Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Assembly, 29 March 2006, Corrected Copy)

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

Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.

Mr SPEAKER: I acknowledge the Gadigal clan of the Eora nation and their elders and thank them for their custodianship of this land.

Message received from the Legislative Council returning the bill with amendments.

Consideration of amendments deferred.

Debate resumed from 28 February 2006.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [10.02 a.m.]: The Opposition welcomes the legislation, which seeks to abolish the mandated licensing and associated fees for both air charter companies and airlines flying intrastate routes. The legislation will open up competition and remove the burden of red tape and cost on those operators. It follows the 1998 legislation, which was referred to an upper House committee that undertook an inquiry into the legislation. In a sense the bill is the progeny of the 1998 legislation. Currently the Air Transport Act 1964 requires all transport operators flying intrastate routes to hold a licence granted by the Minister for Transport. All licences have a current expiry date of 29 March 2008. Whoever is the Minister for Transport after the next election will have the joy of determining future policy from that date. Licensing policy in this area protects operators serving the smaller end of the New South Wales intrastate airliner market by granting exclusive licences. Currently there are 24 exclusive route licences, which accounts for approximately 25 per cent of passenger volumes in the intrastate travel market.

Another nine routes make up 75 per cent of the market—Sydney to Albury return, Sydney to Armidale, Sydney to Ballina, Sydney to Coffs Harbour, Sydney to Dubbo, Sydney to Port Macquarie, Sydney to Tamworth, Sydney to Wagga Wagga and Sydney to Williamtown. These nine routes are open to competition in that no restriction is placed on the number of licences issued. However, operators of the open routes are required to be licensed and pay licence fees. The mandated licensing requirements are unnecessary on these open routes and should be removed, which is one of the impacts of the legislation. The bill provides for airline routes servicing small rural communities to continue to be licensed and regulates air transport services to those communities to ensure that air transport is maintained.

Country members of this House understand the significance of airline services. Some members do not have the benefit of airline services to much of their electorate and it is important to ensure, under whatever regime is in place, that country services are adequate. It is important to note that no aviation or safety issues are raised in the legislation. The bill leaves the established State and Federal aviation roles unaltered, with the Commonwealth continuing to regulate all aviation, safety and security, and the State regulating operator access to intrastate routes within the national competition policy framework.

My only concern about the legislation is the Minister's statement that for administrative efficiency, licensing functions will be vested with the Director General of the Ministry of Transport. We should not do things necessarily for administrative efficiency, but rather we should focus on consumers and those who operate and use airline services. When bus companies on the North Coast were encouraged to amalgamate routes, consumers were left wanting. A bus company called Kings, which has its own chequered history, was created out of a desire by the Ministry of Transport, then the Department of Transport, for a degree of administrative efficiency. I am concerned slightly about the Minister's resort to claims of administrative efficiency, but it is important to note that in the 1964 Act there is no appeals process. The legislation will ensure a right of appeal. We agree with that and we believe it is an important change.

The other significant change made by the legislation is that the Air Transport Council will be abolished and replaced with what is to be termed, clumsily, the State Aviation Working Group. The Air Transport Council lacks representation from relevant stakeholders, including local government, particularly those in country areas, and operators. Given the make-up and the number of members of the State Aviation Working Group it will not be possible for all operating routes to be represented on the working group, and that is a concern. Large airlines like Rex operate services throughout the State, as does QantasLink and other small operators. It was always going to be hard to get it right, given the existing make-up of the State Aviation Working Group.

The Minister has indicated that the Government is happy to provide observer status to all airline operators at the meetings of the State Aviation Working Group subject to the usual disclosures of conflicts of interest and vested interest. I seek reassurance on that point at the close of the debate. I seek clarification, because it is not clear to me from the drafting of the legislation whether the State Aviation Working Group will be able to assess the financial viability of airlines applying for routes under either scheme.

It is of particular concern to the Opposition and to people in country areas who understand the history of airline operators in this State. As I said to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the upper House this morning, one of the issues that preceded the tragic Monarch accident was an ongoing concern about the financial viability of the company. Perhaps if a more stringent financial viability assessment had been undertaken, routes may not have been awarded, the accident may have been avoided and deaths may have been prevented. I seek clarification whether part of the ambit of the State Aviation Working Group will be to assess the financial viability, or at least to receive reports on the financial viability, of airline operators. If that is not the case, I seek justification why such a provision will not be part of the legislation.

I raise two other issues. The Crown Solicitor has advised the Government that there is no ambiguity in the way that tour operators may circumvent the provisions by organising multiple charters. However, the Minister has informed the House that the bill contains clauses to remove any ambiguity, which the Crown Solicitor says does not exist. I am happy to take the Minister's word on that issue. It is more Irish reasoning than anything else. Under current licence conditions, all airlines are required to submit quarterly passenger statistics for each route, whether open or exclusive, to the Ministry of Transport. This facilitates the monitoring of the intrastate airline industry in this State. It is important that those statistics continue to be collected. None of this legislation's provisions will prevent that occurring. Subject to the Minister's confirmation of what he told me privately, that airline operators with routes will be given observer status at meetings of the State Aviation Working Group and clarification that the working group will assess the financial viability of operators, the Opposition is pleased to support the bill.

Mr DONALD PAGE (Ballina—Deputy Leader of The Nationals) [10.11 a.m.]: I support the comments of the shadow Minister for Transport. The Air Transport Amendment Bill gets the balance right in terms of the deregulation of larger airports to allow competition whilst protecting smaller airports with 24 exclusive routes in New South Wales. The shadow Minister for Transport raised a very important point about the financial viability of airline operators. That is the key point I want to raise. The Minister for Transport, in his second reading speech, said:

The current practice of allocating exclusive licences by competitive selection processes will continue to be required under national competition policy.

The financial viability of airline operators is ultimately a safety issue and could be seen to be the responsibility of the Federal Government. However, at State level an airline may submit a competitive tender to obtain an exclusive route. Unless the financial viability of airlines is examined, an airline that is not financially viable may be successful in obtaining an exclusive route through the competitive tendering process. An inquiry into the Monarch airlines crash that occurred near Young in 1993, which resulted in the deaths of all passengers and crew, uncovered issues relating to the airline's financial viability and the lack of instrumentation on aircraft. Further, although the airline held insurance to cover personal injury liability, the carrier's insurer was able to avoid payment of compensation to the families of those killed on the basis of certain general exclusions contained in its insurance policies.

The issue of financial viability is inextricably linked to air safety. I ask the Government to satisfy my concern that in the competitive tendering process for exclusive routes, which is the responsibility of the State Government, the financial viability of airline operators is properly considered. We do not want a situation where the State Government in its competitive tendering process assumes certain things and then there is a problem at the Federal level because it is not involved in the process and only examines the safety of the aircraft after the contract has been awarded. That is an important point. I would appreciate the Government satisfying my concerns on that matter.

Mr DARYL MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [10.14 a.m.]: The Air Transport Act 1964 currently requires all operators flying passengers between one location and another within the State to hold a licence granted by the Minister for Transport. That provision is mandatory and captures all air charter operators, as well as the providers of regular air transport services. The Minister for Transport, in his second reading speech, explained clearly the intention of the Air Transport Amendment Bill. The shadow Minister for Transport in his contribution to the second reading debate referred to matters that he would like the Government to address. I want to expand on those issues.

The State Aviation Working Group will replace the Air Transport Council. As I understand it, some air operators are not included in the working group. I suggest that those organisations should be allowed observer status so that they can be present at and advise meetings of the working group. It is appropriate that those organisations declare their interests, but it is also appropriate that the working group has the ability to gain knowledge and information that has been gathered over many years in operational situations from the people its decisions will affect. They have a lot of acumen and an enormous amount of intellect that can be used by the State Aviation Working Group in an effort to ensure that the best results are achieved for all. The Minister for Transport, in his second reading speech, said:

At the same time, the 2005 bill abolishes unnecessary licensing and associated fees on air charter companies and regional airlines serving the major regional centres, which clearly no longer need to be regulated, and updates other aspects of the existing legislation as explained in this second reading.

I could not agree more that fees and charges need to be monitored carefully because they can impact greatly on an airline's success. The nine regional centres are served basically by two major airlines, Rex and Qantas. Both those airlines are providing a service to regional communities. They are great corporate citizens. Regional communities appreciate the input they make and the benefit that is derived from having the opportunity to access major centres efficiently. They also appreciate the competition and choice. In today's modern age, "competition" is the key word. About three years ago, Ansett Airlines fell over, resurfaced and then went broke again. Out of the ashes was formed Rex.

Rex is based in Wagga Wagga. I declare that I have an interest in the company because all of its planes are serviced in our city and it provides 130 jobs in the area. The airline was established by the late Don Kendall, a great citizen and a great Australian. We have an interest to ensure that fairness and competition prevails and that every opportunity is given to Rex to compete in the marketplace. Also, Qantas has had a very long association with our city. Whilst it does not service its planes in our city—I wish it did—it provides many other forms of support for our regional community. Currently, Rex employs 630 staff Australia wide, 400 in New South Wales. It has carried 1.1 million passengers and is forecasted to carry more in this financial year. Just this week Rex took delivery of its twenty-sixth Saab aeroplane, which brings to 29 the number of planes that are being used to deliver services to 30 destinations across Australia. Over 600,000 people fly on more than 500 flights a week out of Sydney.

In the context of competition, the biggest risk to airlines is costs. While organisations levy charges on airlines for the provision of major infrastructure services, their charges are not monitored and scrutinised. While government organisations are monitoring and scrutinising landing fees and charges, charges for the provision of terminals and other infrastructure are not monitored or scrutinised, and those costs impinge on the viability of airlines. Those charges should be monitored to ensure that financial pressures on airlines are not too great and the airlines are kept financially viable.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority [CASA], which is also involved in monitoring of airlines, has moved away from item-based charging. Once when CASA needed to complete a check of an airline, there was an item charge, but that has now been changed to an hourly charge, which includes accommodation, overtime and other expenses. Those costs need to be monitored by an organisation such as the Productivity Commission to assess how the bureaucracy is structuring its costs and how those cost structures are impacting on airlines. That is important because a bureaucracy that is out of control—some would mention in this context the New South Wales Government—the costs impinge on businesses.
I suggest that in some way shape or form the Minister take up my suggestion to increase scrutiny. I acknowledge that aviation is a Federal responsibility, but it would be in the interests of the Minister to ensure that in some way he speaks up for airlines in New South Wales and in other parts of Australia to ensure that they are not being weighed down with unnecessary costs and bureaucratic structures that are impinging or impacting on the profitability of businesses. As someone who is interested in airlines and who has had many briefings over the years—

Mr Barry O'Farrell: On-board briefings?

Mr DARYL MAGUIRE: Yes, I have on-board briefings. I am regularly invited to fly with the crew and they tell me about the issues that concern them. It is great to sit up the front with someone such as Jason Myers, who is a well-regarded captain in Rex Airlines, while being told about the issues of concern. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition might be interested to know that as a member of the Staysafe Committee, I soon will have the opportunity to travel with train drivers as well, which will be another firsthand opportunity to hear about concerns of the people at the coalface in respect of rail and road safety.

I urge the Minister to take up with Federal authorities the issue of installation of transponders in small and light aircraft. Currently, larger aircraft are required to install warning systems. One system is the transponder collision avoidance system and the other is the air collision avoidance system. There is new satellite technology that perhaps will be available in the near future that applies global positioning technology. Currently, larger aircraft are required to have transponders fitted but there is no such requirement for smaller aircraft. I understand that transponders operate in a simple format that enables larger aircraft to interrogate the smaller aircraft electronically, which would be of great benefit to the travelling public and aircraft owners in Australia. I urge the Minister to take up the issue. It certainly interests me: I have not been able to understand why the air space that is controlled by radar and individuals 24 hours a day does not include control of light aircraft. I realise that light aircraft are regulated and have to follow aviation rules, but for a small investment in installing transponders in small aircraft, great benefit would be derived. Transponders would certainly be another tool that could be used to keep Australian air space safe.

In conclusion, I ask the Minister to take up the issues I have raised for the benefit of the travelling public and the airlines. The most important issue that I wish to highlight is the State Aviation Working Group. I know that there are many interest groups and advisory groups in this State—I am involved in many of them—but decision makers need to rely on the expertise and acumen of those whom the decisions will affect. I urge the Minister to give those organisations the opportunity to have their voices heard and to be part of the process. They may not have voting rights in the State Aviation Working Group but they should at least be given the opportunity to put forward valuable information.

Mr GRAHAM WEST (Campbelltown—Parliamentary Secretary) [10.26 a.m.], in reply: New South Wales intrastate air services are over-regulated in respect of mandatory licensing for charter companies and regular services to large regional centres. The bill will abolish the mandated licensing and associated fees for both air charter companies and intrastate airlines that fly the open routes to remove the burden of red tape and cost on those operators. The bill will maintain regulation and licensing of routes that are closed to competition.

The Air Transport Act 1964 mandates the licensing of all passenger air services operating within New South Wales, even though the regulation of charter services and high volume regional airline routes is no longer appropriate. History shows that Parliament is unlikely to support the full deregulation of regional airlines in New South Wales. Repeal of the Act was pursued in the late 1990s, but did not progress after concerns were raised regarding the impact of deregulation on small rural and regional communities. The amendment bill will allay these concerns because it maintains licensing of small airline routes.

Aviation safety has been raised in debates about deregulation. The Commonwealth Government has absolute responsibility for aviation safety and security regulation, and that is unaffected by this bill. Policy developments and intergovernmental arrangements have diminished the role of the Air Transport Council. It will be replaced with a more relevant working group with broader stakeholder representation, and the Director General, Ministry of Transport, will be given power to make routine licensing decisions to improve administrative efficiency. A new appeal provision is included to ensure transparency.

Turning to some of the particular issues mentioned during the debate, I point out that the Director General, Ministry of Transport, will be given power to make licensing decisions on regulated routes, such as in relation to the granting or refusal of any application for a licence; the granting of a licence, subject, or not, to conditions; determining the form, commencement and expiry date of a licence; revoking, suspending or varying a licence; and authorising any exception to the service level defined in the Act distinguishing a charter from a regular service. This will improve administrative efficiency, but to ensure all licensing decisions on regulated routes are fair and transparent, a new appeal provision will be added that makes the provisions in the Air Transport Act consistent with arrangements for the regulation of bus and ferry services in New South Wales under the Passenger Transport Act 1990 in terms of the licensing functions vested in the director general.

In relation to the State Aviation Working Group, an open invitation will be made for a nominee of each airline that serves smaller communities to attend meetings of the working group as an observer, subject to the same rules on disclosure of pecuniary interests as members. The aviation industry will be represented on the working group by two people appointed by the Minister, one on the nomination of the Regional Airline Association of Australia and the other on the nomination of the Australian Airports Association. There will also be a local government representative. The bill requires the working group to, among other things, seek the views of persons having an interest in the provision of air transport services in New South Wales in relation to the regulation of those services. Therefore the views of airlines serving smaller communities must be sought in any case, and giving them observer status on the working group facilitates the consultation process.

However, it would be most unusual, if not unprecedented, to give membership status to individual transport operators where that would lead to industry control of the working group appointed to advise the Government on how the industry should be regulated. It would be inappropriate, and it is the prime reason for proposing observer status. Finally, while noting the comments regarding the financial viability of airlines, I emphasise that this is a matter for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority [CASA]. However, past practice has been that if the Ministry of Transport has suspected there may be an issue, it has notified CASA. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

Debate resumed from 8 March 2006.

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE (Bega) [10.32 a.m.]: The Opposition will not oppose the Law Enforcement (Controlled Operations) Amendment Bill, which is designed to increase from 6 to 20 the number of senior New South Wales police officers able to authorise controlled operations. These operations will now be able to be authorised by all officers of or above the rank of assistant commissioner, plus two officers of or above the rank of superintendent as nominated by the Commissioner of Police.

The legislation amends the Law Enforcement (Controlled Operations) Act 1997, which provides for the authorisation, conduct and monitoring of law enforcement operations that involve what might otherwise be unlawful activities. It also legitimises the actions of undercover officers and permits evidence obtained in authorised controlled operations to be classified as legal and prima facie admissible. The Government conducted a review of the Act in 2003 and the review report was tabled in this House in June 2004. It is important to note on the record that the total number of controlled operations has increased steadily over the past five years. There has also been a marked increase in the number of variations authorised. The New South Wales Ombudsman handed down a report on the Act, which states

The majority of the operations involved investigating criminal activities associated with the supply, possession, cultivation and or manufacture of prohibited drugs. 351 controlled operations were connected in some way to prohibited drugs. 19 operations solely targeted firearm and other prohibited weapons offences. 16 operations targeted robbery, armed robbery, theft or stolen property offences. There were 11 operations which involved the investigation of murder, conspiracy to murder or attempted murder. One involved investigating manslaughter. Four others were targeting offences relating to prostitution and four operations targeted fraud offences.

The bill not only increases the number of New South Wales police officers able to authorise controlled operations but also replaces the section of the Act that provides for the granting of retrospective authority for unlawful activities undertaken in New South Wales. In addition, it provides for a legislative regime under which law enforcement agencies may carry out cross-border controlled operations, for a further review of the Act to be undertaken as soon as possible after five years from the date of assent, and for a report on the outcome of the review to be tabled in each House of Parliament.

The Opposition's view is that this is about having checks and balances in the system. Obviously we want to provide surety and security to officers involved in controlled operations. However, we must also have safeguards. The Opposition noted a report in the Sunday Telegraph of 19 March 2006 by Neil Mercer that police allowed seven kilograms of cocaine worth more than $1 million to be sold on Sydney streets in an undercover operation and failed to recover most of it. According to the report, six kilograms of the drug was never recovered. Obviously that is the subject of court proceedings. We must ensure that we have checks and balances in the system.

The Minister for Police spoke in this House about the need for the authorisation, conduct and monitoring of such operations. Ultimately, the buck stops with the Minister with regard to these types of events. Of course, the Opposition recognises the work that is being done by police officers in controlled operations. We want to highlight to the Government that it must ensure that resources are available so that these operations can be carried out and that events such as the one to which I referred do not occur again.

Of course, this comes back to a question of resources. At its peak in 2003, NSW Police had 15,168 sworn officers. As of 28 February this year, there were just 14,579 sworn officers. That is a decrease of 600 police officers. Of course, we had the smoke-and-mirrors policy announcement in March with the Premier saying that we will have record police numbers by the end of the year—just in time for the election. He will increase the number to 15,206, a mere 38 more than the total number in 2003. No doubt we will engage in a squabble about police numbers, but the community needs the facts. The numbers are there in black and white.

This Government is waging a duplicitous campaign with regard to police numbers. If the police are to carry out these controlled operations—which obviously are designed to be protected under this legislation—they must be provided with the appropriate resources. We cannot continue to increase the number of controlled operations without providing the resources for this dangerous work. We must ensure that this State continues to provide police with the resources and support they deserve. That is important not only from a community perspective but also from the police perspective.

I will refer briefly to the legislation's retrospectivity. In the 2003-04 report on the Law Enforcement (Controlled Operations) Act 1997, the Ombudsman noted that the controlled activities that various agencies engaged in included conversations, negotiations, purchase, possession and other activities concerning the supply and manufacture of prohibited drugs, entry onto private property and removal of a vehicle, installation of surveillance equipment requiring entering into enclosed lands and trespass to real property, and activities concerning stolen goods. The Legislation Review Committee also made reference to the fact that there could be an impact on third parties who are in no way involved in the alleged criminal behaviour. I want to draw the House's attention to section 14 of the Act, which seeks to provide safeguards and measures relating to retrospective authorisation. The nature of retrospective legislation is to ensure that evidence of criminal activity is not later rendered inadmissible by the courts. We need to draw the community's attention to new section 14 (5).

It provides that the retrospective authority under the section may not be granted unless the Commissioner of Police is satisfied, first, that the following circumstances existed when the relevant conduct occurred: the participant who engaged in the conduct believed on reasonable grounds that there was substantial risk to the success of the authorised operation; or that there was a substantial risk to the health or safety of a participant in the operation, or any other person, as a direct result of the conduct of the authorised operation; or that criminal activity or corrupt conduct other than the criminal activity or corrupt conduct in respect of which the authorised operation is being conducted had occurred, or was likely to occur, and that there was a substantial risk that evidence relating to that criminal activity or corrupt conduct would be lost; second, that at all times prior to those circumstances arising the participant had been acting in good faith and in accordance with the relevant code of conduct; third, that the participant had not foreseen, and could not reasonably be expected to have foreseen, that those circumstances would arise; fourth, that, had it been possible to foresee that those circumstances would arise, authority for the relevant conduct would have been sought; and, fifth, it was not reasonably possible in those circumstances for the participant to seek a variation of the authority for the operation to authorise the relevant conduct.

Obviously there is a strict regime for the granting of retrospective authorisation. Parliament needs to note the Legislation Review Committee's reference to the fact that the application of proposed section 14 could lead to abuse of powers created under controlled operations authorised by the Act. It also notes the impact it could have on third parties. The Minister might address in his reply the question of whether the ability to retrospectively grant authorisation unduly trespasses on the rights and liberties of third parties adversely affected by the conduct of controlled operations under the Act.

The Government has indicated that consultation on the bill took place not only with NSW Police but also with the Crime Commission, the Independent Commission Against Corruption, the Police Integrity Commission, the Attorney General, and the Special Minister of State—obviously from the perspective of the Minister for Police. As I said, we will not oppose the bill. I cannot reiterate enough that we have some very talented police officers in this State who are working in pressure cooker situations, and legislation such as this is designed to assist them. We must ensure that the checks and balances are in place so that we do not see a repeat of the headlines we saw on 19 March.

Mr PAUL LYNCH (Liverpool) [10.43 a.m.]: I support the Law Enforcement (Controlled Operations) Amendment Bill. This is important legislation—far too important to have been subjected to the juvenile comments we just heard from the honourable member for Bega, who wants to turn this into a debate about police numbers. This is actually quite an important policy issue. It is confirmation of the policy-free nature of the members for Ku-ring-gai and Bega that all they can do in this debate is ignore the substantive policy issues and try to make cheap partisan political points and attack the police while they are at it. It is a really good example of how appalling the Opposition is on this issue. The bill amends the 1997 legislation, provoked by the High Court decision in Ridgeway v R (1995) 184 CLR 19.

[Interruption]

In response to that interjection by the member for Bega, if he had done more than read the Legislation Review Committee report about retrospectivity, he would know precisely what is in the bill. He did not read the bill; he only read the report. I will have some pleasure towards the end of my speech in talking about retrospectivity and pointing out the protection that the member is incapable of pointing to. He has not read the bill and he does not know what the protection is.

Mr Andrew Constance: You cannot answer the question.

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

Mr PAUL LYNCH: The honourable member for Bega has already indicated his absence of policy on this issue and his lack of understanding, and the contribution he made today was quite childish. As I was saying before his childish interjections, the bill was provoked originally by Ridgeway v R, in which Ridgeway was charged with importing heroin. Australian Federal Police officers in that case did things that were an essential part of the offence and the High Court therefore excluded the evidence. The amendments in the bill will allow police and others to commit what would otherwise be criminal offences without suffering the normal consequences, and allow evidence thus obtained to be admitted in court proceedings. It is thus extraordinarily important legislation. It is important in a democratic society ostensibly characterised by the rule of law that this legislation work effectively and be subject to effective safeguards.

The current legislation arises from a review of the Act. It has, it is fair to say, been a long time coming and has attracted a degree of interest. If the member for Bega had followed this he might have made that a criticism. As I say, he has not followed the history of the legislation. The committee I chair, the Committee on the Office of the Ombudsman and the Police Integrity Commission, has been interested in the legislation. A statutory review of the Act was conducted by the Ministry of Police in 2003 and a review report was tabled in Parliament in June 2004. Despite what might otherwise be obvious criticism, I do not think that is necessarily a bad thing. Certainly this bill, in my view, is a considerable improvement on some of the more extreme provisions considered during the review process and if it has taken a little longer to make sure the proposals are better than they would otherwise be, the extra time should not be begrudged.

There are three main aspects to these amendments. The number of people who can authorise controlled operations—what is otherwise criminal behaviour—is expanded. The provisions for retrospective approval are widened, and a regime for cross-border controlled operations is introduced. The purpose of controlled operations is to detect and prevent serious crime and corruption. Those authorised under the Act to engage in criminal behaviour are NSW Police, the Independent Commission Against Corruption, the Crime Commissioner, the Police Integrity Commission [PIC], and Commonwealth law enforcement agencies. My committee's interest stems from the role played by the bodies that we oversight and their relation to controlled operations.
The PIC is one of the bodies that can be authorised to conduct controlled operations. Part 4 of the Act provides that the Ombudsman is to monitor the operation of the Act and report annually to the Parliament. The PIC inspector played a role in the development and oversight of codes of conduct used by agencies in relation to controlled operations and carried out an earlier review of the Act. There has been discussion for some time about aspects of the scheme. Law enforcement agencies, and specifically NSW Police, were concerned about the role of the Ombudsman. The Act provides inter alia that copies of applications be inspected by the Ombudsman. The police introduced a new application form that in the Ombudsman's view did not provide the information he believed was necessary. My committee reported on that issue to Parliament. The police eventually adopted the Ombudsman's suggestions.

There was also some dispute about the Ombudsman's jurisdiction. One view was that he was confined to matters concerning the maintenance of documents and the provision of relevant reports. Following the 2004 review of the Act, the Ministry for Police argued that police were unnecessarily seeking approval for acts not within the scope of the Act, including many minor matters. This of course is a fundamental misunderstanding of the legislation, as was made clear in Minister Whelan's original second reading speech.

Rather than deal with this misunderstanding of the Act the Ministry of Police argued for the introduction of a two-tier system of approvals that in my view had some grave dangers. The committee that I chair did not indicate support for that proposal in the absence of detailed analysis to justify such a significant change, and I am delighted to notice that it is absent from the bill. Amending legislation is not an appropriate course to remedy the fact that the objectives of the Act are not properly understood and that controlled operations do not include normal policing activity.

Another issue is the range of people who can authorise a controlled operation. In this instance the legislation makes changes. During the first review of the Act by then PIC Inspector Finlay, proposals emerged to expand the number of people who could approve applications. This legislation inserts a proposed new section 29, which expands the number, from six to 20, and the rank of officers who can approve a controlled operation. This provision will of course deserve scrutiny as to how it operates. At present, as I understand it, applications pass through police legal services for advice and checking. Expanding the number of approving officers may break down the present centralised, high-level advice. This has the danger of increasing potential for errors and non-compliance with the Act. Whether this is a realistic fear or not will, I think, become clear through the monitoring and auditing of controlled operations by the Ombudsman.

Another provision in the legislation relates to retrospective approval, that is, approving illegal behaviour after it has occurred. The current legislation provides that such retrospective authorisation can only be granted for activity that protects someone from death or serious injury. The amendment in this legislation expands the protection if the person who performed the illegal activity believed on reasonable grounds that there was a substantial risk to the success of the operation or to the health or safety of any person, or that evidence relating to other criminal and/or corrupt activity would be lost and that the person who undertook the unlawful activity could not avoid the risk otherwise than by undertaking the activity. Additionally, the person could not have foreseen and could not reasonably be expected to have foreseen that the relevant circumstances had arisen.

That is a significant broadening of the categories of activities that can gain retrospective approval. However, despite what the honourable member for Bega said, and again recognising that he had not read the bill, it is not carte blanche. For example, it does not allow approval unless the unlawful activity occurs during the course of an authorised operation. Effectively, it is a limited approval to vary controlled activities arising from previously approved operations. In that sense it is consistent with the previously expressed position of Inspector Finlay and the Ministry of Police. It is, I believe, an incremental change, and it is certainly not as dramatic as might otherwise have been suggested.

I am interested to see how these unforseen unlawful activities will be recorded and how information to support the application will be provided. I must say, they seem to be the real issues with respect to approvals, rather than some of the inane rhetoric of the honourable member for Bega. Fairly obviously, the usual careful monitoring by the Ombudsman in this situation will be particularly important. It would certainly be undesirable if approving officers bring less discipline to their decision making because of the scope of retrospective authorisations. Once again, whether that fear is realistic will be determined by monitoring and auditing by the Ombudsman. The last point I make on this aspect is that it is curious that in all the paper and discussion generated on retrospective approvals, the committee that I chair has not been made aware that the present restrictions on retrospective approvals have actually created operational difficulties.
The final substantial change in the legislation relates to cross-border controlled operations. This provision aims for a legislative scheme under which law enforcement agencies may carry out cross-border investigations of criminal activities. I note the comment in the second reading speech by the Parliamentary Secretary—not, as the honourable member for Bega said, the Minister—that it is envisaged that cross-border operations will comprise only a small percentage of the total number of controlled operations by New South Wales agencies.

An authorisation issued under the law of another State will have effect in New South Wales as if it were issued under our legislation. A New South Wales authorisation will have effect in another jurisdiction as if it were authorised under that jurisdiction. Once again, oversight by the Ombudsman applies here. If the number of these instances is extreme—that is, greater than presaged in the second reading speech by the Parliamentary Secretary—that will presumably be apparent through the Ombudsman's auditing.

Finally, the legislation requires a further review of the principal Act in five years, with the outcome to be tabled in Parliament. This seems to be a review by the Minister. There is perhaps an argument that an independent body should perform the review of the Act, on the basis that the first review was conducted by Inspector Finlay. Despite that, I am delighted to commend the bill to the House.

Mr THOMAS GEORGE (Lismore) [10.53 a.m.]: The Law Enforcement (Controlled Operations) Amendment Bill provides, within the Law Enforcement (Controlled Operations) Act 1997, a legislative scheme under which law enforcement agencies may carry out cross-border investigations in relation to criminal activities. The bill substantially adopts the provisions of a model law for such a scheme. As the Legislation Review Committee noted in Legislation Review Digest No. 3 of 2006, the report on the statutory review of the Act recommended several significant changes to the Act, including the expansion of the number of senior NSW Police officers able to authorise controlled operations, the expansion of the circumstances in which a retrospective authorisation may be granted, and the introduction of cross-border provisions in relation to operations that cross over from New South Wales into other jurisdictions.

According to the New South Wales Ombudsman's 2004-05 report on the Act, the total number of operations under the Act has increased steadily over the past five years, together with a marked increase in the number of variations authorised. The report noted the following breakdown of controlled operations conducted by NSW Police. The majority of the operations involved investigating criminal activities associated with the supply, possession, cultivation and/or manufacture of prohibited drugs—351 controlled operations were connected in some way to prohibited drugs. Over the past few years since I have been representing the seat of Lismore, which joins the Queensland border, sadly we have had some problems associated with Nimbin. I have continually raised those problems in this House and with the Minister for Police. I am sure that police in the Northern Rivers region and the north of the State will appreciate having these cross-border issues addressed.

The bill expands the number of police officers to whom the chief executive officer of NSW Police, that is the Commissioner of Police, may delegate his or her functions under the Act. I am sure I speak for the Richmond area command and also the Tweed area command in saying this. It is commendable that the bill expands the number of police officers to whom the chief executive officer, the commissioner, can delegate his or her functions, but we need the extra police to be able to continue the fight against what is happening in the Northern Rivers area. Indeed, I am sure it is an ongoing problem right across the State. I reinforce what I have been saying in this House for some time now and to the police Minister: We need the extra police to conduct these inspections and carry out law enforcement that is needed in the Northern Rivers area, and to be able to work with authorities across the border. No doubt that issue is now being addressed.

I will even go as far as saying we need a drug enforcement unit right across the northern part of the State to combat these problems. It is all right to expand the authority of police officers, but if they do not have the work force under them to be able to address these issues it is a waste of time. I place on record my support for extra police being allocated to the north of the State, to address the issues raised by the Ombudsman in his 2004-05 report.

Mr GRAHAM WEST (Campbelltown—Parliamentary Secretary) [10.57 a.m.], in reply: Retrospective authorisations may be applied for where a participant in an authorised controlled operation engages in conduct outside the scope of the original authority. The intent is to allow undercover officers to exercise their initiative. However, retrospective authorisations can only be granted if certain strict criteria are met. To remind the House of the safeguards, retrospective authorisations can be granted only in circumstances where the participant reasonably believed that there was a substantial risk to the success of the authorised operation and that the risk could not be avoided except by engaging in the relevant conduct.
The authorising officer must be satisfied that the participant had not foreseen, and could not reasonably be expected to have foreseen, that those circumstances would arise, and that, had it been possible to do so, authority for the relevant conduct would have been sought before the authorised operation took place. Important safeguards have been built into the bill. An authorising officer will be required to comply with the strict provisions of the Act and will be subject to internal and external oversight by the New South Wales Police Professional Standards Command and the New South Wales Ombudsman. Additionally, individual operations are subject to stringent internal administrative anticorruption mechanisms, for example when the amount of money required to make a controlled purchase is over a certain amount and when an undercover operative is involved.

Further, I point out that police cannot use controlled operations to entrap people. Under section 7, authority to conduct a controlled operation cannot be granted if it involves a participant inducing or encouraging another person to engage in criminal activity that the other person could not reasonably be expected to engage in unless so induced or encouraged. NSW Police has more officers than most other police agencies. We now have record police numbers, and the Government has already announced that another 750 are on the way. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

Debate resumed from 9 March 2006.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER (Gosford) [11.00 a.m.]: I lead for the Opposition on the Motor Accidents (Lifetime Care and Support) Bill and the Motor Accidents Compensation Amendment Bill. The Law Society of New South Wales made representations to the Parliament in respect of these bills and those submissions are entitled to be treated with the greatest of respect. In my speech I do not propose to canvass in detail the submission of the society, but the Coalition supports one of the major concerns of the society and will be seeking to amend the bill in accordance with the society's position.

At this stage I acknowledge the work done by the society and by Claire McKendrick, Law Society Government Adviser, in her detailed and comprehensive briefing notes and submission. The State Labor Government has an appalling record for meeting its responsibilities in caring for people with disabilities. The only reason these bills have achieved community support is that everyone recognises disability services are so poor in New South Wales and no-one wishes to be dependent on the New South Wales Government for care. Last year two out of every three people who applied for home care were refused, 90 per cent of those who applied for supported accommodation services, such as group homes, were turned away, and one-third of the State's respite care beds were blocked, leaving dozens of carers who have the responsibility of caring for a family member or a person with a disability without an opportunity for a break.

The central purpose of these bills is to enable the State Government to raise $90 million by slugging motorists and insurance companies with an extra tax to bale it out of its responsibility to look after people who receive a severe spinal cord injury or an acquired brain injury and who are not covered by an insurance policy. If the Government had wisely managed the windfall funds it received from property taxes, taxes on the club industry and taxes on business activity, it would not need to raise the additional $90 million a year that is necessary to make this scheme work. It plans to achieve that by what it states is an average $20 a year increase on compulsory third party green slips.

The Motor Accidents (Lifetime Care and Support) Bill creates a new bureaucracy and places new liabilities on the taxpayer and the people of this State. The Opposition and the community have every reason to be suspicious that this scheme will be botched like so many other schemes that have been initiated by the Carr and Iemma governments. This Government, a worthy successor to the Carr Government, cannot be trusted with a new insurance scheme as it has a grand tradition of mismanaging other schemes just like this one. Under the State Labor Government the workers compensation scheme left the Minister for Industrial Relations, John Della Bosca, speechless when it blew out to a massive $250 million deficit, losing $46 million in a single year under his stewardship. Employers and workers are now paying the price.

This Government, the so-called worker's friend, responded by slashing worker benefits. It has also eroded the State's economic competitiveness by saddling businesses—small, large and medium—with crippling workers compensation premiums. The former Unsworth Government presided over an equally shocking deficit in the TransCover scheme, which took motorists years to pay off. Labor has so much form we are entitled to be sceptical of its claims that this new long-term care and support scheme is fully funded and will be properly managed. The Government has been trying to con the public by saying that this scheme will add an average of only $20 to the annual cost of a compulsory third party green slip. However, it has not explained that, because this figure is an average, some motorists will pay a great deal more than $20.

The proposed levy will not be limited to $20, as suggested by the Government's media spin. The levy will be a percentage of the total cost of the compulsory third party green slip premium. People who represent a higher risk, such as younger drivers or motorcyclists, will be paying much more than $20 a year. Because Opposition members are rightly and legitimately concerned about this Government's potential to mismanage the scheme we will be moving amendments to the bill to refer the Government's claims about the cost of the scheme to the New South Wales Auditor-General to check and ensure that they properly reflect actual costs of the scheme, and also to check the accuracy of the Government's claims that the cost to the motorist will be limited to an average of $20 a year. The bill is being passed this year but the scheme will not come into operation until 1 October 2007.

There is plenty of time for the Government's claims to be checked by the Auditor-General and for a report to be prepared and published so that the voters of this State can take that report into consideration before the next State election. When the Premier launched this scheme at Westmead Children's Hospital he was extremely brief about its full details and deceitful in not explaining all its features. In his attempt to portray the costs of the scheme as being limited to an amount of $20 a year for each compulsory third party green slip, he did not explain that that amount was an estimate, an average, and calculated on the value of the dollar in 2005.

There is no guarantee that the figure will be fixed and limited to an amount of $20 a year. Two years inflation will be added to the increase when the scheme starts on 1 October 2007. Green slips could also increase above the figure of $20 in future years if the costs of funding the additional no fault benefits prove to be more expensive than that calculated by the Government. One indication that increased costs are likely and virtually certain is the fact that the Government has not adjusted its costings to include the additional expense of covering children under the age of 16 in the scheme.

In July 2005 the Government published a paper prepared by consultants PricewaterhouseCoopers outlining the costs of the scheme. That paper did not include the cost of extending the no fault scheme to children aged under 16 years of age who were injured in road accidents that could not be attributed to negligence on the part of a driver. It calculated then that the scheme would cost motorists an additional $20 a year on their compulsory third party green slip premiums, yet the scheme we are now considering includes the additional costs of covering children aged under 16 years. Apparently it has not been necessary to increase the cost of the levy.

Commonsense tells us that children will be an expensive addition to the scheme, if only because they have a longer life expectancy. Twenty per cent of the people who suffer an acquired brain injury in a car accident will be children aged between nought and 14 years, and 5 per cent of the people who receive a serious spinal cord injury will be aged nought to 14. It stands to reason that extending the scheme to include a no fault scheme for children aged up to 16 years will ensure that the scheme costs motorists a lot more than $20 annually, which the Government estimates will be the increased costs for a compulsory third party green slip. Something the Premier did not explain at the time of his press conference was that the Government plans to pay for this scheme partly by cutting benefits to claimants who currently can make fault-based claims under the existing scheme.

One obvious way in which the scheme will cut benefits is by abolishing lump sum payments for medical care, and reasonable and necessary care and support. Lifetime care services will apply only while the claimant remains alive. Currently, all catastrophically injured claimants who survive a motor accident that is not their fault are paid a substantial lump sum for estimated costs of their care and medical requirements, and the size of the lump sum is calculated according to their estimated lifespan. In the event that a claimant dies prematurely, the remainder of the lump sum forms part of his or her estate.
In the case of dependent children, these amounts contribute towards the cost of completing their education and care, and provide some compensation for the loss of a natural parent. Under this scheme, families will face great distress because they will lose this financial assistance. Families in this situation will experience even greater distress if the premature death can be attributed directly to a negligent act by an irresponsible driver. Under this scheme claimants who do not receive a lump sum will have less say in determining how their care needs are addressed. They will have to submit to an assessment and conform to bureaucratic rules about how many hours care they have, what equipment they can use, where they can live, what they can spend their money on and other such matters.

The new Orwellian-named Lifetime Care and Support Authority and its lifetime care co-ordinators will predetermine every aspect of claimants' lives. Basic decisions about where they live, who they can employ as carers, how often they can move house, how often they can change cars, what sports they can attempt, what equipment they can use, whether they can go to a private hospital for follow-up surgery, where they can go on holiday, and whether they can obtain IVF treatment to enable them to have children or obtain essential medication will be in the hands of the new authority.

While the Opposition accepts that some people are not able to make their lump-sum compensation last for their entire lifetime, this problem does not apply to all. In fact, it does not even apply to most claimants. The Government's discussion paper makes the claim that 40 per cent of claimants were living on social security 17 years after receiving their lump sum. Of course, that means that 60 per cent of people successfully make their lump sums last. Many catastrophically injured people can, and do, manage their finances properly to ensure that they can live typical and fulfilling lives. These people, while they will be few, may not wish to submit themselves to the Government's new bureaucracy because they value their independence and privacy. The Opposition supports the right of claimants who can express their consent to opt out of the scheme if they so choose, and I foreshadow that we will move the appropriate amendments to make that possible.

To respond in advance to complaints from the Government that this will compromise the viability of the scheme, we point out that this right will extend only to a very limited number of potential claimants. It has been estimated that 125 people will enter the scheme in a year. Half of them will not be able to make a fault-based claim so they obviously will not be candidates for opting out. Of the remaining 60 to 65 claimants who can establish fault, 70 per cent—or about 45 people—will have a brain injury and will therefore not be able to give legal consent or have the capacity to manage their affairs independently. A significant number of the remainder will be minors under the age of 18, who likewise will not have the capacity to give consent or manage their affairs. Some of the remainder may elect to enter the scheme because they are prepared to trade off a reduction in their independence for the perceived security of the managed care provided by the scheme.

Therefore, it is likely that no more than five claimants a year will choose to opt out. This small number who elect to take lump sums will not compromise the viability of the scheme. In the main, they will be claimants whose injury is paraplegia. Many people who have paraplegia live very independent lives, play sport, establish families and manage their financial affairs successfully. There can be no better example of this than Mr Doogie Herd from the Disability Council of New South Wales. Another group who may legitimately wish to opt out of the scheme are people from overseas who are injured in New South Wales. A scheme operated by an authority in New South Wales is unlikely to be flexible enough to meet the needs of a claimant who returns home to another country and who may also be affected by fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates.

As I said earlier, the Government's proposed Lifetime Care and Support Authority will have a great impact on how some people with disabilities live their lives. Disputes will inevitably arise over the question of what constitutes a "reasonable" level of care. Currently the legislation gives the authority an unfair advantage over claimants. While the authority will have enormous financial capacity to seek legal advice to defeat claimants in a dispute, claimants will have no capacity to recoup the costs of legal or other professional advice, even if they are successful in a dispute with the authority. Participants or their representatives will be required to complete forms and provide substantiating material, including medico-legal reports, to the assessment and review panels. Many people will be ill-equipped to access material properly to substantiate their arguments and present that material persuasively without obtaining legal or other competent advice and representation. The authority's panels, however, will be fully resourced and will comprise qualified and experienced assessors, with access to competent legal advice.

It is an incredible anomaly that claimants who have a dispute with the Motor Accidents Authority can get funding for legal advice in disputes but that claimants who are in dispute with the Lifetime Care and Support Authority will not have a similar privilege. The Law Society of New South Wales has recommended that the bill be amended to permit claimants to seek legal advice in disputes that arise with authority assessors in relation to what constitutes reasonable levels of care. The Opposition notes that the Government's discussion paper promised that claimants would be able to receive funding for education and vocational services and also for child care, but these services have not been mentioned in clauses 3 and 6 (2) of the bill, which outline services that can be considered as providing reasonable levels of care.

Finally, the Opposition believes the scheme will result in savings to the New South Wales Government because it will fund medical, hospital and disability services for clients who are currently covered by the public health system and by services provided or funded by the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care. Yet the Government is not providing a single cent to the scheme and expects the motorists of New South Wales to fully fund it. The Government is transferring to the motorists of New South Wales its responsibilities regarding the cost of disability and health care.

Despite these concerns, the Opposition recognises that there are merits in providing a scheme to ensure that all people who are catastrophically injured in motor vehicle accidents get the opportunity, regardless of fault, to have their medical and personal care needs provided in a structured Government-guaranteed scheme that lasts for their entire lifetime and that is protected from erosion by inflation or bad investment choices. Accordingly, the Opposition will not oppose the bill but we will move amendments in Committee to address at least two of the most important concerns that we have outlined. The Opposition believes the scheme should be referred to the New South Wales Auditor-General to ensure that it is viable and to make sure that the Government's claim that the scheme will add only $20 to compulsory third-party green slip premiums is accurate and fair. The Opposition will also seek to amend clause 8 (2) to give freedom of choice to claimants with the relevant capacity to opt out of the scheme if they so choose.

The Law Society argued for a number of other amendments to the legislation. It is seeking a widening of the definition of attendant care services, independent scrutiny as to what constitutes treatment and care needs, and independent scrutiny as to what constitutes eligibility determinations. The Law Society also argued, as I set out in my remarks, that claimants should have the right to be funded for legal representation in this process. The Law Society argued for a facility for the court to award economic damages if there are other lifetime care and support needs outside the parameters of treatment and care needs as defined in the bill. It supports the Opposition's position that injured persons should have the right to manage their own affairs as much as possible. The Law Society also points out that the guidelines need to specify that the preferred care regime will ensure that claimants can choose their care providers and can elect for their family to provide care. The Law Society supports the view of the Motor Accidents Authority that, if required, these family members should be employed and paid as carers.

The Law Society pointed out that the scheme offers a windfall for insurers. It proposed that the lifetime care and support scheme be fully funded by a special levy paid by motorists when they purchase their compulsory third-party green slip policies, thus relieving insurers of existing liability for economic loss and damages for people in this situation. It should also be noted that insurers will benefit from the new $200 million cap on insurer liability under schedule 1 [12] to the Motor Accidents Compensation Amendment Bill, which amends section 23A of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act. Accordingly, some issues in this legislation need to be addressed. The bill has a worthy aim: to protect people who have catastrophic injuries and who do not have the right to make a fault-based claim. That is why the Coalition does not oppose the legislation. But there are matters that require further amplification and, if necessary, amendment.

The legislation does not commence until 1 October 2007 so the Auditor-General has an adequate opportunity to assess the validity of the Premier's claim that the scheme will cost only an extra $20 per green slip. One wonders if that will be the cost. There is no reason why the Government cannot support the right of people who are competent to opt out of the scheme. After all, we do work on the basis that we respect the right of individuals to make their own decisions, particularly about the management of their life and investments, if they are mentally competent to do so. That is fundamental, and yet this legislation denies them that right. There are also various other matters raised by the Law Society in its submission, which should be addressed by the Government. However, the Coalition will not be moving amendments in the Legislative Assembly as they have not yet been prepared by Parliamentary Counsel. It will be moving the appropriate amendments in the Legislative Council.

Mr PAUL CRITTENDEN (Wyong) [11.20 p.m.]: I am pleased to support this legislation, which is one the most progressive measures I have seen in this place during my tenure here. I am disappointed with some of the amendments foreshadowed by the honourable member for Gosford. I hope he rethinks the faulty logic on which they are based. In respect of a person's eligibility to enter the scheme, and in respect of the benefits to be paid to a participant from the scheme, the concept of fault is entirely removed. That is to say, a motor cyclist in a single vehicle accident, whether or not intoxicated or under the influence of drugs, is treated in exactly the same way as a pedestrian knocked down by a drunken driver on a safety crossing.

For those injured by the fault of another there will remain the common law claim for general damages and past and prospective future loss of income, but the claimant's ongoing care and treatment needs will be taken over by the scheme if that person is eligible under the lifetime care and support [LTCS] guidelines for lifetime participation in the scheme. An accident victim can be placed in the scheme against his or her wishes on the application of the insurer under clause 8 (1) and (2). Obviously, of course, every insurer will seek to place every road accident victim possible in the scheme and at the earliest possible opportunity.

The legislation is entirely silent as to the category of persons who will be eligible to be a participant in the scheme. The only criterion under clause 7 is "if the person's injury satisfies the criteria specified in the LTCS Guidelines for eligibility for participation in the Scheme". The legislation is obviously aimed at the catastrophically disabled but until such time as guidelines are produced it is not known what range of persons, ranging from incomplete paraplegics to respirator-dependent total quadriplegics, or what categories of brain-damaged persons will qualify for participation in the scheme. Under clause 6 (1) the scheme will provide for the payment for such of the treatment and care needs of the participant "as are reasonable and necessary in the circumstances". A person's treatment and care needs include the various matters listed in clause 6 (2). They include attendant care services and home and transport modification. It is further provided in clause 6 (4):

The LTCS Guidelines may make provision for or with respect to determining which treatment and care needs of a participant in the Scheme are reasonable and necessary in the circumstances.

Under clause 28 (2) (c) the guidelines may make provision for "the methods and criteria to be used to determine the treatment and care needs of participants". Until such guidelines are published this leaves many questions up in the air, but in my view the scheme is a leap into the unknown. The most obvious and significant questions left outstanding are the following. First, are attendant care services to be provided to enable the participant to live independently in his or her own home, or will the far cheaper option of putting such a person in an institution be the preferred option? If some victims will fall into one category and some into another, what will be the determining criteria?

Second, if attendant care services are provided in his or her own home to a person such as a total quadriplegic on a respirator, will those services be provided on a round-the-clock basis? Third, where the care is provided gratuitously by parents, husbands, wives or other family members is it intended that a payment will be made to such family member and, if so, at what rate? Lastly, will the home modification provided by the scheme be confined to the basics of putting in ramps and a disabled toilet or will it extend to such things as the building of an extra room or accommodation for a live-in attendant or the airconditioning of a home? What if the person has not got a home, will there be funding for the acquisition of a home?

It is important to note that dispute resolution in relation to eligibility to participate in the scheme, and in relation to a participant's entitlements in the scheme, is to be confined to assessment panels and review panels whose determinations are final and binding. There is no right of court review in relation to either eligibility or benefits. As will be seen from the foregoing, the quality of care to be provided under the scheme is very dependent on the guidelines, as yet unpublished by the authority, which of course does not presently exist, and the actual administration of the scheme by the authority. Yesterday the Minister's Chief of Staff, Mathew Strassberg, told me that disabled groups would be involved in the preparation of the guidelines.

That said, however, that any catastrophically disabled accident victim with a long life expectancy will, in all likelihood, be immeasurably better off under the lifetime protections of this scheme rather than getting a common law lump sum capitalising those needs on the 5 per cent discount tables, which is something the honourable member for Gosford has failed to address. In this respect the legislation is similar to what Kevin Beckton and Bill Jocelyn from the Government Insurance Office pioneered in the 1980s in relation to structured settlements. That was a good idea then and this is potentially a good idea now. The funding mechanisms of the scheme are set out in clauses 49, 50 and 51 of the bill. Clause 49 provides:

(1) The Authority is to determine, before the beginning of each relevant period, the amount required to be contributed to the Fund:

(a) to fully fund the present and likely future liabilities of the Authority under Part 2 (Care and Support for Scheme participants) in respect of persons who become participants in the Scheme in respect of motor accident injuries suffered during that period, and
(b) to meet the payments required to be made from the Fund (other than payments under Part 2) during that period, and

(c) to make provision for such other matters as the Authority should, in all the circumstances, prudently make provision for in connection with liabilities under Part 2.

(2) The amount required to fully find a liability of the Authority under Part 2 is an amount that is sufficient to provide a sum of money that together with anticipated investment income is equal to the best estimate of the cost of meeting the liability (in inflated dollars) as and when the liability falls due.

(3) The Authority's determination in respect of a relevant period is to be made in accordance with the report of an independent actuary engaged by the Authority on the recommendation of the Board to report to the Authority on the amount required to be contributed to the Fund as referred to in subsection (1) …

…

(5) The amount determined by the Authority under this section for a relevant period is the required Fund contribution for that period.

Clause 50 provides:

(1) The required Fund contribution for a relevant period is to be made by the payment to the Authority of a levy (the Fund levy) by persons to whom third-party policies are issued during the relevant period.

(2) The Fund levy is to be an amount determined by the Authority and is to be an amount that will result in the required Fund contribution for the relevant period being contributed to the Fund …

It will be seen under clause 49 (3) that a determination is to be made each year on the basis of an actuary's report of the likely present and future liabilities of the authority for all participants to be admitted into the scheme in the year to come. This, of course, is a sober and responsible way to go about the matter. However, an actuary's estimate involves feeding into the calculation the number of imponderables in addition to the stringency or otherwise of criteria in future lifetime care and support [LTCS] guidelines.

There are five of those. The first is the number of such catastrophic accidents yet to happen in any given year. Of course, this will vary with the state of the roads, policing practices, speed limits, blood alcohol limits and, of course, random chance. The second is the likely future earnings of the scheme fund over periods often in excess of half a century, and the likely rates of general inflation throughout that period. In the nature of things, that can only be a guesstimate. The third is the likely life expectancy of prospective future road accident victims. That will vary from time to time in relation to an individual, general societal and public health measures in the community, and the methodology of the Australian Bureau of Statistics in calculating life expectancy.

The fourth is the future costs and the degree of escalation in future costs. Historically, health care costs have risen at a far higher rate than the consumer price index generally, and average weekly earnings—the correct measure of the cost of future attendant care—have, on average, risen by 1 per cent or so more per annum than the advance in the consumer price index. Some persons coming into the scheme will have life expectancies in excess of 50 years. The fifth relates to future medical discoveries or inventions that could neither increase nor decrease future costs. Those will be totally unknown until such discoveries or inventions are made.

Presumably, the resulting increase in the actuarial assessment of the future costs of participants already in the system will be levied in future years in addition to the actuarial assessment of new claims coming into the scheme in the year ahead. That galaxy of imponderables is rather elliptically addressed in section 49 (c). Nevertheless, the Deputy Premier stated in his second reading speech of 9 March this year:

These cognate bills are estimated to have an average $20 net cost impact for motorists under the green slip scheme regime.

Under the existing third party system, of course, the risk of all these imponderables is placed upon the road accident victim and not upon the wrongdoer's insurer. The once-and-for-all lump sum was always a blunt and imprecise vehicle for compensating the catastrophically disabled, and when used with a 5 per cent discount rate was, and is, demonstrably inadequate. The end result of this scheme is that the Lifetime Care and Support Authority set up by the bill will, in fact, be taking over the risk of the third party scheme, and motor accident insurers will be getting a stream of profits on what for them will now become a relatively risk-free business. The authority will become the de facto insurer. The legislation as a whole is commendable and, assuming that it is administered sensitively and humanely, will immeasurably enhance the lives and feeling of security of those covered by it.

Mr MALCOLM KERR (Cronulla) [11.32 a.m.]: There are a number of aspects to the bill. I associate myself with the speech made earlier by the honourable member for Gosford and the concerns that he expressed. This is a matter that should concern everybody in New South Wales. Everybody is potentially a victim of a motor vehicle accident, whether as a motorist or not. Many friends or family members will be involved in motor vehicle accidents that have dire results. So it is important, as the honourable member for Wyong said, that this legislation be administered humanely. It is also incumbent upon this House to ensure that the bill is effective in meeting its objectives, because those objectives are quite admirable. Members of this House and members of another place will be greatly assisted by reading the report on this bill made by the Legislation Review Committee. It raises a number of issues that I want to place on the public record. Those matters should be considered in this House and in another place. The first matter I want to deal with is deeming fault, which is dealt with by the committee at page 13 of its report. Items 12 to 15 of that report state:

The Bill deems a "blameless" driver to have been at fault, even though that driver has not "actually" been at fault. This is a legal fiction to provide a mechanism for the payment of compensation.

If a driver has in fact been blameless, that driver—or other people who know that driver due to family, work or social connections—may be concerned that he or she is nonetheless "deemed" to have been at "fault". The blameless driver may be socially stigmatised or psychologically traumatised by such a legislative finding.

The fact that the deeming provision is merely a drafting technique to make various other provisions operative may not prevent blameless drivers from needlessly suffering social stigmatisation and stress.

It is not apparent to the Committee whether such deeming provision may have consequences apart from those contemplated in the Bill, such as affecting no-claim bonuses.

They are all legitimate questions. The committee noted that it had:

… written to the Minister seeking his advice as to whether the deeming of fault under clause 7B may have legal consequences for the blameless driver.

That is a matter that should be considered by this House and the other place. I note that this House has not been told that the Minister for Commerce has not supplied any answer to the question that was raised by the committee. Another aspect of the bill dealt with by the Legislation Review Committee that I want to place on record is assessor qualifications. This is dealt with at page 14 of the committee's report. In items 18 and 19 the committee noted:

The Bill proposes new roles for assessors with regard to:

• Eligibility disputes …

• Treatment and care needs …

• Definition of motor accident injuries …

The assessors for "eligibility disputes" must have medical qualifications, or otherwise be "suitably qualified" … Eligibility disputes will be referred to a panel of three such assessors, all of whom could, it would appear, be medical practitioners, but none of whom may have legal expertise …

The committee went on to note:

… for a right of appeal to be effective, the panel hearing the matter must be sufficiently competent to properly consider the issues raised.

The Committee has written to the Minister to seek his advice as to why there is no requirement that panels dealing with disputes regarding eligibility and treatment and care needs must include a person with suitable legal expertise.

Once again, this House would be assisted if relevant correspondence, particularly from the Minister, were made available. The other aspect that is of concern is dealt with at page 16 of the Legislation Review Committee report. In items 29 and 30 the Committee said:

The Committee notes that the Bill delegates to the Authority the power to make guidelines providing for matters fundamental to the ongoing provision of catastrophically injured persons, including the eligibility criteria for participation in the Scheme, the assessment of treatment and care needs, and the types of treatment and care that are covered by the Scheme.

The Committee notes that any such guidelines are disallowable by either House of Parliament, although they are not reviewable by the Legislation Review Committee.

It seems to me, having listened to the speech on this legislation made by the honourable member for Wyong, and having heard his plea that it be administered humanely, that it would be advisable if this delegated authority and the guidelines that have been made in consequence could be subject to, and reviewable by, the Legislation Review Committee. I believe all members of this House would support such a procedure, and I trust members of the other place will carefully consider that matter. As I have said, the objects of the bill are perfectly worthy. However, when the bill comes to be considered by the other place, its members should be aware that the Minister for Commerce has mail.

Mr PAUL LYNCH (Liverpool) [11.39 a.m.]: I support the Motor Accidents (Lifetime Care and Support) Bill and the Motor Accidents Compensation Bill. These cognate bills are a significant change in both practice and principle concerning significant categories of those involved in motor vehicle accidents. I have two particular interests in this field. One is that these legislative changes are significant improvements for some of my constituents. The other is that for many years before coming to this place I was a personal injuries litigator. Every day I dealt with people whose lives were turned upside down by personal injuries, including motor vehicle accidents. The Motor Accidents Compensation Amendment Bill does a number of things to alter the currently existing scheme relating to motor vehicle accidents.

The bill introduces a new children's benefit. It extends the coverage of the scheme so that there is a no-fault benefit for New South Wales resident children under 16 years of age who are injured in motor vehicle accidents. It will cover hospital, medical and pharmaceutical rehabilitation and attendant care service expenses. In the case of the death of a child it will meet the family's reasonable funeral expenses. That moves from the current position where a claim can be made only if someone other than the child can be found to be at fault. The Motor Accidents Compensation Amendment Bill also extends the current scheme to provide full compensation entitlements for injury or death that is caused by a motor vehicle accident when no-one is considered to have been at fault. These sometimes are known as blameless or inevitable accidents. Most obviously this includes cases when a driver experiences an unforseen illness or a medical condition. At present compensation under this scheme is not available because no-one is at fault.

The legislation makes some other alterations to the compulsory third party scheme. There is a $200 million limit on an insurer's liability for a single event with any liability greater than that to be shared through the nominal defendant fund. This is said to result from the failure of the international insurance market. If nothing else, that indicates the impact of international finance and international markets on domestic insurance arrangements. It is a reminder that the escalation of third party and public liability premiums several years ago did not spring at all from the non-existent crisis in litigation or from an excess of unmeritorious claims. It actually sprang more from international insurers losing substantial sums when the dot.com bubble burst and other speculative investments. They then had a need to safeguard their profit margins, which meant a rise in Australian premiums regardless of any claims history or lack thereof.

The legislation also makes some amendments concerning the nominal defendant scheme, including restricting claims to where the uninsured and unregistered vehicle is actually capable of registration. It also prevents people from trespassing on private property at the time of the injury from claiming against the nominal defendant. Another amendment clarifies that the scheme is limited to accidents where there is coverage under a third party policy or the nominal defendant scheme, and does not include injuries arising gradually over time from a series of incidents.

The cognate bill is the Motor Accidents (Lifetime Care and Support) Bill, which aims to establish a scheme to provide lifetime care and support for persons who suffer catastrophic injuries in motor vehicle accidents covered by the Act. This proposal covers a range of different categories of victims injured in motor vehicle accidents. It includes people with catastrophic injuries currently entitled to make a fault-based claim. It includes people catastrophically injured in a motor vehicle accident who are at fault or negligent. It also includes people who are catastrophically injured in a motor vehicle accident when no-one is at fault.

This proposed change provides for the reasonable treatment and care expenses for these categories of victims. Reasonable expenses include medical and dental treatment, rehabilitation, attendant care services, home and transport modification, artificial arms, legs, eyes and teeth, and respite care. These payments will not be met by payment of a lump sum but by payment as the expense arises. That is where I differ from the honourable member for Gosford on the bill. The arguments he put forward in relation to payment of a lump sum have more substance if one is talking about a damages amount for injury or the old section 66, section 67 claims in workers compensation.

Medical expenses are in a different category. From my experience in practice trying to estimate the cost of medical treatment for the next 40 or 50 years always worried me. Even when exercising the greatest possible diligence those medicals could not be predicted in advance, partly because the costs of particular treatments might escalate and partly because there might be completely new treatments. By definition, if they are new treatments they have not yet been invented and the cost of them could not possibly be known. Therefore, that cost cannot be taken into account when calculating a lump sum value. There is some real practical virtue in payment of medical expenses as they arise rather than payment of a lump sum well in advance.

The determination of who can benefit from the scheme—that is, who is catastrophically injured—will be based upon the eligibility criteria set out in guidelines to be issued by the lifetime care and support authority. These are referred to as LTCS guidelines. Involvement in the scheme can be on a lifetime basis, or as an interim participant for two years until acceptance as a lifetime participant. That also is to be dealt with under LTCS guidelines. An application to be included in the scheme can be made only by or on behalf of the injured person or by an insurer of a motor vehicle accident claim relating to the injury. The application is to the lifetime care and support authority. Logically, a person cannot be included in the scheme if he or she has received common law damages for treatment and care needs. Likewise, getting the benefit of the scheme will prevent recovery of common law damages for treatment and care needs. There is also a mechanism provided in the bill for the two obvious areas for potential dispute, whether an accident is covered by the scheme, and the assessment of the treatment and care needs of a victim.

Part 3 of the bill deals with this dispute resolution. An assessment panel is established to determine whether a person satisfies LTCS criteria. A determination by a panel can be reviewed by a review panel but only on specified and limited grounds. As I read it, this review certainly is not a full merit-based appeal. Those determinations seem to be intended to be binding. I am always sceptical about the utility of binding medical parcels. The experience of them to date is not something that fills me with optimism. Disputes about whether an accident is a motor vehicle accident is likewise resolved by a panel, this time of three claim assessors, and their determination is final and binding. That is also a provision that may raise a bit of disquiet. I will follow with interest how that works in practice as the scheme is implemented. Similar types of provisions apply to determinations and disputes about treatment and care needs.

These are quite interesting and important bills. They are both practical and philosophic. If anyone doubts the philosophic significance one had only to listen to the speech of the honourable member for Gosford, who talked in Orwellian overtones. Whether one agrees with his assessment is not the point, it is simply that this is more than a nuts-and-bolts bill. It speaks significantly to the philosophy of how injured people are treated and to how our society is operated. They are important practically because people who previously would not be able to receive various types of treatment are now able to, and that is important practically. It is also important philosophically. The damages system we used is based upon particular notions of fault. Social or individual needs are irrelevant to that calculation without allocating personal fault. In that sense these changes are to be significantly welcomed.

In one sense it is simply catching up with the principles of workers compensation, which has adopted those principles for some time. The philosophic shift in relation to motor vehicle accidents is to be welcomed. It speaks of a much more civilised human approach to accident victims. I almost hesitate to say it, but it represents a traditional social democratic approach to social problems rather than nineteenth century and very limited notions of fault and negligence. I will advert briefly to what lawyers would regard as the holy text of tort law, John Fleming's The Law of Torts. My edition is the fifth edition from 1977, which has an interesting comment about how tort law developed and the significance of the philosophy behind this. Fleming writes:

During the nineteenth century, the 'moral advance' of tort law vastly accelerated. In response to doctrines of natural law and laissez faire, the courts attached increasing importance to freedom of action and ultimately yielded to the general dogma of 'no liability without fault'. This movement coincided with, and was undoubtedly influenced by the demands of the Industrial Revolution. It was felt to be in the better interest of an advancing economy to subordinate the security of individuals, who happened to become casualties of the new machine age, rather than fetter enterprise by loading it with the cost of 'inevitable' accidents. Liability for faultless causation was feared to impede progress because it gave the individual no opportunity for avoiding liability by being careful and thus confronted him with the dilemma of either giving up his projected activity or shouldering the cost of any resulting injury.

In this legislation we have, thankfully, moved far away from that uncaring and individualistic society. This is a much more humane response to people who are injured in motor vehicle accidents. The legislation is in stark contrast to the nonsensical rhetoric of several years ago, which supported changes to public liability legislation that was trumpeted as a priority for personal responsibility. In reality it was nothing of the sort because that legislation absolved many people or, more importantly, their insurance companies, who were guilty of negligent acts. However, the rhetoric certainly harped on obsessively about personal responsibility and fault and individual behaviour. I am delighted to say that this legislation is a much more sophisticated and altogether more civilised approach than that. It is good Labor policy. I am delighted to commend the bills to the House.
Mr JOHN BARTLETT (Port Stephens) [11.48 a.m.]: After six or seven years as a member of this House and as a member of various parliamentary committees I am delighted to speak to the Motor Accidents (Lifetime Care and Support) Amendment Bill and its cognate bill. I have been a member of the Staysafe committee for a number of years. At the end of the first quarter of 2006—at midnight on Thursday 23 March—the number of road deaths in New South Wales had increased by almost one-quarter, or 21 per cent, in comparison with the same period in 2005. The stark reality of the figures is that the number of road deaths to 23 March this year was 127 compared to 105 for the same period last year. That reflects the fact that those figures relate to only one aspect of road accidents. The other side of the story is the care and treatment of the survivors of road accidents who have been injured, and in some cases catastrophically injured.

Injuries can last a lifetime. Catastrophic injury includes quadriplegia, paraplegia and severe brain trauma. The Motor Accidents Compensation Amendment Bill introduces enhancements to the existing motor accidents scheme by introducing a new special children's benefit which extends the scheme's coverage to include a no-fault benefit for New South Wales resident children under 16 who are injured in motor accidents. That will cover hospital, medical, pharmaceutical, rehabilitation and attendant care service expenses and it extends the motor accident scheme coverage to provide compensation entitlements for injury or death caused by a motor vehicle accident when no-one is considered to have been at fault, in other words, a no-fault or inevitable accident.

For many years I have discussed with various Ministers the fact that some 500 people a year in New South Wales suffer, and live through, catastrophic injuries. Some people in that category in my electorate have included 16-year-olds who have broken their necks through football injuries and other people who have dived into the water at places such as Dutchman's Beach on the Tomaree Peninsula resulting in quadriplegia as well as those who have fallen off surfboards, which also resulted in quadriplegia. Those people are not covered under the schemes at all. Approximately 40 per cent of the 500 people a year who are injured are in that category. Sixty per cent of people who are catastrophically injured as a result of motor traffic accidents will be much better off under this scheme. Each and every year the heartbreak and suffering of those injured and their carers is the side of a member of Parliament's job that I am sure many people in the local community never realise. Much time is spent in trying to assist these people to get support and find some respite care for their carers.

Turning now to the no-fault recovery provisions relating to children, I point that out I spent many years involved in bike education in the Department of Education and Training. One of the things we constantly emphasised to children and the supervisors in that program was children on their pushbikes had to be predictable. We tried to get as much eye contact as possible between the children using the road and the people who were driving their cars. The bottom line is that any child under 13 who is riding a bike can make an instantaneous decision. For some reason, which is unknown to anybody else but possibly is related to their stage of development, they suddenly decide to turn right or left. As a result a driver becomes involved in an accident in which no fault is apportioned because there was no time for the driver to react. As a consequence of my experience, I am aware that young children are extremely vulnerable road users. Often they are not physically or psychologically capable of keeping themselves safe. Children move quickly and unpredictably and their smaller stature makes them even more vulnerable to serious injury.

The proposal to extend the motor accidents scheme to include a no-fault special entitlement for New South Wales children who are aged 16 or under at the time they are injured will create a much fairer motor accidents scheme and will improve the lives of both the injured children and their families. Regardless of who caused the motor accident, the injured child's treatment, rehabilitation and care costs will be met. There also will be an entitlement to compensation to cover treatment, rehabilitation and care that will be required in the future. As someone who has spent 22 years in education dealing with young children and having been a member of Parliament for seven years representing Port Stephens, I believe this legislation will provide a huge advantage in the future to those who will be covered by the scheme.

Children who are catastrophically injured in motor vehicle accidents will have access to the Lifetime Care and Support Scheme. I cite the example of Mitchell, who is now eight years old. He was injured three years ago at a family picnic when he rode his bike out onto a nearby road, straight into the path of an oncoming car. The driver had no opportunity to stop or take other evasive action to avoid a collision with Mitchell. Accordingly, the driver of the car was not considered to be at fault in the accident so Mitchell was unable to claim compensation under the motor accidents scheme. Cases such as Mitchell's are not uncommon. Compulsory third party claims analysis undertaken by the Motor Accidents Authority shows that children sustaining injuries as either pedestrians or cyclists are more likely to have a compulsory third party claim rejected. They are, therefore, more likely to be disadvantaged in a fault-based motor accidents scheme. This scheme will solve many of those problems.
Mitchell sustained a brain injury in the accident and was in hospital for two weeks. Later he received outpatient therapy. He now has a case manager at school and obviously he has behavioural problems as a result of his injuries. Of course, his carers and his parents have a lot of work to do. The availability of the children's no-fault benefit will change all that. The introduction of the no-fault benefit will enable a child who is injured in similar circumstances to access a local case management service to co-ordinate ongoing therapy on a needs basis. The case management service will also provide regular support to the family, and that is critically important. I presume many members of Parliament spend much of their time trying to assist people with carers and trying to help carers to come to some resolution of the problems they face. The case management service will also liaise with the school and treating therapists to optimise outcomes for the injured child.

The children's no-fault benefit will ensure that treatment and rehabilitation efforts are consistent and co-ordinated. As a consequence, a child is much more likely to achieve optimal recovery from the injuries sustained in the accident. Even catastrophically injured people who receive compensation are not guaranteed a lifetime of reasonable care and medical treatment. Those who receive a lump sum settlement following a motor accident still bear significant risks relating to how they invest their money to ensure the adequacy of funds in meeting the long-term costs, which often extend for decades, of ongoing care and treatment. I mention in passing that I know a man who is now in his forties. He was injured when he was 16 in a football accident. Each month 13 different people come in to look after him. Funding comes from a variety of sources. His mother is now approximately 79 years old and has been looking after him for the past 30-odd years. She has become frail and will be unable to continue. For people who are injured in motor vehicle accidents, the resolution of those issues will be greatly helped by the proposal in this legislation.

The Lifetime Care and Support Scheme will ensure that all people catastrophically injured in motor vehicle accidents in New South Wales receive the necessary medical treatment, care and support service they will need for the rest of their lives, regardless or who was at fault in the accident. Access to proper care is vital for catastrophically injured people. The new no-fault scheme for providing care and treatment shifts the focus from assessing fault to meeting the needs of the catastrophically injured. That is the key issue that this bill addresses.

The Lifetime Care and Support Scheme will provide injured people with access to a broad range of high quality care and support services, for example, assistance with everyday domestic services such as cooking, cleaning and shopping, and the tasks involved in the everyday operation and maintenance of a household. For the profoundly injured, the scheme will ensure that the necessary assistance for personal care, such as feeding, drinking, grooming and dressing, is provided. The scheme will also promote independence and self-sufficiency for injured people by providing social and vocational support activities. One often finds in these sorts of cases that the carers demand that some relief be given. Importantly, assistance will also be provided with community access by the availability of vehicle modifications and travel assistance. An important feature of the new scheme is its flexibility and its promotion of independence and choice. As Spinal Cord Injuries Australia states in its endorsement of the new scheme:

A key achievement of Lifetime Care and Support is that it will promote independence and choice by providing people with the flexibility to receive the care and support they need according to their own situation.

The scheme also recognises that an individual's care needs may change over time, depending on circumstances, and that the level of care will increase as the individual grows older. Unlike the uncertainty associated with lump sum settlements in ensuring the adequacy of funds to meet the long-term needs of the injured person, the Lifetime Care and Support scheme guarantees that all necessary treatment, care and support will be provided to the injured person for their lifetime.

As I said, some 500 people a year are being catastrophically injured. That is cumulative: every year there are 500 more. We are still not addressing, and the scheme does not purport to address, the fact that people fall off surf skis and surfboards, or are injured when diving into the surf. That is an area that the Parliament needs to address in the future. We need to look at the needs of these people, not at whose fault it is, to make us a far more humane society than we are at present. Mr Deputy Speaker, it is nice to see you back in the Chair and it gives me great pleasure to support the Motor Accidents (Lifetime Care and Support) Bill.

Mr DAVID BARR (Manly) [12.02 p.m.]: Mr Deputy Speaker, it is good to see you back. I will speak briefly in support of the bill. As far back as 1974 the Woodhouse committee recommended a national no-fault compensation scheme, and we have not progressed very far since that time. This bill is a very important step forward in the notion of no-fault compensation. Our system has been adversarial for too long. People who are at fault in motor accidents and are catastrophically injured can be thrown onto their own devices and those of their carers to look after themselves. Society as a whole bears a terrible burden when that happens.
This is a humane bill. The intent is to make sure that people who suffer catastrophic injuries, regardless of whether they are at fault, will be able to access a lifetime of care and support through this insurance scheme, which will involve an estimated $20 a year increase in the cost of compulsory third party slips. I think the public would be quite happy to pay an extra $20 to get that kind of coverage. Without that sort of insurance cover we are all vulnerable. We can all be at fault in a motor vehicle accident. It is very easy to be at fault. If we suffer catastrophic injury we are in deep trouble if we do not have private means to see us through a lifetime. For a young driver, that could mean 50 years of needing care and support. The parents and other family members will look after a child but then they pass on. What happens then? The system has been primitive and this is a step in the right direction.

Under the cognate Motor Accidents Compensation Amendment Bill, a special children's benefit is introduced. It provides a no-fault benefit for New South Wales resident children injured in motor accidents. I cite as an example the two little girls who were severely injured in the Roundhouse Childcare Centre accident at Manly. They would be covered by this legislation. There was nothing in place at the time of that terrible accident, and no-one was at fault.

This bill is an important step forward. The honourable member for Port Stephens rightly pointed to all those who are injured in accidents such as diving into the surf and hitting their heads on rocks. They are not covered and we really need no-fault compensation for them. We do not want to leave it to the lawyers and the adversarial system, in which there are winners and losers. There are no winners or losers in a system such as the one proposed in this legislation. We have to make sure that people who are catastrophically injured are covered for their lifetime. This is an important step forward.

Mr WAYNE MERTON (Baulkham Hills) [12.05 p.m.]: The shadow Attorney General has outlined the Opposition's position on this bill and how certain amendments will be moved in another place. The problem of lifetime care and support of people who have suffered serious or catastrophic injuries as a result of a motor accident has perplexed the community for many years. It has traditionally been the situation in New South Wales, apart from a brief interlude with TransCover, where for someone to be compensated as a result of a car accident another person clearly had to be at fault. The reality is that often there are serious car accidents in which it cannot be clearly established that someone was at fault. A car might run off the road in circumstances that do not reflect speed or any other factor that could make the driver liable. Nevertheless the car might run off the road and hit a tree and people might suffer very serious injuries.

I had a recent personal experience with people in hospital after suffering such injuries. Young men from rural New South Wales had been injured in very serious accidents. Some had brain injuries and you would see their family gathered around them. The inevitable truth of the matter, as painful as it might be, is that they face somewhat of a vegetative lifestyle. They have a very limited and bleak future. Of course, medical science can do amazing things and after many years of treatment and enormous expense many of them will be able to rejoin the workforce in some way or have a lifestyle that gives them some enjoyment. But some will not be as fortunate as that.

Unfortunately, many victims of car accidents cannot pursue a claim for compensation. It has been estimated that motor vehicle crashes are the biggest single contributor to catastrophic traumatic injury in Australia. Each year about 125 people will be seriously injured in motor vehicle accidents in New South Wales and left with significant disabilities requiring lifetime support. This causes great expense, distress to families and financial uncertainty. All those things are the tragic reality of serious car accidents.

Under the current Motor Accidents Compensation Act only 65 of the 125 people seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident, about half, are likely to be eligible for compensation. As I said, that is because compensation is available only when an accident is the result of the fault of another driver. People who are considered at fault are not entitled to any compensation and must rely upon family and community services to provide support. Even those in receipt of compensation are not guaranteed a lifetime of reasonable care and medical treatment. The Government introduced this legislation to address these special circumstances of catastrophically injured motor accident victims.

Other speakers in the debate said this does not apply to someone who dives into water that is only three or four feet deep and ends up a paraplegic or quadriplegic. This legislation applies specifically to car accident victims. The Government's lifetime care and support plan proposes that all people catastrophically injured in motor vehicle accidents in New South Wales receive the medical care and support services they need throughout their life, regardless of who was at fault in the accident.
There has been extensive consultation in relation to that plan, which has been accepted by medical specialists, health professionals, disability support groups, and service providers. The new scheme established by the bill will give effect to the proposals outlined in the Government's plan and will assist those who need care, security and ongoing treatment for their injuries. The new scheme will entitle people with catastrophic injuries to make a negligence or fault-based claim under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999.

For years it has been the case that for someone to make a third party claim he or she had to prove there was negligence or someone was at fault. The Motor Accidents Compensation Amendment Bill provides for a new section 7B, which gets around the legal situation easily, conveniently, and in a workmanlike manner. It deems a blameless driver to be at fault even though he or she is not at fault. That might sound a bit Irish but it achieves the required result. Only in those cases where there have been horrific injuries can a driver be deemed to be at fault, even though he or she is blameless. The Legislation Review Committee comments:

This is a legal fiction to provide the mechanism for the payment of compensation.

I think it is a realistic way of overcoming something that, traditionally, was deeply embedded in our compensation system. An earlier speaker made reference to a book on the law of torts, that is, civil wrongs. As a young law student I remember taking home a book on torts and I simply did not know what it meant. I soon found out that it dealt with civil wrongs and that it spoke about negligence, duty of care and all those kinds of things—issues about which we did not hear much 30 or 40 years ago. But our modern litigiously minded community now knows about duty of care. This legislation brings us up to date with community expectations. People who suffer horrific injuries and have to put their lives on hold for many years—tragically, sometimes forever—are entitled to some support, and their medical condition must be attended to. The objects of the Motor Accidents Compensation Amendment Bill are as follows:

(a) to provide a no-fault benefit for children injured in motor accidents covering hospital, medical and pharmaceutical expenses, rehabilitation expenses, respite care expenses, attendant care services expenses and (in the case of death) funeral or cremation expenses.

(b) to provide an entitlement to recover common law damages under the motor accidents compensation scheme for injury or death caused by a blameless (or "inevitable") motor accident, except for the driver whose act or omission caused the accident.

(c) to clarify the application of the Act by providing that the Act will only apply to a motor accident injury if the injury is caused during the driving of the vehicle, a collision involving the vehicle or the vehicle's running out of control, and the injury is not one that arises gradually from a series of incidents...

(e) to remove the existing right of action against the Nominal Defendant—

the position of Nominal Defendant was established to cover those who were not insured or to establish whether unidentified drivers of vehicles were involved—

in respect of motor accidents occurring on land that constitutes a road because it is open to or used by the public for driving, riding or parking vehicles in those cases where the injured person is a trespasser on the land.

Someone can claim for a motor vehicle accident that occurs on a road other than a public road provided that road is open or used by the public for driving, riding or parking. But if the injured person is a trespasser, he or she has no claim. So the bill contains an element of people having to accept personal responsibility. The bill does not apply to any trespasser who is involved in an accident. The objects of the bill continue:

(g) to cap the liability of a motor accident insurer arising from a single incident at $200 million...

I said earlier that the Opposition does not oppose the bill. The Government should be given some credit for introducing legislation about which people have spoken for years. As a practising lawyer I was often confronted with the parents of children who had been injured in an accident and it could not be established whether the driver of a vehicle caused the accident or whether another vehicle had been involved.

Earlier I alluded to the classic case of a motorist driving along a country road that has a speed limit of 80 kilometres per hour, with good light and normal conditions, and for no apparent reason the car runs off the road. That poses a number of problems because it might not necessarily have been the driver's fault. Even if the vehicle's tyres had been well maintained a blown tyre could have been sufficient to cause such an accident. Prior to the introduction of legislation such as this it was difficult for passengers in a vehicle to establish that the driver was negligent. It would have been a different story if the tyres were bald. This legislation will cover the classic case of a vehicle with new or well-maintained tyres that is involved in such an accident. It is an attempt to introduce a social conscience aspect to compensation. In 2006 the community is demanding such legislation, and quite rightly so. The Opposition does not oppose it.

Mr BRYCE GAUDRY (Newcastle—Parliamentary Secretary) [12.19 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members who have spoken during this debate. I thank the honourable member for Baulkham Hills in particular, for praising the Government for introducing the bill, and for the other comments he made during his contribution. The honourable member has experience in this area as he dealt with such matters in his legal practice.

The Motor Accidents (Lifetime Care and Support) Bill and the Motor Accidents Compensation Amendment Bill represent a significant achievement in greatly improving the assistance provided to people injured in motor vehicle accidents. Importantly, the reforms will provide increased assistance to people who suffer the most serious and profound injuries, and also to children, who are the most vulnerable road users in our community. These changes to the Motor Accidents Scheme will establish a new scheme to provide no-fault lifetime care and support for those who suffer catastrophic injury, such as spinal damage or brain trauma. They will provide a new and special children's no-fault benefit to meet an injured child's medical treatment, rehabilitation and care needs, and will extend scheme coverage to include those injured in inevitable or blameless accidents.

The Government's reforms will provide a practical and compassionate safety net for victims of motor vehicle accidents who would not otherwise be compensated under existing arrangements. The reform initiatives have been fully and independently costed. The Government's lifetime care and support plan, on which there was extensive public consultation during the second half of last year, includes a comprehensive independent actuarial costing study prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers. I note that this costing study also reflects work that has been undertaken on a national level for Australian insurance Ministers. There is no cut in benefits available to claimants in the fault-based Motor Accidents Scheme. A lump sum settlement will continue to be available for catastrophically injured people for their loss of earning capacity and non-economic loss or pain and suffering damages. The provision of lifetime care and support will, however, replace lump sum awards for this aspect of the claimant's damages. But that is limited only to this head of damages.

During consultation about the Government's proposal to provide no-fault lifetime care and support the plan was endorsed enthusiastically by medical specialists, health professionals, disability support groups, motorist organisations and actuarial associations. The key objective of the reform package is clearly to better meet the needs of people injured in motor vehicle accidents. In achieving this objective the Government is also aiming to assist their families. Caring for a family member who has suffered a catastrophic injury or for a young child seriously injured in a car accident can have a devastating impact on families. Families who provide such intensive care and support often do so at the cost of their own health and financial stability. The expanded Motor Accidents Scheme will also help to ease the burden and financial strain on the families of motor accident victims.

The premium amount that currently goes to the insurer for providing damages to catastrophically injured claimants will be paid instead to the Lifetime Care and Support Authority to provide treatment, care and support services to injured people. As the insurer will no longer need to take account of reinsurance costs or a profit margin on these risks, these savings will also go to fund the new scheme. Approximately 70 per cent of the cost of operating the new scheme will be met by the premium income currently going to insurers. The assertion that the new scheme will provide insurers with a windfall is simply not sustainable.

Since the introduction of the bills the Government has continued to consult various groups involved in the Motor Accidents Scheme. As a result of these consultations I foreshadow that the Government will move some minor amendments to the bills in Committee to achieve greater clarity with regard to certain issues. In particular, the amendments will clarify the reasonable treatment and care to be provided under the Motor Accidents (Lifetime Care and Support) Bill and the new provisions dealing with "blameless" motor vehicle accidents under the Motor Accidents Compensation Amendment Bill. I commend the bills to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bills read a second time.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Paul Lynch): Order! The Committee will deal first with the Motor Accidents (Lifetime Care and Support) Bill.

Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.
Mr BRYCE GAUDRY (Newcastle—Parliamentary Secretary) [12.26 p.m.], by leave: I move Government amendments Nos 1 and 2 in globo:

No. 1 Page 4, clause 6 (2) (a), line 12. Insert "(including pharmaceuticals)" after "treatment".

No. 2 Page 4, clause 6 (2). Insert after line 20:

(j) workplace and educational facility modifications,

(k) such other kinds of treatment, care, support or services as may be prescribed by the regulations.

Government amendments Nos 1 and 2 clarify that the cost of medication required by an injured person is included in the medical treatment needs to be met by the scheme. The amendments also clarify that the scheme will provide the modifications necessary to enable a scheme participant to return to work or to study at a school or other educational institution. The amendments also facilitate the regulations prescribing other kinds of treatment, care, support or services to be provided by the scheme to meet a participant's reasonable treatment and care needs.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [12.27 p.m.]: As the Opposition spokesperson, the honourable member for Gosford, said during the second reading debate, the Opposition will not oppose either the bill or the Government's amendments. However, we have foreshadowed that we will move to amend the bill in the other House in relation to the opting-out provisions. We have no difficulties with Government amendments Nos 1 and 2, and the Opposition does not oppose them.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause 6 as amended agreed to.

Clauses 7 to 53 agreed to.

Mr BRYCE GAUDRY (Newcastle—Parliamentary Secretary) [12.30 p.m.]: I want to read onto Hansard some points in relation to the Government amendments.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Didn't we just agree to them?

Mr BRYCE GAUDRY: You may have but you agreed to something you had not heard. I seek leave to move Government amendments Nos 3, 4, 5 and 6 in globo:

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: As I understand it all the amendments were moved in globo. If the honourable member is seeking leave to now further address the issue, the Opposition, in a spirit of goodwill and assistance to the Government, will of course agree. But it is not appropriate for the honourable member to re-debate the matters that the House has just agreed to.

Mr BRYCE GAUDRY: I seek that leave.

Mr Brad Hazzard: In the spirit of goodwill the Liberal and The Nationals Opposition will grant that leave.

Leave granted.

Mr BRYCE GAUDRY: I thank the honourable member for Wakehurst for granting that leave. I move Government amendments Nos 3, 4, 5 and 6 in globo:

No. 3 Page 26, clause 54, line 17. Insert "and third party tortfeasors" after "vehicles"

No. 4 Page 26, clause 54. Insert after line 29:

(3) If the participant suffered the motor accident injury as a result partly of the fault of a person (other than the owner or driver of a motor vehicle), the Authority is entitled to recover from that person as a debt due to the Authority such proportion of the present value of its treatment and care liabilities in respect of the injury as corresponds to the person’s share in the responsibility for the injury.

No. 5 Page 29. Insert after line 30:
60 Exchange of information

The Authority is authorised to exchange information concerning the treatment and care needs of participants (including the expenses that are paid or payable by the Authority under the Scheme in relation to those needs) with licensed insurers within the meaning of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 and such other persons or bodies as may be approved by the Authority.

No. 6 Page 41, schedule 3. Insert after line 23:

[4] Section 61 (7)

Insert ", (b1)" after "(b)".

[5] Section 61 (8) (b)

Insert ", (b1)" after "(b)".

The bill currently provides the Lifetime Care and Support [LTCS] Authority with a right of recovery for the value of treatment and care provided to a participant from an uninsured vehicle owner where the owner or driver is at fault. This mirrors the nominal defendant recovery rights against an uninsured owner/driver in the motor accidents scheme for the remaining compulsory third party [CTP] claim liabilities. The bill also enables a similar cost recovery from the interstate compulsory third party insurer of an owner/driver who was at fault in causing an accident in New South Wales. This is because the interstate insurer no longer has liability to pay damages to the injured person for treatment and care provided by the scheme.

The amendments also propose to extend the LTCS Authority's entitlement to recover the relevant contribution to the cost of providing treatment and care from a third party, where that party is partly responsible for the accident. This reflects the same recovery rights that a CTP insurer would have under common law when some other party was found to have contributed to the cause of the accident. However a CTP insurer no longer carries the risk for treatment and care provided by the scheme to participants as these costs are now met by the LTCS scheme. Accordingly, it is necessary to provide the authority with the ability to recover in such circumstances from a third party, for their proportionate contribution to the cost of providing the injured person's treatment and care.

Amendment No. 5 clarifies that the LTCS Authority may share information about the treatment and care provided or to be provided to a scheme participant with New South Wales licensed CTP insurers or other approved bodies such as an interstate insurer. Such information will be of relevance to an insurer handling the rest of the injured person's CTP claim. For example, where after a period of interim participation in the scheme the injured person does not satisfy eligibility criteria for scheme participation for life and the insurer assumes responsibility for the person's treatment and care. Information about benefits provided by the scheme will also be relevant for an insurer in assessing the scheme participant's entitlements for damages for the remainder of their CTP claim.

In relation to amendment No. 6, arising from the proposed new section 61 (2) (b1), consequential amendments are proposed to section 61 (7) and 61 (8) (b) to clarify that the conclusive medical assessment of future treatment introduced by proposed section sub-section 61 (2) (b1) is also a matter a court must refer again for assessment where the court finds there has been a denial of procedural fairness. This achieves consistency with the existing section 61 procedures for other matters where the medical assessment is conclusive evidence. I thank the Opposition for its leave.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [12.34 p.m.]: I point out again that the Opposition did not need a full explanation by the honourable member for Newcastle because it had read all the amendments, as circulated in the Chamber, and was fully aware of what they entailed. The Opposition is grateful for the further elaboration by the honourable member for Newcastle of why the Government wanted to move them, but he merely confirmed what the Opposition already knew. The Opposition does not oppose the amendments.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause 54 as amended agreed to.

Clauses 55 to 59 agreed to.

New clause 60 agreed to.
Clauses 60 to 65 agreed to.

Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3 as amended agreed to.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Paul Lynch): Order! The Committee will deal now with the Motor Accidents Compensation Amendment Bill.

Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.

Mr BRYCE GAUDRY (Newcastle—Parliamentary Secretary) [12.35 p.m.], by leave: I move Government amendments Nos 1 and 2 in globo:

No. 1 Page 4, schedule 1 [5], proposed section 3A (1), lines 8–11. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

Note. Part 1.2 (No-fault claims—children and blameless accidents) extends the operation of this Act for certain limited purposes to motor accidents that have not in fact been caused by the fault of the owner or driver of the motor vehicle.

Part 1.2 achieves this result by deeming such accidents to have been caused by the fault of the owner or driver of the motor vehicle in the use or the operation of the vehicle provided that:

(a) the vehicle was involved in the accident and had motor accident insurance cover for the accident, and

(b) the accident was not caused by the fault of any other person or the accident resulted in the death of or injury to a child.

No. 2 Page 4, schedule 1 [5], proposed section 3B (1). Insert after line 25:

Note. Part 1.2 (No-fault claims—children and blameless accidents) extends the operation of this Act for certain limited purposes to motor accidents that have not in fact been caused by the fault of the owner or driver of the motor vehicle.

Part 1.2 achieves this result by deeming such accidents to have been caused by the fault of the owner or driver of the motor vehicle in the use or the operation of the vehicle provided that:

(a) the vehicle was involved in the accident and had motor accident insurance cover for the accident, and

(b) the accident was not caused by the fault of any other person or the accident resulted in the death of or injury to a child.

Government amendments Nos 1 and 2 will clarify the application of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 to the new blameless accident and children's no-fault special entitlement. The insertion of these notes into the bill make it clear that the extended operation of the motor accidents scheme to include recovery of damages in blameless accidents and a children's special entitlement is done within the existing structure of the Motor Accidents Scheme. The modified common law basis of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999, whilst enhanced, has been retained as part 1.2, provides for recovery by deeming the fault of the owner or driver for the purposes of recovering compensation for injuries caused in a blameless accident or accessing the children's special entitlement.

By deeming fault the entitlement to recover is integrated into the Act. This means for example that the provisions in the Act for making claims, resolving disputes about claims and determining entitlements will apply in exactly the same way as for fault-based claims. The injured person making a claim for damages in a blameless accident or under the children's special entitlement will, like all other claimants in the Motor Accidents Scheme, make their claim by completing the approved claim form within the specified statutory time limits and is also subject to all statutory requirements relating to their co-operation with the insurer in providing the necessary information about the claim to enable the assessment of entitlements.

For an insurer, the provisions of the Act relating to the manner for calculating and paying entitlements will apply. For example, once liability is admitted, all claimants, including blameless accident and children's special entitlement claimants, will be eligible to have their reasonable and necessary treatment, rehabilitation and care expenses that relate to the injury caused in the motor accident paid on an "as incurred" basis. Settling the claims and resolving disputes about the claims and entitlements will also be dealt with within the existing legislative framework. By leave, I move Government amendments Nos 3 and 4 in globo:

No. 3 Page 5, schedule 1 [7], proposed section 7A, lines 30–32. Omit “(with the exception of the fault by way of contributory negligence of a person whose death or injury results from the motor accident)”.
No. 4 Page 6, schedule 1 [7], proposed section 7E, lines 24–30. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

7E No coverage for driver who caused accident

(1) There is no entitlement to recover damages under this Division in respect of the death of or injury to the driver of a motor vehicle if the motor accident concerned was caused by an act or omission of that driver.

(2) The death of or injury to the driver is taken to have been caused by an act or omission of the driver for the purposes of subsection (1) even if:

(a) the act or omission does not constitute fault by the driver in the use or operation of the vehicle, or

(b) the act or omission was involuntary, or

(c) the act or omission was not the sole or primary cause of the death or injury, or

(d) the act or omission would have caused the death or injury but for the occurrence of a supervening act or omission of another person or some other supervening event.

Government amendments Nos 3 and 4 are intended to clarify further the scope of the entitlement to recover motor accidents scheme damages for death or injury caused by a blameless motor accident. Proposed Government amendment No. 3 is to clarify that proposed new section 7A is not intended to extend cover to accidents not considered inevitable or blameless accidents under the common law and to ensure that coverage is not broader than intended. A finding by a court of inevitable or blameless accident is quite rare. The Motor Accidents Authority reports that the number of blameless motor accidents each year is very small. The clear intention is to ensure that people injured in these types of accidents receive compensation. It is not however the Government's intention to extend this existing category of inevitable or blameless accident.

Amendment No. 4 is a refinement of the clause 7E exclusion. Clause 7E excludes a claim, under the new blameless accident provisions, by the driver whose act or omission caused the accident. The amendment clarifies that the exclusion of the driver whose act or omission caused the accident from entitlement to claim is an exclusion that operates in all circumstances. Excluding the driver whose act or omission causes a blameless accident is entirely consistent with the existing operation of the motor accidents scheme. Currently, the driver of a vehicle causing the motor accident is not entitled to recover compensation under the scheme. I commend the amendments.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [12.39 p.m.]: The Opposition will not oppose the amendments. The Government should have moved earlier to address benefits for children by providing, in effect, a no-fault scheme for children involved in motor accidents which, as has been indicated, will cover expenses for hospital, medical, pharmaceutical, rehabilitation, respite care, attendant care and other services. In regard to the blameless accident provisions, the Opposition acknowledges the intent of the Government. This is a measure that the Opposition has long considered necessary and appropriate, and therefore will not be opposing it.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Bills reported from Committee with amendments and passed through remaining stages.

Debate resumed from 28 February 2006.

Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN (Willoughby) [12.42 p.m.]: I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Opposition on the Child Protection (International Measures) Bill. In doing so, I state at the outset that the Opposition will not be opposing the bill. This legislation seeks to put in place jurisdictional laws in relation to children who cross international borders where parenting orders or child protection concerns exist for the children. It will also establish a framework for co-operation between child protection convention countries, of which I understand there are currently about 30. The bill seeks to enhance the protection of children and their property by determining which country's laws are to be applied in particular circumstances, while allowing for emergency protection measures to occur wherever the child is present.

The bill seeks to ensure that convention countries are able to exchange information on laws and children—obviously, subject to privacy laws—to help locate children, to provide reports, and to apply to the Children's Court or Family Court as appropriate for orders in response to requests from convention countries to transfer or receive jurisdiction. The bill establishes a framework for co-operation between child protection convention countries; determines the State whose authorities have jurisdiction to take measures directed to the protection of the person or property of the child; determines specifically which law is to be applied by such authorities in exercising their jurisdiction; determines the law applicable to parental responsibilities; and provides for the recognition and enforcement of such measures of personal and property protection for children in all contracting States. As I understand, Australia ratified the Child Protection Convention on 1 August 2003 with the support of all States and Territories. Since 2003 the convention's international child protection measures have been administered in Australia through the Commonwealth Family Law Act 1975. This New South Wales legislation, in keeping and in common with Federal and other State legislation, will clarify responsibilities and eliminate conflict in jurisdiction between Australian courts and foreign courts in child protection cases.

I understand also that the bill before the Parliament is based on the model Queensland legislation, and that there are only three minor areas of differentiation between this bill and those passed in Queensland and some other States. The first relates to the definition of "interested person". In New South Wales, the Government has chosen to adopt a definition that is broader than that which exists in Queensland and in other States. Secondly, the role of director-general is more prominent, given the distinction in roles between child protection and other departments. A third, and minor, differentiation relates to the authority that deals with the jurisdictional matters between the two countries in question. There is also a minor differentiation between the provisions of this bill and the Queensland bill.

Clearly, any measure that this Parliament can take to strengthen child protection will always be supported by the Coalition. On that basis, we do not oppose the legislation. It is in keeping with the ratification of the child protection convention by the Federal Government in 2003. I understand that since that time each State has enacted like legislation. I am relieved that New South Wales has finally adopted legislation that has already been adopted in other jurisdictions. In addition, the bill will ensure that the key benefits of the child protection convention are enshrined in New South Wales law.

The bill also defines the role of the New South Wales central authority, that being the Department of Community Services, under the child protection convention. This will assist in implementing measures, whether made here or elsewhere, which are directed at protecting children; to initiate action in New South Wales, at the request of a competent authority of another country; to exchange information, subject to confidentiality and privacy laws, including providing reports on the situation of particular children; to help locate children; and to apply to the Children's Court or Family Court as appropriate for orders in response to requests from competent authorities of child protection convention countries to transfer or receive jurisdiction or to take measures directed to protecting the person of a child.

As I have stated, the bill contributes towards child protection in this State. It contributes towards ensuring that children who are under child protection orders in New South Wales, and who may for whatever reason be overseas, will receive maximum protection, and towards ensuring that their safety and property will be protected. I commend the bill to the House. I am disappointed that the Minister is not in the Chamber to speak on the bill, given its importance. Again I state the Opposition's support for any measures that enhance and secure child protection in this State.

Mrs BARBARA PERRY (Auburn) [12.48 p.m.]: I speak in support of this very significant bill. The enactment of it will place New South Wales amongst world leaders in international child protection measures. The legislation soon will be complemented by further amendments in a bill to amend the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1988 dealing with the interstate transfer of care orders and proceedings. The bill before the House seeks to implement the obligations of New South Wales arising out of Australia's ratification of the child protection convention on 1 August 2003. Its enactment will invoke the roll-back clause in the Federal legislation, resulting in this legislation prevailing. The purpose of the convention is to provide for international co-operation between convention countries in the interests of protecting children and young people. The convention encourages, promotes and facilitates co-operation amongst convention countries by eliminating potential conflicts of jurisdiction between authorities in different countries, and by providing for international recognition of measures of protection for children and young people.

This means that it will be clear which country's child protection authorities have jurisdiction over a child or a young person. Another major objective of the convention is to address the problem of international cases involving protection of children from abuse and neglect. There is no doubt that it is in the best interests of children and young people that there be internationally agreed rules determining which child protection authorities have jurisdiction over a child or young person. The absence of agreed rules may mean that authorities in one country fail to act because they assume that authorities in another country have taken responsibility for protecting the child or young person. The bill will be an essential tool for co-operation between child protection authorities in different convention countries.

Some cases that have come to the attention of the Department of Community Services that would benefit from the new laws include overseas authorities making requests to transfer child protection measures for children emigrating to Australia; cases in which children subject to New South Wales protection measures are sought to be relocated overseas; cases in which children subject to foreign protection measures are brought into New South Wales without notice to the Department of Community Services; cases in which care proceedings have commenced in New South Wales, but the child is removed to another country prior to the conclusion of the proceedings; overseas authorities asking the Department of Community Services to check on the welfare of a child visiting New South Wales from overseas on an access contact visit and provide a report; and parents in New South Wales seeking to transfer to the Department of Committee Services children in the care of an overseas child protection authority.

The bill will help to resolve these problems by clarifying which country's child protection authorities have jurisdiction over a particular child or young person, and by promoting and facilitating contact and co-operation between the child protection authorities of member states. I thank everyone from the Attorney General's office and the Minister's Department who have worked on the bill. I understand that a working party, which included my former boss from Legal Aid, Judith Walker, who is an extremely competent lawyer, together with Rod Best from the Department of Community Services and Magistrate Scott Mitchell, who was also involved. I could not think of more suitable people. They have worked in the Children's Court, which is a very specialised jurisdiction, for a long time. I have great confidence that the bill will go a long way to improving things for all stakeholders who work in the jurisdiction.

At the same time I recognise the work of the Department of Community Services and ancillary workers, such as Doreen Muirhead from the Child Abduction International Kidnapping Section. Doreen, a friend of mine who died about 18 months ago, devoted nine years of her life to children, child protection and international abduction matters. When I was working as a lawyer at Legal Aid I remember Doreen Muirhead as being an extremely compassionate person. It is traumatic for people dealing with young children involved in these types of matters. The bill goes a long way to reducing that trauma because it provides certainty and clarification. Children and young people are our most precious asset. It is essential that we do all we can to reduce the risk of harm and promote the safety, welfare and wellbeing of all children and young people. This is excellent legislation. I know it will go a long way to achieving that goal. I thank the Opposition for their comments on, and support for, the bill. I thank the Minister. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [12.53 p.m.]: As has been indicated, the Opposition will not oppose the bill. We are delighted that the recognition of international problems related to child protection and family matters generally have finally reached the New South Wales Parliament. The Child Protection Convention—one of a number of conventions of the Hague—which has given rise to the legislation was approved in August 2003. It is disappointing that it has taken nearly three years for the State Labor Government to introduce the legislation into this place.

Ms Angela D'Amore: It's here now.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: Thank you. It takes a long time to introduce changes that are necessary for the people of New South Wales. It takes only minutes for the Government to get out its spin and press releases, yet it can take years to bring about substantive change. As the honourable member for Auburn said, nothing is more significant than getting it right for children. I am disappointed that so much of child protection in New South Wales is not as it should be. There is no doubt that for too long children in New South Wales have been at the mercy of conflicting jurisdictions and conflicting legislation as to who has the right to make decisions about children's lives. It is a huge problem.
When a child is subject to particular orders, whether it is the State courts or the Federal Family Court, and the child is spirited away to other jurisdictions, it is almost impossible for those who care about the child to bring the matter to a speedy and happy conclusion. The legislation was guided initially by our Federal Coalition Government—the Liberal and National parties—which has ensured that the State Labor governments introduced mirror legislation. The Government has tried to reach agreement with international jurisdictions to ensure that each country shares workable arrangements. An example of a classic problem is a child who is spirited away to France in the middle of a custody dispute or a child protection order that has been taken out against the custodial carer. Before we know it, other proceedings are instituted in a totally different jurisdiction, which presents major problems for our courts.

The legislation sets out the process by which various bureaucrats, the director general and others, can make inquiries before courts make final decisions to agree on who will have the jurisdictional right to determine the matter. If a child is living habitually in a particular area the bill provides that there will be a presumption that the jurisdiction in which the child is living habitually will have the right to make the orders. But the legislation is flexible enough to provide that the director general can make inquiries if the jurisdiction is in dispute to determine whether there is a more appropriate jurisdiction in which the matter could be heard, which is a good thing. It is interesting to note that the State Labor Government under Premiers Carr and Iemma has had 11 years to get child protection in New South Wales right.

It is the Federal Coalition Government—the Liberal and National parties—who the State Government is so quick to criticise that has taken up a matter that is critical to the care of children. They have done it quickly, expeditiously and with all the international players to ensure progress. Yet this lot on the other side, sitting on the Treasury benches until at least March next year, have had years to get child protection rights, years to ensure that in New South Wales they have jurisdictional support for child protection. But New South Wales has gone from just over 50,000 reports of the child at risk of harm in 1995, which is when the Coalition lost government, to more than 350,000 child at risk of harm reports since the Labor Party has been in government.

Some might say that is a positive because at least children are being reported as at risk of harm, but the sting is in the tail: Less than one in 10 of the 350,000-odd reports of child at risk of harm is investigated. While the Government focuses on overseas jurisdictions—and I give full credit to the Government for at least acknowledging that they should be part of the process that is being driven by the Federal Coalition—it has utterly failed to put the required resources into our hardworking community services officers to ensure that more than one in 10 but, hopefully, 100 per cent—

[Interruption]

You should be quiet or I will start talking about some of the schools in your electorate. Some of the school communities in your electorate are concerned about what you are not doing. What about some airconditioning for Drummoyne Public School?

Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marie Andrews): Order! I remind the honourable member for Wakehurst that he should address his remarks through the Chair.

Mr Bryce Gaudry: Point of order: While the second reading debate is wide-ranging, the remarks of the honourable member for Wakehurst ought to be within the leave of the bill. He is now drawing away from that and engaging in some invective across the Chamber.

Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marie Andrews): Order! I remind the honourable member for Wakehurst that he should confine his remarks to the bill before the House.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: I remind you that there is a rule in this House that a member may respond to interjections. If you direct the honourable member for Drummoyne to keep her counsel and keep quiet, I will not respond to her interjections.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Bryce Gaudry.

[Madam Acting-Speaker (Ms Marie Andrews) left the chair at 1.01 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]

Mr CARL SCULLY (Smithfield—Minister for Police) [2.20 p.m.]: This week the commander of the NSW Police Counter Terrorist Co-ordination Command, Norm Hazzard, will retire after 41 years of distinguished service. On behalf of the New South Wales Government, I pay tribute to Norm, whom I regard as having one of the best counter-terrorism minds into this country. Norm has been involved in counter-terrorism and high-risk incident resolution since the mid-seventies, when he became involved with the National Counter-Terrorism Committee. Since 1989 he has been, and remains, an adviser and instructor to the National Counter-Terrorism Committee and to many law enforcement agencies in our region. He has a long and full curriculum vitae. I wish to highlight a few key points.

Norm was in charge of counter-terrorism and high-risk response at the 2000 Olympics and Paralympics. After September 11, he reviewed the counter-terrorism capability of NSW Police and recommended that a single command be created to deal with the terrorist threat here. The Government responded positively to those recommendations and he was appointed as the group's first commander. In November last year he oversighted the investigation and arrest of nine terrorism suspects in New South Wales, an operation involving some 500 police officers. Norm Hazzard is with us in the public gallery today. On behalf of the Parliament, I thank him for 41 years of distinguished police service. We wish him well in his retirement.

Norm Hazzard is joined in the gallery today by Detective Superintendent, now Assistant Commissioner, Nick Kaldas, who has been appointed to replace Norm as the head of the counter-terrorism and public order management unit. I congratulate Nick on his appointment. He competed against a hot field of interstate and international applicants who have been involved in this area and he was clearly the standout candidate. He has been the head of the homicide squad. He is currently the head of the gang squad. Honourable members may not be aware that he spent several months in Iraq as the deputy police adviser to the Government of Iraq in setting up and establishing a police force in that country. He has a reputation and experience that are second only to Norm Hazzard's. On behalf of the Parliament, I congratulate Nick on his appointment and wish him well. I particularly thank Norm for a fine policing career.

Mr PETER DEBNAM (Vaucluse—Leader of the Opposition) [2.23 p.m.]: I briefly add my congratulations to Norm Hazzard on his retirement from his position. He has made an enormous contribution to NSW Police over many years—especially in counter-terrorism, as the Minister has said. Obviously, we have all been focused on that issue in the past five years. Much has been achieved in Australia and in New South Wales in setting up counter-terrorism strategies, measures and resources. As I keep reminding the Minister, much more needs to be done, but I certainly congratulate Norm on his contribution in that role and on all the work his has done on behalf of the people of New South Wales. I welcome Nick Kaldas to his new position. Nick has also had a distinguished career. I am pleased that the Minister mentioned his Iraq service because this was very important. Nick Kaldas made a real contribution to the free world in that mission, which initially was not warmly embraced in New South Wales. However, Nick felt so strongly about it that he continued with the task. I congratulate him on his service in Iraq. We very much look forward to working with him.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: In the absence of the Minister for Tourism and Sport and Recreation, Minister for Women, and Minister Assisting the Minister for State Development I will answer questions on her behalf.

Mr John Watkins tabled, by leave, variations of payment estimates and appropriations for 2005-06 under section 24 of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983 flowing from the transfer of functions from the Department of Planning to the Department of Tourism, Sport and Recreation.

Petitions requesting the removal of the $10 booking fee on pensioner travel vouchers, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock and Mr Andrew Stoner.

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

Petition opposing the proposed closure of the railway line from Broadmeadow to Newcastle, received from Mr John Price.
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.

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

Petition supporting amendments to the Uniting church in Australia Act (1977) NSW to ensure that the moral and legal rights of a congregation, disaffiliated from the Uniting Church, are protected, received from Mr Paul Crittenden.

Petition requesting amendment of the zoning policy to preclude fishing competitions, by both spear and line, in the Jervis Bay Marine Park, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.

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

Petition requesting the allocation of more police resources to the Shoalhaven Local Area command, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.

Petition requesting strategies and resources, including employment of additional police and security agents, to catch and prosecute the perpetrators of graffiti, received from Mrs Jillian Skinner.

Petition requesting funding for the provision of a school assembly hall facility at Mount Austin Public School, received from Mr Daryl Maguire.

Petition requesting the installation of airconditioning in all learning spaces in public schools in the Wagga Wagga electorate, received from Mr Daryl Maguire.

Petition requesting funding for the establishment of a dedicated mental health service in the Shoalhaven, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.

Petition requesting the retention of a full-time general manager and the re-establishment of a local community based hospital board of management, received from Mr Malcolm Kerr.

Petitions requesting funding for BreastScreen NSW, received from Mr Michael Richardson and Mr Andrew Stoner.
Petition opposing the proposal by Kylor to rezone residential land in Manyana, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.

Petition opposing Centennial Coal Company Limited's proposal to extend the Newstan-Awaba mines for open-cut mining, received from Mr Jeff Hunter.

Petitions opposing any restrictions on recreational fishing in the mid North Coast waters, received from Mr Andrew Stoner and Mr John Turner.

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

Petition requesting funding for the immediate upgrade of The Rock/Bullenbong Road, received from Mr Daryl Maguire.

Mr SPEAKER: I advise the House that I have received a written authority from the Hon. John Tingle, MLC, advising that the honourable member for Northern Tablelands will have carriage of the Firearms Amendment (Good Behaviour Bonds) Bill in this House.

Mr ANDREW STONER (Oxley—Leader of The Nationals) [2.29 p.m.]: I move:

That General Business Notice of Motion (General Notice) No. 1197 [Lane Cove Tunnel] have precedence on Thursday 30 March 2006.

I seek precedence for this motion because it is all about the future of the Lane Cove tunnel, particularly the opening date, which the public has a right to know about. After the cross-city tunnel debacle the New South Wales public lost faith in the ability of the Carr-Iemma Labor Government to deliver major infrastructure projects. They are rightly worried about the Lane Cove tunnel.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Members of the Government will come to order.

Mr ANDREW STONER: The cross-city tunnel fiasco showed that this Labor Government is more interested in fixing headlines and in its own political survival than it is in finding a solution to Sydney's traffic crisis.

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

Mr ANDREW STONER: We now have the Lane Cove tunnel, brought to us by the same incompetent lot behind the cross-city tunnel. We already know about the strangled public roads around the Lane Cove tunnel. We know about the Government's proposal to cut Epping Road from three lanes to one and to provide only two lanes in the tunnel, despite an offer by the operator to build more lanes. There is also no filtration of pollution from the tunnel. It is no wonder people want to know what is going on with the Lane Cove tunnel. People are asking questions. The question of the day is: Is the Labor Government seeking to pressure the operators to delay the opening until after the State election in March next year?

It is clear from a number of documents already tabled in Parliament that the project construction is already running ahead of schedule and that the tunnel is likely to open in September this year. These documents include Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] meeting minutes dated 9 February this year, an email dated 1 February from Ian Hunt, Chief Executive Officer of the Lane Cove tunnel to the RTA, and the project monthly report dated February 2006 from Thiess John Holland to the RTA. Yesterday Premier Dilemma stated in this place that the Lane Cove tunnel would be opened when it was finished. Hello! He should know when it is to be opened. We have the documents here that state it will be ready to be opened in September.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals will be heard in silence.

Mr ANDREW STONER: The Premier is already distancing himself from another cross-city tunnel debacle. No wonder the Government wants another delayed opening. It is important that this motion be given precedence tomorrow because New South Wales is watching the Government like a hawk. It is watching for political interference and it is watching for another cross-city tunnel debacle. If this Government votes against reordering this motion it will be voting for more secrecy, deceit and cover-ups.

Mr CARL SCULLY (Smithfield—Minister for Police) [2.31 p.m.]: The public is interested in political interference, that is, interference by Landcom and the council to get the honourable member for Davidson a house, an issue in which he normally should not have been involved. Based on what the Leader of The Nationals has said, he will support the motion seeking to censure the honourable member for Davidson for abusing his position by trying to get a nice cosy deal for something he bid on at auction. The Leader of The Nationals well knows that what is claimed in his motion is untrue.

Mr Andrew Stoner: Bring it on!

Mr CARL SCULLY: No. As the Leader of the House, it is inappropriate for me to allow the time of this House to be wasted on an undignified claim from the Opposition that has no basis in fact. No!

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Mr Aplin Mr Armstrong Mr Barr 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 Humpherson Mr Kerr Mr McTaggart Mr Merton Ms Moore 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

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

Mr Gaudry Mr Gibson Mr Greene Ms Hay Mr Hickey Mr Hunter Mr Iemma Ms Judge Ms Keneally Mr Lynch Mr McBride Mr McLeay Ms Meagher Ms Megarrity Mr Mills Mr Morris Mr Newell Mr Orkopoulos

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

Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.
Mrs Barbara Perry, as Chairman, tabled the following reports:

Report No 6/53 entitled "Review of the 2004/05 Annual Report of the Commission for Children and Young People—Transcript of Proceedings, Written Answers to Questions and Notice and Minutes", dated March 2006.
Report No 7/53 entitled "Review of the 2004 Annual Report of the Child Death Review Team—Transcript of Proceedings, Written Answers to Questions and Notice and Minutes", dated March 2006.

Mr Geoff Corrigan: Mr Speaker—

Mr Peter Debnam: Enthusiasm is everything but you need some talent as well.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Camden may take some comfort from the biblical text about throwing stones. The Leader of the Opposition has the call.

Mr PETER DEBNAM: My question is directed to the Premier. Given that his Government advertised last weekend for three new spin doctors, with combined salaries of well over $200,000, why does he not stop recruiting spin doctors and instead give that $200,000 to Lifestart disability services?

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

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: In advising the House about disability services, the first point to note is that funding for disability services has doubled in the time that Labor has been in office. Secondly, I inform the House that the Government will provide $106 million for therapy and support services for more than 20,000 children and families in New South Wales. Of this $106 million in funding for therapy and support services, northern Sydney receives more than $16 million. These funds provide help to families through seven non-government organisations and the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care. I am advised that this includes Lifestart North Sydney, which received government funding of $742,000. I am advised also that Lifestart receives a total of $1.6 million for disability services in New South Wales, and is an excellent provider of those services. I am told that the particular service that Lifestart provides was funded from its resources until now.

There is, without question, a strong demand for disability services across the State. There is always an argument for more funding and for more to be done. That is why the Government has nominated funding services and doing more as a priority. I am proud of the work that has been done already. I am proud of the work that Minister Della Bosca has been doing in reworking models of care in his portfolio. I look forward to outlining further details—

Mr Peter Debnam: Point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I understand that the Leader of the Opposition intends to use a prop. I noticed that he snuck that in a little earlier. Sometimes adopting a Nelsonian stance can work wonders in this House, but I shall not adopt that stance on every occasion. The Leader of the Opposition may proceed with his point of order but I ask him not to use the prop he has in his hand.

Mr Peter Debnam: It is just copious notes, Mr Speaker. My point of order is relevance. The Premier's $200,000 on spin doctors—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of relevance. If the Leader of the Opposition wishes to offer an explanation there are ample ways of doing that other than at question time. The Premier has the call.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: As I said, Minister Della Bosca has been working hard reworking models of care and reforming disability services. I look forward to outlining further details of the results of that work in the near future. Disability funding is allocated to regions based on population, available resources and local priorities. This ensures that people with disabilities and families across New South Wales have access to a fair range of services and help. When additional funding becomes available it will be provided first to areas in greatest need. Disability funding has increased every year since Labor was elected, and it will grow again in the next financial year.

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

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: As part of that growth in funding, extra money will be provided for therapy and family support services, including those services in the northern Sydney region. All non-government organisations in the region will be able to put in expressions of interest for the available funds, along with Lifestart. I will repeat for the honourable member for North Shore that all organisations in that region will be able to respond to the expression of interest for the funds when it is issued. That includes the organisation about which the Leader of the Opposition asked the question. It is no point the Leader of the Opposition crying crocodile tears over funding because we know at the last election he proposed to fund some of his commitments with $800 million to be taken from Community Services funding.

Mr Peter Debnam: Point of order: I take offence at that.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I heard nothing unparliamentary in what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.

[Interruption]

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

Mr GEOFF CORRIGAN: My question is addressed to the Premier. How is the Government reducing the cost of doing business for New South Wales companies?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I thank the honourable member for Murrumbidgee for his interest yesterday. On 9 November last year the Government announced a 5 per cent cut to workers compensation premiums.

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

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: At the time the Government flagged that it would pass on further benefits to employers. I am proud to say that the Government has delivered on that commitment and today announced a further 10 per cent cut to workers compensation premiums.

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

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: That is a 5 per cent reduction in November last year and it flagged a further reduction. Today I am very proud to announce a further 10 per cent percent reduction. The 10 per cent represents a $290 million burden lifted off the shoulders of New South Wales businesses each year. The 5 per cent in November last year represented a reduction of $140 million. With those two reductions worth 15 per cent, New South Wales businesses will be paying $430 million a year less than they were before. That is a significant reduction in the cost of doing business in New South Wales.
That is why the business community responded so enthusiastically to this morning's announcement. Australian Business Ltd [ABL] State Chamber and the Australian Industry Group said it is a shot in the arm for businesses in New South Wales. No wonder they embraced it enthusiastically. They were spot on. This reduction is as good as a tax cut. In fact it is better than a payroll tax cut in the sense that while only relatively few businesses—approximately 10 per cent—pay payroll tax, all businesses pay workers compensation premiums. This benefit will flow into the pockets of every business in every corner of the State.

This morning I visited the managers and workers at the IGA Supermarket at Breakfast Point. Already the business community is responding enthusiastically, as they did at this supermarket. Businesses like this supermarket will save $2,500 each year as a result of the reduction announced today. Other examples include an industrial machinery manufacturer in Sydney's northern suburbs that will save $238,000 a year and a bus service on the south coast—and I see the honourable member for South Coast nodding just as enthusiastically as the representatives from ABL—will save $5,700 a year. That is practical assistance to drive confidence and make doing business in New South Wales less costly and easier.

These benefits are being passed on to employers as a result of returning financial stability to the workers compensation scheme from the reforms of approximately five years ago. Tough decisions were made which have provided financial stability for the workers compensation scheme and, I might add, have returned benefits to the most severely injured workers with the $36 million that came in November 2005. There have been reductions of 5 per cent and 10 per cent, in excess of a $400 million cut, in the cost of doing business. It is part of the Government's plan to drive activity, investment and jobs for New South Wales. As a representative of ABL said this morning and repeated so enthusiastically, New South Wales is open for business.

Mr ANDREW STONER: My question is directed to the Premier. In June 2003, when he was the Minister for Health, the Premier said that construction would start on the new Queanbeyan Hospital in 2005. However, construction has still not commenced. Why has the Premier broken his promise to the people of Queanbeyan?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The Leader of The Nationals is the last person to ask a question about hospitals after he sold out Port Macquarie!

Mr Andrew Stoner: Point of order: It is relevance. The question is about Queanbeyan!

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: This Government is rebuilding Queanbeyan Hospital. Stay tuned for the next instalment on 30 May when the budget is brought down. If the Leader of The Nationals wants to talk about country hospitals he should start explaining how he sold out Port Macquarie.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Premier has the call. He will be heard in silence.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: We had to buy it back after the Coalition privatised it and sold it and the taxpayers had to pay for it three times. The Leader of The Nationals should ask the Auditor-General about it, not to mention the other 33 hospitals across the State that the Coalition closed, downgraded, privatised or sold off.

Mr MATT BROWN: My question is addressed to the Premier. What is the latest information on the impact of the Commonwealth's GST on families in New South Wales?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I am pleased to inform honourable members that the budget will be brought down on 30 May, as I just informed the honourable member for Kempsey.

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

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The budget position is made even more difficult by the fact that we are being cheated out of almost $3 billion a year by John Howard and Peter Costello. New South Wales generates 34 per cent of all GST revenue, yet gets back just 28 per cent of GST grants. Every cash register, petrol station and small business is a tax collector for the Queensland Treasury, thanks to Peter Costello. This allows Queensland to subsidise petrol for its motorists by 8¢ per litre paid for, courtesy of New South Wales taxpayers, at a time when Queensland certainly does not need money from New South Wales taxpayers transferred via Peter Costello. In fact, New South Wales is the only State that expects to receive less in GST revenue in the 2006-07 financial year than was promised when the deal was signed in 2000.

If that is not bad enough, on Friday the Federal Treasurer plans to deliver another $1 billion-plus attack on New South Wales taxpayers. Because that will happen on Friday when Parliament is not sitting, it is a chance for the Leader of the Opposition to strike a blow for New South Wales taxpayers and join with the Government in demanding a fair compensation deal from Peter Costello. It is a chance for the Parliament to send our Treasurer to Canberra on Friday with bipartisan support to say to Peter Costello that the five intergovernmental agreement [IGA] taxes that he wants to abolish can be abolished, provided New South Wales gets fairness.

This is an opportunity that the Leader of the Opposition has not taken up so far. He has resisted giving bipartisan support to the Government against the $3 billion rip-off. The honourable member for Murrumbidgee could do the same for his own constituents to ensure that businesses in Murrumbidgee, Vaucluse and the Southern Highlands could get rid of the five IGA business taxes, so long as New South Wales gets a fair deal and the compensation that it deserves.

The fact is that the Leader of the Opposition will not join this Government in a bipartisan effort because he simply will not stand up for New South Wales; he will not stare down his Federal mates to get New South Wales taxpayers' money back so that it can be invested in additional services, further reductions in taxes and more investment in infrastructure in this State. He will not take up the invitation because he simply refuses to stand up for New South Wales taxpayers and tell his mates that the cheating has to stop. He can take the opportunity on Friday to tell the Federal Government to start returning our money.

Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN: My question is addressed to the Premier. Given that his Government has spent almost $2 billion on advertising and consultants since 1995, why will he not adopt the Coalition's policy of cutting the money he spends on spin and instead give that money to New South Wales preschools, which have been neglected by Labor for the past decade?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: If the honourable member for Willoughby wishes, I am more than happy to provide the figures for her. The Coalition, in the final year that it last occupied the Treasury benches, increased its advertising expenditure by 37 per cent compared with the previous year to a record figure of $80 million—or $103 million in today's terms. In contrast, for the 2004-05 financial year, government advertising costs were $53 million.

Ms Gladys Berejiklian: Point of order: My point of order is relevance. The simple question is: What has the Premier done for preschools in the last decade? Nothing.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Willoughby may not, under the guise of a point of order, disrupt the Premier's reply merely because she does not like the answer.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I repeat, the Coalition increased advertising expenditure by 37 per cent in its final year in office, and that equates to $103 million in today's terms. I can also inform the House that in the six months to December 2005 government expenditure on advertising was $21.3 million, which includes community awareness advertising of $14 million and public notice advertising of $7.2 million. The Coalition has absolutely no credibility when it comes to cutting expenditure, particularly on advertising. The honourable member for Willoughby might tell us how the Coalition will fund $22 billion worth of unfunded promises—that black hole of funding.

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

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Even if we took their figures and the Government got to the Coalition's advertising expenditure of $103 million—that black hole of funding—

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

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Even if the Government's advertising bills got to the levels that existed when the Coalition was in office, that is $103 million—and it is much, much less than that—that leaves a very big hole in the Opposition's $22 billion worth of promises. No wonder the clubs abandoned them. There was no chance of the Coalition ever delivering on that promise, and that is why the clubs abandoned the Opposition on that. That is why every other commitment the Coalition makes to every single group has no credibility. It has not the foggiest idea how it will pay for any of its commitments.

Ms TANYA GADIEL: My question without notice is to the Minister for Water Utilities. Can the Minister update the House on what is being done to build new plants to help recycle even more water in Sydney and related matters?

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: I thank the honourable member for Parramatta for her question and, like so many other members on this side of the House, for her interest in the Government's policies and programs on water recycling. The Iemma Government is committed to water recycling as part of its plan to ensure a sustainable and secure water supply for greater Sydney. With that in mind, I am pleased to advise the House today that three consortia have been short-listed for the Camellia recycling project in Western Sydney. The extensive project is expected to provide up to 6 billion litres of recycled water each year to commercial and industrial customers in the Camellia area. The short-listed companies are AGL, joined by Agility Management and Veolia Water Australia; Earth Tech Engineering, joined by McConnell Dowell; and United Utilities and Transfield Joint Venture, joined by Tenix Alliance and Sinclair Knight Merz.

All three short-listed consortia are proposing to deliver recycled water to not only Camellia, but beyond. The proposals include well-proven water technology and also innovative ideas, like the use of disused gas mains. High water users in the Camellia area that would benefit from recycled waters included Rosehill racecourse, Shell, Boral and James Hardie. The three short-listed consortia will be invited to make detailed submissions by July this year. The work at Camellia is one component of the Government's plans for increased recycling throughout Sydney—where we have more than doubled the amount of water that is recycled, and where we already have the biggest recycling plant in the country, at Rouse Hill. The Government has a comprehensive, multi-faceted approach to water. What is the Liberal Party's suggestion to secure our water supply?

Mr Matt Brown: Nothing.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: That is right—nothing! We get the same old whinging and whining and spinning around in a policy vacuum. But this time there is an interesting twist! The Opposition has officially hoisted the white flag on policy, and is outsourcing its water policy to a Federal Parliamentary Secretary, Malcolm Turnbull. If you want to hear a Liberal Party idea on water, forget about asking the honourable member for Vaucluse; ask his neighbour, his consultant, his contractor, Mr Turnbull. It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Willoughby have been talking today about contractors.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! A number of members of the Opposition are anticipating vespers early today. I ask them to refrain from singing at this stage.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: Last week Mr Turnbull told anyone who would listen that our water problems were because of a lack of planning, not a lack of water. And he tried to use the CSIRO as a source to back up his claims. Of course, he failed to say that that same CSIRO report gave this Government a huge endorsement as a leader in water reform. It said Sydney had been "at the forefront of this national trend" to manage water demand. Not content with muddying things, Mr Turnbull then claims New South Wales is not taking meaningful steps to improve water infrastructure. This is the same Mr Turnbull who is a member of a Federal Government which 10 years ago abolished the Building Better Cities program—a program designed to ensure the Federal Government worked with States on infrastructure and urban planning in our major cities.

This is the same Mr Turnbull who is a member of a Federal Government that continually cuts its contributions to Federal-State funding agreements on services and infrastructure in health, transport and education. So Mr Turnbull and the Federal Government—the Government that is sitting on a $12 billion surplus, that is killing off programs that would ensure the Federal Government funds urban infrastructure, and that rips off New South Wales taxpayers by $2 billion by cheating this State out of GST payments—are now lecturing the New South Wales Government and saying it should spend more money on water infrastructure. And if you listen closely to the lecture from the Opposition's water consultant Mr Turnbull, this is what he is going to do.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister has the call.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: The Opposition's water consultant, Mr Turnbull, is going to send me, as the Minister for Water Utilities in New South Wales, a letter asking me what New South Wales is doing about water. After I get back to him he is then going to deliver a series of discussion papers. I would be interested to see how much water can flow out of an issues paper. However, I can inform the House that I have not waited for Mr Turnbull's letter to arrive. I have written to him and I have invited him to inspect Sydney's recycling schemes with me so I can correct the inaccurate information he has been given. Mr Turnbull is writing letters while we put in place recycling schemes, such as the one the Premier and I opened at Beverley Park in Kogarah last week with the honourable member for Kogarah, who is the Minister for Housing.

It would be fair to ask why the Leader of the Opposition has to outsource policy to a Federal parliamentary secretary, a spin doctor, a contractor or whatever term you want to use. The reason is that this rabble cannot get their stories straight on water policy. Last July they committed to the abandonment of the use of ocean outfalls, which would mean capturing, treating and storing more than 450 billion litres of waste water each year. But in Sydney only the residential sector could make use of such a vast amount of water. When asked if he would support Sydneysiders drinking treated waste water, the Leader of the Opposition was adamant in an interview with the Hawkesbury Gazette on 21 October when he said, "No. N-O. Which part of N-O don't you understand?" If he will not use the water for drinking, this enormous volume of waste water would have to be transported to homes via a second network of pipes, which would require digging up every street, replumbing every home and installing 21,000 kilometres of extra pipes in Sydney.

Mr Richard Amery: How much would that cost?

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: I will come to that. The honourable member for Mount Druitt asked me how much that would cost.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Parramatta asked a question. That does not give other members of the Government leave to ask supplementary questions.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: One has to ask how they would do this while they are sacking 29,000 public servants. It is a Houdini-like feat. It equates to about one public servant sacked for every kilometre of new pipe that the Leader of the Opposition would want to install. Last September the Leader of the Opposition was asked when the Opposition would have the so-called recycling proposal costed and his reply was, "We're certainly ... um … doing that." Six months on he certainly must be doing that because we are still waiting for that costing. "It is not available" is the response to that supplementary question. As the Leader of the Opposition put it recently at that infamous fundraiser, "No-one is listening to me." Is it any wonder that no-one is listening to him. While the Opposition tries to work out its policy the Government is getting on with the job. The Iemma Government has a plan for water and we are implementing it. We are investing in New South Wales infrastructure and we are investing in the State's future.

Mr ANDREW STONER: My question without notice is directed to the Premier. Given the stream of health complaints about the M5 East tunnel lodged on the RTA pollution line in 2002 and 2003, including a motorcyclist who vomited after riding through the tunnel, and given that even more cars are now using the tunnel, will he now do what he failed to do as Minister for Health and protect public health by filtering the tunnel and erecting warning signs?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Murray-Darling will come to order.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The first part of the question I answered twice yesterday, and I refer the Leader of The Nationals to that answer. In relation to the second part of his question, air filters, yet again the Leader of The Nationals demonstrates that he gets it wrong so often. He seeks to present filtration as a panacea, but he fails to recognise the technical issues involved in filtration. He is talking about air quality in the tunnel, when filtration has to do with the air quality outside the tunnel. He should not stand up in this place and misrepresent the position by suggesting that filtration will have a direct effect on air quality inside the tunnel. We know that, regardless of the technology, the impact and the effect, they have adopted a policy to filter every single tunnel in Sydney, which will cost another $1 billion. Are they going to slap a toll on the M5 East to pay for it? Is that the policy? Filtration on the M5 East will come at a cost of about $250 million.
Mr Andrew Stoner: Point of order: My point of order is relevance. We do not need all of this long-winded stuff. We just want to know whether he is going to protect public health.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals will resume his seat. He cannot keep disrupting an answer by saying, "My point of order is relevance." The Premier is answering the question.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: We know that they have form in slapping a toll on a previously free public road. We know what they did to the M4. After the 1988 election a free motorway became a toll road—they have form there. Are they proposing to slap a toll on the M5 East?

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

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: To date, studies are yet to find a commercially effective filter for toxic pollutants anywhere in the world. No tunnel in Australia has the kind of filter he is talking about. Once again he is misrepresenting the effect of filtration to the public. He is getting it wrong with the air he is talking about. Here is another $1 billion. Add it to the spendometer, which has now reached $23 billion. Go ahead with the commitment of filtration. At every tunnel it will be another $1 billion.

He is misleading the public about the effectiveness of filtration. There is not one filter in the country. To date, studies reveal that there is a real doubt about the effectiveness of the technology. Such filtration has no impact on the air quality inside the tunnel. Air quality outside the tunnel, which has to be within the Environment Protection Authority [EPA] guidelines, is monitored by the EPA. The answer to the final point of the question is yes: about 100,000 cars are using the M5 East tunnel—which is 100,000 cars that previously used surface roads.

Mrs BARBARA PERRY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Health (Mental Health). What is the Government doing to assist people with a mental illness in the prison system?

Miss CHERIE BURTON: I thank the honourable member for Auburn for her strong advocacy on mental health issues. The Iemma Government is working hard to improve mental health services across New South Wales. The Government is investing in mental health infrastructure to meet the current and future needs of our community. There is evidence that people who suffer from a mental illness are at a higher risk of ending up in gaol than those who do not. The Government recognises that much more needs to be done and it is taking action to deliver practical solutions to challenges faced by those who suffer from mental illness.

Today the honourable member for Auburn and I had the pleasure of attending the opening of a new 40-bed mental health screening unit at the Silverwater gaol complex. This $14.9 million was officially opened by Her Excellency Professor Marie Bashir, Governor of New South Wales, and the Minister for Justice. This state-of-the-art facility is located in Silverwater's maximum security Metropolitan Remand and Reception Centre [MRRC], which is the State's busiest entry point in our gaol system and receives 60 per cent of all male inmates entering the system.

It is anticipated that this unit will screen and assess 1,800 inmates each year. The new facility will ensure that inmates who need access to specialised mental health treatment will receive it. It is part of the Government's plan to reduce the number of people who suffer from a mental illness and who are caught in the revolving door of crime and prison. The facility has two units of 15 beds each and a 10-bed high dependency unit. Each area has a secure courtyard as well as living, dining, games and activity facilities.

Recent improvements in mental health services at the Metropolitan Remand and Reception Centre have reduced the waiting time for an inmate to see a psychiatrist. This ensures that inmates are now more appropriately assessed and managed. The early access to appropriate care will also provide a more stable prison environment. The Iemma Government is taking action to address mental illness in our criminal justice system. In addition to this new state-of-the-art unit at the Metropolitan Remand and Reception Centre, a new 10-bed mental health screening unit is also under construction at the Mulawa Correctional Centre, which is the main prison for women in New South Wales. This unit represents a Iemma Government investment of around $9.6 million. It will provide faster access to mental health care for female inmates.
The Government is also investing in diverting people when they first appear in the criminal justice system. The community and court liaison service now operates in more than 19 courts across New South Wales. It provides specialist health advice to the Local Court. Mental health experts provide advice to magistrates when people with a mental illness first appear in court. This assists the courts in identifying the mentally ill people who are charged with minor offences so they can be diverted to appropriate care. The results have been extremely impressive. Approximately 18,000 people before the courts are assessed per year. Of those who are assessed, on average 2,000 people are diagnosed with a severe mental illness. That means 2,000 people a year are diverted from the criminal justice system into appropriate mental health treatment. It is not just the individuals who benefit. As the Auditor-General noted in his performance report last week:

Additional benefits to partner agencies include reduced court delays, patient costs and patient risk ...

Despite the increased investment in mental health infrastructure and services in New South Wales, we are still faced with issues such as work force shortages that require a national response. In February the Premier was successful in placing mental health on the national agenda of the Council of Australian Governments. The Premier sought the Commonwealth's assurance to increase the role of psychologists and other health professionals in primary care and to better integrate mental health services, including primary care, general practice, private psychiatric services and emergency department services. The Commonwealth, the States and the Territories are now in the process of developing a national action plan for mental health by June this year. At the Premier's insistence, there will now be a national health call centre that will include a dedicated mental health line. The States and Commonwealth will invest $20 million to provide this service, which includes access to triage, a referral line and trained mental health professionals.

While the Iemma Government is working hard to address the national work force shortages in mental health, the Opposition is yet to guarantee that front-line services for mental health workers will be quarantined from its 29,000 job cuts. How many mental health staff will the Opposition sack to pay for its spendometer? The Opposition is also yet to guarantee that mental health support staff will be quarantined. These people provide vital assistance to our doctors and nurses and they are working very hard every day to ensure that people who suffer from a mental illness are getting the treatment they need. The Opposition will get rid of them to provide funds for its spendometer. I call on the Leader of the Opposition to give people who suffer from a mental illness, their families and their carers a guarantee today in this Chamber that mental health services will not be affected as a result of his 29,000 public sector job cuts. The Iemma Government will continue to invest in better mental health infrastructure and services for the future, enabling us to deliver practical solutions for people with a mental illness.

Mr ROBERT OAKESHOTT: My question is to the Minister for Education and Training. Will she outline to the House plans for new schools in areas 13 and 14, which are the two major growth centres that are to the west and the south of Port Macquarie?

Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT: I know the honourable member for Port Macquarie has had a significant interest in this issue over a long period. I have had meetings with him about it, particularly about what will occur in relation to the school at Lake Cathie. There is no doubt that the provision of new schools is a significant capital investment. Issues such as demographics, local population trends, and the impact on surrounding schools need to be carefully considered in the decision-making processes. The Department of Education and Training liaises with other government agencies and local government in relation to planning for new and expanding areas, such as Lake Cathie, which is one of the areas to which the question asked by the honourable member for Port Macquarie relates.

The detailed advance planning allows us to plan appropriately for the development of public education infrastructure when the community needs it. I assure the House that the Department of Education and Training has been liaising closely with Port Macquarie-Hastings Council regarding the education requirements in developing areas around Port Macquarie, including Thrumster, which is area 13, and Lake Cathie, which is area 14. Port Macquarie-Hastings Council exhibited draft plans for Thrumster, and the department has reviewed them in liaison with Port Macquarie-Hastings Council planning officers. Discussions have been held as recently as this month.

The department has advised the Port Macquarie-Hastings Council planning officers of the identification of a public school site in the proposed Thrumster development. I am advised that the department has also been liaising with Port Macquarie-Hastings Council regarding the draft master plan for the Lake Cathie and Bonny Hills area. I know that the honourable member for Port Macquarie is aware that the department has completed a comprehensive study on whether a new school is needed at Lake Cathie. The honourable member for Port Macquarie has advocated on behalf of his electorate in relation to the need for a new school

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

Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT: The department's report examined the local population trends, the likely number of primary school-age children and the impact that a new school would have on nearby schools. It concluded that at this time a new school at Lake Cathie would have a negative impact on the nearby North Haven Public School in terms of enrolments and, accordingly, the range of resources available to it. As I have said previously, at this stage building a new school at Lake Cathie would not the best option for the area. But the department retains two separate blocks of land so that a new school can be built when it is needed in the future. Enrolments and development in Lake Cathie, Bonny Hills and North Haven will continue to be monitored and plans will be revised in the event of significant change in demographic trends for the region. The New South Wales Government has demonstrated a strong commitment to Lake Cathie and surrounding areas. For example, the new Tacking Point Public School was opened in 1997 and the Camden Haven High School was opened in 2000. I will continue to pay considerable attention to the views of the Port Macquarie community on this issue.

Mr BARRY COLLIER: My question without notice is to the Minister for Education and Training.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Chair would like to hear the question.

Mr BARRY COLLIER: What is the latest information on the roll-out of computers in New South Wales government schools?

Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT: One of the best things we can do as a government and as a society is provide our children with the skills they will need throughout their entire lives. We all know the importance of gaining those skills in the basics—English, maths, history and science—but in the competitive world in which we live we also need to ensure that students are one step ahead. That is why this Government has made an investment in the future of New South Wales through technology for our schools. Computer skills are one of the basic essentials for students' future success. The Government has recognised early the need to be a leader in school information technology. We have been rolling out computers in our schools since 1996. We were the first State in Australia to connect all schools to the Internet and we currently have approximately 165,000 computers in New South Wales public schools.

It is an incredible achievement and it continues to revolutionise the way students learn. The Government is currently conducting the largest-ever roll-out of computers in its history. We recognise that computers need to be upgraded regularly. There are 100,000 state-of-the-art machines worth $140 million being delivered to our schools over four years and the roll-out is ahead of schedule. What is more, all small primary and central schools received their full four-year computer entitlements last year. The Government is spending $942 million over the next four years to give students and teachers in New South Wales schools access to state-of-the-art information technology. That is almost a billion dollars on IT resources for our students. The Government has invested $155 million in broadband services for schools, TAFE colleges and other departmental facilities, giving faster Internet access. We are creating personal email accounts for all public school students and staff. The $84 million e-learning roll-out of more than 1.3 million email accounts is the largest delivery of its kind in Australia.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: Perhaps the Minister can explain why they have to do a pen and paper exam.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst should know better. He will resume his seat.

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst is not doing himself or the House a service. He will resume his seat.
[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Wakehurst to order. I call the member for Bathurst to order. The honourable member for Wakehurst might care to take a few lessons from the honourable member for Epping. He has not quite reached chainsaw status.

Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT: The point the honourable member for Wakehurst does not seem to appreciate—

Mr Brad Hazzard: Nor does the Teachers Federation.

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

[Interruption]

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

Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT: I am sure the Teachers Federation is thrilled with the member's advocacy on its behalf. Computer skills content and computers have been made a part of the everyday life of schools for more than a decade. We announced in 2001 our plans for the introduction of the statewide computing skills assessment for year 10 students. We have been preparing for its mandatory introduction for five years.

[Interruption]

The shadow Minister says it still should not happen. The preparation has included computer hardware for schools, teacher training and technical support.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind the honourable member for Wakehurst that he is on three calls to order. I trust that this point of order will comply with the standing orders of the House.

Mr Brad Hazzard: I did not know I was on three calls to order.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member is on three calls to order. He will resume his seat. He is disrupting the House. The Minister has the call.

Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT: Schools have had the opportunity to participate in trial computing skills tests since 2001. In the 2004 trial of the test, 311 public schools and 71 per cent of the Year 10 students were tested. Exams are a fact of life at school, as nearly everyone in this House would recognise. I find it extraordinary that the shadow Minister for Eduction and Training would support calls for the mandatory computer test to be delayed.

Mr Barry O'Farrell: Point of order: Standing Order 139 does not allow the Minister to debate the matter in her answer. She should provide information.

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

Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT: It is well known that we do not support students by seeking to shield them from the rigours of testing, yet the member for Wakehurst has called for the compulsory test to be delayed. That is not in the interest of students. That sort of thinking—not testing our students but shielding them from the rigours of testing and protecting them from the real world—went out years ago. I think the Opposition should get up to date with current education theory, which clearly shows the benefit of testing students. The Luddites in the Opposition want to condemn students in New South Wales to Dark Ages education practices. The idea that in 2006 students should not be tested on computer literacy is extraordinary. It is unbelievable that the Opposition supports that notion.

One of the complaints from the Opposition that has been around for some time is that there is a written option for the test. As usual, members opposite have it wrong and I want to set the record straight. The written option was in large part provided at the request of some non-government schools that do not allow the use of technology in their schools. In order to ensure that those schools and their students are not excluded there is a pen and paper option. Every government school in New South Wales has the capacity to complete the test on-line. There are 35,000 computers for the 55,000 students sitting the test. That is a ratio of 1 computer to every 1.4 students. I call on the Opposition to show faith in our year 10 students and their performance. They will do the test well. I have every faith in them and I do not know why the Opposition cannot demonstrate the same sort of faith.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: Mr Speaker, seriously, you have to be prepared to stand by—

Mr SPEAKER: What is the point of order?

Mr Brad Hazzard: I am trying to get it out. Let me finish. You have to be prepared to stand by your own standing orders. Standing Order 139 makes it very clear that as soon as the Minister starts debating the matter she should be stopped, and subsequently there should be a proper debate.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst is on thin ice. I order him to resume his seat.

Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT: I am committed to seeing year 10 students in New South Wales who are undertaking their School Certificate this year complete the mandatory skills assessment. Those skills are essential for any young person entering the modern work force. That is why the matter has been taken to the independent umpire, the Industrial Relations Commission, to be resolved, and we will be back there next Wednesday to seek orders to have the test ban lifted. This matter is critical for our public school students. It is critical that they have the benefit of modern technology and that we demonstrate their capacity and skills through mandatory testing. I look forward to further reporting to the House the great benefits of our investment in the future for students in New South Wales.

Questions without notice concluded.

Mr CARL SCULLY (Smithfield—Minister for Police) [3.29 p.m.]: I move:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow the consideration forthwith of a motion of censure of the member for Davidson given this day, followed by the motion for urgent consideration and private members' statements.

The censure motion is very important and should be given urgent priority. I commend the suspension motion.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.40 p.m.]: The Opposition opposes this motion for the suspension of standing orders, as it is nothing more than a distraction.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs will come to order.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: This is a distraction from the interests of Lifestart families who are being denied $200,000 worth of funding to enable their disabled children to get the support that they need from this Government. This is a distraction from the issue of preschools—an issue that the honourable member for Willoughby wants to raise—in respect of which this State has the poorest record and the lowest participation rates in the nation. This is a distraction from the issue the honourable member for Dubbo is endeavouring to raise today, that is, community colleges across this State. This is nothing more than an attempt by the Leader of the House to distract this House from its real task.

In the terms of the Macquarie Australian Dictionary, this is an embuggerance. You are an embuggerance, Carl. You are distracting this House from getting on with the task it has been set by this State: to make good government in this State and not to engage in petty political games. We know we are in the twilight zone when the Labor Party lectures us about ethics and honesty. This Labor Party is led by Morris Iemma—a man who was shoehorned into the job by Joe Tripodi and Eddie Obeid.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs will come to order.
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: Government members want to talk about ethics but Eddie Obeid could keep members in this Chamber debating for the next 150 years. This bloke was the property manager of New South Wales: no property deal too big to have his fingers in, and no property deal too big to get a percentage of. Eddie Obeid cannot even fill in his pecuniary interest forms in the upper House. Eddie Obeid cannot get his name right when he signs those forms. He kept saying on repeated occasions, "It is not me; it is my son." This Government seeks to lecture us about honesty and ethics! I do not understand why the Leader of the House is leading the charge, because the people he seeks to defend by moving this distraction are the very people who did him out of the job of premiership—Eddie Obeid and Joe Tripodi.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: The Academy Awards occurred earlier this month but the Leader of the House ought to get the Golden Globe Award for the best supporting actor role.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to order.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: If we read the motion that the Leader of the House wants us to debate we find it is internally inconsistent. Nothing has been published or is on the record about the dealings of the honourable member for Davidson over a block of land at Oxford Falls that raises any concerns of the type the Minister is referring to. There might have been, had it had not been bought at public auction, but there is none. The property was bought at public auction. The Minister's motion is in two parts. On the one hand it refers to the actions of the honourable member for Davidson, as the local member, before he acquired the property, and on the other hand it seeks, somehow or other, to raise a conflict of interest that occurred after he purchased the property.

It is not worthy of you, Carl—a Chatswood High boy who made good in the western suburbs—to illogically argue a motion that simply does not make sense. We will not take this nonsense from the mob opposite. Joe Tripodi sits on the Government frontbench—a man who has been at the centre of two Independent Commission Against Corruption reports. He is a man who, but for a Democrat woman, would have been charged with sexual assault, given his activities on 14 September 2000. He is a man who has questions to ask about rezoning issues at Orange Grove, as does the Minister for Fair Trading. Pam Allan chaired the backbench natural resources management committee and was a director of the firm Environmental Resources Management [ERM] Australia—a woman who has presided over an inquiry by the natural resources management committee in 2003 without declaring that interest, and a woman who made appointments with the then Minister for Planning relating to her ERM directorship without declaring her interest.

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

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: I know that because the then Minister for Planning declared the fact that she had made—

Mr Carl Scully: Point of order: We have given the Deputy Leader of the Opposition a fair degree of latitude—

Mr SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

Mr Carl Scully: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has gone beyond the leave of the motion. We have given him a fair bit of latitude but I think he has gone beyond the leave of the motion.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question before the House relates to the suspension of standing and sessional orders. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition can argue why he believes the standing and sessional orders should not be suspended. He is now dealing with material outside the leave of the motion. I ask him to return to the leave of the motion.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: The honourable member for Davidson is innocent. [Time expired.]

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

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

Mr Gaudry Mr Gibson Mr Greene Ms Hay Mr Hickey Mr Hunter Ms Judge Ms Keneally Mr Lynch Mr McBride Mr McLeay Ms Meagher Mr Mills Mr Morris Mr Newell Mr Orkopoulos Mrs Paluzzano Mr Pearce

Mrs Perry Mr Price Ms Saliba Mr Sartor Mr Scully Mr Shearan Mr Stewart Ms Tebbutt Mr Tripodi Mr Watkins Mr West Mr Whan Mr Yeadon Tellers, Mr Ashton Mr Martin

Mr Aplin Mr Armstrong Mr Barr 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 McTaggart Mr Merton Ms Moore 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

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Mr CARL SCULLY (Smithfield—Minister for Police) [3.52 p.m.]: I move:

That this House:

(1) deplores the conduct of the member for Davidson in his dealings with Warringah Council, Landcom and the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning about the development of land at Oxford Falls in his electorate, prior to his purchase of property in the development; and

(2) censures the member for Davidson for misuse of his position as a member of the Legislative Assembly and breach of the code of conduct adopted by this House by failing to declare his interest in purchasing property when influencing the approvals policy planning standards for the development.

I move this motion to censure the honourable member for Davidson for wilfully disregarding the rules relating to conflict of interest for members of Parliament and for failing to inform the House about the circumstances of the allegations. As honourable members well know, the New South Wales Parliament has a code of conduct relating to conflicts of interest. So it was with great interest that I read the article in Monday's edition of the Sydney Morning Herald by journalist Robert Wainwright concerning dubious activities by the honourable member for Davidson—activities that reflect an outrageous conflict of interest and an outrageous abuse of his office as a member of this Parliament.

The story is a simple one. The honourable member for Davidson manipulated the planning process to design a dream housing site for himself at public expense, abusing the courtesy extended by Landcom of informing members of Parliament about subdivisions in their electorates. The story goes back some years. In April 1996 Landcom acquired the Crown land for that subdivision. The honourable member for Davidson, who originally wanted this area preserved as Crown land, suddenly started to take a keen interest in the site, urging the Government to rehabilitate an abandoned quarry across the road and to pursue appropriate development on the site. Out of the blue, the honourable member for Davidson began to seek briefings and site inspections. A fax from the Department of Land and Water Conservation dated 12 September 1996 cites the honourable member for Davidson as the main activist regarding the former quarry. Following these representations, Landcom wrote to the Department of Land and Water Conservation, stating:

It is Landcom's view that the marketing of this development and the general amenity of the surrounding area would benefit if the disused quarry site was rehabilitated to a stage to facilitate passive recreational activities.

The honourable member's first intervention had succeeded. At this stage there appeared to be no real local opposition to the subdivision. A letter from Landcom to State Lands dated 14 October 1996 advised:

Landcom has not received any adverse feedback or objections.

Not quite, because the very next day the honourable member for Davidson continued his unusual one-man campaign over this single development site, seeking an on-site briefing from Landcom. The meeting was documented in a briefing note by the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning, which reads:

Meeting requested by the member for Davidson to discuss Landcom's subdivision works and a proposal to complete restoration of the adjacent Crown land at Wearden Road, Oxford Falls.

The honourable member discussed with Landcom officers the size of allotments, views, parks, reserves and the number of allotments. Following these discussions, Landcom made a number of extraordinary concessions, including preserving extra land as parkland. But the honourable member's interest did not stop there. He wanted even more input and roped in his old mates at Warringah Council, where he had recently been deputy mayor. On 3 February 1997 the mayor of Warringah Council wrote to the regional manager of Landcom on behalf of the honourable member for Davidson, stating:

Mr Humpherson is concerned about the Wearden Road development and feels there is an opportunity for it to be a showpiece, which could include the following features: a height of two storeys, greater boundary setbacks for two-storey dwellings, require homes sitting to optimise use of natural sun, minimum landscape areas, dual flush toilets.

A similar list of demands appeared two months later in Warringah Council's local approvals committee. The committee's minutes of 8 April 1997 state:

Representations have been made to council by Andrew Humpherson MP, Member for Davidson. He has requested that council consider the implementation of a variety of building controls to reduce the scale of housing at the Wearden Road subdivision.

As a result of that meeting Warringah Council issued a local approvals policy relating to this subdivision.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: You should have just tabled your speech, Carl. It's a boring piece of rubbish anyway.

Mr SPEAKER: What is the point of order?

Mr Brad Hazzard: The Minister has been quoting extensively from a document, and the standing orders require that he produce and verify the document upon which he is relying.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is my understanding that the Minister has to verify the document. It is not my understanding that he has to produce it. It is a matter for the Minister whether he produces it.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Could you direct him to verify the document?

Mr CARL SCULLY: They are my speech notes.
Mr Brad Hazzard: That is absolute arrogance. The Speaker has just told you to verify the document.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst will resume his seat. I will hear further from the Minister.

Mr CARL SCULLY: I have some notes in relation—

Mr Brad Hazzard: He cannot be allowed to make assertions without you—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst will resume his seat. I said that I will hear further from the Minister.

Mr CARL SCULLY: I have notes in relation to documents that are publicly available and I am entitled to refer to them.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Are you going to verify them?

Mr CARL SCULLY: I can verify them.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: The Minister has to verify these documents. He is talking rubbish and making a spurious attack. Mr Speaker, at the very least you should demand that he verify the documents he is relying on.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst will resume his seat. Is the Minister vouching for the accuracy of the information?

Mr CARL SCULLY: Yes, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is all that is required.

[Interruption]

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

Mr CARL SCULLY: Warringah Council issued a local approvals policy relating just to this subdivision, despite the fact that it was already governed by an existing local environmental plan. Landcom briefing notes tell the story. They state:

The meeting was instigated by Andrew Humpherson, who does not like the appearance of large dwellings with current minimum size setbacks and who seeks to take control of the building style materials and set-outs from the purchases of Landcom lots on this estate.

It continues:

Subsequent to this meeting council issued a draft approvals policy for comment.

I believe this document was cobbled together in haste in order to satisfy the wishes and concerns of the local member of Parliament. Landcom proceeded to object to the local approvals policy because it was site specific. It was highly unusual because, as I said, the area was already covered by a local environmental plan.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: This is a serious assault.

Mr SPEAKER: I want to know what the point of order is. I will assess the seriousness of it.

Mr Brad Hazzard: I put it to you that this is a serious matter and it is necessary for you to consider the gravity of what the Minister said. The Minister just said these documents were publicly available, and he verifies them. Now he is saying they are Landcom briefing notes. They are not publicly available documents. I call on the Minister to produce the documents or be ruled out of order. He cannot make these scurrilous assertions without verifying them.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst will resume his seat. I asked the Minister whether he vouched for the accuracy of the comments he is making, and he said he did. That is all that is required.
Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: He said they were publicly available documents, and he verified them. In the next breath he said they were Landcom briefing notes. They are not publicly available. If they are, he should produce them.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister has vouched for the accuracy of the comments he is making. That is all he is required to do.

Mr Brad Hazzard: That's not right.

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

Mr CARL SCULLY: He can put in an FOI if he wants to get copies. They are all publicly available documents. The honourable member for Davidson is not making points of order. A senior developer and manager of Landcom wrote in a file note on 24 April 1997 that "the standards would in all probability reduce the return of a loss". The honourable member for Davidson asked council to put all these requirements on the Landcom development to force down the price. In other words, Landcom could have got more money for the land but for his actions. The same public servant hit the nail on the head when he pointed out that "the local approvals policy, and the aims it seeks to establish, are politically motivated and specifically target the Landcom development".

The interest of the honourable member for Davidson in this site grew more and more intense, and Landcom became more and more annoyed and suspicious. One Landcom officer wrote in frustration, "Why pick on Landcom and this project in particular?" Landcom officers wanted to know why council were now demanding landscaping in excess of council's normal requirements, why there were to be 50 square metres of open space, again in excess of council's normal requirements, and why there was to be car parking, yet again in excess of council's normal requirements. The height restriction, in particular, drew the ire of the regional manager of Landcom, who in May 1997 wrote:

The draft local approvals policy lacked … streetscape consideration for streets which include lots which slope down to the streets. For such lots the maximum height of seven metres will reduce the height of buildings along the street frontage to single storey dwellings. This result will accentuate the height difference between the lots on the higher side of the road where dwellings will extend the full seven metres from ground level. Such a restriction does not appear to serve any justifiable design or planning function. It does if you are planning to buy on the higher side of the street. It does if you are seeking a windfall at taxpayers' expense.

Landcom could not understand the desire of the honourable member for Davidson to buy land! There was no public disquiet. There were no objections.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order. The standing orders require that if it is a publicly available document, and the Minister verifies it, we can see that publicly available document. There is no publicly available document. These are alleged, probably spurious, confidential Landcom briefings on which his Government made decisions on what would happen with that land. The Opposition did not. The Minister is trying to accuse the honourable member for Davidson of doing something wrong. The Leader of the House must produce these documents, and if he does not he is breaching the operation of this Parliament and the way it should run.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have sought advice on this matter. I indicated earlier that the Minister has to verify the accuracy of his comments. He has done so. That is all the House has the power to seek from him. If the Minister were reading from a letter, he would have to identify it, although he would not necessarily have to table it. There is no point of order.

Mr Brad Hazzard: So a briefing note is not the equivalent of a private letter?

Mr SPEAKER: No, precisely not.

Mr Brad Hazzard: This is just ridiculous.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst will resume his seat. The Minister has the call. The honourable member for Wakehurst will have an opportunity to participate in the debate.

Mr CARL SCULLY: My concern is that when the honourable member for Davidson was asked about this by the Sydney Morning Herald he said, "My office wouldn't have kept files on local issues going back that far." We are only talking about nine years ago. My recollection is that in my office every single file is kept in relation to every representation as far back as 1990, and I have asked a number of my colleagues about that. This is not true! It is unbelievable! So either there are no files or, if there were any, he has not kept them. Why are there no files? It is because there were no complainants other than two: one from a woman whose concerns were allayed very quickly and the other from the honourable member for Davidson. The honourable member for Davidson has clearly breached the code of conduct that requires him to take all reasonable steps to declare any conflict of interest.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst will maintain the dignity of the House.

Mr Brad Hazzard: I am maintaining more dignity than he is.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order. I draw your attention to page 59 of Decisions from the Chair and to decisions by Speakers Weaver, Maher and Kelly.

Mr Alan Ashton: They don't mean anything and you know it!

Mr Brad Hazzard: That's right, they don't mean anything to this Speaker or your Government. You just keep quiet.

Mr Alan Ashton: They go back 20 years.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Under Labor they probably do. I want this Speaker to show that they do mean something. You just bring some dignity into this place, Alan. Mr Speaker, you have referred to it as a letter and not as a briefing note, and I accept your deliberations on that. However, if that is the case, all three Speakers required that a member reading a letter during debate must indicate by whom it was signed. I call on the Minister to tell us who signed these memos, letters, or whatever he calls them, and let us know what we are actually debating.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister did not make reference to a letter. He is not reading from a letter.

Mr Peter Debnam: Yes, he is.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! He made reference to notes the accuracy of which he has verified, and that is all that the Chair can compel of the Minister.

Mr CARL SCULLY: Clearly this is a tactic to try to deny me time to put the case on the table. That is their defence. The honourable member for Wakehurst has used my speaking time. In reply I will have an opportunity to put the rest of the matter in a nutshell. I have more material. There was a concern by Landcom. The honourable member for Davidson used his position as a member of Parliament to ask a government agency and a council to change the way the subdivision went ahead and then he bought it at auction. That must raise a question mark! It must raise a question of ethical conduct. By the way, who signed the transfer document? Who witnessed it? The honourable member for Gosford. The plot thickens. What did you know and when did you know it?

Mr Chris Hartcher: Point of order: The Minister has raised a further point in this debate which is not covered by the motion, and that is me. So let us hear what the Leader of the House has got to say about me or any other member of Parliament, because he has got no evidence and has nothing to say.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I accept the point of order of the honourable member for Gosford.

Mr CARL SCULLY: I want to hear why the honourable member for Davidson did not declare this conflict of interest. Why did he use his position as a member of Parliament? He should be stood aside until the air is cleared. [Time expired.]

Mr ANDREW HUMPHERSON (Davidson) [4.07 p.m.]: I am pleased that a number of people are in the gallery. I trust that anyone who reads Hansard in the future will dwell upon why we are dealing with this distraction at a time when other more pressing matters should be debated in this House and dealt with by the Government. On behalf of the Government and Landcom, the Leader of the House raised the question why I cared so much about this area and why I would fight to reduce the scale of inappropriate development and overdevelopment, and that is a good way to start my response. This is an area very close to where I grew up.

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

Mr ANDREW HUMPHERSON: Where I now live with my family is about one kilometre from where I lived when I moved to the area. It is an area very much characterised by bushland surrounds. People choose to live in the area and are very protective of it. In many cases some generations of families remain there. It is not an area that people normally choose to leave, except because of age or career changes. I grew up in this area and am very familiar with it. I used to walk in the surrounding bush with friends, following the creeks and observing the flora and fauna. I can recall the 1979 bushfires that went through the area, the fires of the early 1980s, and the 1994 bushfires too. So it is no surprise that I am very passionate about the area, as are other people who live there. My record on opposing inappropriate development and overdevelopment is not confined to the immediate area. It applies right through my electorate, and it applies also to the period of five years I spent on Warringah Council.

By coincidence, tomorrow night I am holding a public meeting at Davidson High School to oppose excessive development proposed on the Glenreagh shopping centre site. On Monday morning this week I met with residents of St Ives who are concerned about the inappropriate and excessive five- and six-storey development that Frank Sartor, as the Minister for Planning, is imposing on them. So I have a long history, which I am proud to say has been consistent, of opposing inappropriate and excessive development. The Labor Party does not understand that. It does not appreciate that we have strong empathy with local communities, and that we understand and appreciate the affection that people have for their local environment and the character of their neighbourhoods. That is the consistent position I have taken, and it is one that the Liberal Party and the Coalition share.

This area has been the source of a local issue that dates back to 1987 and before. In 1987, when I was first elected to council, the primary issue on which I stood in that particular part of what was then the D Riding of Warringah Council was to close the longstanding quarry there because it had grown to the extent that it was causing a major disaster for the residents who lived in Wearden Road. I pursued that issue for a number of years. I acknowledge and thank those in the local community who have contacted me in the last 48 hours.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Government members will come to order.

Mr ANDREW HUMPHERSON: In response to the Sydney Morning Herald assertion that there was no local concern about the issue of development in this area, they have told me that is totally false. A number of people have said they clearly recall the level of opposition to, and concern about, development. Amongst those people, apart from residents, are two former members of Parliament—two former members for Wakehurst in fact. Allan Viney, a former member, has been in contact, and so has Tom Webster. Tom Webster, as honourable members should be aware, is not only the former Labor member for Wakehurst but also a former Warringah councillor who was serving on Warringah Council at the time I made my representations. He has endorsed what I have said, and has done so as a longstanding and very well regarded man of integrity in the Warringah area. Tom and I have not agreed on every issue.

Obviously he is on the other side of politics. But he certainly is well regarded, and many people in the area have the utmost respect for him, even though he did not receive the support that was his due from the Labor Party when he lost office. As reported in today's Manly Daily, he said that he recalled great community concern about development in this area. He went on to say:

Even though we were on opposite sides of the political fence he (Mr Humpherson) and I were keen on ensuring that new subdivisions had as many environmental and design controls as possible.

Ninety per cent of the area we are talking about was bushland, and the council of the day was trying to—and Andrew was part of this—preserve those areas as much as possible.

I acknowledge the comments made publicly by the former member for Wakehurst—indeed, a loyal Labor Party member. This week a journalist also approached me after the article appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald. This journalist, who arrived in the parliamentary gallery some four to six years ago as a journalist with the Sydney Morning Herald, informed me that the Government had given journalists these exact documents in a detailed dossier—the same dossier that was handed to journalist Robert Wainwright approximately one week ago! So these documents were provided to the Sydney Morning Herald approximately five years ago, when they were deemed at the time by the Sydney Morning Herald not to be a story. Curious, is it not, that approximately five years later they are returned into the hands of the Sydney Morning Herald and another journalist decides that it is a story!

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for East Hills will come to order. The honourable member for Heffron will come to order.

Mr ANDREW HUMPHERSON: I question the motives that some have in providing those documents. They are not public documents; they are Landcom file notes, which are not readily available to anybody else in the community but were available to the Government and, in particular, the Minister for Lands. Is it any surprise that the Minister for Lands would be providing this aged dossier to the Sydney Morning Herald? Not when you take into account the criticisms I have made in recent months, particularly of his handling of both the Justice and Emergency Services portfolios.

As I said, I have been contacted by a number of residents who have verified that there was strong concern about overdevelopment in the area and that this was a serious issue. On 15 February 1992—shortly before I became a member of this place—an article appeared in the Manly Daily regarding concern about the State Government of the day considering an urban release at Oxford Falls, in the Narrabeen catchment area. It referred to concern about the Department of Housing as it was then, and cited as objections that much of the land proposed for this zoning was capable of urban development and the department did not wish to have its hands tied in future. So the Department of Housing was trying to press forward with development of extra land, and more land, in the Oxford Falls area. This was in the wake of the Red Hill development, which was one of four rezonings that occurred in approximately 1990 against the council's wishes and against the wishes of the local community.

The Red Hill development was regarded by many residents as a poor example. Certainly many people in the area of what is Corymbia Circuit, Carnarvon Drive and the Oxford Falls Valley were concerned about the large number of dual occupancies, and the large scale of development, and brought their concerns to my attention and asked me to make approaches and representations, which I did. It should not be any surprise that some nine or ten years later I do not have a file on that matter, because it has not been raised with me ever since. But I did my job then, as I do now, and as I would advise members of Parliament to do, that is, to fight for the public interests in their areas.

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

Mr ANDREW HUMPHERSON: I have to say I was not completely successful in trying to curtail the scale of development in that particular area, but I think I was at least effective in my attempts. I do not resile from attempting to fight for the interests of my community. All facts on this have been disclosed and are on the public record as far as my role is concerned. A code of conduct did not exist at the time, but if there had been I would have complied with it. It was public knowledge that I actually approached the council and Landcom on this matter. It was not a private exercise.

In fact, I cite an article in the Manly Daily of 18 January 1997 depicting me and a senior development manager by the name of Ian Wilson from Landcom standing on the site. So it is a bit rich for anybody to suggest that this was a private exercise, when every member of the community was aware of what I was doing, and everyone in that local area knew I was fighting for their interests. I do not think there is any suggestion that this was anything but public. I fought for approximately six months, from 1996 through to the early part of 1997, to the best of my recollection, but I do not recall the council ever coming back to me at the end to tell me the result of its dealings with Landcom. Obviously there were some restrictions, which I presume Landcom must ultimately have agreed to.

My wife and I did not make a decision to purchase this portion of land until shortly before it went on the market, because we had other plans. What I did as a private individual was completely separate from what I did as a local member of Parliament. I would recommend that members of Parliament do what I did—I would do it again—and that is to fight as strongly and as effectively as they can, within the constraints in Opposition, to ensure that there is not inappropriate development or overdevelopment in their area, to preserve the character and amenity of the communities they represent, and to look after the lifestyle and interests of the people they represent. The real issue today is why the Labor Party is pursuing this matter, wasting the time of the House, and diverting attention from other more pressing issues.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Liverpool.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Remember Lizzie Kernohan.

Mr Peter Debnam: Just remember your maiden speech, mate.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.

Mr Peter Debnam: Just remember your maiden speech and how far that got you for years, you grub, you filthy grub.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Liverpool has the call.

Mr Michael Richardson: Are you going to reprise your maiden speech today?

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Mr PAUL LYNCH (Liverpool) [4.20 p.m.]: Thank you, Mr Speaker. In response to that cacophony from the Opposition, I simply note that that is characteristic of the Tory bullies they are. They are happy to throw out allegations against people. They are happy to get stuck into people, but whenever they are faced with an argument in this place they whinge and moan. They are happy to dish it out but they do not like to be on the receiving end of allegations. It is worth making the point in relation to the comments of the Leader of the Opposition about me that he did not apply that standard when people on that side of the House attacked me twice before I was in here. All I had the temerity to do in this place was put up the arguments to their face, something none of them is prepared to do. The State parliamentary Liberal Party stands condemned for one of two things in this place. Either it is harbouring someone on the frontbench who should not be there and should not be in this House or it is so dysfunctional because of its factional warfare that the only items it gets in the Sydney Morning Herald are its internal factional brawling, and the evidence it is leaking undoes one of its members.

Mr Chris Hartcher: Speaking of the Sydney Morning Herald, what about the Department of Housing when you rorted housing commission tenancies for your preselection?

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

[Interruption]

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

[Interruption]

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

Mr PAUL LYNCH: I am not surprised that the honourable member for Gosford is upset because one of the interesting aspects of this infamous deal he is now talking about, the infamous lot 87, is that the transfer document transferring ownership to the honourable member for Davidson has his signature on it, and so do the mortgage documents. There are a number of issues about that, not the least of which is the intellectual adequacy of the honourable member for Davidson in relying upon the honourable member for Gosford as a lawyer.

Mr Chris Hartcher: I was not his lawyer.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Mr Chris Hartcher: I did not act in any legal capacity.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Mr Chris Hartcher: We want to know about the Housing Commission. Tell us what you did with the Housing Commission tenancy lists.

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

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Gosford will resume his seat. If issues are raised in the debate that the honourable member for Gosford feels compelled to deal with, he can seek the call and participate in the debate.

Mr PAUL LYNCH: I also note that the honourable member for Gosford is terribly excited about the Department of Housing at a time when his Government had the ministry.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Liverpool will address the Chair, not the honourable member for Gosford. The honourable member for Liverpool has the call.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: The standing orders require that if there is to be a substantive attack on a member, including the honourable member for Gosford, which has occupied this scurrilous member's time for the last minute and a half—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I understand the point of order, and I concur.

Mr Brad Hazzard: He has to move a motion.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst will resume his seat. The honourable member for Liverpool has the call.

Mr PAUL LYNCH: It is worth noting that the Opposition response to this motion has been twofold. One is to take unmeritorious points of order to prevent the Leader of the House and me from presenting our arguments. That is a fairly good indication that they have no substantive defence.

Mr Brad Hazzard: That point of order was just verified, mate. You ought to listen to what is going on here.

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

Mr PAUL LYNCH: In relation to that interjection, I rest my case. The second aspect of the defence is what the honourable member for Davidson said, which is precious little. There is no substantive argument by the honourable member for Davidson dealing with the allegations contained in the motion and in the speeches. There is nothing in detail from the honourable member for Davidson. The best he could do was to get up and say that he is really interested in trying to get good development in his area. That is fine, but he bought a property in the middle of that development and it is the only development that we can find in that area for which he put up a building code to the council. That has happened in no other development.

Mr Barry O'Farrell: Point of order: He bought the property at auction.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is an explanation.

Mr Barry O'Farrell: Are you saying that Landcom is crook?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to order. The honourable member for Liverpool has the call.

Mr PAUL LYNCH: As I say, the substantive Opposition defence is to take unmeritorious points of order. The extraordinary thing about this is not only that the honourable member for Davidson lobbied about a particular development—that is perfectly natural. But he then bought a property and now they cannot find the documents in his office. What documents does he get rid of, only the ones that relate to property that he bought? The only job he is fit to have is not on the frontbench but as the official shredder for the Liberal Party [Time expired.]
Mr CHRIS HARTCHER (Gosford) [4.25 p.m.]: I move:

That the motion be amended by leaving out all words after "That" with a view to inserting instead:

"this House:

(1) deplores the conduct of the member for Fairfield in seeking to influence for his own benefit the planning deliberations for Orange Grove;

(2) further deplores the conduct of the member for Fairfield in Parliament House on the night of 14/15 September 2000 as set forth in the report of the Independent Commission Against Corruption; and

(3) censures the member for Fairfield for misuse of his position as a member of the Legislative Assembly and for bringing the Parliament into disrepute by his conduct."

Mr Carl Scully: Point of order: That amendment is outside the scope of the original motion. The honourable member for Gosford is not entitled to amend a motion with words that are completely beyond the scope of the original motion. It is out of order and should be struck out.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: No, it is not. There are precedents. The motion is capable of amendment, as are all motions. There are precedents that allow it to be amended for a contrary censure as established by the practice of this House. It is not contrary to the motion. It is a motion of censure relating to planning.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard enough on the point of order. I have heard a number of censure motions debated in the past. On this occasion the honourable member for Gosford has moved an amendment to insert not only the name of a person other than the honourable member for Davidson, but also the rationale for purporting to amend the motion to censure that other person. That is not an amendment to the motion. It is a separate motion that has nothing to do with the motion before the House. It is not a reversal of the censure motion, as the honourable member for Gosford member has claimed and for which he claims there is precedent; it is in fact a different motion of censure. Therefore, I rule the amendment out of order.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: The honourable member for Davidson fights for his area, as does every member of this Parliament. The whole idea of being a member of Parliament is that you fight for the area. You look after your area, make sure that it keeps its ambience, make sure that its residents are looked after, make sure that you protect their interests. The honourable member for Davidson is a member of integrity who has served this Parliament well since 1992. Everything he has undertaken has been for the benefit of his constituents. What the honourable member for Davidson does at a public auction in public with his own money in his own time is a matter for him.

Every member of this Parliament is fully aware of that. The Leader of the House has moved this motion because there is no business before the House and to create mischief. The House will sit tonight to deal with motions for urgent consideration and matters of public importance. The Leader of the House has no business for the House to deliberate upon. Accordingly, he seeks to create as many mischievous motions as he can. The real issue that this House should be debating is the conduct of members opposite, especially the Minister for Energy in the Orange Grove controversy, the honourable member for Strathfield in her local planning and the honourable member for Liverpool in rorting Housing Commission tenancies for his own preselection purposes.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order.

Mr Milton Orkopoulos: Point of order: The honourable member for Gosford is clearly flouting your earlier ruling and raising issues you have ruled out of order. He cannot continue to do that. He must address the substantive motion that is before the House. His amendment was not accepted as a legitimate amendment to the resolution, yet his is arguing and naming the very people—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard enough on the point of order. I uphold the point of order. Having ruled the amendment out of order because it was outside the leave of the motion, the honourable member for Gosford cannot introduce into the debate material relating to that amendment.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: The Minister for Energy was the subject of an Independent Commission Against Corruption inquiry into his conduct. [Time expired.]

Mr STEVE WHAN (Monaro) [4.30 p.m.]: Today the member who is the subject of this motion has been given the opportunity to explain exactly what he did and whether at any stage he declared to the officers of the council to whom he spoke that he was interested in this land.
Mr Barry O'Farrell: Point of order: I refer to the standing order relating to the reading of speeches. We know this has been given to him by the Premier's office.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to order for the second time. I will not allow spurious points to be taken merely to waste time.

Mr STEVE WHAN: It is interesting to see evidence of the glass jaw of members opposite. They are happy to stand in this Chamber and slag off members opposite them in this Chamber without any foundation, yet they are unwilling to answer serious accusations that have been referred to in this place today.

Mr Andrew Constance: Point of order: I take offence to "slag" and words of that type. This is coming from a bloke who was a whiteboard monitor in Ros Kelly's office—

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

Mr STEVE WHAN: It becomes clearer just what a glass jaw members opposite have, and why the honourable member for Davidson was unwilling to address the matters concerning him today. He has not answered the questions about whether his conduct was ethical, whether there was any corruption in people who hold public office in seeking to use the privilege of public office to manipulate the design for a land release, whether he systematically used his position of public office as the honourable member for Davidson to gain vital commercial information that at the time was not public, or whether at any stage in this process he told council officials who were involved that he was interested in purchasing the land. In the entire 13 minutes or so during which the honourable member for Davidson spoke, he did not answer the accusations that have been made in this place today. That is an absolute disgrace.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: The honourable member for Monaro is speaking outside the leave of the motion. Nowhere in the motion is there a reference to even the Government alleging corruption. The honourable member for Davidson has made it quite clear that, when he was negotiating, he had not even looked at the block of land. The honourable member for Monaro did not listen to what the honourable member for Davidson said.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! the honourable member for Wakehurst will be able to participate in the debate at the appropriate time. There is no point of order. The honourable member for Wakehurst will resume his seat.

Mr STEVE WHAN: The honourable member for Wakehurst has given us a great demonstration of why one of the other Opposition members approached Chainsaw Tink and asked him to come back into the job. The performance of the honourable member for Wakehurst as the Leader of the House has been exposed as pretty weak today.

Mr Michael Richardson: Point of order—

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst and the honourable member for the Hills will resume their seats.

Mr STEVE WHAN: What was the comment earlier today about enthusiasm not being an excuse? The honourable member for Davidson became involved in a Landcom subdivision. He made representations to Warringah Council. He requested the council to adopt some building policy controls, which included controls on building heights, landscape and other building requirements. All this is alleged in the Sydney Morning Herald article. We have seen Landcom raising questions about his involvement in the process, yet we have had no answers today in response to any of those accusations.

We have seen no adequate defence from the honourable member for Davidson throughout the whole process. He failed to explain why he did not declare to the officers that he was interested in the block of land. He stated in this Chamber that he does not have any record of it. How many members of this place write letters to their council or provide advice to their local council and then not keep copies of it? I think every other member of this place would keep records. The honourable member for Davidson has failed to answer the case against him today and that is why this motion should be supported. [Time expired.]
Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [4.35 p.m.]: In almost 15 years as a member of this Parliament, I have to say that this is one of the weakest and most hopeless representations by the Labor Party on any motion—

Mr Andrew Constance: And misrepresentation.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: —and misrepresentation that the Labor Party has brought before this House. Moreover, the Leader of the House was carrying on before with silly language. Then we had the Z team, Wet Behind the Ears Whan and Loopy Left Lynch, trying to argue a case that they know is simply not true. As I said, I have been a member of Parliament for 15 years, and I hold a practising certificate as a lawyer. I have been an arbitrator in the courts. I assure honourable members that if there was one iota of wrongdoing, I would be the first to say it, but I can tell honourable members opposite that there is not one iota of wrongdoing to this.

Mr Steve Whan: Oh, we trust you—not.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: The honourable member for Monaro may say that, but I have represented a number of people on his side of politics in relation a number of issues. If they wanted to pipe up, they would tell him that I know what integrity means. You, sir, are not the epitome of integrity.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Government members will cease interjecting. The honourable member for Wakehurst will address the Chair.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: In this morning's Manly Daily a former member for Wakehurst, the person who held my position in the Wranslide years, Tom Webster, made it clear that there is not one thing that Andrew Humpherson has done wrong on this issue. I quote:

Former Wakehurst Labor MP Tom Webster, who served on Warringah Council from 1991 to 1998—

so he knows Andrew Humpherson very well because they were both on the council—

said he recalled great community concern about developing the national park.

Mr Barry O'Farrell: Who was that?

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: Tom Webster, the former member for Wakehurst, the person who represented my electorate before I did.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Members of the Opposition will cease interjecting. The honourable member for Wakehurst will address the Chair. I call the honourable member for East Hills to order.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: The Manly Daily stated:

"Even though we were on opposite sides of the political fence, he (Mr Humpherson), and I were keen on ensuring that new subdivisions had as many environmental and urban design controls as possible," Mr Webster, now a valuer, said.

The honourable member for Heffron should be quiet.

Ms Kristina Keneally: Where did he say that he had done nothing wrong?

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

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: Tom Webster is saying that Andrew did absolutely nothing wrong. I point out to members opposite that the history of the Government in relation to the northern beaches has been to push more and more density in the area known as Red Hill—in fact, almost every area on the northern beaches. Red Hill was a hot issue back in the early 1990s. Despite the honourable member for Davidson having behaved as an environmental crusader for his area who was standing up for the public on the northern beaches to try to closely examine properties that were being developed by Labor through Landcom, and despite his standing up for the people who wanted to have environmental constraints brought to bear so that we did not have the same continuing overuse and excessive density, it still came back to Labor having control. You people made the decisions.
Mr Alan Ashton: Your government—

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: No, that is wrong. The member for East Hills does not know. He should have a look. In 1997 Labor was in government. In fact, the member was not here. At that stage we had Doug Shedden here, a gentleman with some integrity. The former Labor member for Bankstown would not have sat here and taken part like a monkey. Because Andrew Humpherson gets a big tick on the tests of credibility, honesty, propriety and acting in the interests of the public, members opposite are carrying on. Compare that with Orange Grove and Joe Tripodi. Compare that with what you people have done.

Mr Michael Daley: Point of order: Mr Speaker, you have already made a ruling today about bringing a member into disrepute.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I uphold the point of order. The honourable member for Wakehurst will address the motion.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: It is relevant because evidence was given by Mr Bargshoon that Joe Tripodi was so concerned about his credibility—

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

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: At the end of the day this is just a farce. Members opposite are like stuffed monkeys, going through the motions and playing games. They are trying to delay the debate on the big issues: lifestyle, disability, better circumstances for Aboriginals in New South Wales, better conditions in hospitals. Stop the waffle and get on with the substance! [Time expired.]

Mr ANDREW HUMPHERSON (Davidson) [4.40 p.m.], in response: I thank the honourable member for Gosford and the honourable member for Wakehurst for their personal support and contributions. I have heard nothing from the other side that warrants a further response from me.

Mr CARL SCULLY (Smithfield—Minister for Police) [4.41 p.m.], in reply: It is quite extraordinary. Very serious allegations have been raised in the media and in a censure motion in this House that cannot be dismissed superficially and flippantly by the honourable member for Davidson. He should address those concerns. This is how he defended himself: "I love the area." "I have lived there a long time." "It was a strong issue." "It's an old story." He has got to be kidding. The defence to the censure of misusing his position as a member of Parliament to gain an advantage requires a serious response.

On the face of it, he has at least a conflict of interest and question marks against his integrity and ethics in his role as a member of Parliament. If anyone in this House asks a State agency and a council to come to a meeting and puts his concerns on behalf of the community, then council officers and agency personnel are entitled to believe the meeting is for the purpose of constituents, not personal gain. I do not mean just financial gain. Whether there was a financial gain would require greater scrutiny, but it looks questionable.

Mr Chris Hartcher: What evidence have you got?

Mr CARL SCULLY: It looks questionable. His defence is, "I don't have any files." His defence is that he was overwhelmed; there were hundreds of constituents marching towards his electorate office. What a load of poppycock. There were virtually none. Landcom itself said no adverse comments came to its attention. [Quorum formed.]

That is the Opposition's substantive defence: it has called a quorum because the member does not want to hear more of the allegations. He should be saying, "Here are the details. This is why it was not unethical conduct." My concern is that no defence has been put forward to the allegation that the honourable member for Davidson misused his position. I cannot think of another member on either side of the House who would seriously think it was okay to call meetings, ask for changes to be made, turn up at an auction and bid successfully and then have the gall to say here, "I do my job as any MP would, fighting for the public interests in your area. I was not completely satisfied in curtailing the development." It is unbelievable. It was not a private exercise. He wants us to believe that he woke up on the morning of the auction, had a chat over breakfast with his wife and decided to buy the property. That defies belief.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst will resume his seat.
Mr CARL SCULLY: The Landcom memo written two days after the auction sums it up by saying it should be noted that the most expensive lot was purchased for $420,000 by Andrew Humpherson MP, who expressed the view that the completion and presentation of the estate was better than he expected. Why would it not be? He in fact designed the suburb and the lot he purchased. Why would it not be better after the pressure he brought to bear in getting the council to bring in the local approvals policy over its LEP. These are things he has to answer.

There is a scandalous conflict of interest. The honourable member for Davidson actually said his defence to not divulging the conflict of interest was that we allegedly did not have a code of conduct for that. That to me was a roundabout way of saying, "I am guilty as charged, but my defence is that you brought in the code of conduct to deal with conflict of interest after the alleged conflict." There has always been an expectation that significant officials, of both private companies and governments, will disclose a conflict where it occurs. The conflict is not a problem provided someone behaves appropriately. It is up to the Leader of the Opposition to stand the member aside. He should be removed from the Opposition front bench because an appropriate inquiry needs to be put in place to test these questions. If he had given us chapter and verse, properly defending his integrity and explaining how he declared the conflict of interest, and answering these charges, I would probably say, okay, let us move on

Mr Chris Hartcher: Point of order: Did the Minister stand aside when his private car was used to convey a dog from house to house? When he used his car to convey a dog all over Sydney did he stand aside when those allegations were made?

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

Mr CARL SCULLY: I am happy to talk about the member for Fiji, Andrew Humpherson. Let us not talk about frisbees on the beach when he misused public money for a private benefit for his family. This guy has form. He has had his hand in the till before and it looks like he has his hand in the till again. I want some answers. The Swamp Fox also has questions to answer. Any lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: The standing orders require the Minister to refer to the honourable member as the honourable member for Gosford, and not by any nickname. If he wants to start talking about a canine issue he should talk about the dog on the back seat of his ministerial car.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I uphold the point of order. The honourable member for Wakehurst will resume his seat.

Mr Brad Hazzard: He should refer to the case of Scully and the dog on the back seat of his ministerial car.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst will stop wasting the time of the House.

Mr CARL SCULLY: If the honourable member for Wakehurst wants to go over history we can go over how he stole $100,000 from an old woman by changing her will.

Mr Brad Hazzard: You really are a low-life and you know it.

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

Mr Brad Hazzard: You, sir, are a scoundrel and a crook.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst will resume his seat. I cannot allow four members to stand in the Chamber screaming at one another. That behaviour is disgraceful and does nothing to enhance the regard in which the Chamber is held. If a remark is made to which a member takes objection, the member has the right to ask for it to be withdrawn. I will allow the honourable member for Wakehurst to do that but I will not allow any further screaming across the Chamber.

Mr Brad Hazzard: What the Minister just said is offensive and beyond belief. I ask you to ask him to withdraw it immediately.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the honourable member for Wakehurst finds the remark offensive I ask the Minister to withdraw it.

Mr Brad Hazzard: And he should apologise.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is a matter for the Minister whether he apologises. I have asked him to withdraw the remark.

Mr CARL SCULLY: In response to his request I say this—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind the Minister that the honourable member for Wakehurst has taken offence at the remark.

Mr CARL SCULLY: I am happy to withdraw the remark that he had a will changed to steal money from an old lady. I am happy to withdraw that remark.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Mr Speaker, I ask again—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I understand the honourable member for Wakehurst.

Mr Brad Hazzard: He is a low life and he needs to apologise.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister knows what he has said is not acceptable. I ask him to withdraw that statement.

Mr CARL SCULLY: I am happy to withdraw that statement. In this case a member of Parliament had another member of Parliament act as his lawyer. [Time expired.]

Mr Chris Hartcher: Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I understand that the honourable member for Gosford wants to make a personal explanation. As there is a question before the Chair I cannot entertain a personal explanation until I have dealt with that question.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

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

Mr Gaudry Mr Gibson Mr Greene Ms Hay Mr Hickey Mr Hunter Ms Judge Ms Keneally Mr Lynch Mr McBride Mr McLeay Mr McTaggart Mr Mills Mr Morris Mr Newell Mr Orkopoulos Mrs Paluzzano Mr Stewart

Mr Pearce Mrs Perry Mr Price Ms Saliba Mr Sartor Mr Scully Mr Shearan Ms Tebbutt Mr Tripodi Mr Watkins Mr West Mr Whan Mr Yeadon Tellers, Mr Ashton Mr Martin

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

Ms Hodgkinson Mrs Hopwood Mr Humpherson Mr Kerr Mr Merton 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 J. H. Turner Mr R. W. Turner Tellers, Mr George Mr Maguire

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER, by leave: I wish to make a personal explanation. During the previous debate the Minister for Police impugned my character by implying that I had acted as a solicitor in certain transactions involving the honourable member for Davidson. That would be a criminal offence as I do not hold a licence to practice as a solicitor. I did not act as a solicitor. I did what any citizen over the age of 18 years is entitled to do: I witnessed a signature on a legal document.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. The Leader of the House will come to order.

Mr PAUL McLEAY (Heathcote—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.01 p.m.]: This matter deserves priority because this Friday there will be a meeting of State and Federal Treasurers. This matter is urgent and deserves priority because the New South Wales State budget will be brought down on 30 May. This matter is urgent and deserves priority because the Federal Treasurer, Peter Costello, is stealing our money to fatten himself up in his election year. He admitted as much earlier this year when he was quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald as saying that he "wasn't going to help out a State Labor Government". Peter Costello has created a quasi inquiry, which is a pat on the back disguised as a taxation review. If that review were fair dinkum it would show that New South Wales should get a fairer share of GST revenue.

The Leader of the Opposition needs to start listening to his frontbench members when they say things such as, "We want more preschools and more health care"—as if there were some health outcomes to show that filtering will work. Opposition frontbench members should talk to the Leader of the Opposition and tell him that Peter Costello is ripping us off. This matter is urgent and demands priority because New South Wales deserves its fair share of GST revenue. This week the Leader of the Opposition should pick up the phone, stand up for New South Wales families and support the Government in its effort to win our fair share of the GST.

Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN (Willoughby) [5.03 p.m.]: My motion about preschool funding is urgent because, as I speak, many preschools across New South Wales are facing closure. This matter is urgent because I am sure that every member in this place has been contacted by local preschools that are struggling to keep their doors open and have had to increase their fees because the State Government has failed to act on their behalf for more than a decade. Despite all experts acknowledging the importance of community-based preschool in developing social skills and learning and identifying potential issues that may hinder development in later years, the State Government has failed to increase funding—with the result that preschool enrolments in New South Wales are declining at an alarming rate.
This motion is urgent because preschools play a vital role in small country communities in particular, where there are no other child care options. Preschools are also vital for children from non-English speaking backgrounds, indigenous children and children with disabilities. Greater participation in preschool education can help to ensure that children entering kindergarten and primary school are as well prepared as possible and that problems that may impact on their ability to learn are identified and treated as early as possible. According to the Productivity Commission report released a few months ago—

Mr Tony Stewart: Point of order: The honourable member for Willoughby should know by now that she must argue why her motion should have priority. She is not doing that: she is debating the issue. The honourable member for Willoughby knows that she should be arguing why her motion should have priority, not debating the matter.

Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marie Andrews): Order! I draw the attention of the honourable member for Willoughby to the nature of the debate in which she is speaking.

Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN: It is regrettable that the honourable member for Bankstown does not acknowledge the urgent plight of preschools in his electorate and in the electorates of all Labor members. This matter is urgent because, according to the Productivity Commission report, New South Wales children have the lowest rate of participation in preschool services—about 60 per cent—in the country. This matter is urgent because preschool participation rates in other States are about 90 per cent or higher. Why does New South Wales have a participation rate of only 60 per cent? It is because the Government has ignored the plight of preschools for more than a decade. This already low level of participation in New South Wales has been in steady decline in recent years. Some preschools are also experiencing underutilised capacity as places remain unfilled due to high fee levels compared with those in the rest of Australia. Many providers are running deficits, and fees in rural areas—I am sure Country Labor members will be interested to hear this—have increased by 22 per cent in two years.

This matter is urgent because preschools, parents and families in this State are under pressure every day. Families are keeping kids at home instead of giving them vital education because the Government and the Minister for Community Services—she is absent from the Chamber; she cannot even bother to listen to me establishing the urgency of this matter—have ignored the plight of community organisations, preschools and parents. The Minister for Community Services must explain her lack of action. She must explain why she has allowed preschool participation rates in New South Wales to reach such an alarmingly low level. Not only has the Minister failed to act, but relevant stakeholders have experienced enormous difficulties even getting her to acknowledge their correspondence.

Ms Noreen Hay: Point of order—

Mr Peter Debnam: You just want to talk about Neville Hilton, don't you?

Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marie Andrews): Order! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order.

Ms Noreen Hay: It is very interesting when those opposite consider standards and when they do not. Opposition members have no standards at all.

Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marie Andrews): Order! The honourable member for Wollongong will state her point of order.

Ms Noreen Hay: My point of order is about the failure by the honourable member for Willoughby to state why her motion is urgent. I will debate child care any day with Opposition members. They do not support child care, and they never will.

Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marie Andrews): Order! The honourable member for Willoughby must confine her remarks to why her motion should have priority. She may continue.

Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN: I am extremely disappointed that Labor members are not considering the plight of children, parents and families. They should be disgusted by their Government's lack of action. [Time expired.]
Question—That the motion for urgent consideration of the honourable member for Heathcote be proceeded with—put.

The House divided.

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

Mr Debus Ms Gadiel Mr Gaudry Mr Gibson Mr Greene Ms Hay Mr Hickey Mr Hunter Ms Judge Ms Keneally Mr Lynch Mr McBride Mr McLeay Mr Mills Mr Morris Mr Newell

Mr Orkopoulos Mr Pearce Mrs Perry Mr Price Ms Saliba Mr Sartor Mr Shearan Mr Stewart Ms Tebbutt Mr Tripodi Mr Watkins Mr Whan Mr Yeadon Tellers, Mr Ashton Mr Martin

Mr Aplin Mr Armstrong Mr Barr 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 Humpherson Mr Kerr Mr McTaggart Mr Merton Ms Moore 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

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Mr Andrew Fraser: Point of order: In the last sitting week I asked for a ruling from you in relation to Standing Order 120. Once again when I raised the matter today you were not in the chair. But once again members opposite rose when a member from the Opposition was establishing priority.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I understand and acknowledge the issue raised by the honourable member for Coffs Harbour. As there is no business before the House I cannot entertain a point of order. However, I have sought advice and deliberated on the matter and I intend to give a substantive ruling prior to the commencement of debate at the next sitting.

Mr Andrew Fraser: Without canvassing your ruling which I asked for this week, what was also raised today was whether a member can debate the content of his motion in establishing priority. I would also point out that in Standing Order 120—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Again I point out that I cannot entertain hearing the honourable member further as there is no question before the Chair. However, if he wishes to raise the matter in a subsequent debate he may do so. I have already said that I will deliver a substantive ruling on the matter tomorrow.
Motion by Mr David Campbell agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to provide that consideration of the motion for urgent consideration be postponed until 7.30 p.m.

Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marianne Saliba): Order! It being 5.15 p.m. the House will now deal with General Business Notices of Motions (General Notices).

General Business Notices of Motions (General Notices) given.

Mr IAN ARMSTRONG (Lachlan) [5.20 p.m.]: I want to speak about the Roads and Traffic Authority office at West Wyalong. The Minister for Roads announced some three weeks ago that three RTA offices across New South Wales would close, namely, at Springwood, Katoomba and West Wyalong. I will deal with the West Wyalong office. West Wyalong is now one of the fastest growing towns in New South Wales, thanks very much to the development of the Lake Cowal goldmine. About 500 people are employed at the moment on the development of that mine. When it settles in a few months time, it will maintain about 300 permanent jobs in the region.

As a consequence, a large number of new homes are being built in West Wyalong and surrounding areas, including the village of Burcher. A lot of motor registry activity has been generated with new residents and expansion of existing businesses, but particularly trucking business. Obviously, there are a lot of new cars in the region involving an increasing number of new registrations, young people looking for licences and so forth. This is probably the most active period in West Wyalong's recent history as far as the motor registry's business is concerned.

The other significant event at West Wyalong in the last seven or eight years is the development of Australia's largest egg producing operation. The Pace family have spent more than $50 million putting in the very best of world technology over some three farms in the district in order to produce more eggs than anybody else in Australia. Of course, those eggs are distributed daily. That involves dozens and dozens of trucks going in and out of West Wyalong each night, and also to bring in feed for the million hens that are laying the eggs. West Wyalong is situated on the Newell Highway and has a large number of hotels, quite out of proportion to the size of the local population. But, because of its location in relation to Melbourne to Brisbane trips, which many people do in three stages, West Wyalong is a very popular place to stay with Melbournians moving north and those travelling south along the Newell Highway.

The point I make is that the RTA facility at West Wyalong is established in a very good position and provides easy access for vehicles, particularly semitrailers and B-doubles and that type of heavy vehicle, to be inspected by RTA officers without disrupting other traffic. So, for the Government to announce out of the blue, without any consultation at all, even with local government, that it was going to close that office, would seem to be an act of the utmost folly. But the Minister, when announcing that the office would be closed, said that this action was proposed "following negotiations with the local council", Bland Council. That was a lie. There had been no negotiations whatsoever with the council—in fact, no contact was made with the local council.

I understand that yesterday the mayor and general manager of the Bland Shire Council came down and met the new Minister, Mr Roozendaal. I would hope the new Minister makes an appropriate decision and one that will be in the interests of the RTA. If the RTA cannot make money out of that particular office, with the amount of activity that has been and will be generated in the area, it is not trying. Temora, which is about an hour's drive away, has an RTA office in the local shire council building, where people have a two-hour wait most days for the services provided by that office. West Wyalong is certainly a bigger operation, with all the activity that I have spoken about. What I am saying is that if the Government has any business capacity at all it will, one, recognise the need and, two, recognise that the facility it has at West Wyalong is excellent not only because of its location but its suitability for the mixed traffic that uses it, from motor bikes through to B-doubles. This RTA office services a large number of villages, such as Burcher, Weethalle, Kikoira, round to Naradhan, to Barmedman, and back to Caragabal, and Quandialla. They are all villages served out of the same station.

The other thing is that operations on some 15 branch lines used for the cartage of wheat are currently suspended. We do not know yet what the future of those is, but if the Government decides not to use one or more of those into the future, and the product of those branch lines is put onto roads, that will amplify the usage of the RTA facility at West Wyalong. By any reasonable logic, it would be a wise decision on behalf of the Government—and one that would be popularly applauded—if the decision to close that RTA office were reversed and it were staffed properly and given the opportunity to service the people. And, as I say, it would probably make money for the Government.

As I have 21 seconds left, might I say that it would be a shame if the rail lines I mentioned were not upgraded for the cartage of wheat, because the roads simply cannot cope with probably another half million tonnes of grain being carted on them during the next harvest. We are now right at the point when farmers are deciding to sow their next crop, and there will be a harvest next season that will have to be transported to the seaboard.

Mr TONY STEWART (Bankstown—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.25 p.m.]: I am very proud to inform the House of a massive $106 million upgrade of the Bankstown railway line that was completed recently. The completion of those works was marked by the Premier attending a function in Bankstown, attended also by the honourable member for Auburn, to celebrate the occasion and acknowledge the contributions made by the many workers who brought this project to fruition. This puts in place probably one of the best rail infrastructure upgrades that has ever occurred in New South Wales. The upgrade is definitely the most extensive that has ever occurred in the history of the Bankstown railway line. It basically involved rebuilding the Bankstown railway line sleeper by sleeper, replacing the old wooden sleepers with concrete sleepers and modern infrastructure, replacing the electrical network, putting in place new drainage and ballast to reduce the risk of flooding, and replacing overhead wiring. This is virtually a brand new Bankstown rail line to service the multitude of stations along the line—stations that were badly in need of the state-of-the-art infrastructure that the line now provides.

On average, more than 275,000 commuters use the Bankstown line each week. This is an incredibly busy line, and one deserving of this sort of work. So I appreciate that the Government, under the leadership of Premier Morris Iemma, has given the Bankstown line the attention that it deserves as just part of its multi million dollar plan to upgrade the metropolitan rail network—work that is under way in other areas as well. Bankstown, which is now reaping the benefits, was the first cab off the rank. As a result, not only do we have a state-of-the-art line that is much better facilitated to provide the sorts of infrastructure needed for a modern rail line but, very importantly, the more than 275,000 commuters who use the line on a weekly basis now have a safer line to get them to their homes, parents and relatives more reliably on time. I know that railway commuters have indicated to me the importance of those aspects of a railway line, as they have been ringing my office and writing to me to pass on accolades about the way in which the Bankstown line is running.

I know that commuters have encountered some difficulties in the past, but the Government has acknowledged those difficulties, taken them head on and done its best to resolve them. The Bankstown line is one of the best examples of the Government's willingness to do that. I am pleased with the works undertaken on the Bankstown line. More recently, Minister Watkins said that the Government can proudly hold this up as some of the best line infrastructure development that has ever been achieved in this State. Effectively, Bankstown has a brand new line—one of the best in the Sydney metropolitan area. This gives families a better facility to meet their commuter needs. It is important to note that, with the modernisation of the line, CityRail staff now have better infrastructure to provide for their occupational health and safety and other work needs.

The Bankstown line is one of the best in the world. I am proud that it is in my electorate. It is a barometer of what the Government can, and will, achieve when servicing metropolitan lines throughout Sydney. I am proud of the staff who service my local station. Commuters have told me that the staff at Bankstown station treat them fairly and reasonably and that they make them feel important, happy and special by delivering the up-front service commuters deserve. That same service is provided in other areas of my electorate at Punchbowl, Lakemba, Belmore and Yagoona railway stations. The number of railway stations in my electorate is unique. I am proud of the whopping $106 million upgrade, which is unparalleled in the history of the Bankstown line. It delivers for commuters all along the Bankstown line.

Mr PAUL McLEAY (Heathcote—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.30 p.m.]: The honourable member for Bankstown is a strong and passionate advocate for his community. He is proud of the Government's achievements, not just advocating for the $1.5 billion Rail Clearways Program. He has a good rapport with railway staff and he supports front-line workers who do important work for the Government and the community. The honourable member for Bankstown knows his area very well. He is proud of the area he represents and the infrastructure plans that are developing. He lets his constituents know what is going on and he continues to fight for them. Well done to the honourable member and his community.

Mrs SHELLEY HANCOCK (South Coast) [5.31 p.m.]: I take this opportunity to congratulate the men and women of the Shoalhaven local area command on their continued commitment to the residents of the South Coast, despite declining police numbers and increased population growth in the area over a long time. I make these comments following the Shoalhaven local area command function held last Thursday 23 March at HMAS Albatross to recognise the service and achievements of police in the Shoalhaven. I congratulate Local Area Commander Kyle Stewart on his organisation of the event this year and for the manner in which his officers presented themselves on the evening, both recipients and officials, such as Inspector Wayne Starling who was very professional as master of ceremonies. Some of the recipients of awards included Leading Senior Constable Paul Nancekivell and Acting Inspector Stephen Hegarty, who received the National Medal for completion of 15 years outstanding service. Stephen Hegarty also received the Police Medal for 15 years of ethical and dedicated service.

Inspector Stewart Rainnie, retired, and Inspector Wayne Starling received the first clasp to the National Medal for completion of 25 years of diligent service. Detective Senior Constable Darren Sear, Constable Ray Thomas and Senior Constable lan Griffin received the Police Medal for 10 years ethical and diligent service. Inspector Kevin McNeil received the Certificate of Commission. Inspector Kevin McNeil, Acting Inspector Bruce Jackson, Sergeant Gregory Mahon, Sergeant Wesley Hanrahan, Sergeant Stephen Edwards, Acting Inspector Stephen Hegarty, Acting Inspector Susan Charman-Horton, Detective Sergeant Joseph Thone and Detective Sergeant Jamie Williams received Warrants of Appointment. Inspector Stewart Rainnie received the Certificate of Service.

The following officers received Region Commendations and Shoalhaven Commendations for outstanding acts of bravery over the last few years. Regional Commendations went to Leading Senior Constable Paul Nancekivell for the rescue of a stranded motorist swept off a roadway by floodwaters in Berry in 2005; Constable Brett McKay for the arrest of an aggressive male armed with knife in a smoke-filled house in Nowra in 2005; and Senior Constable Niall O'Carroll, Inspector William Carter and Senior Constable Susan Dillon for involvement in a domestic violence incident at Sanctuary Point where the offender was armed with a knife. Shoalhaven Commendations went to Constable Ray Thomas for assisting the recovery of a male who attempted suicide by jumping from the Nowra Bridge into Shoalhaven River in 2003 and for the detection and arrest of high risk offenders at Callala Beach Country Club in 2004; and Leading Senior Constable Paul Nancekivell for the rescue of a male attempting suicide by jumping from the Nowra Bridge into the Shoalhaven River.

Constable Darren Rymer received a Shoalhaven Local Area Command Citation for climbing into the wreckage of an overturned vehicle to administer first aid to a trapped driver until the arrival of an ambulance. Finally Kerrie Smith, executive officer at Nowra police station, played a significant role in the organisation of the evening. She adopts a prompt, professional and co-operative approach to all policing matters in the area. Kerrie did not receive a medal but deserves the gratitude of all officers in her care and the striking of a special medal, which recognises the role of civilian officers within the police commands for their outstanding contributions to their area command.

I have taken the time to read out the list of recipients since all too often politics get in the way of policing and all too often we all take for granted the efforts of the men and women of the NSW police service at all levels. Their day-to-day activities involve challenges and issues most of us would never dream of resolving. Every shift for an officer involves disputes, danger and acts of bravery that protect and preserve peace in our communities. Unfortunately, police also face daily the challenge of declining police numbers, the need to cover shifts when colleagues are sick without casual relief such as in other public sectors, and even criticism such as comments made by Shoalhaven City Councillor Jack Kerr this week, who suggested that police did not want to respond to incidents at Culburra over the weekend.

These kinds of blatant attacks on our police do nothing to resolve the problems but they do reveal overwhelming ignorance about the challenges police face every day in the profession, the greatest of which is the slashing of police numbers by this Government since coming to office 11 years ago. I support, as always, and congratulate my local police in the Shoalhaven area command and community members such as John Morgan of the Culburra Neighbourhood Watch Committee on their efforts. All honourable members would be aware that neighbourhood watch committees are in decline throughout the State. However, Culburra Neighbourhood Watch Committee maintains a strong presence in the area and works at assisting police with the collection of intelligence for their area. People like those continue to work with, and assist, police. This is what we all need to do. Apart from congratulating local police and people like John Morgan, I also wish to congratulate our volunteers in policing whose daily and invaluable assistance in their area is taken for granted from time to time.

Ms NOREEN HAY (Wollongong) [5.36 p.m.]: I am pleased to speak about the Women in Business Growth Strategy Workshop held recently in Wollongong. On behalf of the New South Wales Minister for Small Business, David Campbell, I was privileged and delighted to launch the first Women in Business Growth Strategy Workshops in regional New South Wales for 2006 at the Villa D'oro Function Centre in my electorate of Wollongong. The workshop, "Protect yourself at all times—managing legal issues in your small business", was delivered by Maureen Noonan, a solicitor who specialises in small business. It was aimed at women who own and manage a small business and focused on managing legal issues in a small business. It was heartening to see so many local businesswomen in attendance. It was indeed a testimony to the value and reputation of the workshops. Events such as these highlight the reason for the establishment of the Women in Business program 10 years ago when the New South Wales Government made a pledge to help women manage the growth of their own businesses. The results have been a resounding success. More than 5,000 women business owners have taken part in some aspect of the program since its inception.

In this decade the number of women who own their own businesses increased by 26 per cent, which is phenomenal. I am pleased to report that the Women in Business Program has had a specific impact in the Illawarra and, of course, my electorate of Wollongong, following a networking workshop held two years ago. The success of this workshop prompted the establishment of a local Women in Business group, which continues strongly today. The rise and rise of the small businesswoman is well documented, with research telling us that she is most likely to be married with young children and probably works between 30 to 50 hours per week in her business, or her children have grown and she is ready to turn an idea into a thriving business. Almost 90 per cent of women in small business who have dependent children are primary care givers, and almost half of all women operating a small business have sole responsibility for domestic work in the home.

The small businesswoman forms part of a group of women who now own 35 per cent of all small businesses across the State. This group contributes between 10 and 15 per cent of private sector gross domestic product. They generate 20 per cent of net job creation in Australia. If her business is located in a regional or rural area, she is more than likely to make a significant contribution to the economy of her local community. Women small business operators play a key role in our communities through their contribution to providing employment, and services and products, and they add enormous value to the local economy. Hence the establishment of the Women in Business Program which is managed by the New South Wales Department of State and Regional Development, in partnership with regional business organisations. The program's aim remains essentially the same as it did a decade ago—to help women who own or operate a business to successfully manage the growth of the business. Women who have the opportunity to learn reduce the chance of becoming business victims.

Every year since the inception of the program, participants have reported outstanding outcomes. Results from past growth strategy workshops in my region show that to be true. Evaluations show that all participants from last year's program were very satisfied. All said they would implement what they had learned in the workshop in their own business. I congratulate Virginia Wren from the Illawarra Business Advisory Service for her dedication to the program. Without her energy and belief in the power of learning and networking, these supporting services would not have been so easily accessible.
The Women in Business Growth Strategy Workshops initiative will continue to help business women understand the importance of decisions of small business on critical legal issues, such as contracts, product and service liability and intellectual property. I encourage any woman in business to take the opportunity to participate in these worthwhile workshops. There was tremendous positive energy at the workshop. The women are an example to us all. I sincerely congratulate them and all involved in making the workshop a success and ensuring that they will be a success in the future.

Mr DONALD PAGE (Ballina—Deputy Leader of The Nationals) [5.41 p.m.]: An ongoing issue of great concern in the Ballina electorate is the inadequate number of police officers at Ballina police station. In the past 18 years the strength of the Ba1lina general duties officers has increased by only one, yet the population of the area serviced by the Ballina police has increased by some 15,000 people. The discrepancy is obvious and must be urgently addressed. Furthermore, a significant number of officers are on restricted duties, but they are included in the authorised strength figure of 27 officers. That intensifies the urgent need for more officers at Ballina police station.

In 1988, 18 years ago, successful community lobbying resulted in the Ballina police station becoming a 24-hour station. At that time the station was allocated 26 officers. Ballina police service the Ballina sector, which encompasses the whole of the Ballina Shire. That includes the towns of Ballina, Lennox Head, Alstonville, Wardell, Wollongbar, Newrybar and other smaller centres. Since that time the Ballina shire population has continued to increase. The most recent population statistics for the Ballina shire were taken in June 2005 and show the population had reached approximately 40,000.

With an expanding population comes increases in traffic movements, increased tourism and the associated law and order requirements. Despite the escalating population, the number of officers at the Ballina police station increased by only one during that period. That means that there is one additional police officer for 15,000 new residents. That is quite unacceptable. Moreover, projected population figures released by the Department of Planning show that in five years time, in 2011, the population of the Ballina shire will increase to 47,000. The need for more officers in Ballina must be addressed now.

I must emphasise that in no way am I criticising the abilities and performance of the present Ballina police. Given the circumstances, the present officers are doing their job extremely well. However, it is necessary to boost their numbers to ensure that officers are able to perform their duties to their full capacity and to ensure that the Ballina area is policed at the level it deserves. An example of the difficulty is that in some circumstances one officer is left to staff the Ballina station at night. The first response agreement at Ballina specifies that two officers should operate the station at all times. In the light of a recent incident in Sydney in which a police officer was shot after a man jumped the counter, it is extremely important that the appropriate number of officers are present at a station at all times. I cannot emphasise enough that it is just not good enough to have only two officers in a car at night and one officer, without back-up, at a 24-hour police station.

The need to increase the police strength at the Ballina police station is exacerbated by the number of officers who are on restricted duties. Staffing documents from October last year show that of the authorised strength of 27 officers—five sergeants and 22 constables—only 20 were operational. Officers can be listed as being on restricted duties for a number of reasons, including extended sick leave. As a result, in reality, the Ballina police station is operating with only 20 operational officers, even though the authorised strength is 27. The repercussions are obvious. The 20 fully operational officers are being stretched to cover the workload that should be the responsibility of 27 officers, and the flow-on effects of that can lead to more officers taking extended sick leave or stress leave because of the extra demands of their jobs. It is a cycle that must be addressed and corrected so that the Ballina police station and its officers can operate at their full capacity, not only for the benefit of the Ballina shire community but also for the benefit of the officers themselves.

Police are extremely valuable assets to every community, and they should be treated as such and given proper working conditions and adequate staffing numbers. Because of the shortages of police officers at Ballina, additional police from Lismore and other areas are frequently required to supplement the Ballina contingent. That is unfair on the other areas in the Richmond Local Area Command, which currently has 15 fewer general duties officers than the number needed. The whole command needs extra police, but arguably the most urgent need is at Ballina. The number of officers currently stationed at Ballina police station is inadequate, and that issue must be addressed now. In reality, Ballina needs about 36 officers. The current authorised strength is only 27 and, as I stated earlier, only 20 of those are fully operational.
I urge the Minister for Police to reassess the authorised strength of the Ballina police station with a view to allocating another nine officers to Ballina from the additional 750 officers promised recently by the Premier who will come into the system later this year. In conclusion, I also mention that the Ballina highway patrol strength has not been increased in the past 15 years. Traffic on the Pacific Highway, which passes through Ballina, has increased and consists of B-doubles and other heavy vehicles. It is, therefore, important to increase the number of officers assigned to the North Coast area's highway patrol as well as the number of general duties officers.

Mr BARRY COLLIER (Miranda) [5.46 p.m.]: With 55,000 members and 129 affiliated clubs, surf lifesaving is one of the largest volunteer movements in New South Wales. In 2005 alone, over 8,000 people were rescued and more than 140,000 protective actions were performed by dedicated volunteers. On Sunday 12 March, together with my wife, Jeanette, I had the privilege of watching these outstanding surf lifesavers in action and later presenting medallions to the winning athletes at the 2006 New South Wales Surf Life Saving Championships.

This exciting and challenging event was managed and organised by Surf Life Saving New South Wales. It featured seven days of competition over two weeks and involved some 12,000 competitors, officials and spectators. While many contributed to the championships, I acknowledge in particular the outstanding leadership of Surf Life Saving New South Wales President Mr Peter Pearce, and the organisation's chief executive officer, Mr Phil Vanny, together with carnival referees Dick Bignold, Geoff Mowbray and John Masters. This year's New South Wales surf lifesaving championships were hosted by the four surf clubs that patrol the stretch of beach along the magnificent Bate Bay in the Sutherland shire. These clubs—Wanda, Elouera, North Cronulla and Cronulla—are among the finest and most successful surf lifesaving clubs in Australia, each with a proud history of success and sportsmanship as well as committed service to the shire community and the people of this State.

The four clubs worked closely with the Sutherland council and its committed staff to ensure the success of the championships, bringing great credit to the Sutherland shire. I know that shire residents join me in thanking the Bate Bay clubs' executives for their leadership and drive, both in the lead-up to the carnival and right throughout the championships. I particularly thank Wanda club president, Ron Smith, and the club captain, Graham Hill; Elouera club president, Steve Frawley, and the club captain, Heath McPhellamy; Cronulla club president, Kevin Neilson, and the club captain, Matthew Bruce; and North Cronulla's president, Brian Ferguson, and the club captain, Karen Schreutrumpf. I also thank the volunteer work force teams from those clubs that worked tirelessly all the way leading up to the event, from dawn to dusk, right throughout the championships. The management teams of these energetic local clubs deserve a huge pat on the back for such an undertaking and must be very proud of the enormous contribution made by their volunteer members.

Outstanding support and co-operation was also provided by the volunteers, officials and staff of Surf Life Saving New South Wales, local and State departmental bodies, including NSW Police, the State Emergency Service, the Cronulla Sharks, the Tradies, the Cancer Council, the Rotary Clubs of the shire, the Cronulla Chamber of Commerce, the shire's brass band, TAFE tourism students, who staffed the information booth, members of the North Cronulla Precinct Committee, Dune Care Management representatives and the Westpac Rescue Helicopter Service. I congratulate the people of Sutherland Shire for getting right behind the event, particularly in the aftermath of the December disturbances. From 3 March to 5 March about 4,000 juniors aged from under 8 to under 14, the next generation of sports stars, competed in the age championships, making it one of Australia's biggest junior sporting events.

Cronulla club's juniors secured their ninth consecutive New South Wales points score win, finishing 96 points ahead of their nearest rival, Terrigal. Wanda finished third, North Cronulla eighth and Elouera eighteenth. The masters competition, which began the following Thursday, was won by Manly and all four bay clubs were placed in the top 10. Cronulla Surf Lifesaving Club backed up in the three-day open competition to win its third consecutive points score. The final score saw Cronulla ahead of Manly and Wanda, with North Cronulla placed seventeenth and Elouera twentieth.

There were some outstanding individual performances at the championships. Cronulla showed its dominance with outstanding victories in many events including both the lifesaver relay and the prestigious Taplin relay. Sutherland Shire's Young Citizen of the Year, Cronulla's Nathan Smith, won seven gold medals including his fifth straight New South Wales iron man title. Fourteen-year-old Cronulla sprinter Elly Graf of Yowie Bay won the under-15 beach sprint and flags and also picked up $500 for the winner-take-all prize money when she won the women's open sprint race in the dash for cash event. We also saw Wanda's Zane Campbell secure back-to-back open beach sprint championships. North Cronulla masters competitor Steve Warren won the 50 to 54 years iron-man board race and board rescue championships. Cronulla veteran Alan Metti won gold in the 65-plus single ski, the 60 to 64 years board rescue, the 60-plus iron-man, and silver medals in the 60 to 64 years double ski and the 65-plus years board race. Kyla King from Cronulla won three individual gold medals in the junior championships.

Surf Lifesaving also bestowed life membership on six members including our local Ted Brooker, OAM, following 62 years in the surf lifesaving movement. Ros George from North Cronulla, a surf lifesaver for only three years, was named the DHL New South Wales Lifesaver of the Year for her work in establishing training programs, and working as an instructor, patrol captain and inflatable rescue boat driver. New South Wales president Peter Pearce described the championships in the shire as the best he has been associated with in his long years with surf lifesaving. I congratulate Sutherland Shire on the 2006 Surf Lifesaving Championships and we look forward to their return to our shire in 2007. I take this opportunity to wish the competitors, administrators and officials of surf lifesaving clubs throughout New South Wales every success as they participate in the Australian Championships currently under way in Queensland.

Mr ANDREW HUMPHERSON (Davidson) [5.51 p.m.]: I speak about overdevelopment in Ku-ring-gai. In particular I draw the attention of the House and the Minister for Planning to a problem faced by a number of residents of St Ives, especially those in a number of medium-density villages in proximity to St Ives Village and Mona Vale Road. I have had two meetings with residents recently. On Monday this week I met residents of Eden Brae, represented by Walter Simpson, John Hickey and Bob Johnson. They showed me some of their specific concerns, which arise from the determination of the State Government, particularly the Minister for Planning, to foist five-storey development on this neighbourhood. There are another 10 or 12 medium-density villages in close proximity and both the member for Ku-ring-gai and I had representations from them on Wednesday last week. They are concerned about the impact these rezonings will have on their amenity.

Many of these villages are either single-storey villa or townhouse-style developments and they face being completely overshadowed by five-storey developments. There are also broader concerns of neighbourhood character. However, the traffic plan that has been proposed, which we as local members received last Wednesday, raised some significant questions which deserve answers and a review. A number of assumptions appear to have been made in that traffic study that do not seem to be borne out or to be supportable. Some of the calculations do not quite stand up. I encourage the council to have a close, and possibly independent, review of that traffic study to make sure that the assumptions made are reasonable. At the very least it would appear that traffic flow will be substantially and adversely impacted. That applies not only to traffic in the neighbourhood, particularly traffic travelling south along Mona Vale Road into the area opposite St Ives Village, but also traffic moving through the area along Mona Vale Road, which in real terms is two lanes either way.

The concerns of residents of Eden Brae reflect the nature of what the council has proposed. I acknowledge the council is in a difficult position in having to deliver by the end of this year on the town centre plan for St Ives. I ask the council to look at some of the specifics of what has been done and ensure that greater acknowledgment is given to the impact the proposal will have on homeowners and residents. There are 22 villas at Eden Brae. This development is only about 10 years old. It will be completely overshadowed on at least one side by a five-storey development. Six neighbours' yards adjoining the development will lose not only their privacy but also much of their sunlight. They have asked, by way of a compromise, for the rezoning of a site known as 15 to 17 Stanley Street to be integrated into the rezoning of their site so if it were to be developed in future it would be done in its entirety and not as a pocket handkerchief site that does not meet the minimum requirements. It is only about 1,467 square metres and the standard for those sorts of five-storey developments should be 2,400 square metres, so there is no buffer zone.

The nature of the title of the Eden Brae development is such that owners cannot individually sell their property. There must be common agreement among the owners, the shareholders in the community title. They will not be able to sell or redevelop unless they all agree, so it makes some sense to protect their lifestyle and investment. Most of them have moved in in recent years. If that rezoning were integrated with the Stanley Street portion of land I have referred to, it would offer the 15 to 17 Stanley Street portion as a buffer to the Mona Vale Road five-storey development that the Government is imposing on Ku-ring-gai council. I urge the council to review the matter insofar as it can. I draw the Minister for Planning's attention to the matter and ask him to back off a little in his expectations in St Ives.

Mr JOHN BARTLETT (Port Stephens) [5.57 p.m.]: In my inaugural speech in this House some seven years ago almost to the day I mentioned my interest in keeping young people, especially boys, out of trouble. On Saturday 18 March I was pleased to launch a Hunter Area Assistance Scheme Handstand Project at Mallabula on the Tilligerry Peninsula. Over the last few years the peninsula has been beset by a number of alienated young people becoming involved in vandalism and antisocial behaviour on the beachfront and in the parks and reserves.

Over the last couple of years we have applied for funding from the Hunter Area Assistance Scheme for a project officer to put on events for young people on the Tilligerry Peninsula on Friday and Saturday nights. The program was launched on Saturday. I suppose it is the other side of the law and order debate that goes on everywhere in New South Wales. We call it Hands on Youth Events (HOYE). It is a newly incorporated community organisation that is auspiced by the Handstand Project and funded by the Hunter Area Assistance Scheme. With a number of the original committee members involved, the project will now receive $78,700 over the next two years to target events and activities for young people on the Tilligerry Peninsula.

The objectives of the project are to create a safer environment, address the negative community perception of young people in the area and complement and contribute to existing youth projects in Tilligerry and the surrounding area. The team convened a number of meetings to put together its application. Recently we appointed Ms Liz Brady as project co-ordinator to work with these young people. On Friday or Saturday afternoons and nights the theme will be "Having fun without drugs and alcohol."

I refer next to some of the outcomes we are aiming for. Over the past few years alienated young people on the Tilligerry peninsula have become involved in antisocial behaviour, as there is not much for them to do. Expected project outcomes include increasing our social capital, increasing decision making and organising skills, creating healthy alternatives for young people, strengthening connections between young people and the community, increasing the volunteer base, which has done all the work up until now, and organising successful local sponsorship and fund-raising. In that context I refer to the work done by Kel Blacktop, who raised $2,700 to help us get the project off the ground.

I sincerely thank the following people for the work that they have done to get the program to this stage: Tammy Kelly from the Tilligerry community pool, who was invaluable, Jackie Keene, Max Dunahie, Bob Sneesby, Fran Corner, Gillian Stewart and Kel Blacktop. As I said earlier, Liz Brady has just come on board as a project officer. Those people have done a wonderful job getting the project off the ground. At the annual general meeting about a week ago Aaron Beasley, Cathie and Aaron Moase, and Lyn Martin from the Family Network were appointed to the committee. I thank them for their involvement and I wish them well for the future success of the project.

Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER (North Shore) [6.01 p.m.]: I want to talk about domestic violence in the North Shore electorate, an issue about which I have spoken on a number of occasions in this place and one that is of great concern to me and others in the area. I mention in particular the work of the Northside Women's Services, a new service of the Salvation Army. I refer also to a pilot project and to a report written by the project co-ordinator, Amy David. That report highlights a steady increase in domestic violence against women in north shore suburbs, including mine. Some of the data is broken down into local government areas, an issue to which I will refer later.

The report refers in particular to the difficulty women find themselves in when reporting domestic violence. The report indicates that the full extent of violence in affluent families is hugely underestimated. It is suggested that it is related to women feeling they cannot expose the domestic violence they are suffering because of the so-called status of their families, the stigma that would be attached to victims, and their financial dependence. The report also highlights the fact that women in affluent areas find it difficult to take the initial steps to free themselves from violence. The report suggests that up to 70 per cent of women on the north shore withdraw from taking out apprehended violence orders [AVOs] against their partners, one of highest cases of withdrawal rates in New South Wales, which I find very disturbing. I first raised the matter in this Parliament in 1995 and I have raised it on numerous occasions since then. Obviously this service is providing wonderful support for women in the area.

Let me refer next to some of the statistics. Data from the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research shows that in 2004, 311 AVOs were granted in the lower north shore statistical division. That includes the Mosman local government area and the North Sydney local government area, which is in my electorate. The number of recorded breaches stood at 57 per cent. The number of recorded breaches for 2003 is slightly higher, but police and services in the area explained that that drop in breaches is not necessarily due to perpetrators complying with court orders. Rather, it is due to women not reporting breaches of orders.

The clients of Northside Women's Services have reflected some of the trends, particularly the lack of reporting violence to the police. Many clients ask how an AVO could affect their partners in their professions. Some prefer that the matter not become public and they feel that revealing what is going on in their homes could expose their families to community shame and a sense of social stigma. The report suggests that a number of things need to be done. The service provides assistance to women in the pilot project who experience domestic violence. It provides information about their rights within a relationship, support for women, and referrals or links to other sources of support. That includes the police command and domestic violence liaison officers. I have a high regard for the domestic violence liaison officer at the Harbourside command.

The service also provides links to court assistance for AVO proceedings. The one in my area is located in Hornsby. On many occasions I have appealed for assistance to have it restored to North Sydney court, without a great deal of success. According to the author of this report the future directions of this service are to meet unmet need, which involves addressing women who are experiencing violence and abuse from children as well as from men, siblings, parents and others; to expand the service to cater for children; to continue and further develop domestic violence community education programs and to expand Northside Women's Services. There is a big unmet need in the lower north shore area, as there is across the North Shore electorate. Statistically, because these figures do not compare to other areas, sadly these women miss out. One woman who has to put up with domestic violence and who feels she does not have support is one woman too many.

Mr KEVIN GREENE (Georges River) [6.06 p.m.]: I take this opportunity to comment on a function I attended on Tuesday last week at Oatley Senior Citizens Centre as part of Seniors Week. Oatley Senior Citizens Centre organised a luncheon not only for their members but also for a number of members of local nursing home facilities. More than 110 people attended the function and the centre received a small grant as part of Seniors Week. Beryl Butters, president of Oatley Senior Citizens Centre, Doris Derwent, the secretary, Norm Butters, the treasurer, and the executive all did an amazing amount of work to arrange this luncheon.

The Oatley Senior Citizens Centre does some fantastic work in our local community. It arranges a number of regular activities at the centre each week but this was a special function for Seniors Week. Beryl Butters has been president of the organisation since about 1999. In fact, Norm Butters, the treasurer, was the first president way back in 1970. He did not qualify as a senior at that time but he got the whole show under way over 30 years ago. The Butters family, both Beryl and Norm, have done an enormous amount of work for this organisation, as have a number of other people.

Oatley Lions Club greatly assisted Oatley Senior Citizens Centre to organise this event. Oatley Lions Club provided a number of members to assist in catering for the function. Georges River College, Oatley campus, provided four of its hospitality students to assist, as well as six of its musicians, who played background music at the start of the function. I take this opportunity to thank Terry O'Brien and the college for their assistance at that event. Oatley Lions Club members who provided their services on the day included president Lynda Robinson, who is well known for organising community lunches. She also organises a seniors function at Oatley Public School each Christmas. Wendy Cornish works tirelessly not only for Oatley Lions Club and Oatley Senior Citizens Centre, but also for many other community organisations within my electorate. Wendy is extremely well known for her expertise in organising raffles for various groups. Alex Ellis, John Chate and Helen O'Neill were also involved in activities on the day. Oatley Lions Club is renowned for the services it offers to the community. For example, on Sunday 12 March it held a well-organised and extremely successful jazz festival at Oatley shopping centre.

Greg Dunne played some lovely music at last week's luncheon. Greg has a beautiful voice and he sang several numbers for the seniors in attendance. I note particularly the contribution of Oatley IGA, which was represented at the function by Brendan Devine. Oatley IGA sponsors many community events, particularly those involving the Oatley Lions Club. In fact, when IGA staff see Lynda Robinson coming I think they wonder how much it will cost them this time. But Oatley IGA is always happy to kick in and offer support. We thank Oatley IGA and commend it for its ongoing support of community events such as those organised by the Oatley Lions Club. We especially acknowledge its support of the Oatley Seniors function.

I was pleased to be joined as a guest at the function by Mr Gary Sawyer, who represented Kogarah council. Gary is the general manager of Kogarah council but, sadly, he will leave that job next month to take on the new responsibility of General Manager of City of Canada Bay Council. Kogarah council is very supportive of Oatley Seniors—in fact, it provides the building on State Rail land in Hurstville Road, Oatley, where the group meets. Gary Sawyer has served Kogarah council for almost 20 years and during his seven-year tenure as general manager he has been particularly supportive of Oatley Seniors.

Gary has done an enormous amount of work in the community and will be sadly missed not only by Kogarah council but also by local residents. He worked his way through the council bureaucracy to become a genuine leader of that organisation. He is well respected not only by councillors but also by council staff who work under his leadership and by local residents. I wish Gary well in his new career at Canada Bay council. I thank him and Oatley Lions for supporting this function and I congratulate Oatley Seniors on it.

Mr PAUL McLEAY (Heathcote—Parliamentary Secretary) [6.11 p.m.]: I congratulate the honourable member for Georges River on drawing the House's attention to important activities in his electorate. The honourable member is a strong and active community advocate, and this is not the first time he has informed the House about activities in his diverse electorate. The House certainly appreciates the work of Oatley Lions. We congratulate Oatley Lions and other dedicated community organisations, such as Oatley Seniors. We acknowledge and note their work and thank the honourable member for bringing it to our attention.

Mr RICHARD TORBAY (Northern Tablelands) [6.12 p.m.]: New South Wales communities pay a high price for the abuse of alcohol. Recently I held forums in Armidale and Inverell in my electorate with a view to canvassing a wide cross-section of views and conveying them to Parliament as part of the debate into extending licensing hours and the number of liquor outlets and licences. The contribution from my communities was compelling. They were united against further extension of licensing hours and any national competition policy-led moves to sell alcohol in corner stores, service stations and other venues.

About 90 people were invited to attend the forums, and the discussions were open and frank. The list of attendees included police, councillors, school principals and student leaders, community service providers, youth group leaders, health professionals, and representatives of government agencies. We heard that abuse of alcohol was a bigger problem in the country than in metropolitan areas, largely because of a lack of public transport, long distances, and isolation. There is no doubt that an unacceptably high number of alcohol-fuelled problems in the country are causing social disruption, crime, early death and mental illness, and are ruining lives.

One of the greatest concerns—it generated the most heated debate—was the impact of alcohol on young people. According to the police, children as young as eight are affected. The guest speaker, Professor Robert Batey, who is the Area Director of the Drug and Alcohol Clinical Services at the Hunter New England Health Service, told us that although overall alcohol consumption in Australia had declined over the past 10 years people were now drinking at an earlier age. This poses enormous health problems for them as they have greater risk of contracting heart, liver and nerve diseases and cancer in later life.

Students who spoke at the forum confirmed this trend. The captain of Armidale High School, Aaron Porter, spoke of regular unsupervised parties at weekends in Armidale. He said that binge drinking was commonplace and that many teenagers drank until they vomited or passed out. He said that at one party parents voluntarily provided another slab of beer for teenagers in the early hours of the morning. He said that many parents were unaware that their children were regularly partying with alcohol when they went to stay with friends on the weekend. The student representatives from Macintyre High School estimated that 80 per cent of senior students socialised at parties where alcohol was available. Inverell High School student leaders verified that claim. Peer group pressure is constantly on teenagers both to attend parties and to consume alcohol. The alcohol is often supplied by older friends, siblings and parents—which is alarming. On a positive note, many students have joined a committee that is planning to hold drug- and alcohol-free events for young people.
While binge drinking can be dismissed in some circles as a normal adolescent rite of passage, it is of enormous concern to those who have to cope with the aftermath: deaths from drink-driving, poor health, antisocial behaviour, wasted lives, aggression, crime and domestic violence. A very concerned mother contacted me after the forum, calling for more education in schools about the effects of alcohol, strict fines of up to $3,000 for people who supply alcohol to minors, the banning of advertising of drinks aimed at adolescents, stricter regulation of alcohol advertising generally, and a more responsible attitude to serving alcohol to young people at venues in colleges and universities.

Armidale Dumaresq Council's Aboriginal Liaison Officer, Steve Widders, spoke of his many male friends who had died in their thirties and forties and said that it was rare for Aboriginal men to live beyond the age of 60, because of alcohol abuse. He made some confronting comments. He associates excessive drinking with unemployment, poor education and health, and lack of identity. Janette Bowmann, who runs the Linking Together Centre in South Inverell, sees adults and older brothers and sisters pressuring children to abuse alcohol on a daily basis. She also sees how alcohol abuse leads to abuse in the home. Children exposed to this abuse and violence are churned up inside and have little or no direction. She said that too often these children were labelled "bad" when in fact they were just sad.

What emerged most forcefully from the powerful contributions at both forums was the need for communities to join forces to combat alcohol abuse. We need better education for young people about the effect of alcohol, much greater parental responsibility, control on alcohol advertising, and stricter fines for adults who serve alcohol to minors. This is a job not just for the police but also for the wider community. I urge people to take on board the contributions made at both forums.

Mr PAUL McLEAY (Heathcote—Parliamentary Secretary) [6.17 p.m.]: I commend the honourable member for Northern Tablelands for bringing this important issue to the attention of the House. I thank him for taking the initiative and organising community forums on alcohol abuse. It is not the first time he has reported to the House about his action on social issues. I applaud the honourable member for garnering the support of the police, councillors, small business, students, community groups and other community leaders. It is important for communities to talk about the outcomes of alcohol abuse, particularly for young people and Aboriginal people. I applaud the honourable member for bringing the community together to seek to resolve this social problem. I look forward to hearing further updates from him about future community action in this area.

Ms CLOVER MOORE (Bligh) [6.19 p.m.]: I congratulate Superintendent Catherine Burn and police officers at Redfern Local Area Command on their work with the local Aboriginal community under the Aboriginal Strategic Direction. Redfern is the home of the Gadigal people of the Eora nation, who are also the custodians of the land on which Parliament House stands. More than 4.1 per cent of the people in Redfern and 7.1 per cent in Waterloo are indigenous, compared with 1 per cent in Sydney as a whole. Indigenous people are overrepresented in police and court action, offenders are mostly young people, and more than half are from outside Redfern-Waterloo. Indigenous people are much less likely to report crime, and more likely to be crime victims.

Redfern command must understand and provide appropriate and effective policing to this community. At the recent Redfern Police Accountability Community Team [PACT] meeting, Superintendent Burn reported on improved communication and understanding, increased cultural awareness, greater community safety and reduced crime, less contact with the criminal justice system, and family violence being addressed—the key issues identified in the 2004 parliamentary inquiry. Her police command is running programs to divert young people from crime and antisocial behaviour, including youth mentoring and activities at the police and community youth club. Last Saturday night I saw police officers at midnight basketball, sponsored by the city of Sydney and the subject of a recent Stateline program, where up to 50 young people were actively enjoying constructive physical activities and learning from positive role models.

At the PACT meeting we saw photographs of young indigenous people learning about using trust instead of fear, in the Horse Whispering course at the Redfern Mounted Police Centre, with smiling kids managing horses and proudly displaying their certificates. Police work with local agencies, including the City of Sydney's Redfern Community Centre, the tribal warriors' water skills course, Walking Together for post-release prisoners, and the Street Beat Bus, which takes up to 60 young people home safely on Thursday and Friday nights. Police help provide intensive support for five families that are in crisis through case co-ordination between Government and non-government agencies. With the city of Sydney, police are implementing the Redfern-Waterloo community safety plan developed by council.
The local school Principals' Forum has police involvement, and Redfern police and local schools are working with 10 young people who do not always attend school, to break the cycle of hopelessness and despair. Local school students can do work experience and traineeships with Redfern police, and indigenous young people on a recent bus trip actually asked to visit the Goulburn police academy so they could see where the police trained. It would be an exciting turnaround for Aboriginal young people to make a policing career, helping to get justice for their community.

All Redfern officers undergo the general police cultural awareness training as well as a Redfern program run by local indigenous people, with visits to local Aboriginal elders and organisations. Redfern Aboriginal Community Liaison Officers [ACLOs] have a strategic plan. I congratulate ACLOs Lesley Townsend and Kalmain Williams, Youth Liaison Officers Jack Tyler-Stott and Rebecca Armitage, and Crime Prevention Officer Georgie Israel on their active community policing that reduces crime and anti-social behaviour and complements the work of other officers responding after crime has happened.

Redfern police work with the Redfern-Waterloo Family Violence Task Force, the Blackout Anti-Violence Program, the schools anti-violence program Kickin' Forward, and with Redfern Legal Centre to tackle domestic violence within the indigenous community. Redfern officers participate in local festivals and events like barbecues and the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Day of Observance Committee Week so that local people have positive experiences with police.

Local police meet regularly with Aboriginal elders in a consultative committee to hear concerns and agree on action, with a similar group providing input from young Aboriginal people. There is regular liaison with the Redfern Aboriginal Legal Service, the Aboriginal Medical Service, the Aboriginal Housing Company, Murawina Childcare, Wyanga Aged Care, the Mudgin-Gal Women's Centre, the Inner City Aboriginal MultiPurpose Association and the South East Sydney Indigenous Interagency. Circle sentencing and youth justice conferencing have been discussed to keep young people out of crime careers.

Relationships between police and the indigenous communities have often been characterised by conflict and strife, as we saw in the 2004 parliamentary inquiry after the so-called riots following the tragic death of TJ Hickey. Whilst the new Redfern police station provides better facilities and has improved morale for officers and given the command a higher profile, the real driver of change has been the command's leadership and the hard work of its officers, along with the willingness of the Aboriginal community to move forward from past pain and distrust. I commend Redfern police for the positive work with the local indigenous community, which has been demonstrated in lower crime rates as well the improved relationships that are shown in photographs of police and young Aboriginal people playing football together.

Private members' statements noted.

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

[Madam Acting-Speaker (Ms Marianne Saliba) left the chair at 6.24 p.m. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m.]

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

Motion by Mr Carl Scully agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to:

(1) permit the introduction without notice and passage through all stages forthwith of the Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Bill; and

(2) at the conclusion of Government Business the House adjourn without motion until Thursday 30 March 2006 at 10.00 a.m.
Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr CARL SCULLY (Smithfield—Minister for Police) [7.32 p.m.], on behalf of Mr Bob Debus: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I am pleased to introduce the Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Bill. The Government has shown its strong and ongoing commitment to the protection of the community from sex offenders. It has introduced the toughest substantive child sexual assault offences in Australia that ensure that offenders are incapacitated for long periods of time if convicted. It has introduced an offence under section 11G of the Summary Offences Act 1988 that provides that a person who is a convicted child sexual offender and who loiters near a school, or a public place regularly frequented by children, can be sentenced to imprisonment for up to two years. It has established the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW), which creates a scheme of sex offender registration.

New South Wales also championed the development of a national registration scheme. Further, the Child Protection (Offenders Prohibition Orders) Act 2004 (NSW) is a new tool to allow police to stop re-offending before it happens. The scheme provides for court orders prohibiting certain offenders who pose a risk to the lives or sexual safety of children from engaging in specified conduct. The Government has also introduced employment screening for people working with children.

One particular concern that is dealt with by this scheme relates to a handful of high-risk, hard-core offenders who have not made any attempt to rehabilitate whilst in prison. These offenders make up a very small percentage of the prison population, yet their behaviour poses a very real threat to the public. These concerns are compounded where the offender never qualifies for parole and is released at the end of their sentence totally unsupervised. The bill addresses this problem by allowing this small group of high-risk offenders to be placed on extended supervision, or, in only the very worst cases, kept in custody. The Department of Corrective Services has advised that only a small number of offenders would fall into this very high-risk category.

Whilst legislation of this kind is a first for New South Wales, a number of other jurisdictions have enacted laws directed at serious high-risk sex offenders that provide for a variety of options including mandated treatment, community registration, and protracted supervision beyond the duration of a sentence. For example, in July 2004 New Zealand legislation providing for extended supervision commenced operation. Some States in Australia already have similar legislative schemes. The Victorian legislation provides for extended supervision, and the Western Australian Parliament recently passed a bill that allows for the detention and supervision of dangerous sex offenders. Queensland introduced a contemporary legislative regime in June 2003 that provides for both continuing detention orders and extended supervision orders. Significantly, in 2004, when the Queensland legislation was challenged in the High Court in the case of Fardon v Attorney-General for the State of Queensland, the validity of the legislation was upheld.

I turn now to the detail of the bill. Clause 3 sets out the objects of the bill, which are to provide for the extended supervision and continuing detention of serious sex offenders so as to ensure the safety and protection of the community, and to facilitate the rehabilitation of such offenders. Clause 5 defines the expressions "serious sex offence" and "offence of a sexual nature" for the purposes of the proposed Act. These will be the most important terms in the Act.

A serious sexual offence is defined as a sexual offence that carries a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment or more and was committed against a child, or committed against an adult in circumstances of aggravation. This definition includes all sexual assaults, including aggravated indecent assault, which carries a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment. The definition also includes serious sexual offences committed against adults where there is a circumstance of aggravation, such as the offender was in company, the offender used corporeal violence, the offender used a weapon, the victim was a vulnerable person, the offender held a position of authority over the victim, or the offender detained the victim.

The offence of "administer stupefying drug with intent to commit an indictable offence"—section 38 of the Crimes Act 1900—will also be included where the indictable offence is a serious sexual offence. "Offences of a sexual nature" will include anything below the seven-year maximum term, such as the possession of child pornography. These definitions capture the worst sexual recidivists in our system.

The Attorney General will be able to seek two types of orders: extended supervision orders, dealt with under part 2; and continuing detention orders, dealt with under part 3. The procedures for applying for both orders are the same. Clauses 6 and 14 enable the Attorney General to apply to the Supreme Court for extended supervision orders and continuing detention orders respectively. Continuing detention orders will only be applied for where there are no other effective methods of managing the offender's high risk of reoffence.

It is appropriate that the Attorney General, as the first law officer of the State, consider any proposal to make an application—following advice from the Commissioner of Corrective Services to the Minister for Justice—before matters are filed in the Supreme Court. Such an application may not be made until the last six months of the offender's current custody or supervision, and must be supported by specified documentation. This is important because it means that the application must be well thought out and have a sound basis. The documentation must address the matters to which the Supreme Court must have regard when considering whether an order should be made. The documentation also must include a report by a psychiatrist, a psychologist or a medical practitioner that assesses the offender's risk of reoffending.

Clauses 7 and 15 require an application to be served on a sex offender within two business days after it is filed, for a preliminary hearing to be conducted within 28 days after it is filed, and for a decision to be made as to whether there is a case against the offender. It is important to note that the Attorney General will have the same disclosure requirements in these matters as the prosecution does in criminal matters, meaning that all relevant matters, whether favourable or unfavourable, will be disclosed. This will ensure that applications based on selective evidence are not made, and it will also serve to shorten the discovery process that usually occurs in other matters.

If a prima facie case is made out in the application, the Supreme Court is to make an order for two psychiatrists to examine the offender and report independently. The appointment of two court-appointed psychiatrists is an important aspect of the scheme. It allows for a fair and independent medical opinion to be expressed. The psychiatrists will not be State employees, but will be private members of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists and the court will appoint them. As noted above, an offender is entitled to call his or her own evidence if he or she wishes.

Clauses 8 and 16 enable the Supreme Court to make interim supervision or detention orders so that an offender can be kept under supervision or in detention pending determination of an application. This power is important in cases where it appears that the offender's period of custody or supervision will expire before the proceedings are determined. It allows the offender to be detained for up to 28 days, but upon renewal of the order the total period for which an offender can be kept under interim supervision is three months. This limit will ensure that people are not held on rolling orders, and will encourage expeditious determination of these matters.

Clause 9 provides that the Supreme Court may make an extended supervision order only if it is satisfied to a high degree of probability that the offender is likely to commit a further serious sex offence if he or she is not kept under supervision. The test for making a continuing detention order is contained in clause 17. Before making a continuing detention order the Supreme Court must decide that a supervision order would not be sufficient to deal with the risk of a prisoner reoffending. It may make a continuing detention order only if it is satisfied to a high degree of probability that the offender is likely to commit a further serious sex offence if he or she is not kept in custody.

Clauses 9 (3) and 17 (4) contain a non-exhaustive list of matters the court must consider before making an order, including reports from psychiatrists and the results of any assessment prepared in relation to determining the likelihood of the offender committing a further serious sex offence. The indicia are meant to guide the court in distinguishing the small number of high-risk offenders who have not made any attempt to rehabilitate whilst in prison. Clauses 10 and 18 provide that the maximum term for either order is five years, but nothing prevents the Attorney General from making further applications so long as the principal test continues to be satisfied. Clause 7 specifies the kind of conditions that can be imposed on a supervision order, which are similar to those that a person on parole may be placed on. Clause 12 makes it an offence punishable by a fine of 100 penalty units or imprisoned for two years, or both, for a person to fail to comply with the requirements of a supervision order.
Clauses 13 and 19 enable the Supreme Court to vary or revoke a supervision order or detention order upon the application of either party, and also requires the Commissioner of Corrective Services to provide the Attorney General with annual reports on each offender. This power will deal with any changes in circumstances. Clause 20 enables the Supreme Court to issue a warrant of committal to give effect to a detention order. Part 4 deals with Supreme Court proceedings. Clause 21 provides that proceedings under the proposed Act are civil proceedings to be conducted in accordance with the law relating to civil proceedings. Clause 22 enables an appeal to be made to the Court of Appeal against any determination made by the Supreme Court under the proposed Act.

This right applies to both parties, and specifies 28 days as the time frame for the appeal to be lodged. The appeal may be on the ground of an error of fact or law, or a combination of both. Clause 23 provides that no order for costs may be made against an offender in relation to proceedings under the proposed Act. This would not be appropriate, despite the civil nature of the proceedings, given the fact that the proceedings always will be commenced by the Attorney General and the unique nature of the proceedings.

Clause 24 preserves the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, apart from the proposed Act. Part 5 deals with miscellaneous matters. Clause 25 creates a power for the Attorney General to require documents that are relevant to these applications. Relevant material may be held by a number of bodies and organisations. Clause 32 provides for a review of the proposed Act at the end of three years from the date of assent. Since the legislation is unprecedented in New South Wales the Government is dedicating to ensuring that it is being used appropriately, and achieving what it is designed to accomplish. In summary, I stress that it is vital that there be legal mechanisms to protect the community from serious sex offenders. The bill is another demonstration of the Government's dedication to ensuring the safety of the community from offenders who already have demonstrated their capacity to commit horrendous and unacceptable crimes, and where there is compelling and cogent evidence that they are likely to do so again. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr ANDREW HUMPHERSON (Davidson) [7.45 p.m.]: I make a number of things clear at the outset. The Opposition had only an hour or so notice that the bill would be introduced, including a briefing 30 or 40 minutes ago from the department. Some two weeks ago it was clear that the Government was intent on introducing the legislation. It is not as though it is new legislation; comparable legislation is in place in other States. Yet again the Minister for Justice is as disorganised as he always is and the Government is likewise disorganised. I thought the Attorney General would have taken a significant interest in the legislation because he will play a key role, but his absence suggests that he may not fully support it. It will be interesting to see the effect of the legislation. It is a shame the Attorney General was not present to have carriage of the legislation, given the importance of his function. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall in Cabinet to see the Minister for Police and the Minister for Justice roll the Attorney General. I dare say that he has opposed anything of this nature for a long time.

For at least one year, and probably far in excess of that, the Opposition has been calling for the imposition of stronger measures against serious sex offenders. We have been on the public record for a long time highlighting that serial sex offenders, particularly paedophiles, are difficult, if not impossible, to rehabilitate. Almost without exception they pose a constant threat to the community and their potential victims. Statistical analysis, particularly in New Zealand, has proven beyond reasonable doubt that one cannot be assured that paedophiles of a certain nature and profile and serial sex offenders of a certain nature and profile will not reoffend and create further victims. It is disappointing that the Government has taken so long to introduce this legislation. In recent years a number of paedophiles have committed appalling offences upon their release. Many of the people who worked with them in the correctional system have raised concerns about their propensity to reoffend. Sadly, a number of them have reoffended.

I will rely on the briefing given by the Government to comment generally on the bill. It is intended that the bill provide for extended supervision and continuing detention of certain serious sex offenders to protect the community. I could not agree more with the need to protect the community. The interest of potential victims and victims must be placed well above the interests of sex offenders to be released and enjoy some freedom. Extended supervision and extended custody are important options that have been applied successfully in a number of limited cases in Victoria and Queensland. The Attorney General on request of the Minister for Justice on advice from the Commissioner for Corrective Services can apply to the Supreme Court for a continuing detention order for serious sex offenders who meet certain criteria.

The Supreme Court will have the power to issue either a continuing detention order or an extended supervision order. An order will be able to be made for periods up to five years and with no limit to the number of orders that a court may issue. Clearly, in the most extreme cases it will be possible on a five yearly cycle for some sex offenders to spend the rest of their days in prison, notwithstanding that they may not have received a lifetime sentence for their crime at the outset. The contributing factors will be clear evidence that they are willing to be rehabilitated and/or have not reoffended. Under the powers provided in the legislation, applications may be made up to six months prior to completion of the sentence in the case of an order for continuing detention. The Supreme Court will be able to grant a continuing detention order if it has been shown there is a high degree of probability that a prisoner is likely to commit a serious sexual offence, if released, and an extended supervision order is inadequate to protect the community.

Extended supervision will ensure that offenders will be subjected to extended monitoring and supervision. The options include satellite tracking or electronic monitoring. I digress to make the observation that that measure should not be used in isolation. Satellite tracking has its place, but it will not prevent an offence from occurring in many circumstances. It would merely be a record that enables police to track where an offender was in relation to the circumstances of the commission of the offence. The legislation provides for proximity restrictions for particular places, such as schools. Specific exclusions are provided for in relation to locations and classes of locations. Broadly speaking, the provision will prevent an offender from being in proximity to any preschool, including specific locations, such as places where victims live, work or may frequent. The legislation also provides for a greater intensity of home visits, although that may be a little problematic if the resources are not in the probation and parole area.

Extended supervision records will also provide for participation in treatment and/or counselling and/or therapeutic programs. In many cases that should be mandatory. I think curfews should also be mandatory for a number of offenders, but unfortunately offenders can, and do, offend at all hours of the day and night. Certainly younger victims are likely to be in a public place or accessible in daytime hours or early evening hours. There are restrictions, as there should be, on changes of name and address. Any offenders who are subject to extended supervision orders will be able to access legal safeguards, including normal legal representation and appeal processes. The Supreme Court will be permitted to make an interim order for detention for a period of 28 days to enable an application to be heard. This will enable the court to act in a timely manner when the offender is about to be released and the order is reasonably required in the interests of community safety.

That is an interesting inclusion. I cite the example of a paedophile who was the subject of a parole application last year. I would hope that this legislation will apply to William John Gallagher, who applied for parole last year and was subsequently denied. As I understand it, he is due for a further parole hearing at a time close to the completion of his full sentence—in the next month or two. This is the type of offender to which this legislation should apply. William John Gallagher is approximately 60 years of age. In 2003 Gallagher lured a 13-year-old boy away from an inner Sydney games venue onto a bus and sexually attacked the child as he tried to get away from him. William John Gallagher had been only recently released from gaol, having served nine years imprisonment for other sex crimes. He has a history of sex offences which date back to the 1970s, which is over four decades ago.

No sooner was he released from gaol than he started preying on young children again. He followed the boy and tried to establish a dialogue with him. He encouraged the boy to go with him to where he lived after the child had done some homework. Fortunately the boy managed to escape but obviously he was still a victim. William John Gallagher effectively was released last time without any guarantees or any assurance that he had changed his behaviour. During the period of his release, he stalked and attacked three teenagers, a 12-year-old, a 17-year-old and the 13-year-old boy to whom I have referred. To make matters worse, he refused to enter his name on a paedophile register, as required.

William John Gallagher is a perfect example of a person who cannot be rehabilitated: he does not deserve another chance. We should not be prepared to risk his adding to his list of victims. His history is extensive. He is beyond rehabilitation. He is the type of person whose conduct should be captured by this legislation. We know in every respect that paedophiles, in particular, and other serial sex offenders can be violent and are almost impossible to rehabilitate. This legislation has not been introduced before time to this Parliament.

The legislation is not novel or new: It has been applied elsewhere. In New Zealand, a debate has been occurring for about three years on this type of legislation. It has been introduced in Western Australia and exists in different forms in Queensland and Victoria. The Opposition has been calling for this legislation for quite some time, particularly in relation to extended custody and intensive supervision—in fact the supervision will be ongoing under the provisions of the legislation. The only matter that the Government did not consider in the preparation of this legislation is chemical castration, which has been proved to be an effective measure in some circumstances for paedophiles in a number of overseas jurisdictions, including North America and Europe. I think that there is a good case for including that measure in the armoury of options which can be applied under extended supervision orders for sex offenders.

I indicate that the Opposition will not move amendments at the Committee stage in this House. The Opposition will not oppose the legislation in this House. In large part, this bill has many of the provisions for which the Opposition has been calling. If anything, the provisions do not go quite as far as the Opposition would have liked. The Opposition reserves the opportunity to move amendments in the upper House, given the complete lack of notice and time for the Opposition and all members of this House, including crossbench members, to consider the details of the bill. We understand that the Government intends to introduce it in the upper House within the next 24 hours. If necessary, and if advantageous to the New South Wales community, the Opposition will consider moving amendments in the upper House, but I do not envisage the legislation will encounter any difficulty in being passed at the earliest opportunity.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER (Gosford) [7.56 p.m.]: Mr Deputy-Speaker, I join with other honourable members in welcoming you back. As indicated by the honourable member for Davidson, who led for the Coalition, we do not oppose this legislation, but there are a number of questions we would like to have answered. This bill amends the Crimes Act, which comes under the jurisdiction of the Attorney General. The bill specifically refers to the Attorney General in a number of clauses. For example, clause 25 states:

The Attorney General may, by order in writing served on any person, require that person to provide to the Attorney General any document …

The Attorney General is writ large over all the bill, yet the Attorney General is not speaking to the legislation. The point so eloquently made by the honourable member for Davidson is worth reinforcing. Where is the Attorney General on this issue? When similar legislation is passed by Coalition governments, the Attorney General comes to the Parliament and presents the legislation. One is entitled to query what has happened behind the scenes in the Iemma Labor Government. One is entitled to ask where the Attorney General is and whether the Attorney General has been rolled. The left-wing credentials of the Attorney General leave him open to speculation. One will be interested to know at the next meeting of the Council for Civil Liberties how the Attorney General will fare.

The Opposition has no problem with the legislation and supports it because we believe it is necessary, but the Labor Party and the Iemma Labor Government have been dragged reluctantly to finally acknowledge the truth of Coalition policy. The Opposition has been pursuing majority verdicts for juries for five years in this Parliament, and finally the Iemma Labor Government has taken it up. This legislation has been advocated for a long time by the honourable member for Davidson, our shadow Minister for Justice. Finally, 12 months before the election and when William Gallagher is about to be released, the Labor Party has realised the seriousness of the situation and has introduced legislation. However, the Attorney General is not prepared to come into this Chamber to support his legislation.

[Interruption]

I know the Minister has a dinner engagement, but I have a point to make and I will make it. The Attorney General is not prepared to come into this place to speak in support of the legislation. He has not issued a press release and there is nothing about it on his web site. The Attorney General has said nothing about this legislation. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to consult the departmental advisers about clause 21. People get extended detention orders in gaol and this clause provides:

Nature of proceedings

Proceedings under this Act (including proceedings on an appeal under this Act) are civil proceedings and, to the extent to which this Act does not provide for their conduct, are to be conducted in accordance with the law (including the rules of evidence) relating to civil proceedings.

The legislation expressly makes these proceedings civil, even though this legislation proposes an amendment to the Crimes Act. That Act requires a criminal standard of proof, but this legislation proposes only a civil standard of proof. We all know the difference: The civil standard of proof is simply the balance of probabilities, whereas the criminal standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. The Attorney General has put his name to this legislation, which provides that people can go to gaol for extended periods after the court has been satisfied only to the civil standard of proof. So much for the Attorney General's so-called civil liberties credentials!
As I said, the Opposition has always advocated this legislation and it has been prepared to support it publicly. As the shadow Attorney General, I am happy to support this legislation. Honourable members on this side of the House are happy to be transparent and for our support to be placed on the record. We can look members of the Council for Civil Liberties in the face and say that it is more important to protect the children of this State than to be concerned about the rights of convicted paedophiles. They are people from whom children and the people of the State are entitled to be protected. Interestingly, the Minister for Police introduced the legislation and the member for Kiama, who is not a Minister, is now replying. The Coalition has facilitated the passage of this legislation and it is prepared to support it to ensure that it is passed. But we would like to know, where is the Attorney General?

Mr MATT BROWN (Kiama—Parliamentary Secretary) [8.03 p.m.], in reply: The Government is pleased that the Opposition has expressed support for the bill. However, honourable members on this side of the House wonder how the honourable member for Gosford can continually get it so wrong. He said this is an amendment to the Crimes Act. It is not.

Mr Chris Hartcher: That is what it is called.

Mr MATT BROWN: This is a standalone legislative scheme. The bill will ensure that high-risk sex offenders are detained or strictly supervised so that the community can be protected and feel assured that all is being done to prevent further horrendous sex crimes from being perpetrated. At the same time, the bill provides balance so that the rights of the offender are considered along with the need to protect the community. The public has a right to feel confident that the legal system contains measures that will afford protection from sexual offences and does not allow back into the community high-risk offenders who have not been rehabilitated. Disregarding the misinformation provided by the honourable member for Gosford, I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

Consideration of the Legislative Council's amendments.

No. 1 Page 6, schedule 1 [15], proposed section 94EE. Insert after line 36:

(4) In determining the level and nature of development contributions to be imposed as conditions under this Subdivision for development within a particular special contributions area (other than a growth centre), the Minister is to do one or more of the following:

(a) consult with owners of land in the special contributions area and other relevant stakeholders,

(b) publicly exhibit a proposal in relation to the level of development contributions and seek submissions within a reasonable time in relation to that proposal,

(c) establish a panel that, in the Minister's opinion, represents the interests of the various relevant stakeholders and consult with that panel.

No. 2 Page 6, schedule 1 [15], proposed section 94EE. Insert after line 36:

(4) The determination of the Minister:

(a) is to contain reasons for the level and nature of the development contributions, and

(b) is to be made publicly available by the Minister.

No. 3 Page 8, schedule 1 [15], proposed section 94EG. Insert after line 2:

(4) Before creating a special contributions area (other than a growth centre), the Minister is to consult with the peak industry organisations that the Minister considers to be relevant.

No. 4 Page 10, schedule 1 [19]. Insert after line 19:
Review

(1) The Minister is to review Subdivision 4 of Division 6 of Part 4 of this Act to determine whether the policy objectives of that Subdivision remain valid and whether the terms of this Act remain appropriate for securing those objectives.

(2) The review is to be undertaken as soon as possible after the period of 3 years from the date of assent to the amending Act.

(3) A report on the outcome of the review is to be tabled in each House of Parliament within 12 months after the end of the period of 3 years.

No. 5 Page 11, schedule 2. Insert after line 32:

[3] Section 117 (4A)

Insert after section 117 (4):

(4A) Before giving a direction under subsection (2) (c), the Minister is to consult with the Local Government and Shires Associations of New South Wales and any other industry organisation the Minister considers to be relevant, in relation to the information that the Minister is proposing to seek. This requirement is in addition to the requirement under subsection (4).

No. 6 Page 12, schedule 2 [3], proposed section 118. Insert after line 35:

(4) A panel may not exercise the functions of a council for a continuous period of more than 5 years.

(5) If a panel exercises the functions of a council for a continuous period of more than 2 years, the Minister is, as soon as practicable after 2 years after the date on which the panel was appointed, to conduct a review of the appointment and functions of the panel.

(6) A review under subsection (5) is to be conducted by the Minister in consultation with the Minister for Local Government, the Local Government and Shires Associations of New South Wales and any other industry organisation that the Minister considers to be relevant.

No. 7 Page 13, schedule 2 [3], proposed section 118 (5), line 2. Omit "consult with". Insert instead "obtain the concurrence of".

No. 8 Page 13, schedule 2 [3], proposed section 118. Insert after line 2:

(6) The Minister may appoint a planning administrator or a panel for a reason set out in subsection (1) (b) only if the Minister has, by order published in the Gazette, provided heads of consideration for the exercise of power under subsection (1) (b), and has taken those heads of consideration into account.

No. 9 Page 13, schedule 2 [3], proposed section 118. Insert after line 6:

(7) The Minister must, as soon as reasonably practicable after appointing a planning administrator or a panel, make the reasons for that appointment publicly available.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr John Mills): Order! In view of the fact that amendments are to be proposed to the Legislative Council amendments, I will put the question on each of the Legislative Council's amendments separately.

Mr FRANK SARTOR (Rockdale—Minister for Planning, Minister for Redfern Waterloo, Minister for Science and Medical Research, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Health (Cancer)) [8.05 p.m.]: I move:

That Legislative Council amendment No. 1 be agreed to.

This is a sensible amendment that provides a system of consultation depending on the nature of the special contributions area. For example, if it were a special contributions area, such as a series of lots for large employment land areas or industrial areas, we would consult the relevant owners. If it were a broader question, we would exhibit it. It is incredible that our beloved friends in the Opposition have a new lease of life in respect of this bill. They have been lining up and getting all excited like fish in the mating season. Interestingly, in the past the Opposition's policy has been very different from the position honourable members are putting here tonight. On 25 June 2005 the Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to Ku-ring-gai developments and stated:

Unfortunately, that approach represents a continuation of the council politicking in this area that I have criticised before, the type of politicking that stupidly resulted in councillors contributing to delays in settling a residential strategy for Ku-ring-gai. It was stupid because it was based on the flawed view that if the issue was delayed and deferred it would somehow go away.

It is important that residents demand an end to this type of politicking by local councils, which has worsened, not improved, the planning situation facing Ku-ring-gai. The Australian Financial Review of 25 August states:

Although some councils already use Panels, under Mr Brogden's plans their decisions on planning could be made compulsory … Mr Brogden said that after the corruption findings at Strathfield Council where the mayor was documented taking bribes from a developer greater efforts must be made to establish corruption proof councils.

In December 2005, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition stated in a media release:

Complaints about local government planning processes are one of the biggest issues residents raise with me each year … the complaints cover everything from time delays through to inconsistent treatment of applications.

These were the stirring words honourable members of the Opposition used when talking about intervention. Of course, when the legislation was introduced in the lower House they bolted because they did not want to vote on it. Opposition members of the upper House muddled along and talked about it being a bad piece of legislation. There is another interesting inconsistency. Someone once said, "Spare us from the righteous."

The honourable member for Bligh, in her capacity as Lord Mayor, told us how dreadful the bill is. How it is a planning power grab that threatens the independence and capacity of local government, that it is an assault on democracy and an outrage. She continued with that sort of hyperbole. However, the planning panels idea is based on a model operating in the City of Sydney that was introduced by the Liberal Government in 1988 legislation. It is called the Central Sydney Planning Committee [CSPC]. The honourable member for Bligh, in her capacity as Lord Mayor, wrote a letter to me dated 8 September in response to a letter from my predecessor expressing concern about some aspects of council's operations.

She said the council, its staff and the members of the CSPC work together co-operatively and constructively on issues before the committee. The Lord Mayor said she appreciated the provisions in the State-significant development SEPP that acknowledged the role and significance of the CSPC, which had been working well in determining development applications valued at in excess of $50 million. So the honourable member for Bligh says the CSPC model, the precedent, about which she is so outraged, works well in her council. There you have it. There is an awful lot of hypocrisy and puffery about the bill. Despite a big campaign by the Local Government Association, when one listens to the punters out there, the ordinary people who have to deal with councils day to day, there is a dilemma. A chap named Steve called Chris Smith's program yesterday, saying:

We've had DAs in councils for two years—I know people who have been over two years, just for a simple development building. I think sometimes in councils it comes down to not what you know, but who you know. We've been asking simple things and put the application in and seem to get different feels from different people.

Another fellow called Daryl said:

I regularly deal with councils. If a council did an approval in 40 days it would be an absolute miracle. The average time of our approvals is six months—some are up to a year. We need something else to go to and I think Frank Sartor's initiative to get somewhere else to appeal is a fantastic idea. Ku-ring-gai Council without any question are the most tree-hugging, owner-resistant council that is out there at the moment.

According to this fellow Hawkesbury City Council is far and away the best council. There were other callers but I will not quote them all. The point I am making is there is no groundswell of opposition in the community to this bill. A lot of people will benefit from it. It is about giving people a fair go and having a mechanism to make councils accountable for their performance. I commend the amendment.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER (Gosford) [8.12 p.m.]: The Minister's remarks dealing with the bill cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. The comments he is referring to related to specific developments. They are not related to the law in environmental planning and assessment. The Minister has purposely misrepresented the Coalition's position for some time and quoted out of context the former member for Pittwater, John Brogden, in relation to the role of planning panels. In the Coalition's policy those panels were to be advisory only. There is an enormous difference between advisory and mandatory, as the Minister well knows, and it is mischievous on his part to try to misrepresent the Coalition's opposition to achieve a result that serves his ends but does not serve the truth.

The Coalition has taken a deliberate and carefully thought out stance in consultation with the community. That is the enormous difference between the Coalition and the Government. The Coalition has backed the community, but the Government has walked over the community. It is no surprise that one commentator has described the Minister as the Godzilla of planning in New South Wales. I have no idea who it was, but nonetheless it is a remark that has been taken up by many commentators. They believe that having taken over State-significant developments, all the major developments in this State, the Minister is now moving to take away medium and smaller-scale developments. We will get to the stage where the only decisions made by local councils will be those relating to the garage and whether you have a glassed-in veranda. Everything else will be decided in the fortress known as Governor Macquarie Tower in Phillip Street.

That is not acceptable to the people of this State. They want local communities to make decisions that affect them and the Minister's attempt to grab power at every level is to be deplored. Accordingly, the Coalition does not support the Minister's attempt to endorse the amendments he has negotiated through the Legislative Council. The Minister has made certain concessions to crossbench members of the Legislative Council. These are the only matters we have to debate tonight. To show our disapproval and lack of support and the fact that we will oppose this legislation relentlessly, we will not support these amendments any more than we will support the bill. The whole thing should be withdrawn and scrapped. We will continue our campaign right up to 24 March 2007. I move:

That Legislative Council amendment No. 1 be amended by leaving out the words "is to do one or more of the following" and inserting in lieu thereof the word "shall".

That means the Minister must carry out every step in the consultation process. It does not mean that we support the principle of the bill. We are showing our disapproval of the bill and making sure that if the Minister is to have these extraordinary powers they will be tightened up as far as community consultation goes. Amendment No.1 relates to community consultation and gives the Minister three options. He can pick and choose which option he wants. We say no, if he is going to have community consultation in this bill, which we oppose, he should at least have genuine consultation. He can go through each of the three steps to ensure that community consultation is meaningful and not a farce.

At present the Minister can choose which of the three he wants. He can consult the owners of the land, publicly exhibit a plan or establish a panel, whichever one he pleases and whichever one will give him the desired result. Let him do all three. Let him go right to the community, consult the owners, exhibit his plan and establish a panel to advise him. Let him ensure there is proper, detailed and comprehensive community consultation, which never took place before this bill was introduced into the Parliament. Accordingly, we have moved the amendment not to support the legislation but in the spirit of supporting community consultation.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [8.17 p.m.]: I speak in this debate particularly because the Minister for Planning has again endeavoured to verbal me. Together with the honourable member for Davidson, I represent the Ku-ring-gai community, which will be one of the first communities to suffer the consequences of this legislation. As I said in my second reading contribution, the Department of Planning has for some time had the planning gun locked with its sights on Ku-ring-gai. The legislation is now about to be passed that allows the Minister to fire at will and it is the community of Ku-ring-gai that will suffer. Despite what the Minister says, there is nothing inconsistent with either the frustration that residents and I have from time to time with the antics of Ku-ring-gai Council or my fundamental opposition to this attempt to grab power through this extraordinary legislation to enable the Minister for Planning and his bureaucrats to pick and choose at will which developments sites in Ku-ring-gai and elsewhere they will take control of.

I find it extraordinary that this legislation enables the Minister to act on the basis of criteria that are so open ended. The Minister took four months to respond to a letter from Ku-ring-gai Council, yet the Government talks about the sorts of delays that councils such as Ku-ring-gai may be causing that would give reason to using this legislation against them. In his amendments the honourable member for Gosford is trying to tighten some of the restrictions in other parts of this legislation. However, it is a bit rich for the Government, notwithstanding the passage of this legislation through the upper House, to set one standard for councils and another for itself. The reality is that there has been significant improvement in Ku-ring-gai Council, which should be recognised and rewarded by the Department of Planning. It should not be penalised. The sorts of constraints the honourable member for Gosford is trying to put on this legislation would ensure—

Mr Matt Brown: Eighteen months for the UTS campus.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: I am glad that the honourable member for Kiama raises the UTS campus, an issue that I will speak about further in the House tomorrow. It simply confirms the honourable member for Kiama's view in relation to the UTS campus. Why should it not take 18 months for a council to consider a proposal that involves 556 dwellings, on a parcel of land deep in a residential suburb overlooking a national park? If the honourable member for Kiama suggests it ought to take a week, it simply demonstrates the concrete shoes and concrete hearts that Government members have—and, of course, the very large wallets they expect to get from their developer mates. The honourable member for Kiama, by way of his interjection, has given away what is at the heart of this bill: sending the developers into the heart of residential areas, whether they be on the North Shore, in the western suburbs, in the eastern suburbs, or wherever—not for community good, not for the benefit of the public, and not for the benefit of making this city more liveable, but for the benefit of Labor, its coffers and its developer mates.

With regard to Ku-ring-gai Council's improved performance, we have seen the reduction in the number of outstanding development applications before council, from 1,000 in November 2003 to 338 this month, a reduction in the time taken by council to process development applications, from the 111 to 78 days and falling, the fact that 80 per cent of all medium-density development applications lodged with council have been determined, and a $600,000 reduction in legal costs associated with Land and Environment Court appeals between 2003 and 2005. That is the sort of behaviour that the Minister ought to applaud, and rewarding through a SEPP 53 exemption. But, instead, the Minister seeks to further penalise the communities of Ku-ring-gai and elsewhere by both lying about the sorts of performances they are undertaking and getting this legislation through.

This legislation passed the upper House with the support of a number of members, including Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes. Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes is a North Shore resident. Some 1,400 Ku-ring-gai voters contributed to his re-election during the last election campaign. I will remind those 1,400 voters, and thousands of other voters during the lead-up to the next election campaign when Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile is up for election, of the fact that the two good reverends were prepared to get down and dirty and do a deal with Labor in relation to a planning law that is outrageous in its scope, that in its ambit will destroy Ku-ring-gai, and that ultimately will be used against the sorts of communities that Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes claim to represent.

Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER (North Shore) [8.22 p.m.]: I support the comments of my colleagues and, in the spirit of the broad range of subjects raised by the Minister in the amendment process, I place on record my objection to the amendments. As the shadow Minister said, it is an either-or, take-your-pick type of arrangement whereby the Minister may consult, may publicly exhibit, or may establish a panel. My constituents in Mosman and North Sydney council areas take very seriously the development of local environment plans. The plans are exhibited for extensive periods and a lot of consultation takes place with regard to what is proposed in the plans. Obviously, therefore, this is a clear attempt by the Minister to simply take control. It is a demonstration of the Kremlin attitude of this Government—central control, override local constituents, take no notice of local councils.

I believe that North Sydney Council and Mosman council do a very good job of consulting with their local communities on developing local environment plans. This is purely a grab by the Minister to take over the planning fort from elected representatives at the local government level. The appointment of panels will result in the removal of the authority of those elected representatives. Where is the accountability? Where is the transparency?

Everyone is concerned about delays in the approval of development applications, but I believe we must be concerned also about transparency, about the opportunity to consult with constituents, and so on. Recently I joined with a number of my neighbours in protesting against a major development proposed in Neutral Bay by Woolworths. The whole process took place over several months. It is not something you would want to happen in 30 days. A number of public meetings were held, a number of letters were sent, a number of forums were held, and eventually the matter went to the Land and Environment Court. This legislation is about appointing a panel, overriding the local community, and rubber-stamping what the developer, or in this case the applicant, wants. It is dangerous legislation. I support my local community and my local councils, which, given the complex process of planning approvals in such a densely developed area as my electorate, do a reasonably good job.

Mr ANDREW HUMPHERSON (Davidson) [8.25 p.m.]: Having had responsibility on behalf of the Opposition for the planning portfolio for a little over a year, I have learned that what all sides of the general development dynamic want is certainty. People want to be certain that the character of the community in which they live cannot be unduly and rapidly changed. Likewise, an applicant, whether it be a large developer or a small property owner, wants certainty a timely result that is consistent with the development controls of planning instruments.

What the Government is doing by way of this legislation, and certainly by centralising much of the authority, will not assist with ensuring that certainty. Indeed, if anything, it will increase people's cynical view that many of the Government's planning decisions are not made in the interests of the community and, indeed, are influenced by those who have the ear of the Minister or those who have been able to buy influence within the Government. People who choose to move to a residential area make it their domicile; it is where their lifestyle is based. When there is the capacity for someone to lobby the Minister and effectively take away that certainty, and influence the development controls or change the process of by which development applications are determined, it is extremely unfair for anyone affected by the proposed development.

I acknowledge that there are some good examples of how independent hearing and assessment panels [IHAPs] have operated, but the majority of those examples have not involved councils being bypassed. It does not require, and has not required, the Minister to appoint the IHAPs, which comprise people determined by the Minister ineffectively and, in effect, on strings pulled from Macquarie Street and Governor Macquarie Tower. It does not need to disempower councillors. Many councillors recognise the benefits of IHAPs, believing they can take some of the heat out of the process. However, the unilateral fashion in which the Minister does that via this legislation goes too far.

The Minister referred to the timeliness of development applications, which is something councils clearly have scope to improve. The Minister, by way of example, criticised Ku-ring-gai Council. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and I know full well, over the past two years, certainly with encouragement from both of us as the respective State members, Ku-ring-gai council has made great steps towards improving its performance. Under the leadership of Adrienne Ryan and other councillors, the council has substantially reduced its legal bills, which is a benefit for ratepayers, it has substantially reduced its backlog of development applications, and it has reduced the time in which development applications are determined. Yet the Minister has not given credit to Ku-ring-gai Council where it is due.

The council has been criticised , and rightly so, for prevaricating, and creating delays and uncertainty, particularly for applicants, and the council has sought to address those issues. However, the Minister for Planning has ignored that. It is important to place on record that because the Minister has been disingenuous about the circumstances of Ku-ring-gai Council, it has cast doubt on the Minister's merits in using the council as part of his argument for change. The powers that the legislation gives in relation to development control plans are one of the most draconian aspects of it. Development control plans that are developed in consultation with the community—

The CHAIRMAN (Mr John Mills): Order! The honourable member for Davidson will address his remarks to Legislative Council amendment No. 1. Development control plans are not referred to in that amendment. The Committee has now heard three second reading speeches and one speech addressing the amendment. The patience of the Chair is running out. I ask members to address the Legislative Council amendments. That is what they are here for; they are not here to make second reading speeches.

Mr ANDREW HUMPHERSON: I will continue to respond to the comments that were made by the Minister in debate.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr John Mills): Order! If the honourable member for Davidson continues to argue with the Chair and continues to make a second reading speech I will rule him out of order. If he does not restrict his remarks to the amendment I will direct him to resume his seat.

Mr ANDREW HUMPHERSON: I am replying to the contribution of the Minister.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr John Mills): Order! If the honourable member for Davidson does not address the amendment I will direct him to resume his seat.

Mr ANDREW HUMPHERSON: Quite clearly you allowed the Minister to make a contribution and I will continue.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr John Mills): Order! If the honourable member for Davidson continues that approach I will order him to be seated.
Mr ANDREW HUMPHERSON: Within the confines of debate—

The CHAIRMAN (Mr John Mills): The honourable member for Davidson will resume his seat.

Mr Brad Hazzard: We will move dissent; you will have dissent on your hands.

Mr ANDREW HUMPHERSON: I am engaging in debate in the manner in which the Minister engaged in debate.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr John Mills): The honourable member for Davidson will address the amendment or resume his seat.

Mr ANDREW HUMPHERSON: I am responding to the remarks made by the Minister. You clearly allowed parameters within which this debate should proceed.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr John Mills): The honourable member for Davidson will address the amendment, as required by the standing orders.

Mr ANDREW HUMPHERSON: Mr Chairman, you keep saying that but you are not listening to what I am saying. I am responding to the contribution made by a number of members to the debate, including the Minister. The Minister traversed a number of issues and I am responding to them. In particular, the Minister reflected adversely on councils and that is the issue I am talking about. Obviously the Minister is seeking to make changes that will affect communities. He referred to the public support for these changes that was given by callers to the Chris Smith program. When the Minister made those references and comments it is clear that he was expecting some comment on the need for development control plans [DCPs]. He expected communities to have their standards protected by DCPs.

The bill refers elsewhere to DCPs. They are an intrinsic part of protecting the character of a local community. The Minister's approach, a Godzilla approach, is to give him amazing powers to destroy DCPs—a product of community consultation. The Minister has been disingenuous in his approach, given the arguments that he has raised. I understand the normal parameters that apply to debates, but the Minister covered a variety of issues and it is reasonable for the Opposition to have a chance to respond to them. DCPs play a key role in reflecting community consultation and they protect in large measure some of the finer details of the local character of a community. It is extraordinarily draconian for the Minister to be given powers to override, remove or change those DCPs. I suggest those powers should be changed at the first possible opportunity.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [8.33 p.m.]: The amendment that the Government moved to its own bill confirms what the Opposition was told, that is, this bill was not properly considered when it was introduced in this Chamber the week before last.

Mr Matt Brown: We are listening to the community.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: The honourable member for Kiama said, "We are listening to the community." He is listening to people who are criticising this bill. When this bill was introduced, the honourable member for Gosford, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Cronulla and I said we were concerned about a number of issues. We also said that those issues required more time for consultation. To some degree the Labor member for Kiama is now confirming that the Government is listening to the community, which means it has been consulted. The Government did not consult the community before this bill was introduced.

For that reason it had to do what most governments would be too embarrassed to do—it had to amend its bill in the Legislative Council and bring it back to this Chamber so that we could consider the amendments. I pointed out in debate on the second reading that the Opposition is extremely concerned about this bill as it is based on an assumption that this State Government can do it better than local government, and that it has the capacity to produce better planning outcomes, which is not true. This Government is tardier and more incompetent than any council anywhere in New South Wales could ever aspire to be.

We are talking about delays in planning at a council level. Obviously, from time to time there are delays that concern the community but councils should sort out those issues. The Government is talking about taking away planning powers from councils because of perceived delays but it ignores the fact that it is probably the biggest cause of those delays. When it had a problem with trains it slowed them down. When it had a problem with maintenance in schools it slowed that down. Patients cannot get into hospitals as they have all been slowed right down. Hospitals are not dealing with patients and they have year-long waits before they are being admitted. This bill is hypocritical. It does not make any sense for a Government that is so slow and tardy to argue that it can plan better. This proposal will be further amended by an amendment to be moved by the honourable member for Gosford.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr John Mills): Order! I ask members to cease interjecting and to extend a degree of courtesy to the honourable member for Wakehurst.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: Public concern has been expressed about the incompetence of the Minister for Planning, Frank Sartor, in seeking these proposed planning determinations. Even though this bill will be amended he is still trying to avoid the consequences of consulting and exhibiting his proposals for change. The amendment states:

Page 6. Schedule 1 [15], proposed section 94EE. Insert after line 36:

(4) In determining the level and nature of development contributions to be imposed as conditions under this subdivision for development within a particular special contributions area (other than a growth centre), the Minister is to do one or more of the following:

Before I list what is contained in that amendment, I emphasise that the Minister is hoping honourable members will accept that he has to do only one or more of the following. The amendment continues:

(a) consult with owners of land in the special contributions area and other relevant stakeholders,

(b) publicly exhibit a proposal in relation to the level of development contributions and seek submissions within a reasonable time in relation to that proposal,

(c) establish a panel that, in the Minister's opinion, represents the interests of the various relevant stakeholders and consult with that panel.

The Minister is proposing to do only one of those three things. In my view honourable members should reject any concept that this Minister's is capable of making decisions about any aspect of this bill. Failing that we certainly should reject the concept that the Minister is entitled to do only one of those three things. This amendment relates to the establishment of a Special Contributions Areas Infrastructure Fund. Under this bill the definition of that fund is wide open. There is no indication of how much money the Government will rip off consumers, end users, or young families who move onto these blocks of land, in particular, in the north-west, south-west and western areas of Sydney.

To properly consider this amendment we need to understand what the Government is proposing. The Government is proposing that if a developer is establishing a subdivision, the developer will, in the usual course, prepare the linear plan, get it approved, pay for the roads to go in and the basic services—the water and electricity—and those charges will then become part of the final price of a block of land. That is the way it has always been, and that is an acceptable position for the community at the moment. We accept that those are the costs of developing the land.

The Labor Government purports to be for the people of Sydney and the people of New South Wales, but it is establishing an additional fund that at this stage is going to be the beneficiary of further money from the developer. As far as we can work out from what the Government has told us thus far, that money will be used for infrastructure such as police stations, schools, community centres and hospitals. The Government is actively seeking to abrogate all of its responsibilities to the community: It will be a government that does not have to worry about government responsibilities. It simply will pass on extra charges to the young families who buy these blocks of land. As sure as night follows day, if the Government establishes this special contributions infrastructure fund whatever money is put into that fund—to be determined by some as yet unknown equation to be provided by the Government—the developer most certainly will pass the cost on to the young families who buy the blocks of land.

I have just done some rough figures, but this fund will possibly add an additional $200,000 to $300,000 to the price of a block of land in the north-west, the west and south-west of Sydney. It is totally unacceptable, from the Opposition's point of view, that those funds should be paid by the end user_that is, by the first couple, the first family, the first people who buy that block of land. How ridiculous! I ask honourable members to think about the logic of it: a family that buys its first house is paying for the infrastructure—the police stations, the community centres, the hospitals—that are going to be in place for possibly the next 100 years. This Labor Government, which is supposed to care about people, shows yet again that it has no regard for the young families of Western Sydney, north-western Sydney and south-western Sydney.

Given that background, we have to consider what the Government is doing when it brings this amendment back to the House—it is a Government amendment. It tells us that yes, the Government has woken up to the fact that it might be in a bit of political bother because it is planning to establish the most outrageous fund but, on top of that, the Minister is trying to slip his way through by not being forced to even consider each of the three items that are set out under this particular provision. That is why the honourable member for Gosford has sought to further amend the Government's amendment by removing the words, "is to do one or more of the following" and inserting instead, "shall". The New South Wales Liberal and National parties are committed to transparency, decency and integrity. This Government does not understand that. Government members are living their lives under rocks and they are now trying to dud the young families of western, north-western and south-western Sydney by whacking on extra charges via the backdoor of this infrastructure fund. At the same time, the Minister does not even want to go to the trouble of dealing conjunctively with each of the three items contained under the Government's first amendment. This Minister—I described the bill as being the "Trust Me, I'm Frank Bill" in my contribution to the second reading debate—

Mr Grant McBride: This Minister?

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: Not you. I would not suggest that we should not trust you_I am talking about the "Trust Me, I'm Frank Bill". I am saying that the Minister for Planning cannot be trusted to do anything that is in the best interests of the people of New South Wales. Young families will suffer as a result of this stupidity—this ridiculous bill. I strongly support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Gosford, who understands this bill all too well. He understands the Government's agenda. I assure the Government that if it does not agree with the amendment moved by the honourable member for Gosford we will oppose its amendment, because it is totally reprehensible.

Mr MALCOLM KERR (Cronulla) [8.45 p.m.]: I speak in relation to this amendment.

Mr Grant McBride: Do you know what amendment it is?

Mr MALCOLM KERR: It is the amendment that gives the pretence of consultation.

Mr Grant McBride: What number is it?

Mr MALCOLM KERR: It is No. 1, page 6, schedule 1.

Mr Chris Hartcher: Did the Minister for Gaming and Racing know that?

Mr MALCOLM KERR: No. He is just in the chair.

Mr Chris Hartcher: He is playing the poker machines still.

Mr MALCOLM KERR: That is exactly right.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr John Mills): Order! I ask the honourable member for Cronulla to address the amendment.

Mr MALCOLM KERR: Certainly, because when it comes to this amendment the Minister for Gaming and Racing is not in the club. As I was saying, the Government's amendment gives the pretence of consultation—the Government will deal with stakeholders and look after the interests of various relevant stakeholders. However, we have to look at the history of the Minister for Planning to determine whether he really looks after the interests of the various relevant stakeholders. The Government intended to put a desalination plant in my electorate at Kurnell. One would have thought that local residents would have been the various relevant stakeholders and that their interests would have been considered, but they were not. An arbitrary decision was made by this Government and this Minister to put in a desalination plant that turned out to be unnecessary.

Mr Brad Hazzard: A dud.
Mr MALCOLM KERR: A dud. The Government is now going to spend $120 million on what it considers to be an unnecessary plant. The people of Sutherland shire and the people of my electorate do not want to see the power removed from their council, which is accountable to them at election time, and given to a Minister who has been prepared to trample over their rights. In relation to this bill, the people of Sydney are the stakeholders and it is their interests that should be considered. I wonder whether anybody in this Government is prepared to listen to the opinions of those stakeholders, because I can tell them those opinions.

An opinion poll was conducted by Iris Research on 22 to 23 March. The poll included a representative sample of 640 households in metropolitan, regional and rural New South Wales. The key results in relation to the stakeholders were: 72 per cent of those polled felt local government was the most appropriate level of government to determine building and development applications, 92 per cent believed the community should be consulted before any attempt was made to transfer responsibility from councils to planning assessment panels appointed by the State Government, 60 per cent disagreed with shifting responsibility for development applications from elected local councillors to planning and assessment panels appointed by the State Government, and 95 per cent believed that if such panels were introduced the State Government should have to provide reasons for that decision.

When one looks at the Government's amendment one sees that it does not address the opinions and views of the stakeholders. The Minister does not deal with that. Other key results of the poll were: 86 per cent felt people who directly or indirectly worked for developers should not be allowed to serve on the proposed panels and 65 per cent wanted councils, not panels, to be responsible for approving development applications. Why do stakeholders hold these views? Because they know that their local councils, which are made up of their representatives, are accountable to them at election time. The stakeholders do not want power to shift from the people's representatives to someone as unrepresentative as the Minister for Planning.

Mr Richard Amery: Wasn't he elected?

Mr MALCOLM KERR: He was elected by the people of Rockdale but not by the people of the Sutherland shire. In fact, he was not elected by the Labor branch in Rockdale. But I will set that matter aside and address my remarks to the amendment before the Committee. I could be tempted to talk about the mayor of Rockdale and how he sought preselection but did not get it because the Minister was imposed upon the local branch. But I will not do that. The Government's amendment pretends to provide for consultation. The President of the Shires Association, Councillor Col Sullivan, said that the overall survey results—to which I referred—masked a stronger commitment to local government in rural and regional areas than in metropolitan areas. That is probably true, but they certainly represent the views of Sutherland shire. The president went on to say:

The Minister has failed to consult the people, he wants absolute power to strip any councils of their role in determining planning when he says so, and he refuses to include in the legislation a right to any explanation for his actions.

Communities will have no role in consultation, all parties will have no legal rights of appeal, and I can tell the State Government now we will fight to ensure transparency and accountability are features of any legislative changes that pass through Parliament.

The amendment of the honourable member for Gosford will insert the word "shall" to ensure that the Minister does not have discretion—which he will always exercise in an arbitrary fashion to suit his agenda, not the wider public interest. That is why the Opposition will support the Opposition's amendment and oppose the Government's amendment and its repulsive legislation.

Mr MICHAEL RICHARDSON (The Hills) [8.52 p.m.]: My electorate of The Hills extends over part of one of the Government's designated growth areas, and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill will impact significantly on many of my constituents. A couple of nights ago I talked to Councillor Hay at a function in my electorate. I am sure that Labor members will be familiar with Councillor Hay. He is the Chairman of the Western Suburbs Regional Organisation of Councils, a Labor Party stalwart, and the Labor candidate for the seat of Baulkham Hills in the past two State elections. Councillor Hay is adamantly opposed to this bill—regardless of whether it is amended—because he clearly understands its likely impact on our area.

The Government's amendment does not go far enough in addressing concerns in The Hills. We are concerned about the likely increase in the price of housing in our area. It is a designated growth centre and we know that a significant infrastructure levy will be imposed on new home owners. Although the levy is called a development levy it must be passed on to someone. One of the great myths perpetuated by this Government is that developers will pay the levy and consumers will remain unaffected. That is simply not the case. Ultimately consumers will pick up the tab. They will end up paying significantly more for infrastructure as a consequence of this bill—and not necessarily for infrastructure in their development area. The bill provides for charges to be levied for infrastructure outside a growth centre so long as it has some sort of connection to the area where the funds were raised.

I will give an example of what a development levy might fund. It might fund the proposed new railway tunnel under the harbour. Honourable members may remember that there is a proposal—it is just another of the lines on the map that the Government is very good at drawing; it never actually does anything to provide infrastructure—to link Bringelly to Rouse Hill in my electorate by rail. There is also a proposal to build a new tunnel under the harbour. If that were to happen—it is a most unlikely eventuality—young first home owners in my electorate and people in Camden, Campbelltown, Bringelly and throughout south-western Sydney would have to pay for a tunnel that will benefit all the people of Sydney, not just residents of the areas I mentioned. People who purchase houses in Campbelltown, south-western and north-western Sydney and in The Hills district will end up funding infrastructure that will benefit the entire population of Sydney. I cannot see how that is fair and I cannot see how the Government's amendment will benefit my constituents.

The honourable member for Camden is in the Chamber, and the bill will impact significantly on his electorate. I wonder whether the honourable member supports the bill, as amended, because the Government's proposals will significantly disadvantage his constituents. The honourable member for Wakehurst pointed out that the amendment requires the Minister, in determining the level and nature of development contributions to be imposed as conditions on development within a particular special contributions area other than a growth centre—because the provision also applies to areas outside growth areas that are designated as special contributions areas—to do one or more of the following. He can consult landowners, publicly exhibit a proposal in relation to the level of development contributions, or he can establish and consult a panel that represents the interests of the various stakeholders.

The Minister can do all those things if the mood takes him but he is not required to do them all. The honourable member for Gosford's amendment deletes "is to do one or more of the following" and inserts instead the word "shall". The Opposition believes that amendment is entirely appropriate and will address at least some of the concerns that Opposition members have about the bill. One of the main reasons why Councillor Hay opposes the bill is that it has the potential to strip councils of their planning powers. Like all the councillors on Baulkham Hills shire council to whom I spoke about this matter—Liberal as well as Labor—Councillor Hay is outraged. The Government's amendment will provide a five-year time limit within which the panel can exercise the functions of a council. But that simply does not go far enough. It is still quite possible for the Minister to strip a council of its powers and to do it on fairly spurious grounds. Effectively, he could do it on the basis that he did not like the council or individuals on the council. New section 118 states that the Minister may appoint a planning administrator—

The CHAIRMAN (Mr John Mills): Order! The Committee is considering amendment No. 1, which relates to new section 94EE. The honourable member for The Hills will have the opportunity to deal with new section 118 later.

Mr MICHAEL RICHARDSON: I apologise. Local councillors are particularly concerned about the additional cost that will be imposed on young home buyers in my area. My electorate has the largest number of traditional families in the State. It has the highest proportion of school-age children. These people come to The Hills district to enjoy the lifestyle that is offered and often they stretch themselves to buy their new homes. The Government proposes an additional charge of up to $100,000, putting those houses effectively beyond the reach of those young home owners. I am not quite sure where the Government expects those young people to end up. Maybe like so many other citizens of New South Wales they will be forced interstate, the only place they will be able to afford a house.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [9.02 p.m.]: I want to make a point in relation to interjections during the contribution by the honourable member for The Hills about the appropriateness or otherwise of the infrastructure fund. One must consider whether the fund will necessarily be directed to just the development of properties. The amendment will affect the most people in growth areas if the Minister looks at various subdivisions and determines that it will be applied to particular developments. This fund will see an increase of up to $300,000 per block of land in development areas.

The honourable member for Camden is in the Chamber. Regardless of his policies, he should speak in opposition to this amendment, which actually seeks to target the growth areas of Camden, Wollondilly, Londonderry and Riverstone. The honourable member for Camden knows that not long ago, when I was the shadow Minister for Utilities and Energy, I was in his electorate and met with his council. I heard the concerns it had about development in his electorate, which he was doing very little about. Now, in addition to that development, under this amendment the Government will whack up to $300,000 onto the price of a block of land.

That is a totally reprehensible position, which the Opposition opposes. I call on the honourable member for Camden to stand up in this Chamber—he does not like to do that very often—and tell us his position on the $300,000 additional tax. The honourable member for Camden does not speak out in opposition to the bill, and, in addition, he does not oppose the fact that the Minister is only obliged to comply with one of three paragraphs in amendment No. 1. The honourable member for Camden does not even have the amendment so he does not know what I am talking about. He should read it because it is quite disturbing. I say to members representing Camden, Londonderry, Riverstone and Wollondilly, whose areas and families will be affected by an additional State Labor tax of up to $300,000, that they should take note of the amendment and should oppose the Minister in this Chamber because he is not loved by people in the areas of Camden, Riverstone or Wollondilly; they do not trust him.

Mr Michael Daley: Yes, he is. They love him everywhere.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: They do not trust you either and they never will trust you. You look like one of those clowns that bounce up and down. This amendment, taken with the legislation as it stands, says that the money will become a tax. However, under new section 94EL the funds that are raised under this amendment can actually be applied to anything; there is no limit. New section 94EL states:

(c) all other money directed or authorised to be paid from the Fund by this Act or by the regulations under this Act—

The regulations have not been promulgated, so we do not know where the moneys will ever go. In fact, they may go nowhere; they may go towards shoring up the Government in totally different areas. This is a reprehensible amendment and a reprehensible Government,

Mr Michael Daley: Spell it.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: How can I spell your name? I have not learnt your name yet. This is a reprehensible bill and a reprehensible amendment. It may be just a case of "I am Frank, trust me", but we do not trust him. The young families of the north-west, the west and the south-west of Sydney—the families the Government will hit with another $300,000 tax for an infrastructure fund—will demand that Labor members of Parliament stop sitting there grinning like Cheshire cats and stand up and oppose the bill.

Mr WAYNE MERTON (Baulkham Hills) [9.07 p.m.]: This bill is a rerun of another bill introduced here many years ago. If my recollection serves me correctly it was called the Land Development Contribution Bill, which was introduced by a former Coalition Government specifically to impose levies on land that was rezoned. The tax was to be paid by the purchaser of the land. Although none of the members opposite were here at that time—although they look as though they could have been—the Labor Party complained that the tax would force up the price of land for young couples. Labor said it was an iniquitous tax, and it was. However, this State Labor Government is now revisiting and introducing something that was a proven failure in the 1960s and 1970s. Everyone knows that young people find it very difficult to buy land. Now, Geoff, you are right in the heart of this, mate. This is your day of judgment.

Mr Geoff Corrigan: Point of order: I think it is appropriate that the honourable member for Baulkham Hills address me by my title.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Paul Lynch): Order! I uphold the point of order. The honourable member for Baulkham Hills will direct his comments through the Chair. I ask the Minister for Gaming and Racing to come to order. It does not help if he continually provokes the Opposition.

Mr WAYNE MERTON: It certainly does not, particularly as he is on such shaky ground.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Paul Lynch): Order! The honourable member for Baulkham Hills will return to the leave of the amendment.
Mr WAYNE MERTON: I am pleased to, and I will not affectionately call him Geoff but the honourable member for Camden. He represents that electorate but he is now bolting for the door because he does not want to hear me say that he is about to betray the people who will buy in south-western Sydney who will have to pay an extra $300,000 for a block of land. They can blame the honourable member for Camden because he is selling them down the drain. The predecessor of the honourable member for Maroubra stood in this same Chamber some 30 years and said this would be the end of the world, with dire consequences following the introduction of the land development contributions tax. The honourable member, as a practising lawyer, cannot remember that tax but I recall it was a 30 per cent tax payable to the Government on the difference between the price of the land prior to rezoning and the actual sale price. People had to apply for a section 55 certificate. Home owners will have to pay the $300,000 and will be denied the ability to buy a home.

Mr Michael Daley: Tell the truth.

Mr WAYNE MERTON: I am telling the truth. The difference is that the honourable member for Maroubra does not want to hear the truth. These champagne socialists are just talking about theory: the Opposition is talking about real young Australians who will be denied the ability to purchase a home because of this Government's attitude. The Australian Labor Party was right 30 years ago when it condemned that tax and the Government is wrong tonight when it imposes this measure on the people of New South Wales. The Government is a pack of Judases. It is full of two-bob socialists. It does not care what happens to battlers or ordinary Australians. The Government has an agenda to get more money, even though it has enjoyed years of economic prosperity. The Government has blown $5 billion in extra stamp duty and cannot explain where it has gone. This is a desperate Government that is trying to get money out of young couples. The Opposition will oppose the legislation to the end.

The Opposition is interested in young people but the honourable member for Maroubra does not care about them and thinks this is funny. The honourable member for Camden, who sits on the fence, could not take the pressure and has left the Chamber. On a day in March 2007 the people of Camden will not sit on the fence. It will goodbye Geoff, goodbye to the honourable member for Camden, because he has betrayed the people of his electorate. This bill betrays the people of New South Wales and every member of the Australian Labor Party who supports it. The Government is selling off the chances of young people getting a home. That is the reality, no matter which way one looks at this legislation. By imposing an additional tax over and above section 94 contributions the Government will sell those people down the drain and deny them a chance to get a home. That is what the Government is about.

Members of the Government should hang their heads in shame and disgrace. A Labor Government is supposed to be interested in ordinary battlers—ordinary is the great expression used by the failed Federal leader Kim Beasley—and tonight they are being betrayed. The Government is betraying young Australian families because of its greed to clutch money for infrastructure that it should have paid out of its own revenue channels. The Government has completely messed up the State's finances. It has had record revenues with nothing to show for it. The shortfall in the budget is heading towards $500 million and what is it doing about it? The Government is whipping up another tax.

The day of judgment for the honourable member for Camden and the honourable member for Maroubra will be in March 2007, when the people will say they have had enough. The Australian Labor Party was 100 per cent right when the Coalition Government imposed this tax 30 years ago and it should read the debate that occurred at that time. The Australian Labor Party was right then, it is wrong now, and it will be wrong in years to come. What happened to that legislation? The then Coalition Government was forced to repeal its legislation because it did not work. If this Government has guts it will do the same. New South Wales will be in a greater mess, housing will become less affordable , and the Government will bear the brunt.

The Government should think about this very serious matter because it will deny young Australians the right to get their own home. No-one should laugh about this matter. The Minister should look at this matter carefully. I do not know whether the Minister understands that he is imposing another tax. Development of a block of land costs almost $100,000, but when this additional tax is paid, which will be passed on to purchasers, it will cost $150,000 to $200,000 or more.

Mr Michael Daley: How much is it? You don't even know how much it is. You are just plucking a figure out of the air. You are guessing.

Mr WAYNE MERTON: Listen, eastern suburbs, when Bob left the seat he must have left you an instruction manual in the cupboard: play the court jester, play the fool and give crummy arguments without any substance. If you are half smart you will throw that book away.
The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Paul Lynch): Order! The member will direct his comments through the Chair. The honourable member for Maroubra will stop interjecting.

Mr WAYNE MERTON: The honourable member for Maroubra is not bright enough to be the court jester; that is his trouble. He is nowhere near Bob in the IQ stakes. He will never be the court jester. To be a stand-up comedian you have to have brains. It is regrettable that when they allocated brains the honourable member for Maroubra came a pretty poor third. He is sniggering away and arguing over amounts like that, but when the first young couple comes in and says they have been to north-western Sydney trying to buy a block of land that has increased from $400,000 to $625,000 what will he say? He will be able to tell them, "We sold you out. We sold you short. We stuffed up." I bet he will not tell them that. What will he tell them? Will the honourable member for Maroubra explain to them that the price of land has increased $200,000 or $300,000 because of this Government's mismanagement? Is it greed? Whatever it is, it is a monstrous failure. The honourable member should make a death-bed conversion, realise the error of his ways, and support the Opposition's amendment which gives young people a chance, because the Government's amendment gives them no hope.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Paul Lynch): If there is no further debate on that further proposition—

Mr Chris Hartcher: The Minister in reply?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Paul Lynch): Does the Minister wish to reply? If not, I shall—

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: There have been some very serious assertions put by the Coalition. I can do this.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Paul Lynch): Not as a point of order. It is not a point of order.

Mr Brad Hazzard: You have asked the Minister if he wants to reply. I ask him now to respond.

Mr Michael Daley: That's not a point of order.

Mr Brad Hazzard: You wouldn't know what a point of order is.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Paul Lynch): Order!! The honourable member for Wakehurst will resume his seat. That is not a point of order.

Question—That the amendment of Legislative Council amendment No. 1 be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

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

Mr Humpherson Mr Kerr Mr McTaggart Mr Merton Ms Moore Mr Oakeshott Mr O'Farrell Mr Page Mr Piccoli Mr Pringle Mr Richardson Mr Roberts Ms Seaton

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

Ms Allan Mr Amery Ms Andrews Mr Bartlett Ms Beamer Mr Black Mr Brown Mr Campbell Mr Chaytor Mr Collier Mr Corrigan Mr Crittenden Mr Daley Ms D'Amore Mr Debus Ms Gadiel

Mr Gaudry Mr Gibson Mr Greene Ms Hay Mr Hickey Mr Hunter Ms Judge Ms Keneally Mr McBride Mr McLeay Mr Mills Mr Morris Mr Newell Mr Orkopoulos Mr Pearce Mrs Perry

Mr Price Ms Saliba Mr Sartor Mr Scully Mr Shearan Mr Stewart Ms Tebbutt Mr Tripodi Mr Watkins Mr West Mr Whan Mr Yeadon Tellers, Mr Ashton Mr Martin

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendment of amendment negatived.

Legislative Council amendment No. 1 agreed to.

Mr FRANK SARTOR (Rockdale—Minister for Planning, Minister for Redfern Waterloo, Minister for Science and Medical Research, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Health (Cancer)) [9.25 p.m.]: I move:

That Legislative Council amendment No. 2 be agreed to.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER (Gosford) [9.25 p.m.]: I move:

That the amendment be amended by inserting at the end:

"(c) is to be tabled in each House of Parliament; and

(d) may be disallowed by either House of Parliament by resolution upon notice given within 14 days of tabling."

The Government inserted Legislative Council amendment No. 2 in the bill with the aim of ensuring that the Minister was required to state reasons for the infrastructure contributions he imposed and to make those reasons publicly available. However, that does not achieve the Government's stated objective, which is to ensure that the people of New South Wales retain sovereignty and oversight over the processes imposed by the Minister. The only way the people of New South Wales can retain oversight over the Minister's decisions is to ensure that Parliament retains that oversight. That is why the amendment provides for the Minister's reasons and the criteria advanced by him to be placed before the Parliament, and for the Parliament to have the right to disallow the criteria and/or the reasons.

That does not imply that the Coalition in any way supports what the Minister is seeking to do. It simply makes the point that finally the Minister will be accountable to the Parliament for the decision-making process, and the people of New South Wales will have a final say about the Minister's decisions. The Minister is seeking to aggrandise to himself total power over the regional contribution levies; he will decide what the levies will be. The people of New South Wales will only be able to find out the reasons the Minister is imposing the levies, but they will be able to exercise some oversight over the Minister's decisions through their elected representatives. Under this regime, the Minister is seeking to ensure that the State Government requires all home buyers to contribute to what are normally State Government expenses, that is, schools, hospitals, police and community centres. The Minister is saying that all matters that would normally be carried by the State Government should be borne by future home buyers, and he is not prepared to allow any oversight of that decision.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [9.29 p.m.]: The amendment moved by the Government is interesting in the sense that two weeks ago the Government brought to this House a bill that it purported to be a bill the House should accept in its entirety. In the upper House the Government was forced to undertake the consultation that the Opposition had been calling for. As a result, the Government found that its bill was fundamentally defective. Instead of suspending debate on the bill and allowing all members the opportunity to properly consider its provisions, the Government moved and accepted a number of amendments in the upper House. The Legislative Council amendment under consideration is yet another of the Government's reprehensible amendments. It does nothing but add a sweetener to the pill. It provides that the Minister's determination "is to contain reasons for the level and nature of the development contributions"—that is, to the Infrastructure Fund—"and is to be made publicly available by the Minister." Big deal!

Effectively, the amendment means that the Minister for Planning or his Labor successors can make any decision they like on how much extra money will be paid by the families of north-western, western and south-western Sydney for their new blocks. That extra impost could be up to $300,000. The Minister is effectively imposing a tax of up to $300,000 on the young families of north-western, western and south-western Sydney. It will be interesting to find out whether some Government members sitting in this Chamber right now will say anything. I refer to the honourable member for Londonderry, the honourable member for Riverstone, the honourable member for Camden and the honourable member for Macquarie Fields. They should speak up now on behalf of the families in their electorates who will be forced to make an additional payment of anything up to $300,000 to the Infrastructure Fund. Those members are interjecting, but they will not say anything in the Chamber about that additional impost. This is their opportunity, as members elected to Parliament to represent their constituents, to reject this additional tax on the families in their areas.

The amendment moved by the honourable member for Gosford aims to amend the Government's amendment to provide some accountability in the Minister's determinations—and just some! It states that after the Minister has given so-called reasons for his determination of the level and nature of the development contributions, and after he has made his determination publicly available, he is to table those in each of the Houses of this Parliament. What an extraordinary provision! Parliament wants to see what the Minister is doing to the families of New South Wales, especially the families of north-west Sydney, western Sydney and south-west Sydney—families that will pay an additional tax of up to $300,000 on their blocks of land. The Opposition supports the amendment moved by the honourable member for Gosford, because that amendment provides for some accountability in the Minister's determinations. But we oppose the bill and we oppose the Government amendment.

Mr Frank Sartor: Nonsense!

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: It is not nonsense. This is a “Trust me, I'm Frank” bill. We do not trust you, Frank. We do not. The honourable member for Bathurst might, because he does not live in an area whose constituents will be affected by these extra payments to the Infrastructure Fund. But the honourable member for Londonderry, the honourable member for Riverstone, the honourable member for Camden and the honourable member for Macquarie Fields, who do not want this extra Infrastructure Fund payment, should stand up and vote that way.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Paul Lynch): Order! The Chamber will come to order.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: If those members do not vote against this additional payment, the people in the electorates of Londonderry, Riverstone, Camden and Macquarie Fields should ensure that their Labor members of Parliament, who backed Minister Sartor's $300,000 infrastructure tax, are thrown out at the next election.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Paul Lynch): Order! All members will come to order.

Mr MICHAEL RICHARDSON (The Hills) [9.32 p.m.]: It is interesting that the Government should have introduced a piece of legislation that is so defective that it then saw fit to move and accept a significant number of amendments to it in the upper House. Proposed section 94EE is particularly deficient because it virtually gives the Minister carte blanche in determining the scale of the development contributions. What seriously concerns me—and should concern all members of this Chamber—is that proposed subsection 94EE (4) as inserted by schedule 1 to the bill provides:

A person cannot appeal to the Court under this Act in respect of a determination of the Minister under this section.

There is no avenue of appeal—none whatsoever! The Minister is to be the sole determiner of the scale of the development contribution. The Government's amendment of its own bill will insert a new subsection (4) of the section, providing:

The determination of the Minister:

(a) is to contain reasons for the level and nature of the development contributions, and

(b) is to be made publicly available by the Minister.

That simply does not go far enough. It is a token gesture offered to crossbenchers in the upper House to woo them across. Well, the people of New South Wales will not be wooed across. They will make their decision on 24 March next year—and it will not be in the Government's favour! This bill will be one of the key pieces of legislation that will cause the demise of the Iemma Government. The amendment moved in this Chamber by the honourable member for Gosford seeks to restore a degree of sanity and at least some accountability to the Minister on this issue. The honourable member for Gosford has moved that the determination on the quantum of the development contribution is to be tabled in each House of Parliament, and that it may be disallowed by either House of Parliament by resolution upon notice given within 14 days of tabling. That is what currently happens regarding regulations, and it is what Coalition members think should happen with these development contributions.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Paul Lynch): Order! About three-quarters of the members in the Chamber are conducting private conversations. I ask those members to do so outside the Chamber so that the rest of us can continue with the business of the Committee.

Mr MICHAEL RICHARDSON: After all, Parliament is the supreme law-making body in this State, and Parliament should have the final say on the size of those contributions. Parliament can determine whether they are reasonable, or whether they are excessive. Knowing the way that this Government operates, and understanding that here it is essentially introducing a new tax on young home buyers in this State, you can bet your bottom dollar that that contribution will be excessive. Anything that the Minister brings down in the way of a development contribution will be excessive. What really concerns me about the bill is that there is no way of redressing the Minister's determination after he has made it.

Amendment of amendment negatived.

Legislative Council amendment No. 2 agreed to.

Motion by Mr Frank Sartor agreed to:

That Legislative Council amendments Nos 3, 4 and 5 be agreed to.

Mr FRANK SARTOR (Rockdale—Minister for Planning, Minister for Redfern Waterloo, Minister for Science and Medical Research, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Health (Cancer)) [9.36 p.m.]: I move:

That Legislative Council amendment No. 6 be agreed to.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER (Gosford) [9.37 p.m.]: The Opposition will not move an amendment; it will vote against the motion to defeat the Legislative Council's amendment. The panel system introduced by the Minister in his bill will prevent local councils from making development decisions and vest those decisions in the Minister or in his creation. The panel to be appointed by the Minister—panels that he is now limiting in time—are still panels of his creation. They are not panels representative of the community. The panel members are people that the Minister chooses and trusts, but they will be people in whom the community cannot repose any trust or confidence, because at the end of the day they will be the Minister's puppets. He will use them as his delegates and substitutes—not to make the decision himself, but to delegate it to a group of people in whom he has confidence. That is not sensible town planning. It is ministerial planning one level removed.

Mr Frank Sartor: You supported it, and so does the former Leader of the Opposition.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: The Minister mischievously argues that the former Leader of the Coalition, the former member for Pittwater, supported panels. The former member for Pittwater and Leader of the Opposition, John Brogden, argued for panels as recommendation bodies, not as the deciding authorities. The Minister is making them deciders. John Brogden argued that their role be analysis, community participation and recommendation. The Minister is being mischievous in misrepresenting the Coalition's position. We believe that at the end of the day local communities are best equipped to make local decisions. Instead, the Minister will have ministerial power vested in him or, one step removed, in panels that he will create and whose members he will appoint and control. This amendment is simply an attempt by the Minister to entrench his position over a period of time. He moved this amendment at the behest of the Christian Democratic Party in the Legislative Council, and it is rejected.
Legislative Council Amendment No. 6 agreed to.

Motion by Mr Frank Sartor agreed to:

That Legislative Council amendment No. 7 be agreed to.

Mr FRANK SARTOR (Rockdale—Minister for Planning, Minister for Redfern Waterloo, Minister for Science and Medical Research, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Health (Cancer)) [9.40 p.m.]: I move:

That Legislative Council amendments Nos 8 and 9 be agreed to.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER (Gosford) [9.40 p.m.]: Amendments Nos 8 and 9 relate to the appointment of planning administrators or panels. The Coalition does not accept the Minister's power to appoint planning administrators or panels, for the simple reason that, once again, he is seeking control. This is merely a device so that he can avoid making the decision himself and instead vest it in administrators or panels that he appoints. It is the total aggregation of power in the Minister and his delegates, an ongoing attempt by him to destroy all stages of development in this State—with the exception of being able to glass in your veranda. Under these clauses, even the smallest scale of developments can be vested in the Minister. He will have total power. It is his administrator, his planning panel. Accordingly, the amendments moved by the Minister are not supported.

Ms CLOVER MOORE (Bligh) [9.41 p.m.]: Earlier the Minister referred to a letter that I had written to him about the Central Sydney Planning Committee. I wish to make some comments about the Central Sydney Planning Committee in relation to this part of the amendments that relates to setting up panels. I repeat the point I made in my contribution to the second reading debate about the undemocratic nature of what the Minister is seeking to do. I want to reflect upon the Central Sydney Planning Committee, which was set up by the Greiner Government in 1989, when we had the carve up of the city of Sydney. I did not support that legislation at that time and was very concerned about the people who made up the members of the Central Sydney Planning Committee when it was first established. Indeed, over many years I made numerous submissions to that committee because I was concerned about decisions it was making.

The argument put forward at the time Parliament established the Central Sydney Planning Committee—Parliament established the Central Sydney Planning Committee, not the Minister—was that the Central Sydney Planning Committee was needed for Sydney because the Sydney central business district—the central business district of Australia's only global city—was different. It was different from every other local government area in the State, and probably the country. It was a special case. It needed special considerations for developments over $15 million because it was dealing with the central Sydney planning district. Parliament established that the members of that committee would not be chosen in an arbitrary way, as this legislation provides for. Instead, it would be the Director General of Planning, the Government Architect and two other appointees with particular qualifications. Currently we have Neil Bird with planning and architectural qualifications, and we have Antoinette Le Marchant with special education qualifications.

As I said in my letter to the Minister, I believe that the current Central Sydney Planning Committee works very well because of the people who are on it and because it is a special case—a special case, making decisions about central Sydney planning. I also point out that the Central Sydney Planning Committee does not make decisions behind closed doors. The Central Sydney Planning Committee makes decisions in the City of Sydney council chamber. Developers and members of the community can come and address that committee and those decisions are made in an open forum. That is not what we have before us. What we have before us is an arbitrary basis to set up these panels and administrators without having to give any reason.

I remind the House that this Minister, when he was Lord Mayor of Sydney, called upon Peter Macdonald, John Hatton and me, when we held the balance of power, to oppose Gerry Peacocke's threat to sack his council. I supported him at that time for the very reason I am opposing his legislation now, which is going against the interests of all local government communities.

Mr Frank Sartor: This is not about sacking councils; this is about avoiding sacking councils.

Ms CLOVER MOORE: You are so hypocritical! You are so hypocritical, Frank Sartor! You were a local government representative for 12 years and then became a Minister, and you now treat other local government representatives with contempt. It is appalling! I am so disappointed. I was expecting so much more from you as planning Minister. I think of how you called for reforms to the court. What we have now is an attempt to emasculate democratic processes and deny local communities their right to be involved in their communities and in the planning process. It is a real indictment on you. It is an indictment on the Government and an indictment on the Shooters Party, David Oldfield and Fred Nile, who supported you.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [9.45 p.m.]: With regard to amendments Nos 8 and 9, it is interesting to note that if the Government had done all the consulting it should have done, this bill would not now be requiring amendment. These amendments should not have been necessary if the Government had engaged in the consultation one would expect of a government proposing to make such substantive changes to planning processes. The Minister should look at what the amendments contain. He may have got it wrong. Just on a technicality, amendment No. 7 comes in after amendment No. 5 and therefore becomes the new No. 6. I think it should be looked at because I think the Government has got the numbers wrong. I think we should be up to amendment No. 8, rather than No. 7.

The real problem with this is the panel and the administrator. What the Government is seeking to do here, yet again, is simply to override the local community through the establishment of an administrator or a panel. I drew attention to concerns expressed by members of the Opposition and made my views known during the second reading debate. Those concerns have not in any way been curtailed by these amendments. Our concerns remain. The Minister is attempting to override democracy. Unfortunately, even if the Minister believes that councils sometimes have to take a little time and that their democratic processes are a little tardy, the option of having tardy democracy is far better than a lousy dictatorship. These amendments amount to Dictator Sartor getting to override the local communities. I know that local communities sometimes get it wrong. I know that sometimes they take a little too long—

Mr Frank Sartor: Not communities, councils.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: The Minister seeks to distinguish between communities and councils. The councils are our communities.

Mr Frank Sartor: They think they are the community; they are often not.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: Councils are the representatives of our communities, and under the Local Government Act they our elected to represent those communities. They should have the final right to make decisions that affect them. Frank, the fact is that you do not know the first thing about the electorate of Wakehurst. You currently have another effort called in at Oxford Falls and local members and the local community are totally opposed to the proposed development at Oxford Falls. You just do not understand our area. The bottom line is that councils, for all their sins and all their failures, do understand the local areas. I have no doubt that this is a very unfortunate exercise. It is an attack on democracy. Frank, I think that probably only you could have convinced the Labor Party that this attack on democracy is an appropriate way to go to override communities and councils.

Mr Frank Sartor: This is about accountability, Brad.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: The Minister says it is about accountability. There is absolutely no accountability on your part. You can do what you damned well like. You can set up panels—

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Paul Lynch): Order! The Minister will cease interjecting and the honourable member for Wakehurst will direct his comments through the Chair.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: The Minister who just made those odious comments can absolutely ignore democracy and, so far as accountability is concerned, there is none. There is no accountability in the bill and none in these amendments. At the end of the day he has destroyed, for councils and for communities, the power to determine their own future and he will hang for that.

Legislative Council amendments Nos 8 and 9 agreed to.

Resolution reported from Committee.

Mr FRANK SARTOR (Rockdale—Minister for Planning, Minister for Redfern Waterloo, Minister for Science and Medical Research, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Health (Cancer)) [9.51 p.m.]: I move:

That the report be now adopted.

The House divided.

Ms Allan Mr Amery Ms Andrews Mr Bartlett Ms Beamer Mr Black Mr Brown Mr Campbell Mr Chaytor Mr Collier Mr Corrigan Mr Crittenden Mr Daley Ms D'Amore Mr Debus Ms Gadiel

Mr Gaudry Mr Gibson Mr Greene Ms Hay Mr Hickey Mr Hunter Ms Judge Ms Keneally Mr Lynch Mr McBride Mr McLeay Mr Mills Mr Morris Mr Newell Mr Orkopoulos Mr Pearce

Mrs Perry Mr Price Ms Saliba Mr Sartor Mr Scully Mr Shearan Mr Stewart Ms Tebbutt Mr Tripodi Mr Watkins Mr West Mr Whan Mr Yeadon Tellers, Mr Ashton Mr Martin

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

Mr Humpherson Mr Kerr Mr McTaggart Mr Merton Ms Moore 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

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

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

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [9.58 p.m.]: As I indicated earlier, the Opposition does not oppose the bill. However, we have raised some concerns, particularly the tardiness of the Government in introducing it. As I said earlier today, the Government has been tardy in dealing with child protection issues, which are of great importance when considering matters that involve a conflict of jurisdictions. This legislation has come about as a result of the Hague Child Prevention Convention. For many years it has been unclear, when there is a contest between jurisdictions, which jurisdiction should take control of the proceedings in the best interests and welfare of the child. For example, during a dispute about a child protection order or a Family Court order in New South Wales, a child may be spirited away to France or another overseas country. If the overseas country is a signatory to this convention, arrangements are laid down in this bill to clarify who has the jurisdiction to deal with the matter. This is a critical piece of legislation. Proposed section 12 states:

A New South Wales authority may, if it considers that it is in the child's best interests, accept or reject a request made under Article 8 of the Child Protection Convention by a competent authority of a Convention country for the New South Wales authority to assume jurisdiction to take a New South Wales personal protection measure relating to the child.

A New South Wales authority, which would generally be a court but may be a public official, if it considers it is in the child's best interest, can accept or reject a request from an overseas country that is a signatory to this convention for New South Wales to assume jurisdiction. This provision allows New South Wales the final determination as to whether it is sensible and reasonable and in the best interests of the child for New South Wales authorities to accept responsibility.

Similar provisions are contained in the balance of the legislation. The Opposition does not oppose the legislation. However, when children at risk of harm notices have reached a figure of more than 300,000 a year in New South Wales, we consider it ironic that we can deal with the international aspects of child protection far better than child protection issues within New South Wales. Roughly one in ten of the children at risk of harm notices is fully investigated. Many reports are closed by the Department of Community Services [DOCS]. That is not a reflection on the DOCS officers. I know many DOCS officers who work very hard under enormous stress and pressure. The Government has not put sufficient resources into the Department of Community Services.

We often hear that the Government has allocated large sums of money to the department. To some degree the Government has provided money but it has failed to restructure the department. Government members have criticised the Opposition for refusing to confirm that we would employ the same number of DOCS officers as the Government has committed to. I remind the House that it was only after the Opposition raised this issue for three years—and I was the shadow Minister for Community Services at the time—that the Government was finally forced to act and agreed to put more money into DOCS. The Opposition made the point prior to the last election that we wanted to restructure DOCS. We agreed with Maurie O'Sullivan from the Public Service Association that the Department of Community Service needed to be restructured to better protect children. To that extent, the Opposition said that we would look at how to implement the measures that Maurie O'Sullivan and other witnesses had recommended to an upper House inquiry.

Government members have carried on with a lot of hoo-ha, but even with all the resources the Government has thrown at this issue it still has not managed to get child protection right. This is an appropriate opportunity for the Opposition to remind the Government of its obligations. It has implemented the international measures in response to the Howard Government's push to include the Hague convention in State legislation. It is time the Government looked in its own backyard and made sure that our own children are given the support and protection they need under the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act. The 83 Community Service Commission officers around the State need additional resources, additional support and better methods of dealing with child protection.

Ms ANGELA D'AMORE (Drummoyne) [10.04 p.m.]: I support this important bill. Australia's ratification of the Child Protection Convention imposed certain obligations on Australia. Until now both the family law and child protection aspects of the convention have been implemented in New South Wales by Commonwealth legislation, namely, the Family Law Act 1975 and the Family Law (Child Protection) Regulation 2003. At the time of ratification of the convention the States agreed with the Commonwealth that they would take responsibility for matters that are traditionally State responsibility, such as child protection orders and orders to protect a child's property. This bill will make New South Wales the third Australian jurisdiction to assume the child protection aspects of the convention from the Commonwealth, as was originally contemplated.

Consistent with the convention the bill, which is based on the Queensland model, aims to ensure the best interests of the child, promote co-operation between convention countries, overcome conflicts over jurisdiction and its limitations in respect of child protection measures, determine applicable laws, and provide for the recognition and enforcement of measures to protect children and their property. Currently, only seven countries have both signed and ratified the convention. However, it is expected that up to 27 counties will have done so in the not-too-distant future. We look forward to that. This will in time lead to a significant increase in the number of children who will benefit from the provisions of this legislation.

In addition to the significant benefits already identified by the Minister, this bill will overcome some jurisdictional confusion that has arisen as a result of the child protection aspects of the convention being implemented by the Commonwealth, pending the commencement of State legislation. Under the current scheme, State child protection orders are given different priority when the Hague convention applies, compared to the usual priority under section 69ZK of the Family Law Act. This section normally gives priority to State child welfare laws. However, according to the rules of the convention, if a New South Wales care order conflicts with a foreign child protection order that is registered under the family law amendments, the Family Court order prevails.

For example, a child in New South Wales is removed from his Latvian mother because the child is at immediate risk of serious harm. The director general applies to the Children's Court for an emergency care and protection order. The allegation is that when the child goes to his father's place for contact he is physically abused. The mother allows her child to go to his father's place. When the matter is heard in the Children's Court, it comes to light that a previous foreign parentage order has been registered in the Family Court. That order allowed the child to have unsupervised contact with his father. On the most recent occasion the father has severely beaten the child. That has led to a report to the Department of Community Services Helpline and the emergency removal of the child. The issue then arises as to which court would hear the matter.

Under the current system the Family Court would have jurisdiction as a result of the application of the convention and the Commonwealth legislation implementing it, whereas section 69ZK of the Family Law Act contemplates that the State Children's Court would have jurisdiction. The enactment of this bill will eliminate this jurisdictional conflict and avoid the legal confusion that currently exists. The ratification of the Child Protection Convention by Australia has been a positive step in international co-operation in the interests of all children. The enactment of this bill will further enhance the safety, welfare and wellbeing of New South Wales Children in convention countries and children and young people from convention countries in New South Wales. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms VIRGINIA JUDGE (Strathfield) [10.08 p.m.]: I support the Child Protection (International Measures) Bill. I compliment the Minister, her hard-working staff and the department for the introduction of this bill. In my brief contribution to the second reading debate, I will refer to practical examples that will result from ratification of the Child Protection Convention. The enactment of this bill will have significant benefits for children and young people. Of course, children are our most precious resource and need to be protected. The best way to illustrate the proposed application of the provisions of the bill is by way of practical examples.

The first example I will give concerns a situation where there is a child in New South Wales from a convention country and the central authority of the foreign convention country requests assistance from New South Wales in recognising and enforcing a child protection measure that was made in that convention country. The mother of a child who lives in a convention country is proposing to bring the child to Australia, perhaps for a contact visit with a relative. The child is the subject of child protection measures in her home country concerning the relative, and Australia has been asked to register and enforce the protection measures here.

The child protection measure requires that contact visits between the child and. the relative are supervised. The central authority in the convention country requests that Australia agree to register and enforce the child protection measure. The foreign protection order can be registered in the Children's Court, which means the New South Wales central authority, the Department of Community Services [DOCS] can legally supervise the contact. Another example concerns a situation where there is a child in New South Wales from a foreign convention country and DOCS proposes to exercise jurisdiction. A family comes to the attention of DOCS for child protection reasons. DOCS establishes that there are child protection orders in existence from Morocco. Under the provisions of this bill DOCS can apply to have the Moroccan measures recognised and enforced in New South Wales. Alternatively, DOCS can take the view that the Moroccan measures are inadequate and that further care orders are required.

The third example concerns a situation where there is a child from New South Wales in a convention country where DOCS proposes to initiate an application. The child is the subject of care proceedings in New South Wales in which certain care orders were made. The child's family are non-residents and they want to go back to live in their country of origin, which happens to be a convention country. DOCS forms the view that it would be in the best interests of the child to transfer the child protection measures overseas. The bill provides a mechanism for the New South Wales child protection measures to be recognised and enforced in another convention country. The fourth example concerns a situation where there is a child from New South Wales in a convention country and the foreign convention country proposes to take action to protect the child. The child is habitually resident in New South Wales. The child travels to England with his mother to visit his maternal grandmother and extended family, all of whom live in England. The child has no relatives in Australia. The child comes to the attention of the child protection authorities in England when the mother dies suddenly of a drug overdose.
The English authorities consider that they are best placed to assess the child's best interests and exercise jurisdiction. The bill provides for the English authorities to make a request to DOCS via the Australian Commonwealth central authority for consent to exercise jurisdiction. DOCS consents, and the English court makes an order, placing the child under the parental responsibility of the maternal grandmother. If one were to summarise the bill, one could say that it basically aims to streamline the protection of children, helps to minimise red tape during visitations and upholds the principles of the Hague Convention of the United Nations relating to children which was passed in 1996 and ratified by the Commonwealth in 2004. Before concluding my remarks on the bill, I point out that earlier today during debate the honourable member for Wakehurst criticised the Government for the time taken to bring this legislation before the House. He cited certain facts and figures. I state very firmly and soundly on the public record that when the Coalition Opposition went to the electors in 2003, its policy was to cut 675 caseworkers from DOCS.

Mr David Campbell: That is a disgrace.

Ms VIRGINIA JUDGE: It is an absolute disgrace. It just an example of people spouting anything, but the key point to note is their actions. Coalition policy would have cut $700 million from the DOCS budget, which is an absolute disgrace, especially when compared to the Government's policy—a government that is prepared to put its money where its mouth is. This Government has employed another 875 new caseworkers and has undertaken a $1.2 billion reform program to double frontline services. This Government puts people where they are needed to ensure that children are provided with the services they need to be adequately and fully protected—as they should be. The next time the honourable member for Wakehurst is inclined to spout all types of inaccurate comments, he should remember what I have said tonight. I would like to see the Opposition's policy for the next election. I would bet it will be even worse than the one I have mentioned, based on the Opposition's current record.

The countries that have ratified the convention are Australia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Monaco, Morocco, as I mentioned in one of the examples to which I referred, Slovakia and Slovenia. A number of countries have signed the convention but have not yet ratified it, and two countries have acceded. In conclusion, I reiterate that it is great that this Government is taking the step of ratifying the convention by introducing this bill. This Government cares about our children and our young people, our families and our communities. This Government strives to ensure that all people enjoy one of the most basic human rights: to be safe and secure. As can be seen from the examples to which I have referred, the bill will provide significant practical benefits for the protection of children and young people and their property in this State and in this great nation of ours. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL (Keira—Minister for Water Utilities, Minister for Small Business, Minister for Regional Development, and Minister for the Illawarra) [10.16 p.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members who participated in the debate and expressed support for the Child Protection (International Measures) Bill. I particularly acknowledge the thoughtful and constructive contributions by the honourable member for Drummoyne and the honourable member for Strathfield. They made thoughtful contributions to an important debate on an important bill. I also thank the officers of the Department of Community Services for their contribution and support in bringing the legislation to fruition. I also thank the Minister for Community Services, and Minister for Youth for her foresight in ensuring that this legislation was presented to the Parliament of New South Wales. This legislation will create greater co-operation between international jurisdictions to enhance the safety, wellbeing and protection of children, wherever they might be in the world. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.