were seeking an Aboriginal-owned national park in the Terry Hie Hie forest. What has emerged is a different model, but I reckon that this bill will achieve the objective of the local Aboriginal people. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr ANDREW FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [10.10 a.m.]: It is with some sadness that I speak to the bill because yet again it demonstrates the Government's blind push to reservation in national parks and conservation areas without any consideration for the communities and industries it will affect. I am pleased the Minister for the Environment is at the table. I challenge him to have a look at the towns of Baradine, Gwabegar and Gulargambone, and to talk to the people of Dubbo and the people of Gunnedah who held a rally about a week ago to protest the legislation. For three years we have been told that the Government was considering a decision that would provide a balance between conservation and timber production. During last year's estimates committee hearing Minister Knowles told the committee that a report produced by the Rt Hon Ian Sinclair and commissioned by the Government—which would have provided a far more balanced result than will be achieved by the legislation—was on the back of every toilet door in Dubbo. But when we tried to obtain a copy of the report we were told it was Cabinet confidential.

It is only fair that the Government and the Minister provide us with the report so that we can assess honestly whether they have considered the people of the region of whether they are simply paying back the Greens preferences from the last election. I have photos that show one side of the road in Baradine—a moratorium managed by National Parks—with cypress pine growing so thickly that no grass or wildflower can grow. There is no fauna of any kind, no parrots, nothing. The area is "dead". The biodiversity that would flourish under a managed forest has been excluded because of non-management by National Parks. Photographs of the other side of the road show an area that has been thinned by logging and a forest floor that has been cleaned up. Everlasting daisies and grass are growing in the area. Lizards inhabit the area. Flora and fauna are surviving well. Forestry operations are doing the area the world of good. It is unfortunate that I do not have an extended time to speak in the debate. I ask the Minister whether he has ever read Perfumed Pineries, which gives the history of the Pilliga. It states that the Pilliga we know today is not the Pilliga country that was settled originally by white settlers.

Mr Bob Debus: I know all the theories.

Mr ANDREW FRASER: The Minister says he knows all the theories, but to my knowledge he has never been to the Pilliga or any of the Brigalow areas.

Mr Bob Debus: Yes, of course I have been there.

Mr ANDREW FRASER: He has been there. Why did he not go to Gunnedah last week to talk to the 50 people employed by Gunnedah Timbers who probably will be out of a job because of a decision made by him in the so-called name of conservation?
Mr Bob Debus: No, they won't. They won't be out of a job.

Mr ANDREW FRASER: The Minister says they will not be out of a job. His Government negotiated a package with the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union and others for the people of Baradine and Gwabegar. The only thing Gwabegar has going for it is a cypress mill, which will close, and the Minister knows it will close. The Government will give them $72,000 dollars, which they will put in their pockets and leave town. They will either come to Sydney or go to the coast. The town of Gwabegar will die. It is in the middle of a drought. Where is the socioeconomic statement outlining the impact of this decision on the community? There is none. The grain line has been closed because of lack of maintenance by the Government, which has done nothing. Farmers are struggling in the drought. People who are providing the bread and butter for their families will be offered either $72,000 or $27,000 plus a job—a job that will not last, as the Minister knows.

Mr Bob Debus: It will.

Mr ANDREW FRASER: How many jobs are left at Coolah Tops? Within two years those construction jobs disappeared. There is no long-term employment in the management of the national park.

Mr Bob Debus: They were replaced.

Mr ANDREW FRASER: The Minister says, "They were replaced." The Minister should do a head count. He should visit these areas to see the effect of his policies.

Mr Bob Debus: There are more people employed at Coolah Tops now than there were when that decision was taken.

Mr ANDREW FRASER: I suppose the Minister will name them in his reply. The legislation will wreak devastation on an area that has been so well managed by Forests NSW, according to the Minister, that it is now good enough to be called a conservation area and national park, even though he will not admit it. The area should be left as it is. It is somewhat laughable that the Minister is developing a new type of conservation that will not allow forestry, which is the only renewable resource industry Australia has, yet he will allow mining. We could have an open-cut mine, get rid of all the trees, get nothing out of them and call that conservation. I am sorry, but the Minister is blinkered. He should sit on a stump, as I have, and talk to the people who will be affected severely by the legislation. I have been to the mill at Bingara, which produces high quality, white ant resistant timber for floorboards and the export market. Under the legislation that product will no longer be available.

The area the Minister has left for logging has been cut already. As the Minister knows, or should know, the rotation on cypress pine is about an 80-year cut. Some areas included in the legislation were never claimed by his friends, the Western Conservation Alliance, and that is fine. The Minister and the Government are failing to listen to the honourable member for Barwon, who has an absolute knowledge of this matter. The Minister is pandering to the Greens, with whom his Government did deals at the last election to give them marginal seats in Sydney. It is an absolute disgrace that those people have never visited the affected areas. I note with interest that members opposite who have spoken to the legislation have no connection with the Pilliga and Western New South Wales.

Ms Linda Burney: Wait a minute.

Mr ANDREW FRASER: With the exception of the honourable member for Canterbury, who has some knowledge of the area. I am somewhat surprised that the honourable member for Canterbury has accepted this decision, knowing full well what a great resource the industry is to western areas and knowing full well how towns in those areas rely on it. But the honourable member for Heffron, the honourable member for Coogee and the honourable member for Wallsend have spoken to the bill.

Mr Peter Debnam: They know nothing.

Mr ANDREW FRASER: As the honourable member for Vaucluse said, "They know nothing." At least the honourable member for Vaucluse has been into country areas—

Mr Peter Debnam: I used to work for Dalgety.

Mr ANDREW FRASER: He used to work for Dalgety. He knows the productivity of this industry. How are we going to replace this white ant resistant timber? CCA timber is about to be banned. This country is absolutely riddled with white ants. This natural timber has been utilised for many years by people building homes without the addition of chemicals. The building industry will have to look for an alternative to CCA, which may have more dire consequences than arsenic. That is another argument for another day. The timber resource the Minister has left them is such that the $10 million industry that emanates out of the Brigalow Belt South bioregion is shot—it is gone—because the timber remaining is not of the quality or quantity to produce export timber. Those markets will be lost. Not only has he damaged the towns, he has also damaged the balance of payments in Australia.

I would dearly love to go through the bill and the Minister's speech in detail. I do not know who wrote his speech, but I would like to point out its fallacies. For example, the Aboriginal group who protested about Terry Hie Hie did not come from that area. The Moree Aboriginals are against what the Minister has done with the Terry Hie Hie forest. If ever a cypress forest could be called a planted forest—Terry Hie Hie is not really a planted forest, but a well-managed regrowth forest—that would be the one. It is a highly productive forest that will now be closed up. It has gone. The Minister talks about new industries springing up from the residue, but how can there be residue if there is no industry? If there is no residue how can you extract oil? The Minister says that temporary jobs will be given out on the forest floor. The Minister has read the history of the bushfires. One back in the late 1980s all but devastated the koala population because of the way in which the forest had been wound back and poorly managed in certain areas. We must have proper management for timber production from that area.

Mr Bob Debus: That fire started in a State forest.

Mr ANDREW FRASER: It may have started in a State forest, but the Minister must realise how volatile the forest is. I implore the Minister to visit the moratorium area and see how badly managed it is. The Minister has referred to the barking owl being protected. The barking owl cannot find the forest floor in the moratorium area because it is so thickly carpeted by young cypress pine saplings. The area has not been managed. This bill should be all about management. I challenge the Minister to bring forward legislation that will allow national parks to be selectively logged and managed in the way the moratorium area should be managed because of its history. I would love to have the time to read all the parts I have tagged in Perfumed Pineries that reveal the history of the Pilliga. The Pilliga today is not the place it was when white people first came to Australia and settled in the area, and it does not have the type of forest that is described in Perfumed Pineries. Other members who have spoken during this debate have described the way the forest used to be. I commend the honourable member for Barwon for his speech.

I condemn the honourable member for Dubbo, the honourable member for Tamworth and the honourable member for Northern Tablelands for the politics they have played during this debate. This legislation is all about the survival of country towns and an industry that I believe is one of the better industries in New South Wales. This Government has failed to recognise that. [Extension of time agreed to.]

I seek clarification of whether the legislation before the House is legitimate. In schedule 1, zone 1—Conservation and recreation, part 1, areas 1 to 5 refer to maps that are catalogued as MISC R 00279 (Edition 1), MISC R 00290 (Edition 1), MISC R 00277 (Edition 1), MISC R 00307 (Edition 1), and MISC R 00280 (Edition 1). Those maps are not available to this Parliament but in respect of every other piece of conservation legislation, there has been a table outside this Chamber on which the maps were available. I have checked the web sites of the Department of Environment and Conservation and the Department of Lands and I cannot find those maps. I am advised by the Clerk that the map included in the bill showed Pilliga and Gwabegar in the wrong places, and has been amended. The corrected map will be incorporated in the bill when it is received in the upper House, but what a ludicrous situation. This incompetent Minister and this incompetent Government cannot even get the map right and the location of the towns right and have failed to provide to members of this Parliament maps that accurately show the areas that will be reserved under several and separate categories when this legislation is being considered.

I suggest that this legislation is outside the realms of the practice of this Parliament. I suggest it is impossible for any member of this House to assess accurately the areas that are to be reserved without proper maps being available. In the past in this place there have been arguments over what areas are national park, what areas are State forest and what is a conservation area. Separate conservation zones are proposed in this legislation, and members of Parliament need to refer to maps to ensure that we address the correct areas and make our decisions based on accurate maps. This reminds me of the situation with the report provided by the Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair. I am sure the Minister would suggest that the report was freely available. The Minister for Infrastructure and Planning, and Minister for Natural Resources, Mr Knowles, has said that the Sinclair report is on the back of every toilet door in Dubbo, but members of this Parliament have been unable to obtain copies, even under freedom of information legislation.

I suggest that the maps referred to in the bill have not been finalised and are mere references in the legislation. I suggest the maps are not available for the scrutiny of this Parliament, which is disgraceful. I believe that this legislation should be withdrawn until members of Parliament, who are responsible for making decisions based on the bill, have an opportunity to examine the maps and be in a position to make comments on each map individually. In the Minister's second reading speech, he stated:

The forests in these regions contain 47 threatened fauna species, and the new conservation reserves will provide permanent strongholds for these animals and birds, including the turquoise parrot, the barking owl, mallee fowls and the swift parrot.

Is it not surprising that those animals are prospering in State forests? I do not believe they can prosper in national parks or conservation areas proposed in this bill because of the lack of management to which I referred earlier. I believe that this legislation is not in the best interests of conservation or the best interests of the people who live in forest areas. The Government has rushed into this legislation without giving it due consideration. If those animals are thriving in a managed forest, why does the area need to be locked up? Why does it need to be turned into a national park or a conservation area? Why is there a need to contend that this legislation will preserve the area? I question the quantity of timber that has been estimated to remain in the Brigalow Belt South bioregion. According to the Minister's second reading speech, the area has 67,000 cubic metres of timber, but I believe a more accurate estimate is between 20,000 cubic metres and 25,000 cubic metres of timber.

Mr Bob Debus: What is your authority for that proposition?

Mr ANDREW FRASER: My discussions with employees of State Forests. I will not name them, for their protection.

Mr Bob Debus: It would be a good idea if you did.

Mr ANDREW FRASER: I will not name them, for their protection. The Minister should not worry: he will be copping more criticism in another bill that will be debated later today. When one considers that the forests produced products worth $8 million net profit to the Government and that the parks will cost $8 million to administer, the State has replaced an $8 million return to the Government with an $8 million cost, and the bottom line is a loss of $16 million in respect of a renewable resource that could be logged on an 80-year rotation. That is unacceptable to me. I implore the Minister to talk to State Forests employees.

I urge the Minister not to wimp out and show cowardice as he did last week when he claimed that The Nationals organised a rally whereas it was a community organised rally attended by 2,500 people. Those who attended the rally were very disappointed that neither the Minister for the Environment nor the Premier, Bob Carr, explained the Government's actions in ruining their livelihoods. Some towns will die. If the Minister does not believe me, he should carefully consider the position of Nimmitabel, which has borne the brunt of a decision made by this Government. The Minister should consider what the Government has done to the north-eastern and south-eastern forests and the lives that have been destroyed. Jobs have been lost and have been replaced with false jobs that have not survived. The Minister should revisit Coolah Tops National Park and see how many jobs are left there that were created by this Government. The jobs that this bill proposes to create will not last.

I prefer to avoid attacking other members of this House, but I must question the claim made by the honourable member for Northern Tablelands that he had brokered a deal with the Government for timber workers in Bingara. That was a lie. I would like the honourable member for Northern Tablelands to come down to this Chamber and set the record straight. I say it is a lie for two reasons: If he brokered a deal, that means he knew what the Government was planning prior to its plans being made public. If he knew that, he failed to represent his constituents by raising the matter in the public arena. As a result of questions asked in the other place, I am aware that a deal has been done in Bingara and that it is no different from the deals that have been done in other areas to buy out jobs and take them away from hardworking families who have toiled in a renewable resource industry that has served this State so well for so long.

The honourable member for Northern Tablelands, the honourable member for Tamworth and the honourable member for Dubbo stand condemned for their inaction and for their closeness to the Government. They have failed their own communities and they have failed the people of New South Wales by supporting the legislation behind closed doors. They will make a bit of a show of not supporting this legislation in the Parliament, but they have sat on their hands for too long and done nothing. The consequences of this legislation will be on their heads as well as on the heads of the Minister and the soon to retire Premier, Bob Carr. I urge all members opposite to vote against this hastily prepared legislation, which is nothing more than a payback to the Greens.

Ms LINDA BURNEY (Canterbury) [10.28 a.m.]: Clearly I support the Brigalow and Nandewar Community Conservation Area Bill. Descriptions of the bill have been given in this House ad nauseam so I will not deal with the bill in fine detail. However, I will discuss some specific matters in an endeavour to bring some sense to the comments that have been made by members on the Coalition side of the Chamber. I have thought deeply about this bill and about what I want to say. I am very familiar with the area covered by the bill and, as honourable members may recall, previously I was a member of the Resource and Conservation Assessment Council [RACAC] when it undertook a regional assessment process.

Part of my role on the RACAC, and part of its role, was to undertake community consultation. On a lighter note, I will never forget one of the more memorable days during my service with the RACAC when we were in the Goonoo. Some bright spark decided that we would have a picnic, but forgot that it was a time when the flies were pretty thick in the Goonoo area, which made for an interesting picnic. My role on the RACAC brought me to understand many of the tensions that we are discussing today. I am now the Convener of the Natural Resource Advisory Council, which, to some extent, has taken over some of the roles of the RACAC.

I have an understanding of the enormous challenge that governments, instrumentalities and communities have in balancing conservation with the sustainability of towns, communities, individuals, families and industry. I want to make it very clear that I strongly considered those factors before speaking to this bill. More importantly, finding that balance was the absolute consideration when this bill was put together. At the end of the day this is not just a bunch of words on paper. During discussion on this bill while putting it together we were extremely cognisant of balancing the socioeconomic, conservation and cultural elements. Everyone understands that that was a complex task and everyone understands that the bill has been considered over a number of years because of its complexity.

The bill is the balance of the issues of conservation, industry and the community. It is a nonsense for the Opposition to say that those considerations were not properly looked at. That is a complete fabrication and quite disingenuous. It was extremely misleading for the Opposition to put forward that proposition. Many interests and views were weighed up and, as I said, the bill is about the viability of individual communities and services for those communities. I cannot comprehend why people who have spoken against the bill would not think that those issues were the fundamental driving principles in putting the bill together. More importantly, I do not understand how people could be so disingenuous to think that the Government would be so dismissive of the needs of individuals, families and communities.

This bill is not about driving communities into the ground, it is about a long-term view across those regions following a very detailed assessment process. I want that to be made perfectly clear: the models that were promulgated prior to the final decisions about the bill were considered and we have heard reference to those models from other speakers. They were certainly part of the extremely important considerations through the complex assessment process. The views of various lobby groups were considered—and I dislike using generic terms—including a very strong green input, as well as farmers, private land owners, industry, communities, indigenous groups and the service centres such as general stores, the local Country Women's Association, and so on, as was the capacity for all those groups to work together. That is the mark of this bill and is one of the reasons why the sorts of comments from members opposite are just absolute nonsense.

The result of that consideration is very much reflected in the Minister's second reading speech and I will not go over it again. Those fundamental principles were considered in this historic bill. Yes, passions have run high; yes, it is complex; but the bill delivers. It is interesting that the waffle from the other side was about not looking at the principles and what the bill actually delivers. The bill delivers 352,000 hectares of high conservation value forests in new reserves in western New South Wales. Let us not forget that it is the west, and to a degree the north-west, of New South Wales and includes both public and private land and creates a new land tenure. How can that be negative? Consideration has been given to the livelihoods of all the people within those communities. Some new industries could flow out of this bill. Although not detailed in the bill, there is an opportunity for the expansion of tourism to the area.

The bill has carefully considered gas and other mining in the area, on which there has already been some exploration. We know for a fact that there is enormous potential for those two industries. The five-year discussion was about striking a balance between conservation, sustainable communities, industry and community involvement. I cannot think of better principles on which to base any legislation. I stress that many factors have been thoroughly considered. There was a need to strike a balance between socioeconomic, environmental and cultural values, and that is what has been achieved in the bill. The national and international benchmark and best practice principles were followed during the assessment process. It would be wrong of us to think that that was easy. The bill guarantees stakeholder involvement and protects biodiversity.

The honourable member for Heffron spoke about how much biodiversity has been lost in the region and the urgent attention that is needed to rejuvenate that biodiversity. The new land tenure guarantees that rejuvenation. The honourable member for Wallsend spoke at length about indigenous involvement, so I will not concentrate on that. However, I wonder what basis was used for the comments of the honourable member for Coffs Harbour in relation to the Moree Aboriginal community. Primarily the land of the Gamilaroy people, and to a lesser degree the Wiradjuri people, is highly significantly, particularly Terry Hie Hie and the Goonoo. Consideration of indigenous considerations was not about cultural heritage and cultural value and the capacity for those practices to continue, it was also about sustainable employment, which is such an important issue within the current indigenous affairs discussion.

Under this bill a community conservation area, a governance structure, community consultation councils and a raft of advisory councils will be established. The governance structure involves the Government, the community and people directly involved in this area. One thing that Opposition members did not mention is that this legislation is not about ripping out the heart of industries in the Brigalow Belt South bioregion. I emphasise that an $18 million timber industry and conservation package is included in this bill. I shall not deal with that issue in detail, as I am sure other honourable members have done so. However, I would like Opposition members to acknowledge that that package is included in the legislation.

It is not the intention of the Government to pull out the rug from underneath these industries. The bill has focused on supporting people who want to move out of industry by providing a redundancy package, compensation, retraining and generous awards. People working in the industry have publicly acknowledged that compensation package. Alan Jones referred to the fact that this legislation will protect coal and gas exploration and provide support for private landholders. The doomsayers in the Opposition are wrong. It is extremely irresponsible for them to say the sorts of things that they have been saying because it creates fear and misunderstanding.

Mr Thomas George: Go out there and talk to some of these people.

Ms LINDA BURNEY: If the honourable member had been in the Chamber earlier he would have heard me say that I had. The doomsayers in the Opposition are irresponsible. I had a long discussion with one of the wood collectors in that area and her family.

Mr Thomas George: You should talk to the Mayor of Gunnedah.

Ms LINDA BURNEY: I know the Mayor of Gunnedah; I met her yesterday. I will refrain from being distracted by the doomsayers opposite. This bill, which is world-class practice and the best way forward, will involve all players in this region. This is a national and international approach to achieve the best outcome for everyone. Opposition members should catch up with the new way of doing things. They should not put one industry group ahead of others. I acknowledge that this issue is complex and hard.

Mr Thomas George: Just keep closing down the rural communities.

Ms LINDA BURNEY: Through negotiation the Government will achieve its objectives. This is sophisticated and considered—and I chose those words deliberately—legislation. It is the best way to achieve sustainable communities, cultural protection and good environmental and conservation outcomes. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr ANDREW STONER (Oxley—Leader of The Nationals) [10.43 a.m.]: The Brigalow and Nandewar Community Conservation Area Bill is the culmination of one of the greatest acts of treachery and bastardry—and I use those terms advisedly—ever imposed on rural communities by any State government. The process leading up to this bill involved the selling out of country communities by a cynical, tired old Government for a handful of green preferences. It has received an ambit bid from a group of Greens, most of whom are not local, who have little or no local knowledge, who have no commonsense, and who do not have an understanding of the history of the Brigalow Belt South bioregion.
This bill has ignored the recommendations of 26 of 27 stakeholders—recommendations made by the Brigalow Region United Stakeholders. Amongst those 26 stakeholder groups who have been totally ignored are members of the Aboriginal community. People from the local Aboriginal community came to see me and expressed their disgust and disappointment at the Government's decision and the fact that it totally ignored their recommendations. Those stakeholder groups included local government and conservationists—people who know the country and who are aware that a managed forest produces a better biodiversity outcome than one that is locked up.

I visited the area and walked through the supposedly logged and harvested forests. I could see groundcover, native flowers, insects, birds and wallabies because they had access to those forests. But the forests just across the road that were locked up were akin to a desert. I tried to push through the scrub and found only pine needles on the ground. There was no grass cover, no birds, no animals and no insects. The Greens were ill advised from the start but they never cared that they did not understand the country. This was all about an ambit bid. The Government, to its shame, has won the day. Another act of treachery is the fact that the Government commissioned an independent report, chaired by Ian Sinclair, who undertook a comprehensive review of the forests and the issues concerned and made a recommendation to the Government. The Government has hidden that report ever since.

The Nationals believe that that report endorses the general thrust of the recommendations made by Brigalow Region United Stakeholders. That report states that there is room in that area for industry and jobs, sustainable timber jobs, as well as conservation—something that The Nationals and country communities have known about and been talking about since day one. In pursuit of those green preferences the deal has been done and legislation has been produced, which is bad for conservation and biodiversity outcomes. As I said, those forests will become choked and present a grave bushfire risk. If forests are not maintained, managed, thinned and have fire trails put through them they are inaccessible and become grave bushfire risks.

We saw in Kosciuszko National Park just what can happen if fuel levels are ignored. The fuel built up in that area and the forest was devastated. The alpine gums will never recover. Communities of corroboree frogs and other endangered species have been decimated throughout vast parts of Kosciuszko National Park. That is what will happen in the Brigalow Belt South bioregion. Areas that are locked up and underresourced by this Government become a major fire problem. Another negative outcome is that the Government insists that only a certain volume of timber can be harvested in this area, which is nonsense. It is a bit like overgrazing.

If the Government tells the few remaining timber mills that they can harvest in the order of 57,000 cubic metres, industry will say, "Only about 25,000 cubic metres are available annually." If the Government says, "Go ahead and take out the remaining 57,000 cubic metres" those forests will be overlogged and overharvested. This Government does not give a damn about that. This is occurring on the mid North Coast as a result of this Government's decision relating to the North Coast national park during the 2003 election campaign. Remaining compartments are being stressed because they are being overharvested. That is not a good conservation outcome.

As I said earlier, the Government does not care. This is all about politics, it is all about green preferences and it is a disgrace. Members of the Government referred to high conservation value in the compartments that are being locked up. If they had a sense of history they would understand that up until the late 1870s that country was grassland. That forest came about only because of reduction burning by Aboriginal people who used fire extensively in that area. As a result of a serious drought in that area it was no longer grazed and the forest had a chance to grow. So how can that area be called an old growth, high conservation value area? We stand for biodiversity and conservation outcomes, but let us have a little commonsense and balance in this debate.

The Government has buried its head in the sand regarding the impact of its decision on local communities. That is the great scandal in this legislation: The Government has sold out those communities and those families that for generations have relied on the jobs provided by a sustainable timber industry. I refer in particular to small country towns such as Baradine, Gwabegar, Bingara and Gunnedah—which is a bit larger. The timber industry is important to the economies of those towns, particularly during times of drought. When life on the farm is pretty tough and not a lot of income is generated—the winter crop yield in New South Wales is down 55 per cent this year—the timber jobs continue to inject money into the local economy. But those jobs will not remain in any great number as a result of this Government's decision.

The Brigalow forests resource generates 241 direct timber jobs and 472 jobs downstream. This is a drastic decision, although the Government has sought to downplay its impact on jobs and families. History will show that it had a significant impact on jobs, families, local economies and on country communities. One has only to recall the Government's decision in relation to the Coolah Tops National Park in 1995, which was one of the Premier's first productive forest lock-ups. The Premier claimed at the time that the 23 families who were sustained by the local timber mill at Coolah would find jobs in the tourism industry. That was not true. None of them did, and all but one of the families affected have left the district. We were told that those workers would be made rangers in the national park, but not one of them was. It is all spin from the Government, then and now. There are no additional jobs in the tourism industry in these parts of the State. The Government is trying to appease people and cover up the fact that this decision is all about politics rather than good policy and good outcomes for country people.

In 1996 the Premier promised that rural communities impact statements would be prepared in relation to every significant Cabinet decision that affected country communities. Where is the rural communities impact statement relating to this devastating decision? Obviously none was prepared because, if it had been, the Government would have realised the impact its decision will have on country communities. That is another broken promise from the Premier. Earlier this year or late last year the Premier promised on Alan Jones's radio program on 2GB that the Government would take no decisions that adversely affected the timber, mining and apiary industries in the Brigalow Belt South bioregion. But he has gone ahead and taken such a decision, so that is another broken promise.

The Government might think—as one Labor member suggested—that this is simply a rant and rave from the Leader of The Nationals. But The Nationals aim solely to represent country communities, and we will be vocal in our objections to this devastating decision. Lest Government members think we are biased, I refer them to the comments of Federal Labor Member of Parliament Craig Emerson, who, to his credit, has spoken out about this decision. I understand that as a young man he spent some time in the Pilliga region. He spoke recently in Federal Parliament about a:

… threat to small NSW towns by a Carr Government decision to withdraw large areas of the Pilliga State Forest from wood production.

He continued:

That Labor member's views are exactly the same as those held by The Nationals, local government and the affected communities.

Mr Thomas George: He's endorsed you.

Mr ANDREW STONER: He has endorsed exactly what The Nationals are saying. I refer also to a motion passed by the New South Wales branch of the Australian Workers Union. The executive recommendation moved by John Robertson states:

That is a recommendation to the peak body in the union movement, the Labor Council, which was also ignored by the State Labor Government. Not just The Nationals but local government, Federal Labor members, the union movement, the media and, of course, the affected families and communities believe this is very bad legislation and treachery on the part of this Government. I note that the Mayor of Gunnedah Shire Council, Gae Swain, has taken a keen interest in this issue. A rally was held in Gunnedah recently, which the Premier declined to attend. I understand that the Deputy Prime Minister, John Anderson, whose Federal electorate encompasses Gunnedah, has invited the Premier to visit the town to listen and talk to people and consider the impacts of his decision. I think that is a sensible invitation that the Premier should take very seriously. I know that Gae Swain and the good people of Gunnedah will ensure the Premier gets a good reception. This is not a political stunt. We want the Premier to get out of Sydney, to talk and listen to people and to appreciate fully the impacts of his decision. I believe this legislation represents the most cynical abuse of power in the history of this State. The day this legislation is passed by the House will be a day of shame in New South Wales. The Nationals will oppose it most strongly.
Mr DONALD PAGE (Ballina—Deputy Leader of The Nationals) [10.57 a.m.]: I was shadow Minister for Forestry, and Shadow Minister for Land and Water Conservation from 1995 to 2003. Debate about the future of the Brigalow Belt South bioregion began in about 2000. At that time I spoke to many people in the Pilliga and Goonoo areas and in surrounding towns. During my tenure as shadow Minister for Forestry the Coalition decided to support the Brigalow Region United Stakeholder [BRUS] option. I think it is important to record exactly why we chose to go down that path. Essentially, it is because that option satisfied 97 per cent of the conservation objectives that were sought while offering security to the timber industry and to those communities that depended upon it. The BRUS option would have been—and I believe still would be—a win-win situation for the community and for the conservation of that region.

During my involvement with this issue it became obvious that the BRUS option enjoyed overwhelming support. As I recall, 26 of the 27 stakeholders supported the option, including the Aboriginal community. Local mayors and communities certainly supported the BRUS option strongly. I take this opportunity to commend those local communities for the way in which they have approached this issue. They are keen to ensure their survival but their arguments are based on clear, sound tenets. They are not anti-environment; in fact, they are keen to see the Pilliga retain its biodiversity. They are about making sure that rural communities that are dependent on the Pilliga continue to survive. The Leader of The Nationals briefly referred to the commissioning by the Government of the Sinclair report. It is high time the report was made public because it would add to the debate. The Premier issued a press release on 25 August 1996 claiming that a rural communities impact statement would always be available in relation to Cabinet decisions. I took him at this word, but like so many other promises that have been made, there has not been any follow-through with a rural communities impact statement in relation to this decision.

Yesterday the Leader of The Nationals moved to give precedence to his bill relating to rural communities impact statements. The bill, which is on the notice paper, seeks to make rural communities impact statements compulsory before the making of significant decisions that impact on rural communities. The Coalition wanted to introduce the bill today so we could highlight what is happening in the Brigalow Belt. The Government agreed to the motion moved by the Leader of The Nationals, but then abolished private members' day altogether so the legislation cannot be introduced. I wonder how serious the Government is about examining the impact of its legislation on rural communities.

The bill before the House goes much further than the BRUS option in relation to locking up the Pilliga. It takes out 348,000 hectares whereas, from memory, the BRUS option took out about 189,000 hectares. The impact of that will be access to timber will be curtailed by approximately 35 to 40 per cent of the available resources. The Government has said, as it has said in the past in relation to the north-east and south-east of the State, the timber industry will have 20-year contracts. However, those contracts do not provide the security that the Government claims, because even though they are fully compensable contracts, the Government has two options in relation to breach of contract. The first is that it pays cash if there is a lack of supply to the timber industry. Frankly, the communities do not want the cash because once it is paid to a particular mill the jobs disappear in any event. The communities want the resource so that the mill continues to operate and the jobs continue to be sustainable.

The second option is that timber has to be provided from somewhere else. That is occurring in the north-east of New South Wales. The timber industry has 20-year compensable contracts but because of the amount of timber that has been locked up the resource is having to be sourced from the mid North Coast. That is why we see trucks laden with logs driving up and down our highways supplying mills in the north-east of New South Wales from the resource on the mid North Coast. I do not believe that is a sensible way to operate the timber industry. It is certainly not environmentally friendly when one considers the greenhouse gases emitted from trucks and the damage done to the roads. It is much better to have the resource reasonably close to the processing units.

The Government's short-sighted decision will have long-term impacts on the communities it affects, in particular, Baradine, Gwabegar, Bingara and Narrabri, where 241 direct jobs will go, as well as many more indirect jobs. There will also be a substantial downturn in mills at Gulargambone, Gunnedah, Coonabarabran, Gilgandra and Dubbo. The net exports of timber from Australia will be negatively impacted to the tune of about $25 million. This is happening at a time when there is a strong demand for cypress, which is a highly regarded timber because of its white ant resistant properties. A few years ago the Chinese were very keen to import Australian cypress.

Apart from the impact the bill will have on rural communities, it will, unfortunately, lead to a bad environmental outcome. On many occasions when I have been in the area it has been pointed out to me by knowledgeable people in the environment movement, predominantly locals, that if the Pilliga is not managed properly it will end up with cypress growing all over the place—a bit like a hair on a cat's back, as the saying goes. The impact will be that not only will there be smaller trees that are less saleable in terms of timber production but there will also be a loss of biodiversity. Instead of the ground being cleared in some places and timbered in others, it will be completely dominated by small cypress trees. According to the experts, that is negative for biodiversity.

About 15 or 20 years ago, a study was conducted by the CSIRO in the north-east of the State in the Murwillumbah management area by 13 top ecologists. They found that biodiversity increases if there is a range of age of forest. If a forest is being harvested on a rotational basis there will be a variety of younger, medium-aged and older trees and more biodiversity will occur. What is often lost in this timber debate is the possibility of having a well-managed forest and maintaining a strong biodiversity outcome. Indeed, the CSIRO says that biodiversity outcomes in managed forests with variations in age are better than when the forests are left on their own and allowed to grow old.

I am concerned about the legislation both from a social impact and conservation and biodiversity perspective. The Government has shown that it is out of touch with the community, which has a strong voice. It could not be more clear that it wants to adopt the BRUS option, which will provide a sensible outcome for the environment and protect the communities that are dependent on the Pilliga. I am disappointed that the Government has introduced this legislation. It has the numbers to force it through in this House but it is making a big mistake as far as the community and the environment are concerned. The one positive note in this legislation is that it provides for access to coal and gas reserves, and that is a sensible outcome. Overall, the legislation will have negative outcomes for communities, particularly those that are dependent on the timber industry in the Pilliga.

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE (Bega) [11.07 p.m.]: I represent an electorate in the State's south-east, that has been subject to a process similar to that contained in the Brigalow and Nandewar Community Conservation Area Bill. The community of the Pilliga believes that the Government has not listened to it in any way, shape or form. That is also what happened when the regional forest agreement process was undertaken. The Brigalow Belt South and Nandewar bioregions cover a vast area of some 77,000 square kilometres stretching from Dubbo to the border. The bill increases undoubtedly the percentage of bioregions protected in reserves from 3.4 per cent to 9.5 per cent in the Brigalow Belt South region, and from 0.9 per cent to 2 per cent in the Nandewar.

Of particular interest to South Coast members is the funding of the restructuring package and the funding that will be made available to conservation and green groups and the like from the waste levy. The waste levy has been collected from areas such as the Shoalhaven local government area, meaning that money raised from levying residents in those areas will be used to fund greens groups in the north of the State. The objectives of the bill are clear. It provides for the abolition of the Waste Fund, which was established under the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2001, and for the transfer of that money to the Environmental Trust Fund. Payments to the Consolidated Fund made from the Environmental Trust Fund will be used for purposes of forestry restructure and a number of programs and schemes in the regions.

The Government has not been sufficiently specific on how those funds will be spent. I inform the House that local government ratepayers and others on the South Coast regard the waste levy as nothing other than a cash cow for the Government, which will now use those funds for entirely inappropriate purposes, contrary to the specific objectives and purposes for which the waste levy was established in the first place. I note that the Minister for the Environment is at the table for this debate because I want to quote what was said on this issue back on 25 November 2003 by one of the Minister's good friends, Councillor Greg Watson, mayor of Shoalhaven City Council:

The fact that the NSW Waste Fund has a current cash surplus of $57 million indicates that the whole levy scheme was inappropriate and ill conceived. This so-called levy is a blatant de facto taxation revenue grab by this State Government.

Some $13 million ripped from South Coast communities will be diverted to restructuring in the State's north. It angers the people of the South Coast that money ripped from local communities will fund green groups in the north. That is not only inequitable but outrageous. It is a great shame that the Minister did not pick up the telephone, call his great mate Greg Watson and have a lengthy discussion about the fact that millions of dollars from the South Coast will be diverted not only to restructuring programs in the north of the State but also to funding of green groups involved in the process. That is outrageous. That money from the abolished Waste Fund is to be spent far away from the communities from which it was raised is an absolute outrage.
The arguments against this bill, particularly those regarding timber-related issues, cannot be ignored. The industry used to extract 70,000 cubic metres of sawlogs a year from 470,000 hectares. The sustainable yield from the 122,000 hectares of cypress forests left is just 23,000 cubic metres, less than half the 57,000 cubic metres guaranteed by the Government. That will lead to overcutting in remaining forests, with sawlogs being brought from hundreds of kilometres away. As we know, compensation will be paid to the mills. Many of the jobs to be created simply will not be permanent. Many people whose livelihoods will be affected will not be entitled to compensation.

The new reserve category of community conservation area blurs the boundaries between national parks and State forests, and the concept can be applied in future to other national parks and State forests. That is another issue that should not be forgotten in this debate. This has occurred in other parts of the State. We are scheduled to debate a bill later this morning in respect of which that type of instance has occurred, putting enormous strains on local communities. That is particularly important given that the Government has a significant track record of increasing the size of the national park estate without providing appropriate resourcing for that expansion.

My primary concern as a member of Parliament representing a South Coast electorate relates to the Waste Fund. The fund was originally set up to reduce waste and improve recycling outcomes. The fact that money from the fund will be used for the purposes I have mentioned is an outrage. In 1996 the Carr Government promised to hypothecate 55 per cent of the waste levy to resource recovery. Over the past two years, all of that money has gone into consolidated revenue and the amount of waste going to landfill has grown by almost a million tonnes. So the Government is not using money from the Waste Fund for the purposes and objectives set at the time the fund was established. It is concerning that money collected from South Coast communities will be appropriated in the way that the Government has outlined. Local communities are furious.

Millions of dollars a year are being taken from the Shoalhaven at a time when a significant sea change is occurring in that region and infrastructure is under enormous strain and pressure. For the Government to use hard-earned ratepayer dollars in this way, when it should be reinvesting that funding in local communities, is unacceptable. It is deceitful. Local communities, particularly in the Shoalhaven, are outraged. I am intrigued to know whether the honourable member for Kiama will participate in this debate. I would like to hear what he has to say about this matter. This proposal is unacceptable and inequitable, and the Government will pay heavily for it in the years ahead.

Mr RICHARD TORBAY (Northern Tablelands) [11.17 a.m.]: I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the Brigalow and Nandewar Community Conservation Area Bill. From the outset, I indicate that I will oppose the bill. In my six years in this Parliament I have not seen such dishonesty in the various positions adopted on the matter as I have in relation to this bill and all of the issues that have culminated in the debate today. First, the Government said, so many years ago that I cannot remember, that a decision on this issue was imminent. Communities could not have been left any more uncertain than they have been for at least the past five years with various discussions, debates, research bodies, task forces, groups and bodies such as the Sinclair inquiry. I have lost count. I can recall only the more prominent ones that have been the subject of public debate.

The Government, the Premier and the Minister have been very dishonest in suggesting, throughout the period that this issue has been in the public arena, that the discussions—including those recorded in Hansard, from which I have refreshed my memory this morning—the processes, information, research and timeframes would be in any way acceptable to the community. Those discussions and processes have not been, nor could they be, acceptable to the community. That is particularly so given the level of uncertainty about the matter and the fact that the Government has ignored much of the information that it has on a wide range of issues. That is why I oppose the bill. The dishonesty and misrepresentation does not end there. That takes me to the contributions made during this debate. These are sensitive issues. Balancing conservation issues with employment and industry and other possible adverse effects flowing from this proposal is a very sensitive matter. There is no doubt about that. That is no revelation.

I am still trying to work out whether the shadow Minister, who led for the Opposition, was for or against the legislation. I have not been able to absorb the issues he raised because there were so many of them. It was a bit like a scattergun approach. But that leads me to other contributions, and the one I want to highlight came from the honourable member for Tamworth, whom I congratulate. He has come in for a bit of criticism and a fair bit of politics has been played. Dishonesty about this issue is not confined to one side of politics. The honourable member for Tamworth has kept a sober head. He said, "I want this mill, which everyone in Gunnedah believes is a viable mill, to continue." I support him wholeheartedly. He said, "Let's have an independent assessment." Why is he saying that? He is saying, "Obviously, we can't trust the Government to say this is the sort of timber that is available, given the processes, the enormous amount of time and information that have been part of this process but have not been listened to." He said, "Let's have an independent process."

The honourable member for Tamworth is saying, "Let's also not just take the timber industry's view on it." In my view that gives credibility to an independent assessment; it makes the Government accountable for its commitments. It also says to the industry, "This is an independent assessment of what is available and accessible." I support him because that will force the Government's hand on the 20-year contractual arrangements that have been offered to Gunnedah and ensures that the Government will honour proper quality and quantity targets, which have to be part of the decision-making process. An independent assessment as suggested by the honourable member for Tamworth would help us to deal with facts rather than politics.

The contribution of the inarticulate and incoherent member for Barwon contained so many errors that I could not possibly deal with them in the time I have available. However, as the standing orders allow me to respond to those allegations only during my contribution, I intend to take that opportunity now. The criticisms of the honourable member for Barwon were interesting. I will read directly from his contribution because I would not want to misrepresent him more than he has misrepresented himself:

The honourable member for Barwon is referring to the sawmill at Bingara, but I remind him that Bingara is in his electorate. These are not Richard Torbay's people; they are Ian Slack-Smith's people. His first error is that he does not know that he is criticising his own community. It is interesting to note that it is not the first time he has criticised the people of Bingara. I was working closely with the people of Bingara because they were concerned about their lack of representation. They made contact with me—his people made contact with my people. They said, "Richard, we have to take the compensation package that is being offered by the Government for the Bingara mill because we have no choice."

I accept that circumstances, supply, creditors and other matters affecting the Bingara mill have left them no choice but to accept the compensation that is on the table. Who would begrudge them that? I congratulate them on their honesty, which made negotiations so much easier. We must keep pressure on the Government to deliver the compensation package for which they are still waiting. When a mill operation has been honest and open about its circumstances, the Minister should help them. What happened? What did their local member do, having said nothing about it in this place? I went back only three years, but I could not find anything from the honourable member for Barwon, apart from yesterday's contribution. The Northern Daily Leader of 7 May carries the great big headline "MP's doom remark 'misinformed'". Who could it be referring to? The article states:

The article continues, but it embarrasses me to have to continue to remind the House that the honourable member for Barwon forgot that Bingara was in his electorate and that members of that community are almost desperate to come into the Northern Tablelands electorate, seeking some form of representation. The honourable member for Barwon is not a bad bloke; you would have a drink with him. But as one of his constituents said to me—and this sums him up—"Great bloke, but he's a hopeless member." That is why he has announced his retirement two years out from the election. Only yesterday another constituent said to me, "He's retired already." It is disappointing that he would choose the forum of this House to attack me. He said that I had not previously raised the issue of the Brigalow Belt South bioregion. I know it is difficult to do a computer search—you have to click on "Legislative Assembly" then you have to click on "Torbay". It is difficult; it is hard to find. I have to say humbly there are a huge number of speeches under my name compared with the number of speeches under the name of the honourable member for Barwon.
I looked, I clicked and it says "Brigalow Belt South Bioregion Assessment Process". No-one would have found "Brigalow" in that! It says, "Matter of Public Importance". Wow! Who led in that debate? Torbay! I wonder who he is. The honourable member for Barwon, having said that I had not raised it, did not do that research. I am happy to present him with a copy of it. The other interesting thing about the matter of public importance was the speakers. I raised the matter because the community had raised those concerns with me as they had not been raised by their local member. Dr Refshauge, the then Deputy Premier and Minister for Planning, responded on behalf of the Government and rejected much of the contribution. Obviously, there has been a lot of byplay since that time, and that has culminated today. The third speaker was Mr Tony McGrane, the former member for Dubbo, strongly representing the electorate of Dubbo. It was very important that such strong centre should continue. The right of reply obviously went to the member who had raised the matter—me.

The honourable member for Barwon was right. When this matter of public importance was debated there was an omission. It was called the Coalition. None of them contributed to the debate. That deals with the second allegation raised by the honourable member for Barwon. Again it was false. I heard the contribution from that moderate, the honourable member for Coffs Harbour. Country communities have been sold a pup by the Government and it has been watered and nurtured by the Opposition. The august member for Coffs Harbour made a contribution to the debate in which he left out more than he put in. Why? Did anyone know or does anyone remember that the honourable member for Coffs Harbour, with great fanfare, introduced a bill called the National Park Estate (Brigalow South Bio-Region Reservations) Bill. What happened? He gave notice of it and he introduced it. [Extension of time agreed to.]

Notice of the motion was given on 29 October by the honourable member for Coffs Harbour. On Wednesday 17 November, Mr Speaker conducted a callover and asked the Clerk to read the order of the day. The Clerk called on the National Park Estate (Regulator South Bio-region Reservations) Bill. What happened when it was called on?

Mr Alan Ashton: Postponed?

Mr RICHARD TORBAY: No. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour did not bother to turn up. The Opposition's great answer to the Government's inaction on the issue was the Opposition's bill, but the Opposition did not bother to turn up to debate it. I am advised by the Parliament that the bill lapsed. It is wrong for the honourable member for Coffs Harbour—that rocket scientist who could not get a seconder for the leadership—to suggest in this House that the Opposition somehow held anything other than a hoax over the community. The Opposition's bill lapsed because the honourable member for Coffs Harbour was not even in the Parliament when it was called on for debate.

Mr Milton Orkopoulos: Where was he?

Mr RICHARD TORBAY: He was doorknocking in Dubbo. And I must say that the honourable member for Coffs Harbour had a very successful campaign: the Independents were very happy with the fruits of his labour in that campaign! I again congratulate the Independent member for Dubbo who, in common with the honourable member for Tamworth and other Independents, unashamedly represents her electorate. Independents do not play the silly games that the Opposition and the Government have perpetuated throughout the debate on this issue. I call on the honourable member for Coffs Harbour to come into this Chamber and explain why his bill, which was supposed to be the answer to concerns over the Government's inaction in relation to this issue and which he exhorted to the community with great fanfare, lapsed. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour did not mention that in his fine example of misrepresentation during this debate today.

Another issue that I wish to discuss is the lack of transparency and honesty that has been mentioned in relation to the compensation measures. It is difficult for many who are involved in the timber industry to deal with so many issues of uncertainty without also discussing the need for compensation. To be fair, the Government has put a compensation package on the table. I will deal first with Bingara on which the honourable member for Coffs Harbour challenged me. I wish I had more time because I have a lot of material that I think would be quite helpful. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour and the honourable member for Barwon, another nice bloke, said that Torbay purported to have made some sort of special deal with the Government. I will tell the House what the special deal was.

When the Government made its announcement and Bingara Cypress Pine had agreed to the compensation, it was important for somebody to step in and extract the guarantee from the Government; otherwise, why would anyone believe the Government? It was critical for someone to go in and get that guarantee. To be fair, the Attorney General, and Minister for the Environment at the table and the Minister for Primary Industries agreed to meet me and agreed to sign off on an arrangement whereby jobs would be secured not only in New South Wales forests but also within the national parks portfolio. If enough displaced workers were prepared to stay on—and the reason that we wanted the information to be made public was that we wanted the timber workers to be given a choice to stay in that region to contribute their skills, with concomitant flow-on effects to the community—that is what the Government was offering.

It was important for that opportunity to be locked down. The Government signed off on that arrangement, and I am prepared to show evidence of that to the honourable member for Barwon, if he bothers to ask me about it. The discussions I had were directly with the mill and the workers. The honourable member for Barwon has not asked me about that, but I nevertheless would much prefer to share the information with him instead of listening to him make inaccurate statements that were reinforced when the honourable member for Coffs Harbour followed suit.

Everybody involved in this debate agrees that Gunnedah has a viable mill. I have seen no evidence to the contrary. It is my strong view that the honourable member for Tamworth is searching for a way to make the Government accountable on quality and quantity issues, to obtain guarantees, and to make the matters in contention compensable. I have already congratulated the honourable member for Tamworth for the role he has played. There should be compensation, if the Government does not deliver on the promises constituting the 20-year agreement. That is where the honourable member for Tamworth is taking this issue, and that is where it should go.

[Interruption]

The honourable member for The Hills should stick with the hairy-nosed wombat. What has not been said is that there have been active negotiations on compensation in respect of Gunnedah, and the community has not been informed of that. There is enormous goodwill in the Gunnedah community. In common with the residents of Bingara, the residents of Gunnedah have a right to know the subject of the discussions, the stage they have reached, and whether there is the will among mill owners to pursue the 20-year compensation arrangement with guarantees as to quality and quantity. If the arrangement falls through, compensation processes will proceed.

Mr Thomas George: It is not worth the paper it is written on.

Mr RICHARD TORBAY: Is the compensation worth the paper it is written on? That is what the mill owners are currently attempting to negotiate.

[Interruption]

I am forced to point out—obviously the shadow Minister does not know so I have to enlighten him—that members of the family have been in contact. I have a copy of an email from which I am happy, without causing too much concern, to read extracts.

Mr Michael Richardson: You have 50 seconds left.

Mr RICHARD TORBAY: I will be happy to discuss the matter with the honourable member for The Hills later, if he wants to know the truth. The email states:

My … [family] will be meeting with the head honchos from state forests tomorrow …

The email arrived today.

Mr Thomas George: Head honchos?

Mr RICHARD TORBAY: I am quoting an email. Obviously, I am speaking too quickly for the honourable member for Lismore. The email states:

My concern … is that the local MP and the community want Gunnedah to remain open.

The email goes on to say that the family feels that compensation is the best measure. The community deserves to know the truth. The honourable member for Tamworth is completely vindicated by this correspondence that shows that he and the local community are trying to keep the mill open. It is important for there to be some honesty and transparency in this process rather than the bias and political tactics being displayed by an Opposition that did not even bother to turn up to debate its own bill.

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI (Murrumbidgee) [11.37 a.m.]: The whole issue of the Brigalow is very important for regional New South Wales. It really goes to the heart of what the Government's program has been over the past 10 years and what its program will be up until the 2007 election, and that is a very green focus that is not concerned about what happens in western New South Wales or what happens to jobs. I think the Government is not even concerned about what has happened in the Pilliga. The evidence of management of the Pilliga forest is not conclusive to support the proposition that it should be locked up and that that is the best way to manage it.

Mr Alan Ashton: Is the Brigalow in your electorate?

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: Whether issues are strictly relevant to a member's electorate has never been a factor determining whether a member speaks or does not speak, but I can tell the honourable member for East Hills why this bill is relevant to my electorate. Today the Government's actions affect the Pilliga, but tomorrow it might be the Berrima mill, the red gum forest in the Murrumbidgee in my electorate, the forests along the Murray that are in my electorate, or the jobs that go with timber mills and rely on the forest industry in timber regions in my electorate. This bill is very relevant to my electorate. I represent only one electorate but I represent people who live in western areas of New South Wales and I am concerned about those people. While this legislation does not directly affect residents of my electorate, that does not mean I am not concerned about it. I am very concerned about this bill.

This is a deliberate political ploy by the Labor Government to appear to be green and to appear to be doing the right thing. The Premier has announced that a nuclear power plant will be constructed in the Swansea electorate yet at the same time he tells us how green he is by locking up the Pilliga, and he is moving farther south. The Opposition is very concerned about that decision. People are moving out of western New South Wales. Decisions such as this will result in further population loss, and that is why the Opposition is so strongly opposed to it.

The honourable member for Northern Tablelands holds a very safe seat, and I give him credit for that. Obviously he does his work well, as is reflected in the percentage of the vote that he won. However, I have an issue with the contribution to debate by the honourable member for Northern Tablelands, which was highly critical of the Government for obvious reasons. At the same time, it was highly critical of the Opposition. The Government's decision on the Pilliga will have no political implications. The Labor Party does not hope to win the seats of Northern Tablelands, Barwon or Tamworth.

For Labor, Pilliga is essentially an expendable part of New South Wales, and those timber jobs are expendable. With the support of the Greens this bill will pass through the upper House without too much trouble. The Leader of The Nationals has committed to change this decision when the Coalition is elected to government in 2007. If we are going to stop this movement south, into my electorate, the Government of New South Wales will have to be changed. Certainly in western New South Wales there is a strong feeling for a change of government. That change will not impact on the honourable member for Northern Tablelands, he holds a very safe seat, but let us all work on getting rid of the Labor Government in New South Wales.

It would be very difficult for a member of The Nationals to win the seat of Northern Tablelands; it would be a lay-down mis�re that Richard Torbay would retain that seat. I am not being political, I am asking him to help change the Government in New South Wales. He was getting stuck into the Coalition, and that would help Labor stay in Government. I congratulate again Dawn Fardell for winning the Dubbo by-election. The people who were happiest about that result were the Labor people. On the night of the by-election I saw the Minister for Police at a function and he appeared to be even happier than the honourable member herself. The point I am trying to make is that the only way we can stop this decision and further ones like it is to change the government. I urge all non-Labor members of Parliament to support the removal of the Labor Government in 2007.

Mr BOB DEBUS (Blue Mountains—Attorney General, and Minister for the Environment) [11.44 a.m.], in reply: I do not wish to delay the House too long but obviously with a bill of this magnitude, which has aroused passions, I ought to spend some time in response to those passionate contributions. Bearing in mind the contribution of the honourable member for Murrumbidgee, if there is anything at all that The Nationals excel in, it is predicting economic mayhem and disaster for country towns. That, and their now entirely tired and silly rhetoric that suggests that conservation is done for city people only, that suggests that somehow or other country people do not care about conservation, has not even a shred of meaning left in it. That once influential party seems to be better at trashing the reputation of the bush than at anything else. The Nationals have a long history of constantly talking down the economic prospects of country New South Wales.

Without exception, all members of The Nationals have predicted economic and social disaster after each of the forestry decisions of the past 10 years. I remind the House that we are dealing now with the fifth regional forestry agreement that has been negotiated in this State in the past five years, and we are doing it on the basis of principles agreed between all the governments of Australia at the Council of Australian Governments in 1991. We are not doing something aberrant; we are implementing nation-wide policy. As long ago as 1944 National Party governments—the Country Party—opposed Labor decisions to create national parks.

Members on this side of the House would be interested to know that 60 years ago Premier McKell introduced landmark legislation to establish what we now call the Kosciuszko National Park. Today, Kosciuszko is recognised the world over as one of the principal and most important parks in Australia and has become a massive tourist drawcard that generates literally hundreds of millions of dollars for the economy of southern New South Wales. At that time the then Country Party lacked the McKell vision. It was then, as it is today, fixated on its fear of change and progress. In 1944, the Country Party member for the seat of Raleigh, Roy Stanley Vincent, said:

He set a theme which has continued: None of The Nationals predictions has come true when it comes to the creation of new national parks by visionary Labor governments. After the sky fell in on Kosciuszko, The Nationals got a bit of breathing space until 1983, when the Wran Government saved the State's remaining rainforests, on the North Coast. That decision is seen today as one of the Wran Government's most visionary policies, one that has helped the North Coast become a booming tourist Mecca with a vibrant economy and culture. Who would deny that?

As did Roy Stanley Vincent before him, Leon Punch, a redoubtable warrior I admit and the then Leader of the National Party, fell over himself to declare that that decision would hasten the demise of the North Coast timber industry, resulting in a tragedy for Casino. The member for Coffs Harbour at that time, Max Singleton, whom I remember, declared that the creation of the Washpool National Park—which is now on the World Heritage List—would, in his words, "have a terrible effect on Casino and Grafton". He also said:

I will not detain the House with the many quotes I have by Ian Causley, or the former member for Coffs Harbour, Bruce Jeffrey, and indeed the present member for Ballina, Don Page, all of whom predicted the end of country towns between Newcastle and the border, between the coast and Tenterfield. The current member for Coffs Harbour claimed in his contribution today that the revocation of the Coolah Tops State Forest "will destroy the town". He said that when it happened and he said it again now. Back in 1996, when the honourable member for Coffs Harbour claimed that the town of Coolah Tops would be destroyed by a decision to revoke a State forest, the population in that part of the world was 3,770.

At the last census the population of Coolah Tops was 3,851. So it has not turned into a ghost town. Anybody who stops to think just might conclude that the upturn in fortunes of many of the towns that I have described and others that I have not mentioned—Kempsey and Taree have had increased populations since forestry decisions—are linked with forestry decisions. They might learn from history and, instead of predicting the end of civilisation, they might conclude that balanced conservation and forestry policies lead to better social and economic results for small rural communities.

Mr Thomas George: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. I would like the Minister to point out to the communities of Woodenbong, Urbenville and Benalla that their timber supplies and their mills—

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for Lismore will resume his seat.
Mr BOB DEBUS: In order to sustain and improve the cypress industry the Government will provide $80 million to create new jobs, to assist mills to leave the industry, to compensate workers with either new jobs or generous redundancy packages, to develop joint investment strategies to better use the timber resources that exist and to add value to the industry's products. A total of $14 million will be available to assist mills that will cease production to fund or provide for generous business exit payments based on the well-established principles of the forestry industry structural adjustment packages used in previous forestry agreements. I remind the House that some mills, both cypress and ironbark mills, voluntarily nominated to leave the industry permanently before the Government made this decision.

Mr Andrew Fraser: Insultimber had no resources.

Mr BOB DEBUS: Insultimber had no resources because almost no ironbark is left.

Mr Andrew Fraser: That is a lie.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Coffs Harbour is aware of the Speaker's ruling in relation to claims that members are telling lies.

Mr BOB DEBUS: For the most part I avoid responding to interjections from the honourable member but I need to tell him that I stood in Insultimber's yard and talked to representatives about these very matters.

Mr Andrew Fraser: Is that when they had 75 employees or when they had seven?

Mr BOB DEBUS: Was that when it had a lot of ironbark available, or when it did not? The honourable member is being ridiculous. The Government made it plain that 50 permanent jobs will be created for the cypress thinning industry. Seventy new jobs will be created in zones 1 and 2 of the community conservation area.

Mr Andrew Fraser: Painting rocks.

Mr BOB DEBUS: Not the least of the problem is that Opposition members, for the most part, are afflicted with the most extraordinary levels of ignorance about how any of these matters work. For all their remarks about painting rocks, the fact is that we are talking about giving displaced timber workers fieldwork jobs in national parks. They exist by the thousands in other parts of the State and they are jobs that are much praised. The cypress mills that are not affected by this decision, that is to say, the cypress mills that are not withdrawing from the industry, have been offered 20-year wood supply agreements. This long-term security is unprecedented for the cypress industry, but it is not unprecedented in other parts of the State where that kind of certainty has been arranged by previous forestry agreements.

That kind of security is unprecedented. The 20-year contracts are being offered to the linked mills run by the Paull family in Baradine and Gunnedah; the mill in Gwabegar run by Tom Underwood; Gulargambone Cypress; Ramiens at Dubbo; Austins at Quirindi; and Burns at Baradine. At the same time the small ironbark sawlog and fence-post operators who are continuing will receive five-year licences. I mentioned earlier in the debate that over five years the $15 million Timber Industry Fund would provide the timber industry with assistance for investment, leading to value-added activity.

Mr Andrew Fraser: Point of order: The Minister should also advise the House why he has provided business exit—

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The Minister does not have to advise the House about anything. There is no point of order. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour will resume his seat.

Mr BOB DEBUS: I briefly mention the question of thinning, which has been discussed only in the most incoherent fashion by those opposite. Broadscale thinning of cypress regrowth is necessary in State forests where the primary aim is to maximise the growth and quality of cypress sawlogs. As I have indicated, the Government will provide $12 million over the next five years to bring that thinning program up to date and continue it indefinitely in the future. It is an essential part of improving the productivity of the forests and ensuring a sustainable timber industry in the long term.

[Interruption]
The cypress thinning package, which is in no way understood by those opposite who are most vociferous, will provide up to 50 jobs for both displaced timber workers and some dedicated jobs for the Aboriginal community—35 permanent jobs for displaced timber workers and 15 permanent jobs for Aboriginal people. Conservation reserves, as distinct from State forests, obviously are managed primarily for biodiversity to provide a range of habitats; they are not managed to improve the growth of forests for a commercial purpose.

Therefore, the cypress thinning programs that will go on in the future in national parks will have a different aim to those that will go on in State forests. Leaving aside the technical detail, the thinning programs that go on in national parks will be focused on improving biodiversity. I deal now with the timber supply model. The claims that were repeated by most Opposition speakers during the course of this debate alleging that the forests in what in future will be called zone 4 areas, in other words, in State forests, will deliver neither quantity nor quality of white cypress over 20 years.

Mr Andrew Fraser: And State forests.

Mr BOB DEBUS: That claim cannot be supported scientifically. The proof that these claims are spurious in the first instance is that they were made so vociferously by the honourable member for Coffs Harbour. So far as I can tell, these claims are based, for the most part, on casual visual observations from passing motor vehicles that have been driven around the forests, or simply on some flawed calculations that are made on the basis of total areas of State forest. Those calculations are manifestly flawed. As was the case with the previous forestry assessments around the State, the Government used a detailed understanding of the sustainable yield of white cypress in the Brigalow and Nandewar region.

A full inventory of the forests in the Pilliga area was compiled during 1999 and 2000 by Forests NSW as part of the Government's carefully planned and implemented assessment. Trees were exhaustively measured across large areas to provide information on the cypress resource. Approximately 500 plots covering more than 400,000 hectares were included in this process. Variables for individual trees were measured at each plot, and included the tree species, tree diameter, tree height, crown condition and harvest status. Information about the plot site was also recorded, and included forest type, stand structure and the height and density of regeneration.

This detailed information was then used in a sophisticated computerised wood model designed and developed by Forests NSW to estimate the long-term volume of high-quality white cypress pine for the timber industry. Among other things, these estimates account for log diameter, log length and any defects. I emphasise that this wood system is cutting-edge technology that has developed from the previous work undertaken in the coastal forest assessments. I gave that long description because I wish to demonstrate that the Government's assessments are based on decent science, not the everyday prejudice of several dumbos opposite.

Mr Andrew Fraser: Point of order: The Minister said that the north-east and south-east coastal forests have sustainable timber yields. They do not, and he knows that.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Mills): Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour must tell the House which standing order has been breached.

Mr Andrew Fraser: The Minister is misleading the House.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Mills): Order! That cannot be the subject of a point of order, as the honourable member for Coffs Harbour well knows. He will resume his seat.

Mr Andrew Fraser: Standing order 17—

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Mills): Order! Misleading the House does not constitute a breach of the standing orders. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour will resume his seat.

Mr Andrew Fraser: Look at page 63 of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice. The Minister has misled the House today and on several other occasions.

Mr BOB DEBUS: To the contrary, I underline the fact that the modelling done for previous forestry assessments has always been accurate and has delivered the predicted sustainable timber yields. In the past The Nationals and sometimes elements of the timber industry have claimed that a resource would run out but that has never come to pass, and it will not come to pass in the case of the Brigalow and Nandewar regions. I turn to another matter that has not been discussed in the debate so far. There has been some public comment about the possibility that mills in the areas adjacent to the Brigalow—to the south and to the west—might be part of the Brigalow and Nandewar decision. The Government has decided that any mills located towards the Riverina and further out into the Central West that wish to be included in the exit package and to receive the business and work exit payments may volunteer to leave the industry should they wish to do so. Other mills in these areas may also apply to participate in the Government's generous investment program to value add and better use the white cypress resource.

The Government will also offer the non-Brigalow mills 20-year contracts to stay in the industry. Any timber that is freed through this process will be offered to mills in the Brigalow and Nandewar areas and the additional timber will be supplemented by a concerted effort on the part of Forests NSW to source and extract timber from private and Crown timber lands. It is anticipated that several thousand cubic metres will be provided to the industry from these sources, based on historical data of the white cypress available from other sources. I mention this because, as a result of that particular initiative, it is expected that considerably more timber will be available in future to be supplied to the industry. For the sake of the record, I should mention that that part of the decision in the Nandewar and Brigalow areas that has classified areas of land for conservation and mineral exploration has been settled with the Department of Mineral Resources. No part of that decision has not been verified by the Department of Mineral Resources. Therefore, we remain as sure as it is possible to be at this time that the decision will keep available those areas with significant prospects for gas exploration, in particular.

The only other matter that I shall draw to the attention of the House is the question of the Gunnedah mill. Aside from Gunnedah, the negotiations with mill owners were conducted, one way or the other, with a high level of co-operation between mill owners and Government representatives, regardless of the specific outcome in any particular place. In Bingara the mill owners are desirous of leaving the industry and in other places they are not. In one case the owner is still considering his situation. I think it reasonable to make some reference to the Gunnedah situation because it has been so thoroughly aired and discussed—

Mr Michael Richardson: Controversial, would you say, Minister?

Mr BOB DEBUS: And it has become controversial, at least in local media terms. I point out that the Paul family, who own the Gunnedah and Baradine mills, have been afforded very favourable treatment by the Carr Government over a number of years—I do not criticise that, but it is a fact—in line with their place as the major player in the white cypress industry in the State. Let me be clear: The Government has always wanted the family to be a major player in the Brigalow region—we have always wanted a large timber mill in the region—and we have done everything we can to keep those mills operating. We will continue to take all reasonable steps to ensure they keep operating and to keep in full-time work the 60 workers connected to their linked operations in Baradine and Gunnedah.

The importance of the Paul's operations was recognised at the very beginning of the Brigalow forestry assessment, when they were given combined 10-year contracts for 27,000 cubic metres per annum. No other mill was offered such a generous package, which was a specific commitment to their long-term viability. Those 10-year contracts allowed the rebuilding of the Baradine mill, which had burnt down in the late 1990s, and helped the family to secure loans and investment that ensured that those two mills have operated as viable, linked businesses ever since. It is important to emphasise that these existing contracts still have five years to run. The Government is committed to fulfilling these contracts to the very last detail, both in terms of the quantity of timber specified in the contracts and in quality terms.

Let me be clear on behalf of the Government: If the main principals of the Gunnedah and Baradine mills, George and Paddy Paul, want to sit on their current contracts for the next five years and see where things are at in 2010, the Government will go along with that decision. However, the Government is prepared, as part of the Brigalow decision, to extend much greater security to the Pauls. We have offered the two mills combined new 20-year contracts for 33,000 cubic metres per annum, which is an increase of 6,000 cubic metres per annum. This means that the Paul's mills will have a guaranteed supply of 660,000 cubic metres of high-quality white cypress over the life of the new 20-year contracts. This compares with 135,000 cubic metres contracted for the next five years, plus an additional 40,000 in annual quotas that are not formally contracted—which is their existing situation.

From any objective point of view the Government's offer to Pauls is a fair one. The Government has committed to 20-year contracts and believes that both the quantity and quality of the timber will be available over the life of the contracts and beyond. That is why the Government will write the contracts in those terms and underwrite the contracts. I point out that the contracts are extremely valuable: they can be traded on the open market. Therefore, they are compensable by the Government of New South Wales if they are not fulfilled. Nevertheless, the Pauls have repeatedly and publicly maintained that they do not believe that the quantity and quality of the timber is available to fulfil the new contracts.

The Government remains adamant on the issue. It has been the subject of intense scrutiny by our best experts and the best advice it has received is that the timber on offer to the Paul family operations in Baradine and Gunnedah is definitely there. I described earlier in the debate the scientific processes that have been used to come to those conclusions. Extensive expert work has been done over the past six years, and so far as the Government is concerned, notwithstanding the pleas of the honourable member for Tamworth, the issue as being closed. The Government wants the Pauls to remain as a permanent part of this important industry. It wants them to sign 20-year contracts. The Government believes that if they chose to attempt to close down one of their mills that would be their decision.

The Government will provide generous business and worker exit payments to the three mills that voluntarily chose to exit the industry as part of this overall decision—that is, the cypress mills at Bingara and Narrabri, and the hardwood mill at Baradine. Any other mills that ask for a similar package will have to make out a proper business case if they want to leave the industry, a policy that has been explained to the mill owner, Mr Underwood, at Gwabegar. Everyone agrees that he is nature's gentleman and he is conducting negotiations in the most sensible and reasonable of ways. However, we have pointed out to the mill owner at Gwabegar that since he has come after the event to discuss these matters he has to make out a business case for it. That is not new; it is longstanding policy. In other forestry assessments on the coast, timber mills that have wanted to exit have had to demonstrate and make out a case that they had been adversely affected by a government forestry decision. People cannot stand around and expect that the Government will shovel barrow loads of money into their front apron pocket just because they asked. The Government proposes to continue to follow that policy for the mills in the Brigalow region.

Mr Andrew Constance: Point of order: The Minister referred to the shovelling of money. I would be intrigued by his response in relation to the Waste Fund levy that many honourable members raised in this debate.

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

Mr BOB DEBUS: That is not a point of order. However, ever so briefly, despite the weird claims of the honourable member for Bega that the Government tried to hide this issue, I made a point to describe the new proposals in my second reading speech. I said that section 7 of the Environmental Trust Act would be amended to provide for the trust to deal with the following issues: selected waste reduction, resource recovery and waste management programs that are presently funded by the Waste Fund, the purchase of water to enhance environmental flows, the declaration of new marine parks and the provision of funding to local government and environmental groups of the sort that presently exists under the Environmental Trust Fund. Instead of having a Waste Fund on the one hand and an Environmental Trust Fund on the other, it will be a new body with a lot more money to be used for the purposes that the Waste Fund and the Environmental Trust Fund have always been used for, and some other related purposes as well. There is no mystery. I have great pleasure in commending the bill to the House.

Mr Andrew Fraser: Point of order: I want a ruling from the Chair. I refer you to schedules 1 to 8 to the bill, pages 17 to 59, which detail some 148 maps that are pertinent to this bill. Those maps are not available to honourable members outside this House, as has been the practice. I cannot see how this House can vote on this bill without the maps being made available to us. There have been errors and inconsistencies in the past even when maps have been provided. The 148 maps have not been provided but they are mentioned in the bill. They contain a large amount of detail that is pertinent to this legislation, yet as legislators honourable members have not had access to them. The maps are not even available on the web sites of the Department of the Environment and Conservation and the Department of Lands. These maps have been referred to by the Minister and are detailed in the bill, yet they are not here for our perusal or inspection.

I do not and cannot understand how we can pass this bill, if maps that are an integral part of it, are not available for our inspection. I want a ruling as to how we can pass legislation with that sort of detail mentioned in maps that are purportedly to be made available to honourable members so we can give due consideration to them, yet they are unavailable from anywhere or anyone that I have asked about them. I believe that we will act outside the terms and conditions of this legislation if we allow it go to a vote without the maps being made available to us.

Mr BOB DEBUS: To the point of order: During my second reading speech I offered anyone who wanted to see the maps the opportunity to approach me for them.
Mr Andrew Fraser: Further to the point of order: It is not a matter of an offer by a Minister. This House is not run just by one side. We aim to represent the people of New South Wales and information that is mentioned in legislation to be passed by this House must be freely made available outside this Chamber. Two maps, with no real detail on them, are outside the Chamber but they do not represent the schedules in the bill. The 148 maps should be inside and outside the Chamber for us to peruse. An offer from the Minister is not good enough. They should be tabled so that parliamentarians can have an opportunity to inspect them. I cannot accept that paltry excuse from a Minister. They are not available from his department, on the web site or in the Parliament. If the Minister has the maps, I ask for debate to be suspended until such time as they are produced so that we have had an opportunity to peruse them.

Mr BOB DEBUS: Further to the point of order: These maps are not part of the bill and they are available on the web site.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Mills): Order! I have heard enough. I intend to rule on the point of order.

Mr Andrew Fraser: They are part of the bill—have a look at it. They are named in the bill. If they are not part of the bill, they are referred to in it.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Mills): Order! The matter raised by the honourable member for Coffs Harbour does not prevent the House from proceeding to vote on the second reading of the bill, given the availability on the web site of the maps referred to.

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

The House divided.

[In division]

Mr Andrew Fraser: Point of order: Mr Speaker, my point of order goes back to a ruling before you took the chair. The legislation that honourable members have been asked to vote on contains eight schedules in which are mentioned 148 maps that are not available to members of this place. Members cannot make an informed decision on this bill unless those maps are made available to them before the vote is taken. Those maps form part of the legislation; they are mentioned in the legislation. I submit that honourable members are entitled to inspect those maps, especially as the Minister has maintained that the existence of supply of 57,000 cubic metres can be proved by those maps. Unless those maps are available to honourable members, we cannot be sufficiently informed to vote on the legislation.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not need to hear from other members on the point of order. The Acting-Speaker has already ruled on this matter. I have sought and been supplied with advice that the maps do not necessarily constitute part of the bill, and consequently their unavailability does not impinge upon the second reading debate. That being so, I will allow the division to proceed.

Ayes, 50

Ms Allan
Mr Amery
Ms Andrews
Mr Barr
Mr Bartlett
Ms Beamer
Mr Black
Mr Brown
Ms Burney
Miss Burton
Mr Collier
Mr Corrigan
Mr Crittenden
Ms D'Amore
Mr Debus
Mr Gaudry
Mr Gibson

Mr Greene
Ms Hay
Mr Hickey
Mr Hunter
Mr Iemma
Ms Judge
Mr Knowles
Mr Lynch
Mr McBride
Mr McLeay
Ms Meagher
Ms Megarrity
Mr Mills
Ms Moore
Mr Morris
Mr Newell
Mr Orkopoulos

Mrs Paluzzano
Mr Pearce
Mr Price
Dr Refshauge
Ms Saliba
Mr Sartor
Mr Scully
Mr Shearan
Mr Stewart
Mr Tripodi
Mr Watkins
Mr West
Mr Whan
Mr Yeadon
Tellers,
Mr Ashton
Mr Martin

Noes, 33

Mr Aplin
Mr Armstrong
Ms Berejiklian
Mr Cansdell
Mr Constance
Mr Debnam
Mr Draper
Mrs Fardell
Mr Fraser
Mrs Hancock
Mr Hartcher
Mr Hazzard

Ms Hodgkinson
Mrs Hopwood
Mr Kerr
Mr Oakeshott
Mr O'Farrell
Mr Page
Mr Piccoli
Mr Pringle
Mr Richardson
Mr Roberts
Ms Seaton
Mrs Skinner

Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Souris
Mr Stoner
Mr Tink
Mr Torbay
Mr J. H. Turner
Mr R. W. Turner

Tellers,
Mr George
Mr Maguire

Pairs

Ms Gadiel	Mr Humpherson
Mrs Perry	Mr Merton

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Andrew Fraser: Point of order: I note on page 4 of the bill there is a map—

Mr Milton Orkopoulos: Are you canvassing the Speaker's ruling?

Mr Andrew Fraser: No, I am not. This is a separate point of order. The map is headed "Brigalow and Nandewar Community Conservation Area". The map is inaccurate. It shows that Pilliga is where Gwabegar should be and Gwabegar is where Pilliga should be. We are passing legislation that has a map in it that is geographically wrong. This Chamber cannot pass the bill when a map included in it and forming part of it shows towns in their wrong spots. How can the bill be passed?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Coffs Harbour will resume his seat. The Chair has ruled on that matter.

Third Reading

Mr BOB DEBUS (Blue Mountains—Attorney General, and Minister for the Environment) [12.31 p.m.]: I move:

The House divided.

Ayes, 50

Ms Allan
Mr Amery
Ms Andrews
Mr Barr
Mr Bartlett
Ms Beamer
Mr Black
Mr Brown
Ms Burney
Miss Burton
Mr Collier
Mr Corrigan
Mr Crittenden
Ms D'Amore
Mr Debus
Mr Gaudry
Mr Gibson

Mr Greene
Ms Hay
Mr Hickey
Mr Hunter
Mr Iemma
Ms Judge
Ms Keneally
Mr Knowles
Mr Lynch
Mr McBride
Mr McLeay
Ms Meagher
Ms Megarrity
Mr Mills
Ms Moore
Mr Morris
Mr Newell

Mr Orkopoulos
Mrs Paluzzano
Mr Pearce
Mr Price
Dr Refshauge
Ms Saliba
Mr Sartor
Mr Scully
Mr Shearan
Mr Stewart
Mr Tripodi
Mr West
Mr Whan
Mr Yeadon
Tellers,
Mr Ashton
Mr Martin

Noes, 32

Mr Aplin
Mr Armstrong
Ms Berejiklian
Mr Cansdell
Mr Constance
Mr Debnam
Mr Draper
Mrs Fardell
Mr Fraser
Mrs Hancock
Mr Hartcher

Mr Hazzard
Ms Hodgkinson
Mrs Hopwood
Mr Kerr
Mr Oakeshott
Mr O'Farrell
Mr Page
Mr Piccoli
Mr Pringle
Mr Richardson
Mr Roberts

Ms Seaton
Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Souris
Mr Stoner
Mr Tink
Mr Torbay
Mr J. H. Turner
Mr R. W. Turner
Tellers,
Mr George
Mr Maguire

Pairs

Ms Gadiel	Mr Humpherson
Mrs Perry	Mr Merton

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Routine of Business: Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders

Mr CARL SCULLY (Smithfield—Minister for Police) [12.39 p.m.]: I move:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to:

(1) provide that the routine of business be varied to not call on motions for urgent consideration, matters of public importance and private members' statements; and

(2) permit the introduction and passage through all stages of the following bills at this sitting:

Drug Misuse and Trafficking Amendment Bill
Gaming Machines Amendment Bill
Legal Profession Amendment Bill
Local Government Amendment Bill
National Parks and Wildlife (Further Adjustment of Areas) Bill.

As everyone knows, we are a very busy Government and we have a legislative program to get through.

Mr ANDREW TINK (Epping) [12.40 p.m.]: This is an incompetent and dishonest Government, and it is going into hiding in the lower House. The Government does not want to spend one second longer than is absolutely necessary on debating matters that the constituents of the Opposition and the Government demand should be debated properly, fully and accountably. The motion moved by the Leader of the House means that the Gaming Machines Amendment Bill, which deals with the allocation and transfer of poker machine entitlements, the regulation of gaming machines in hotels and the Casino Community Benefit Fund, will be rammed through this House. Someone does not want those issues ventilated in this Chamber. Someone does not want the Opposition to say what the Australian Hotels Association and the clubs think should happen with this legislation. The Government just wants to get this legislation through as fast as it can.

The Local Government Amendment Bill, which the Government wants to ram through, deals with a reduction in the required number of councillors. This Government is going to tamper with the number of councillors on local councils. Are Government members too scared to have a say and stand up for their local government areas? Are they too scared to stand up for councils in Rockdale, the Hunter, the lakes area, Waverley, Randwick, the Blue Mountains and Drummoyne? Not one Government member is prepared to stand up for their local councillors. They are all prepared to sit here like a bunch of dummies and let the Leader of the House move a motion to ram the legislation through this House.
The Government also wants to begin to revoke national parks without providing members of this House with an opportunity to consider what the legislation is about. Truly this is a disgraceful and incompetent performance on the part of the Government. By his actions, the Leader of the House will forgo the right to wear Barrie Unsworth's revered cardigan. He does not even deserve that accolade. I do not know what depths the Leader of the House is sinking to. I do not know a more incompetent Labor Party leader than Barrie Unsworth, but if Labor elects the Leader of the House as its leader, he may well take the cardigan. Why is the Government doing this? There are two great events coming: first, in 10 days time Parliament will resume. I believe this motion is intended to ensure that this House does not resume in 10 days time.

Precious little Johnny Watkins, the Minister for Transport, is having a hard time explaining why the pylons are crumbling at Circular Quay. Twenty-four hours ago he put his hand on his heart and said, "The pylons aren't crumbling, this is all Debnam's spin." Guess what? The Independent Transport Safety and Reliability Regulator is saying that the pylons are crumbling. Does the Government want another week's questioning on that? No. Trust me: this is the save Johnny Watkins motion. In the past 24 hours Johnny Watkins has had to grudgingly concede that the CD-ROMs the Leader of the Opposition said all train drivers were using to get the answers at the same time as they were getting the questions on how to become train drivers was not a one-off occurrence, but is a systemic problem right throughout the rail industry. So Johnny Watkins does not want to have to stand up in this Chamber in 10 days time and cop a pizzling on that either.

Then there is Labor's glorious factional leader, the Treasurer, Dr Refshauge. If there was a more incompetent Treasurer of New South Wales, I am yet to meet one or read about one in any history book that has ever been written on New South Wales. I do not think he likes all the questions he is being asked in relation to the budget. We could sit tomorrow to do all this, but we are not going to do that because all the Labor members have been instructed to get out there and sell to all the mutinous delegates that the vendor tax is a great thing. They are being told by Sussex Street to get around to all their delegates and make sure that they all vote for the vendor tax. [Time expired.]

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 49

Ms Allan
Mr Amery
Ms Andrews
Mr Bartlett
Ms Beamer
Mr Black
Mr Brown
Ms Burney
Miss Burton
Mr Collier
Mr Corrigan
Mr Crittenden
Ms D'Amore
Mr Debus
Mr Gaudry
Mr Gibson
Mr Greene

Ms Hay
Mr Hickey
Mr Hunter
Mr Iemma
Ms Judge
Ms Keneally
Mr Knowles
Mr Lynch
Mr McBride
Mr McLeay
Ms Meagher
Ms Megarrity
Mr Mills
Mr Morris
Mr Newell
Mr Orkopoulos
Mrs Paluzzano

Mr Pearce
Mr Price
Dr Refshauge
Ms Saliba
Mr Sartor
Mr Scully
Mr Shearan
Mr Stewart
Mr Tripodi
Mr Watkins
Mr West
Mr Whan
Mr Yeadon

Tellers,
Mr Ashton
Mr Martin

Noes, 33

Mr Aplin
Mr Armstrong
Mr Barr
Ms Berejiklian
Mr Cansdell
Mr Constance
Mr Draper
Mrs Fardell
Mr Fraser
Mrs Hancock
Mr Hartcher
Mr Hazzard

Ms Hodgkinson
Mrs Hopwood
Mr Kerr
Ms Moore
Mr Oakeshott
Mr O'Farrell
Mr Page
Mr Piccoli
Mr Pringle
Mr Richardson
Mr Roberts
Ms Seaton

Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Souris
Mr Stoner
Mr Tink
Mr Torbay
Mr J. H. Turner
Mr R. W. Turner

Tellers,
Mr George
Mr Maguire

Pairs

Ms Gadiel	Mr Humpherson
Mrs Perry	Mr Merton

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY AMENDMENT (WORKPLACE DEATHS) BILL

Message received from the Legislative Council returning the bill with an amendment.

Consideration of amendment deferred.

[Mr Speaker left the chair at 1.54 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]

McDONALD'S FAMILY RESTAURANTS USE OF IMPORTED PRODUCTS

Ministerial Statement

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL (Keira—Minister for Regional Development, Minister for the Illawarra, and Minister for Small Business) [2.19 p.m.]: McDonald's has operated in New South Wales for 35 years.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will have an opportrunity to respond to the ministerial statement if he wishes to do so.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: Honourable members would be aware of the campaign of the honourable member for Murray-Darling to get McDonald's to use Australian orange juice rather than Brazilian concentrate. Today I appeal to McDonald's to return to its long-held policy of using Australian-grown fruit and vegetables in its products. This week it has become public that McDonald's is using cheap overseas sources. Each year McDonald's spends more than $600 million on Australian produce from more than 100 Australian suppliers, but is now cutting costs by 20 per cent by replacing Australian produce. McDonald's replacement program has been given the name Project Platypus.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst will come to order.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: McDonald's is now sourcing cheap produce from New Zealand, Canada, India and Sri Lanka. Previously McDonald's used Australian sauces and cheeses for its burgers and Australian gherkins or pickles for toppings—yes, Riverina gherkins! It is evident that there are many supporters of McDonald's products in Australia, and, I am sure, in this Chamber. I am sure also that many members of this Chamber will join me in urging McDonald's to back our Australian men and women on the land, especially in these tough times. Australian produce for Australian McDonald's! I do not want to see our Australian producers McDumped. McDonald's operate here and they should use Australian products.

Mr DONALD PAGE (Ballina—Deputy Leader of The Nationals) [2.21 p.m.]: Members on this side of the House also urge McDonald's to source Australian products, as we do with all Australian businesses. The more Australian products we can use in Australian businesses the better off regional communities will be. The Government could do a lot more for regional communities than it has done in the past. The Government is the most city-centric government in the history of New South Wales.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber.

Mr DONALD PAGE: The Government has decimated country communities, it has cut country services and it is not interested in country infrastructure. It has cut funding for the Country Towns Water Supply and Sewerage Program from $85 million a year to $35 million a year. In addition, the Government has taken away the train service from Casino to Murwillumbah and has cut the Department of Primary Industries staff by 33 per cent. Despite the drought, the Government has cut the number of financial counsellors from 1,324 to 1,068. That is a reduction of 256 counsellors at a time when Australia is experiencing the worst drought in its history. The Government has taken away research facilities, including the Rydalmere, Wagga Wagga and Armidale veterinary laboratories, the Shannon Vale field station and the Murrumbidgee College of Agriculture.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Bathurst will come to order.

Mr DONALD PAGE: The Government has sold off assets in Deniliquin, Temora, Wollongbar and Gosford. It has removed at least $250 million from regional New South Wales, and cost 1,400 jobs, through its increased clubs tax. [Time expired.]

PETITIONS

Land Tax Threshold and Vendor Duty

Petition requesting the reintroduction of an indexed land tax threshold and the removal of the vendor duty, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.

Gaming Machine Tax

Petitions opposing the decision to increase poker machine tax, received from Mrs Judy Hopwood, Mr Malcolm Kerr and Mr Andrew Tink.

Lake Macquarie Clean-up Funding

Petition requesting funding for continuation of the clean-up of Lake Macquarie, received from Mr Jeff Hunter.

Kurnell Sandmining

Petition opposing sandmining on the Kurnell Peninsula, received from Mr Barry Collier.

Anti-Discrimination (Religious Tolerance) Legislation

Petitions opposing the proposed anti-discrimination (religious tolerance) legislation, received from Mr Greg Aplin and Mr Geoff Corrigan.

Mental Health Services

Petition requesting increased funding for mental health services, received from Ms Clover Moore.

F6 Corridor Community Use

Petition noting the decision of the Minister for Roads, gazetted in February 2003, to abandon the construction of any freeway or motorway in the F6 corridor, and requesting preservation of the corridor for open space, community use and public transport, received from Mr Barry Collier.

Road Tunnel Air Filtration

Petition asking the Government to ensure that all Sydney road tunnels are fitted with air filters, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Forster-Tuncurry Cycleways

Petition requesting the building of cycleways in the Forster-Tuncurry area, received from Mr John Turner.

Pacific Highway Overpass

Petition requesting the construction of an overpass for the Pacific Highway at the Tea Gardens-Hawkes Nest intersection, received from Mr John Turner.

Newcastle Rail Services

Petitions requesting the retention of Newcastle rail services, received from Mr Bryce Gaudry, Mr Jeff Hunter, Mr John Mills, Mr Matthew Morris and Mr Milton Orkopoulos.

South Coast Rail Services

Petition opposing any reduction in rail services on the South Coast, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.

School Bus Seat Belts

Petition requesting financial incentives for bus operators to install seat belts on school buses, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.

Sydney to Newcastle Light Rail Service

Petition requesting the provision of a light rail service between Sydney and Newcastle using the existing rail corridor, received from Mr Jeff Hunter.

Pets on Public Transport

Petition requesting that pets be allowed on public transport, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Bus Service 300

Petition requesting improved bus services including expansion of the 300 series bus service to adequately serve the inner city, particularly during peak-hour travel, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Inner and Eastern Sydney Light Rail

Petition requesting the development of an integrated light rail network in inner and eastern Sydney, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Murwillumbah to Casino Rail Service

Petition requesting the retention of the CountryLink rail service from Murwillumbah to Casino, received from Mr Neville Newell.

Belmont Aeropelican Air Services

Petition requesting support for the retention of Aeropelican air services in the Belmont area, received from Mr Milton Orkopoulos.

CountryLink Rail Services

Petition opposing the abolition of CountryLink rail services and their replacement with bus services in rural and regional New South Wales, received from Mr Andrew Stoner.

Mid North Coast Airconditioned School Buses

Petition opposing the removal of airconditioned school buses from the mid North Coast, received from Mr Andrew Stoner.

Milton-Ulladulla Public School Infrastructure

Petition requesting community consultation in the planning, funding and building of appropriate public school infrastructure in the Milton-Ulladulla area and surrounding districts, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.

Shoalhaven River Water Extraction

Petition opposing the extraction of water from the Shoalhaven River to support Sydney's water supply, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.

Kempsey Water Fluoridation

Petition opposing the addition of fluoride to the Kempsey and district water supply, received from Mr Andrew Stoner.

Isolated Patients Travel and Accommodation Assistance Scheme

Petition objecting to the criteria for country cancer patients to qualify for the Isolated Patients Travel and Accommodation Assistance Scheme, received from Mr Andrew Stoner.

Shoalhaven City Council Rate Structure

Petition opposing a 27 per cent rate increase proposed by Shoalhaven City Council, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.

Water–Access Only Property Policy

Petition requesting a review of the water access only property policy, received from Mrs Judy Hopwood.

Graffiti Hotline

Petition requesting the establishment of a graffiti hotline to enable the reporting and removal of graffiti on State-owned public buildings, and a restriction on the sale of materials used by graffiti vandals, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Great Lakes Council Rate Structure

Petition opposing a 30 per cent rate increase proposed by Great Lakes Council, received from Mr John Turner.

Bomaderry Milk Processing Plant

Petition opposing the decision of Dairy Farmers to close the Bomaderry milk processing plant, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.

Public Housing Tenants Rights

Petition requesting amendments to the Residential Tenancies Amendment (Public Housing) Act to provide public tenants with the same rights as other tenants and to protect their security of tenure, received from Ms Clover Moore.

JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE UPON ROAD SAFETY

Report

Mr Paul Gibson, as Chairman, tabled report No. 7/53, entitled "Vehicle-based Measures to Better Monitor, Manage and Control Speed and Other Road Safety Matters—Report of a Visit of Inspection by a Delegation of the Staysafe Committee, 10-28 July 2004", dated June 2005.

Ordered to be printed.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

_________

TRAIN DRIVERS TRAINING

Mr JOHN BROGDEN: My question is directed to the Minister for Transport. After misleading the public on Tuesday over the train drivers examination scandal, will the Minister now concede that trainee drivers were given questions and answers to examinations freely, not offered for sale as he stated yesterday?
Mr JOHN WATKINS: For the third time this week, I advise the House that RailCorp does not provide trainee drivers with cheat sheets for formal examinations, as the Opposition alleged on Tuesday. The Opposition said that RailCorp provided the tests and the answers.

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

Mr JOHN WATKINS: I am advised that the internal audit office of RailCorp investigated allegations regarding unauthorised access to, and use of, questions and answers from an official RailCorp examination. It appears that the Opposition has been distributing a document manufactured from that stolen material. The RailCorp audit team's investigation found no evidence of any workplace misconduct.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will stop calling out.

Mr JOHN WATKINS: I am advised that RailCorp forwarded a summary of its investigation to the Independent Commission Against Corruption last month. In addition, driver trainers at RailCorp's Petersham training centre have been interviewed this week. I am advised that the interviews did not yield any evidence that examination papers, stolen or otherwise, were being circulated to trainees.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Transport has the call.

Mr JOHN WATKINS: As I advised the House yesterday, drivers undergo a comprehensive training program and are subject to ongoing monitoring and refresher courses. Nevertheless, it is appropriate for the Independent Transport Safety and Reliability Regulator [ITSRR] to oversee the investigation.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst will come to order.

Mr JOHN WATKINS: The course material involved has been withdrawn. It is being replaced by newly developed resources. Security in relation to teaching resources is being reviewed. As I said, ITSRR will oversight this entire process.

GROUND WATER SECURITY

Mr JOHN MILLS: My question is addressed to the Premier. What is the latest information on ground water security?

Mr BOB CARR: Earlier this week I reported to the Parliament on the outcomes of last week's Council of Australian Governments [COAG] meeting, and I think the House agreed it was very refreshing to see a high level of co-operation on some subjects between State governments and the Federal Government. In that spirit today I was pleased to be with the Prime Minister of Australia when he announced a joint approach on this issue of ground water, something that this Government has been prepared to do for some time. I think for 18 months we have had $55 million on the table ready to be allocated. In fact, since the last COAG that money was allocated in the budget ready to assist in structural adjustment in this region.

The background to this policy challenge is that for generations many farmers around Australia have sunk bores on their property to boost water supplies for irrigation. And over time many sources of water have become stressed with more water being withdrawn than is sustainable. This agreement is a major boost for farmers because the Commonwealth, New South Wales and farmers, who are putting in an equivalent sum of money, have signed up to a 10-year agreement as part of the State's water sharing plans that provide certainty of supply, environmental gains and better use of water on farms. Importantly, the agreement underpins our decision to allow farmers the right to trade water. This is a major reform, giving farmers an allocation after we decide on the quantity of water for environmental purposes, and saying that it is a tradable right. That means that over time, I think, pretty quickly, water will reach its most useful purpose economically and environmentally.

Mr Adrian Piccoli: Wrong!

Mr BOB CARR: If I am wrong the Prime Minister is wrong because only three hours ago the Prime Minister stood with me and endorsed this policy. If the honourable member for Murrumbidgee says I am wrong, he is saying the Prime Minister is wrong.

[Interruption]
My words are interchangeable with those still in the air from the Prime Minister at our joint press conference. It is the season for weekend party conferences, and if someone quickly visits the agenda for the conference of The Nationals two weekends from now, as one would expect, and I have carefully perused all the agenda items, there is not one on that great issue of ground water. There are some other interesting items I might return to later, if someone wants to ask me one of those notorious "and other matters" questions. But the honourable member interjected he had a big jamboree for The Nationals in his electorate recently. He unveiled the Argus, one of his local papers. This is a report of the so-called community lunch for the visiting shadow Minister for Primary Industries. There is a photograph of him looking pretty lugubrious over the remnants of what looks suspiciously like a rice pudding. The shadow Minister for Primary Industries is there, and the community members are there—a sum total of three.

The Nationals are working very hard in the country. I read another report in the country media, the Cobar Weekly no less, that Cobar faced an "invasion of National Party politicians" in the way one would report some visitation by plague locusts. The Leader of The Nationals said the visit was "so we can get up to speed on the issues which concern country communities". In Cobar, the honourable member for Murrumbidgee and the shadow Minister for Mineral Resources met with local mining representatives. The miners told them they "did not have any specific mining issues to raise". That is a great reflection on the quality of administration of this vital party agenda, I must say. That brings me to the upcoming Nationals conference on 17 and 18 June. We know what is said about dogs always returning to their kennels. The Nationals always return to this issue. Here is a resolution from the Burrinjuck electorate council regarding electorate quotas.

That The Nationals fight for the reintroduction of smaller voting population quotas in State electorates beyond Sydney Newcastle and Wollongong to increase the number of rural seats.

Instead of the gerrymander, why do The Nationals not try to win some of the rural seats it lost to the Independents? Not a different approach, but start a gerrymander once again. That is the only way The Nationals will survive in any form beyond the next two elections. Motion 24, from the branch of the Leader of The Nationals, states:

That the NSW Parliament's question time be televised by the ABC in a similar way to the Federal parliamentary broadcasts.

Here is the recommendation from the leader: "Reject". I would advise against any mean-minded partisan contempt being shown these delegates from this side of the House because some really good Australians will go to the conference. For example, I quote from a motion from the Tambar Springs branch:

1. That The Nationals in NSW call on the Federal Government to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.

So there will be some terrific and thoughtful people there—great Australians! My recommendation is: Accept. I continue:

2. That the Federal Government undertake a comprehensive study of the environmental, social and economic

impacts of so-called global dimming and global warming.

Of the 68 motions put forward for the conference, not one deals with water security for country farmers and communities.

Mr Andrew Stoner: You have made it up. It's a phoney document. That's rubbish!

Mr BOB CARR: I am asked to say where I got it from. I am not going to embarrass any of his colleagues by revealing that. There would be some on this side of the House who would point at the Leader of the Nationals' colleague the honourable member for Coffs Harbour and suggest that this is part of his campaign to undermine his leader. I would deprecate any such simple-minded interpretations of what this is about. But I do thank The Nationals member who, thoughtfully and considerately, sent this material to me. I might make future reference to it in this question time. But what a great day it is when you get agreement between a New South Wales and Commonwealth Premier and Prime Minister on seeing this money directed at a massive water project that will transform the way agriculture is delivered, and put it on a sustainable basis, to ensure that not only farmers but the local communities and towns are assisted to the maximum during this process of adjustment.

BRIGALOW BELT SOUTH BIOREGION

Mr ANDREW STONER: My question is directed to the Premier. Given that his decision to lock up a further 350,000 hectares of productive forest in the Brigalow region will have a devastating effect on many country towns in the north-west, why will the Premier not accept an invitation from the Gunnedah community to visit and learn first hand the consequences of his decision?

Mr BOB CARR: When the colleague of the Leader of The Nationals, the honourable member for Barwon, said that Bingara would be devastated as a result of our decision, the local community said through their paper: What a disgrace? How dare you talk down the future of our town! This applies equally to the Leader of The Nationals and the comments he just made. It is entitled "Bingara bites back: MP's doom remark 'misinformed'".

Mr Ian Slack-Smith: Point of order: The author of that article is a paid-up member of the ALP.

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

Mr BOB CARR: That might be of interest if the article had quoted her opinions, but it quotes the local mill owner. These are the views of the local mill owner.

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

Mr BOB CARR: She quotes the local mill owner, who condemns the honourable member for Barwon for attacking the town.

Mr Andrew Stoner: Point of order. My point of order relates to relevance. If the Premier wants to read fair media coverage of this issue, he should refer to the Land.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The Leader of The Nationals will resume his seat.

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Leader of The Nationals to order.

Mr BOB CARR: I quote from the article. Who cares what the journalist's politics are! She is quoting the local mill owner, Mr Rodney King. Mr King says of the comments made by the honourable member for Barwon:

I am extremely surprised that someone who is supposed to be—

Mr Ian Slack-Smith: Point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I trust this is a point of order and not a point of explanation. What is the point of order?

Mr Ian Slack-Smith: Mr King is the local mill owner—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat. I call him to order.

Mr BOB CARR: And the spokesperson for the local chamber of commerce is saying this, and I quote—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order. It is impossible to hear the Premier's reply. A number of members are already on calls to order, and I will not hesitate to call others to order. That caution applies also to members who may intend to use props.

Mr BOB CARR: Mr King says:

I am extremely surprised that someone who is supposed to be our representative in Parliament has such a limited knowledge of the local economy.

Mr John Brogden: Point of order: My point of order is relevance. The Premier was asked a question about attending a meeting in Gunnedah in response to an invitation from the Gunnedah community to visit their town. We want a yes or no answer, Bob.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition knows that he is not entitled to direct a Minister how to respond.

Mr BOB CARR: Under the heading "MP's doom remark 'misinformed'"—

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

Mr BOB CARR: —the local chamber of commerce says:

I am extremely surprised that someone who is supposed to be our representative in Parliament has such a limited knowledge of the Bingara economy. To suggest that the mill closure could see this town turned into a ghost town is laughable.

He says:

I personally would have expected more of him.

That is, the honourable member for Barwon. That is one part of the local reaction. Take the view of the Forest Products Association:

All in all, the announcement has the capacity to redevelop the industry and maintain jobs in the community.

This is not a quotation from the conservationists. It is from the Forest Products Association.

Mr Andrew Stoner: Point of order: The point of order is about relevance. The question is not about the decision in relation to the Pilliga. We all know that is a wrong decision.

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

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals asked the question, but he is not entitled to direct the Premier how to answer it.

Mr BOB CARR: The Forest Products Association goes on to say:

We see this announcement as bringing to an end the difficulties of access restrictions that have been imposed on the industry for the last five years.

From the Daily Liberal in Dubbo is an article headed "Forest future gets nod from stakeholders". It says:

Conservative and timber industry leaders have given cautious approval to the decision, which includes the permanent preservation of 340,000 hectares of forest and an $80 million restructuring package.

From Radio 2DU:

"The Government's announced a major package of conservation and forestry initiatives for western New South Wales at the same time guaranteeing a secure future for local farming for coal and for gas and for apiary industries."

This was a very well received decision, a balanced decision and a good decision. I thank the honourable member for his question.

Mr Andrew Fraser: Point of order: This is a point of relevance. Just as the maps in the legislation did not know where Bingara or Gwabegar were, the Premier does not know where Gunnedah is.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour will resume his seat.

FORENSIC TECHNOLOGY

Mr MATTHEW MORRIS: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Police. What is the latest information on new technology and forensics to solve crime and related matters?

Mr CARL SCULLY: The use of forensic science has been very impressive.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Gosford to order.

Mr CARL SCULLY: Each year the police identify more than 10,000 people who leave behind traces of forensic evidence. Honourable members would be aware that in 2001 we passed legislation to introduce DNA testing.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber.

Mr CARL SCULLY: During that time inmates have been tested to determine whether they are linked to past or current crimes, not just the offence for which they were imprisoned. In the first four years of DNA testing, DNA samples have been taken from 26,400 people, including more than 7,600 suspects. The rest were prison inmates. Some 7,853 were cold hits, which means that the suspect is not identified, but a lead is. There have been 3,170 warm links, which means a suspect is identified as a result of DNA analysis. We have issued forensic evidence drying cabinets to a number of police stations, which are very important to forensic evidence gathering. Because they have been used so successfully in dealing with evidence and extracting DNA material the Government has decided to allocate another $300,000 to supply a further 31 hi-tech forensic drying cabinets to a number of rural and metropolitan police stations including—I will not list all of them—Bathurst, Broken Hill, Dubbo, Tamworth, Inverell, Newcastle, Surry Hills, Parramatta, Hurstville, Bass Hill, Penrith and Westmead.

Mr Brad Hazzard: It destroys them.

Mr CARL SCULLY: I will tell the honourable member for Wakehurst how they work. The items need to be dried.

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

Mr CARL SCULLY: If items have been biologically contaminated as a result of a crime, it is necessary for forensic evidence to be recovered properly. That is why we need drying cabinets. I am happy to have forensics give the honourable member for Wakehurst a demonstration. They do great work. In fact, I could almost extend an invitation to him to come to the next police subcommittee of Caucus when the forensics experts come to demonstrate. He is a welcome guest. He may have to join the Labor Party before he comes in.

Mr Milton Orkopoulos: He is already in the Labor Party.

Mr CARL SCULLY: He is a bit of a leftie so we will welcome him over. The police have established a Forensic Armed Robbery Unit, which has done a lot of good work. In the last six months the Forensic Armed Robbery Unit has been responsible for 37 arrests. Police have now decided to establish a new Forensic Rapid Response Squad, which will enable a number of crime scene officers to assist the work done by forensic officers. One of the commitments we made during the last election was to establish a forensic centre, and we are committed to doing that. Work will commence during this term of office. We also committed to hiring an additional 147 crime scene officers. About 20 are about to be hired and another 90 will be hired over the 2005-06 financial year.

Over the next five to ten years policing will become more mobile. More work will be done in the field than is currently the case. Suspects will be identified more often in the field. One of the things we are trialling as we move forward with forensics is using chemical enhancers to identify fingerprints on objects like wallets. We are also trialling mobile fingerprint machines and laptop ComFit units, which will enable police who identify a suspect in the field to compare him with an image on the Photo Trac unit. I congratulate the police. As I have always said, and I will continue to say, it is only this side of politics that recognises the fine work done by police. Those opposite are always bagging them.

SYDNEY HARBOUR RAIL CROSSING PROPOSAL

Mr PETER DEBNAM: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Transport. Considering that he promised, but failed, to build the Chatswood to Parramatta rail link, a speed rail to the Central Coast, a speed rail to Wollongong and the North-West Rail Link, why should commuters believe his proposed Sydney Harbour rail crossing will be built?

Mr JOHN WATKINS: The Premier says there is no promise about a speed rail to Wollongong. Today's announcement by the Premier, the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning, and me is an exciting addition to Sydney's rail infrastructure and will provide public transport for generations of Sydneysiders to come. The project is valued at somewhere between $5 and $8 billion.

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

Mr JOHN WATKINS: It is a major upgrade of our rail network in Sydney. It is something to be celebrated. It is something to thank the Government for. We have had the foresight to bring this project forward. What was announced today is the North-West Rail Link out to Rouse Hill joining up to Epping station and then through to the Epping to Chatswood rail link, which is currently under construction. It will then follow the rail corridor down to St Leonards and from St Leonards to new stations at North Sydney, Crows Nest and into the central business district [CBD]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I place the honourable member for Murrumbidgee on three calls to order. I warn him if he is removed from the Chamber today he will not be allowed back into the House until the next sitting day.

Mr JOHN WATKINS: The rail link will then provide a new harbour crossing and new stations in the CBD through to Central, where platforms are already constructed. It will then join the southern rail line at Eveleigh. The line then extends south, the South West Rail Link, to Leppington. I heard the shadow Minister for Transport say this morning that the Government has not delivered any rail projects. Yesterday I was underground at Chatswood as the tunnel-boring machine finished its journey from Epping to Chatswood, 14 kilometres underground.

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

Mr Peter Debnam: Point of order: My point of order is relevance. What we are talking about is Action for Transport 2010, the list of failures—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister is clearly answering the question.

Mr Peter Debnam: Who is going to believe what you are going to say this time?

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

[Interruption)

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

Mr JOHN WATKINS: The Epping to Chatswood rail link is a $2 billion project. Yesterday the first tunnel was completed between Epping and Chatswood. That $2 billion project is on target to be completed by 2008. Just a few weeks ago I stood at the new Macdonaldtown stabling yard that will restore reliability to our rail network as part of the $1 billion clearways projects.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Willoughby to order for the third time.

Mr JOHN WATKINS: Among other projects being delivered are the Bondi turnback, which will be completed by the end of this year, and $2.5 billion worth of other rail network improvements, including new railway carriages.

Mr Chris Hartcher: Point of order: What about the Central Coast rail link? The honourable member for Wyong, the Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister for the Central Coast and the honourable member for Peats all conned the people of the Central Coast. Where is the Central Coast high-speed rail link? Tell us about it, John. You promised it. Give it to us.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The next member to try a stunt similar to that will be removed from the Chamber straightaway.

Mr JOHN WATKINS: I look forward to being part of the development of this exciting new railway infrastructure project for Sydney. Let me examine the record of the Coalition the last time it was in a position to deliver infrastructure to New South Wales. Let me cite just two examples: the Port Macquarie Base Hospital cost this State $135 million. We had to spend another $80 million to buy it back to provide a hospital service to the people in the northern part of this State. The money went down the drain when the Coalition was responsible for infrastructure in this State.

Mr Michael Richardson: Point of order: Not only did this Government promise the North Coast rail link four times and never deliver it, but it also opposed the extension of the M2 to Tweed Heads.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Not having heard from the honourable member for The Hills this week, I am loath to direct that he be removed from the Chamber the first time I give him the call. I place him on three calls to order.

Mr JOHN WATKINS: The best illustration of why the Coalition should never again be trusted with the infrastructure planning for this State is the southern railway to the airport. It was signed up to be a service that would be provided at no cost to the taxpayers of New South Wales, and members of the Coalition would remember that. It was supposed to be provided at no cost to the taxpayers of New South Wales, but the current cost to the taxpayers of this State is $700 million. That is what the Coalition did when it had its hands on infrastructure planning in this State. It is a shameful record whereas, in contrast to that, the Carr Government is building rail infrastructure. I am proud to be part of that.

HUNTER AND NEW ENGLAND HEALTH SERVICES

Mr JOHN BARTLETT: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Health. What is the latest information on health service improvements in the Hunter and New England areas?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I thank the honourable member for Port Stephens for his very important question. In July last year the Government announced a major restructuring of this State's health administration which included the amalgamation of 17 area health services into eight area health services across the State. That was designed to release dollars that had been tied up in administration and redirect them straight into front-line health services. I am pleased to provide the House with updated information on the restructuring of this State's area health services and on progress that has been made in releasing funds that had previously been tied up in administration and redirecting them to the delivery of front-line health services.

For many years the north-western area of New South Wales and the New England area in particular, have struggled to attract a medical work force to deliver rural health services. The New England area experienced difficulty in attracting staff in the specialised areas of psychiatry and mental health nursing. The previous New England Area Health Service had been attempting to recruit staff to a number of specialist positions in mental health for more than 12 months, but without success. I inform the House that as a direct result of the restructuring, reducing the size of health services administration and redirection of funds straight into the delivery of front-line health services, the Hunter New England Health Service recently recruited two psychiatrists to the mental health network who will be based in Tamworth. As a result of the restructuring and a reduction in the size of the administration and subsequent release of funds, two specialists have been recruited and appointed to positions that previously could not be filled. Two positions that could not be filled in psychiatry were recently the subject of appointments based in Tamworth.

In addition, offers have been made to two preferred candidates to fill the positions of staff specialist and career medical officer in mental health. The appointments are expected to be finalised within the next six weeks. The restructuring has resulted in two specialist positions being made available at Tamworth and offers have been made in relation to the positions of specialist and career medical officer in the Hunter. The expectation is that those positions will be finalised within the next six weeks. Extra specialists are being recruited to provide additional services in the areas of psychiatry and mental health for the residents of New England and the Hunter. The restructuring has resulted in the establishment of a broad networked service that has been designed to complement existing mental health services. This features the benefits of offering potential applicants more appealing employment opportunities.

The positions will be linked both to research and teaching at the John Hunter Hospital and to benefits of rotation through regional hospitals so that clinicians will have broad-based employment experience. They will have access not only to a major teaching hospital in the Hunter region but also to a major rural base hospital in Tamworth as well as district hospitals. The positions also provide access to support from specialist staff who are attached to the John Hunter Hospital and other parts of the area health service. The development of clinical networks between hospitals will result in additional support being provided to doctors, nurses and other health care professionals as they go about their very important job of delivering professional top-quality care to residents in areas outside Sydney.

Mr Thomas George: Hear! Hear!

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Lismore is also a major beneficiary, but I will leave that matter for another day. In addition to the appointments I have already mentioned, there have been appointments in mental health nursing for the New England region. I am pleased to provide information on that to the honourable member for Port Stephens.

[Interruption]

The honourable member for Willoughby says that it is not enough. She might like to consider travelling to Tamworth to ask the staff at Banksia House and the clients they serve whether they welcome the appointment of psychiatrists and additional specialists in the provision of mental health services. I am sure they will not say no. In addition to the appointment of a psychiatric specialist, additional nursing appointments have been made. A senior nurse has been appointed in Tamworth to provide clinical leadership in mental health services for New England. Another nurse has been appointed to oversee service development and implementation in mental health nursing for the New England region. These are very clear examples of important changes that have assisted the development of health services, particularly mental health services, for residents of the New England region.

I am pleased to inform the honourable member for Port Stephens of the allocation of an additional $2.6 million—money that had previously been tied up in administration costs but has since been released—to facilitate expansion in the delivery of surgical services for residents of the Hunter. Over the next three years $2.6 million will be invested to establish a plastic and reconstructive surgery service at the John Hunter Hospital and for the Mater hospital in Newcastle. This vital service will provide additional specialist surgical services to patients who require head and neck reconstructive surgery, trauma services, burns surgery, and skin cancer services for children and adult patients. This is yet another example of how enhancement of front-line health services has been made possible by a reduction in administration costs and streamlining of administration so that significant funds can be directed straight to the provision of front-line health services. There are more surgery services, more reconstructive surgery, additional psychiatric services, a boost to mental health services, a boost to psychiatric services and a boost to surgical services for residents of the Hunter and the New England areas.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Gosford will resume his seat. I call the honourable member for Willoughby to order.

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Gosford will resume his seat.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: These are important new plans to boost the quality of health services in the area of mental health for residents of New England and in the area of surgery for residents of the Hunter.

AUSTRALIAN TOPMAKING SERVICES LTD CLOSURE

Mrs DAWN FARDELL: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Regional Development, and Minister for Small Business. Is the Minister aware that Australian Topmaking Services Ltd, known as Austop and based in Parkes, yesterday announced that it will close on 29 July 2005, resulting in the loss of 108 jobs?

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: I advise the Houses that I am aware that Australian Topmaking Services Ltd, a fully-owned subsidiary of Elders, has announced that it intends to cease woolcombing and topmaking operations in Parkes, which will see the loss of 102 full-time jobs and six part-time jobs.

Mr Andrew Stoner: How many?

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: I can do the mathematics: 102 plus 6 equals 108, last time I checked. If members of The Nationals took a real interest in these matters, as does the honourable member for Dubbo, they would realise that 102 full-time and 6 part-time jobs equals 108 jobs.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is almost impossible to hear the Minister. A number of members are on various calls to order. I now deem them all to be on three calls. I will not allow the remainder of question time to become a shouting match.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: The bottom line is that 102 full-time and 6 part-time jobs, or 108 families, will be impacted by the closure. I have asked that the company make sure that all the employee entitlements are in place. I understand that the company has made that commitment. The Department of State and Regional Development will work with the company and Parkes Shire Council, as always, to look for opportunities to attract investment. I am confident that the Mayor of Parkes, Robert Wilson, will not talk down Parkes as members opposite are trying to. He will try to talk it up and will look for opportunities to work with individuals, government and other interests to look for opportunities for those people to get work.

Fortunately, there is a relatively strong labour market in the Parkes area and there are opportunities to get other employment for those displaced workers. Parkes Shire Council will see what work is available, and I am sure that in her representation of the area, the honourable member for Dubbo will want to be involved in looking for solutions, new job opportunities, in a most positive and constructive way, as she has already displayed in her role as the member for Dubbo, which is in contrast to the baying and berating from members of The Nationals.

RAIL HERITAGE CELEBRATIONS

Mr GERARD MARTIN: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Transport. What is the latest information on rail heritage celebrations in New South Wales?

Mr JOHN WATKINS: The year 2005 marks the 150th anniversary of rail in New South Wales. The first rail journey in New South Wales took place on 26 September 1855 between what was then known as Sydney Central—the current Redfern station—to just outside where Granville station is now located.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order.

Mr JOHN WATKINS: From that first journey, our rail system has grown from a modest 22-kilometre line to one of the world's most complex networks, covering thousands of kilometres across the State.

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

Mr JOHN WATKINS: That rail system is now a critical part of the State's infrastructure. In this anniversary year it is important to acknowledge and celebrate the 150 years of rail in New South Wales. I am pleased to report that a number of successful events have been held and others will be held later this year. I know that the honourable member for Bathurst is a keen supporter of the Zig Zag Railway, which many of us know about. That line is playing an important role in the anniversary celebrations. The Zig Zag Railway, which runs between Clarence station at the higher point and Bottom Points station, will hold monthly events culminating in the annual Steam Up 2005, giving the public the opportunity to view some of the best examples of the State's moving heritage.

The three-day Steamfest event was held in April in the Hunter Valley and provided a focus for the anniversary celebration. I was honoured to attend that event and I thank the honourable member for Maitland, John Price, and Maitland City Council and the local community are holding that celebration. However, the highlight for the 150th year commemoration will be the historic event at Central station on the weekend of 24 and 25 September. Heritage operators will run heritage shuttle journeys, giving the public the opportunity to ride those trains. In order to mark the anniversary of the first official rail journey, a re-enactment is planned for Monday 26 September.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Lane Cove to order for the second time.

Mr JOHN WATKINS: In recognition of the important contribution of regional communities to the history of rail, a key event for the year will be held in Werris Creek with the opening of the Australian Railway Monument. Werris Creek, in the electorate of Tamworth, is classified as Australia's first railway town. During and after the Second World War more than 750 people worked at the station; the entire town was built around the railways. I am pleased to inform the House that last week RailCorp awarded the contract for $1.2 million for the construction of the Australian Railway Monument at Werris Creek to Bricon Pty Ltd of Armidale. The monument is in recognition of those railway employees and contractors who have passed away as a direct result of their railway work. It is fitting that the Australian Railway Monument, which is due for completion in October, will be opened in such a significant year.

The Powerhouse Museum in Sydney is the custodian of some of the oldest and most valuable railway heritage in the State. As part of the 150th anniversary celebrations, RailCorp is sponsoring the restoration of Locomotive No. 1, which is on permanent display at the Powerhouse Museum. It is the State's oldest locomotive, shipped to New South Wales from England in 1854. It is a priceless artefact of our railway past. That 150th anniversary of rail will be the focus of an exhibition at the Powerhouse Museum from 1 July until the end of September. I encourage all people in New South Wales to take part in the celebrations. There is a dedicated web site, www.railcorp.info/150 years, which I encourage honourable members to visit.

TREASURER'S ADVANCE

Ms PETA SEATON: My question without notice is addressed to the Treasurer. Given that the Treasurer stated last week that "there is also the Treasurer's Advance to enable us to cope with things that are excessive", will the Treasurer advise the House how much of the 2005-06 Treasurer's Advance will be used to meet the cost of public servant pay rises?

Dr ANDREW REFSHAUGE: The public sector wage rises for all those covered by the Public Service Association and the Health Services Union of Australia have been fully covered, as I said when I delivered the budget. The police have been fully covered. The only ones not predicted were the nurses, because they had not been determined by the time the budget was put to bed. Of course, there were later developments involving the teachers, which are not due for further negotiations until the end of this year.

Ms PETA SEATON: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Treasurer now admit that he misled the House and that his bungled wage forecasts and higher State taxes are responsible for today's employment figures showing New South Wales lost 31,000 full-time jobs last month?

Dr ANDREW REFSHAUGE: It is lovely to see those unemployment figures. New South Wales is now better than Queensland and Victoria. The latest unemployment figures show that the rate of unemployment is Queensland has gone up in the last three months from 4.3 per cent to 5.3 per cent. The figure in New South Wales is still around 5.2 per cent and the figure in Victoria is 5.4 per cent. Therefore, New South Wales is better than Queensland and Victoria. I am pleased to inform the House that during the past 12 months the number of jobs in the construction industry in New South Wales has increased by 20,000.

Questions without notice concluded.

COMMITTEE ON PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE AND ETHICS

Reference

Motion, by leave, by Mr Carl Scully agreed to:

(1) That the Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics inquire into and report on appropriate protocols to be adopted for the execution of search warrants on members' offices by law enforcement agencies and investigative bodies, and in particular the procedures to be followed:

(1) In obtaining a search warrant;

(2) Prior to executing a search warrant;

(3) In executing a search warrant;

(4) If privilege or immunity is claimed;

(5) For the resolution of disputed claims of privilege;

(6) And related matters.

(2) That the committee have leave and power to confer with the Legislative Council Privileges Committee for the purposes of this inquiry, and in relation to each committee's inquiries into section 13b of the Constitution, and matters relating to the registration of pecuniary interests.

(3) That a message be sent informing the Legislative Council of this resolution and requesting that leave be given to the Privileges Committee to confer with the Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics.

GAMING MACHINES AMENDMENT BILL

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr GRANT McBRIDE (The Entrance—Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister for the Central Coast) [3.33 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Gaming Machines Amendment Bill contains a range of miscellaneous amendments to the Gaming Machines Act and the Casino Control Act. These amendments have been identified as necessary to the proper functioning of the Act as experience is gained in the administrative and operational side of administering the legislation. While many of the amendments are minor they are worthwhile and achieve a greater clarity for the operation of the Act as a whole. This bill seeks to validate decisions made by the Liquor Administration Board with respect to initial allocation of poker machine entitlements.

When the Gaming Machine Act commenced in 2002, and as a result on the cap of the number of gaming machines in New South Wales, the board undertook the task of allocating a poker machine entitlement for each gaming machine authorised to be kept in venues across the State. In doing this the board made certain assumptions, based on Crown law advice, as to how to administer this task. Under these assumptions venues that were not trading at the respective gaming machine freeze date—for example, venues with seasonal patronage such as those located at the snowfields—but had authorisations to operate gaming machines were issued with entitlements for each authorisation. Subsequent litigation determined that some assumptions made by the board did not fully reflect the legislation as written.

This would mean that over 250 poker machine entitlements in more than 48 venues would need to be withdrawn. Some of these entitlements had been on-sold to other venues. It is the view of the Government that the position taken by the board is a more practicable one in the circumstances. As a result, it is necessary to validate decisions made by the board to provide certainty to a number of venues across the State as to the correct number of entitlements held. Further, the bill seeks to provide guidance to the board to resolve a small number of outstanding allocation issues that have arisen over time. A scheme will be introduced to allow the board to grant a special allocation of entitlements for a small number of venues that have not, for a number of reasons, been allocated entitlements under section 15 of the Act.

A regulation-making power has been inserted into the Act to provide the framework for the allocation scheme. A consultation draft regulation including this framework has been prepared and it is available to assist honourable members in understanding the proposal. The framework for the special allocation process allows only certain venues to apply for a special allocation—that is, only those venues that were in dispute with the board as to the board's assessment of the venue's initial allocation entitlement will be permitted to apply for a special allocation. Further, in circumstances where the venue was disadvantaged by the timing of the relevant gaming machine freeze either because they were closed for renovations or in the process of moving premises, the venue must satisfy the board that there has been continuity of business and any excessive delay in reopening the premises for business is justified in the circumstances.

Finally, for venues that were not closed for renovations or in the process of moving premises, the board must apply the same rules to determine the allocation as were applied to all other venues in the State prior to the litigation mentioned earlier. A number of amendments relate to the Government-commissioned review of gambling in New South Wales conducted by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal [IPART]. The IPART report identified the need to establish a strong evidence base from which to form responsible gambling policy decisions. To this end the bill seeks to allow for variations to specific provisions of the Act for research or trial purposes. Naturally it is expected that consultation would occur with necessary venues, industry and community sectors ahead of any such trial. IPART raised concerns with regard to the board being involved in policy decisions with respect to technical standards of gaming machines.

The Government has considered these concerns and this bill proposes that these functions be undertaken by the department as a more appropriate body to make policy decisions. The report also considered that the casino community levy should be used for purposes related to responsible gambling and, as such, the bill renames the Casino Community Benefit Fund as the Responsible Gambling Fund. The IPART report also highlighted the need to be transparent in regard to the regulation of gaming. Thus it is also proposed to amend the Act to provide an additional power to set aside current secrecy provisions if it is in the public interest to do so. This provision is in addition to other mechanisms that permit the disclosure of gaming machine information such as a freedom of information application.

The bill seeks to improve communication with the public about gaming-related matters and ensures that more information is publicly available. Other jurisdictions—that is, other States and Territories—publish greater information for their communities than New South Wales. I want to see us provide more information to the public in recognition of the community's view on gambling-related matters. This is done in a number of ways in other States and Territories. One such jurisdiction is the Australian Capital Territory. At any time residents can look up online and see information about gambling. The bill also inserts the offence for a venue if it fails to enter into arrangements with a problem gambling counselling service or a self-exclusion program for the benefit of patrons.

Venues have been required to have an arrangement for a self-exclusion scheme since April 2000, and they have been required to enter into arrangements for counselling services since October 2002. Venues have been given ample time to arrange to have these services in place, and it is now appropriate to penalise those venues that have failed to make appropriate arrangements. The bill also seeks to increase the efficiency of the department's compliance program by introducing a power to allow remote inspections. This will allow a special inspector to request documents by way of a notice through the post. This will provide efficiencies to the department, in particular for inspections of non-metropolitan venues.

The bill also seeks to introduce several offence provisions aimed at ensuring the integrity of gaming in this State. It will now be an offence for licensed dealers, sellers, advisers and technicians to supply or fit unapproved software components into gaming machines. This amendment seeks to ensure that any modification to a gaming machine is approved by the board, and that the gaming machine operates in accordance with that approval. Further, if the board has issued a notice to update gaming machine software, it will be an offence for dealers, sellers and advisers to release software that has not been updated in line with the board's direction. Offences have been included for a hotelier or the secretary of a registered club who fails to ensure that a security seal has been attached to a gaming machine. Further amendments seek to ensure that all gaming machines are connected to the centralised monitoring system [CMS]. These offence provisions seek to ensure the integrity of the gaming industry.

Since the introduction of the centralised monitoring of gaming machines, the vast majority of clubs and hotels have taken steps to ensure that all gaming machines report to the CMS. However, a small number refuse to provide assistance to the CMS licensee to ensure that their gaming machines remain connected. The provisions of the bill will require hotels or clubs to respond to reasonable requests by the CMS licensee within a period of two working days. Responding to such requests may include alerting the CMS licensee that the fault is not attributable to any action on the part of the club or hotel. Should they not do so, the CMS licensee would then escalate the matter to the department for compliance action in accordance with agreed procedures. I have asked the department to consult with the major industry associations about those procedures and to ensure that all involved understand their responsibilities.

The bill introduces similar responsibilities for licensed technicians who undertake work on gaming machines. After working on a gaming machine, licensed technicians must ensure that it remains connected to the CMS. A defence is provided in circumstances where it is not practical for the gaming machine to continue to be connected to the CMS, provided the relevant hotel or club is advised. I have again asked the department to consult with all relevant stakeholders. It is proposed to amend the Act to make it clear that the board may suspend or cancel the authorisation of a hotel or club to keep gaming machines if the hotel or club fails to pay its monitoring fee or gaming machines tax. This is a power that the board previously exercised, with some effect, when the gaming machine provisions were in the Liquor Act and the Registered Clubs Act and when the board was responsible for revenue collection. This amendment seeks to clarify that the board retains this power under the Gaming Machines Act.

The bill also clarifies that the board may include in its costs of investigation and approval of gaming machines any fee associated with the testing or evaluation of the machine's compatibility and compliance with the centralised monitoring system. While the testing and evaluation arrangements are yet to be fully determined, the ability of the board to charge fees in this regard should not be seen as the establishment of a new profit centre, but rather the recompense of costs associated with any development or maintenance of any test tool utilised and the processing of relevant applications. Finally, a number of minor miscellaneous amendments are proposed in the bill that deal with drafting errors, minor wording changes or similar clarification. I will not go into the detail of all of these amendments other than to note that they are important to the effective operation of the Act.
I note that it is the practice for all bills to be scrutinised by the Legislation Review Committee. The committee's obligations are set out in the Legislation Review Act 1987, and I believe this bill does not contain any provisions that fall within the areas of interest to the committee. The bill does not contain any provisions that trespass on personal rights or liberties. It includes some provisions that may be seen to increase the compliance burden placed on venues, but it is considered that those provisions seek to protect the integrity of the gaming industry. There is only one regulation-making power in the bill. It is narrow and specific, and as such it is not considered that it would inappropriately delegate legislative powers or insufficiently subject the exercise of legislative power to parliamentary scrutiny. A draft copy of the proposed regulation is available for consideration in connection with this bill. The bill does not contain any provisions that make rights, liberties or obligations unduly dependent upon insufficiently defined administrative powers or non-reviewable decisions. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr GEORGE SOURIS (Upper Hunter) [3.45 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition in debate on the Gaming Machines Amendment Bill. I observe at the outset that the Government is in panic. The Opposition was informed, suddenly and summarily, at 11.50 a.m. today that standing orders would be suspended to allow a number of bills to pass through all stages today and that the Labor Party would use its numbers in the House to ensure their passage. The Gaming Machines Amendment Bill is one of those bills. I find that quite extraordinary, as this is complicated legislation. Honourable members may have noticed that during most of the second reading speech of the Minister for Gaming and Racing I was engaged in discussions with departmental and ministerial staff about aspects of the bill and the amendment that I foreshadow I will move in Committee.

It is unfortunate that the Government has chosen to do business in this way. Privilege is an important part of our democracy. Shadow Ministers are often afforded the privilege of receiving a departmental briefing about a complicated bill. Such a privilege was extended to me in this case. However, the unexpected suspension of standing orders to allow the passage of the bill through all stages today occurred but a few hours ago. While I shall make several comments in my speech, I point out that I have not discussed the bill with departmental officers. I have not read the Minister's second reading speech carefully, analysed the bill—a copy of which I have only just received—or had the usual opportunity to consult extensively with the industry and stakeholders. I make my remarks in that context and the Opposition reserves the right to offer further comment in another place and, if necessary, to move further amendments. The Opposition might even oppose the bill, although I indicate that we shall not do so in this place at this time.

The bill is one of many pieces of legislation that affects the liquor industry, particularly hotels and clubs, in New South Wales. Scarcely a month goes by without an inquiry; a report, such as that of the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal; a summit, such as the Drug Summit; or the introduction of one, two or three bills in this area. Legislation affecting clubs and hotels was introduced in the House only on Tuesday, the Gaming Machines Amendment Bill has been introduced today and I understand that there is yet another bill to come.

Currently, there are three pieces of legislation, a draft exposure bill for comment and legislation purportedly resulting from the Alcohol Summit in relation to which the industry has been involved in discussions. I have had the opportunity to discuss a number of relevant issues with industry stakeholders. I learned unexpectedly—I believe it was on the day of Clubs NSW annual awards—that the Minister indicated to the most recent meeting of the Liquor Industry Consultative Council that the Government would withdraw this bill, and instead would embark upon a complete rewrite of the Liquor Act, which is of enormous proportions. I wonder whether this legislation ought not have been held over for proper consultation throughout the industry.

The circulation of an exposure draft bill would at least have been required and the Government could have then undertaken a more orderly rewrite of the Liquor Act. I sincerely hope that when that legislation finally materialises it does not do so in the extraordinary way in which the bill we are debating materialised this afternoon. I hope that legislation of such complexity and importance would be circulated at a draft will and the necessary time would be allowed for industry consultation. Expectation is rife throughout the industry that the rewritten Liquor Act will abolish the Liquor Administration Board. From our perspective that would be a grim eventuality and I flag that the Opposition would not support such a development.

I suggest to the Government that there will be a substantial parliamentary fight if that is one of the fundamental reasons for rewriting the Liquor Act. I invite the Minister to indicate in reply, although not specifically related to this bill, the legislative environment that lies ahead for clubs, hotels and the liquor industry. What does the Government have in mind for the next couple of years? What other legislation, investigations and reviews are proposed? That is a reasonable request, given the history of the past few years, and our immediate knowledge about the withdrawal of one bill and the intended rewriting of the main legislation associated with the liquor industry.

The bill does a number of things, one of which is to validate poker machine allocations by the Liquor Administration Board and to proof the Liquor Administration Board against appeal in the Supreme Court. The bill creates certainty for the Liquor Administration Board to proceed with the allocation of poker machine entitlements to some 37 venues that are presently stalled. The Opposition supports that provision. There is not much benefit in having complicated processes involving social impact assessments and application costs being subjected to appeal beyond the administrative arrangements that the Liquor Administration Board is able to facilitate. The bill is a response to a report by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal [IPART], which was commissioned by the Government to report on a multitude of harm minimisation measures.

The principal measure was to review the extension of the three-hour to six-hour shutdown of poker machines, which had only just been implemented at that time—it was immediately after the last State election. However, the investigation quickly expanded to encompass a vast multitude of harm minimisation measures. Indeed, the bill, which is consequential upon the release of that report, does not address the issue of the three-hour and/or six-hour extended shutdown period of poker machines. In fact, one of the principal recommendations of the IPART was that it be rehired to specifically investigate the shutdown period of poker machines. IPART is having the Government on a little by seeking extended funding to conduct a further inquiry.

A number of matters in the bill are of some concern. I refer to proposed section 206AA and foreshadow that the Opposition will move an amendment at the Committee stage. I will expand on the purpose of the amendment at that time. Generally, it will ensure that the ability of the director-general to release information is confined to the provision of industry information, statistical information, regulatory matters and those sorts of issues rather than creating a mechanism to provide for the potential vilification of a particular club or individual in the industry. The Minister said in his second reading speech that the Casino Benefit Fund will be renamed the Responsible Gambling Fund. That may well be supported, but the general method of operation of the Responsible Gambling Fund has not been addressed.

All honourable members were shocked when it was revealed through the estimates committee process in another place two years ago that an allocation of approximately $900,000 had been made from a fund, the purpose of which was to assist in the reduction of problem gambling and to address the consequences of problem gambling, to finance a Powerhouse Museum exhibition of historical and modern poker machines. That was a waste of money and, worse, it was a disguised way of a government funding the operations of one of its instrumentalities. It was also revealed that approximately $900,000 from the Casino Benefit Fund was used to fund inquiries that the department intended to undertake. Those revelations make it obvious that the Casino Benefit Fund is being used to support the budget of the Department of Gaming and Racing, rather than to address the consequences of problem gambling at ground level.

Organisations such as the Wesley Mission rely heavily on the Casino Benefit Fund for funding to conduct counselling services for problem gamblers. Diverting money from that purpose to use in the way I have mentioned is an abuse and ought to be prevented. I do not think renaming the fund will prevent that sort of activity. The other issue in relation to the Casino Benefit Fund is that this bill specifically reinforces the provision that the allocations are within the power of the Minister. That is a little worrying. It is hard for me to say this, but I am worried that the Minister might indulge himself in whiteboard-type activity in the allocation of some of those funds. If the Government were serious about this fund, it would have gone further than just renaming it.

Proposed section 62 will transfer responsibility for technical standards from the Liquor Administration Board to the Director-General of Gaming and Racing. Issues relating to technical standards apply to the operation of poker machines. The issue raised with me by Clubs NSW relates to pop-up messages. Because I have had so little time to prepare for this debate, I content myself with making the point that it would be unreasonable for standards of this nature to be imposed with very little notice and with an expectation that the industry will be able to comply with them immediately.

My purpose in raising the issue is to reinforce the obvious point that there should be a phasing-in period of some five years, after which new standards for such things as pop-up messages should apply only to new machines or machines replaced after that five-year period. Obviously, small clubs that do not have much money would find it rather difficult to comply with that sort of requirement unless it is accompanied by a phasing-in provision. It may well be necessary for the government of the day to reassess in five years time whether there has been an unintended and unfair impact on those clubs. I do not know whether the Minister addressed that matter in his second reading speech, because at the time I was in deep discussion with his officials. If he did, I would appreciate the Minister reiterating the point in reply to the debate. If he did not, I ask the Minister to include a response to my point and give an assurance that it is not the intention of the Government to impose this requirement in a summary fashion.

Proposed section 133 relates to the central monitoring system [CMS]. I had hoped the Minister would address this in his second reading speech. If he has, again I would ask the Minister to reiterate the point. The Gaming Machines Amendment Bill introduces a new section 133 of the Gaming Machines Act 2001. The new section adds two new provisions, subsections (3) and (4). For the first time, a privately owned company—UniTAB, which is based in Queensland and is the CMS licensee—will be given the authority to request a club or hotel to re-establish a failed CMS connection. This previously has been the responsibility of the Department of Gaming and Racing. If the request is not complied with within two days, the club can be subject to maximum penalty of 100 units—that is, $11,000.

The cost of maintaining and repairing the CMS directly impacts on the profit obtained by the CMS licensee from the exclusive licence granted to operate the CMS. There are inherent difficulties in apportioning responsibility for technology failures, particularly in the case of the CMS, which has had a history of problems from its inception. The legislation does not appear to provide any avenue for appealing or for questioning a request issued by the CMS licensee, nor any defence, and could potentially result in an unfair advantage being gained without the proper checks and balances being in place. We are searching for perhaps appropriate comments. However, it may well be that the bill I was handed just a moment ago proposes an adjustment of the section 133 provisions. I have not had sufficient time to research that, but that may well be so. I simply ask the Minister to include some comment about it in his reply to the debate or to advise me whether the first bill is different from the bill tabled a moment ago and the extent to which it is different.

Proposed section 77 (2A) relates to the breaking of seals on gaming machines. Those seals are more or less the intellectual property of the machine, and at various times they need to be broken by either inspectors or technicians in the performance of their duties. The Gaming Machines Amendment Bill proposes an amendment to section 77 of the Gaming Machines Act 2001. The existing section 77 generally creates an offence for anyone other than an authorised person who breaks a seal that protects a sensitive area of the gaming machine. A significant maximum penalty is provided for such an unlawful action, and that is 100 units, or $11,000. An authorised person is a special inspector or the holder of a technician's license. There is a requirement for authorised persons to replace seals that they have removed. Failure to do so can incur the maximum penalty of 100 units. Generally, club staff are not authorised persons. Subsection (2A) introduces an additional penalty on clubs of 100 units for not ensuring that a seal is replaced.

Certain people are authorised to break these seals, and this responsibility should apply to those authorised people, not the club, which would not have the ability or knowledge to do so and certainly would not supervise the technical work being undertaken at any given moment. It would be far better if the bill imposed more responsibility on the special inspectors and technicians, with the potential imposition of a penalty upon them and/or their company, rather than on a hapless club, which might without any knowledge becomes the victim of some sort of oversight or act of negligence by one or other of these technicians. I make the same remark I made a moment ago. I am not sure whether the new bill covers that point. If not, I ask the Minister to address the matter I have raised when replying to the second reading debate.

Finally, I would remark on the social impact assessment process. The bill provides for an easing of administration associated with the social impact assessment No. 1 process. That, of course, is accepted and appreciated. However, I want to make the general remark that the social impact assessment No. 2 process is very long, complicated and costly. I receive constant complaints from people in the industry who struggle to comply with the requirements and finally have an outcome. Outcomes take forever. The cost is beyond the ability of small or medium sized clubs, in particular. Some day soon the Government needs to seriously address the manner in which the more complicated social impact assessment processes are conducted. I flag again that it is the intention of the Opposition to move an amendment during the Committee stage.

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS (Lane Cove) [4.09 p.m.]: It is with some concern that I contribute to debate on the Gaming Machines Amendment Bill. I agree with the comments of the shadow Minister, who is well known in this House as a tireless worker for clubs and the pub industry. I commend him for his hard work. Although we will not oppose the bill in this place, we reserve the right to oppose it in the other place and to move amendments during the Committee stage. The objects of the bill are:
(a) to amend the Gaming Machines Act 2001 to provide the allocation of poker machine entitlements to certain hotels and registered clubs that have not been allocated entitlements under the existing arrangements,

(b) to make it an offence for a hotelier or registered club not to enter into arrangements for making problem gambling counselling services available to patrons,

(c) to make it an offence for a hotelier or a registered club not to enter into arrangements for establishing self-exclusion schemes for patrons or to publicise the availability of such schemes.

(d) to make it an offence to supply or install unapproved gaming machine software and to create other offences in relation to the regulation of gaming machines,

(e) to require gaming machine technicians to ensure that hotel or club gaming machines are connected to an authorised centralised monitoring system,

(f) to make it clear that the Liquor Administration Board may cancel a hotelier's or registered club's authorisation to keep gaming machines if the hotel or club fails to pay machine tax or the CMS monitoring fee,

(g) to enable special inspectors to require hoteliers, registered clubs and holders of gaming-related licences, by notice in writing, to provide information and documents in relation to their businesses,

(h) to extend the authority to publish information in relation to gaming machines,

(i) to make other miscellaneous amendments of a minor consequential nature.

The bill also amends the Casino Control Act 1992:

(a) to make it an offence for the casino operator not to enter into arrangements for making problem gambling counselling services available to casino patrons,

(b) to require the casino operator to pay a responsible gambling levy to the Casino Control Authority, which will replace the existing casino community benefit levy, and to provide for the payment of the levy into a Responsible Gambling Fund

(c) to enable the Minister to pay money out of the Responsible Gambling Fund for any purpose that is consistent with the provisions of the trust deed set up to administer the expenditure of the money in the fund.

I am concerned about object (f), which reads:

(f) to make it clear that the Liquor Administration Board may cancel a hotelier's or registered club's authorisation to keep gaming machines if the hotel or club fails to pay gaming machine tax or the CMS monitoring fee.

As the Australian Hotels Association [AHA] and the clubs will tell you, not every publican is a multimillionaire. Many pubs and clubs are doing it hard, particularly those in country areas. If gaming machines are taken away because publicans have fallen behind in their fee payments it will be difficult for them to work their way out of that financial hole. Rather than hitting a small club or a club that is doing it tough we should provide them with some level of assistance. However, I am more concerned that clubs and pubs may have difficulty complying with proposed section 205A, "Minister may vary or suspend operation of Act for research or trial purposes". I am also concerned about proposed section 206 (5A), "Secrecy", and proposed section 206AA, "Authority to publish certain other information", which provides:

We have seen one attempt by a newspaper to publish the gaming-related profits of certain hotels. Confidential information should not be available to the public. Such information could enable a vexatious Minister or department to unfairly focus on and attack individual pubs or clubs if it were in their political interest to do so. Information published about an unusually high amount of money that a pub or club pulls in on any given night puts the hoteliers and their staff in considerable danger, perhaps from robbery with a firearm. There has been too much of that in this State. We all agree with object (c), which reads:

(c) to make it an offence for a hotelier or registered club not to enter into arrangements for establishing self-exclusion schemes for patrons or to publicise the availability of such schemes.

The AHA works well with the Government on behalf of its members. David Elliott and Charles Shields from the AHA are in the gallery today to provide assistance to the Government and the Opposition to ensure that the amendments in the bill are fair. Publicans of New South Wales are well represented by David Elliott, Charles Shiels, Brian Ross and John Thorpe, the National President of the AHA. John Thorpe works tirelessly for clubs and pubs to ensure that they are protected, and that the industry is supported and looked after within the legislative framework. It is timely that his hard work is acknowledged by our community. Pubs and clubs do not have anything to worry about in relation to object (c). Every club in my electorate is heavily involved in the responsible service of alcohol, and the promotion of gambling support programs and self-exclusion. Pubs owners, boards and staff do a remarkable job. I give the industry credit. As the honourable member for Upper Hunter always says, it is an incredibly responsible and responsive industry. The shadow Minister referred to the use of $900,000 from the Casino Benefit Fund for an exhibition on pokies at the Powerhouse Museum.

Mr George Souris: It could have gone into direct help.

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: As the honourable member for Upper Hunter says, it could have gone into direct help to assist those with gambling problems or to the Wesley Mission. I did not see the exhibition, but it is a shame that almost $1 million was wasted on an exhibition of poker machines. The shadow Minister also alluded to $900,000 being allocated to a departmental study. The difficulty I have with that proposition is that there are some ethical issues with respect to conflict of interest. It is important to keep the two projects separate, and I am sure that the Minister will do so.

I reiterate the points made by the honourable member for Upper Hunter, who expressed concern over the Opposition not having had adequate opportunity to examine the bill. I received a copy of the bill approximately five minutes before I began my speech. This bill is being pushed through the Parliament at a rapid rate. While the Opposition does not oppose the bill, an amendment will be moved in Committee. I urge the Minister to consult the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Upper Hunter, who has a great deal of the knowledge of these matters. I hope that the Opposition and the Government will be able to work together to ensure that this is good legislation which is supportive not just of clubs and pubs are but also of their patrons.

Mr GRANT McBRIDE (The Entrance—Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister for the Central Coast) [4.20 p.m.], in reply: I thank the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Upper Hunter, for his contribution to the debate. I also thank the honourable member for Lane Cove for taking an interest in my portfolio.

Mr George Souris: You do not have anything to worry about. He is taking an interest in my portfolio.

Mr GRANT McBRIDE: I see. The comments made by the shadow Minister in relation to the Liquor Act were outside the scope of the bill. I will make comments on those matters at another time. The Department of Gaming and Racing does not utilise funds from the Casino Community Benefit Fund [CCBF]. Allocation of those funds is overseen by trustees. The chairman of the trustees is Reverend Harry Herbert from the Uniting Church. The funding alluded to by the shadow Minister was endorsed publicly by Reverend Harry Herbert. The allocation of funds is overseen by Reverend Harry Herbert of the Uniting Church: I assure honourable members that the funds are appropriately accounted for and audited.

The phasing-in period of five years during which technical changes may be made to machines was a recommendation of the report by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal [IPART]. The issue is not within the scope of the legislation, but I refer to the assurance given publicly that there will be a phasing-in period of five years in relation to new technical changes that may be part of the implementation of the IPART's recommendations. The shadow Minister mentioned an offence relating to poker machine software seals. The issue has been addressed by provisions that have been incorporated in the legislation. A point was made about club staff not having the competence or technical expertise to deal with missing seals. Possession of a written assurance from an inspector or technician who placed the seal will be a defence.

The Government has agreed to a recommendation by the shadow Minister that section 133 should provide for two working days. I accept the point made by the shadow Minister because obviously it could become an issue. The Government will accept an amendment moved in those terms in Committee. I foreshadow that the Government will agree to another Opposition amendment in Committee. The measures in this bill provide for a range of legislative amendments that will be required to ensure the proper functioning of the Act. Many of the amendments are minor, but they are worthwhile and achieve greater clarity in the operation of the Act as a whole.

The bill applies to a range of matters, including the validation of decisions made by be Liquor Administration Board, a number of amendments arising out of the IPART review of gambling in New South Wales, the inclusion of some new offence provisions to ensure compliance with the Act, as well as the introduction of a remote inspection power to increase the efficiency of the Department of Gaming and Racing. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

Mr GEORGE SOURIS (Upper Hunter) [4.25 p.m.]: I move:

Page 11, schedule 1, line 12. After "to do so." add the words "The authority to publish under this section is limited to matters of a regulatory, statistical or industry wide nature."

The purported intention of the amendment is to ensure that only matters of "a regulatory, statistical or industry wide nature" are published and that there is no possibility of material being published which is designed to launch a political attack or any other attack on a hotel, a club or an individual proprietor. This bill should have that very important protection. I believe that the bill does not have that protection as it currently stands. I fear that at some time in the future the bill as it stands may be misused.

The bill introduces two new measures, section 206 (5A) and section 206AA. Section 206 (5A) gives the Minister power to publish any information that might otherwise be considered confidential under section 206 if, in his opinion, it is in the public interest to do so. That provision completely undermines the purpose of section 206 and the care that the section requires officials to observe when dealing with information that is acquired in the course of administering the Act. Existing subsection (2) gives the Liquor Administration Board a limited power to publish information to certain named persons if it is necessary in the public interest to do so. One of those persons is the Minister or a person authorised in writing by the Minister to receive such information.

However, under proposed subsection (5A), the Minister can publish that information to the world at large if in his view it is in the public interest to do so. What is or is not in the public interest will vary from case to case, but the Minister will have the discretion to determine the issue. Potentially there is a high risk of prejudice to individuals. This issue was addressed, albeit in a slightly different context, by Justice Hamilton in the Panthers inquiry when the Panthers sought orders restraining Mr Temby from making findings of corrupt or other improper conduct. If information is made public, there is a risk of causing damage to a person's reputation and prejudice in any proceedings that that person may have to face for breaches of the Gaming Machines Act or any other Act or law. As was the case with the Panthers inquiry, the Minister can get around those protections by simply tabling information in Parliament, thereby obtaining the benefit of parliamentary privilege.

No good case has been made out to show why the provisions of section 206, which are designed to protect individuals, could be subverted by the Minister simply because the Minister is of the view that certain information should be published in the public interest. In relation to section 206AA, the same comments apply as those made in respect of section 206 (5A). The wording of this section is similar to the provision that the Government tried to include in the Registered Clubs Legislation Amendment Bill in relation to the Panthers inquiry, but which was eventually withdrawn due to Opposition and crossbench opposition in the Legislative Council.

It is desirable that the director-general freely publish aggregated gaming information, but the Minister may think it desirable also in the public interest that the director-general publish other information that may be damaging to an individual or that should be in the public domain. To rely on the view of the Minister of the day to determine what is or what is not in the public interest would be too vague and would risk abuse. I am pleased to move the amendment and I am happy to say that in earlier discussion the Government agreed to accept the amendment. I take this opportunity of responding briefly to a remark by the Minister in relation to the Casino Community Benefit Fund. Proposed section 115 (8), provides that the Minister may also pay money out of the fund for any purpose that is consistent with the provisions of the trust deed, but only after consulting with the trustees. There is a new ministerial power in relation to the Casino Community Benefit Fund. Perhaps the Minister's remarks ought be tempered with the knowledge that the bill amends a new power that is awarded to the Minister.
Mr GRANT McBRIDE (The Entrance—Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister for the Central Coast) [4.31 p.m.]: In accepting the Opposition's amendment I make clear that this measure will make it possible for additional information to be provided, which is currently the practice. It will not impact on the existing avenues the department uses to provide information on gaming-related matters. The Government will also seek drafting advice on this amendment to clarify that point of clarification by the shadow Minister.

Mr GEORGE SOURIS (Upper Hunter) [4.32 p.m.]: Prior to the commencement of this debate I gave an undertaking to the Minister's advisers that I would make an additional remark. That is, that the intention of this amendment is that the authority to publish does not extend to information related to any departmental investigations, as well as the wording in the amendment.

Mr GRANT McBRIDE (The Entrance—Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister for the Central Coast) [4.32 p.m.]: I appreciate that clarification.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with an amendment and passed through remaining stages.

LEGAL PROFESSION AMENDMENT BILL

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr BOB DEBUS (Blue Mountains—Attorney General, and Minister for the Environment) [4.34 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Government enacted the Legal Profession Act 2004 in December last year. That Act represented a major milestone in the Australian legal profession, with the establishment of a national profession. The legislation, once implemented across Australia, will remove many of the barriers to increased efficiency and competition in the legal profession, and harmonise clients' rights across jurisdictions. The national legal profession scheme was developed by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General [SCAG], which continues to monitor implementation and approve amendments to the Legal Profession Model Bill. All Attorneys-General are signatory to the Legal Profession Memorandum of Understanding, which requires them to enact the approved amendments to core uniform or core non-uniform clauses of the model.

The governments of Victoria and New South Wales propose to commence their legislation this year. Victoria has announced that it will commence its Legal Profession Act no later than 1 October 2005. I had hoped to commence the legislation on 1 July 2005, but there is still some work to be done in finalising the regulations and I recognise that the profession needs sufficient notice of both these amendments and the content of the regulations in order to make the requisite changes, particularly to their costing and trust account arrangements. I will make an announcement in relation to the proposed commencement date after we have published a final version of the regulations. It will not be later than 1 October 2005, and I hope it will be considerably sooner.

The existing legislation in other jurisdictions will be recognised as corresponding laws for the purposes of the new Act until they implement the model legislation. Queensland has already largely adopted the model legislation, and Tasmania, South Australia, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory are working hard towards implementation. I anticipate that by this time next year the model will be firmly in place across Australia. There continue to be a number of issues under debate in relation to the model legislation. A national forum is deliberating in relation to these issues, and will bring forward further amendments to the model for consideration by SCAG Ministers when agreement between the regulators and the profession has been reached.

An undertaking of this scale is necessarily to be regarded as a work in progress, and I will propose future amendments to maintain uniformity with the national model and to improve and streamline the operation of this new Act as necessary. Practitioners should forward any suggestions for improvement they may have through their professional associations and the Law Council of Australia. Other members of the public should let me know of any concerns they may have with the operation of the legislation, and I shall ensure that matters are considered by the SCAG National Legal Profession Joint Working Group. This bill proposes to amend the Legal Profession Act 2004 before it commences. Many of the amendments in this bill arise from proposals approved by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General under that national profession process at its November 2004 and March 2005 meetings.

Since Parliament enacted the Legal Profession Act 2004 in December last year a number of stakeholders have proposed amendments to clarify and streamline the operation of the Act and many of these proposals have been dealt with in this amending bill. Specifically, amendments have been proposed by the New South Wales Bar Association, the New South Wales Law Society, the Legal Services Commissioner of New South Wales, the New South Wales Legal Practitioners Admission Board, and the Costs Assessors Rules Committee. I take this opportunity to acknowledge the presence in the gallery of Mr Philip Selth, Executive Director of the New South Wales Bar Association, who has been particularly assiduous in support of the model bill, and indeed of these later changes to it.

My department is presently preparing regulations for the 2004 Act. In drafting these regulations it is evident that some of the regulation-making powers previously found in the 1987 Act have not been carried over. To overcome that the bill also makes miscellaneous amendments to ensure that current procedures contained in the regulations can be continued under the 2004 Act. I shall now consider some specific amendments contained in this bill. Throughout the Act there are numerous provisions indicating that breaches of certain sections are capable of being unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct. However, section 498 (a) of the Act provides that any contravention of the Act is capable of constituting unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct. SCAG agreed to remove most of the repetitive references to unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct and rely on the general prohibition in section 498 (a).

However, provisions that clarify which conduct by which person will be considered a breach, or which set a higher standard than the general provision, are retained. In addition, some breaches which involve a practitioner ignoring or defying the requirements of the Act or the regulatory authorities are amended to bring them into line with the higher standard imposed on these sorts of breaches generally in the Act—such breaches are professional misconduct. The Admission Board has requested that section 24 be amended to provide a general power for the Admission Board to exempt a person from the requirements of approved academic qualifications or length of practical legal training, where the board is satisfied that the person has sufficient experience and/or qualifications to be waived.

This may arise where a partner in a large law firm moves from the United Kingdom to Australia and wishes to be admitted based on the length of time spent as a practitioner in the United Kingdom. Under the proposed amendment the Admission Board can place other educational or training requirements on an applicant, for instance, completing a course in Australian constitutional law. The amendments to sections 41 and 45 make clear the underlying policy position of the model scheme that a legal practitioner only holds one practising certificate in one jurisdiction in any given year. Using that one certificate the practitioner will be able to practise in any Australian jurisdiction that has adopted the model laws. Section 47 of the Act states that any application for a practising certificate made out of time cannot be further considered by a council.

A late applicant must apply for a new practising certificate. To stop practitioners deliberately applying for a new practising certificate to avoid a late fee it is proposed that a new section 92A be added. That section states that where an application for a grant of a practising certificate is made, and the applicant in the immediately previous practising certificate year held a certificate issued by the same council as the one applied to, a higher fee may apply to that application. Under the model bill concerns have been raised about how the Act deals with cash received by a solicitor law practice. SCAG has agreed to amend the model so that transit money received in the form of cash will always go through the trust account. This ensures there is a record of that money being received.

Also, if controlled moneys are received in cash with no instruction they will now be defined as trust money at the time of receipt and must be deposited into the trust account. The client can then give a subsequent written instruction to make the cash controlled money. The controlled money is withdrawn from the trust account and banked to the controlled money account. If controlled moneys are received in cash with an instruction they go straight to the controlled money account and do not go through the trust account. Essentially, this is the same policy formulation that is currently in the model bill and the Act. However, the amendments to the Act will simplify that underlying principle and remove any drafting inconsistencies.
Section 295 is about restrictions on the receipt of trust money. Part 3.1 is drafted so that a principal of a law practice with an unrestricted practising certificate is able to receive, and is responsible for, trust money entrusted to the law practice. However, subsections 295 (2) to (3) confuse this concept by implying that others may have control in some circumstances. The amendments clarify that the principal bears ultimate responsibility for the trust money. The Cost Assessors Rules Committee has written to the Attorney General's Department noting the problems that costs assessors have in collecting their costs when they are payable by a party to the assessment, and the difficulty some parties have in accessing the assessor's determination.

This bill proposes to amend the Act so that a costs assessor will give the determination to the Manager, Costs Assessment, and inform the parties that the certificate can be obtained from the manager, on payment of the costs. The manager will have a power to give exemptions. Currently under section 393 all "excessive" charging of costs—the word that is used in the Act—must be referred to the Legal Services Commissioner. The Legal Profession Act 1987 requires that all deliberate, grossly excessive charging of costs must be referred. The Bar Association, the Law Society and the Costs Assessors Rules Committee have each provided me with advice that the present section must be amended to impose a higher standard than merely "excessive" before a referral is made to the commissioner.

Their advice states that whenever a law practice's costs are reduced after a review this will give rise to a referral. Accordingly, cost assessors will only be required to refer grossly excessive bills. The Act will still provide, however, that excessive charging is capable of being unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct. The model bill developed by SCAG does not have an interjurisdictional provision for dealing with professional indemnity insurance. The national professional indemnity insurance committee is still considering this issue. A temporary interjurisdictional provision is needed to improve the ability for interstate practitioners to practice in New South Wales. Section 74 of the Queensland Legal Profession Act 2004 and section 18 of the Queensland Legal Profession Regulation 2004 provide a system where a practitioner who holds professional indemnity insurance interstate can practice in Queensland without needing also to take out insurance in Queensland, provided certain conditions are met.

This bill proposes to amend the New South Wales Act in a similar fashion. The Bar Association is concerned that the use of the term "investigator" in section 531 may be confusing for the complaint processes used by the association. The bar has suggested that an additional subclause be added allowing the appointment of an authorised person who can exercise the same powers as an investigator in chapter 6. This bill proposes to make this amendment. Currently, as drafted, section 649 is unclear about whether appealing an appointment of an external intervener stays that appointment. This bill proposes to amend that section to clarify that an appeal does not stay the appointment of an external intervener. Appointments are made as a matter of urgency to protect clients and it is critical to ensure that an appeal does not prevent the intervener from acting during the intervening period.

The report of the Review of Public Notaries Act was tabled in the Legislative Assembly on 9 December 2004. The report recommended three amendments to the Legal Profession Act: first, to give the Administrative Decisions Tribunal [ADT] and the Supreme Court a clear power to remove public notaries who are guilty of misconduct or who have not complied with the Public Notaries Appointment Rules for the roll of public notaries; second, to give the Legal Practitioners Admission Board [LPAB] the power to publish the roll of public notaries, instead of the Law Society; and, third, to give the registrar of notaries, who is an officer of the LPAB, power to remove his or her name from the roll if requested by the notary. This bill proposes to enact these recommendations. A number of provisions new to the 2004 Act permit a decision by a regulatory authority to be reviewed by the ADT.

The amendment bill inserts notes to relevant sections and section 606 has been redrafted and relocated to section 729A so as to clarify that reviews will be conducted under chapter 5 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act without a requirement for internal review, with a panel determined by the head of the Legal Services Division, and with any appeals going to the Supreme Court. Finally, I would also like to mention an amendment that I do not propose to make. The legal profession has expressed its concern to me about the requirement in the model laws and the 2004 Act that practitioners disclose to their clients in litigation matters an estimate of the range of costs the client may be ordered to pay if the matter is unsuccessful. They say that it is impossible to estimate the other side's costs at the beginning of a matter, and that this requirement should be removed.

I would like to emphasise that the 2004 Act very clearly establishes a regime for continuous disclosure to clients of information relating to costs. At the beginning of the matter a practitioner may not know that the other side is going to brief the most senior barrister in town. A practitioner can only give an estimate based on his or her experience of costs in the average kind of matter of this kind, or provide a range of estimates from the cheapest possible to the most expensive possible. But once a practitioner knows that the other side is hiring expensive counsel or, on the other hand, is representing themselves, an updated estimate needs to be provided.

Most disputes that occur between solicitor and client involve a lack of communication with the client about costs. It is a very clear goal of this legislation to improve the level of communication about costs. The amendments in this bill will ensure that the Act will operate more smoothly on commencement. I understand that the Opposition does not intend to oppose this bill. I thank the honourable member for Epping for his support. This bill has been introduced to meet the requirements of the Legislative Council. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr ANDREW TINK (Epping) [4.49 p.m.]: It is a supreme irony that the House is considering the Legal Profession Amendment Bill, which is designed to promote best practice in the legal profession through the timely observance of rules, timetables and so on, because the Government broke every rule of parliamentary practice and procedure to make that happen. The Government has not merely broken the rule that the Opposition is allowed at least a weekend to consider and consult on legislation before it is introduced in Parliament, but I am responding to the second reading speech of the Attorney General on a bill that I first saw literally 15 minutes ago.

I give the Attorney General credit at least for foreshadowing a possible problem with the legislation. Some group—the precise identity of which is not clear to me—has suggested that there is at least one problem with the bill that somebody might like to consider addressing by way of amendment. I make it clear that I have had no opportunity to consult anybody about that matter—indeed, it is the first I have heard of it. The only mitigating factor is that at least the Attorney General mentioned it in his second reading speech. I will obviously take up the matter—I would not be doing my job if I did not—and the Opposition reserves the right to amend the bill in the upper House.

I would not be in this problematic situation if the bill had been introduced at the proper time. Given that the amendments in the bill—according to its front page—are "minor, clarifying and of a machinery nature", the Government can have no excuse whatever for not making the bill available sooner and allowing me to obtain the proper and considered instructions and advice of those who may have something to say about it. It is sloppy practice on the part of the Government. I believe Ministers and the Leader of the House have dual responsibility for the ordering of government business. I criticised the Leader of the House fairly strongly for suspending standing orders to allow the passage of five major bills through all stages today. The main responsibility for that decision may lie with the Leader of the House, and the Attorney General and other Ministers may have been led to believe Parliament would have more time to consider the bills. I do not know—only the Cabinet knows who is responsible for this headlong, pell-mell rush to pass legislation. Given that the bill is said to be "minor, clarifying and of a machinery nature", I do not understand why we could not have had more time to examine it and why we should be forced to make amendments only in the upper House.

I had hoped to make more positive comments about the bill but the conduct of the business of the House this afternoon has left a very bad taste in my mouth. This is no way to run a Parliament and it is no way to introduce legislation that regulates the legal profession. We are laying down the law about how the legal profession must conduct its affairs and what rules it will obey even as the Government is breaking every rule of parliamentary practice and procedure and suspending every standing and sessional order in order to rush this bill through with indecent haste. We will obviously examine the issue that the Attorney General raised and try as best we can in the time available to consider the bill before it goes to the other place. The bill is obviously not "minor, clarifying and of a machinery nature" in the minds of some, who believe that there is more work to be done and that one aspect of the bill must be reconsidered seriously. It is a damn shame that Parliament must treat the bill like this because we have no time whatever to examine it now.

Mr BOB DEBUS (Blue Mountains—Attorney General, and Minister for the Environment) [4.54 p.m.], in reply: I acknowledge the sentiments expressed by the honourable member for Epping but point out that the upper House places this strange constraint on the lower House. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

DRUG MISUSE AND TRAFFICKING AMENDMENT BILL

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr BOB DEBUS (Blue Mountains—Attorney General, and Minister for the Environment) [4.56 p.m.]: I move:

The Drug Misuse and Trafficking Amendment Bill addresses the changing patterns of drug crime and is part of the Government's plan to respond to developments in drug crime as they emerge. In particular, the bill addresses the proliferation of chemical or so-called designer drugs and the methods used by those who distribute and manufacture them. The measures in the bill largely result from the work of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act Working Group convened by my department, which deliberated on various proposals for reform in the course of 2003 and 2004. The working group included representatives of a wide range of agencies with knowledge and expertise in drug crime, including police, pharmacological and scientific analysis, criminal prosecution and defence.

Schedule 1 amends the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. The Government continues to monitor the drug market to identify dangerous new drugs introduced by entrepreneurial criminal drug dealers. In 2002 the Government listed the substance known as GHB, or GBH, as a prohibited drug. GHB is a central nervous system depressant that is suspected of being used as a drink-spiking agent as well as a recreational drug. The use of GHB has unpredictable effects, including coma, convulsions, severe respiratory depression and death, especially when combined with other depressants such as alcohol. It is dangerous because of the very fine line between the amount required for a high and the amount that may result in unconsciousness.

Other chemicals are chemical precursors to GHB—which means that they can be used to manufacture GHB. Some of these chemicals are also metabolic precursors to GHB in that they metabolise into GHB after ingestion and are known to be used as drugs in New South Wales. These two chemicals are commonly known as GBL and 14BD, which drug dealers have taken to peddling since the prohibition of GHB. Items [25] and [26] will operate to list these two chemicals as prohibited drugs in schedule 1 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act. Similar action was taken in New Zealand in 2003. The use of 14BD, in particular, is known to be related to deaths, including that of a man in Kings Cross in 2003. These chemicals are known to have a variety of legitimate uses in industry. Items [17], [21] and [23] provide that it is not unlawful to possess, manufacture, produce and supply these substances or take part in their manufacture, production and supply for legitimate purposes in industry. This will cover all stages of the legitimate industrial process.

The trend towards the use of high purity crystal methamphetamine—or ice—is another emerging drug threat. This dangerous substance has been accompanied by the use of ice pipes. These are instruments that crystals are placed in, heated and inhaled. Ice pipes are designed for that purpose and have no other uses. It is already an offence to have possession of an ice pipe for use in the administration of a drug. Items [2] to [4] create a new offence of sale, commercial supply or display of ice pipes in a shop for a commercial purpose, which will carry a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment. The bill is part of a broader package containing practical and effective measures to choke off the diversion and supply of precursor chemicals and apparatus to those who manufacture prohibited drugs in clandestine laboratories.

In 2000 the Government created an offence of possession of a prescribed precursor with intent to use for the manufacture or production of prohibited drugs. The Government also prescribed requirements to be complied with on the cash sale of those precursors resulting in an offence being committed in cases of non-compliance. The Drug Misuse and Trafficking Regulation will soon be amended to strengthen requirements for sale and storage of precursors. Item [10] will allow the regulation to deal with storage of precursors in addition to sale. Item [24] increases the maximum penalties that offences under the regulation may carry in the case of individuals and corporations. The trend toward the manufacturing of chemical drugs in clandestine backyard drug laboratories has been a very concerning development that poses significant risk to children.

The environment of an illegal laboratory is dangerous. The chemicals used are susceptible to fire and explosion. Chemical fumes pose serious health risks, as do remnants of chemicals in powder form. In recent years there has been an increase in backyard drug laboratory explosions, which in at least one case has been fatal. For those reasons the Government will increase penalties for criminals who endanger the health or safety of children in this way by creating an aggravated offence of manufacturing or producing a prohibited drug. Item [6] contains an offence where a person manufactures or produces a prohibited drug or takes part in such manufacture or production and exposes a child to that manufacturing process or to chemicals stored for the purpose of manufacturing.

Item [8] contains a defence to be available if the health and safety of a child was not in fact endangered. Item [11] creates an offence where a person over the age of 18 years procures a child to supply or take part in supply of a prohibited drug, other than cannabis leaf. This further protects children from the trade in illicit drugs. Although the definitions of "supply" and "taking part in supply" include a wide range of activities prior to the actual supply of a drug, the ambit of criminal responsibility will be extended even further where children are involved. It will not be necessary for a child to have committed an offence of supply or taking part in supply to secure a conviction under the new procuring offence. Items [9] and [11] define "child" as a person under the age of 16 years for purposes of the offences of procuring a child for supply offences and manufacturing aggravated by exposure of a child.

Items [7] and [11] create corresponding offences with higher maximum penalties in each case where the amount of drug involved exceeds the commercial quantity. Item [16] contains the maximum penalties for these new offences which will be an increase on the existing offences in subsections (1) and (2) of section 24 and subsections (1) and (3) of section 25 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act by 20 to 25 per cent and adopts the same penalty structure as supplying a prohibited drug to a child under subsections (1A) and (2A) of section 25 of that Act. That means that the penalty for an offence not involving a commercial quantity on indictment will increase from 2,000 penalty units or 15 years imprisonment or both to 2,400 penalty units or 18 years imprisonment or both. The maximum penalties for offences involving the commercial quantity will increase from 3,500 penalty units or 20 years imprisonment to 4,200 penalty units or 25 years imprisonment or both.

The bill also amends the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act in various ways to improve the operation of drug law enforcement and prosecution in New South Wales. Items [25] and [27] operate to amend the quantities in schedule 1 to the Act for methadone prepared in oral liquid form for therapeutic use. Single doses of methadone are distributed in a diluted form to be taken by drinking. Because of the admixture provision in the Act, the dilutants added to the methadone are currently counted as part of the drug's weight. This means offences involving a single standard oral liquid dose must be dealt with on indictment in the District Court as it exceeds the indictable quantity for methadone in the Act. This must happen even though the oral liquid dose only contains 25 milligrams of methadone—far less that the 5 gram indictable quantity.

It is agreed that these matters involving a single oral liquid dose are more appropriately dealt with in the Local Court. The power of the Director of Public Prosecutions to elect to proceed on indictment in any case remains as a safeguard in relation to more serious cases. The quantities for methadone in other forms, such as tablet form, remain unchanged. Item [1] amends the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act to exempt from the offence provisions of the Act persons holding authorities issued by chief executive of NSW Health for the conduct of clinical trials. This extends the current scheme of exemptions for persons complying with an authority issued by the chief executive for scientific research, instruction, analysis or study.

Item [19] amends the Act to allow senior police of or above the rank of superintendent to order destruction of substances which are or are reasonably suspected to be prohibited drugs and plants, under the relevant trafficable quantity, where no person has been charged or is likely to be charged. This measure has been requested by NSW Police and will reduce pressure on analytical resources as analysis will not be required in those cases to prove that the substance is a drug in order to obtain a destruction order from a court. That will reduce pressure on resources for exhibit storage, analysis and courts and ensure that drugs are destroyed at the earliest opportunity. There will be a record keeping requirement as a safeguard. Item [18] will amend section 39A of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act to ensure that the minimum amount is the same for all prohibited drugs.

The minimum amount equals the trafficable quantity for all other drugs but heroin, which is one gram. Equating the minimum amount and the trafficable quantity in all cases will standardise procedures in practice for destruction of drugs under the Act. Item [20] amends section 39RA of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act by extending the ability of the Commissioner of Police to delegate the power to direct that seized drugs be retained for use in a controlled operation or integrity testing program. At present the power of delegation extends to a deputy commissioner. The Act will be amended to allow the power to be delegated to a member of NSW Police senior executive service with power to authorise a controlled operation. The senior executive service includes deputy commissioners, assistant commissioners and officers at commander and superintendent level.

Officers able to authorise controlled operations are two deputy commissioners and three other members of the senior executive service of or above the rank of superintendent nominated by the Commissioner of Police. This measure has been requested by NSW Police and will reduce the administrative burden on the commissioner and the deputies. The power of delegation will be strictly limited to a maximum of five officers only at a very high level in the police hierarchy. Item [20] amends the Act so that evidence to be given in New South Wales courts of prohibited drug or plant analysis occurring outside New South Wales can be given in the same manner as for New South Wales analysts. This will only apply to analysts prescribed in the regulation. For New South Wales analysts the Act dispenses with certain procedural requirements so that a certificate can be tendered as prima facie evidence of the matters contained therein without the analyst having to be called to give oral evidence in every case.

Items [1] and [2] of schedule 2 amend section 8 of the Young Offenders Act to formalise in that Act the contents of clause 16 of the existing Young Offenders Regulation 2004. The amendment will clarify that, for the purposes of the Act, which include cautioning of juvenile offenders, eligibility for offences involving cannabis plant and leaf is the same and as set out in section 8 (3) of the Young Offenders Act. That is, relevant offences involving cannabis plant or leaf are not covered by the Young Offenders Act if the amount exceeds half the small quantity prescribed in the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act, or in exceptional circumstances, where the amount does not exceed the small quantity and it is in the interests of the rehabilitation of the child and appropriate in all of the circumstances to deal with the matter under the Young Offenders Act. In summary, the measures contained in the bill are modest in nature but important to protect the community from dangerous trends in the drug trade particularly where children, the most vulnerable members of the community, are concerned and to ensure the efficient allocation of resources in enforcing the drug law in New South Wales. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr ANDREW TINK (Epping) [5.09 p.m.]: I place on record that this is yet another bill which the Attorney General introduced and delivered his second reading speech upon just before I rose to speak on it. It was said by the Attorney General that the Government had consulted widely with everybody—everybody, that is, except the members of Parliament who will be called upon to decide whether the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Amendment Bill should become law. Obviously, the Coalition strongly supports what is stated to be the main objects of the bill. The question is whether those stated objects are capable of being achieved by the provisions of the bill.

Already I have discovered in the bill one provision that causes me great concern. The Attorney General has not afforded me a practical opportunity to read the bill against the provisions of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 which, as honourable members know, is one of the most complex Acts on the New South Wales statute books. I have not been given the elementary procedural courtesy of a little bit of time to consider the principal Act against the provisions of the bill, and subsequently to talk to people I might normally consult in law enforcement and in the legal profession to determine whether my concerns are well founded. Consequently, I am forced to move an amendment without the benefit of the full consideration that I like to give to bills at any other time. Had I been afforded a reasonable opportunity to consider the bill, it might have eventuated—as it still might—that the amendment I intend to move is unnecessary. However, the Attorney General and Leader of the House, and by extension the Premier, have put me in the position of having to move the amendment now.

Basically, the Attorney General and the Government are saying, "Trust us. We have consulted; you do not need time to consider this bill. The fact that we have considered it is enough, and that is sufficient for the whole Parliament to sign off on this measure." A bill that has just gone through this Chamber was alleged by the Government to have been the subject of full consultation with the Bar Association and other relevant bodies. After the bill went through I spoke with the Bar Association chief executive, who was still scratching his head in relation to the problem raised in the second reading speech on that bill. That is but one example of a bill that has passed through this House with a residual problem. It is such problems that the parliamentary process is designed to pick up. That process is designed to allow me and other interested members to consult the Bar Association, or the Law Society, or whatever other body, and say, "This is what the Government is saying, this is what the bill says, and this is what we say. What do you say?" By that process of consultation we can bring together and balance opinions on bills.

Regarding the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Amendment Bill, I would like to be able to talk to former and current members of the police force who know something about drug law enforcement and say, "Here is what the Government wants to do, this is what the bill says, this is what the Government says police and other in law enforcement bodies are telling it to do. What do you think?" I would like to similarly consult those in the legal profession. I would then be able to address the House and give it my considered opinion. I have had no such opportunity. It is against that background that I turn to page 4 of the bill, schedule 1, lines 25 to 30. I will read that provision. Honourable members should listen carefully to this. The Government proposes this defence to an offence under the subsection:

… if the defendant establishes that the exposure of the child to the prohibited drug manufacturing or production process, or to substances being stored for use in that manufacturing or production process, did not endanger the health or safety of the child.

That is absolute nonsense. In other words, the Attorney General of this State is saying, on behalf of the Carr Government, if the child happens to be present while an offender is "cooking up meth" or another drug, or is manufacturing a drug, or is in the house where a marijuana plantation is being cultivated hydroponically under lights, unless that activity is actually endangering the health or safety of the child, it is not an offence that the child is present. That is absolute garbage! If the child is present where drugs are being cooked up, or where marijuana is being hydroponically grown, apart from whatever other offence people are committing, it ought to be an additional offence that a child is present. That is a very simple but solid concept.

My information basically is limited to the wording of the bill, but I cannot for the life of me understand why the Attorney General or the Government would be providing any defence whatsoever for persons caught in the circumstances that I have outlined. If the issue of criminality is that the child is present while some drug is being cooked up, grown or manufactured, how can the Attorney General justify any defence if the offence involves the child being present? Apparently the Government and the Attorney General regard it as acceptable that a person would allow a child to sit and watch how drugs are manufactured, how marijuana plants are watered, lit, warmed, fertilised and even harvested for heaven's sake, batched for sale and distribution. Maybe it is all right for a child to watch people come into the premises for the purpose of distribution. Apparently all of that is fine provided the child's health is not affected. As far as I am concerned, that is not good enough. This is pathetic legislation. I venture to add that, if Government backbench members had had the chance to question the Attorney General about this in caucus, they would be of the same opinion. Any member of this Parliament who allows the bill to pass in that form is absolutely crazy.

A clear, separate and very serious criminal offence should be created to cover the circumstance where a child is present while any drug cultivation or manufacturing activity is going on. Does the Attorney General mean to tell me that he will knowingly put through this Parliament a bill that will allow a child to be present, with the play dough and Lego out, sitting in the corner of a day care centre while the staff are earning a little bit of money on the side by cooking up speed, crushing up cough lollies, or whatever these drugs people do? Is all of that sort of activity fine? Perhaps we could have a partnership of child caring and a little bit of drug cultivation on the side! Is that fine if it all sits well together?

As far as the Coalition is concerned, this sort of provision is not on. The Opposition has an amendment ready. The Attorney General will accept the amendment or indicate why it is not acceptable. Let us fix up this bill now. We do not want this on the statute books for even a couple of hours. The Attorney General has given me no time to look at the bill. He says it is ready to go. He has an explanation for everything. Let us go into Committee right now and deal with this. In Committee, Government members ought to think very seriously about whether they are prepared to accept, adopt and vote for a bill that will make it not a criminal offence for a child to be present whilst drug cooking and manufacturing operations are going on. This defence is madness.

This bill is fundamental and powerful evidence of how tired and clapped out the Government is. What has this Government got to celebrate? The Premier likes to come into this House and boast, "We are being tough on drugs, tough on drug dealers" and is doing this and doing that. He has been saying that for 10 long years. He will go to the State Labor Conference on Saturday to celebrate 10 long years of Labor government. I can visualise him now saying, "We have been tough on law and order, we have being tough on criminals, we have being tough on drug dealers, and we have cracked down on drug manufacturers." We have heard that ad nauseam in this place. But his latest, signature legislation—rammed through this House without consideration by anybody—says that it is all right for a child to be in a drugs cooking or manufacturing house, and it is all right for a child to be on a marijuana plantation provided the child's health is not affected.

As far as the Coalition is concerned, any child is affected in a most obscene way if that child is present while that sort of drug activity is going on. The Premier has been full on all the time about his list of aggravating circumstances and mitigating circumstances relevant to sentencing. Whatever penalties are appropriate for those involved in cooking up drugs or manufacturing drugs, those involved in any of those illegal drug activities ought to be deemed to be operating in an aggravated circumstance if a child is present during any of those activities. Of course the health of the child is affected in those circumstances. If a child is present, that ought to be an aggravating factor. Whatever the amendment does—and I suspect nobody knows what it does and we will be back in this place with another amending bill if the Parliament passes this bill—it sends a message to the courts that there is a defence available if a child is present where drugs are being manufactured. That is appalling.

Mr BOB DEBUS (Blue Mountains—Attorney General, and Minister for the Environment) [5.20 p.m.], in reply: I respond only on the matter of substance that the honourable member for Epping raised. It is expected that the Opposition will contemplate the bill during the coming week and, if it so desires, it will move amendments in the upper House. I am sure when he calms down a little the honourable member for Epping will recall that the offence is being introduced in the first instance as an aggravating matter. That is to say, the presence of a child being an aggravating element in these offences is being introduced now. Those opposite did not think of it, the Government thought of it.

Mr Andrew Tink: Why are you making it a defence if their health is not affected?

Mr BOB DEBUS: Stay calm. The honourable member will move his amendment and it will go to a vote, and that will be that. But it ought to be understood by the rest of the House that we are talking about a defence with a reverse onus. That type of defence exists in many offences throughout the criminal law, offences involving drug premises and offences against customs regulations under the Customs Act. The offence concerns harm. The prosecution does not have to prove harm. The onus is on the defendant to prove that there was no harm. We are not dealing with a circumstance that is anything like the one represented by the honourable member. We are introducing a provision in which the presence of a child in any circumstance of drug manufacturing is to be treated as an aggravating circumstance. That has never happened before.

Within the proposed arrangements there is a reverse onus of the ordinary standard of proof, which means that the offence will be deemed to be proved unless the defendant can prove that there was no harm. This is a carefully calibrated and sensible arrangement which precisely recognises that in almost all circumstances it is a terrible thing for a child to be around drug manufacturing. However, it also recognises that there is a vast range of circumstances in which a child may be present where drugs may be manufactured. The only defence will be if the defendant can prove that the child in no way suffered harm. There will no doubt be a vote, but I do not want the matter to be misrepresented.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

Mr ANDREW TINK (Epping) [5.24 p.m.]: I move:

I apologise that the amendment is handwritten. We have had the bill for only about 20 minutes and I have not had the opportunity of going to Parliamentary Counsel to get advice, which is the customary practice in this Parliament. Nothing the Attorney General has said dissuades me from my argument. The amendment seeks to get rid of the defence that the Government wants to include that allows someone who is manufacturing drugs to claim that the fact that a child is present does not matter because the child's health or safety is not endangered. There should be no defence wherever a child is present and drugs are being manufactured. That should not be a defence to anything. The defence should not turn on whether the child's health or safety is endangered. The defence should not exist. There should be no defence when someone is manufacturing drugs and a child is present, full stop. I would have thought that the constituents of Menai, Granville, Peats and the Bathurst areas would scratch their heads and ask, "Why would my member of Parliament support any defence for someone who is manufacturing drugs in the presence of a child in any circumstances?" That is the question we will ask all their constituents before long.

Mr KIM YEADON (Granville) [5.26 p.m.]: I know the honourable member for Epping has had the bill for only a short period, but when he has had time to reflect on the matter he raised and the amendment he has moved he will come to regret it. No-one wants a child to be present at the commission of any crime, whether it be speeding in an automobile, domestic violence, or the manufacturing or growing of drugs. But, as the Attorney General pointed out, the Government has taken the initiative by introducing legislation to make it an offence to manufacture drugs or grow drugs in the presence of children if it has an effect on the children. It is a sound initiative. To take it to the next level, which the honourable member seeks to do, is ludicrous. If he takes that approach and he takes a wider view that it is not healthy—and it is not—for a child to be around any crime, then he will go down the logical path of applying an additional offence to every offence that exists in the criminal code if a child is present. The honourable member for Epping would have to acknowledge that would be ludicrous.

Mr ANDREW TINK (Epping) [5.28 p.m.]: I respond to the honourable member for Granville, for whom I have quite a lot of time. There are crimes and there are crimes. He gave the examples of driving crimes and crimes of violence.

[Interruption]

I ask the honourable member for Granville to hear me out. I heard him out and I listened with interest to what he had to say. The difference between those types of crimes and manufacturing drugs is that the matters he referred to are crimes suddenly arising; they are crimes arising in the heat of the moment. The difference between his examples and manufacturing and growing drugs is that they are ongoing organised criminal activity with a high degree of sophistication. The premeditation in the repeated manufacturing and growing of drugs in commercial quantities over a long period involves a different degree of criminality to a number of crimes that might arise in the heat of the moment. I can tell the Committee I have absolutely no intention of moving towards acceptance of the idea that a child witnessing some sort of terrible driving crime should turn the incident into an offence just because the child is present.

I do not see the issue that way. I see this provision as relating to a very different type of premeditated and highly organised crime. I cannot remember any sitting in the life of this Government when the Premier has not come into the Chamber and stated that it is a priority of the Government to attack highly sophisticated and highly organised criminal activity. So that the Attorney General and I understand each other, I point out that to my mind the difference between this legislation and other circumstances is that this is not an everyday type of crime. The provision relates to a very different type of crime that has a high degree of premeditation, organisation, and continuity, and that makes a difference to me.

Mr BOB DEBUS (Blue Mountains—Attorney General, and Minister for the Environment) [5.30 p.m.]: I make the observation, which is not inconsistent with those I have made earlier but may be of some assistance to the Committee, that the offence we are discussing is an aggravating offence, that is, an offence that has not existed before. Consistently with the very attitudes ascribed by the honourable member for Epping to the Premier, we say that the presence of children nearby will be an aggravating circumstance. As a matter of fact, it will be very difficult in the circumstances contemplated to prove that there is no harm to a child, very hard indeed. The maximum penalty provided in this bill is between three and five years for the aggravation, on top of everything else. If no defence at all is allowed, that falls outside all the ordinary principles that are applied in setting penalties for an offence with a maximum penalty of up to five years. In effect, in addition to the arguments I have advanced, the existence of this reverse onus defence makes it possible within the ordinary principles of statutory preparation to have that maximum of three to five years on top of everything else.

Mr ANDREW TINK (Epping) [5.32 p.m.]: It is a real shame that we should have come to this because with the provision of adequate time to consider the bill, the outcome may have been different. However, I must say that because of the way I envisage the bill at the moment, I cannot imagine how the outcome will be different. It seems to me that whichever way this subsection is cut, it provides a defence when a child is present during drug manufacturing. The Opposition cannot accept that there could be a defence under any circumstances when a child is present, if the child's presence is an aggravating circumstance. It is interesting to listen to the Attorney General because I think he has finally cottoned on to the problem that he has got himself into. He is now arguing that it is impossible or very difficult to understand how a child could not be endangered by being present.

The problem with that view is that the courts and the police do not operate on the wishes of the Attorney General when he has rushed the bill into Parliament and has suddenly realised that he has a bit of a problem. They act upon the words that the Parliament agrees to in the bill which becomes an Act. The words of this bill clearly differentiate between the presence of a child and endangering a child. The fact that the clause as drafted in that way differentiates between, on the one hand, a child who is not in any physical or other danger, and on the other hand, a child who is. It is the very words of the Parliament that make the distinction. If the Attorney General is honestly saying that he cannot imagine a child not being endangered—and neither I, nor the honourable member for Vaucluse, the honourable member for Bega and the honourable member for Lismore can—the Attorney General should draft the section again. He should delete this nonsense provision. If he honestly believes that a child cannot but be endangered in these circumstances, why in heaven's name does he retain it as a defence at all?

We are all critical of courts from time to time, but at the end of the day they are there to enforce and adjudicate upon the rules that parliamentarians make. If we leave a nonsensical provision like the one we are considering in the legislation, the courts will be required to take judicial notice of the fact that the Parliament is making a distinction between children who are endangered either by health or safety, and children who are not because that will be the Parliament's instruction or direction to the courts. The courts do not have the luxury of having regard to the Attorney General's increasing reservations about what he is doing. I urge the Attorney General to support the amendment and do away with the provision.

I urge the Attorney General to follow the instinct that is telling him that a child cannot but be endangered and to do away with the defence which sends a misleading signal to the courts that there is in fact a difference. Members of the Opposition will not be party to or support a vote on a rule that sends a message to the courts that some kids are not harmed and are not endangered by being present while drugs are being manufactured. The Opposition states unequivocally that wherever a child is present while drugs are being manufactured or grown, they will be endangered, full stop. Their presence is enough to endanger them.

Nobody should have to prove any more that their health or safety is not endangered. The mere presence of a child is dangerous enough to that child, so let us do away with the clause and support the amendment. I urge the Attorney General to back his instinct and the acceptance inherent in what he has just stated, as I understood him, that a child who is present in those circumstances cannot but be endangered. I urge the Attorney General not to leave the courts with a misleading signal in this bill. The Attorney General should admit that this clause is wrong and get rid of it.

Question—That the words stand—put.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 46

Ms Allan
Mr Amery
Ms Andrews
Mr Bartlett
Ms Beamer
Mr Black
Mr Brown
Ms Burney
Miss Burton
Mr Campbell
Mr Collier
Mr Corrigan
Mr Crittenden
Ms D'Amore
Mr Debus
Mr Gibson

Mr Greene
Ms Hay
Mr Hickey
Mr Hunter
Mr Iemma
Ms Judge
Ms Keneally
Mr Lynch
Mr McBride
Mr McLeay
Ms Megarrity
Mr Morris
Mr Newell
Ms Nori
Mr Orkopoulos
Mrs Paluzzano

Mr Pearce
Mr Price
Ms Saliba
Mr Sartor
Mr Scully
Mr Shearan
Mr Stewart
Mr Tripodi
Mr Watkins
Mr West
Mr Whan
Mr Yeadon

Tellers,
Mr Ashton
Mr Martin

Noes, 32

Mr Aplin
Mr Barr
Ms Berejiklian
Mr Cansdell
Mr Constance
Mr Debnam
Mr Draper
Mrs Fardell
Mr Fraser
Mr Hartcher
Mr Hazzard

Ms Hodgkinson
Mrs Hopwood
Mr Kerr
Ms Moore
Mr Oakeshott
Mr O'Farrell
Mr Page
Mr Pringle
Mr Richardson
Mr Roberts
Ms Seaton

Mrs Skinner
Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Souris
Mr Stoner
Mr Tink
Mr Torbay
Mr J. H. Turner
Mr R. W. Turner
Tellers,
Mr George
Mr Maguire

Pairs

Ms Gadiel	Mr Humpherson
Mrs Perry	Mr Merton

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee without amendment and passed through remaining stages.

SYDNEY UNIVERSITY SETTLEMENT INCORPORATION AMENDMENT BILL

Bill received and read a first time.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Paul Lynch): Order! I have been advised that the Minister for Energy and Utilities will have the carriage of the bill in this House.

Second reading to stand as an order of the day.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Routine of Business: Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders

Mr CARL SCULLY (Smithfield—Minister for Police) [5.46 p.m.]: I move:

(1) That standing and sessional orders be suspended to permit at this and any subsequent sitting:

(a) the introduction and passage through all stages of the Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Warrants) Bill and the Pawnbrokers and Second-hand Dealers Amendment Bill; and

(b) the passage through all remaining stages of the following bills:

Sydney University Settlement Incorporation Amendment Bill
Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill
Local Government Amendment Bill
National Parks and Wildlife (Further Adjustment of Areas) Bill

(2) That paragraph (2) of the sessional order relating to Friday sittings (quorums and divisions) not apply on Friday 10 June 2005.

The Attorney General will deliver his second reading speech on the Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Warrants) Bill and that debate will be adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning, at which time the second reading debate will continue. I commend the motion.

Mr ANDREW TINK (Epping) [5.00 p.m.]: The Opposition opposes this motion. This is the second time today that the Leader of the House has moved a motion to suspend standing orders to bring on matters that are not in accordance with standing orders. When it comes to organising what bills he has to ram through this House he does not have his act together. At 12 o'clock today he did not know the total number of bills that had to be rammed through this House. We do not know yet whether other bills have to be rammed through. Tomorrow morning we might be subjected to a similar motion to suspend standing orders.

There is a significant element of "trust the Government" when it wants to ram through legislation. We cannot even trust the Leader of the House to come into this House at 12.00 o'clock on the day he wants to ram through legislation with a comprehensive ramming list. If he cannot be trusted to produce a comprehensive ramming list he certainly cannot be trusted when he suggests that what he wants to ram through this House is appropriate or worthy of ramming through. The problem gets worse. It is not just the Leader of the House we cannot trust; I regret to inform honourable members that we cannot trust the Attorney General—and I say that after experiencing the ramming through of two bills on the midday list.

Both bills that were rammed through in the past 30 minutes turned out to be a diabolical mess. The Legal Profession Amendment Bill was roundly represented to us as being a minor technical matter. At least the Attorney General acknowledged that an interest group had proposed one of the foreshadowed amendments, which was news to a stakeholder sitting in the gallery. So the Legal Profession Amendment Bill was a diabolical mess. A minor machinery bill became a machinery bill of such a size that it could have been used to open sluice gates at Warragamba Dam, if there were any water to let through.

It gets worse. The House just debated a second bill and divided on whether somebody who manufactures drugs in the presence of a child should be charged with an offence. According to the Attorney General, if a child were present and the health and safety of that child were not affected while the drugs were being manufactured, that should act as a defence. This minor matter, which did not demand the attention of the Parliament, was on the ram-through list of the Leader of the House. No wonder the Attorney General and his friends in the left wing wanted the deal on drugs to be placed on the ram-through list! The Leader of the House would have said, "Listen Bob, what do you want to put on my ram-through list?"

The Premier would have gone to those in the far left and said, "What would be really good for the far left to get through on drugs?" and those in the far left would have said, "Why don't we give drug manufacturers a defence when a child is present, provided the child's health and safety are not affected?" Most Government members are heading for a train wreck in 2007, that is, if this Government can get the trains to run at all. If they want to save themselves and they are looking for a liferaft in 2007, they should dissociate themselves from the legislation for which they just voted, which will give people manufacturing drugs a defence when a child is present.

If they do not do something to convince the Attorney General he just made one of the biggest blunders in his career and get him to back off in the upper House, they will all be passengers on the late running train of the Minister for Transport, which is headed for disaster. When Government members see the final timetable in March 2007 they will realise that is one time the train will run on time. It is one time that all the passengers who have been waiting for a train will ensure that justice is done. We have had enough of this Government ramming through legislation. All Government members should object to legislation being rammed through this House because they will— [Time expired.]

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 46

Ms Allan
Mr Amery
Ms Andrews
Mr Bartlett
Ms Beamer
Mr Black
Mr Brown
Ms Burney
Miss Burton
Mr Campbell
Mr Collier
Mr Corrigan
Mr Crittenden
Ms D'Amore
Mr Debus
Mr Gibson

Mr Greene
Ms Hay
Mr Hickey
Mr Hunter
Mr Iemma
Ms Judge
Ms Keneally
Mr Lynch
Mr McBride
Mr McLeay
Ms Megarrity
Mr Mills
Mr Morris
Mr Newell
Mr Orkopoulos
Mrs Paluzzano

Mr Pearce
Mr Price
Ms Saliba
Mr Sartor
Mr Scully
Mr Shearan
Mr Stewart
Mr Tripodi
Mr Watkins
Mr West
Mr Whan
Mr Yeadon

Tellers,
Mr Ashton
Mr Martin

Noes, 32

Mr Aplin
Mr Barr
Ms Berejiklian
Mr Cansdell
Mr Constance
Mr Debnam
Mr Draper
Mrs Fardell
Mr Fraser
Mr Hartcher
Mr Hazzard

Ms Hodgkinson
Mrs Hopwood
Mr Kerr
Ms Moore
Mr Oakeshott
Mr O'Farrell
Mr Page
Mr Pringle
Mr Richardson
Mr Roberts
Ms Seaton

Mrs Skinner
Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Souris
Mr Stoner
Mr Tink
Mr Torbay
Mr J. H. Turner
Mr R. W. Turner
Tellers,
Mr George
Mr Maguire

Pairs

Ms Gadiel	Mr Humpherson
Mrs Perry	Mr Merton

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion by Mr Carl Scully agreed to:

TERRORISM LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (WARRANTS) BILL

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr BOB DEBUS (Blue Mountains—Attorney General, and Minister for the Environment) [6.04 p.m.]: I move:

The citizens of this State have a right to expect that their privacy will be protected from unjustified searches and interference from the State. Society recognises, however, that there are certain circumstances when an individual's right to privacy must be weighed against the greater public interest in order to allow law enforcement agencies to uphold the law and prevent criminal activity, especially when many lives are potentially at stake. The threat posed by terrorism clearly poses unique challenges. The Madrid bombings, which killed 191 people in March 2004, gave an indication of the type of threat and the devastation posed by terrorism in today's society. Closer to home, the Bali bombings in October 2002, which killed 88 Australians among the 202 lives lost, awakened our community to the possibility that Australians could be targeted by terrorist acts, both at home and abroad.

General criminal activity has never aimed to perpetrate the mass taking of life, the widespread destruction of property, or the wholesale disruption of society in the way that terrorism does. The powers in the bill are not designed or intended to be used for general policing. Their use is restricted to the NSW Police Counter-Terrorism Co-ordination Command and to the units of the NSW Crime Commission assigned the task of investigating and responding to terrorism. Law enforcement agencies already have a wide array of investigation powers at their disposal and they will all continue to be employed in the fight against terrorism.

This scheme provides police with another tool that answers some of the more difficult characteristics of terrorist activity. For example, while both terrorists and organised crime gangs operate secretively and are aware of the possibility of official surveillance, terrorists operate over a much longer time frame. A terrorist operative may arrive in Australia years before any attack is planned, with no orders other than to lie low. So the first requirement of counter-terrorism covert investigative powers is that they be able to operate over a long period, enabling investigators to target terrorists from the early stages of their activities.

Covertness is the second requirement. In the preparatory stages of a terrorist plot any hint to the terrorist operatives that their plans or activities have been discovered or that they are under surveillance could mean that they simply abort the entire terrorist operation, allowing the organisation the opportunity to regroup and change the object of its plans. This scheme will allow police to enter private premises without the knowledge of the occupiers for the purpose of preventing or responding to terrorist threats.

The Government sees this legislation not only as an investigative tool but also as a preventive tool. When preliminary or support activity is suspected there is a strong need to act to gather further information to prevent any possible future acts of terrorism that may cost innocent lives. This is recognised in the formulation of the applicable test to "prevent or respond to" the attack. Given the global nature of terrorism, information gathered here might be relevant to a planned or potential terrorist attack in another country. As such, the information derived from this scheme may be given to foreign law enforcement agencies, where its use may prevent a possible terrorist attack.

These powers are extraordinary and will be permitted only with the strictest of safeguards, including the following. Warrants may be issued only when there is a reasonable suspicion or belief that a terrorist act has been, is being, or is likely to be committed. Annual reports must be made to the Attorney General and the Minister for Police regarding the exercise of these powers. Any complaint regarding the exercise of these powers can be investigated by the established bodies, the NSW Ombudsman, the Commissioner of Police and, where appropriate, the Police Integrity Commission. The scheme will be kept under constant legislative review through the existing review provisions in the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act, which requires yearly reports. The scheme is subject to independent monitoring by the Ombudsman for a period of two years.

Those safeguards are an attempt to balance the legitimate needs of law enforcement and the right of privacy that all citizens enjoy. The House will also note that schedule 4 to the bill creates an offence of membership of a terrorist organisation—under section 310J of the Crimes Act 1900. This offence is in the same terms as the membership offence under the Commonwealth legislation. Of course, a terrorist organisation need not be a highly formalised structure, with a formal name or public profile. The Government considers that this provision is necessary as a temporary measure because membership of a terrorist organisation is not an offence known to New South Wales law, and New South Wales is constitutionally prevented from enacting a covert search warrant scheme for the investigation of Commonwealth terrorism offences.

Honourable members will note that this offence is subject to a sunset clause after two years. It is hoped in that time that the development of a covert search warrant scheme can be dealt with at the national level by the Commonwealth and other Australian jurisdictions, and a federal scheme enacted. I have written to the Federal Attorney General to urge him to pursue this matter. My colleague the Minister for Police has also been successful in having the Australasian Police Ministers Council adopt a resolution requesting the National Counter-Terrorism Committee to draft such a proposal. This would be the more appropriate arrangement, given the 2002 reference of power that New South Wales and the other States made to the Commonwealth in relation to terrorism; and if that should occur, New South Wales would consider repealing this scheme in order to avoid constitutional and operational inconsistencies.

I now turn to the details of the bill. I do not intend to canvass every section of the bill—many are self-explanatory—but I will highlight the more important details contained in the bill and elaborate on them where appropriate. Schedule 1 makes the principal amendments to the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002. Proposed section 27A defines "terrorist act", which includes the proposed State offence of membership of a terrorist organisation, created by schedule 4 to the bill. References to the commission of a terrorist act and to preventing or responding to a terrorist act are, in that case, to be construed as referring to the actual commission of the offence and as obtaining or providing evidence of the commission of that State offence.

The new offence of membership of a terrorist organisation will address situations where a person is a member of such an organisation but does nothing more in preparation for a terrorist act. The Commonwealth terrorism offences cover a broad range of terrorist activities and, importantly, they criminalise preparatory or support activity, such as financing a terrorist organisation, or providing terrorist training, which may be conducted a long time before an actual terrorist attack, and may be committed in countries different to where any attack ultimately occurs, and by persons who do not ultimately play any other role.

New South Wales has not sought to duplicate all the existing Commonwealth terrorism offences because it considers that to do so would undermine the national approach to counter terrorism that is led by the Commonwealth, and because it considers that this bill provides sufficiently wide powers for preventing and responding to terrorist acts and potential terrorist acts.

The test that must be met when applying for a covert search warrant under proposed section 27G is that the person giving the authorisation or making the application, as the case may be, suspects or believes on reasonable grounds that a terrorist act has been, is being, or is likely to be, committed; that the entry to and search of premises will substantially assist in responding to or preventing the terrorist act; and that it is necessary for the entry and search of those premises to be conducted without the knowledge of any occupier of the premises.

The important points to note in relation to that test are, first, there must be a reasonable suspicion or belief that a terrorist act has been, is being, or is likely to be committed. For instance, if police can demonstrate a reasonable suspicion that a person in Australia is financing terrorism or recruiting members for a terrorist organisation, with a view to planning or committing acts of terrorism, in Australia or elsewhere, this scheme will be available to prevent or respond to the potential terrorist threat.

Second, proposed section 4A makes it clear that the ultimate act of terrorism may occur overseas. Clearly, the covert search of a terrorist financier's house in Australia may disrupt al-Qaeda funding and prevent acts of terror occurring, whether in Australia or elsewhere. Third, the purpose of the covert search warrants is to "prevent or respond to" a terrorist act. In practice, it would not necessarily be NSW Police or the NSW Crime Commission who would prevent the final act of terrorism. It may very well be that NSW Police locates information using a covert warrant which discloses preliminary or support activity occurring in London. NSW Police would obviously not act on that information itself, but would pass the information through liaison mechanisms to appropriate authorities in the United Kingdom.

The warrants may be made in person and by telephone under proposed sections 27H and 27I. Proposed section 27J sets out the matters that must be included in an application for a covert search warrant. An eligible judge may issue a covert search warrant under proposed section 27K if satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for doing so. When determining whether there are reasonable grounds, the judge is to consider, among other things, the reliability of the information on which the application is based; whether there is a connection between the terrorist act concerned and the kinds of things that are proposed to be searched for, seized, placed in substitution for a seized thing, copied, photographed, recorded, operated, printed or tested; the nature and gravity of the terrorist act; the extent to which the exercise of power under the warrant would assist in the prevention of, or response to, the terrorist act; alternative means of obtaining the information sought; and the extent to which the privacy of a person who is not believed to be knowingly concerned in the commission of the terrorist act is likely to be affected if the warrant is issued.

Leaving aside the concept of membership of a terrorist organisation, "terrorist act" is defined to include an act or threatened act of force. As I have said, this act may come years after, and in a different country to, the various support or preparatory activities that the bill also is intended to cover. In some circumstances it may not be possible for a New South Wales agency to provide explicit detail of a final act of terrorism when applying for a warrant. The bill is drafted in a flexible way to allow a broad range of material to be placed before the court in order to support an application. Proposed section 27M provides that if an application for a covert search warrant has been refused, a further application may not be made for the same warrant unless the further application provides additional information that justifies the making of the further application. This is the same safeguard that applies to normal search warrants to discourage judge shopping.

Proposed section 27N sets out the matters that must be specified in a covert search warrant. Proposed section 27O sets out the powers conferred by a covert search warrant, which includes the power to enter, without any occupier's knowledge, the premises the subject of the warrant, and to use such force as is reasonably necessary when entering; to impersonate another person for the purposes of executing the warrant; to enter the adjoining premises, for the purpose of entering the subject premises; to search the subject premises for any kind of thing described in the warrant; to seize a thing or replace a thing; to copy, photograph or record a thing; and to test a thing of that kind and any thing that the person finds in the course of executing the warrant if authorised in the warrant to do so.

An important issue that arose during drafting of the bill was the possible collection of DNA samples during covert searches. Given the desirability of regulating the covert collection of DNA samples for law enforcement generally—for example, in executing a search warrant, or by collecting discarded samples from used cups or cigarettes—it has been decided that the possible collection of DNA under a covert search warrant will be regulated as part of a general regulatory framework to be developed by my department. I have asked my department to consult with NSW Police in developing this policy. The warrant must be executed within 30 days of issue. Proposed section 27S requires a person to whom a covert search warrant has been issued to report back to the eligible judge who issued the warrant about the execution of the warrant.

Proposed section 27U requires an occupier's notice to be provided for the approval of an eligible judge, within six months of the execution of a covert search warrant. The proposed section enables an eligible judge to postpone, for a period of up to six months at a time, the giving of the occupier's notice if satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for doing so. This is in recognition of the fact that terrorist investigations may stretch over years rather than months. However, the giving of an occupier's notice must not be postponed for a total of more than 18 months unless the eligible judge is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances justifying the postponement. This formulation makes it clear that a fundamental tenet of the scheme is that an occupier's notice will be served at some time and that there is no provision for a court to approve a notice never being served.
The Government takes these powers seriously, but along with power comes responsibility. A new offence for a person to give false or misleading information to an eligible judge in an application for a covert search warrant is created by proposed section 27Z. The offence is punishable by a maximum penalty of $11,000 or two years imprisonment, or both. Proposed section 27ZA makes it an offence, with certain exceptions and in certain circumstances, for a person to intentionally or recklessly publish an application for a covert search warrant, a report prepared under section 27S, an occupier's notice, or any information derived from such an application, report or notice. The proposed offence is punishable by a maximum penalty of $5,500 or 12 months imprisonment, or both.

Schedule 1 [2] inserts proposed section 29A into the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002, which enables the Minister to enter into arrangements with the Commonwealth in relation to the transmission of things lawfully seized under the scheme. This is similar to a provision in the Search Warrants Act and recognises that vital evidence relating to Federal matters—for example, Commonwealth terrorism offences prosecutions—might be discovered during the execution of a warrant. Schedule 1 [3] amends section 36 of the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002 to enable the Attorney General to require the Commissioner of Police or the Commissioner for the New South Wales Crime Commission to provide information, for the purposes of the annual review of that Act, about the exercise of functions by members of NSW Police, members of the Crime Commission or members of staff of the Crime Commission.

The other important aspect of this bill is the amendment to the Listening Devices Act 1984 contained in schedule 3 [1]. It amends section 16 of the Listening Devices Act 1984 to extend from 21 days to 90 days the maximum period during which a warrant authorising the use of a listening device is in force in relation to specified Commonwealth terrorism offences. This again recognises that terrorist investigations may extend over longer periods than normal criminal investigations.

These are extraordinary powers that the Government is enacting in response to the extreme threat that a terrorist attack poses to the peace and stability of our society. They are enacted only with the strictest safeguards and strong and effective oversight. When introducing the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002, the Premier said he looked forward to the day when the threat of terrorism has been eliminated from our State and when laws and powers like this can be removed from our statute books. I echo those sentiments. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Thomas George.

The House adjourned at 6.24 p.m. until Friday 10 June 2005 at 10.00 a.m.

______________

Last modified 16/11/2007 10:28:12 : Update this page