Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Assembly, 24 October 2006, Corrected Copy)

Mr Speaker (The Hon. John Joseph Aquilina) took the chair at 2.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.

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

Assent to the following bills reported:

Crimes (Appeal and Review) Amendment (Double Jeopardy) Bill
Crimes (Appeal and Review) Amendment (DNA Review Panel) Bill

Mr Speaker announced the receipt, pursuant to section 23 (1) of the Law Enforcement (Controlled Operations) Act 1997, of the report entitled "Law Enforcement (Controlled Operations) Act Annual Report 2005-2006", dated October 2006.

Ordered to be printed.

Petition opposing the proposed ferry fares increase, received from Mr David Barr.

Petition requesting adequate commuter parking facilities at Hornsby and Berowra train stations, received from Mrs Judy Hopwood.

Petition praying that the Government urgently improve bus service 311 to make it more frequent and more reliable, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Petition asking that the Government urgently reinstate the former timetables of bus services 326 and 327, received from Ms Clover Moore.

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 trail bike activities be moved from Newnes and Ben Bullen State Forests to Sunny Corner pine plantation, received from Ms Clover Moore.
Petition calling upon the Iemma Government to allocate more police resources to rural and regional communities throughout New South Wales, received from Ms Katrina Hodgkinson.

Petition requesting a permanent 24-hour police station at Forster-Tuncurry, received from Mr John Turner.

Petition opposing proposed changes to the National Art School, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Petitions requesting funding to ensure access to breast screening services for women aged 40 to 79 years and to reverse falling participation rates, received from Ms Katrina Hodgkinson and Mrs Judy Hopwood.

Petition requesting increased funding to community-based preschools so that young children are able to access two years of preschool before they start school, received from Mr Greg Aplin.

Petition requesting the total ban of sow stalls, received from Ms Clover Moore.

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

Petition calling on the Government to abandon its Crown land conversion policy in favour of that put forward by The Nationals, received from Ms Katrina Hodgkinson.

Petition requesting that the building of the Galston electricity substation be brought forward, received from Mrs Judy Hopwood.

Petition requesting increased funding for, and expansion of, inner city alcohol and drug services, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Petition requesting a public inquiry into Hornsby Shire Council's acquisition of CSR Quarry in Hornsby, received from Mrs Judy Hopwood.

Petition requesting an inquiry into Kempsey Shire Council, received from Mr Andrew Stoner.
Petition requesting funding for the installation of traffic lights at the intersection of Hastings Road and Old Northern Road, Castle Hill, received from Mr Michael Richardson.

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

Mr Kevin Greene, as Chairman, tabled report No. 53/07, entitled "2005 Conference Report—The National Parliamentary Public Works and Environment Committee Conference, Canberra, and the International Town Centres and Communities Conference, Yeppoon", dated October 2006.

Ordered to be printed.

Mr Allan Shearan, as Chairman, tabled the report entitled "Legislation Review Digest No. 15 of 2006", dated 24 October 2006, together with minute extracts regarding "Legislation Review Digest No. 14 of 2006" and minute extracts regarding report No. 6, entitled "Strict and Absolute Liability—Responses to the Discussion Paper".

Report ordered to be printed.

Mr PETER DEBNAM: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Police. Given in the last hour the Premier refused three times to confirm the Minister will be the Minister for Police until the March election, will he now do the honourable thing by the people of New South Wales and resign?

Mr CARL SCULLY: Last week when I was asked a question about the Cronulla report, I should have answered the question by informing the House that the report had not been concluded, it was not complete, it had not been finished. I should have made it plain to the House that a working draft had been made available to the Commissioner of Police for his perusal and was subject to further interview with the author and to a submission by affected officers, and that the process had some way to run. I regret not making it clearer to the House. I should have used more precise language. I also make it plain: Let us not lose sight of the fact that it was the Commissioner of Police who made the decision, quite appropriately, to commission the report, the conclusion of which is quite near.

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

Ms ANGELA D'AMORE: My question without notice is addressed to the Premier. What is the latest information on Government efforts to further protect children at risk?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: A stable home and family life is every child's right. Families and governments must work together to bring that about and to ensure that children can experience their formative years in safety and security and with maximum enjoyment and growth. Whilst most parents do a good job, sadly, some neglect and abuse their children every day. It is our job to step in and provide the protection they should be able to take as a birthright. Child abuse is a complex and difficult social problem that can often lead to children having to be removed from their parents' care. Under the current rules when child protection caseworkers remove a child from parents, they have to provide evidence to the Children's Court as to why it was necessary to remove the child. If those parents have another baby, the caseworkers have to provide new evidence that those parents cannot care for the subsequent child. A virtual double jeopardy currently exists in the child abuse laws because past abuse is not counted.

However, when we are dealing with the lives of children that is a chance we cannot take. Internal figures from the Department of Community Services, the agency whose priority is always the safety and wellbeing of children, show that nine child deaths in New South Wales occurred when vulnerable children were left in the care of parents despite a history of their siblings having been removed. We are always looking at ways to update child protection laws. These changes will reverse the onus of proof, stacking the odds higher in favour of the child when a parent has already been proven to be an offender. The changes will also apply when a person has been identified by the Coroner or the police in connection with a child death. In the past it was up to caseworkers to prove these parents were at fault. The sad truth is that some parents are indifferent to the welfare of their children, and when another child comes along we must use the previous experiences of community service workers and that family's history to make our judgments to help to protect all children under the care of that family.

Under the changes parents will need to prove to the court that they have overcome the risks previously identified. That might include taking steps such as drug and alcohol rehabilitation, anger management courses or parenting programs, or proving that an abusive partner has left the home for good. We will always fight hard for vulnerable children, but parents must take responsibility for their own behaviour and prove that they have the capacity to look after a child. We are not prepared to find out the hard way that the lessons of those who have placed children at risk or who have been identified as persons of interest in relation to the death of a child have not been learnt. We are determined to ensure that our caseworkers have the legal right to move more swiftly to protect children.

Mr ANDREW STONER: My question is directed to the Minister for Police. Given that he has finally admitted that he was briefed on the contents of the Hazzard report more than three weeks ago, and given that he lied to the St George and Sutherland Shire Leader last Sunday when he denied being briefed on the report, when will he do the honourable thing and resign?

Mr CARL SCULLY: I told the St George and Sutherland Leader that there was a bureaucratic process still to run, and that was correct.

Mrs KARYN PALUZZANO: My question without notice is to the Minister for Education and Training. Will the Minister inform the House about what the Government is doing to maintain the integrity of the opportunity class and selective schools tests?

Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT: I thank the honourable member for her interest in this important educational issue. The Government is addressing concerns that have been expressed about the conduct of some private coaching colleges, which have received a lot of coverage in recent weeks. Parents should be wary about using colleges that make claims that cannot be independently verified. The Government recognises that the State's public selective high schools and opportunity classes are world-class and places in them are highly prized. Parents want to maximise their child's success, and that is understandable, and they will reasonably attempt to provide whatever opportunities they can. Of course, coaching and tutoring colleges have flourished in that sort of market. This is not a new thing. Coaching and tutoring colleges of some sort or another have existed in all societies while ever exams have existed, whether it is a schoolteacher coaching students after school or on weekends, a friend of a child's parents who is providing extra help, or a formal coaching college with structured classes. The coaching and tutoring industry exists, formal and informal, in a multitude of styles.

It was this Government that first urged the coaching college industry to ensure the quality of its services through self-regulation. The Government wrote to all coaching colleges in 2004 calling for the establishment of an industry body that would develop, promote and monitor standards, and the formation of the Australian Tutoring Association was the response. The association has grown rapidly and has a code of conduct that binds its members to high standards and accountability to consumers. Better community awareness of the association is certainly important. This is a way to stamp out unethical practices in the tutoring industry and to protect children's best interests. At the same time, of course, fair trading provisions allow coaching colleges that make false or misleading claims to be prosecuted, as should occur with any business that deliberately misleads consumers.

In light of the concerns aired last month, I met with the Australian Tutoring Association and heard its views on how we can better address these issues. It is clear that the association is building broad community awareness about its role. It has about 300 members and is establishing clear standards for the industry. The association is concerned, as others have been, that some coaching colleges have sought a competitive advantage by telling clients that they have access to exam papers for selective classes and schools that have not been publicly released.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Why not release them all?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Education and Training has the call.

Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT: Just listen!

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

Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT: There are 31 selective high schools and 72 primary schools with opportunity classes in New South Wales that cater to the needs of academically gifted and talented students. Entry to those classes is highly competitive. Students at those schools regularly achieve very high results in the Higher School Certificate. The tests conducted for entry to year 5 opportunity classes and year 7 selective high schools have been developed as ability tests. They do not test the curriculum as such; they do not require the acquisition of specific curriculum-based knowledge or skills. They test students' ability. They include a reading, maths and general ability component. The high school test also includes a writing task. The tests are high quality and have been developed by the Australian Council for Educational Research. They are very difficult because they are set for entry level at a selective high school or opportunity class. A sample paper has been available to applicants since 2001 so that students can become familiar with both the concepts and content, and practice their test-taking techniques.

Today the Government set a new direction for students to protect parents from the extravagant claims of some coaching colleges by publicly releasing the exam papers for access to opportunity classes and selective high schools. That action will ensure that all prospective students get the opportunity to become familiar with the format of questions in previous tests. That move will provide a level playing field for all students. It will also remove the advantage that some in the industry have paraded by claiming to possess exam papers that are not publicly available. The move has been strongly welcomed by the Australian Tutoring Association. The Government will progressively release the tests over the coming months because copyright issues associated with some elements of the tests are yet to be resolved. The maths and general ability components of the selective test and the opportunity class placement test from 2001 have been made available on the Internet this afternoon. As I said, other tests will follow.

These steps will go a long way towards addressing issues that have been raised previously. I advise parents who are seeking additional support for their child to ensure that their coaching provider is a member of the association, and I strongly urge parents to notify the Department of Fair Trading of any false or misleading claims made by coaching colleges. I also appreciate the approach taken by my colleague the Minister for Fair Trading when she warned parents last month to be particularly cautious when signing up with online or in-home tutoring colleges. The Minister advises me that her department will not hesitate to prosecute organisations that mislead parents. This is a balanced approach. It provides access to past exam papers for students—

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Education and Training has the call.

Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT: —and continues with the Australian Tutoring Association's self-regulation, which, as I said, provides the right balance between protecting the interests of consumers and looking after the interests of New South Wales parents and students.
Mr PETER DEBNAM: My question is to the Minister for Police. Given community concern about the revenge attacks that followed the Cronulla riots and the Government's failure to protect the community on those nights, will the Minister table the Sorrenson and Jeffries report today?

Mr CARL SCULLY: My understanding is that the commissioner proposes to release it shortly.

Mr KEVIN GREENE: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Transport. What is the latest information on measures to improve reliability of passenger rail services and related matters?

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

Mr JOHN WATKINS: I thank the honourable member for Georges River for the opportunity to update the House on rail issues. As honourable members are aware, a rare event occurred on the Illawarra line at Oatley—

[Interruption]

It was not a laughing matter for the people who were on the train. The incident at Oatley yesterday had a wide-reaching impact on South Coast, St George and Sutherland shire commuters. RailCorp is reviewing the cause of the incident, in which overhead wires became entangled in the train's pantograph. Early indications are that a manufacturing fault in an overhead fitting failed. Today I saw photographs of that fitting. The Chief Executive Officer of RailCorp explained that the fitting has been in place for a number of years and there was a fault in the metal when it was made. However, further investigations are being undertaken. RailCorp advises that this type of failure is very uncommon; indeed, it holds no record of similar incidents. The incident occurred on a section of line between Mortdale and Sutherland, where the Government is spending $20 million on an overhead wiring rebuild. I am advised that the entire line between Wolli Creek and Sutherland has been rebuilt from the ground up—a massive project, completed just last year.

Yesterday I apologised to commuters for the delays and inconvenience yesterday's incident caused, and particularly for the distress and delays caused to High School Certificate [HSC] students. I thank them for their patience, and I apologise again today. I also acknowledge CityRail staff for working hard in difficult circumstances, and at short notice, to organise alternative transport and to restore services for the evening peak. It was their personal dedication that meant HSC students made it to their exams as fast as possible in the circumstances. I am advised that CityRail arranged taxis for 22 HSC students and, despite the heavy commitment of buses during that time—which occurs in every morning peak—36 buses were running by 8.00 a.m. and 55 buses were running by 9.00 a.m.

Mr Peter Debnam: Point of order: On a point of clarification. Has the Minister for Police resigned?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Minister for Transport has the call.

Mr JOHN WATKINS: While we are discussing reliability on the rail network, one wonders what reliability on the rail network would be like when the Leader of the Opposition sacks 29,000 public sector workers. That is his plan if he ever becomes Premier of this State: to sack 29,000 public sector workers. That includes signallers, drivers, and staff on stations. What would that do to reliability on the rail network? We are gradually grinding out our performance. What the Leader of the Opposition would do to the rail network is beyond belief. Rather than threatening to sack CityRail workers, I thank them for the work they did yesterday in getting those HSC students to their schools. CityRail organised alternative transport for them, and it worked hard to restore services for the evening peak. It was their personal dedication that meant that HSC students made it to their exams as fast as possible in the circumstances. Twenty-two HSC students had taxis arranged for them and 55 buses were running by 9.00 a.m.

Mr Andrew Stoner: That is tedious repetition.

Mr JOHN WATKINS: This is a good news story; it deserves repetition.
Mr Andrew Stoner: We want to hear about Casino to Murwillumbah—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals will come to order

Mr JOHN WATKINS: The Leader of The Nationals rabbits on about the Casino to Murwillumbah rail line. We have made it very clear that we put money on the table—$75 million. I have written to the Federal Minister and said, "You match that. You put it up, dollar for dollar, and we will reopen that line." I would give the order as soon as the Federal Minister provides that commitment.

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

Mr JOHN WATKINS: Members of the Nationals, who betray their electorates—

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

Mr JOHN WATKINS: Members of The Nationals should get on the phone to Canberra and tell The Nationals down there to cough up the $75 million. We have put the money on the table; we will reopen the line. It is about time The Nationals got on with the task of working for the people of the north-eastern part of the State.

I have digressed. Returning to yesterday's incident, I understand that while the timetable was interrupted, service frequency was maintained throughout the evening peak. I can also advise that 99 per cent of this morning's services were on time across the network. Indeed, 100 per cent of services on the eastern suburbs, Illawarra and South Coast lines were on time this morning. That does not make up for the problem that occurred yesterday, but it is certainly a good indication that reliability on the rail network is improving.

Yesterday's incident is a reminder that the job of improving reliability on the network is an ongoing task. We have made real progress with new timetables and record driver numbers, but there is more work to be done. That is why we are pursuing a range of measures to build on these improvements, including new door motors on older trains, new door locking mechanisms, and major rebuilds of rail lines. Today I can update the House on further steps to boost reliability, by protecting passenger trains from the impact of freight incidents.

I am advised that this year more than 900 passenger trains have been delayed by mechanical faults on 266 freight trains, which means that hundreds of thousands of passengers on CityRail trains have had their trips delayed because there has been a problem on a freight train on the network. We cannot ban freight trains from the CityRail network. The history of Sydney as a port and the importance of Port Botany mean that getting freight trains through the CityRail network is critically important to the economy of New South Wales. Indeed, we restrict the times at which freight trains can move into the CityRail network to the middle of the day and, in particular, during the evening. Freight trains do not enter the CityRail network during the morning and afternoon peak; they are kept at the outer edges of the CityRail network. However, we must allow freight trains through the CityRail network.

This year 266 freight trains have had mechanical problems, which has led to the delay of more than 900 passenger trains. This means that hundreds of thousands of commuters have been affected by problems with freight trains. That is unacceptable, and we must strike a balance between the importance of freight rail to the State's economy and the needs of passengers. That is why I have today announced that we are investing $26 million over five years in an early warning system for the network. We are installing trackside devices to monitor freight trains and pick up emerging faults before they interrupt passenger trains.

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

Mr JOHN WATKINS: The devices alert the train driver, signaller or other rail crew to the problem so it can be fixed before it leads to a breakdown or damage to rail infrastructure. They also remotely diagnose problems like overheating wheel components and loose or dragging equipment. Similar devices are in place at 21 locations and are working well. This year we will spend $5 million to expand the devices to Wyee, Kingswood, Engadine, Mount Ku-ring-gai and Blackheath. We will install them at another 17 locations over the next four years, including at Penshurst, Heathcote, Lakemba, Tascott, Rhodes and Warwick Farm.

They are amazing devices. They sit by the train line and, as the train goes past, they can sense whether there is overheating in the axle. If there is a problem with the wheel, the devices take note of the problem, indicate the problem to the signal box or the driver, and the driver can then have the issue dealt with by the maintenance staff before it leads to a breakdown. It is a clever use of technology to improve the operation of our rail network and to reduce the problems with reliability. These new steps build on existing strong co-operation between RailCorp and freight operators, such as strict times and load limits on freight trains in vulnerable areas such as the Hawkesbury.

Mr Anthony Roberts: It is a freight worse than death.

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

Mr JOHN WATKINS: I do the good lines here! We will continue to do all we can to grind out improvements in rail safety and reliability to deliver commuters the service they deserve. The travelling public and CityRail deserve the most reliable service possible. Rail reliability has increased by 40 per cent in the past 12 months. We have more work to do, but there has been a pleasing improvement and I thank the hardworking CityRail staff for that work.

Mr ANDREW STONER: My question is directed to the Minister for Police. In view of Police Association comments that police shortages have left Dubbo at risk of more riots and local police are concerned for their personal safety—

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals is asking a question, not answering it. The Leader of The Nationals has the call.

Mr ANDREW STONER: —and given comments by the local superintendent that if the command's first-line response requirements, such as phone calls for help, were met there would not be enough police to respond to a crisis situation, will the Minister apologise for failing police in country areas?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The standing orders provide that questions without notice should seek information rather than provide it. Verifying the accuracy of material quoted in the House is also an issue. The question asked by the Leader of The Nationals contained no verification of the comments referred to. I will allow the question, but the Leader of The Nationals and other members should be cognisant of the standing orders in relation to questions without notice.

Mr CARL SCULLY: I am advised that as of September this year there were 4,871 police in rural and regional New South Wales—about 33 per cent of police. Figures from the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research for crime rates in rural New South Wales are very, very encouraging and show what a terrific job the police are doing in country New South Wales. Every commander in every local area command would like more police. The Government will be able to respond to requests for more police when 750 new police officers graduate next year. In relation to matters of public order, as the honourable member for Dubbo would know, Vikings operations are regularly carried out in the area. The local police have Operational Support Group police but incidents and public disturbances occur from time to time and if the police need any additional resources to deal with those in future, they will be provided.

Mr Andrew Stoner: Point of order: The point of order relates to relevance and in response to your comments.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The Leader of The Nationals could not possibly infer that the specific response of the Minister is in any way irrelevant. The Leader of The Nationals will resume his seat.

Mr Andrew Stoner: Further to the point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. I have ruled on the point of order.

Mr Andrew Stoner: You asked for verification of the information and here it is—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Leader of The Nationals to order.
Ms ALISON MEGARRITY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Health (Cancer). What is the latest information on breast cancer screening in New South Wales?

Mr FRANK SARTOR: I thank the honourable member for Menai for her strong support for the New South Wales Government's breast screening program. We have seen some real progress in encouraging more women to use the free breast screening service. We are reminding women during Breast Cancer Awareness month of the importance of regular breast screening, particularly for women between the ages of 50 and 69. Women will be encouraged by the latest annual report on cancer, which shows a significant increase in women's survival rates five years after breast cancer diagnosis.

Mrs Jillian Skinner: It is a bit out of date.

Mr FRANK SARTOR: I will come to the honourable member for North Shore in a minute because she is telling lies again. The latest Cancer Incidence and Mortality Report, which will be released by the Cancer Institute NSW early next month, shows some very interesting trends. We have seen a drop of 18 per cent in breast cancer deaths in New South Wales in the eight years to 2004. But that is not all the good news. In the latest information, 88 per cent of women are alive five years after being diagnosed with breast cancer, which is a very big improvement on the 77 per cent of women who survived in 1995. I remind the House that this survival rate for women in New South Wales exceeds the national average by 2 per cent and exceeds the average in the United Kingdom by 10 per cent. Ten per cent more women who contract breast cancer survive in this State than in the United Kingdom.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst will cease calling out.

Mr FRANK SARTOR: I urge the honourable member for North Shore to stop denigrating the efforts of our front-line workers. BreastScreen staff are doing a terrific job. In a recent media release the honourable member for North Shore said that only 56 per cent of women in the targeted group get mammograms. I will come to the real figures in a minute—and they are not the same figures the honourable member for North Shore states. At breast screening centres in the central and eastern Sydney area the waiting time for breast screening is within two days; in the Hunter within five days; southern Sydney and the Illawarra within two days; the North Coast within two days—

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: The reason you have cut the waiting time is because you have cut out all those people aged 40 to 50 years old. You have cut out a vast proportion of women who should be having breast cancer screening.

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

Mr FRANK SARTOR: In just about all areas the waiting times are less than two days. Yet, we have the honourable member for North Shore—who is desperate with her own predicament on the North Shore—running around, as usual, making statements that are very far from the truth.

Mr Barry O'Farrell: Point of order: My point of order is Standing Order 139.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister's answer is totally relevant to the question asked.

Mr Barry O'Farrell: Standing Order 138 relates to relevance; Standing Order 139 is about debating the answer.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister is not debating the subject matter.

Mr Barry O'Farrell: Are you sure you are referring to the right standing order?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. There is no way he could infer that the Minister is debating the subject matter. He is giving a specific answer to the question he was asked. If members stopped interjecting, the Minister would be able to continue his answer rather than engage in debate across the Chamber. The Minister has the call.
Mr FRANK SARTOR: I know that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition gets very anxious about various development matters in his electorate. I am happy to give him more time and help him out.

Mrs Jillian Skinner: The Minister is too late by a week. This is an Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report. It actually says only 56 per cent of patients are having mammograms. I will get you the report.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for North Shore will resume her seat. I call her to order.

Mr FRANK SARTOR: No, it does not. The honourable member for North Shore does not like good news. There is something about her genetic make-up that she does not like good news. She reacts if she is given good news. It is almost a distinctive reaction: "This is good news; we cannot have it."

Mrs Jillian Skinner: I am a woman. It is not good news that it is only 56 per cent.

Mr FRANK SARTOR: I am quoting from the Cancer Institute's latest report "Cancer Incidence and Mortality Report", which will soon be released. I have an extract, which shows that the survival rates of women with breast cancer in this State are higher than the national average and 10 per cent higher than in the United Kingdom. That is a scientifically tested fact, whether or not the member likes it. While the member for North Shore is busy bagging people, she might like to talk to Suzanne Mullen from the Hunter, who delayed having her first breast cancer screening until she was 54 years old and was given the devastating diagnosis of early stage breast cancer. She underwent a successful mastectomy and the cancer has not returned. Suzanne is the first to admit that if she had delayed making a breast screen appointment much longer, her story might have ended in tragedy. Suzanne saved particular praise for BreastScreen staff, saying they treated her with dignity and supported her through an incredibly stressful experience.

The New South Wales Government joins Suzanne and other cancer survivors in that praise. We will continue to invest in BreastScreen, including the commitment of an additional $5 million in the 2006-07 State budget to provide 35,000 extra screens, which brings our total cancer screening commitment to $40 million. Our fleet of 18 mobile vans continues to travel around New South Wales visiting more than 240 suburban and rural locations in the last two years and screening continues at 40 fixed sites. This includes the brand-new Croydon BreastScreen Centre, which I opened in June with the honourable member for Strathfield and the honourable member for Drummoyne. The centre has a $190,000 digital mammography machine which produces more detailed images of the breast tissue and which automatically transmits the information to the Royal Prince Alfred Assessment Centre.

This year the Government has also provided some new gamma probe equipment for the Tweed, Lismore Base and Bathurst hospitals, which allow specialists to quickly identify the spread of breast cancer without invasive surgery. This is called sentinel node biopsy. Thinking outside the square, we have been trialling out-of-hours breast screening, offering appointments on weekends and late nights to get around women's busy schedules.

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

Mr FRANK SARTOR: Since the trial started in May more than 70 per cent of extra places have been filled each month, which shows that the after-hours program is a resounding success. It has been taking place at the Mater Institute in the Hunter, Miranda, St George and Wollongong, and more than 2,600 additional women having been screened. We now have our latest advertising campaign reminding women about breast screening. We are also planning multilingual advertisements to reach more women from non-English-speaking backgrounds. This is clearly an evolving service, but we have more to do. More than 360,000 New South Wales women aged 60 to 69 years currently attend the BreastScreen Service every two years.

Along with private mammography services the Cancer Institute estimates that around 80 per cent of women in the target group currently have regular breast screens. So much for the 56 per cent stated by the honourable member for North Shore! When one includes private mammography, because people do not want to do it twice, at present the figure is about 80 per cent—and we want to push it even higher. We will leave no stone unturned to pursue this because it is vital to the survival of women with breast cancer. We have made a lot of reforms in recent times to further enhance the program and I assure the honourable member for Menai and her colleagues that we will continue this campaign. Despite what the honourable member for North Shore wants us to do, we will be unrelenting and unstoppable in our quest to reduce this scourge.
Mrs DAWN FARDELL: I address my question without notice to the Minister for Planning. On Friday 20 October the Premier officially opened the $15 million SCT Logistics Terminal in Parkes. When does the Minister expect approval from the Department of Planning for the GDH Terminals Australia Intermodal Freight Terminal?

Mr FRANK SARTOR: I note that the honourable member for Dubbo and the mayor of Parkes, Robert Wilson, have met with me on occasions to discuss this particular project. In principle this project appears to have a lot of merit. It is a large intermodal terminal on a 365-hectare site to the west of Parkes. The intermodal terminal has a capital value of $150 million and will be capable of handling up to 530,000 containers a year.

Mr Andrew Stoner: Point of order: My point of order relates to Standing Order 140. Clearly, this was a dorothy dixer. The Minister has his briefing note. This is not a question without notice.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals takes this point of order each time an Independent member asks a question. Frankly, it is wearing a little thin. I call the Leader of The Nationals to order. The Minister for Planning has the call.

Mr FRANK SARTOR: The Leader of The Nationals obviously wants us to be as ill prepared as he usually is.

Mr Morris Iemma: If The Nationals had taken an interest in Parkes maybe they would still hold the seat.

Mr FRANK SARTOR: That is right. The Premier was out in Parkes recently. The environmental assessment of the concept plan—

[Interruption]

Members opposite do not want to hear about country progress. They want to talk about other things. The project is a part 3A project, which will be dealt with by the Minister for Planning. I will wait until members opposite listen. It was exhibited in June and July and 11 submissions were received. I understand that the Department of Planning is working closely with the Roads and Traffic Authority and the proponent to resolve outstanding traffic issues. Terminals Australia is now considering those submissions and will be making a response shortly. I hope to be in a position to determine this application in the near future. I thank the honourable member for the question, her continuing interest and her very strong advocacy for the Dubbo electorate.

Ms MARIE ANDREWS: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Water Utilities. What is the latest information on the Government's efforts to secure the Central Coast's long-term freshwater supply?

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: I thank the honourable member for Peats for ongoing representations about water issues on the Central Coast. She has been active in her discussions with me on behalf of families on the Central Coast. I am pleased to inform the House today of the Iemma Government's ongoing commitment and support for residents of the Central Coast with regard to water. As members would be aware, the ongoing drought has taken a particularly harsh toll across the State, depleting water reserves. On the Central Coast the supply is down to just under 16 per cent.

The honourable member for Gosford is not interested because he is chatting. He has not said a word publicly about this issue. While the Gosford and Wyong councils have responsibility for water delivery on the Central Coast, the Iemma Government has made it clear that it will not abandon the hardworking families of the area. With that in mind, yesterday I announced that the New South Wales Government-owned power generator, Delta Electricity, will build a large-scale water recycling plant at its Vales Point power station.

This plant will slash the drinking water used at Vales Point by up to 464 million litres a year. Tenders for the project will be called before Christmas for the plant, which will initially supply 230 million litres a year, with capacity to expand to 500 million litres. The power station is also replacing drinking water used in cooling systems with salt water, saving a further 234 million litres of water a year, and implementing water efficiency measures, such as retrofitting showers and taps with water saving devices to save up to 10 million litres a year. The recycling plant, together with other water saving measures, will save the equivalent of the annual water use of 2,500 Central Coast homes. This will be one of the biggest recycling plants in the State and will recycle more than five times as much water as is currently recycled in the whole of the Gosford local government area.

Mr Andrew Stoner: When will it be built?

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: If the Leader of The Nationals had been listening he would know the answer to that stupid question.

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

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: If the Leader of The Nationals, who is the shadow Minister for Water Utilities, was interested in water he would have heard me make that point earlier in my answer. That shows how irrelevant he is, and I will come to that in a minute. This plan will see only 257 million litres of drinking water used, down from 720 million litres last year. This is a great example of the Iemma Government delivering for the people of the Central Coast. As we heard, the honourable member for Gosford is missing in action.

Mr Brad Hazzard: What about me?

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: The honourable member for Wakehurst does not count. Members opposite who were interjecting should hang their heads in shame because this project would already be under construction if the Federal Government had not rejected a funding bid by Delta Electricity and Wyong Shire Council earlier this year. It is another shining example of the Liberal Party being all talk but no action when it comes to water infrastructure in New South Wales. The Leader of the Opposition, whose only answer to this issue is to run around saying "We will declare a state of emergency", has outsourced his policy development to his millionaire neighbour Malcolm Turnbull. Mr Turnbull runs around talking in volumes about the water crisis but refuses to back up that talk with any tangible action. He refused to help fund Vales Point, a project which will further help to secure the supply for the Central Coast. The Central Coast, which is an area in dire need, was abandoned by the Liberal Party and Mr Turnbull. What did the Leader of the Opposition and the Liberal's Central Coast spokesperson do? Did they vocally lobby on behalf of their residents for a better deal from Canberra? Did they for once stand up and tell their Canberra mates to overturn this decision and provide funding for this vital project?

Ms Noreen Hay: No.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: The honourable member for Wollongong is right: The answer is no. There is deafening silence from the Leader of the Opposition and his mates. In the absence of Federal funding, the Iemma Government's Delta Electricity will undertake the project. Mr Turnbull spruiks loudly the Federal Government's $2 billion national water initiative and the great things it is doing, but when pushed to provide money for vital recycling projects he says that he is not an automatic teller machine [ATM] for the States. If the Leader of the Opposition had any concern for the residents of the Central Coast he would get out his ATM card, find his personal identification number and argue for some Federal funding. The people of the Central Coast will not hold their breaths waiting for this mob to pick up the phone.

Questions without notice concluded.

Mr STEVE WHAN (Monaro) [3.13 p.m.]: This matter needs to be debated urgently in this place because, at a time of increasing financial pressure on families, parents need to know that this important assistance at the start of the school year will still be there. The New South Wales Coalition has failed to reassure voters that a Coalition government would keep in place the back-to-school allowance, which is greatly valued by parents when they face the bills as their kids start school next year. In the media in the past few days there have been many rumours of further interest rate rises, to the point that most financial analysts are suggesting that another interest rate rise is inevitable. And week after week we see speculation and reports about how serious that will be for families in New South Wales. In the face of employment uncertainty pushed on working families by the Howard Government's WorkChoices legislation, we need to use the opportunity today to get the Opposition to support the New South Wales Government in terms of retaining the back-to-school allowance. When will Opposition members let the voters know what their position is?

Mr Barry O'Farrell: Point of order: I draw your attention to the purpose of this debate, which is to argue priority, not to enter into the substance of debate. I suggest that the honourable member for Monaro, who has been here almost long enough to learn the lesson before he goes, argue priority on this occasion.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I uphold the point of order. The honourable member for Monaro will return to the subject matter of the debate. He should give reasons why his motion should be afforded priority.

Mr STEVE WHAN: You had to give the Deputy Leader of the Opposition one win before the end of the year. There are constant rumours about the impact of an interest rate rise on family budgets, which is why this is an important matter for debate today. It is a great opportunity for the House to reinforce its support for the back-to-school allowance, to acknowledge the impact that all the other economic conditions are having on family budgets and to challenge Opposition members to tell us what they think should happen with the back-to-school allowance. My motion is important so that we can clarify whether the Coalition, in its bid to fund its extravagant $25 billion worth of election promises, would rip the back-to-school allowance out of the pockets of families. It is urgent that we find out today whether the back-to-school allowance would stay in place were this State ever unfortunate enough to have a Coalition government. Will Opposition members do what they do with so many other things and tell the families of this State that they can pay for the Coalition's extravagant promises?

Mr Barry O'Farrell: Point of order: I take the same point of order. It is not a question of whether the honourable member's motion is important or urgent; it is a question of why it should have priority.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Again I uphold the point of order. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour raised this matter some time ago and I gave a detailed ruling on it. This debate is not about whether the subject matter of a motion is important or urgent; it is about whether the subject matter of the motion should be afforded priority over the other motion of which notice has been given.

Mr STEVE WHAN: In establishing urgency for this debate, I am establishing the priority of my motion over the other motion of which notice was given.

Mr Andrew Fraser: Point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I anticipate the point of order. I remind the honourable member for Monaro that the debate relates to priority, not urgency.

Mr STEVE WHAN: As I have established in my comments, priority should be given to my motion. Families want to know the position of this House as it will have an impact on their budgets at the start of school next year. The motion of the Leader of The Nationals has no doubt arisen from the tragedy on the weekend, and I am sure all members of the House are concerned about the issue. However, my motion should have priority, rather than the grab-back approach of the Opposition. The priority should be the families of New South Wales, their financial status and the importance they place on assistance in the form of the back-to-school allowance with the new school year approaching. I acknowledge, as do all Government members, that the accident that prompted the motion of the Leader of The Nationals has elicited a great deal of sadness from all of us. Indeed, it could not do anything but that if one heard the mother of one of the victims on the radio yesterday. However, members opposite should not make political mileage out of that. That is why my motion should be given priority. [Time expired.]

Mr ANDREW STONER (Oxley—Leader of The Nationals) [3.18 p.m.]: In establishing priority for my motion, I refer to the honourable member for Monaro's motion about the back-to-school allowance. As usual, the cheques will go out in January, prior to the next election. The honourable member's motion also makes a predictable attack on the Federal Government. Those matters are hardly pressing in this place, whereas in New South Wales in the past year the road toll for P-plate drivers has increased by 74 per cent. The community would expect that this issue be given priority for debate in this place today. Every community has been touched by the senseless tragedy of young people killed in accidents like the one near Byron Bay on the weekend. That is why my motion should be given priority for debate today. After 12 years in office all this Government has to offer in relation to the P-plater road toll is more excuses. It has no new ideas. It seems paralysed in the face of what is becoming a crisis in our community.

It is time to debate some new ideas. That is why the Liberal-Nationals Coalition has put forward an action plan that we want to see implemented—and we want it debated in this House today. We do not want to enter into grubby politics of little priority. I ask the honourable member for Monaro to tell those parents, the school community of Lismore and the community generally why his motion should be given priority over a motion that will deal with ways to reduce the trauma on our communities that is occurring on a weekly basis. As I say, after 12 years this Government seems paralysed. We have had a couple of knee-jerk reactions in relation to the P-plater issue. There were restrictions on the size of engines—turbocharged and V8 engines—but that was totally ineffective. It did not prevent this tragedy or other tragedies. The Government is simply bereft of ideas. With P-plater fatalities up some 74 per cent, it is imperative that we have this debate today. Surely this is a priority in New South Wales.

We want to talk about the black spots on country roads in New South Wales, where 60 per cent of the people who die on the roads are being killed. We want to talk about why this State Government's funding for treatment of black spots has reduced in recent years. Why are the roads unsafe? Why are there not guardrails on the sides of roads to stop cars crashing into trees and killing people? Why are there unguarded tight bends where, with a little bit of rain, cars slide off the road? We want to talk about why in this State some schools have driver education to reinforce the attitudes and behaviour in young people that are appropriate for driving on our roads, but not all schools? Why are some kids being taught about the consequences of traffic accidents and being shown the impact of fatalities and injuries while this is not happening in other schools?

We want priority to debate today why we are not providing incentives to our young people to undertake driver skills training, to improve their skills before they are out there on the roads. It is about attitude and skills, and this Government is doing nothing in relation to those areas. We want to talk about graphic advertising campaigns that are hugely successful in other States, including in Victoria, where, two years after introducing a graphic advertising campaign showing the impacts of road trauma—actual footage of road accidents—the road toll amongst young drivers reduced by 25 per cent. Why is that not being done in New South Wales?

That is why this motion should be given priority today. It is clear that in the face of a rising road toll generally, and particularly amongst P-platers, this Government is paralysed and bereft of ideas. Let us have a debate today and we will put on the table the Liberal-Nationals Coalition's action plan to reduce P-plater deaths. Why are we not talking about confiscating cars from drivers who commit high-range speeding offences—over 45 kilometres an hour above the speed limit? It is happening in other jurisdictions. This Government does not want to talk about these issues. [Time expired.]

Question—That the motion for urgent consideration of the honourable member for Monaro be proceeded with—put.

The House divided.

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

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

Mrs Paluzzano Mr Pearce Mrs Perry Mr Price Mr Sartor 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 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 STEVE WHAN (Monaro) [3.32 p.m.]: I move:

That this House:

(1) congratulates the Government on the outstanding success of the Back-to-School Allowance Program; and

(2) notes the valuable assistance provided to hardworking New South Wales families by the Back-to-School Allowance Program in the face of the Federal Government's broken promises on interest rates, its introduction of WorkChoices and its failure to act against high petrol prices.

In 1998 the New South Wales Government introduced the back-to-school allowance to assist parents and carers with the costs involved in their children going back to school at the commencement of the school year. The back-to-school allowance continues to receive strong support from parents in New South Wales. For many parents the cost of getting their children to school each year can be a headache. It is made more problematic when families are under ever-increasing financial pressure. This motion refers to some of the financial burdens that many families in New South Wales are facing. The back-to-school allowance is even more important when we consider the economic indicators that are affecting average families in Australia, particularly in regional New South Wales, as they struggle to find the cash to put petrol in their cars and meet growing mortgage payments.

Those increases are in contrast to the promises made by the Federal Coalition at the last election, when they issued glossy brochures and graphs showing how they would keep interest rates low and the extra amounts that families would pay if interest rates rose by the amounts they have risen since the last Federal election. Recently I had the dubious privilege of looking at the web site of the Federal Liberal campaign for the last election. They ran a very strong scare campaign about the impact of rising interest rates on family budgets. We have seen those predictions come true, with one contrast—the Liberal Government made those dire predictions come true, not a Labor government.

At the moment we are seeing record household debt in Australia. That is placing a severe burden on many people, and rising interest rates are a part of that burden. With increased mortgages and credit card debt, many people are struggling to make ends meet. That makes this back-to-school allowance even more important. Every parent and carer of a school child in New South Wales receives an annual payment of $50. That annual payment helps to pay for uniforms, shoes, stationery and other requirements that school students need. From my experience as a parent and talking with many other parents with children of school age in New South Wales, that $50 is extremely useful. It is used at the beginning of the school year for the purposes I have been talking about, such as, uniforms. I know the allowance is particularly useful not only by people telling me of their pleasure at receiving it, but also from the phone calls I receive when parents do not receive the cheque on the day or week they expect it. That may happen when a student moves from year 10 to year 11 and the system and timing of payment changes while the department waits to see the enrolments at the schools. Sometimes I, as I am sure many of my colleagues do, get phone calls from people telling me about the benefit of the allowance to them and asking why the cheque has not yet arrived. They like to receive it and, of course, they do.

Since the introduction of the back-to-school allowance the Government has put half a billion dollars into the pockets of New South Wales parents and guardians of school students. To highlight the importance of the Iemma Government's back-to-school allowance, the Department of Education and Training will undertake an analysis of the impact of high petrol prices and increasing mortgage repayments on the budgets of families with school-age children. Such an analysis will provide evidence of the importance of the allowance to counteract those who may seek to abolish it. The Government, through this allowance, provides $56 million every year to the families of New South Wales. That is on top of the budget for schools.

The back-to-school allowance provides more than 800,000 cheques for the benefit of over 1.1 million students. In 2005, for example, 806,000 cheques were issued to parents and guardians to the total value of $55.7 million. For that year 777,344 cheques were banked by parents and carers. That is 96.4 per cent of the cheques that were issued. It is not surprising to see such a high participation rate in a program that gives people money. Obviously it is gratifying to know that the money is being used and used well by parents in New South Wales. The administration costs of the program are also modest. In 2000 they were in the order of $3.4 million, and in 2006 they have been reduced to $2.03 million. This allowance is providing a benefit straight to families and has very low administrative costs. That is appreciated by the people of New South Wales.

The back-to-school allowance is particularly important for low-income earning parents. Those people may have difficulty coping with the cost of school. All children should attend school on an equal footing. One of the great things about public schools has been the low cost of uniforms. It is important that all children go to school on an even foundation and families on a low income are not visibly disadvantaged. That is one reason that this sort of allowance is so important. The Premier has received feedback from parents about this allowance. On 25 April 2006 he received a letter from a parent stating:

We would like to offer our thanks for the Back to School Allowance …

We had wanted to buy our daughter a pair of black leather school shoes, but as finances were tight and they were not a necessity we thought her runners would do.

But thanks to the Back to School Allowance, we were able to buy her the new shoes. They came to $49.99. Perfect! And she loves them.

You said in your letter, 'I hope the enclosed cheque makes the process that little bit easier'. Well, it did. We appreciate the generosity.

That sort of feedback is the reason this Government thinks the back-to-school allowance is so important. The Opposition has the opportunity today to confirm whether it will retain the back-to-school allowance or whether it will have to be sacrificed to cover its $15 billion black hole of promises. The Treasury has already assessed that the Opposition's promises to the people of New South Wales will cost $25 billion and that even if it can deliver the savings it has announced, which include slashing 29,000 public service positions—teachers, nurses, firemen, police officers and so on—it will save only $15 million, $10 billion. That leaves a $15 billion black hole.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Is it $15 million or $10 billion?

Mr STEVE WHAN: I said $10 billion.

Mr Brad Hazzard: You said both.

Mr STEVE WHAN: I corrected myself. It is important for people to know that the Opposition's black hole is $15 billion.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Monaro will address the Chair and Opposition members will stop interjecting.

Mr STEVE WHAN: It is important for people in New South Wales to know about the $15 billion black hole—that is, $15,000 million. Every taxpayer in New South Wales will have to pay $1,200 extra to fund the Opposition's promises. That is why members on this side of the House are concerned that the Opposition's grab bag of promises still includes no commitment to the back-to-school allowance. In fact, it shows no real commitment to public education in New South Wales. This Government has virtually doubled funding for education in New South Wales since it was elected. We have seen no such commitment from the Opposition. Members opposite have raised only a few little nitpicking items involving a school having made a complaint and taking it up in an attempt to get a headline. We have seen no commitment to teachers and maintaining their pay rates, which are the best in Australia. We have seen no commitment to public education, but we have seen the Opposition's constant obsequious following of John Howard.

Yet again, members opposite have not criticised John Howard's outrageous attempts in the past few weeks to impose a 1950s-style ideology on school curricula in Australia. He wants to take over the New South Wales Higher School Certificate and the curriculum, which New South Wales parents think are extremely good and which produce such good results. We do not need this ideological stuff pushed on us by the Federal Government with the support of the New South Wales Opposition. The Federal Government is attempting to diminish good, legitimate questions in the curriculum—questions that challenge students to think—in favour of following on the Coalition's ideology. That is why this debate has been important. I look forward to hearing the Opposition's views and confirmation about what members opposite would or would not do with the back-to-school allowance. [Time expired.]

Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [3.42 p.m.]: I shall respond to this motion as the shadow Minister for Education and Training. If the State Labor Government is truly committed to its back-to-school allowance I wonder why it has sent Wandering Whan to put the case. Most honourable members in their first term would be embarrassed about a record like his. He cannot be trusted as far as he can be thrown. His constituents should think about that. I am sure honourable members remember him running around supporting the sale of Snowy Hydro. However, when he realised that it was unpopular in his electorate he did a quick backflip.

Mr Steve Whan: Point of order: I find the suggestion that I supported the sale of Snowy Hydro Limited offensive. It is clearly false, mischievous, obnoxious and offensive. I ask that you ask the honourable member to withdraw the implication and the suggestion that I supported the sale of Snowy Hydro when I was on record clearly. The honourable member has been speaking for 45 seconds or so, and he has had a silly little go at me, which should be beneath his dignity given that he has been in this place for so long. I do not care about that, but he is wasting the time of the House. I ask you to ask him to retract his statement on my position on the Snowy Hydro sale and draw him to order.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Other than making statements that the honourable member for Monaro claims are factually incorrect, the honourable member for Wakehurst had not made any remark that could be construed as insulting or offensive. Therefore I am unable to ask him to withdraw his remarks. However, I remind the honourable member for Wakehurst that the debate relates to education, and to launch into his speech with a tirade of abuse and denigration is not the correct way to proceed. The honourable member for Wakehurst has the call.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: I was pointing out that this is a serious debate, yet the State Labor Government, which has been in office for 12 years, has not had sufficient interest in the back-to-school allowance to have the case argued by someone with any credibility, preferably the Minister. It has sent the Z team—Wandering Whan. His record for telling the truth is highly questionable. No matter—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I again remind the honourable member for Wakehurst that when he is addressing a member of the House he should at least do him the courtesy of addressing him by his correct title and not by using derogatory remarks.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: The honourable Wandering Whan—

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

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: As I said, the Z team has been called in to support the case.

Mr Steve Whan: You have nothing else to say.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: I remind the honourable member that he spent half his speech getting stuck into the Liberal Party, both at the Federal and State level, and all I have done is remind the House that his veracity is not something on which his constituents should rely. Go and speak to the people—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst will address the Chair and Government members will cease interjecting.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: Go and speak to the people involved with Nimmitabel Public School and hear what they think about your lousy representation. Do you want to hear about more school communities in your electorate that think you are a hopeless member of Parliament?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Monaro will cease interjecting. The honourable member for Wakehurst has the call. He will address the Chair.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: They are concerned that the honourable member failed to give them resources and support. As a result, parents are bypassing Nimmitabel and sending their children to Cooma. If he wants more detail he should come to my office and I will give it to him. You are hopeless and you are wandering.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst will address the Chair.

[Interruption]

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: You managed to get in in Bathurst with some Greens preferences.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Bathurst to order. Government members will cease interjecting. The honourable member for Wakehurst has the call.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: I move:

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

"this House condemns the Government for its failures in government education and its failure properly to manage the back-to-school allowance."

This Government is not into transparency or honesty. Not only is it wandering like Wandering Whan, but it is also dishonest. It tried to stop the Opposition obtaining information about the back-to-school allowance by charging $705 for figures that should have been available at the click of a computer button. The Opposition was charged $705 to get that information, but only after some months of trying to get it. The figures show that the full year expenditure for administration of the back-to-school allowance in 2004-05 was $2,000,469. The figure was similar for the preceding two years. However, the cost of the administration of the allowance for the first five years of its operation under this hopeless Government was more like $3.5 million. This Government has wasted nearly $20 million that would have been better spent addressing the maintenance backlog, the capital works non-existent work or providing assistance to parents in need.

Then we look at the number of cheques in the system that are not currently administered appropriately. According to the Government's own figures, as at March 2006, 30,428 cheques to the value of $1.8 million had not been presented to a bank. In the previous year it was a similar figure: 30,532 cheques to the value of $1.82 million were not presented. In the previous year 34,411 cheques to the value of $2.022 million were not presented. On top of that, the Government was unable to answer our simple question: How much money went to the wrong people? It gave us a discursive answer, which basically said, "We don't know. We don't know where the money went. We just don't know."

The system has cost about $20 million to run, in the last five years roughly $10 million in cheques has not been banked, and we do not know how many millions of dollars went to the wrong people. We have serious issues about the way the Government has managed the back-to-school allowance. New South Wales parents want to know why there was a $124 million backlog of maintenance in 2003, why there was a $115 million backlog in June 2004, and why there was a $116 million backlog in June 2005. They want to know why their children's schools are falling apart after 12 years of this Labor Government. Every year this Government has been in office—

[Interruption]

The member for Bathurst is a baboon! Did he escape from Taronga Zoo? He should have a look at what the baboons do in Taronga Zoo—
Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Bathurst will resume his seat.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: Over the 12 years of this Labor Government, every year there has been a 0.5 per cent decrease in the total number of students in public education. A decrease of 0.5 per cent every year in the total number of students going into government schools tells us that whatever the Government is doing, it is not doing it properly. Public education should be the flagship of New South Wales education. We should be seeing more students come into public education every year, but we are not. We have the worst teacher-student ratio for primary schools in Australia: it is 17:1. What we are talking about here is literacy and numeracy, which are huge. The basic skills test results were released last week, and yet again we saw the spin. There is one thing this Labor Government has done well in 12 years, and that is spin. The Minister for Education and Training told us there were some improvements in the basic skills test results. But what she did not tell us is that for year 3 the results have gone right down the gurgler; they have gone backwards.

Mr Gerard Martin: Point of order—

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: You guys should listen to the truth. You haven't even got your Lithgow High School records yet—

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

Mr Gerard Martin: It is actually Kelso High School, dopey, and it is well under way.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

Mr Gerard Martin: My point of order is relevance. The motion is about the back-to-school allowance—not the meanderings of the tortured mind of the honourable member for Wakehurst. He has strayed well away from the subject matter of the motion moved by the honourable member for Monaro.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I am sure the honourable member for Wakehurst will return to the leave of the motion.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: Mr Deputy-Speaker, I moved an amendment to the motion, of which I am sure you are aware. This moron opposite should also be aware of it, because he has been in the Chamber during the whole debate. The amendment allows me to speak about all the failures in education under his Government. The fact that Wandering Whan says that the Government has reduced the cost of running the back-to-school allowance from $3.49 million in 2000 to $2.03 million tells us that the Government is out of control. Government members are patting themselves on the back because they are spending tens of millions of dollars on administering a scheme that the Government does not even have its heart in.

Mr NEVILLE NEWELL (Tweed—Parliamentary Secretary) [3.52 p.m.]: I support the motion moved by my colleague the honourable member for Monaro, and I oppose the amendment moved by the honourable member for Wakehurst. The Government has moved this motion because time is running out for the Coalition to publicly tell the voters of New South Wales whether it intends to support the retention of the back-to-school allowance. The honourable member for Wakehurst seemed reluctant to speak to the motion. Indeed, he only briefly spoke to his amendment, which indicates that he does not have a lot to say about this issue. His reluctance to even comment on whether the Coalition would support the back-to-school allowance after the State election indicates that it probably will not do so. Indeed, his comments with regard to the cost of administration of the scheme indicate that he has another agenda: to scrap the back-to-school allowance.

Parents or guardians of a child in year 9 in 2007 will have received $500 since the inception of the back-to-school allowance. By the time that child finishes year 12 the back-to-school allowance will have provided $650 to assist the parents in the cost of getting the child back to school. For a family of four children, that would be $2,600. This is a very significant contribution to that family by the New South Wales Government, and it is warmly appreciated. The Victorian Government's School Start Bonus would provide the same family with $600 for a child from Prep to year 12.

The funding for the back-to-school allowance program is over and above the 2006-07 State budget, which provides record funding of $10.7 billion for the New South Wales Education and Training portfolio. This represents an increase in funding since 1994-95 of $4.7 billion, or 78 per cent. That increase in funding demonstrates the New South Wales Government's continuing strong commitment to public education in New South Wales. In addition, we have more than doubled the annual school maintenance budget, from $88.6 million to $214 million—that is, more than $4.1 million a week. By the end of the current financial year we will have invested more than $2 billion in maintaining public schools and TAFE colleges. This spending puts a lie to what the honourable member for Wakehurst suggested about schools in the electorates of the honourable member for Monaro and the honourable member for Bathurst.

The average recurrent funding per public school student in 2006-07 is $10,158, the highest per capita amount in the history of public education in this State. This is up from $5,273 in 1994-95, an increase of more than 90 per cent. Due to its success and the positive feedback received, the back-to-school allowance will continue to assist parents and guardians in 2007. Parents and guardians have written to the Premier, the Minister and the department thanking the Government for providing these funds. A single mother of three daughters who lives in Sutherland wrote:

This cheque has made a huge difference in my/our lives.

Every cent will be used to help me get the things my girls need to get them back to school.

I myself are (sic) doing another year at TAFE to better myself and my chances to get a good job doing level IV Youth Work.

Once again thank you so much and I very much appreciate it.

A parent from Rouse Hill wrote:

It was a lovely surprise last year to receive a cheque for $50 mid-February and I used this money this year to purchase her school shoes!

My daughter will also be commencing Kindergarten and again to have that little bit of extra help with your $50 allowance goes a long way for a lot of families.

Mr Brad Hazzard: You'd be hard pressed to buy a pair of shoes for 50 bucks!

Mr NEVILLE NEWELL: Out there in the real world, mate, that is what they pay. Some parents pay that amount for school shoes. There are many, many more examples of letters such as these. And parents are saying that the back-to-school allowance makes a difference—a difference that the honourable member for Wakehurst seems to ignore. It seems that he is out of touch with the needs of families in this State, and his last interjection confirms that. Indeed, his comments in January this year show that he has no idea about what the back-to-school allowance means for families or how it is administered. The Opposition spokesperson for Education believes that a lot of these funds disappear into the ether. That is plainly inaccurate. In 2006— [Time expired.]

Mr WAYNE MERTON (Baulkham Hills) [3.57 p.m.]: It seems that with regular monotony the Government, just after question time, rounds up some suspects and says to them, "Now you go down there and tell them about John Howard's high interest rates." One by one, they take the bait. Just the other day the honourable member for Penrith and the honourable member for Parramatta spoke about interest rates. I again remind Government members—because obviously the message does not get through to them—that under the Hawke-Keating Labor Government interest rates were at 12.75 per cent but since 1996, when the Howard Government came to office, they are at 7.25 per cent—a difference of 5 per cent! And the honourable member for Monaro talks about high interest rates. He should hang his head in shame because under a Federal Labor Government interest rates peaked at 18 per cent or 19 per cent.

It is scandalous that the honourable member for Monaro should push this motion today when the Leader of The Nationals put forward a serious and important issue affecting the community: the safety of young drivers. That issue should have been debated but, instead, the honourable member for Monaro pursues his philosophical agenda of bashing up the Howard Government. I commend the honourable member for Wakehurst for moving his amendment, which condemns the Iemma-Costa Labor Government for its failures in government education. Let us have a look at some of those failures. The toilet facilities at Crestwood Public School, which is in my electorate of Baulkham Hills, were first raised more than four years ago by parents of students at the school. In a response received from the then Minister, dated 13 May 2004, I was assured that funding for a project to upgrade the toilet facilities at that school was to be considered in the context of future capital works. Nothing has happened: the toilet facilities are still cockroach infested. The Hills Shire Times, an excellent publication, says:

What a stink! School toilets so bad kids won't use them.

That is the reality. The school was offered the option of having enough electricity to run its computers or having the toilets fixed, and it went for the computers. Model Farms High School lodged petition after petition in the Parliament calling for the provision of an assembly hall for the school. In correspondence dated 9 December 2005 the then Minister advised that the Department of Education and Training had noted the need for the provision of a hall at the school. When will this work be undertaken? There has been silence. The honourable member for Monaro talks about the Government's achievements in public education and how it wants to bring more people back to public education. But look at the facilities the Government is offering. Excelsior Public School urgently needs renovation work to be carried out to the school canteen. Parents of students attending the school have requested also that the school toilets be upgraded—another case of school toilets in need of urgent repair. In a response received from the Minister dated 13 October, she stated:

The Department of Education and Training has identified the need to upgrade the canteen and toilets at Excelsior Public School. However, it should be noted that funding is yet to be approved for both of these projects. Upgrades to these facilities will be considered for inclusion in future Minor Capital Works Programs …

All the Government does is offer promises, and it is letting our schools run down. Record high maintenance levels of work are required. In June 2005 there was a backlog of maintenance of $116 million; in June 2004, $115 million; and in June 2003, $124 million. In 1988, when the Coalition came to government, we had exactly the same problem: schools had been run down year after year. The Labor Government does not maintain schools because the issue is not glossy, it is not glamorous and Ministers saying they have repaired school toilets do not make great media stories. In the meantime, the schoolchildren suffer and no-one seems to care. What the shadow Minister says is correct. The simple reality is that the Government's scheme, as admirable as it might have been in principle, is not being implemented properly. Cheques are not being cashed and people are being short-changed. If the Government were fair dinkum people would get $80 as opposed to $50. The Government is loud on talk, weak on action. [Time expired.]

Mrs KARYN PALUZZANO (Penrith) [4.02 p.m.]: Students undertaking the Higher School Certificate [HSC] today were born in 1988 and received their first back-to-school allowance in year 4. As the honourable member for Monaro noted, when the Coalition was last in government it closed 70 schools and sacked 2,500 teachers. I know that because in 1988 I was a teacher in the public school system and saw first-hand the impacts of the closures of those 70 schools and the sacking of those 2,500 teachers. The question today is: Would a future Coalition government cut the provision of the back-to-school allowance?

Other members informed the House previously of the popularity of the program with parents and guardians of students in New South Wales and how funding for the program is important to New South Wales families. In the electorate of Penrith many people have talked to me about the allowance. A parent of two schoolchildren from Emu Heights stated it was terrific to have that $50 per child after Christmas when the children returned to school. The allowance is a big help for parents who have to foot the bill for students' school requirements and also pay for school activities such as visits from Healthy Harold from the Life Education Unit at Colyton and excursions to the Environmental Education Centre at Penrith Lakes. Such activities are not a big cost for parents, but it is still money they have to find. Parents have welcomed these payments under the program. A parent from Eastwood wrote to the Premier saying:

We are very grateful for such terrific help as our children returned to school.

A father of three from Granville said:

I would like to express our gratitude to the NSW Government and yourself for the nice letter and the enclosed cheque, which will enable us to face the life expenses which become very high.

This father should be told what the Coalition intends to do with this program. His family is living with the impacts of the Federal Government's WorkChoices legislation, the impacts of high interest rates and the impacts of higher petrol prices. The program puts in excess of $55 million into the pockets of the parents and guardians for approximately 1.1 million students each year—or almost half a billion dollars since the program's inception in 1998. The program is not means tested: all students can take advantage of it, irrespective of their economic circumstances. That keeps the administrative costs down. It should be remembered that the Government has been able to slash the cost of the administration of this program by 43 per cent since 2000.

The funding for the back-to-school allowance program is on top of the record $10.7 billion being provided to schools each year. This budget is the highest per capita amount in the history of public education in this State. It is interesting to note that the honourable member for Baulkham Hills raised the issue of maintenance in schools. I can inform the House that as a result of this unprecedented investment in New South Wales' public education, public schools in Baulkham Hills will receive an estimated $103.6 million in recurrent funding over the next financial year. Since 1995 the New South Wales Government has boosted annual funding to our local public schools by approximately 140 per cent. A new project in the electorate of Baulkham Hills is Carlingford West Public School, which will receive a new school hall.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! Members of the Opposition have had their opportunity to speak. They should listen to the honourable member for Penrith in silence.

Mrs KARYN PALUZZANO: The back-to-school allowance directly assists parents and guardians to help pay for essential school supplies, such as shoes and uniforms, and the expenses involved in children returning to school. The Government will provide an expert call centre to provide service and assistance for the more than 30,000 callers who are expected to call the centre this year. [Time expired.]

Mr STEVE WHAN (Monaro) [4.07 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members who participated in the debate. I thank the honourable member for Wakehurst for his contribution and for confirming that the Coalition would not give parents the back-to-school allowance if it came to office. He said that the allowance was a waste of $20 million. He criticised the allowance and refused to say whether a Coalition government would give parents any money for school costs. That is a clear indication that the Opposition would abolish the allowance should it come to government. Families would no longer get that cheque in the mail.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: Wandering Whan could not lie straight in bed. We did not and have not said that.

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

Mr STEVE WHAN: The Opposition spokesperson claimed that I misled the House but again did not outline the Opposition's policy. Clearly that means it does not support the allowance. What we did hear from the honourable member for Wakehurst was a bizarre and wild diatribe of personal insults for more than half of his speaking time. It was quite demeaning. He has been a member of this House for a long time, but obviously he is totally frustrated that the extreme right shift in the Liberal Party means that he will be quietly shoved to the back bench after the next election. He has no confidence in his future. That must be extremely frustrating for someone who has been a member of this House for so long and who has failed so miserably as a shadow Minister.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: Mr Deputy-Speaker, it would be in order for you to direct Wandering Whan to stick to the leave of the motion. He has wandered off and is in fantasyland. First, he is indicating things I did not say. Second, he is postulating about my future. All I can guarantee is that we will be in government and he will not be here so he will not have to worry about it.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for Monaro has the call.

Mr STEVE WHAN: If members heard what the honourable member for Wakehurst said earlier, it would seem that he has a bit of a glass jaw. We heard amazing stuff from members opposite about their so-called policy. They only spoke for a short time, but that was because there is no policy. Members opposite talked about maintenance, yet it is the Labor Government that is building new schools in Jindabyne. It has built a new school in Jerrabomberra and is building a trade school in Queanbeyan. In the past couple of weeks I had the great pleasure of announcing a raft of maintenance works in schools in the Monaro electorate. No new schools were built in the Monaro electorate when the Coalition was last in government and no substantial works were carried out. The former Coalition Government failed to invest; it sacked 2,500 teachers and closed 70 schools.

In his excellent contribution the honourable member for Tweed reminded the House that the Government has doubled maintenance expenditure for schools in New South Wales, yet members opposite keep up their litany of whinges. They have no education policies for the people of New South Wales; they denigrate the skills of New South Wales students. The basic skills test demonstrates how well our kids are learning. I have seen this with my kids, who went to an excellent public primary school in my local area. They both went through the opportunity class in their school and received terrific service.
The honourable member for Baulkham Hills raised a number of issues, and I acknowledge that he has raises those matters frequently in this House. Indeed, I hope those problems will be solved by the Government's doubling of maintenance expenditure. The Opposition's performance was fairly lame. Opposition speakers failed to tell us their policy, and one can only conclude that their policy must be to abolish the expenditure that is so valuable to parents. No wonder the people of New South Wales reject the extreme right policies that the Liberal Party will now be following. No wonder the Opposition spokesperson is on the outer of the Liberal Party. He has failed to show leadership. Recently I read a few veiled references to the honourable member for Wakehurst in a book by a former Young Liberal. They were interesting, but, unfortunately, I do not have time to go into them.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order—

Mr STEVE WHAN: Recently I read in another book a reference to the honourable member for Baulkham Hills that I would also like to go into but I do not have time. The honourable member for Wakehurst wasted a lot of time in personal insults and attacks but, once again, failed to inform the House of the Coalition's policy for education in New South Wales.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst has the call.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: None of what you said is true. We have not indicated that we are going to get rid of the back-to-school allowance at all.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The speaking time of the honourable member for Monaro has expired.

Question—That the words stand—put.

The House divided.

Ms Allan Mr Amery Ms Andrews Mr Bartlett Ms Beamer Mr Black Mr Brown Ms Burney Mr Campbell Mr Chaytor Mr Corrigan Mr Crittenden Mr Daley Ms D'Amore Mr Debus Mr Gaudry

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

Mrs Paluzzano Mr Pearce Mrs Perry Mr Price Mr Sartor 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 Ms Berejiklian Mr Cansdell Mr Constance 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 Tink Mr Torbay Mr J. H. Turner Mr R. W. Turner Tellers, Mr George Mr Maguire

Ms Gadiel

Mr Stoner

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Motion agreed to.

Mr PAUL McLEAY (Heathcote—Parliamentary Secretary) [4.24 p.m.]: In the past 24 hours the Australian Red Cross blood service has been urging blood donors to come forward and donate blood as there is less than 36 hours supply remaining nationally. Earlier today the Minister for Health, John Hatzistergos, and I gave blood at the Clarence Street headquarters of the blood service.

Mrs Judy Hopwood: Good on you! How many times have you given blood?

Mr PAUL McLEAY: It was my first time.

Mrs Judy Hopwood: That is very good. I have given blood 73 times.

Mr PAUL McLEAY: The honourable member for Hornsby has given blood 73 times. This morning the honourable member for Monaro commented that he gave blood yesterday. I congratulate honourable members and members of the community who give blood, which is what this matter of public importance is about. The people of New South Wales have heeded the call from the Red Cross and have contacted the service in great numbers to offer to give blood. However, more donations are needed. People need to make giving blood a regular part of their lives, and I hope it is something they will continue. Australia's 500,000 donors support the six million Australians who have been or will be hospitalised this year.

Less than 3 per cent of Australians give blood each year, yet it is estimated that 80 per cent of the population will require blood or blood products at some time in their lives. The Red Cross needs 21,000 donations each week to maintain an adequate blood supply. That is 1,000 more donations a week than last year. The demand for blood will only increase. There is no substitute for blood. People with cancer, heart disease, or kidney and bowel disease and accident victims need blood to survive. Recipients include women with pregnancy complications, premature babies born with immune deficiency disorders, patients undergoing routine surgery and those battling long-term illnesses who require frequent blood products.

I am advised that 30 per cent of all blood donated helps cancer patients, 15 per cent helps people with heart disease, another 15 per cent goes to people with stomach and bowel disease, and 12 per cent of all blood donated goes to trauma and accident victims. People requiring chemotherapy are particularly at risk unless donors come forward urgently, with 30 per cent of all blood donations going to people with cancer. Many people with common blood types wrongly assume that their blood is not needed. In fact, the majority of patients in hospital are likely to have a common blood type, making these blood types high in demand. I am advised that a donation of 470 millilitres of blood is less than 10 per cent of a person's total blood volume. One's body keeps discarding and replenishing blood all the time, whether or not one gives blood, so people may as well put their blood to good use and help save up to three lives in doing so.

Blood donation is one of the simplest ways to give something back to the community. Almost anyone in the community aged between 16 and 70 years who weighs more than 45 kilograms—I am sure most members of this House would fit into that category—and is in reasonably good health is a potential blood donor. While one in three people will need blood at some time in their lives, only one in 30 actually give it. I am sure all members know someone who has benefited from a blood donation. Sophie Delezio is one well-known recipient. Sophie was injured in 2003 when a wayward vehicle crashed into her child care centre. She required significant blood transfusions and blood products to help her deal with burns to 85 per cent of her body and other massive injuries.
Sophie was released from hospital in 2005, and in 2006 happily started school in suburban Sydney. On 5 May 2006 she was struck by a car that failed to stop as she was being wheeled across a pedestrian crossing. Once again she was rushed to Sydney Children's Hospital in a critical condition after suffering massive injuries. Thanks to the thousands of Australians who voluntarily give blood every day to help Sophie and others like her, Sophie recovered and is now back at school. Sophie's dad, Ron, told a media conference on 7 May that the most practical way for people to help Sophie and many others who need emergency and other medical care every day is to become a blood donor. The story of another grateful recipient named Leona is detailed on the Australian Red Cross web site. Her story goes like this:

Leona thought she knew what to expect from the birth of her son Harrison. After all this was to be her third child. While Leona was prepared for the birth, she was not prepared for the unexpected complications.

Leona suffered from a ruptured uterus, which caused massive internal bleeding. During her 3-day stay in intensive care she required the life saving gift of donated blood from 19 donors.

Leona still remembers doctors telling her how lucky she was to be alive.

"It makes you realise it's the little things in life that are important. I'm now going to become a blood donor to give back what was given to me, " she said.

Both Leona and Harrison are now completely well but will always be grateful to the anonymous blood donors who saved their lives.

Honourable members will also be struck by the tale of a young boy named Braydon, who was diagnosed with a life-threatening blood disorder at three months of age and has since received more than 150 units of donated blood. Braydon suffers from dsyerythropoietic anaemia, a condition that causes his red cells to die in the bone marrow or shortly after entering the bloodstream. As the body cannot function without red blood cells, Braydon needs regular blood transfusions to keep him alive. I am advised that blood has a use-by date, some as short as five days, which is why there is a constant need for new supplies.

I was impressed by the number of people who were at the Red Cross in Clarence Street this morning. While I was there I saw a friend I used to work with. Sandra watched the news last night, and saw the story of the tragic road accident in the State's north in which four boys died. The following story about the blood supply being at such a low level reminded her she had been a donor for many years, and today she went back for the first time in quite a while. She was pleased to be able to give blood. She is head of the executive staff at the Public Service Association, my old employer. The former president of the association, Maurie O'Sullivan, regularly gave blood.

Near the entrance is an honour board challenging businesses and different community groups to give blood. The two boards on display this morning not only gave the number of employees coming in but also showed the proportion of employees. That kind of reward program is important. I urge all honourable members to consider what they can do to assist. I encourage all members of the community to take the time to give blood, as I did today. It was the first time I had given blood. I was a little nervous, but I am pleased to say I have done it and will continue to do so.

Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER (North Shore) [4.31 p.m.]: I am happy to join in the debate about blood donations. Since the honourable member gave notice that this matter of public importance would be debated today I have spoken to the Australian Red Cross blood service. I urge people to consider giving blood. There is a shortage of supply at the moment. People need to make an appointment with the Red Cross to give blood. They can do this by calling 13 14 95. Australiawide, one in three people will need a blood donation in any one year, but only one in 30 gives blood. As the honourable member for Heathcote said, 30 per cent of the blood donated goes to cancer patients, 15 per cent goes to people with heart disease, 15 per cent to people with stomach and bowel problems and 12 per cent is for trauma and accident patients. An amount of 407 millilitres is taken per donation.

The statistics about the number of people who donate blood in New South Wales are interesting. There are 3,327 branches. A total of 8,385 volunteers help the Red Cross. There are 9,723 members. Red Cross Calling is the annual appeal held in March every year. In 2004 more than $2 million was raised with the help of 40,000 volunteers. I am happy to say I have been one of those volunteers every year I have been a member of this place. Red Cross has donor centres in a variety of places. The one most recently opened is at Chatswood. My colleague the honourable member for Willoughby was one of those present at the opening and helped cut the ribbon. At the time the honourable member said:

As a blood donor myself I am delighted that the North Shore community will have a permanent donor centre in Chatswood. It is so important for those of us who are fit and able to make a blood donation a routine task.

She said:

I also want to take this opportunity to commend the Australian Red Cross blood service for this great initiative and also acknowledge the great contribution that the Chatswood branch of the Rad Cross organisation makes to the wider community.

I am sure we would all endorse those words. Australian Red Cross is celebrating its ninety-second year of service this year. Besides the centre in Chatswood, there are centres at Liverpool, Nepean, Parramatta, the Sydney central business district, Albury, Dubbo, Goulburn, Griffith, Orange, Wagga Wagga, Wollongong, Cessnock, Gosford, Maitland, Newcastle, Woy Woy, Wyong, Armidale, Coffs Harbour, Grafton, Kempsey, Lismore, Port Macquarie, Tamworth and Taree. As well as that, mobile vehicles move around the State going to different centres. That makes it as easy as possible for people to donate blood, which is of tremendous importance.

As the honourable member for Heathcote indicated, one donation can save three lives. Whole blood is occasionally used for the replacement of blood lost during surgery and for the treatment of severe bleeding resulting from accidents. However, the majority of the blood collected is separated into three components—red cells, platelets and plasma. That is done by spinning the whole blood donation in a centrifuge at varying speeds to separate each component. Every time blood is given as many as three lives are saved. I am reading from the American Red Cross web site; I do not want to be accused of plagiarising. This applies wherever one gives blood, in Australia or anywhere else.

Red cells give blood its colour and account for up to 40 per cent of its volume. The main function of these cells is to carry oxygen from the lungs to all the cells of the body and remove waste products such as carbon dioxide. Transfusions of red blood cells are used to treat people with severe anaemia, those with red blood cells that do not function adequately and people experiencing severe bleeding such as accident victims and patients undergoing surgery. Red cells can be stored in refrigeration for up to 42 days.

Although I am not a regular blood donor because I suffer from low blood pressure, I donated autologous blood when I had major surgery a year or so ago. The people involved in assisting when donors are giving blood, whether for their own use or for donation to the blood bank, are very skilled. Anyone considering donating blood should realise it is not a daunting experience. Those people will look after you. One gives blood in very comfortable surroundings and all the normal checks and screens are done to make sure that contaminated blood is not passed on to a patient. I have also been the recipient of donated blood, and I will always be grateful to the anonymous people who have donated it. Although my need was for scheduled surgery, donated blood is even more important for trauma patients who have had some kind of accident and who are totally reliant on the generosity of others for the blood they receive in transfusions.

An accident patient will generally need four to 100 units of red blood cells. A kidney transplant patient will need two units. A premature baby will use one to four units while in intensive care. A liver transplant patient will require up to 10 units. A patient undergoing cancer treatment will require two to six units. A heart transplant patient will require four to six units. A patient undergoing treatment for sickle cell disease will require 10 to 15 units periodically to treat severe complications, and again I am referring to information from America, where that disease is more prevalent.

Open-heart surgery for an adult will require two to six units, a leukaemia patient two to six units and a bone marrow transplant one to two units given every other day for four weeks. I could give many more statistics, but just those statistics confirm the constant need for blood supplies. As the honourable member for Heathcote indicated, the blood has a use-by date and always needs to be replenished. It is important that we all give blood if we can. On occasions a mobile blood bank unit has been set up at Parliament House. It is probably too late to organise that to happen this session. Honourable members who are returning to this place next year may consider organising a mobile unit when Parliament resumes. As I have said, only 1 in 30 Australians give blood, whereas Australia-wide 1 in 3 will need it. It is a sobering thought. As there is a current shortage of supply, I urge everyone to consider donating blood. They can do so by making an appointment with the Red Cross, anywhere in the State, by calling the central number 13 14 95.

Mr ALLAN SHEARAN (Londonderry) [4.40 p.m.]: I am very pleased to speak today on this matter of public importance. As previous speakers have outlined, the Australian Red Cross blood service urgently needs blood donors to come forward and donate blood today. Donating blood only takes an hour of one's time, yet it can save a life. In fact, one donation of blood can save the life of up to three Australians. Blood truly is the gift of life. The Red Cross blood service has a number of stories on its web site, which I urge honourable members to read. The stories detail many brave Australians who suffer terrible illnesses but have survived because of the generosity of Australian blood donors. One such story relates to a young girl named Nicky. This is her story:

On the 26th May 1998 I was diagnosed with cancer. The first signs of being unwell were on the basketball court. Mum said I looked lethargic and almost sick. I felt normal and thought my mother worried too much. Then a couple of weeks later small tasks were a struggle and I couldn't get my body out of bed. My blood counts were erratic and yet the doctors didn't know what was wrong, until the night they diagnosed me with having Leukemia. I was only 12 and I did not understand what it meant.

I was going to beat this disease anyway I could. I wasn't going to let anybody down. During the treatment I lost my hair 3 times, and lost all my energy but kept my will to survive. Less than a month into treatment I suffered some complications. I began to experience terrible pain in my stomach. I couldn't eat, sleep or walk. After near collapse the doctors discovered an ulcer in my stomach had perforated due to the chemotherapy. Two emergency surgeries later I was in ICU for a week and my parents weren't given much hope of me making it. In reality I shouldn't have made it due to the severity of the problem, my low immune system, and age. This made the doctors take everything hour by hour. Mum and dad were always there; helping me through. I spent 4 months in bed at Westmead Children's Hospital, 3 months of this I couldn't eat or drink—it was nil by mouth to the extreme. I had no immune system at this time and each blood pack I received meant life rather than death. I can tell you your blood saves lives. But what's more I can show you because I'm telling you this story because it was blood donations as well as the medicine that saved my life.

My doctor now calls me his miracle girl.

Honourable members would know of family members and close friends who are with us today because they have received blood donations. So many have been given this gift of life. Unfortunately, only a few actually donate. Perhaps we should all follow the example of Gwendoline Walton, OAM, who has been a donor since 1945. She is quoted on the Red Cross web site saying:

I donate blood because I can donate blood.

I'm healthy, fit and feel it's a good thing to do. It makes me feel good and it does a lot for the community.

Come on all you young people—do something for the community and you'll feel better. It doesn't cost anything—only your time—and you could easily surpass my record.

Unfortunately, I cannot donate blood. I have a longstanding medical condition that requires me to take medication on a daily basis. When I attempted to donate blood I was advised that I am excluded from doing so. However, I am not excluded from raising awareness about this issue and urging those who can donate blood to do so today. I was diagnosed as a chronic asthmatic when I was about five years old. I spent the following seven years in and out of hospitals. As I grew stronger and with different medications I was able to have a reasonable quality of life. In the past 10 years with improvements in medication I have had a quality of life that is as good as anyone else's. My situation gives me an insight into the problems faced by others with a medical condition and I can sympathise with those who need blood donations. For this reason, I continuously urge people to consider donating blood.

I congratulate donors who take time out of their day to give blood. To those honourable members who can donate, I say visit their closest blood donation centre as soon as possible. To those who cannot donate, I ask them to join me in helping to raise awareness for the need for blood donations and to encourage their friends, family and community members to donate today.

Mr PAUL McLEAY (Heathcote—Parliamentary Secretary) [4.45 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members who contributed to the debate. This is a matter of public importance because the Red Cross has nationally only 36 hours of blood supply. Both the honourable member for North Shore and the honourable member for Londonderry felt the need to out themselves as non-donors. The point that the honourable member for Londonderry made and was implicit in the speech of the honourable member for North Shore was that they checked and found out they cannot donate blood, but that does not stop them from raising awareness of the issue and promoting blood donation to others. People of lesser character may have decided not to speak in the debate because they were not donors. I thank the honourable member for North Shore and the honourable member for Londonderry for their honesty and participation in the debate.

Today I accepted the challenge to donate blood. For many years I thought I should donate blood, but did not. This morning some people approached me and said I looked a little pale—more pale than usual. I told them what I was going to do. They said they had been meaning to donate blood but had not made the time. Now is the time to do so. When I attended the Red Cross Blood Service today more than 100 people were queued up, donating blood or enjoying sustenance after their donation. Every reclining comfortable chair was taken up and Days of Our Lives was on the television. It was a relaxed atmosphere and donors talked to each other about their experience. The Minister for Health enjoyed his time there and spoke to people whilst they were giving blood. The first prick of the needle is the worst. The rest of the time you can sit, chat to others and watch television. Donating blood is a good thing to do.

The honourable member for North Shore talked about the need to give blood and to remind people how easy it can be done. She referred to the Red Cross web site. The honourable member for Londonderry also referred to the website and the stories of hope and inspiration that challenge people to give blood. The internet is a good source of information. People considering giving blood should go to the website and have a look. It will motivate them to donate. The honourable member for North Shore referred to the practical assistance provided on the website and praised the Red Cross work force and volunteers for the care they show to donors. I agree with her. When I gave blood Diane noticed I was a little nervous. She comforted me and made me feel welcome. Sally, the registered nurse who assisted in my procedure, made me rest assured.

I again challenge everyone to donate blood. The Red Cross is in short supply. The sobering statistic referred to by the honourable member for North Shore is that 1 in 3 Australians at some time in their life will receive donated blood, yet only 1 in 30 Australians actually give. Like the two previous speakers, I challenge those who can to do so. I am sure many members of this House and people in the wider community who have given blood support that statement. There are many people who are more qualified to speak in this debate because they have donated blood many times more than I have, but I am grateful for the opportunity to do so. Red Cross has only 36 hours of supply left. Give blood today, the community needs you. This is the best and easiest way to give back: Give life, give blood.

Discussion concluded.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Mills): Order! It being before 5.15 p.m., with the leave of the House I propose to proceed to private members' statements, which will be interrupted at 5.15 p.m. for the giving of notices of motions.

Mr THOMAS GEORGE (Lismore) [4.51 p.m.]: I will speak this afternoon about a very sad situation. The community awoke to the news on Sunday morning, 22 October, that four young people lost their lives in a tragedy near Byron Bay. Corey New, 16 years of age, the son of Mark and Ann New, and captain-elect at Kadina High School; Bryce Wells, 17 years of age, son of Robert and Jacqueline Wells; Mitch Eveleigh, 16 years of age, son of Robert and Karen Eveleigh; Paul Morris, 16 years of age, son of Paul Morris senior and Maria Bolt; and the driver, Tyler Green, 17 years of age, were all involved in a terrible accident.

I pay tribute to the police and emergency services, the principal of Kadina High School, Stephen Lowndes, former principal and now director Toni Hughes, the teachers, the staff, councillors, supporters and students. The sign at the front of the school says it all: "Sadly missing our boys, supporting our students". The community as a whole is grief stricken. The families have been devastated by this tragedy and its enormous impact is immeasurable. The families have their memories, as do the students. Given time, I pray that those special memories will be the rock from which one day everyone can move forward. As all the photographs and reports have shown, the gate at Kadina High School has now become a shrine to the tragedy. One newspaper has reported that a memorial will be erected at school.

Mark and Ann New, the parents of Corey New, have pleaded for people not to blame Tyler for the tragedy. Instead, Ann said the damage could have been minimised if P-plate laws restricted the number of passengers young drivers can carry to just one. She said:

Always after the fact it's more important to you … but a tragedy on this scale just wouldn't happen if these restrictions were in force.

You don't want one child to die let alone four, but if there was one passenger per P-plater this immense tragedy would not be affecting so many.

The impact of this tragedy in terms of stress, anguish and loss is enormous. There are simply no words or emotion strong enough to convey the desolation Tyler will be feeling. Yet somehow he has to try to make sense of what happened and move on. When Ann was interviewed about this matter she was very strong in saying those words. I trust that we as legislators will respond to the requests of not only the parents but also Tweed- Byron Police Inspector Owen King to ensure that a lasting legacy be established with regard to P-plate drivers. On behalf of this House and the community, I extend our deepest sympathy and assure the families that our prayers and thoughts are with them during this sad time.

Ms PAM ALLAN (Wentworthville) [4.56 p.m.]: This afternoon I will talk about an important event that will take place in Parramatta on Saturday. The Parramatta Walk Against Warming will celebrate the International Day of Action on Climate Change. Annie Nielsen, who lives in the electorate of Wentworthville, is co-ordinating and publicising the walk. This is a statewide initiative of the Nature Conservation Council, but Annie and her team of supporters are coordinating the Parramatta walk. An event will be held in the amphitheatre at 9.30 a.m. near the Parramatta Town Hall and various people will address the gathering. I have had a great deal of pleasure in publicising the local walk by placing information in my office window at Wentworthville. As the advertising material for the walk indicates, there is a growing movement of concern within Australia about climate change. Colourful cards have been circulated advertising this day of action across the country and the Parramatta event is a welcome initiative by Annie Nielsen, Phil Bradley and others.

There is no doubt about the recent dramatic increase in awareness about global warming and climate change. One cannot pick up a newspaper in Sydney and not see a reference to it. A paragraph in the social pages of the Sun Herald—compulsory reading for members of Parliament—refers to Al Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth and states:

IF you make no other contribution towards saving the planet this decade, do your children one small favour and see An Inconvenient Truth before it closes, which it does this week.

Despite placing a call to the Prime Minister's office this week, we were unable to get a response to our question as to whether John Howard has yet caught the film. We hope that, for the sake of his clan, he has.

Interestingly, there is a reference to John Howard and his increasing awareness of climate change and global warming in the Sydney Morning Herald. He is in the Pacific region at the moment dealing with some other issues, and I am sure the Pacific leaders will take the time to mention the impact that global warming will have on the Pacific Ocean and its island nations. This morning's Sydney Morning Herald reports that John Howard will shortly announce yet another instalment of his drought package that will reflect increasing concerns about global warming.

I have never seen the level of awareness of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change that we have seen in the past few months. Whether it has been driven by the very successful Al Gore movie is a question we should tackle. It has certainly galvanised many people who would not automatically have become aware of the issue. I am sure there will be a great turnout at the Parramatta walk on Saturday. A rally will also be held in central Sydney at which Bob Brown, the Leader of the Greens, Jennie George, the former leader of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, and John Robinson from the Labor Council will speak. I anticipate one of the biggest turnouts for an environment rally we have ever seen.

For members who have not seen Gore's movie, it is excellent. A lot of its content was familiar to me. But the clear message that comes from the movie is: What have we, as law-makers, been doing over the last 30 or 40 years—some say 50 years—since this issue was first brought to the attention of governments around the world? That was my most concerning question after seeing the movie. The movie is very similar to a book I am currently reading, Field Notes from a Catastrophe by Elizabeth Kolbert. Many of the examples that Al Gore uses in the movie are also reproduced in that book.

I am pleased that the Insurance Australia Group has invited many members of Parliament to see Al Gore when he visits Sydney in a couple of weeks time. He will speak at the Wesley Centre on Wednesday 15 November. I am certainly happy to avail myself of the opportunity to go along and listen. I am delighted that the insurance industry in Sydney has shown its initiative and is going out of its way to educate politicians. I wish the rally at Parramatta on Saturday well. I hope there is a worldwide turn-out on the day. [Time expired.]

Mr RUSSELL TURNER (Orange) [5.01 p.m.]: It gives me great pleasure to acknowledge a wonderful event held in Orange last Saturday evening: the Orange Chamber of Commerce annual business awards presentation. I congratulate Ellie Brown, the chairperson of the Orange Chamber of Commerce, and her committee members. As we know, these committees are voluntary and members put many hours into organising the annual awards presentation. This year some 500 people attended the black-tie event, which was held at the Orange Ex-Services Club. I congratulate the club on the wonderful service it provided on the night, as it does on other occasions when functions are held there.

I wish to acknowledge some of the award finalists. East Orange Post Office, which often receives awards, won the category 2 award. The post office was also awarded the inaugural Pinnacle Award, which recognised, for the first time, the most outstanding business over the past 12 months. I congratulate Conrad Silvester and his wife, Jane, and their staff. East Orange Post Office is a licensed post office providing an excellent service for that part of Orange. Other award recipients included Pete's Car Wash; Everly Jewellers; the Irish Patch; Weily's Retravision; the Orange Information Centre; Alfio's Pizzeria, which won gold in the hospitality category; Thermalair; Harris Farm Markets, which won gold in the retail 1 category; Robert's Bakery, which won silver in the retail 2 category; Orange Electrical; McCarthy's Pharmacy; Norman J. Penhall funeral home; Orange Credit Union; Australia Cinemas, which won gold and metro silver in the general services category; NRMA Careflight, which won gold in the non-profit, non-commercial category; and Orange Blood Bank, which won silver in that category.

I note that today during debate on the matter of public importance Orange Blood Bank received special mention. I congratulate the blood bank on its wonderful service, especially now that it has its mobile service on the road. Donations have now doubled because the blood bank is far more accessible with the mobile service. Other recipients of awards included Orange Courier Service; Jeff Hort Engineering, a wonderful engineering firm that in the last six or seven years has grown from two to 150 employees; Woodward Street Butchery; Jack Evans Stores; Ian Parker Motors, which is about to open a large extension to its showrooms; Complete Camera House; Robert Bruce Photographer; and Central West Energy, which was the winner in the self-nominated Commercial Business Achievement Award category. Central West Energy is a young company just getting off the ground and it is great to see it receive an award.

Award recipients also included Fishers Green Gate Newsagency; Welcome Patmos restaurant, which came second in the hospitality category; and Bradleys Florist. Sally, the proprietor of Bradleys Florist, is still recovering from her business being burnt out after it was burgled. Award recipients also included House; West Orange Motors; Orange Ex-Services Club; John's Chemworld; Loc Sing Chinese Restaurant; Blowes Menswear; Tilstons Electrical Contractors; McSigns; the Parkview Hotel; Peter Smith Chemart; Orange Regional Nursing Services; and Orange Preschool kindergarten, which is doing a wonderful job with some disadvantaged children. I congratulate Anthony Body, the principal, on the wonderful job he is doing.

Orange Region Farmers Markets was the winner in the not-for-profit category, an initiative of Daybreak Rotary Club. The club promotes local produce, local wines, and everything that comes from the Orange area, and does it very well. Aarons Outdoor Creations also won an award. I congratulate Dave and Di Shearing on their showroom at Lucknow, just outside Orange, where they have found a little niche market and are doing very well. Ashcrofts Super IGA won silver in the retail 1 category, and Wontama won an award for professional services. The wonderful businesses in Orange are continuing to make Orange a vibrant shopping area. [Time expired.]

Mrs BARBARA PERRY (Auburn) [5.06 p.m.]: I draw to the attention of the House an event I was privileged to attend recently regarding an issue I strongly support, an issue that has touched me personally because of its impact on my family and the community I serve. Last week I attended a Pink Ribbon Day breakfast hosted by the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [CFMEU] to raise funds for breast cancer research. To me it is staggering that one in eight women will now be diagnosed with breast cancer. The latest statistics from the National Breast Cancer Centre and the National Institute of Health and Welfare, released just last week, reveal that the number of annual diagnoses has more than doubled over the past 20 years. These alarming statistics regarding the incidence of breast cancer have aroused immense concern and support within our community. And the breakfast was no different: approximately 100 women gathered together in solidarity and support for an extremely important cause.

It is projected that there will be approximately 4,470 breast cancer diagnoses in New South Wales in 2006. Nationwide in this year alone, an estimated 13,261 women and 100 men will be diagnosed with breast cancer. With this growing number of diagnoses has come a great deal of research and community work to improve resources, treatment, funding, and the future for people living with breast cancer. So, although there has been an increase in the number of people diagnosed, there has also been a significant increase in the number of patients surviving their diagnosis.

In New South Wales the breast cancer survival rate is 88 per cent, whereas the national average is 86 per cent. Yet still more is needed by way of education, research and community support. Heredity accounts for 10 per cent of all breast cancer diagnoses. The New South Wales Government has invested a great deal of funding in further research, particularly into the genetics of breast cancer, the BRCA 1 and BRCA 2 genes. Alarmingly, if a woman is found to contain these genes she has an 80 per cent chance of getting breast cancer. BreastScreen, which is run by the Cancer Institute of New South Wales, offers free mammograms for all women over 40 years of age.

The institute is developing specific programs for multicultural and indigenous communities, in which screening rates are lower than those in the general population. It is one challenge that we face in our community. We should all be involved in promoting this valuable service, and in ensuring that information is accessible to all. We should remind ourselves, particularly this month, that for most people affected by breast cancer it is not just about numbers; it is about real people, loved ones. It is the human story of courage, strength and sometimes heartbreak that hits home.

At the breakfast Carole Knot, the Principal of St George Girls High School, gave an inspiring account of her fight to overcome and survive breast cancer. I wish all women could hear Carole's courageous story. I know it would inspire strength and awareness in all women. Early detection is one of the greatest means of improving the chance of a successful recovery. Yet many women are still unsure of how to conduct self-checks, and others do not seek medical advice when they find something abnormal. CFMEU breakfast organiser Wendy McClelland said that one of the main aims of the breakfast was to encourage women to develop a personal detection booklet. Wendy said:

The Personal Detection Booklet is essentially a prevention plan, helping women to document all self-checks, doctor's checks, mammograms, ultra sounds etc.

It will help women to identify change sooner rather than later.

Breast Cancer Month and Pink Ribbon Day are a great opportunity for us to renew our commitment to research, early detection and breast cancer awareness.

My aunty and my mother-in-law have both been diagnosed with breast cancer. For these women and countless others this fight took a great deal of courage. Not just the patient lives with breast cancer; breast cancer has just as significant an impact on the families and friends of cancer sufferers. Events such as Pink Ribbon Day and fundraisers held across the country help to raise awareness and much-needed funds in the fight against breast cancer. I commend the CFMEU for its magnificent support of this vital cause that has such a significant impact on many in our community. I congratulate people across the State who have involved themselves passionately in raising awareness of and funds for breast cancer.

Ms LINDA BURNEY (Canterbury—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.10 p.m.]: I thank the honourable member for Auburn for her contribution this evening. She brought home at a very personal and brave level what the issues surrounding breast cancer can mean to us as individuals. She raised also the importance of Breast Cancer Awareness Month and Pink Ribbon Day. I join the honourable member for Auburn in congratulating the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union and Wendy McClelland, in particular, for organising one of many breakfasts held across the country. I recognise the very passionate and real story the honourable member for Auburn has told.

Mr ANDREW TINK (Epping) [5.11 p.m.]: I draw the attention of the House and, more particularly, the Minister for Roads, to the current dangerous situation at the corner of Copeland Road and Pennant Hills Road in Beecroft. On 29 August there was a fatal accident at that intersection. I have received a number of representations from constituents including, firstly, Judy Kirk, who was involved in a very bad accident at that intersection at an earlier time. She noted:

I have noted on at least 6 occasions (including the day of my accident) that the lights do not function in the same way each time. If you turn right from Pennant Hills Rd. USUALLY the oncoming (Southbound PH Rd) traffic is stopped and THEN you get a green arrow to indicate that it is safe to turn right into Copeland. However, on the odd occasion, the light simply turns orange… meaning you have half entered the intersection and need to proceed to a right turn on the orange…this is very dangerous and occurs unexpectedly.

Ms Kirk has asked that this situation be investigated. Another constituent may have provided the answer. Heather Finch wrote to me and said:

I often use this intersection, and have always been concerned about its safety. Northbound vehicles turning right into Copeland Road are faced with lights which allow a turn while traffic is still moving southbound in Pennant Hills Road.

The important point she raises is:

A green arrow for the right turn is given only when a queue forms across the detector.

In other words, a single car waiting to turn right will not trip the detector and the driver then has to take his or her chances turning right without an arrow, whereas if there is a queue of traffic the detector is tripped and cars turning right get a green arrow. It seems to me that this is all about traffic flow at the expense of the safety of individual motorists: it is all about the flow of traffic on Pennant Hills Road without regard for the safety of people turning right. Greater priority has to be given to the safety of people turning right out of Pennant Hills Road into Copeland Road and then, by extension, people travelling south on Pennant Hills Road.

A phase has to be included in the light phasing system to ensure that there is a green arrow for people to make a right-hand turn in safety, knowing that the south-bound traffic on Pennant Hills Road will be stopped for the period of that arrow, and the arrow has to operate whenever a car is waiting to turn right from Pennant Hills Road into Copeland Road. It is not acceptable in any circumstances for that arrow not to operate unless there is a queue of traffic. From a traffic safety point of view, one car wanting to turn right is as important as a queue of cars wanting to turn right. Heather Finch makes the point that visibility for turning drivers is limited because of the crest and the bend in Pennant Hills Road to the north of Copeland Road. Another constituent, Janine Reid, has noted that the Roads and Traffic Authority recently installed flashing lights to warn the south-bound traffic on Pennant Hills Road about the lights at Copeland Road.

I think that was in part due to previous serious accidents at that intersection, as well as representations made by me in Parliament and elsewhere to ensure that that happened. Ms Reid makes the point that the installation and operation of those flashing safety lights did not prevent a death from occurring at the intersection. The urgent need for a right-hand turn arrow—and only a right-hand turn arrow—to allow a right-hand turn remains a paramount consideration: flashing safety lights are no substitute. Ms Reid also believes that the speed in the south-bound lanes from Cardinal Avenue adjacent to West Pennant Hills Primary School to the M2 should be reduced from 70 kilometres per hour to 60 kilometres per hour.

The issue is wrapped up by Beecroft-Cheltenham Civic Trust, which, under the hand of its president, Carolyn Watt, goes through the points that have already been made very thoroughly and very concisely. The trust notes that there is a further complication with the traffic lights at Aitken Road, which is across the other side of Pennant Hills Road, just a short distance north of Copeland Road. A person driving down Pennant Hills Road can see these lights but he or she cannot see the lights at Copeland Road until he or she has turned the bend. Although there is a flashing light to warn that a stop is ahead, the distance allowed for stopping is very short. The trust also says the red arrow should be maintained to prevent a right-hand turn except when there is a green arrow to allow it, and that better co-ordination of the lights at Copeland Road and Aitken Road needs to be investigated. The top of the crest on Pennant Hills Road, which restricts visibility, should be removed. That would involve major work, but in the interests of safety it has to be done. The operation of the warning lights should be reviewed to see whether the flashing lights could be better used to warn traffic than they are at present.

[Private members' statements interrupted.]

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Mills): 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.
[Private members' statements resumed.]

Mr STEVEN CHAYTOR (Macquarie Fields) [5.18 p.m.]: Tonight I speak in support of the serious concerns of Casula and Liverpool residents regarding the impact of a Federal Government project known as the Southern Sydney Freight Line. Local residents are strongly concerned with the noise and vibration impacts of this project, which plans a massive increase in freight trains. The project is designed for freight trains up to two kilometres long, operating 24 hours a day. The residents' concerns are justified. It is wrong for the Federal Government to plan and build the Southern Sydney Freight Line with very few sound barriers in Casula and Liverpool. Sound barriers should be a mandatory requirement and a non-negotiable condition for the construction of the freight line.

I am strongly aware of the concerns of the local community due to a petition I circulated, which was returned in large numbers by families who oppose a freight line that does not include a sound barrier. The Federal Government's Australian Rail Track Corporation has neglected Casula and Liverpool, and should be held to account. Liverpool City Council has also expressed concern about the impacts of the freight line. The council's submission to the environmental assessment noted:

A dedicated freight line will have a positive influence on managing the growth of road-transported freight. Whilst Council generally supports this outcome, it is concerned that the value to the community is not diminished by the severity of the potential social and environmental impacts created by the construction and operation of the project … it is also critical that the amenity and safety of existing residents is not compromised.

Moving freight by train instead of trucks has many positive environmental and economic impacts. Most people I represent would think that infrastructure that reduces the number of trucks on local roads is a good thing. Trains should be quicker and cleaner than trucks. An improvement in moving freight grows the economy generally and increases living standards. It should not, however, have an adverse social impact. Freight train infrastructure that results in an increase in noise levels on local residents is an unacceptable social impact.

The freight line will also affect Casula train station. If this project is going to bring benefits to the local community, a lift must be installed and a canopy over the footbridge and stairs must be a consent condition of the project. The community is also rightly agitated by the project's proposal for the Glenfield flyover and its impact on Casula residents. The visual impact of the flyover must be offset by screening and first-class landscaping, but sadly again the noise impact has been ignored. Freight trains will operate under full power when traversing the approach ramps to the flyover, creating more noise at an unacceptable level for local residents. Darinka Bonic, in a letter to the Editor of the Liverpool Leader, encapsulated the view of thousands of local residents when she wrote:

I am against irresponsible bureaucrats who forget that they are dealing with people's lives by not providing such simple measures as sound barriers, and who just worry about the dollar.

A freight line with a price that diminishes family life is too high a price to pay. I do not want any family in my electorate to have to wait until a freight train passes before they can talk to each other. The Australian Rail Track Corporation [ARTC] has received many letters and representations on the need for sound barriers. It is clear that the noise from the freight trains has already affected its ability to listen to the community. A letter addressed to me on 25 August 2006 by David Marchant, Chief Executive Officer of ARTC, concludes:

I can assure that ARTC will closely work with RailCorp, Council and the community to ensure that the construction and operation of the projects meets all our project related environmental commitments and obligations.

Sadly the word "our" in that context refers to the company. The "our" that I stand up for in this Parliament is the community. The involvement of the Federal and State governments in this project should never subject the needs of the community to a lower priority than the needs of the company. There has been significant local concern about the sound impacts of the freight line. Last week the honourable member for Liverpool spoke in the House about the community's concerns about the freight line. Commenting on ARTC's submission report to public submissions he said that it was disturbing and distressing and provided no adequate response. I endorse the comments of the honourable member for Liverpool that the entire public consultation period for the environmental assessment has been effectively ignored by ARTC. Local resident Mahendra Goundar was right when he told the local newspaper:

We have sleepless nights, the children are too scared to play in the back yard and the sick and old people in this neighbourhood are getting very frustrated.

Mahendra Goundar said that it was not too much to ask for noise protection, given that in other parts of Sydney sound barriers were included in the construction of new infrastructure. I note that the New South Wales Government's duplication of the East Hills line involved sound barriers being installed as part of the additional rail lines. I have also received concerns from Glenfield and Macquarie Fields residents, who already have a freight line in the area but who are concerned that the extra trains, which are longer and are intended to run 24 hours a day, will create extra noise. Again, there is no sound barrier protection. I endorse the comments of Darinka Bonic on behalf of the community when she said:

I sleep in a relatively quiet area, yet my conscience does not let me sleep.

The adverse effects of cost saving on noise barriers should keep all our consciences awake. We should give local residents the sound barriers they deserve.

Mr MALCOLM KERR (Cronulla) [5.23 p.m.]: This morning I attended a breakfast that was connected with Pink Ribbon Day. I am pleased that a number of honourable members are wearing pink ribbons, including the honourable member for Georges River. I am sure he would endorse the sentiments expressed at the breakfast. One of the organisers of the breakfast was Liz Lette, Marketing Manager for the Sutherland Shire Hub for Economic Development [SSHED], a business incubator situated at Loftus. The SSHED allows businesses to be tenants on its premises at a very low cost and, after a certain period, it helps those businesses to become established on their own. It has provided livelihood and employment to many people in the Sutherland shire. It is also involved in other very worthy causes. The breakfast this morning was a particularly worthy cause, with the proceeds going to the McGrath Foundation.

Honourable members would be aware of Glenn and Jane McGrath, who live in Cronulla. Glenn, of course, plays cricket for Australia and Jane has suffered from breast cancer. The McGrath Foundation was set up to assist people suffering from breast cancer. In attendance at the breakfast was a panel of celebrities, including Madeline Tynan a well-known shire resident and member of the well-known Tynan family, which is at the forefront of—

Mr Kevin Greene: Publishing.

Mr MALCOLM KERR: The honourable member for Georges River mentioned publishing. Madeline has many devoted fans such as the honourable member for Georges River in relation to the M Magazine. Other celebrities included Johanna Griggs, sports reporter and journalist, and Tracey Menzies, the coach of so many Australian swimmers, including Ian Thorpe. We are pleased he is back in Australia and swimming.

Mr Steve Whan: And looking very trim.

Mr MALCOLM KERR: I am glad that the honourable member for Monaro takes an interest in such matters. Another speaker was Tracy Bevan, the wife of Michael Bevan, the cricketer. The panel discussed the pressures on women and the need for them to balance their lives. The breakfast was held at the Blue Fin Restaurant at the Cronulla Leagues Club, a venue I would recommend to honourable members, because the majority will no doubt visit my electorate in the summer months.

Ms Linda Burney: I will not be.

Mr MALCOLM KERR: The honourable member for Canterbury says that she will not be. I am very sorry to hear that. She might find that she is outvoted at the next caucus meeting but I will leave that to her colleagues. I ask that she reconsider the matter. Restaurants and businesses in the Cronulla area look forward to the resumption of normal trade and business.

Mrs Dawn Fardell: It is a lovely place.
Mr MALCOLM KERR: It is a lovely place. Even the honourable member for Dubbo visits Cronulla. I call upon the general public to do so also. Perhaps I should return to my private member's statement. The proceeds from the McGrath Foundation will go towards helping the caring nurses who assist people with breast cancer. Although they do not provide medical advice, they are there to advise on the management of treatment, to discuss various methods of treatment and how to manage some of the side effects. They are good friends to the victims of breast cancer.

Mr KEVIN GREENE (Georges River) [5.28 p.m.]: Honourable members would be aware of the enormous commitment and service given by the RSL movement to our local communities. Only a couple of months ago Frances and I attended the seventy-fifth anniversary of the Mortdale RSL Women's Auxiliary, which does a fantastic job within our community. It was a pleasure and a privilege to attend that function. Sadly, last Tuesday I attended the funeral of a long-serving member and secretary of Mortdale RSL, Norm Vaughan. Norm, as well as being a servant of the RSL, had been a tremendous worker within the community. Norm joined the RAAF throughout the Second World War and was known as a WAG, being a Wallace Air Gunner. He served until the end of the war in the RAAF. In 1946 he joined the Royal Australian Navy where he served on the HMAS Condamine, a river-class frigate. Except for about one year, Norm served from the time the vessel was commissioned in 1946 until 1954, and he attained the rank of chief petty officer.

Norm was on HMAS Condamine when it saw duty in Korea. Indeed, in one eulogy last week it was recorded how, because of someone's failure to put up the appropriate safety railing, Norm fell overboard from HMAS Condamine during service in Korea. As he was falling he managed to grab hold of one of the discharge vents. One can imagine what was being discharged from the vents. Anyway, Norm managed to hold on while yelling and screaming. Finally, someone heard him and rescued him. Norm was dragged in and taken to the medical corps where he was attended to, and I am reliably informed that after a couple of double scotches he was all right to return to service. That was just one story.

It is fortunate that Norm was saved because he made an enormous contribution to marching and pipe bands. Norm was well known throughout Australia as a drum major. Indeed, he was the New South Wales drum major champion for 11 years and the Australian champion for five years. For more than 40 years Norm trained the pipe band at Scots College in Sydney. Indeed, I am informed that he introduced three drum majors at the front of the Scots College band. For many years Norm was also the assistant co-ordinator of the mass bands for the Anzac Day parade, and he was a judge of those bands until about four years ago.

For the past couple of years Norm was not well, and his health deteriorated considerably this year. But Norm's contribution to marching and pipe bands was recognised with life membership to a number of band groups. Also, he started the Combined Marching Bands Association, of which he was also a life member. As I said, Norm was also the secretary of the Mortdale RSL sub-branch, where he gave sterling service. He was the association's secretary for close to 10 years, and I am reliably informed that he will be difficult to replace. He was an inveterate letter writer. Not only did he love writing letters inviting people to various functions; he was also good at organising functions. Any function organised by Norm was organised to the very second; and everyone was well looked after and well catered for.

Norm did an outstanding job, particularly with the Anzac Day commemoration service at Mortdale Memorial Park and organising the bands to perform at the service. I note the huge attendance at Norm's funeral of local residents; members of various associations, including the bands community; representatives of Mortdale RSL sub-branch led by president Callum McDonald, who spoke at the service; the contribution of Mortdale RSL Club through its president, Mick O'Brien, and various members; Mortdale Women's Auxiliary, represented by Margaret Bailey and various other members; and Bill Mackay from the Southern Metropolitan District Council. I pay my respect to Helen and the family.

Mrs DAWN FARDELL (Dubbo) [5.33 p.m.]: The electorate of Dubbo, and indeed all of western New South Wales, is dry—beyond dry—as we suffer the sixth year of drought. Our farmers have lived with drought before but the ferocity of this one is something that has rarely been seen. Expert opinion that this is the worst drought in 100 years or since white settlement will get wide agreement. One loud and clear message that my constituents wish to bring to the attention of this House is that they are frustrated beyond measure. Many of them verge on outright angry that consecutive State and Federal governments have only offered bandaid solutions to remedy the problems. I speak of the men and women who have been on the land for years, generations of families that have carved out a living and respected and cared for their patch. They have supplied this nation with foodstuffs, crops and livestock, satisfied with doing their part in keeping the economic wheels of our State and nation turning. But the going has got tough and they need help. They also need the Government to show vision if we are successfully to survive future droughts.

Farmers certainly appreciate the current assistance on offer but remain puzzled as to why there are so many inconsistencies. The eligibility criteria for many of the assistance schemes would be almost laughable if the situation was not so serious. Take for example the rural supplies business whose owner spoke to me yesterday about his concerns. He employs five people and has established a reputable and successful operation in a smaller community. He is no stranger to the trials of farming as he has a property himself. But financial pressures are mounting rapidly, payroll tax has not been eased and he is carrying substantial debts. Rather than see farmers who have no cash flow suffer further, he operates on goodwill.

Recently an approach was made seeking help to keep the doors of his business open. The answers were not what he expected. Nothing could be offered to help with the business because he had a farm. Applications were then made seeking help for the farm, and a familiar answer came back: because he had a business, he could not get assistance for the farm. What is he to do? Other farming families throughout the electorate of Dubbo relay similar experiences when they seek my help. They call, walk in and write, all with horror stories to tell and questions as to why city residents and government appear so hostile to them and unwilling to listen to what they say. The cupboards are bare, the farm hands and staff are long laid off, so partners and children muck in and get the work done. Some partners find work off the farm just to keep food on the table, yet they are penalised when the time comes to seek assistance.

Further insult is added when more piles of paperwork have to be navigated during the application process for help. Discrepancies are still there. One farmer who may qualify for assistance will have a neighbour, separated by an imaginary line on a map or a roadway, turned down. In the eyes of many farmers, means testing is quite simply a joke when they look into paddocks full of failed crops. With almost 70 per cent of our State's crops gone, the amount of families finding themselves in this situation is growing. To make a living off the land one needs commonsense. As Kim Monkin from Binnaway pointed out to me two days ago, governments have shown little of that so far. He has farmed there since 1967, no doubt seeing many extreme seasons pass. They are carting water again at the moment, which he says is ironic because just below his feet are water supplies that could see them through. He makes sense when you listen to what he has to say.

Why has no government made any move to act on water infrastructure to combat drought? Proposals have been there for decades; so, too, have the wells and bores, many first sunk in the 1880s. Mr Monkin asks why they cannot be reopened. He also says that deepening of dams would alleviate the problems. The next strata of water is there just waiting to be teased. What is missing is leadership and positive direction from governments in this regard, but what there is in plentiful supply are restrictions. Farmers are sitting on a sea of water and should be given the option of putting in a bore—at least one for every 500 acres. He also speaks of initiating a national fodder and water scheme.

In a desperate effort to find agistment, livestock carriers are criss-crossing the country as farmers battle to save breeding stock. They are also offloading stock at severely reduced prices to lessen the pain. Surely a national scheme to examine the long-term water and fodder issues is not too much to ask. Stockpile silage should be set aside for exactly these times. All that is required is proper funding and planning, vision and courage from governments willing to focus on inland communities, and listen to the wise words of Mr Monkin. No doubt many honourable members will find much of what I have said familiar. It is 18 months since the drought summit was held in Parkes and little has changed. Farming families are still peering into empty cupboards, they still have enormous hurdles to jump, and they are still being treated like a kelpie begging at the foot of a table for whatever scraps are left.

Rural financial counsellors are in short supply and support services continue to warn about the emotional wellbeing of our farmers and their families, yet they are being asked to do more with less. Rural industry reliant on the farming sector has ground to a standstill in some areas, and contractors are sitting idly by with no work coming in. All the while communities are witnessing the great sport of political game playing and finger pointing, all the time waiting for the rain to come and governments to remove their blinkers. And again the same questions arise. How much of the current expenditure could have been saved if we had shown some foresight all those years ago? It is not too late to get these measures moving. Future generations of farmers and entire rural communities are at risk. I call on the Federal and State governments to get cracking on a national strategy.
Mr JEFF HUNTER (Lake Macquarie) [5.38 p.m.]: Today I raise the issue of the upgrade of Five Islands Road in the Lake Macquarie electorate. Five Islands Road, which is part of Main Road 217, runs between Speers Point and Booragul, past Teralba and over two arms of Cockle Creek. Five Islands Road is an important link between the growing western area of Lake Macquarie, the northern suburbs of Lake Macquarie and Newcastle city. Work is progressing well on this upgrade, with a further $9 million being allocated in the State budget to help complete this major $49 million construction project.

In April I was pleased to see the traffic switch over to the newly constructed bridges over both arms of Cockle Creek, and work is now under way upgrading the old bridges and the linking roadway, along with drainage works and pedestrian and cycle paths on the lake side of the road. This major road project is complex. It is located in an environmentally sensitive area. The project is scheduled for completion in 2007 and, when completed, it will provide a four-lane divided carriageway along the busy 1.7 kilometre stretch of road and include, as I mentioned, two new bridges over Cockle Creek.

I mentioned the shared pathways and cycleways. In the past few months it was my pleasure to officially open the first section of the shared pedestrian-cycle path along the Five Islands project. That was a 750-metre section of cycle path linking the Cockle Creek south arm to the Booragul foreshore. That is now in use and work is proceeding on the rest of the new cycleway. Today I was pleased to advise my constituents, via the media, that last night work was scheduled to commence on the reconstruction of the intersection of Anzac Parade, Teralba, and Five Islands Road. That work will take several weeks to complete and is part of the major upgrade scheduled for completion next year. The work at Anzac Parade will require the temporary closure of the intersection to allow for the road reconstruction.

Traffic will be temporarily redirected to other newly constructed lanes to allow that work to be undertaken. Further temporary traffic switches will be required to enable the reconstruction of the remaining areas of the new road south of the Cockle Creek south arm bridge. In the interests of safety local residents and motorists should be aware of construction vehicle movements on Five Islands Road, Creek Reserve Road and York Street, and the Roads and Traffic Authority has been issuing notices advising of changed traffic conditions at regular intervals. That is particularly important, given the current work at the Anzac Parade intersection. As I said, this is a major project and I am pleased that the Government is investing so much funding in it. It will significantly improve traffic flow, reduce delays and improve safety for all road users, including cyclists and pedestrians.

I was pleased to see in this year's State budget $100,000 allocated to commence planning for the upgrading of the next section of Main Road 217. That is the section south of Five Islands Road that leads to Toronto. It is the section called Lake Road that runs between Booragul and Fennell Bay. That will be the next chokepoint on this very busy main road linking the western side of the lake, through the northern suburbs of Lake Macquarie on to Newcastle. I am pleased that the Minister has acknowledged that planning must start immediately on upgrading that next section. I am pleased also that the Treasurer, Minister for Infrastructure, and Minister for the Hunter has included the upgrading of that section from Booragul to Fennell Bay in the infrastructure plan for the Hunter. However, I call on the Minister for Roads to ensure that the planning is undertaken swiftly and that work can commence on upgrading the Lake Road section between Booragul and Fennell Bay as soon as possible so that the good roadworks are continued, and the improvements to traffic flow and the benefits that will flow to residents of western Lake Macquarie will continue.

Mr STEVEN PRINGLE (Hawkesbury) [5.43 p.m.]: It is with great pleasure that I make my first private member's statement as an Independent member of this House. I am proud of the electorate of Hawkesbury and look forward to the strong representation I can give my constituents as an Independent member of Parliament. Much has been achieved over the past three years and I stand on my record. Over the past 12 years the Government has allocated $485 million to the Hawkesbury electorate for capital works and road maintenance funding. I am proud to say that $314 million of that funding has occurred over the past 3½ years, while I have been the local member. In the previous eight years the electorate received only $171 million. But much more can be done—without the shackles of a party, but through the freedom of direct representation of the people to Parliament and Ministers of the Crown.
Indeed, already I have received a commitment from the Deputy Premier, and Minister for Transport to find a solution to one of the major challenges facing the people of Windsor and surrounding districts, that is, car parking. Many people from the district travel to Windsor to work or to shop or to catch a train to work in the city or other major regional centres. I welcome the Minister's announcement that work has already begun to improve parking facilities, with transport planners undertaking a study to look at proposed designs to both improve existing parking and expand the number of spaces available. I understand the expansion of parking could be achieved by utilising the disused goods yard adjacent to Windsor station. I am told the study will examine how parking and pedestrian safety can be improved by including options for separating vehicle and pedestrian activity. The possible introduction of kiss-and-ride facilities and an examination of existing bus routes in and out of the station area are also welcomed. I welcome the Minister's announcement that further meetings to discuss these options will be held next month, with a view to completing the preliminary study early in the new year.

I am also anxious to have the north-west transit busway open as quickly as possible and to progress the much-needed north-west rail link. The link is proposed to connect Cheltenham to Rouse Hill and ultimately to Vineyard and will finally provide rapid access to the city and, hopefully, reduce the number of cars on our congested roads. The project will also bring economic benefits to constituents as it will provide a safe, quick and convenient transport alternative within the electorate and beyond. The link is also expected to provide enormous benefits to the business sector, both those well established and those in the newer areas, such as the Norwest Business Park, which has proved to be so eminently successful. The north-west rail link has been languishing for far too long and it is time the Government, Baulkham Hills Shire Council and the community worked co-operatively to see this project through.

Recently I met with a large number of concerned parents in the Rouse Hill area. The Government has recently built three primary schools to cater for the growing population of this rapidly expanding area. However, currently parents have to send their children to Windsor, Riverstone or Galston high schools—or independent schools—as the closest high school, Kellyville, is completely full and has a long waiting list. That is causing considerable disruption to family life due to travel times, with some students having to leave as early as 7.00 a.m. and arriving home as late as 5.00 p.m. There is a proposal for a new high school at Rouse Hill and I will be working hard with the Government to fast track this project.

Policing is another major issue I am working hard to address, particularly in the north-west growth area. There is an urgent need for an on-the-ground presence to improve response times and lift the profile of law and order in the community. I will continue to press for the much-needed upgrade of Windsor police station and additional cars to cover the broad Hawkesbury electorate. A wide range of other issues also needs to be addressed in the electorate, including a range of health matters, which I will speak about in more detail in the future. Water is another major issue. I will continue to press for increased recycling, water tank subsidies for all constituents, greater use of water harvesting technologies and an increasing use of water saving devices.

The reliability of electricity supplies also needs to be addressed with recent blackouts and brownouts highlighting the need for further improvements. As an Independent member of Parliament, I will be taking these issues directly to the relevant Government Ministers. Finally, I assure the voters of Hawkesbury that my decision to represent them as an Independent member of Parliament in no way diminishes my service to the community. Indeed, I believe my new status will bring even greater effectiveness in representing them in Parliament and in gaining access to Ministers about the various issues facing the electorate. My office will remain at 21 Bridge Street, Windsor and, together with my staff, I invite any member of the community to either call my office or talk with me at the many community events I attend and will continue to attend as the local member of Parliament.

Mr DARYL MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [5.48 p.m.]: The topic of drought is at the forefront of everyone's mind and on the tips of our tongues. Undoubtedly, we are experiencing the worst drought in our history. Communities Australia-wide are starting to feel its impact, particularly those in rural areas. The flow-on effect—forgive the pun—is starting to affect cities, with increases in the cost of fruit, vegetables and meat produced in country and regional New South Wales. In the past few weeks television programs, particularly 60 Minutes on Sunday night, have run stories on livestock saleyards at Wagga Wagga, Bourke and other places. The drought is so widespread and it is having such an impact that it is affecting people's wellbeing, particularly their mental health. That important issue needs to be addressed by all members of government, all those who make legislation and all those who are responsible for the people of this great State and, indeed, of Australia.
Although I said that the impact of the drought is being felt in the cities, in some parts of my electorate of Wagga Wagga there is good news. Business is developing. Recent announcements are being viewed by the community as positive and as a reason for optimism. Last week at the Business Awards I said that the drought presents our community with a challenge; it is important that we pull together and get over the hurdle. The only thing that will fix the drought is rain. However, we must welcome and nurture developments, as we are doing through the economic development unit. Tonight I want to raise the issue of the cost of fuel, which is having a detrimental effect on local businesses, farmers and the community. In recent times our community formed a fuel watchdog committee. I support the efforts of the committee to ensure that we get a fair go with petrol pricing.

Currently the fuel price in Wagga Wagga is about $1.24 a litre. In Sydney it is about $1.10 to $1.12 a litre. Our local paper has joined with Swift Petroleum to offer vouchers for lower-priced fuel. They have run a promotion to lower the cost of fuel by about 10¢ a litre. Everyone is doing their bit to try to cushion country communities from the blow of this terrible drought. The Federal Government has written to the banks and asked them to take a sympathetic view when considering interest rates because of the debts that regional businesses and farmers have to service. The major fuel companies need to be put on notice as well. Our local newspaper offers a discount of 10¢ a litre. I welcome that initiative. What are the fuel companies doing? Fuel can be bought in Sydney at $1.10 a litre, yet in Wagga Wagga it is $1.24 a litre.

The fuel companies should tell the people of this State how much Sydney distributors pay for fuel at the gate compared to regional distributors. I understand there will be a couple of cents difference, perhaps up to 5¢, for transportation. It is fair and reasonable that companies recover their costs, but I question a 15¢ difference in price. The fuel watchdog committee asked the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to look into this matter. The commission has been unable to find any evidence of collusion. Many inquiries have been held into fuel prices. In the same way that I have appealed to banks, I appeal to fuel companies to give those in rural and regional Australia a fair go. Come clean and tell us the price that is being paid at the gate and how fuel prices are being manipulated so that country consumers pay $1.24 a litre and city consumers pay $1.10. If the major fuel companies are fair dinkum about supporting the people who have used their product and have been loyal customers for many years, the least they can do is give the bush a fair go.

Private members' statements noted.

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

[Mr Acting-Speaker (Mr Paul Lynch) left the chair at 5.54 p.m. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m.]

Debate resumed from 18 October 2006.

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI (Murrumbidgee) [7.30 p.m.]: I lead on behalf of the Opposition on the Crown Lands Legislation Amendment (Carbon Sequestration) Bill. The Coalition supports the legislation and any other attempts to reduce the impact of carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere and the consequences of climate change. We are very aware of the work being done on carbon sequestration through the planting of trees, to which the bill relates, and also the research being undertaken by coalmining companies and other significant industries. It is a very difficult issue because we obviously rely heavily on the electricity generated by coal-fired power stations and our cars to go about our daily business. They are both significant contributors to the increased level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but they are also significant contributors to our economy. However, we are all aware of the consequences of carbon dioxide emissions and the real need to do something about them.

As it has been explained to me and from my reading of it, the legislation is relatively straightforward. It seeks to promote, where possible, the use of carbon sequestration to deal with carbon dioxide emissions. I note that the object of the legislation is to amend the Crown Lands Act, the Western Lands Act and various other Acts to allow Crown land lessees, perpetual lease lessees and western lands lessees to engage in any carbon sequestration or carbon trading programs that may be available from time to time. It is appropriate that those arrangements can be made without any restriction on freehold landholders and that those opportunities are available to Crown land leaseholders.

The Opposition has no significant problems with the legislation and will not oppose it. It supports the use of carbon sequestration to deal with the effects of climate change and increased carbon dioxide emissions and the reduction of those emissions through various actions taken by industry and regulation and legislation enacted by governments at all levels. It also supports the trading regimes that have been established and those proposed. I understand it is a complex business but, hopefully, we will soon get it right. It is appropriate to provide anyone who owns land with the opportunity to deal in carbon sequestration rights and to engage in associated activities. I am pleased to note that this legislation will extend that right to people who lease Crown land. The Opposition will not on oppose this legislation.

Ms LINDA BURNEY (Canterbury—Parliamentary Secretary) [7.35 p.m.]: I support the Crown Lands Legislation Amendment (Carbon Sequestration) Bill. In so doing I will make some broad comments before dealing with the bill specifically. It is amazing that a month ago the Federal Government, in response to the Al Gore film, said that it does not take advice from films. Suddenly it appears that John Howard is the architect of this new awareness of the dangers of climate change, not only in Australia but also internationally. This sudden revelation by the Howard Government is rather amusing.

The bill in part seeks to deal with an incredibly sobering realisation about the state of the environment on this planet. If we do not have a sustainable environment humanity will cease to exist. That may sound dramatic, but it is the truth. We require political commitment, which is evident in the legislation, and a menu of creative solutions to deal with this problem. In essence, that is what we are debating tonight. Clearly, the major issue facing our generation is climate change. Australia is one of only two nations that have not signed the Kyoto Protocol. I listened to Christopher Pyne on the political forum on 2BL yesterday trying to convince the public that the Federal Government has been concerned about this issue for a long time. Despite the enthusiasm of the honourable member for Coffs Harbour, we all know that is not true.

The bill is welcome legislation. It introduces some important changes to the law as we face the increasingly significant issue of climate change. I support the bill because it represents a major improvement in the opportunities available to communities in the Western Division, which the honourable member for Murrumbidgee has already highlighted, and landholders on Crown land elsewhere in the State. As community awareness of climate change improves and industries increasingly seek to lessen their impact on the atmosphere through the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions, carbon sequestration will play a key role as a mitigation strategy. That relates to my point about political commitment, which is obviously being played out in this House tonight.

The prolonged drought, which many honourable members have spoken about in this House over the past week, in particular during private members' statements, the experiences of many across New South Wales and the forecast of another El Niño event have highlighted the risks we are all facing as a consequence of climate change and the need for everyone to find smart ways to reduce emissions and to manage the inevitable impacts.

It would be impertinent of me to try to stand in the shoes of landholders who are facing the worst drought in recorded history and who are also facing the consequences of what will clearly be another El Niño event. I cannot imagine the anguish and stress that so many families living on the land, whose families have had the properties for generations, must be feeling. Carbon sequestration is a key part of this puzzle, in terms of political commitment and creativity.

Carbon sequestration is defined as the process by which a tree or forest absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The long-term storage of carbon through this process is equivalent to reducing emissions, as it takes carbon out of the atmosphere and stores it in vegetation or soil where it no longer contributes to climate change. The New South Wales Government is committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in order to protect the people of New South Wales from climate change. As a result, the Government established the world-leading Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme on 1 January 2003.

The scheme aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production and use of electricity. One way of achieving this is to offset the production of greenhouse gas emissions through carbon sequestration. The scheme sets annual statewide greenhouse gas reduction targets, and then requires individual electricity retailers and certain other parties who buy or sell electricity in New South Wales to meet mandatory benchmarks based on the size of their share of the electricity market. If these parties, known as benchmark participants, fail to meet their benchmarks, a penalty is assigned.

Under the scheme, the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal may accredit a person as an abatement certificate provider in respect of a carbon sequestration activity. To be accredited, the person who owns or controls carbon sequestration rights must be registered on the land title and demonstrate that the greenhouse gas abatement secured by carbon sequestration activities can be maintained for 100 years. The land on which the rights are registered must be eligible under the terms of the Kyoto protocol—a protocol that, shamefully, the Federal Government refuses to ratify.

Ensuring that land in the Western Division and other Crown lands across the State are available for the creation of carbon sequestration rights required under the New South Wales Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme is a crucial step to supporting plantations for carbon sequestration. The Western Division alone accounts for 42 per cent of the State's land mass, and without making it available to carbon sequestration schemes we are significantly limiting our capacity to take positive action.

In November 2004, C02 Australia Limited was accredited to create abatement certificates from carbon sequestration under the Carbon Sequestration Rule. One of the mechanisms used by C02 Australia is to establish mallee eucalypt plantings in New South Wales in order to create abatement certificates. In May 2005 the company wrote to the Assistant Western Lands Commissioner seeking advice on a number of legal issues arising out of a proposal to plant mallee eucalypts on land subject to the Western Lands Act 1901. The relevant land was leased to the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council under a perpetual grazing lease. It was not clear how carbon sequestration rights or a restriction on use could be created or registered, given that the land in question was the subject of a Western Lands lease.

The bill serves to rectify the problems identified, and ensures that a truly productive and sustainable development can take place. There are likely to be significant environmental and, importantly, economic benefits in facilitating the use of land in the Western Division as long-term carbon sinks. For example, the mallee eucalypt proposed to be planted by C02 Australia on the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council perpetual lease is well adapted to the infertile soils of the Western Division, and should reduce salinity and soil erosion. Careful planning of the locations for plantations can significantly reduce wind erosion, protecting valuable topsoil and slowing moisture loss, while still allowing continuation of grazing or cropping activities.

Depending on the species of tree planted, there is also potential for trees planted as carbon sinks to act as wildlife corridors and provide habitat for native species. There is a win-win situation here. In areas with reduced vegetation cover, plantations provide important habitat for local wildlife and improve the habitat values of many properties. Increasing plantation establishment can also provide important corridor linkages to other areas of vegetation, allowing species to move across a landscape, which would otherwise not be possible.

As I have said, increasing the number of plantations across New South Wales will provide a number of benefits, both on farm and for the wider environment. Firstly, plantations for carbon sequestration will provide a much-needed additional income stream for landholders to supplement and diversify their traditional incomes. Depending on the scheme, landholders may be eligible for a relatively large up-front payment, or a combination of up-front payment and a regular income stream to cover maintenance activities. In areas where salinity and rising groundwater are problems, appropriately located plantations can form part of a remediation strategy, with long-growing plantations providing important interception areas. Plantations for carbon sequestration, and the associated maintenance they require, will provide important new industries for some areas of the State, which is timely.

The industry is obviously still in its early stages. However, even a moderate increase in plantation activity will increase the need for skilled workers to undertake planting and maintenance activities. In the long term, at the end of the carbon sequestration period workers will also be required for harvesting and processing activities, regardless of whether the trees are used for oil production, as is the case with oil mallees, or timber production as is the case for radiata pine and other eucalypt species. The Premier recently announced an innovative partnership with the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council, with the aim of attracting investment in carbon plantations on land owned or leased by the land council. This initiative has the potential to provide important income and employment opportunities for indigenous people in regional New South Wales. The legislation provides not only a win-win for farmers and the environmental movement but also the opportunity for Aboriginal communities, on their traditional country, to help manage country. What better proponents to do that than the local traditional owners.
In conclusion I wish to reiterate my earlier points. The honourable member for Wentworthville, who is in the Chamber tonight, spoke about what climate change means to us as citizens, as communities and as individuals. As she said, climate change is not now a mythical point; it is a reality in our lifetimes. The honourable member said that we as legislators have a responsibility to think not just in terms of the next political cycle but also in terms of the long-term view about whether humanity will exist for forthcoming generations. It seems to me that those words are very wise.

I commend the Hon. Ian Macdonald, the Minister responsible for introducing this legislation. It is not the entire answer, but it is certainly part of the answer to the blanket of understanding that we are in a time of enormous importance in terms of the health and wealth of our planet. We cannot think about this simply in terms of the Western Lands lease or as an issue for Australia alone; this is an international issue. I am very proud to be in the House tonight to support this bill, which will be part of the mosaic to addressing climate change and environmental degradation.

Mr ANDREW FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [7.49 p.m.]: I speak on the Crown Lands Legislation Amendment (Carbon Sequestration) Bill. I think members need some explanation as to the meaning of carbon sequestration. Carbon sequestration is the storage of carbon taken from the atmosphere by trees or other vegetation; it is the storage of carbon, produced by industrial processes, in timber. While some species of Australian timber, such as Tasmanian pine, live for thousands of years, there are other species that maybe after 60 to 80 years—although not all trees within a species—start to die. At such time they become net emitters of carbon.

I listened with some amusement and bewilderment to Government arguments on carbon sequestration. In reality what is needed is a sequestration industry that not only pays credits back to those who wish to plant trees in which the carbon is stored, but which has a viable forest industry that allows those trees to be harvested at some time in the future so that carbon is permanently stored. The table in this Chamber and the timberwork in this magnificent building contain permanently stored carbon. So I am bemused when I look at the way this Government has, I would suggest, crucified the forest industry in New South Wales over the past 12 years. It has locked up vast tracts of viable, productive State forest. State Forests have been growing timber, in some cases on old farmland, for instance at Pine Creek and Whian Whian, that both stores carbon and takes carbon out of the atmosphere.

I do not believe that $30 per hectare, which is about what is paid to the National Parks and Wildlife Service to manage forests, is enough to prevent bushfires raging through national parks, burning trees and releasing carbon into the atmosphere. We also have to understand that a carbon sequestration right is a right to pollute elsewhere. I listened to the honourable member for Canterbury and other members say the Federal Government must sign the Kyoto protocol. What they are saying, in effect, is if we sign that protocol we can then have our carbon sinks, our forests in Australia, and we can trade that carbon right worldwide.

If the Kyoto protocol is signed, the two contracts that former Premier, Bob Carr, signed—one in Japan and one in Italy—are, in effect, a right to pollute in Japan and a right to pollute in Italy. Viable country in Australia can be locked up by planting carbon sinks with native trees and creating animal corridors, but once the Kyoto protocol is signed the amount of carbon banked in Australia will be released in other forms of industrial pollution in Europe or Asia. Rather than signing the Kyoto protocol, we would be far better off encouraging a very proactive forest industry in New South Wales with private native forestry and plantation forestry. That could be done probably by relaxing the regulations.

The pine growing companies down around Bombala that purchase land to plant pine plantations are severely limited because of their inability to clear remnant vegetation from the land and from the buffer zones that have been put around it. We need to take a long, hard look at the farm forestry industry right across New South Wales. The honourable member for Canterbury mentioned the severe drought conditions prevailing inland from the east coast. Farmers rely on a farm forest industry in times of drought, but they also rely on the regrowth and plantings on their private land after logging to ensure that future generations will have a farm forest product that can be farmed and marketed.

So rather than just bleating about the Kyoto protocol and global warming we need to sit down with scientists within the industry and say to industry that we are prepared to grant a carbon right over that plantation property for a period of time and to rotate use. The carbon right for pine plantations would last about 25 years, the optimal period for harvesting. With native timbers, depending on the type of timber, the carbon right could be extended to 60 or 80 years, particularly with box, blue gum and blackbutt, which make magnificent flooring. We need to actively promote the fact that concrete and steel are net emitters of carbon and that timber, the only renewable building material resource in Australia, is a clean, green product which extracts carbon from the atmosphere and stores it in furniture, floorboards, wall studs, and all the other timber that is in a home. So the Government should stop bleating about how bad forestry is—

Ms Pam Allan: We only talk about how bad you are. I want you to say nice things about me.

Mr ANDREW FRASER: I would like to but I think the honourable member for Wentworthville is a person who would push this argument for preservation rather than conservation. I would dearly love to see her support a viable forest industry that meets all the criteria that I have spoken about this evening. In the past week someone on the Government side talked about the millions of dollars that New South Wales has already earned from carbon sequestration rights. I would question that because I am told the two companies that were sold carbon sequestration rights in New South Wales by Premier Bob Carr have not kept up with their obligations under the agreements that they signed. In fact, the plantations they are supposed to be putting in are well and truly behind because they thought—as I think a lot of people in the international community still think—that Australia would sign the Kyoto protocol and would be able to trade those rights to Italy or Asia.

Mr Matt Brown: A sensible thing.

Mr ANDREW FRASER: The honourable member for Kiama says it is a sensible thing. I do not know if I can reduce my words so that what I am saying is small enough to sink in, but a carbon sequestration right is a right to pollute elsewhere. That is why the rights are tradable and that is why they are worth money. I said, and I repeat it for the honourable member, that if we are producing the amount of carbon in Australia the Greens often claim, we should be making sure that the sequestration of carbon in Australia is sold as a right that is kept onshore. We should encourage people to pollute less and store more carbon. As I said, that can be done by a proactive forest industry using magnificent native products and also softwood, an imported timber that grows quickly and stores carbon quickly.

I would also comment on this Government's poor record in conservation. Even though it looks good on paper and is trumpeted by the Greens and by those opposite as a great conservation agreement, I challenge all members to go out to the Brigalow Belt South Bioregion and have a look at those areas that were properly managed forest in the past and where native animals such as barking owls, wallabies and geckoes thrive, and then look across the road—and I have photographic evidence of this—at a national park area that has not been managed: the cypress pine, which in many areas is a woody weed, grows so thickly that the native animals cannot survive and thrive.

Now more than 350,000 hectares of State forests have been locked up and the scientific evidence and the statements of locals whose families have lived in those areas for generations have been totally ignored. I believe that unless properly managed the national parks that have been created will become nothing more than opportunities for severe bushfires. Back in the late 1970s and early 1980s the koala population was devastated by huge bushfires because of poorly managed national parks and some forest areas.

Let us put some balance into the argument and acknowledge that although western leaseholders have the right to sequester carbon to assist their farm income, they also should have the right to harvest and replant; in other words, their carbon right should be restricted to a period of time so that everyone benefits. The Australian Rail Track Corporation has moved to concrete sleepers, which are net emitters of carbon, and has moved away from timber sleepers, which were so successful in this country for many years. The ARTC claims that the move is a windfall for State forests. To me it is a real negative and I believe time will prove that to be correct.

The Opposition supports the legislation, but we need to ensure that rather than mouthing about carbon sequestration rights as a wonderful green and clean concept that should be welcomed by everyone, we make some provision downstream to ensure that carbon is stored permanently. Once a tree gets to a certain age, no matter the type of tree, it will eventually start to die and will become a net emitter of carbon to the atmosphere. Let us accept that the fact that we have altered the environment in New South Wales and Australia and let us put in place decent policies to manage it for future generations.

Mr MATT BROWN (Kiama—Parliamentary Secretary) [8.02 p.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contributions to the debate, even the rather bizarre contribution of the honourable member for Coffs Harbour, which I will come to shortly. The Crown Lands Legislation Amendment (Carbon Sequestration) Bill is a practical solution to promote carbon sequestration schemes throughout New South Wales, and in the Western Division in particular. The bill amends the Crown Lands Act 1989, the Western Lands Act 1901 and the Forestry Act 1916 for the following purposes: to provide that the grant of carbon sequestration rights and other forest to rights under the Crown Lands Act and the Western Lands Act and for the imposition of forestry covenants and restrictions on use in connection with those rights. This, in turn, will allow the relevant Minister to grant carbon sequestration and other forestry rights over land under their respective Act with the consent of any lessee. It will also allow Forests NSW to grant carbon sequestration and forestry rights over timber reserves in respect of which it has the control and management under the Forestry Act. It will also make it clear that the statutory right of Forests NSW to take timber or products does not apply to any Crown timber land that is the subject of a forestry right within the meaning of section 87A of the Conveyancing Act unless the right is held by Forests NSW.

Finally, it will ensure that the Minister may treat Crown lands, which are subject to carbon sequestration rights, forestry covenants and use restriction, as claimable Crown lands under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983. I would particularly like to acknowledge the contribution made by the honourable member for Canterbury to the debate. If such land is granted to an Aboriginal land council by the Minister, it is transferred to that Aboriginal land council subject to such rights. Accordingly, any carbon sequestration, forestry covenants and use restrictions will not be affected by the transfer.

This bill is one of commonsense. Indigenous communities are a significant part of the broader community in the Western Division. Until now, lessees of Crown land in the Western Division have been unable to participate in sequestration activities because of constraints on dealings with land under the Western Lands Act 1901. This bill will provide positive opportunities for the rural communities of the Western Division and positive opportunities for Aboriginal land councils to determine their own future. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour did not pick up on these points, and I turn now to his contribution.

Although I am sure that the growth rates of Tasmanian tree species are of great interest to him, they are not relevant to this bill. The Government has sought to at once provide certainty to forestry arrangements through regional forest agreements and to ensure a comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system of all forest types throughout the State. Once again, that policy may escape the honourable member for Coffs Harbour but it has broad support, including from his Federal counterparts. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour has sought to confuse this bill by discussing the surrounding private native forestry industry. I make it clear that this bill will not result in any negative impact on the private native forestry industry.

Plantations for carbon sequestration must occur on Kyoto protocol consistent land, which is land that was predominantly non-forest as at 31 December 1989. Generally, private native forestry will not be classified as eligible for the creation of carbon credits as it relates to native vegetation that existed before 1 January 1990. Trees planted for the purposes of carbon sequestration are to be maintained generally for a minimum period of 100 years, or the balance of the carbon in a plantation maintained through harvest and replanting. The species planted for the purposes of carbon sequestration will generally be vastly different to those with commercial value in native forestry. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour also referred to remnant vegetation. He is trying to mislead or confuse the public.

The Government has established a streamlined system for the management of invasive native scrub that does not represent a practical barrier to the establishment of these plantations. This system allows for the removal of invasive native scrub to improve environmental outcomes, particularly in the rangelands of New South Wales. To date, 98,863 hectares of invasive native scrub have been approved for management using techniques such as burning, blade ploughing and cropping. It is true that some areas of retention of native vegetation are required.

Finally, private native forestry is currently being considered by the Natural Resources Advisory Council, of which the honourable member for Canterbury is the Chair. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour may want to scare the public with his accusations, but the simple fact of the matter is that the Government has listened to the representations made by many in the community and is trying to find an appropriate balance between commercial production and environmental protection. I have no doubt that, left in the capable hands of the honourable member for Canterbury, this aim will be achieved. In conclusion, this bill provides many opportunities, and I am pleased to speak in favour of it. It is a shame that Coalition members tried to confuse the debate to the extent they did. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.
Debate resumed from 17 October 2006.

Ms PETA SEATON (Southern Highlands) [8.11 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition on the State Revenue Legislation Amendment (Tax Concessions) Bill, which is an insult to the highest taxed businesses and families in the country. The Iemma-Costa Government claims that this bill will give back hard-earned tax to those who paid the taxes in the first place. However, in addition to the normal taxation benchmark two years ago, the Government has increased taxes by more than $700 million in the past 18 months, since Morris Iemma became Premier. Under this bill only a paltry $10 million worth of tax concessions will be returned to taxpayers, including families and businesses. So one must ask: Where has the money gone? After 12 years the Labor Government has been in office long enough and has run out of excuses. We need a proper plan to kick-start the economy and to get jobs and investment back in New South Wales. We should also be kick-starting investment in the building and construction sector, which is the driver of many jobs in our community. However, I do not see anything in this bill that will provide that much-needed kick-start to the New South Wales economy.

The State Revenue Legislation Amendment (Tax Concessions) Bill implements the land tax changes announced in the 2006-07 budget. It clarifies and extends a number of minor concessions from State taxes, and it includes amendments to the Duties Act, the Gaming Machine Tax Act, the Land Tax Management Act, the Valuation of Land Act and the Taxation Administration Act. While I thank the Treasurer's office and, in particular, the Treasury officials who were good enough to give the Opposition a briefing on the bill, I note that the Government has admitted that this bill will give back less than $10 million in concessions. That is much less than the original tax grabs that are taking millions of dollars in extra tax from families and businesses in New South Wales. The Opposition will not be opposing this bill because it contains concessions and clarifications that have been fought long and hard for by the property sector, in particular, and by people who are doing their best to provide more affordable homes for people in New South Wales.

The bill is recognition by the Government that it got it wrong more than a year ago with a variety of revenue bills that extended the tax liability for people who pay land tax, payroll tax and a number of other State taxes. So while the Government might want a pat on the back for this bill, we should remember that if it were not for those tax grabs and extensions that were made more than a year ago, which reaped the Government more than $700 million in additional taxation, we would not need to fix some of these problems tonight. Indeed, if the Government were fair dinkum about making New South Wales competitive again it would simply repeal all the additional taxation arrangements that were imposed on families and businesses 1½ years ago.

The bill makes a number of detailed changes to several taxation provisions—in the first instance, unit trusts. The provisions relating to unit trusts are the Government's belated attempt to do what it should have done in May this year when, as a result of a High Court ruling in September 2005, it changed the way unit trusts were taxed, which imposed considerable additional taxation obligations on private individuals who are now caught in the net. While the other States acted quickly to correct the effects of the High Court decision, and while the Opposition called on the New South Wales Government to do the same thing in May 2006, the Iemma Government saw $20 million of additional tax coming through the door and did not say no to that. The New South Wales Government simply sat back and let the High Court decision affect numerous investors, particularly mum and dad investors, in property in New South Wales, and counted the $20 million coming in. The measures in this bill are an admission by the Government that it will give back only about $5 million in tax concessions.

So the Government is already $50 million ahead. And if the Government had not greedily accepted the result of the High Court decision, sat on its hands and done nothing, investors would be $20 million better off. The Opposition raised this issue on 1 May 2006 when many investors, including retirees who had investments in unit trusts, contacted us after realising they were being hit with a new tax time bomb of about $1,500 per year with the new land tax liability, which Labor introduced with absolutely no authority from the Parliament. The Government introduced the new land tax liability simply by making a note on the Office of State Revenue [OSR] web site about a new fact sheet telling people who cared to know that they were now liable for this additional tax as private individuals.
It was estimated that the new tax liability could affect up to 20,000 properties in unit trusts. At the time Labor made no attempt to justify any policy merit in that. It did not bring any revenue case to Parliament for scrutiny. It simply grabbed the opportunity and stuck a fact sheet on the OSR web site, and by doing so potentially turned innocent investors into criminals if they did not check every night for new fact sheets on the OSR web site. The Government simply took advantage of the High Court decision, took the money and ran. The effect of the change was that many investors are now required to pay land tax who previously were not liable on property owned through a unit trust structure as at 31 December.

This bill also contains provisions relating to the land tax averaging. Again, we all recall the shock of many private individuals, mum and dad investors, two years ago when the Government removed the land tax threshold and suddenly turned 400,000 people into taxpayers overnight. People are still reeling from that shock. The Government has admitted that the provisions in this bill will have "virtually no effect on its own budget revenues", and that it will still effectively be miles ahead while taxpayers are still paying through the nose. These provisions give effect to the three-year averaging of land valuations, which was announced in the budget. The bill includes measures to simplify the system of averaging the value of land subject to a protected tenancy and land subject to a heritage restriction under an environmental planning instrument.

The amendments are claimed to provide for the last three concessional land values to be averaged rather than averaging the land values before the reduction applies. This is consistent with the way land values are averaged where the land is subject to a heritage order under the Heritage Act. In respect of the land value of Crown land where the lessee is liable for land tax, the amendments provide for the land value of a parcel of Crown land that is part of a larger parcel to be separately recorded in the register of land values.

Investors across New South Wales_mum and dad investors_are still reeling from the Carr Government's and the Iemma Government's milking of land tax to prop up their failing budgets and their black hole. Several stakeholders in the industry have commented that while they support the system of land tax averaging, they note the Government has missed an opportunity to ensure that taxpayers only ever pay tax on the lowest land value. The Queensland system is cited as a model that we ought to be looking at to give taxpayers a fairer deal. Even with these measures, now that we are in a falling market—and falling dramatically in New South Wales as a result of the broader malaise in the State economy—people will be seeing values based on valuations in the previous two or three years when those valuations were arguably higher than they will be in future years. So again there will be a huge tax bonanza to the State Government, which is still surfing the effects of higher property prices in recent years and a valuation system that the Ombudsman pointed out was severely flawed and in need of major remedy.

This bill also includes some provisions that make changes to the evaluation objection process, whereby taxpayers have a right to object to all three land values that make up the average value of a parcel of land and effectively give a longer time to lodge objections against prior year valuations. Taxpayers will be able to object to prior year valuations provided those valuations have not already been the subject of an objection. However, in a new provision the Valuer-General can hear a claim for special circumstances and has discretion to grant provision for a second-time objection. The Government admits that this will have a negligible impact on its revenues, so nothing is being given back to taxpayers.

The Government ought to be in no doubt about the problems with the valuation system. The Ombudsman released an extensive report in October 2005 that listed more than 30 areas in which the valuation process is severely flawed. I had the opportunity to meet some people in the Blacktown area—in the electorate area of Mr Speaker—at a meeting hosted by local Liberal Federal member, Louise Markus. She responded to the concerns of the local people. These concerns were being ignored by the State Government. The valuations these people had received were well off the mark. They were very concerned about the valuations. We called a meeting in the garden of one of the local resident's homes and about 40 or 50 people came along. We were successful in getting the Valuer-General to review the valuations in the area. The valuations were higher than they should have been. The review was successful and the valuations were revised downwards.

One has to wonder how many other people are subject to valuations higher than they should be but do not know how to go about seeking that objection. Some of the people I met were not native English speakers and they felt rather daunted by the application processes and the documentation that went with them. They were missing out on a fair deal. It was only because of the hard work of Louise Markus that we were able to draw attention to this problem, but it highlighted overall problems with the valuation system that are costing mum and dad investors and businesses millions of extra dollars every year.
The Iemma-Costa Government is rolling in land tax revenue. In 2005-06 it is expecting $1.633 billion. In 2006-07 it is expecting $1.669 billion. However, we have seen no thorough attempt by the Government to deal openly and honestly with the findings in the Ombudsman's report of 2005. There has been no attempt to significantly reduce land tax. We should remember that land tax is a tax on renters, on families, on businesses, and on mum and dad investors. Renters pay land tax because investors pay land tax. Investors purchase a property to provide much-needed rental accommodation, but the land tax component is passed on to some extent to the renters. In many cases, investors cannot pass on the full effect of land tax because the rental property would be completely unaffordable for renters. Therefore, investors are out of pocket.

When New South Wales investors are out of pocket, they look around at other investment opportunities. They look at Queensland, where it is a lot more competitive, and they take their money there. One only has to listen to Cristine Castle, President of the Real Estate Institute, to hear the problems experienced by real estate agents who get a rare rental property to put to the market. At this time of the year, in particular, they are faced with many people competing for one rental property. At a recent housing roundtable hosted by the Opposition Cristine Castle said that up to 50 people may compete for a single rental property that has become available. That competition pushes rents up, where the market can bear it. Many would-be renters are finding it incredibly difficult to put a roof over their heads.

Twice as many businesses in New South Wales pay land tax than payroll tax, and commercial properties contribute 60 per cent of land tax revenue in New South Wales. That is about 56,000 businesses paying land tax, which is a lot of businesses, and when it is uncompetitive in New South Wales those businesses cannot be blamed for looking to take their business to places such as Queensland. We need reforms to land tax that will lead to a capping on the Government's current unearned, undeserved revenue windfall, which the Ombudsman predicted would occur when the necessary remedies to the flawed land tax valuation system are made. As the Ombudsman pointed out, a significant undervaluation across the entire system is expected to see an increase in land tax revenue to the Government of around 20 per cent. The Government has seen that prediction and its eyes have lit up because it can see more land tax revenue rolling in. It ought to be coming up with a capping mechanism that ensures that the New South Wales Treasury, and Michael Costa in particular, does not get the benefit of an undeserved windfall that comes its way simply because it has introduced long overdue remedies to a flawed system.

The Government should be looking at a fairer valuation and appeal system that works, something that will be easily accessible and easy for people to understand. It should also be the objective of the New South Wales Government to reduce the land tax rate. We are not seeing any of that from this Government. In January 2006 investors faced valuation rises of 4 per cent, with residential rises of around 2 per cent. On top of that, according to the OSR annual report the Government admitted that it had a land tax revenue windfall of $188 million in the 2004-05 budget year.

At a time when the Government was claiming it had fixed all the problems in land tax by replacing the threshold—after Opposition and industry stakeholder pressure to do so—it returned what it said was a $53 million concession around 25 January. However, it was still making revenue windfalls from land tax of nearly $200 million. Whenever you hear the word "concession" from this Government, do not believe it. It is small change compared to the money it has raked in since the original tax grab or tax extension was introduced, particularly when Premier Iemma took office.

Other provisions in the bill deal with concessions and exemptions from duty in the Duties Act and the clarification of aggregation provisions. One particularly long overdue measure makes specific exceptions for purchases of multiple lots by home builders. New South Wales has a housing affordability problem. The Carr Government and the Iemma-Costa Government have starved the State of land releases, which has sent prices through the roof. Businesses have said that, particularly because of the provisions in the Duties Act, it is costing more than it should to aggregate land. Many people in the industry welcome the new provision. However, it should not have been necessary in the first place. This matter should have been fixed a long time ago. Under the current legislation thousands of dollars have been added to the cost of a new home. The Government admits it will give back only $5 million in concessions as a result of its proposed measures.

Changes have also been made to call option assignment duty. When the Government introduced that revenue provision last year, the Opposition, working with the Property Council, the Urban Development Institute of Australia and the Housing Industry Association, highlighted its concerns. It has taken the Government more than a year to deal with them. In this case, it admits it will give away only "negligible" concessions because of the cooler market and it believes the concessions will amount to about $1 million. The final provisions relate to extending the minimum age for eligibility for the Home Equity Release Scheme from 65 years of age to 60 years of age. I understand this measure will affect tens of people, not a great deal, and again will have only a minimal impact on the Government's revenue. Changes to the Duties Act will bring in the definition of "primary production" and align it with land tax in terms of intergenerational transfers for primary producers, particularly in agriculture and fisheries. Again the Government admits only a dozen or so people a year will make use of that provision.

Yet again the Government claims to be making concessions to hard-strapped taxpayers in New South Wales. In fact, the concessions are only minimal. If it were serious about making New South Wales competitive again and reducing the taxation burden, it would look at the Opposition's economic rescue plan for New South Wales, which includes significant tax reductions and tax reforms. Our plan includes raising the payroll tax threshold in New South Wales from $600,000 to $850,000. At the time we made that policy announcement the $850,000 would have matched the Queensland threshold. At its last election and budget, Queensland raised its threshold yet again to $1 million. At least the increase will make us more competitive than we were. The Liberal-National Coalition payroll tax policy will exempt 4,500 businesses from payroll tax as a result of the higher threshold and businesses that continue to be liable for payroll tax—about 20,000 business in New South Wales—will pay up to $15,000 less per year if their payroll is totally in New South Wales.

The first item in the Liberal-National Coalition's economic rescue plan for New South Wales is significant payroll tax cuts, which will enable businesses to employ more staff, invest in more equipment or plant and grow their businesses. We have also announced tax concessions and stamp duty concessions for investors investing in homes up to $500,000 in value if it is for the purpose of providing rental accommodation. Those stamp duty concessions will make it even more attractive for investors to invest in new housing stock. It is our objective to encourage the production and purchase of new housing stock, particularly at the affordable level. We have also announced that we will top up the First Home Owner Grant from $7,000 to $10,000 to give first homebuyers a better chance of being able to afford their own home. Again, that is targeted at homes up to $500,000 in value.

The Coalition has also announced measures to reduce red tape for business and to involve the business community in the identification and removal of unnecessary red tape. We will also link government chief executive officers' pay to performance in reducing red tape. The Liberal-National Coalition has a well-articulated and thorough economic rescue plan for New South Wales that provides significant tax relief to businesses and to mum and dad investors, and improves affordability for first homebuyers. The State Revenue Legislation Amendment (Tax Concessions) Bill will, on the Government's own admission, return only about $10 million in tax concessions to people who have been victims of the Iemma-Costa Government's $700 million-plus tax grab in the past year and a half.

When we look at the quantum of tax increases over the past year and a half compared to the concessions now being given, it is clear the Labor Government is still dependent on a massive taxation stream from families and businesses in order to fund its unrestrained spending. It has failed to introduce any structural or microeconomic reform to improve its performance and the quality of the services it provides. The Opposition will not oppose this bill. However, the Labor Government needs to do a lot better if New South Wales is to get out of its economic mire. Nothing other than a change in government in March next year will achieve a kick-start to the New South Wales economy.

Ms LINDA BURNEY (Canterbury—Parliamentary Secretary) [8.37 p.m.], in reply: Before addressing specific issues related to the State Revenue Legislation Amendment (Tax Concessions) Bill, I feel impelled to comment on a number of issues raised by the honourable member for Southern Highlands in her contribution to the debate. Despite her doom and gloom assessment of the New South Wales economy, I want to put some positive facts on the record. The New South Wales economy is strong. Our unemployment levels are at their lowest in 25 years. International agencies have recognised New South Wales's strong financial position by awarding the State with the highest credit rating of triple-A.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Thanks to John Howard.

Ms LINDA BURNEY: Whilst the honourable member for Wakehurst says it has something to do with John Howard, I say heaven forbid. The New South Wales economy is the powerhouse of the Australian economy in a number of ways. Let me put on the record for the second time: we have a triple-A credit rating and we have remained triple-A for a number of years. It is amusing to listen to the honourable member for Southern Highlands talk about budget problems. I point out to the honourable member for Southern Highlands that at present the Peter meter, as we have colloquially coined it, has up to $25 billion of election promises which the Opposition has made to people across New South Wales.

I am no economist, and anyone looking at my chequebook would understand that. However, I do understand that if the Opposition makes $25 billion worth of promises, it must get the money to pay for those promises from somewhere. I ask the honourable member for Southern Highlands to tell the House how the Opposition will raise that $25 billion. One of the answers might be increasing the taxes imposed on the people of New South Wales. We must be honest, straightforward and upfront about where that money will come from. This State has had a triple-A credit rating for 10 consecutive years of budget surpluses. That is a matter of record.

The honourable member for Southern Highlands spoke at length about tax. The Iemma Government has cut or amended five taxes. It has cut the vendor tax to stimulate the property markets and it has lifted the land tax threshold so that fewer people now pay land tax. We now have one of the lowest rates of land tax in Australia. That is not political rhetoric; it is fact. The Government has cut workers compensation premiums for business to 15 per cent and payroll tax for companies locating or expanding in areas of high unemployment. It has also worked collaboratively with the clubs movement to resolve the poker machine tax issue. The honourable member for Southern Highlands spoke about the land tax threshold. The threshold for people buying investment properties in New South Wales is $352,000.

I have a fundamental point to make before I address the bill: If the Opposition has made $25 billion in promises it must have some way to pay for them. How will it do that? The answer is by increasing taxes. I acknowledge the contributions of honourable members in this debate. Of course, the main purpose of the bill is to implement land tax changes announced in the 2006-07 budget. The bill provides concessions and clarifications of duties and the gaming machine tax. It makes amendments to the Land Tax Management Act 1956, the Duties Tax 1997, the Taxation Administration Act 1996, the Gaming Machine Tax Act 2001 and the Valuation of Land Tax Act 1996.

The bill clarifies or extends a number of concessions or exemptions from State taxes, including implementing concessions for family unit trusts and for unit trusts that restructure to be eligible for land tax concessions. Some honourable members may be interested in that. It also simplifies the system of averaging values of land subject to a heritage restriction or heritage order, and clarifies the rights of taxpayers to object to land values used to arrive at an average value. I am sure honourable members understand that that is an important aspect of this legislation. The bill also exempts from duty aggregation provisions purchases of multiple lots of land by home builders, removes liability for nominal duty on documents that establish or govern managed investment schemes, provides for exemptions from call option assignment duty, and reduces the minimum age for the home equity release duties exemption from 65 to 60 years. That is very important.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! Members of the Opposition have had their opportunity to speak in the debate. The honourable member for Canterbury has the call.

Ms LINDA BURNEY: The remaining provisions of the bill improve and clarify administrative provisions relating to State taxes. That will make compliance with State tax laws easier for taxpayers. Having just done my tax return, I appreciate that. The amendments complement last week's good news about the strong New South Wales economy. Last week the Treasurer confirmed the delivery of the tenth consecutive budget surplus in New South Wales. That is 10 surpluses in a row. The final budget result of a surplus of just over $1 billion demonstrates the Iemma Government's sound financial management. The Government has a solid record of meeting its fiscal targets and is on track to achieve its savings target over the forward estimates. That budget discipline, demonstrated over a decade, is why the ratings agencies continue to award New South Wales the highest possible credit rating of triple A.

The Iemma Government's sound financial management and strong balance sheet has meant that spending on vital services can be increased. Honourable members should consider the Government's commitment this financial year of $120 million for capital works in schools. Ours is the oldest State in the country, so our infrastructure is older. However, the New South Wales Government has committed $120 million to improve our school facilities. The bill is another example of the Government's sound financial management. It has been designed to further strengthen the New South Wales economy, which is the essence of good governance and good government. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.
Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I acknowledge the presence in the Chamber of the former member for Auburn, Peter Nagle, and his family.

Debate resumed from 17 October 2006.

Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN (Willoughby) [8.45 p.m.]: The Opposition will not oppose the Adoption Amendment Bill. I thank the many community stakeholders who provided the Opposition with invaluable feedback on the proposed amendments, and I will deal with the specific issues they raised. The bill seeks to make amendments to clarify parts of the Adoption Act and make them more workable. I note that these amendments are distinct from the review of the Act currently being undertaken. I am advised that any proposed amendments to the Act resulting from the review will not be introduced until next year. The proposed amendments seek to specify the circumstances that must exist before an adoption order may be made to enable a child to be adopted by his or her authorised carers.

The bill also contains various provisions relating to adult adoptions. It requires adoption plans for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children to make provision for the way in which children are to be assisted in developing a healthy cultural identity and links to their heritage. It also makes amendments to facilitate the return of children to the care of the Director General of the Department of Community Services [DOCS] to address difficulties that have arisen when a pre-adoptive placement has been terminated and the prospective adoptive parents have not been co-operative in relinquishing the care and responsibility of the child. The bill ensures that the provision of original documents to adopted children once they reach the age of 18 does not contravene the State Records Act. It also provides for search warrants to facilitate the investigation of suspected offences under the Act. The bill enables the prescription of adoption services and accreditation standards to be effected by gazettal and aligns the terminology used under the Act with the terminology used in the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1988.

I turn first to the proposals with regard to the circumstances that must exist before an adoption order may be made so as to enable a child to be adopted by his or her authorised carers. I understand that under this amendment to the Act the Supreme Court may dispense with consent of any person other than the child if the court is satisfied that the child has established a stable relationship with the authorised carer, and the adoption of the child by the authorised carer will promote the child's interests and welfare. The Opposition acknowledges the thrust of this amendment, given the importance, in appropriate circumstances, of enhancing a child's sense of belonging and permanence in the carer's family when there is no concern about the child's welfare, as distinct from the child's welfare at the beginning of the placement.

I know that this amendment to the Act is a welcome relief to many foster parents, who can now take the final step to adoption. However, I take this opportunity to place on record the ongoing concerns that foster parents continue to express about the failure of the Department of Community Services [DOCS] to adequately support both carers and children in their care. Many families continue to suffer because of a system that they feel is letting them down. One such example that has been brought to my attention is of a distressed foster parent who begged DOCS to ensure that a nurse accompanied the disabled child in her care during a contact visit, only to have this request denied. That is but one of many such examples, and I urge the Minister to address these issues, given the thousands of children who are currently in out-of-home care.

With regard to adult adoptions, the bill seeks to clarify the circumstances that must exist before the Supreme Court makes an adoption order in relation to an adult by providing that the parent-child relationship must have existed during the adoptee's childhood for a period of at least five years—that is, the relationship must have commenced no later than when the adoptee was 13 years of age—unless the Supreme Court finds there are exceptional circumstances. That is critical for people who wish to formalise an existing family relationship. The Opposition accepts that these criteria ensure that people take that important step for the right reasons, which is so critical in these situations.
The bill proposes a series of amendments to require adoption plans for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children to make provision in respect of the way in which a child is to be assisted in developing a healthy cultural identity and links to their heritage. I understand it is already the case that when an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child is placed with adoptive parents who are not of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander background, the adoption goes before the Supreme Court for a preliminary hearing. The amendment proposes that it will be at this time that an agreement is reached as to the way the child's cultural heritage will be protected and reintroduced.

I am pleased that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs is in the Chamber. I have been approached by a number of Aboriginal organisations whose members are very concerned about the lack of consultation with key stakeholders on this issue. A number of people representing indigenous organisations have contacted the Opposition, as well as many other members of this House, to express concern that they have not been consulted on this legislation and also to reiterate their strong views in relation to adoption. Representatives from the organisation Link-Up have asked me to place on record the fact that since May they have sought a meeting with the Minister for Community Services regarding various issues in her department and they are very disappointed that such a meeting has not yet taken place. Nor have they been briefed regarding the legislation, and they are very concerned that they have not been consulted adequately. They have raised concerns in relation to resourcing issues. Representatives from Link-Up have told me today, as they have told other members of Parliament, that they feel the organisation is drastically underfunded by the State Government in relation to addressing many of the issues it has to deal with.

I also wish to place on record concerns raised by the Aboriginal Child, Family and Community Care State Secretariat, which is the peak body funded by the Department of Community Services to advocate on behalf of Aboriginal children and young people in the out-of-home care system. The organisation does a great job in dealing with wider welfare issues for Aboriginal children and young people in New South Wales and nationally. Representatives of the organisation have asked members to note that they strongly disagree with any form of adoption for Aboriginal children and young people. They want to make it clear that that is still their view, and they call for better consultation.

The bill amends the Act to facilitate the return of children to the care of the Director General of the Department of Community Services to address difficulties that have arisen when a pre-adoptive placement has been terminated and the prospective adoptive parents have not been co-operative in relinquishing the care responsibility of the child. The proposed amendment will give the director general power to regain care responsibility of the child, who is under the direct general's parental responsibility. This seems to be a straightforward amendment.

The bill seeks to ensure that the provision of original documents to adopted children once they reach 18 years of age does not contravene the State Records Act 1998. Currently, the State Records Act prohibits the release of original records that have been archived by the Department of Community Services even when those records are the subject of an Act enacted after the State Records Act 1998. Original documents will be able to be released to an adopted person from archived files. I understand from the briefing provided by the Minister that copies of an original document removed from a file will be made and retained on the archived file in accordance with section 75 of the State Records Act. I can appreciate the importance of this amendment for people who may want information and advice about their history. I note from comments made by the Department of Community Services adoption permanent care services director that most of the documents relate to former wards who came into care in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s. The amendment will help ensure that these people have all the original documents regarding their history.

The bill provides for the issue of search warrants to facilitate the investigation of suspected offences under the Act. It enables the prescription of adoption services and accreditation standards to be effected by gazettal. It aligns terminology used in the Act with the terminology used in the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998. As I said earlier, the Opposition will not oppose the bill. We have considered it and we have spoken to a number of key stakeholders about it. I wish to acknowledge the representations made to us by the Foster Carers Association of New South Wales and the Association of Children's Welfare Agencies. I also highlight once again the concerns expressed by both Link-Up and the Aboriginal Child, Family and Community Care State Secretariat about the lack of consultation and about the issues they have raised not being addressed. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms MARIANNE SALIBA (Illawarra) [8.57 p.m.]: I support the amendments proposed by the Adoption Amendment Bill. I do so both as a foster mother and as an adoptive parent. Adoption has been discussed and debated hotly in this Chamber on various occasions. It is an issue that evokes many emotions in members and in the community. It is an issue at the very heart of our social and cultural patterns of parenting and childhood. In contemporary society we have embraced the concept that an adopted person is entitled to information concerning his or her adoption. I wish to address two aspects of the bill on behalf of those who have been adopted or who may be adopted. The first aspect of the bill I particularly wish to support relates to the Supreme Court dispensing with consent in certain adoption proceedings. I refer to proceedings in which a child has been in the care of foster carers and has established a stable relationship with them, and the carers seek to adopt that child.

I wish to place on record that my son Dennis, at the age of 13, signed his own consent for adoption. He had been living with us for 12 years. I know, probably more than most, exactly what this legislation will mean to children and families. A foster child who is in a stable, loving environment has every right to be part of that family if that is the child's wish and the family's wish. In our case my son had to wait until he was 12 before he could sign his own consent because he was not able to get the consent of either of his birth parents. My youngest, who has been with us since she was 3½ and is now 10 years old, is already saying she cannot wait until she is 12 to sign her own consent. I am honoured to have my children adopt me—and that is what has happened in my family. The bill makes sure that we do not have to wait that length of time; it provides opportunities for this to happen.

The law as it stands presently contains an anomaly whereby consent can be dispensed with only when there is serious concern for the welfare of the child. For a child who is in a stable, long-term relationship with carers, such as in my case, serious concern for the child's immediate welfare is difficult to establish simply because in his or her present circumstances, he or she is in a happy, stable situation that does not give cause for concern. I am given to understand that the court has expressed reservations that the present wording of the Act may undermine its ability to dispense with consent when the child is in a good, stable, long-term placement and the child's interests would be well served by an adoption. So the child may be denied a deeper sense of belonging and permanence in the prospective adoptive family.

That takes me back again to my family circumstances. At one stage my son Dennis was invited to his brother Matthew's birthday party. He said, "But I'm not your real brother". Matthew said, "Of course you are my real brother." But Dennis did not feel like he was Matthew's real brother because there was nothing to say that he was: he did not have a birth certificate saying that Matthew was his brother or that we were his parents. So we wrote out a little certificate for him saying, "To my real brother." That helped him overcome his feeling that he was not really a part of the family because he was not adopted.

The amendment does not seek to undermine the rights or interests of the birth parents. Instead, it seeks to strike a balance. On the one hand it seeks to further the best interests of a child who wishes to be a recognised part of the family he or she is living with. On the other hand, it seeks to continue to acknowledge the rights of the birth parents to be consulted and to be accorded procedural fairness when there is an application for an adoption order in respect of their child. The amendment will enable the Supreme Court to take into account the period of time a child has been in the care of his or her carers when considering whether to dispense with the consent of other persons. The court will not need to consider whether there is serious concern for the welfare of the child before dispensing with consent.

I also support the amendment to section 143 of the Act to provide that adopted children are given access to certain information. The State Records Act 1998 prohibits the release of original records that have been archived by the Department of Community Services [DOCS]. The reason for that provision in the State Records Act is clear. Original records that have been archived by a government department should be retained on the file. In most cases that would present no problem at all, and anyone seeking information from their file would be content with a photocopy of the original material. In most cases a photocopy would serve the necessary purpose, whatever that may be.

However, there are situations in which the original document that has been archived rightfully belongs in the possession of the person seeking it. One such situation is when a person has been adopted. The document in question may have been unavailable to the person now seeking it because the person was not aware of its existence or was too young to request it. Later, when the adopted person seeks to retrieve information about himself or herself or his or her birth family from the departmental file he or she finds that it has been archived and, because of the wording of the State Records Act, the original material is not available to the adopted person. That could relate to family photographs, possibly school records, or other highly personal material.
When the State Records Act was passed it was never intended that its operation would prohibit an adopted person's access to precious documents—documents that may be the person's only connection to his or her birth family. This material may have been given to DOCS at the time of the child's adoption or it may have been placed with DOCS in the event of the child requesting it at some later time. Apart from the examples already given, the type of records we are talking about here will include original birth certificates and other birth records. I am sure that members will agree with me that no purpose is served in such material existing on an archived file in the Government Records Repository in Kingswood. Such documents rightfully belong to the adopted person who would treasure and cherish links with his or her past. It is also about the identity of adopted persons and where they have been. A photocopy of the original document can quite satisfactorily replace the original archived material for record-keeping purposes. I strongly support this amendment, which provides that the release of original records under the Adoption Act does not contravene the State Records Act 1998.

The issues surrounding adoption can be emotion charged. The laws relating to adoption need to balance the best interests of the child with the rights of others involved and keep in mind contemporary community values. I believe that, overall, the bill contains a range of sensible amendments. In particular, the two aspects that I have raised promise to protect the rights and interests of the child when he or she has been adopted or seeks to be adopted. I am more than happy to support the bill and I urge members on both sides of the House to do the same.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [9.05 a.m.]: As indicated by the shadow Minister, the Opposition will not oppose the Adoption Amendment Bill. The shadow Minister has quite capably put the various issues in relation to the bill, but I sound a note of caution. I have served also as the shadow Minister for Community Services and I have seen what has been, at various times, the Labor Party's policy in regard to both foster children and adopted children. As a preliminary comment, I caution the House against rushing to support any adoption amendments that the Labor Government introduces after 12 years in power. The Government has not got a good record when it comes to the introduction of adoption legislation.

I recollect the former Minister, Faye Lo Po', seeking to get headlines with such pithy little statements as, "Three counts and you are going to lose your child". At one stage she was very keen to push adoption as the panacea for all problems with children in care. As shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Community Services at the time, I had some real concerns about non-indigenous and indigenous children being subject to the whims of a Labor Government that seemed to believe that adoption was the easy path to go down to deal with these issues. We have to be cautious, because whilst adoption can offer permanency and the opportunity for children to be put in stable family environments, as the honourable member for Illawarra indicated, it can also be the cheap option for a government that does not want to put the necessary resources into funding the placement and care of children that the State considers are in need of care.

Children in foster care in New South Wales attract both the support and love of many foster carers, but often they get little more than that. Although the Government argues that it has put more resources into foster care in recent years, which is true, it has not put in anywhere near enough. Foster carers regularly report that it is very difficult to bring up a child on the allowances they receive. From time to time we hear calls for foster care to be a more professional arrangement in which more recompense is offered to the carers. Those are issues for the community to discuss in order to try to arrive at an appropriate balance. However, when we leap then to the next stage and say that children should be adopted, we need to exercise caution because when children are adopted, even with the various changes contained in the Adoption Act 2000, it tends to lead to a situation in which the child or children can become, in effect, separated from their family—their brothers, their sisters, their aunts, their uncles, their grandparents—their friends and their school environment.

We need to understand that when children are adopted they are separated often from much of their history. We have to be cautious when looking at any bills that the Government introduces. The Government may be motivated by a desire to take an appropriate course to ensure the interests of children or it may be motivated by its incapacity to manage the growing number of children in foster care. I remind the House that when Labor came to office in 1995 there were approximately 5,500 children in out-of-home care. Today the figure is more in the order of 11,000 children in out-of-home care, so the Government is looking for alternatives to deal with the matter. I note that the Minister in her second reading speech stated:

At present the wording of the section allows the court to dispense with the consent of the parent or guardian of the child to the adoption only when there is serious cause for concern about the welfare of the child.

In other words, under the current Adoption Act 2000 the only time that the consent of the parent or guardian can be dispensed with in the process of adoption is when there are very serious concerns about the welfare of that child. I seek some clarification from the Minister in reply. The current legislation states that one can dispense with the consent of the parent or guardian only when there is serious cause for concern about the welfare of the child, and I well recollect that was the stated intent of the Adoption Act 2000. Section 67 (1) (d) states:

, or

(d) if an application has been made to the Court for the adoption of the child by one or more persons who are authorised carers for the child:

(i) the child has established a stable relationship with those carers, and

(ii) the adoption of the child by those carers will promote the child's welfare.

That is a circumstance when a court can dispense with consent of a person other than the child. We have moved a long way from the provisions of the 2000 Act to what appears to be almost a blanket removal of parental or guardian consent. Although there are a limited number of situations in which one would want to remove the adoption process from the constraint of obtaining the consent of the birth parents, one of the underlying principles of the bill introduced by the Minister's predecessor was a strict requirement that birth parents have a continuing right, as far as is humanly practicable, to have a say about where their child is placed. Part of the underpinning principle is that birth parents will inevitably have an ongoing role in the life of their child.

I ask the Minister, in reply, to explain how such a long leap was made from the 2000 Act to this bill and a balance was still struck for the majority of parents who, although they might not have been able to care for their child, still want an ongoing interest in their child's development. Perhaps the Supreme Court will be given guidelines but, if so, I fail to see them in the bill and I am not quite sure how that will be achieved. I ask the Minister to address that issue because either the Government was very wrong in the year 2000 or it is very wrong in the year 2006. Whilst that is a consistent principle with this Government—it is usually wrong on one day or the next—it would be helpful in the context of this significant legislation to explain how the shift has occurred and how it will be applied in practice to ensure that the vast bulk of birth parents have some sort of continuing say in their child's future.

The other issue I wanted to address was that in my capacity as shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs I put a caveat on all these bills. Aboriginal people in Australia have been treated abysmally for 218 years and many of them still feel aggrieved. The very name "Department of Community Services" is enough to send off alarm bells. Although on the face of it this bill indicates that any planned adoption must make reference to cultural identity and have a plan in place to ensure that cultural identity is recognised, that does not appear to have satisfied the concerns of the Aboriginal community. I note that Aboriginal Child Family and Community Care State Secretariat Inc, known as AbSec, wrote to members of Parliament generally, so I assume the Minister has received a copy of the letter dated 24 October, which states:

Dear Member,

The Aboriginal Child Family and Community Care State Secretariat (NSW) Inc (known as AbSec) is a peak body funded by the NSW Department of Community Services to advocate on behalf of Aboriginal children and young people in the Out of Home to Care system of NSW. AbSec also deals with wider welfare issues for Aboriginal children and young people in NSW and nationally. AbSec is strongly concerned with the proposed amendments to the Adoptions Legislation. NSW Government held discussions with members of AbSec a number of years ago and the strong comment made by AbSec is that the communities represented by AbSec strongly disagree with any form of adoption for Aboriginal children and young people. The current board wish to make it clear that this point of view is still a firm commitment by AbSec and the communities it represents.

The concerning part of that letter is that AbSec is opposed to the provisions in the bill but also it has been some years since there were any discussions with AbSec about adoption legislation. Considering that this peak body is funded by the New South Wales Department of Community Services and on the basis that the legislation is being presented by the Minister, presumably on a brief from her department, it seems extraordinary that the Department of Community Services would not have at least discussed the issues with AbSec. I ask the Minister to explain why the Department of Community Services and the Government have not learned the lessons of 12 years in office, or learned any lessons apparently, and failed to discuss such a major piece of legislative change with AbSec, the group that represents Aboriginal children and young people in the out-of-home-care system. The letter further states:

Past Government practices of removing children and having these children adopted by non-Aboriginal people is still a huge issue for Aboriginal communities today. The current Government is still paying for the costs of these past practices.

Like it or not, Aboriginal people have been treated poorly, abysmally in many cases, and even today when we hear that the Department of Community Service has a policy of placing Aboriginal children with Aboriginal carers, often we find that is not the case. That is largely because this State Labor Government has not given the department the resources to actually develop sufficient numbers of Aboriginal carers to have the children placed with them. It is a basic failure of the State Labor Government that after 12 years it has not managed to get it right. The fact that AbSec wrote this letter on the day that the bill is being debated in the New South Wales Legislative Assembly—today, 24 October—demonstrates urgency and the fact that AbSec was not briefed previously. I ask the Minister to respond specifically to those concerns and to give assurances to the Aboriginal community that this legislation is not going to be used in a negative way that would further impact or harm Aboriginal communities.

The Department of Community Services is not exactly perfect when it comes to managing Aboriginal people and Aboriginal children. There are still thousands of Aboriginal children who are in care—often in informal kinship arrangements. Very recently I was informed that the department really has no serious plans to manage those children in kinship care. It simply knows that these Aboriginal children have been placed, usually in an informal environment with an auntie or an uncle, and the money has been paid by way of a carer's allowance. There is no follow-up, no checks, no nothing. The department does not exactly get the job right a lot of the time and that is largely because of a lack of resources from the Government.

Having met many community services officers, I know that they do a first-class job in trying circumstances. They work hard but they are frustrated. Sometimes I have spoken to officers who are still working in their offices at seven or eight o'clock at night. I am sure the Minister will be fascinated to know that I talk to DOCS officers who are still in their offices at seven or eight o'clock at night. They are working; they are doing the best job they can but not with the necessary support from the Government. I simply ask the Minister to address the concerns of AbSec and tell the House how she intends to ensure that Aboriginal people will not be disadvantaged by this legislation.

Ms LINDA BURNEY (Canterbury—Parliamentary Secretary) [9.20 p.m.]: I shall make some preliminary comments and then speak specifically about a number of issues raised by the honourable member for Willoughby and the honourable member for Wakehurst. No-one in this Chamber would deny that adoption is a very emotional issue. Understandably, it is an emotive and complex issue. The issues are complex not only for children who are adopted but also for adoptive parents and parents who have had their children adopted. That is the fundamental point to be made in any discussion about adoption. The rights of adoptive parents, the rights of parents of children being adopted and the rights of adopted children are fundamental to any discussion and certainly to this bill. Government members do not shy away from those points.

Every adoption story has its own complexities and personal narratives. But this bill is an important clarification that adoption plans are well thought through. I shall specifically address the issues raised by the honourable member for Willoughby and the honourable member for Wakehurst about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children. The issue about consultation with Link-Up and the Aboriginal Child, Family and Community Care State Secretariat (NSW) Incorporated has been raised with us, and I am sure the Minister will speak about that in her reply. But there is no issue at all with the Minister and her office consulting those Aboriginal organisations. We acknowledge the consultations in 2000 and 2001, and the briefings will ensure that particular plans are made. In 2000 and 2001, when I was the Director General of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, I was directly involved in discussions with those two organisations. I believe that what we are presenting tonight is absolutely in line with the discussions at that time.

Personally, although I was not adopted, I am a person of Aboriginal descent and I did not meet my Aboriginal family until I was almost 28 years old. I understand deeply the issues around those particular points. But let me say this: One driving force in the formulation of this legislation has been our absolute awareness of the legacy of the stolen generations, the lack of a tradition of adoption within Aboriginal communities and the past practices of welfare intervention for Aboriginal children and young people. As the honourable member for Willoughby pointed out, that excluded Aboriginal people from decision making in the removal and placement of their children.

If there is anyone in this Chamber who is critically aware of that, it is me. Understandably, all of these practices have made the Aboriginal community particularly sensitive to Aboriginal children being adopted by non-Aboriginal persons. I hope that Andrew Bolt from the equivalent of the Daily Telegraph in Melbourne is listening to this because he has verballed me twice on these issues. I hope he reads my speech. We are very aware of the hardship and feelings of loss and grief experienced by Koori people affected by removal of the legacy of past welfare policies. This overriding understanding and awareness have been behind the thinking and the drafting of this legislation. These policies are well documented in the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission's report entitled "Bringing them home".

Despite Senator Herron, who was a Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and is subsequently a revisionist historian, this Government and this House believe that the stolen generations are the real issue, despite the re-writing of the black armband view of history. This bill makes an amendment to adoption plans for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children which confirms and further supports that today's child welfare laws in New South Wales enshrine the fundamental and inalienable rights—and "rights" is an important word here—of Aboriginal children and young people to know their own family and culture. This has been a specific driving force of this legislation. The bill also confirms that the wrongs of past policies of assimilation are not repeated.

It must be acknowledged that the amendment in the bill requiring adoption plans to foster the integrity and importance of indigenous culture and kinship for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children is not a new policy. Indeed, for a long time it has been the foundation in terms of this type of direction in New South Wales on this side of the House. New South Wales was the first State in Australia to legislate for the rights of future generations of Aboriginal children from the devastating effects of removal from family and culture by incorporating the Aboriginal placement principles into the Children (Care and Protection) Act 1987 and then into the Adoption Act 2000. The Aboriginal placement principles were included in the Adoption Act 2000 as a result of the New South Wales Law Reform Commission recommendation in its 1997 review of the Adoption Act 1965. I make the point that it was also in 1997 that "Bringing them home" was released to the Australian public. That report drew a line in the sand about what we believed our heritage and history were as Australians. The Law Reform Commission's findings were that:

Aboriginal communities wish to see the inclusion of a placement principle within adoption legislation which affords the child's community the opportunity to adopt that child. This may seem at odds with the fact that adoption is not part of Aboriginal culture, but so long as adoption does exist as a care option for Aboriginal children, the safeguards of a placement principle operate in the child's best interests.

The purpose of the Aboriginal placement principles as incorporated in the legislation is not about being ideologically correct, but recognises the reality of the need to preserve and enhance Aboriginal children's sense of identity as Aboriginal by ensuring that they are maintained and placed within their own family, extended family, local Aboriginal community or the wider Aboriginal community, and where this is not possible or not practicable to be placed with non-Aboriginal persons. The first principle, the thing we strive to do, is to place the child within their family, their extended family or the community of which they are a member.

These principles enshrined in the Act are to ensure that recognition is given to an Aboriginal child's right to be raised in their own culture and to the importance and value of family, extended family, kinship networks, culture and community in raising Aboriginal children. I emphasise the words "value of family, extended family, kinship networks, culture and community in raising Aboriginal children". In any proceedings regarding the placement of an Aboriginal child for adoption, the Act also provides the further safeguard that the opportunity be given to the child, its parents and extended family and community to have their views heard. This is in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The bill is to be commended for further strengthening the right of Aboriginal children and young persons to be raised in an environment that allows them access to their own culture, extended family and community. The bill makes it clear that where an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child is to be adopted by non-Aboriginal parents, it is no longer an option but a strict requirement that adoption plans set out the way in which that child will be assisted in maintaining links with its heritage and culture. In making this amendment to the Adoption Act so as to further strengthen the inherent right of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children to maintain their cultural identity, the bill is to be fully supported. I would not support this bill if I did not believe that these were the fundamental principles contained in the bill. I commend the Minister and the bill to the House.

Ms CLOVER MOORE (Bligh) [9.30 p.m.]: The Adoption Amendment Bill makes a number of changes to the Adoption Act 2000. We are told that it will make the Act more workable. Amendments include clarifying the provisions for adopting adults; facilitating children's return from unco-operative carers to the responsibility of the department; requiring adoption plans for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children to include links with their cultural heritage; and various technical changes.

I very much welcome the poignant comments made by the honourable member for Canterbury and her strong recommendations to us that this bill is in the interests of the indigenous community. Notwithstanding those comments, I want to make some remarks because important issues have been raised with me by the Redfern Legal Centre. In the city of Sydney and in Redfern, which is part of my electorate at this time, we have a large number of urban indigenous members of the community. I wish to raise briefly the concerns of the Redfern Legal Centre. It is concerned that the bill will allow the courts to issue adoption orders without the permission of biological parents. It believes, on behalf of indigenous groups, that this could raise very serious concerns and have a serious impact.

The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission's 1995 "Stolen Children" inquiry, reported that adoption is alien to traditional Aboriginal child rearing, as the honourable member for Canterbury just told us. For many years indigenous children were forcibly removed from their families and sent to foster homes to be raised by non-indigenous families. We know that this practice had a devastating effect on these children, with many continuing to suffer well into their adult life, and it has been well acknowledged in this House on a number of occasions that that practice was wrong and had tragic consequences. Those decisions were made by people in this House at the time with the best of intentions, but we all now know that that action was not in the interests of those Aboriginal children. Given the bitter history of adoption of indigenous children, it is understandable that the bill is causing serious distress.

Where parents have difficulty but want to keep their children they need support and assistance, and the Minister needs to explain to us whether this bill will allow forced removal of children because of the shortage of much-needed support for parents. I urge the Minister and the Government to increase support for parents with difficulties, especially indigenous parents. I acknowledge that the bill requires cultural links in adoption plans for indigenous children. I ask the Minister for more detail as to how this will occur, especially as I am told by the Redfern Legal Centre, which is at the coalface dealing with indigenous families in distress, that it is concerned about the real shortage of available foster carers and potential adoptive parents in Sydney's indigenous community.

I ask that the Minister in her response spells out to us how she will be able to allay the fears of the indigenous community that this bill will not increase the numbers of indigenous children being taken from their families, and that what we have seen in the past that had such tragic consequences will not occur in the future.

Mrs JUDY HOPWOOD (Hornsby) [9.34 p.m.]: My contribution to the Adoption Amendment Bill will be short. This is a bill for an Act to amend the Adoption Act 2000 in relation to the adoption of adults, the adoption of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, and certain other matters. The objects of the bill are to clarify the circumstances that must exist before the Supreme Court makes an adoption order in relation to an adult; to require adoption plans for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children to make provision for certain matters; to specify the circumstances that must exist before an adoption order may be made so as to enable a child to be adopted by his or her authorised carers; to facilitate the return of children to the parental responsibility of the Director General of the Department of Community Services; to ensure that the provision of certain documents to adopted children does not contravene the provisions of the State Records Act 1998; to provide for the issue of search warrants to facilitate the investigation of suspected offences under the Adoption Act 2000 and the regulations under that Act; to enable the prescription of adoption services and accreditation standards to be effected by administrative order rather than, as is currently the case, by regulation; to enact savings and transitional provisions; and to deal with certain matters relating to terminology.

I support my colleagues on this side of this House in saying that we will not oppose the legislation. A number of issues have been raised by honourable members. I concur with all the concerns that have been raised, noting that 11,000 children are in out-of-home care and that this issue is an emotional one. Obviously, all factors surrounding fostering and adoption are of extreme importance and often raise difficult issues in the way fostering and adoption comes about. I agree with supporting parents who have had difficult circumstances in their lives, and the Minister and the Department of Community Services need to address that.

I do not have a lot of people from Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander background in my area. I have about 270 according to the most recent census information but I realise that the number is probably higher than that. I have visited and spoken to many of those Aboriginal people in my area and I know that some of the children are not living with their natural parents but with their extended families. I commend the care and attention I have witnessed first hand that is given to those children to provide them with support and a loving environment in which to grow. I recognise that fostering and adoption of Aboriginal children in non-Aboriginal homes causes a raft of concerns of a unique nature. I have to say something about the honourable member for Canterbury's comments about her role when she was director general of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs five years ago. Why has it taken so long for these amendments to come before the House when it appeared at that time that there was concurrence in our views? One has to question why it has taken this long.

Mr Brad Hazzard: It is now five years later.

Mrs JUDY HOPWOOD: The honourable member for Wakehurst makes a good point about the consultation process. I will not say any more other than I recently asked a question on notice about fostering issues. A number of people in my electorate have raised concerns with me about the time children spend with their foster parents, foster arrangements and adoption. I was appalled by the answer to my question. It did not give any detail and referred me to the annual report, which did not address all the issues I raised. Obviously the legislation needs to balance the rights of the child and the interests of all concerned parties, but the Minister has questions to answer.

Mr DARYL MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [9.40 p.m.]: I wish to make a contribution to the Adoption Amendment Bill. I will not recap the legislation, as the second reading speech of the Minister for Community Services, and Minister for Youth explained the intent and purpose of the bill and the shadow Minister raised issues of concern in her contribution to the debate. She also indicated that the Opposition will not oppose the bill. Previous speakers have also raised issues of concern. I want to focus on schedule 1, Principal amendments to Adoption Act 2000, Adoption orders for adults. Section 24 (1) of the Act specifies who may be the subject of an adoption order. In the case of a child who is over the age of 18 years when the application for the adoption order is made, section 24 (1) requires the child to have been cared for by the applicant. Section 24 (2) (a) states that a child has been cared for if he or she has been brought up, maintained and educated by the applicant for a continuous period of at least five years before the application was made. Schedule 1 [3] to the bill amends section 24 (2) (a) to make it clear that the period of five years must have occurred before the child reached the age of 18 years.

I would like to tell the House a beautiful story. For a number of months I have been dealing with a family in my electorate office in relation to the adoption of their son. The story starts in 1970. For the purpose of this debate I have chosen to use the Christian names of the three individuals concerned. Maureen was a young unmarried woman who gave birth to a child in 1970. She was sent to an unmarried mother's home, as was often the case in those days. She was sent to St Anthony's at Croydon. All the girls at the home were made to do unpaid work seven days a week. There were only a couple of paid employees. Maureen was transferred to Darlinghurst Women's Hospital to give birth to her child. Because she had chosen to keep the child, she was left in a room on her own for 10 days. As she was keeping her baby, she was kept separated from the unmarried mothers who were putting their babies up for adoption.

At the time attempts were made to force her to sign adoption papers. When I spoke to her today she was still very emotional about the events that took place all those years ago. She was 15 at the time and could easily have been intimidated, as I suppose happened to many young mothers. She was told if she kept the baby and brought him up herself, by the time he was 18 he would be a delinquent and probably in trouble with the law. She said that she felt she was treated very badly by the nuns at the time. Her words today were that she was made to feel dirty. Maureen was not allowed to return to the home to collect her belongings. Her parents went to the home to retrieve them. However, Maureen was one of the lucky ones because her family supported her until she married. She mentioned that today in her telephone call.

Maureen married a man by the name of Ron and they had children. At the age of four Maureen's son, Michael, to whom she had given birth at Darlinghurst Women's Hospital, had his surname changed by deed poll to his stepfather's name. At the age of 33 Michael decided he would like to become legally adopted by his stepfather. For all intents and purposes Ron is the only father Michael has ever known. Michael has never met his biological father and never had any contact with him. He has siblings. He wanted to make his surname legal and be legally adopted by his stepfather. A process was initiated and Maureen, Ron and Michael were required by law to participate in interviews with the Department of Community Services [DOCS]. In those interviews Maureen was, I would say, interrogated in front of Michael and Ron about the experiences that led her and Michael to that point in time. She had to relive her experiences of being unmarried and in the mother's home. She told me today how traumatic it was for her to relive those experiences.

The sadness is that she had never spoken to her husband, Ron, about her experiences; nor had she relayed them to Michael. During the interview process she had to relive and recount them. She said the DOCS representative held the discussion with her in front of her family, who were aware that she was unmarried at the time but were not aware of the rough treatment she had received and the experiences she had endured. She felt that this was an invasion of her privacy and it brought back all the ghosts. After hearing about the treatment she had received, both her husband and son were also very upset. According to existing laws, the biological father of this 33-year-old man was sought and located. I point out that this occurred three years ago; the process took three years to complete. The biological father was married and had a family of his own. Maureen was concerned that he may not have told his family he had a son. She was concerned about the impact on them and that it may create great drama and trauma in his family. The biological father gave permission for the adoption.

I understand that under the old laws the biological father would have been entitled to commence a relationship with the son. This bill will change that process. I point out that all the parties participating in this process were consenting adults. They had all agreed in the interests of finalising Michael's history that at the age of 33 he would be legally adopted by Ron and officially take his surname. I pose the question: Will this bill remove the responsibility of or the need for DOCS to carry out this process for consenting adults? The relevant paperwork, which I have in front of me, is entitled "Consent by a child who has attained the age of twelve years to his or her adoption". It states that the child, in this case a 33-year-old, understands:

my proposed adoptive parents will become my legal parents for all legal purposes and I will be considered to be their child

an amended birth certificate will be issued by the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages which will record my names as the ones I have requested.

The DOCS counsellor also provides a document stating that the person has provided the mandatory written information, the legal effect of signing an instrument of consent, the procedure for revoking consent and so on. This process took Michael, Maureen and Ron three years to complete and it cost them $5,750. This involved someone aged 33 years who is in unanimous agreement with his biological mother and his adoptive father to take his adoptive father's name legally. This should not have occurred. If this bill does not address the situation confronting Maureen, Ron and Michael I seek a commitment from the Minister that she will review that process.

I have recounted a beautiful story about a family that has lived together, played together, cried together and laughed together. They have made a decision to change Michael's name legally to that of his adoptive father and they should not have had to go through this drawn-out process. If the bill addresses that situation, I welcome it. Maureen is a delightful person and we spent many an hour talking about this issue. I spent a great deal of time helping Maureen, Ron and Michael through this process. If it can be simplified and the circumstances they faced can be addressed, the Minister should ensure that that occurs. The process should be refined to ensure that the trauma that Maureen experienced is not repeated. If the legislation does that it will be worthwhile.

Madam Acting Speaker, I listened very carefully to your contribution. Some would say that your family is unique. I congratulate you on the wonderful work that you have done and your beautiful family, whom I have met. I enjoyed your contribution and I could sense your passion for this bill. When we deal with the adoption of children and their future, we all need to speak with passion and to wear our hearts on our sleeves. It is important that this legislation is enacted and that we get it right, because history records that we have got it wrong many times.

I enjoyed the experience of working with Ron, Maureen and Michael, who live in my electorate. I have purposely not given their surname because no-one needs to know, although some may work it out and they were prepared for that. They deserve respect. They and the many other people who have suffered similar experiences deserve to know that the Minister will address the issue and that if it has not been dealt with in this bill she will introduce legislation that will.

Ms REBA MEAGHER (Cabramatta—Minister for Community Services, and Minister for Youth) [9.55 p.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members for their heart-felt and considered contributions to the debate on the Adoption Amendment Bill this evening. I also thank the Opposition for not opposing this very important legislation. A number of issues have been raised and I will attempt to work through them systematically. The honourable member for Willoughby referred to the Iemma Government's support for foster carers. I place on the record this Government's commitment to delivering the highest standard of support and remind Opposition members that a number of important steps have been taken recently to enhance support of foster carers. Honourable members will recall that last year the Government linked allowances to the consumer price index for the first time to prevent their falling behind because of inflation.

The Department of Community Services has recently concluded a review of carer allowances, and in some cases allowances will be increased by up to 50 per cent, which is a significant increase. Foster carers have been advised that those allowances will be paid by the beginning of November and that they will be backdated to 1 July. This Government is firmly committed to meeting its end of the bargain in providing financial support for foster carers. I hasten to add that we can never fully remunerate foster carers for the work they do. For 24 hours a day, seven days a week they open their homes and their hearts to some of the State's most vulnerable and in some cases most difficult children and provide them with a stable and nurturing home. Money cannot buy that. The foster carers I talk to do not want to be paid for what they do. They find it personally rewarding and they do it because they want to make a contribution. They do not see it as a financial transaction. Of course, they do need some support from the Government to minimise—and I emphasise that—their out-of-pocket expenses, and the Government is doing that.

The Government has also streamlined the way it pays contingencies so that it can better support foster carers when they face bigger, unexpected expenses for foster children, such as health needs like dental care. Other supports that have been put in place for foster carers include the establishment of regional foster care networks where foster carers can come together to discuss issues of concern. The department has also established a hotline for foster carers that is staffed by trained foster care specialists who answer foster carers' concerns as they arise. Importantly, the Iemma Government is making the financial commitment to build a stronger out-of-home care system in New South Wales. That includes the recruitment of an additional 50 caseworkers, who will be placed around the State to support foster carers and better facilitate permanency planning for children in out-of-home care. These are significant reforms. They are made possible by the Iemma Government's $1.2 billion reform of the Department of Community Services, which means that it can recruit more than 1,000 frontline caseworkers to support the most vulnerable children in the State and vulnerable families. Building a strong out-of-home care network and supporting our foster carers is a vital platform in that reform process.

I will also address some of the issues raised about the impact of this legislation on indigenous communities. Every honourable member is acutely aware of the impact of past welfare practices on indigenous people and we all share the goal of wanting to provide the highest standard of protection for Aboriginal children who cannot live at home safely because of violence or abuse, while at the same time being mindful of the cultural sensitivities that exist in indigenous communities. That is why my office is committed to providing information and briefings to the Aboriginal Child, Family and Community Care State Secretariat and Link-Up, and to ensuring that we can allay concern about the impact this legislation may have on indigenous children.

However, it is envisaged that the amendments to the court's power to approve adoptions without parental consent will apply only to a small number of Aboriginal children. Where a long-term foster care placement has been established, the court is able to assess that it is in the best interests of the child and is supported by the carer; and where there is no hope of restoration of that child to his or her birth parents the court is given power to individually assess that it is in the child's best interests in the long term.

The Department of Community Services takes Aboriginal identity and culture very seriously. That is why we have put in place the Aboriginal placement principles, which are designed to ensure that, wherever possible, an Aboriginal child is placed with, as a first resort, his or her extended family; if that is not possible, with his or her extended clan; and, if all else fails, a non-indigenous carer. I emphasise that that is only if all else fails and the child needs to be removed from his or her immediate environment to ensure his or her safety. The department has also established an Aboriginal unit dedicated to meeting the needs of indigenous children and their families. The unit provides important support to Aboriginal caseworkers, who support Aboriginal children in care and their carers, both indigenous and non-indigenous.

To further ensure that the cultural and heritage needs of Aboriginal children in care are met, the bill also includes an amendment to ensure that adoption plans for indigenous children must include provision for meeting those needs. Whilst I recognise that indigenous people have particular concerns about adoption, the Government is committed to supporting all children and will not support the exclusion of any group of children from the potential benefits of the provisions of the bill. I have great confidence in the Supreme Court making the right decisions for individual children based on the quality of their foster care arrangement and their long-term interests.

In response to the issues raised by the honourable member for Wakehurst, the bill's provisions maintain the same position as the Act: that the interests of the child must come first. The provisions recognise that a child is with an authorised carer and that the placement of the child in the circumstances has been ordered by the Children's Court. The Children's Court must consider the Aboriginal placement principles and also the possibility of restoration before making any orders. All these matters are decided before the child is placed with an authorised carer and an application is made under the legislation. The legislation builds upon the work done in the Children's Court. There is no inconsistency in the approach being adopted.

I take on board the matters raised by the honourable member for Bligh in relation to providing support for parents so that their problems do not escalate to the point that the removal of a child from a birth family is required. That is why the Iemma Government has committed $150 million to early intervention programs. All the research, both locally and internationally, demonstrates that early intervention programs are the best way of assisting families and preventing their problems from escalating. If we can do that we have the opportunity to assist families to work through their problems, regardless of whether the programs relate to drug and alcohol abuse, anger management or poor parenting, as a couple of examples. Where we can we will assist those families work through their problems and teach them strategies, with the long-term view of keeping those families together. They are the principles that underpinned the early intervention platform that is very much a key part of the Iemma Government's reform and rebuilding of community services in New South Wales.

I thank the honourable member for Wagga Wagga for his contribution. I agree with him that there are many harrowing stories about the effect of broken families and of past secrets. I reassure him that there is nothing in this legislation that would prevent the adoption of adults where exceptional circumstances can be demonstrated before the court. As I said in my second reading speech, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that adoption legislation is used for what it was intended for: to facilitate permanency planning for children who cannot live at home safely and where there is little likelihood of the child ever being returned to his or her birth family. This is to ensure that we can provide a stable and nurturing home for children in those very tragic circumstances.

The purpose of the amendment is to tighten and target the legislation so it is not misused in property succession matters or to circumvent immigration laws. The bill is designed to redirect the legislation to what it was intended for, which is for children, but it will not preclude the exceptional circumstance that the honourable member for Wagga Wagga raised. I thank all members for their contributions to the debate. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr Daryl Maguire: On a point of clarification. I had requested the Minister to respond to the need for adults who wanted to be adopted to go through the Department of Community Services interrogation process.

Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marianne Saliba): Order! There is no point of clarification. This is not question time. The Minister has replied to the second reading debate.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

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

Ms REBA MEAGHER (Cabramatta—Minister for Community Services, and Minister for Youth) [10.08 p.m.]: I move:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to permit:

(1) the introduction of the following bills, notice of which was given this day for tomorrow, up to and including the Minister's second reading speech:

Environmental Planning Legislation Amendment Bill
Industrial Relations (Child Employment) Bill, and cognate bills
Superannuation Administration Amendment (Trust Deed Schemes) Bill
Water Industry Competition Bill, and cognate bill;

(2) the introduction of the following bills, without notice, up to and including the Minister's second reading speech:

Aboriginal Land Rights Amendment Bill
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Miscellaneous Amendments Bill
Rural Lands Protection Amendment Bill;

(3) at the conclusion of Government business, the House to adjourn without motion moved; and

(4) until the rising of the House, no divisions or quorums to be called.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [10.09 p.m.]: The Government will do anything to avoid accountability. The reality is that last week we dealt with 16 bills and we have received notice that another five will be introduced, including two for which no notice has been provided. We are told today through the avenues of the Daily Telegraph that the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Miscellaneous Amendments Bill will be world-first legislation. That bill will undoubtedly be introduced this evening and rushed through the Chamber this week because the Government is determined that the Parliament will rise early.

There are currently three sitting weeks left. If we were to use those three sitting weeks there would be no need for bills to be rushed through in this manner. But why should there be only three sitting weeks left? The election is not until 24 March. Parliament could sit for the whole of February next year. Prior to the past two elections the Parliament has not been prorogued until the end of February, so if that happened this God almighty rush going on with legislation at the present time—including legislation that the Minister said on radio this morning is world-first legislation—would be completely unnecessary.

What is interesting about what is currently going on are the events of 19 years ago when the State had a beleaguered 12-year-old government. Nineteen years ago there was a surprise choice leading a tired Government in an attempt to ensure that that Government looked as though it had been refreshed. In that government 19 years ago there was also a Minister who was relatively dominant across the entire ministry. That Minister had missed out on being Premier. He had, in fact, been denied the job of Premier because of factional machinations, but he was a deeply flawed and unpopular individual. Nineteen years ago he was the proverbial unwelcome guest at the table. On 26 November 1987, 19 years ago, after the Parliament rose there was a reshuffle by the then Premier at which that Minister was given an offer that he could not refuse. As a result, Laurie Brereton left the ministry months before the election in an attempt by the Labor Government to slip through.

Mr Milton Orkopoulos: Point of order: What in all damnation has this got to do with the motion before the House? Twenty years ago!

Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marianne Saliba): Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will return to the motion before the Chair.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: I would urge you, Madam Acting-Speaker, whilst I am helped by the assistance of the member opposite, to look at the standing orders in relation to suspensions of standing orders. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has posed a question that I am happy to answer, because 19 years ago we were talking about Laurie Brereton in a Barrie Unsworth government. Today we are seeing another distraction brought forward, a distraction we read about in the Daily Telegraph today. There has been no preamble and no community consultation, because there is another unwelcome guest at the table—the Minister for Police. He is the man who was denied, through factional machinations, the premiership of New South Wales. Like Laurie Brereton in the Unsworth Government, he is the flawed but incredibly unpopular Minister, the man that every other person on the front bench would like to see the back of.

Ms Reba Meagher: Point of order: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition began his sentiments by saying the Opposition required more time to debate these bills. In fact, we would like to give him that time. If he was prepared to stop posing, we would be very happy to get on with debating the substance of this legislation.

Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marianne Saliba): Order! I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to address the motion before the House.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: I am addressing the motion before the House. The motion deals with the bill for which the Minister is responsible and which is likely to be rushed through in two days this week—and it is world-first legislation! Is the Minister saying that the bill will not be rushed through this week?

Mr Milton Orkopoulos: The upper House makes the rules here. We have got to get the bill before the upper House.
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: So we are going to rush through world-first legislation this week which may well be worth supporting but it will be without the benefit of scrutiny by this place and certainly without the benefit of community consultation. Why are we doing this? Because the Government wants distractions from the unwanted guest at the table, the Minister for Police, and the fact that he is slowly but surely expiring before our eyes. The biggest file in the Premier's office is the distractions file, and it is so big because of the antics of the Minister for Police.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Ms Allan Mr Amery Ms Andrews Mr Black Mr Brown Ms Burney Mr Campbell Mr Chaytor Mr Corrigan Mr Crittenden 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 Ms Nori Mr Orkopoulos Mrs Paluzzano Mr Pearce Mrs Perry

Mr Price Ms Saliba Mr Sartor Mr Shearan Mr Stewart 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 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 Tink Mr Torbay Mr J. H. Turner Mr R. W. Turner Tellers, Mr George Mr Maguire

Ms Gadiel

Ms Hodgkinson

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Motion by Ms Reba Meagher agreed to:

That the House at its rising this day do adjourn until Wednesday 25 October 2006 at 10.00 a.m.

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Ms REBA MEAGHER (Cabramatta—Minister for Community Services, and Minister for Youth) [10.23 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Miscellaneous Amendments Bill 2006 contains a mix of significant and minor reforms to the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998, which is part of the Government's commitment to protect children's rights and promote their welfare. Key features of the bill are important amendments to improve the protection of children who are at risk of harm by their parents or primary caregivers. By leave I table a document containing statistics referred to in today's Daily Telegraph. The information includes 2005 statistics from Childs Deaths and Critical Reports Unit and reports 104 child deaths in 2005.

Document tabled.

The Ombudsman will report on these and other child deaths in his reviewable child deaths report to be released later this year. Some of these tragic deaths may have been prevented by the amendments that the Iemma Government is introducing tonight. Sixteen of these children had been the subject of a prenatal report and 18 had been previously in care or had siblings previously in care. Of these 18 children, nine children had siblings who had been removed or placed in temporary care. Three of these children were in care at the time of their death. Another six of these children were taken into care and restored to their parents. Of these six children, four were subject to Children's Court proceedings and two were subject to temporary care orders.

We in the Iemma Government are setting a new direction in child protection with this landmark bill. Importantly, the bill clarifies that mandatory reporters may make reports before the birth of a child if there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the child may be at risk of harm upon birth. The bill strengthens the reporting and information sharing requirements by, firstly, amending section 23 to specify that a newly born child is at risk of harm if he or she were the subject of a prenatal report and the birth mother did not successfully engage with support services to eliminate, or minimise to the lowest level reasonably practical, the risk factors that gave rise to that prenatal report. Secondly, the bill makes provision, by amending section 248, to enable the exchange of information between the Department of Community Services and hospitals or public health organisations about the parents and or family of an unborn child that has been the subject of a prenatal report. Thirdly, the bill clarifies that the intention of making prenatal reports under section 25 is to provide assistance and support to the expectant mother along with protecting the child upon birth from any risk of harm and that such a child may then be provided with support and protection as envisaged by the Act.

A further key feature central to improving protection for children at risk of harm from parents or caregivers is the introduction of new section 106A into the Act. This provision specifies that in care proceedings the Children's Court shall allow, consider and give weight to evidence that a parent or caregiver has previously had a child removed and not restored to their care, or has been identified by the Coroner or police as a person who may have been involved in causing a reviewable death of a child or young person. This amendment will remove any technical obstruction to the court considering evidence of a parent or carer's past history in relation to the removal of other children. It will require that the court admit and give weight to a parent or caregiver's past history in relation to the removal of other children or involvement in causing a reviewable death of a child or young person.

In care proceedings before the Children's Court and where there has been a history of a parent or caregiver causing harm to a child, the bill places the onus of proof on the parent or caregiver. They must rebut the presumption that, on the balance of probabilities, the child in their current care is not at risk of harm and in need of care and protection either because the previous factors that put a child at risk of harm are now no longer present or because they were not personally involved in causing harm in the previous case. This suite of amendments will go a long way towards strengthening child protection by ensuring that prenatal reports may provide opportunity for support and early intervention to a newly born child as envisaged by the Act. This is by requiring the court to consider and give sufficient weight to similar fact evidence concerning past child abuse or neglect by a parent or caregiver. It is critical that the Children's Court be able to consider all available evidence when ordering preventative and protective measures for children.

A further key feature of the bill is that it proposes to insert a new chapter into the Act to allow for the transfer of child protection orders, as well as child protection proceedings, between New South Wales and other States and Territories of Australia and between New South Wales and New Zealand. The bill is based on model legislation drafted for the States, Territories and New Zealand for the registration and enforcement of child protection orders, and the transfer of child protection proceedings, from one jurisdiction to another. Most other jurisdictions have implemented the model legislation, and to facilitate national consistency the New South Wales Government is proposing to adopt similar provisions.

The bill is part of a legislative reform package being introduced during 2006 to bring New South Wales into line with other States and jurisdictions. This State has examined experiences elsewhere to try to get the best legislative solution. New South Wales currently has legislation in place which provides for reciprocity between the States and Territories in relation to the transfer of administrative responsibilities for a child or young person under the sole parental responsibility of the State or Territory's Minister or chief executive officer, and the provision of services to such a child or young person without any transfer of administrative responsibilities. Under such arrangements, the current order is simply an order of the original jurisdiction. If a transfer of the order is needed the process is that the receiving jurisdiction must seek a new order in its jurisdiction. When this order is in place the old order in the sending jurisdiction must be discharged.

The amendments in the bill will enable the transfer of child protection orders so that the administering and supervising of New South Wales child protection orders for children and young people living permanently interstate will be simpler. The intended outcomes of the bill will be to enable children and young people who are in need of care and protection and who are subject to child protection orders to be assisted by appropriate authorities if they move interstate, improve the supervision of children and young people who are subject to child protection orders and who move interstate, increase the likelihood that a child protection order is enforceable and has effect under the child welfare law of the State where the child or young person resides, and facilitate child protection matters before the courts being dealt with in a timely and expeditious manner by a court in the appropriate jurisdiction.

The bill provides for the administrative and judicial transfers of child protection orders, as well as the transfer of proceedings. The administrative transfer involves the Director General of the Department of Community Services transferring a child protection order interstate or to New Zealand, provided the receiving State consents to the transfer and there exists an order to the same or similar effect in the receiving State. Depending on the child protection order, the director general may not be able to transfer the order without the consent of a parent to ensure that this administrative arrangement does not disadvantage anyone. The principle of the safety, welfare and wellbeing of the child or young person must be given paramount importance in any decision made.

The bill also emphasises that the child or young person and the family must be encouraged and given adequate opportunity to participate fully in the decision-making process. If opposed to the director general's decision to transfer the order, the child or young person, as well as their parents, will be entitled to seek a review of the decision in the Administrative Decisions Tribunal [ADT]. The bill also allows the director general to apply to the Children's Court for a judicial transfer of the child protection order. The director general can make this application if the order cannot be transferred administratively or if the order to be transferred is not the same or similar to an order in the receiving State but is considered otherwise to be in the best interests of the child or young person.

The bill incorporates an avenue for appeal to the District Court if a party to an application is dissatisfied with a final order of the Children's Court transferring, or refusing to transfer, a child protection order to a participating State. Once a child protection order has been transferred to New South Wales under interstate law, the bill provides for the filing and registration of such orders in the Children's Court. The order is then taken to be an order made by the New South Wales Children's Court. The bill establishes a process for transferring child protection proceedings which depends on the application of the director general and the receiving State consenting to the transfer. The bill deals with the difficulty of legally transferring confidential information relating to a New South Wales order that is required by another State to perform duties or exercise powers under the child welfare or interstate laws of that State.
The bill enables the transfer of this necessary information for the benefit of the child or young person. These amendments will address the operational inconsistency that has existed in handling interstate transfer of child protection orders, both internally and in dealing with requests and referrals to other jurisdictions. The bill has been developed to provide the practical machinery for co-operation between New South Wales and New Zealand and the other States and Territories of Australia to protect children by eliminating the current jurisdictional barriers to transferring child protection orders or child protection proceedings. The bill will undoubtedly lead to more efficient and effective outcomes for children, young people and families who move interstate when the New South Wales Department of Community Services has an involvement.

Another significant area of amendment proposed in the bill relates to the disclosure of information to parents concerning the out-of-home care placement of their child. Some carers in out-of-home care have expressed concern that the Act may allow certain identifying information to be provided to parents about the out-of-home care placement of their children. Their concerns are that information may be given to parents and significant others without adequate consultation or there will be an avenue for review of an agency's decision to provide that information.

By omitting section 148 and inserting sections 149B to 149K, the bill specifically addresses these concerns by establishing a clear and transparent process for providing high-level identification information to parents. This includes an opportunity for carer consent, participation in decision making by all relevant parties, and a review mechanism through the Administrative Decisions Tribunal. Further, it is proposed that the Children's Guardian will establish guidelines in relation to disclosure of information which are to be met by the designated agency when releasing information to the parents of the child or young person in out-of-home care. When a carer does not consent to the release of high-level identification information, the bill proposes that the designated agency that made the decision to release the information will be required to apply to the ADT for a review of the decision on behalf of the carer.

This approach is designed to relieve the authorised carer of the burden of costs or to remove any perceived barrier associated with making an application for administrative law review of the decision. However, in the event that the authorised carer would rather independently apply to the ADT, the bill confirms that in the alternative the authorised carer may make an application to the ADT without relying upon the assistance of the designated agency. The provisions are informed by, and are the outcome of, extensive consultation with the Foster Care Association, the Association of Child Welfare Agencies, the Children's Guardian, the Aboriginal Child, Family and Community Care State Secretariat (New South Wales) Incorporated, the CREATE Foundation, the Legal Aid Commission and the Children's Court. They aim to balance the concerns of foster carers and the needs of the child or young person to retain links with their birth family.

Some consequential amendments to improve the workability of these proposals are also set out in the bill. The remaining provisions of the bill consist of proposed miscellaneous amendments to the Act. The bill establishes that a child or young person for whom the Minister has parental responsibility or for whom the director general has care responsibility and who has been refused bail in relation to criminal proceedings or has been sentenced to a control order may be accommodated at a juvenile detention centre. The intention of this amendment to section 246 is to make clear that the current prohibition on accommodating a child or young person who is under the care responsibility of the director general or the parental responsibility of the Minister in premises with persons who have committed offences or who are on remand does not apply to children and young persons who have committed offences themselves or are refused bail in respect of a criminal offence.

The bill also stipulates that if a child or young person is detained by police on a warrant issued for his or her attendance at court, the child or young person in this instance cannot be held in a juvenile justice centre pending his or her appearance in court. The intention of this provision is to prevent detention in a juvenile justice centre where a warrant has been issued merely for the purpose of court attendance. Children and young people will only be protected from risk of harm when community members, practitioners and agencies take action on their behalf by making a report to the Department of Community Services. However, protecting a child or young person from risk of harm does not end in a phone call. The bill proposes to makes it clear that the requirement to make a report does not prevent the reporter from responding to the needs of the child, nor does it discharge any other obligations in respect of the child.

This amendment to section 29 arises from experience whereby some persons who make reports under the Act are of the view that no other assistance or support is to be provided after they have reported a matter to the department. This can arise from a misplaced concern about interfering with a child protection investigation. Making a report does not override the existing duty of care a person has in relation to the child or young person the subject of the report. The amendment will clarify that reporters may still have an ongoing responsibility to respond to the needs of the child after the matter has been reported to the department.

The Act does not currently set out with sufficient clarity the two distinct models for legal representation of children and young people under the Act. Older children and young people, subject to a rebuttable presumption, can be represented by a direct representative to whom instructions are given. To dispel any confusion in the use of the term "legal representative" in section 99 of the Act, the bill provides that the term "direct legal representative" be used only for legal representatives that act directly on the instructions of a child or young person capable of giving proper legal instructions. This is distinguished from an "independent legal representative" who acts as a "separate representative" if the child or young person is not capable of giving proper legal instructions. Currently in parts of section 99 there is no distinction between the two roles under the general umbrella of "legal representative". The bill remedies this and makes clear the distinction between an independent legal representative and a direct legal representative.

The bill also raises the age at which a child is presumed capable of giving proper legal instructions to his or her legal representative from 10 to 12 years. It is accepted that children of any age are capable of holding and expressing strong views as to the outcome they desire in care proceedings. However, there is clear evidence based on child development that most 10 and 11 year olds are incapable of understanding the legal ramifications of their instructions, the intricacies of legal procedure in care matters and the various legal, procedural and jurisdictional issues that may arise. These children are unable to provide adequate instructions on these issues, placing legal representatives acting on direct instructions from a child in a difficult position. The bill therefore establishes a presumption that a child who is 12 years of age or less is not capable of giving proper instructions to his or her legal representative and, in such circumstances, an independent legal representative may be appointed for the child. However, the Children's Court may make an order to the contrary, appointing a direct legal representative, if evidence is adduced that the child is capable of giving proper instructions.

The bill removes the exemption from licensing for children services operating on Department of Health premises. There has been an increase in children's services connected with health services, so there is a greater need to ensure that these services are providing consistent and quality care for children. The Department of Health has recommended that formal children's services operating on hospital premises should be licensed to ensure that these services are meeting the standard of care required by the Children's Services Regulation 2004.

It is not the intention of the bill that informal child-minding services run in connection with hospitals, or recreational or commercial facilities where the parents are visiting or using the service, be licensed. Therefore, a specific provision has been included in section 200 (2) (d) to make clear that this type of service is excluded from the meaning of "children's service", and may continue to operate without a licence. The bill also amends the definition of "home based children's service" in section 199 to clarify that the person providing care at the home based children's service must be the holder of a licence. This is to prevent inappropriate people, who have not been subject to the relevant checks, providing care in home based children's services.

To provide certainty as to the time limit for commencement of a prosecution, the bill provides that the prosecution of an offence under the Act—other than an offence in relation to children's services—is to be commenced within six months of the director general becoming aware of the alleged offence. This amendment is proposed because the director general will often not become aware of an offence until a file audit is completed, and by that time the existing limitation of six months may have elapsed. The bill also facilitates the conduct of proceedings before the Children's Court by amending section 69. This is to make clear that the established practice of the Children's Court to make interim care orders, without, in the first instance, making a determination that a child is in need of care and protection, is procedurally the correct approach if the court is satisfied it is in the best interests of the safety, welfare and wellbeing of the child or young person to do so.

The bill also clarifies that the Children's Court may issue a warrant to secure the attendance of birth parents or adoptive parents who no longer hold parental responsibility in care proceedings before the court. The proposed amendment to section 96 seeks to address concerns raised by the Children's Court that their current powers to issue warrants may arguably be interpreted to only apply to the limited circumstances of parents who hold parental responsibility at the time the warrant is issued. The amendment puts beyond doubt that warrants may be issued by the Children's Court to facilitate attendance in proceedings to any parent, including parents that do not have parental responsibility for the child or young person.

This bill is the result of extensive review. These reforms will contribute to improving and strengthening the Act and reflect this Government's commitment to securing the safety, welfare and wellbeing of children and young people in New South Wales as well as those who travel across State and Territory borders. I thank everyone who has been involved in the development and construction of the bill. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Ms Gladys Berejiklian.

Bills introduced and read a first time.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL (Keira—Minister for Water Utilities, Minister for Small Business, Minister for Regional Development, and Minister for the Illawarra) [10.49 p.m.]: I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

I am pleased to introduce two bills, the Water Industry Competition Bill and the Central Coast Water Corporation Bill, that together initiate reform of the water and wastewater industries in New South Wales for the benefit of consumers, the economy and the environment. The improvement of the governance of water systems is the aim of both bills which, once enacted, provide for the improved running of water systems, more straight forward decision making and access arrangements. Ultimately, these will enable more recycling and improved water security, which are imperative during drought.

A key component of the New South Wales Government's strategy for a sustainable water future is to harness the innovation and investment potential of the private sector in the water and wastewater industries. The Water Industry Competition Bill opens the door to competition and new investment in three key ways. First, it promotes new recycling businesses by enabling prospective sewer miners who are not able to reach a commercial agreement with specified service providers to have the terms on which they can mine sewers determined in binding arbitration conducted by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal. Second, the bill promotes competition by establishing a comprehensive access regime to help new suppliers to negotiate arrangements for the storage and transportation of water and sewage using existing significant water and sewerage networks. And third, the bill ensures that licensees who wish to construct and operate new water and sewerage networks will be on broadly the same footing as the public water utilities, for things like laying pipes in public roads and reading meters.

At the same time, the Water Industry Competition Bill establishes a licensing regime for private entrants to ensure the continued protection of public health, the environment and consumers. The reforms proposed by the Water Industry Competition Bill have been subject to extensive community consultation, including the release of a discussion paper, stakeholder briefings and a public investigation into water and wastewater service provision in the greater Sydney region conducted by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal [IPART]. Access regimes are already commonplace in the gas and electricity industries, and in telecommunications. Like those industries, the urban water industry is characterised by essential monopoly infrastructure that is costly for competitors to duplicate.

The Australian Competition Tribunal last year declared Sydney Water's sewerage networks at Bondi, Malabar and North Head under the national access regime. The result of that declaration is that any person has an enforceable right to negotiate with Sydney Water to use those sewerage networks. The new State-based regime will also declare Sydney Water's Bondi, Malabar and North Head sewerage networks from the outset but will extend beyond that infrastructure. The Premier will be able to make declarations in respect of other significant monopoly infrastructure through which water or sewage is stored or transported. The regime will apply consistently to publicly and privately owned infrastructure. Initially, the access regime will only apply within the area of operations of Sydney Water and Hunter Water. In the future, it may be extended to other areas.

At the appropriate time, it is proposed that the State regime will be certified under the national access regime. Under the State regime, access disputes will be arbitrated by IPART with regard to the pricing principles that were approved by the Council of Australian Governments last year. The bill does not exempt service providers from environmental or planning instruments. That is critical. Nor does the bill entitle any person to access and extract water from rivers or other fresh water sources. Access to, and use of, water resources will continue to be governed by the Water Management Act. The bill extends the reach of the Public Health Act and the Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies Act to private operators.

Central to the bill is the establishment of a comprehensive regime for licensing private corporations who supply water, recycle water or provide sewerage services by means of reticulated water or sewerage networks. Network operators will also be licensed under the bill. Licences ensure that appropriate conditions can be imposed and enforced. They will ensure, for example, that water quality guidelines are complied with. They will also ensure that network operators and retail suppliers comply with appropriate public health, environmental and consumer protection requirements. Given the objective of encouraging competition, licences will, of course, not be exclusive. They are not franchises.

Of fundamental importance, clause 7 provides that the Minister, in deciding whether to grant a licence and in deciding what conditions to impose on a licence, must have regard to four core principles: first, the protection of public health, the environment, public safety and consumers; second, encouraging competition in the provision of water supply and sewerage services; third, ensuring the sustainability of water resources; and fourth, promoting the production and use of recycled water. In addition to these principles, the bill contains a further safeguard to ensure that existing water resources are not compromised through the introduction of competition. This means that any private corporation wishing to supply water will need to be contributing a new commercial source of water. This might be water generated through the commercialisation of innovative new water sources such as storm water or roof water, or it might be water generated through recycling, which can be used, for example, for industrial use or irrigation so as to reduce the demand on existing drinking water resources. This is consistent with the core purpose of these reforms, which is to encourage competition and promote innovative new sources of water—particularly recycling.

This bill is essentially about reducing the pressure on existing water resources. Recycled water can be used for a large number of purposes, particularly in industry. Given prevailing community concerns about the potential public health risks associated with drinking recycled water, the New South Wales Government remains of the view that recycled water should not be used as drinking water. This bill does not change that policy. New private suppliers will not be subject to price regulation, except in the unusual circumstance where they are a monopoly service provider. This might be the case in greenfields sites, such as where the Government has conducted a tender for private recycled water supply to the new development area. This bill does not change the pricing arrangements for existing public water utilities. This means that Sydney Water and Hunter Water will continue to have their prices independently regulated by IPART. It means that customers in these areas will still be able to obtain essential services from Sydney Water and Hunter Water at postage stamp prices.

As well as containing provisions to ensure that vulnerable consumers are protected, new licensees will be required to belong to an approved external ombudsman scheme, such as that operated by the Energy and Water Ombudsman. The bill also contains arrangements to protect customers in the event of the failure of a new market entrant. Public water utilities may be required to step in to provide essential water and sewerage services if a new retailer's business fails. This bill will facilitate the private sector bringing forward and developing innovative ideas for the urban water industry, such as recycling, that will help to secure our cities' long-term water future while continuing to protect public health, the environment and consumers.

Another plank of the New South Wales Government's water reform program is the Central Coast Water Corporation Bill. This bill provides for the establishment of the Central Coast Water Corporation to supply water and sewerage services on the Central Coast. As is currently the case, the responsibility for water supply will remain with the councils. The Central Coast Water Corporation would be a statutory body wholly owned by Gosford and Wyong councils with revenues raised by the corporation remaining in the region. The corporation model has been developed following a request from Gosford and Wyong Councils for a new legal entity to enable improved governance and streamlined decision making. Both councils have been extensively consulted during the development of the proposed model.

In addition to the formal request of councils for the new legal entity, other stakeholders, including community groups and numerous Central Coast residents, have made representations to me about their concern regarding the management of urban water supply on the Central Coast. Gosford City and Wyong Shire councils are currently water supply authorities under the Water Management Act. They currently provide water, sewerage and drainage services to approximately 300,000 people and industry on the Central Coast. Their combined water supply is the third largest in New South Wales but it is under severe pressure from the current drought. Storage levels now stand at 15.5 per cent. If dam levels continue to decline at the current rate, storages could be at 10 per cent by the end of the year.

At present, Gosford and Wyong councils have a longstanding agreement for the joint management of their head works assets. To facilitate joint operations the councils established a joint committee, the Gosford Wyong Councils Water Authority in 1977. However, the joint committee has no legal status and functions cannot be formally delegated to it, which means all its decisions must be ratified by each council. This process contributes to inefficiency and delay in decision making. The Central Coast Water Corporation Bill responds to this problem and the request from Gosford City Council and Wyong Shire Council by enabling the establishment of a new Central Coast Water Corporation. At a joint meeting of both councils on September 28 a resolution was carried in support of the direction outlined in this bill.

There is an important point to be made about the new arrangements. This is not a takeover by the State Government. Local councils will continue to maintain responsibility for water on the Central Coast via the corporation, which will be wholly owned by the councils. The bill does not enable the State Government to gain control or ownership of council assets; nor will the new arrangements undermine working conditions for staff. Existing entitlements of staff affected by the establishment of the corporation will be preserved in a number of ways. For example, transferred staff retain all rights to annual leave, extended service leave, sick leave and other forms of leave; existing entitlements and conditions of service, including length of service for transferred and non-transferred staff, are preserved until a new award is negotiated; no forced redundancies of transferred staff and non-transferred staff for three years; transferred staff have a three-year right to apply for a job back at council and to be treated as if they were an internal applicant; regulations must provide for equal opportunity and merit-based appointment in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993; and regulations may be made with respect to the terms and conditions of employment.

I also acknowledge the commitments made by Gosford and Wyong councils to recommend that the corporation sign referral agreements under section 146A of the Industrial Relations Act and common law deeds, which ensure that industrial issues are dealt with under the New South Wales industrial relations system. In the interim I encourage Gosford and Wyong councils to establish a working party involving employees, management, elected representatives and unions to negotiate conditions and policies relating to the future employment of staff. The new corporation will provide a single focus for the strategic direction of water services on the Central Coast, create transparency in the sharing of costs between councils, and adopt a commercially-focused, expert board to guide the delivery of water services on the Central Coast.

Over the longer term the full integration of assets and operations of the two councils into the corporation is expected to realise significant cost savings. It will provide greater scope for raising capital and greater potential for efficiencies by managing a larger water supply and sewerage system. In recognition that the bill is being introduced in direct response to a formal request from the councils, clause 2 of the bill provides that the proclamation to establish the corporation may only be made following resolutions from Gosford and Wyong councils. The corporation will be accountable to its owners, the councils, through its constitution, statement of corporate intent, and audited financial reports.

The bill places the Central Coast Water Corporation on broadly the same footing as other major water utilities serving large populations, such as Hunter Water and Sydney Water, except that it will remain locally owned. Under clause 32 of the bill the Minister may grant an operating licence to the corporation. The licence must include terms and conditions under which the corporation is required to ensure that its systems and services meet recognised standards in relation to water quality, service interruptions and pricing.

To ensure consumer protection, particularly for vulnerable customers, the corporation will be required to belong to an approved industry ombudsman scheme, such as the Energy and Water Ombudsman. The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal will be responsible for auditing the compliance of the corporation with its operating licence. The people of the Central Coast deserve a water utility that has the capacity to invest prudently in new supplies and water-saving measures as effectively as possible. This bill allows for the establishment of such a water utility in the form of the Central Coast Water Corporation. I thank all those who have contributed to the important reforms contained in these bills. I take the opportunity to acknowledge the input of the members representing the electorates of Peats, Wyong, The Entrance and Swansea and representatives of the United Services Union, who have been helpful in ensuring that the bills were drafted in a sensible way. I commend the bills to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Daryl Maguire.
Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr MILTON ORKOPOULOS (Swansea—Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [11.05 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I am pleased to introduce the Aboriginal Land Rights Amendment Bill, which is the outcome of extensive consultation with Aboriginal people across the State. In 2004 the former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the Hon. Andrew Refshauge, announced the review of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act and established a task force to oversee the review. The task force comprised the Administrator of the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council, the Registrar of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act, and the Director General of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. In making its recommendations the task force took into consideration feedback gained from consultation with Aboriginal people across the State.

The Department of Aboriginal Affairs engaged two independent facilitators, Mr Jack Beetson and the Hon. Wendy Machin, to consult with Aboriginal people in 10 locations across the State about the task force recommendations. Further consultations were conducted by the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council in various locations across the State in October and November 2004 and in June and July 2005. I personally travelled extensively throughout New South Wales to consult with Aboriginal people face to face and I extended the time for written submissions to ensure that proper consultation was undertaken with Aboriginal people across our State.

The bill amends the Act to improve Aboriginal Land Council governance and facilitate the better management of Aboriginal Land Council assets, investments and business enterprises. The bill will provide for the changing structure of Local Aboriginal Land Councils [LALCs] from small-scale community organisations to reflect the million dollar corporate structures some have grown into over the past 23 years. In this regard the bill is modernising the legislation to recognise that the Aboriginal Land Rights Act is moving into a new area of economic and social development for Aboriginal Land Councils. Reforms to the Local Aboriginal Land Council structure are designed to create better decision-making and fairer participation in land councils.

The oversight and regulatory role of the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council recognises the significance of the commercial activities of Aboriginal Land Councils and the need for strong self-regulation within the system. The LALC activities requiring New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council approval will be unlawful unless the approval has been obtained. This is a key element of the self-regulation of the Aboriginal Land Council system. Local Aboriginal Land Council business enterprise and investment will be regulated by a system to assess the merits and viability of any business or investment proposal.

Local Aboriginal land councils will be able to facilitate business enterprises that may include the incorporation of related corporate entities. Any such entities will be accountable to the LALC, and their activities will form part of the reporting requirements of the LALC. This information must then be provided to the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council as per the current requirement for LALCs to provide audited financial statements and budgets. All elected LALC board members and New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council councillors will be required to undertake basic training in their particular duties and responsibilities under the Act. The functions of the registrar and the Pecuniary Interest Tribunal have been expanded to more effectively deal with misbehaviour of councillors, land council members, and council board members and staff.

The amended regulatory regime is designed to emphasise fair play in the activities of Aboriginal land councils and bring Aboriginal land councils into line with the standards applied to like corporate bodies such as local government. Regional Aboriginal land councils will be abolished and the number of regions reduced from 13 to 6. In place of the regional councils will be regional electoral forums, comprising the chairpersons of each of the local Aboriginal land councils in the region. Each regional electoral forum will elect a councillor for the region to the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council. There will be provision for two ministerial appointments to the Aboriginal Land Council, following consultation with the elected councillors. In making these appointments I, as the Minister, will bear in mind the gender, age and expertise of the councillor.

All councillors will be part time except for the chairperson, who will be full time. Councillors will serve four-year terms. Concerns have been raised by many Aboriginal people that the operations of land councils are dominated by certain family groups and therefore the interests of other members are ignored. To avoid this situation, and to assist in modernising the structure of local Aboriginal land councils, the chairperson, secretary and treasurer will be replaced by a board comprising five to 10 members elected by the land council members. The board will determine its chairperson and deputy chairperson. Board members will have a two-year term and can be re-elected. The bill sets out the functions of the board and clearly provides for the demarcation of functions between the board and the land council, as expressed by resolution of members.

It is important that the relationship between the role of the board and the members of the LALC is clearly understood. The day-to-day management functions of the LALC will be the responsibility of the chief executive officer. Often persons are elected to positions when they have had no prior experience or lack appropriate skills to properly fulfil their role. The bill therefore provides for the training of board members and councillors within the first six months after being elected. Board members and councillors can be suspended from office should they refuse or fail to undertake this training. They can also be disqualified from office if they continue to refuse or fail to undertake training.

Further, the bill disqualifies persons from holding office as a board member or councillor where they have convictions for certain offences recorded within the past five years. Such convictions include where a person has been involved in the management of a corporation, or a matter relating to the Aboriginal Land Rights Act, or any other offence that is punishable by imprisonment for 12 months or more. A board member or councillor is also disqualified from office when he or she has a conflict of interest with the council, such as being an employee or consultant of the council. The day-to-day functions of Aboriginal land councils are now to be run by a chief executive officer, whose functions will be set out in the Act. This will avoid confusion between the functions of the board and those of the chief executive officer.

Each Aboriginal land council, including the State land council, will be required to develop a community, land, and business plan setting out strategies for managing assets, investments, and the operation of business enterprises. In preparing this plan a land council must consult its members and other persons who have a cultural association with the land within the council's area. Plans must be approved by the membership of the land council and then by the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council, in accordance with criteria specified in the Act, including consistency with Aboriginal Land Council policies. Land councils are to operate within the parameters of their council's community, land, and business plans. The plans will cover up to a five-year period and will give land councils certainty in their goals and objectives, and keep them clearly focused on their operations.

The bill provides for the making of specific policies by the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council. Any policies made must be approved by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and subsequently gazetted. The bill amends the Act to enable land councils to establish community benefit schemes provided they will not substantially impair the capacity of land councils to meet their debts as and when they fall due. Community benefit schemes can include education, home ownership, concessional loans, funeral funds, cultural activities, child and aged care services.

There is capacity for land councils to establish a trust for the purpose of providing a community benefit scheme and the bill provides for transparency and accountability in financial dealings and compulsory reporting to members. A major cause of financial problems for many Aboriginal land councils is their provision of social housing. To address this problem the bill amends the Act to enable land councils to use the services of another body or agency to assist in the running of the scheme.

The bill amends the Act to prescribe situations where a land council may be dissolved or amalgamated, and changes the procedures for carrying out these actions. The bill amends the Act so the Minister may, on the recommendation of the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council or the registrar, appoint an advisor to a land council board if the Minister is of the opinion that the land council is in danger of failing. The bill requires the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council to put policies in place to increase the total number of voting members of LALCs in the State by not less than 3 per cent per annum. The New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council is to include in its annual report a report on the steps taken to meet the 3 per cent target. The bill will modernise the Aboriginal land council system, provide benefits to Aboriginal people, provide greater accountability, and ensure that Aboriginal land council members are properly included in the decision-making process. I very proudly commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Daryl Maguire.

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr KERRY HICKEY (Cessnock—Minister for Local Government) [11.18 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Government is committed to making sure that New South Wales is protected from dangerous and uncontrolled dogs. In this bill the Iemma Government has done what it can to protect the community from dangerous dogs, particularly our children. In July this year we were sickened and outraged by the death of little Tyra, the four-year-old girl who was mauled by pig hunting dogs in the central west town of Warren. No family should have to deal with such a tragedy, and our society should not have to bear the emotional and financial cost of such a tragic incident. The community has made it clear that it does not want these types of dogs around, and if people are going to insist on owning them, we are committed to ensuring they are properly controlled and appropriately housed.

Last year Parliament passed extensive amendments to the Companion Animals Act. Those changes, which came into effect earlier this year, significantly strengthened the powers of councils to control dangerous and restricted dogs, in particular, pit bull terriers. It introduced more stringent control requirements for these animals, and significantly increased penalties for breaching those controls. The Government has listened to the community voice their expectations regarding the control of all dogs. It has talked to experts in dealing with animals and it has also listened to the councils and their dedicated law enforcement officers who are at the coalface enforcing this legislation.

I place on record my sincere thanks to the stakeholder groups who have provided advice on this issue to the government. I refer to groups such as Dogs NSW, the RSPCA, the Animal Welfare League, the Institute of Law Enforcement Officers, the Local Government and Shires Associations of New South Wales, and a range of other behavioural and animal experts. The Companion Animals Act provides a clear framework for the control of all dogs and sets out the responsibilities for their owners. It also provides some of the strongest powers for councils in dealing with offences under the Act. However, often a council officer can take action only after an incident or an attack has occurred. Councils require more powers to deal with those dogs that are accidents waiting to happen. While no legislation can guarantee there will not be another attack, these amendments aim to provide the necessary powers to allow action to be taken before another tragic incident occurs. This will significantly increase community safety.

This bill is the result of an extensive review and consultation process that has identified some barriers in the enforcement process. The Government will remove those barriers. I met with and considered the views of leading organisations including Dogs NSW, the RSPCA, the Animal Welfare League, the Institute of Law Enforcement Officers, the Local Government and Shires Associations of New South Wales and animal behaviourists. These amendments will not remove anyone's right to own a dog for companionship, or to reasonably protect their property and their families. It is not about creating undue hardship for responsible dog owners. The new provisions will be tougher on owners whose dogs endanger public safety and give councils more powers to deal with them effectively. At present, under the Companion Animals Act, a council or a local court may declare a dog to be dangerous if it has attacked or killed or repeatedly threatened to attack or chase a person or animal. Once a dog is declared to be dangerous, certain control requirements apply. These include keeping the dog in a special child-proof enclosure and keeping the dog muzzled and leashed whenever it is outside its enclosure.

This bill will give councils and courts the ability to also declare a dog to be dangerous if it displays unreasonable aggression or if it is kept or used for the purpose of hunting animals. Dogs such as golden retrievers, cocker spaniels and setters that are used to flush out and retrieve birds are not included in this category. Nor are small terriers such as jack russells and fox terriers. This is about dogs that are kept for hunting game such as wild pigs and deer. These dogs will still be able to engage in lawful hunting and, while doing so, will be exempt from the muzzling and leashing requirements. At all other times, they must be controlled and confined in the same way as any other declared dangerous dog. This proposal finds the necessary balance between community safety expectations and the keeping or use of dogs for hunting purposes. These proposals do not affect police, customs, security and dogs in the service of the State.

The bill will enable authorised officers of councils to make dangerous and restricted dog declarations instead of the council itself having to make such a declaration. This will streamline processes so that decisive and timely action can be taken to regulate dangerous and restricted dogs. The bill also contains provisions to prohibit the transfer of ownership of dangerous dogs in the same way that restricted dogs cannot be sold or acquired now. If the control and enclosure provisions cannot be complied with, then there is always the option of surrendering the dog to the council. It will not be an offence if someone takes on the ownership of a dangerous dog if they did not know that it was declared dangerous at the time. The bill contains a provision to allow councils to take immediate action to seize and destroy any restricted or declared dangerous dog that attacks.

The proposal is two-tiered. Under the first tier, restricted and dangerous dogs that attack may be immediately seized and destroyed. This reflects the gravity of the offence and the expectations of the community. Under the second tier, a two-strikes rule will apply for non-compliance with key control requirements to ensure that restricted and dangerous dogs are not able to wander at large and uncontrolled. If the owner of a dangerous or restricted dog has not complied with the enclosure or muzzling requirements on two separate occasions over a 12-month period, the dog may be seized and immediately destroyed, but only after reasonable inquiries have been made into the circumstances. This is not about taking away a dog owner's rights, or their right to keep this type of dog. This is about sending a clear message to honour the social contract between dangerous and restricted dog owners and the community. This is about dog owners showing respect for their communities and showing responsibility.

The Department of Local Government will prepare and distribute guidelines for authorised officers regarding the use of these new powers. However, this does not preclude councils developing and providing their own guidelines and policies that best suit the needs of their communities. Under this bill, a person will be prohibited from owning a dangerous or restricted dog unless they have obtained a compliance certificate for the prescribed enclosure in which the dog must be kept. Owners of existing dangerous and restricted dogs will have 28 days from the commencement of the new provisions to obtain a compliance certificate. The community should be confident that it is being protected from dangerous dogs. Councils will be able to recoup the cost of enforcing this proposal. The bill enables councils to charge a one-off fee of up to $100 for the issuing of the certificate.

The bill will also prohibit the misuse of the prescribed dangerous dog collar that must be worn by dangerous and restricted dogs. If a person knowingly misrepresents the status of their dog by using a prescribed collar, they will be guilty of an offence. To use a prescribed collar inappropriately sends a confusing message to children and adults alike, and will undermine the Government's $1.8 million Safe Pets Out There [SPOT] education program for primary school age children, which is due to commence early next year.

These amendments remain focused on dangerous and restricted dogs. They do not impose on all dog owners, only those irresponsible enough to let their dogs cause problems. Council officers have said that enforcement of offences under the Act is sometimes frustrated when alleged offenders fail to identify themselves truthfully. The bill will empower an authorised officer who reasonably suspects a person of having committed an offence under the Act to arrest that person and take them before a magistrate if the person refuses to provide their name or address or gives a name or address that the officer suspects is false. This power is not new; it already exists for authorised officers under the Local Government Act and is exercised sparingly and responsibly. This is about removing impediments to enforcing the Companion Animals Act. This is critical when dealing with dangerous and restricted dogs and essential for authorised officers who work hard to improve community safety.

The bill also introduces a requirement for all dog owners to take reasonable precautions to prevent their dog from escaping from the property where it is ordinarily kept. Dog owners must realise that a dog that can escape from its yard is a potential danger. If a dog is out of its yard without its owner, it may fight with another dog, cause damage to property, cause a motor vehicle accident by running on the road or worse, attack a child, an elderly person or small animal. In rural communities marauding dogs often cause injury and death to valuable stock. This must be prevented.
The bill will increase penalties for some offences under the Act, particularly those relating to dangerous and restricted dogs. The maximum penalty for dogs that are not under effective control and for dogs prohibited in some public places will be increased to $1,100, and to $11,000 for dangerous and restricted dogs. The bill also proposes that all dogs, with the exception of greyhounds, now have to be microchipped. Working dogs were previously exempt from the requirement to be permanently identified. With the cost of microchipping being significantly reduced and many councils now offering microchipping for as little as $10 or $15, there is no reason to exclude this category of dog any more.

The Government acknowledges particular difficulties faced by farmers in the remote far west of New South Wales, including their geographical isolation and the lack of access to microchipping services. In this regard I acknowledge the strong representations made by the honourable member for Murray-Darling on behalf of his constituents. It is not intended to aggravate the plight of farmers and graziers by imposing an unnecessary burden on them: their dogs seldom, if ever, come to town. To this end, the Government will exempt working dogs that are ordinarily kept in the unincorporated areas of far western New South Wales from the microchipping and registration requirements proposed under the bill. This will be achieved by way of an amending regulation that will commence at the same time as amendments to the Act.

However, the Government does not back away from the general proposal to require microchipping for the vast majority of working dogs. Working dogs and their owners will benefit from this proposal. It will improve the chances of reuniting lost or stolen dogs with their owners and will increase the ability of councils to monitor and regulate dog ownership in their areas. The provisions will improve the chances of a dog being returned home and it will assist in locating owners of injured animals that may have got themselves loose. By ensuring that all dogs are microchipped, the ability of councils to track owners will be greatly enhanced. If council officers are better able to identify the owners of dogs that attack, farmers may be able to take action to obtain compensation for stock losses and to recover veterinary costs.

This bill is not about creating a burden on responsible dog owners, or preventing families from enjoying the delights of a family pet. It is about improving the ability of councils to effectively protect the community and to take affirmative action when needed. It is about increasing protection for our children and our neighbourhoods by increasing options for councils to control and manage dangerous and restricted dogs. It is about being able to appropriately punish irresponsible owners who allow their dogs to interfere with and destroy the Australian way of life. Owning a dangerous dog brings with it responsibility—both to the animal and to the community. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Daryl Maguire.

Bill introduced and read a first time.

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)) [11.33 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Environmental Planning Legislation Amendment Bill is another step in the Government's reform of the New South Wales planning system. During the year the Government made significant operational reforms in the planning system which include introducing an expert panel to vet local environmental plans at an early stage to avoid time being wasted on proposals that could not be supported in principle; introducing a standard local environmental plan to govern the format of all future local environmental plans, which will reduce and standardise zonings and definitions across the State and cut the number of plans; working with councils for new plans for the city centres of six regional cities—Wollongong, Gosford, Liverpool, Penrith, Parramatta and Newcastle; devising a new local government standard performance reporting system which will inform councils, government and the community about the 125,000 applications received annually and identify bottlenecks in the system; and streamlining the development assessment process.
In 2005 the Government introduced a major legislative reform of the planning system that was continued earlier this year in the budget session of this Parliament by the introduction of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Act and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Reserved Lands Acquisition) Act. I now bring forward the final piece of the Government's reform agenda for this term. The Environmental Planning Legislation Amendment Bill is a housekeeping measure of targeted amendments that will improve the operation of the planning system. This bill will amend six pieces of planning and building legislation. Schedule 1 to the bill will amend the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Schedule 2 to the bill will amend the planning-related provisions of the City of Sydney Act 1987. Schedule 3 to the bill will amend the Local Government and Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Transfer of Functions) Act 2001, the Building Professionals Board Act 2005, the Strata Schemes (Leasehold Development) Act 1986 and the Strata Schemes (Freehold Development) Act 1973.

The bill has been developed to address issues raised by stakeholders and practitioners in eight separate areas of the planning and building system. It is a practical measure and is a commonsense response to those issues. First, the bill will amend the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to strengthen the existing enforcement provisions for all development, including major projects. It will bring developments into line with other existing environmental legislation, such as the Protection of the Environment Operations 1997. Secondly, the bill will amend the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to clarify the administration of certain provisions relating to developer contributions. It will also enable construction of the Boyd Street overpass to the Tugun bypass to be undertaken from developer contributions collected by the Tweed Shire Council for that purpose—another important piece of infrastructure that will benefit the residents of the Tweed.

Thirdly, the bill will make clear that in issuing occupation, construction, subdivision and compliance certificates under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, accredited certifiers and councils must have regard to an objective test that is based on reasonableness rather than the current subjective tests. Mirror amendments will be made to strata legislation relating to the issue of strata subdivision certificates. The bill will also clarify provisions relating to the appointment of principal certifying authorities by developers and owner builders. Fourthly, the bill will reduce the time limits for Crown development applications under part 5A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to speed up the delivery of government infrastructure. Fifthly, the bill will make a range of amendments to the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 relating to major projects. These amendments flow from a review of the major projects system after its first year of operation. They will improve operational efficiency and simplify the administration of major projects' environmental assessments.

Sixthly, the bill will amend the City of Sydney Act 1987 to simplify the appointment of the existing four members of the Central Sydney Planning Committee who represent independent or government interests, and their alternative representatives. It will make no change to the existing council membership of that committee or to the lord mayor's role as chair of the committee. The total membership of the committee will remain unchanged at seven. The bill will also make a number of commonsense changes to the planning provisions of that Act. Seventhly, the bill will make necessary amendments to the Local Government and Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Transfer of Functions) Act 2001. This will enable the reform of regulations for places of public entertainment and temporary structures to be completed.

Finally, the bill makes minor amendments to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 relating to the environmental assessment requirements for routine activities, modifications to reduce environmental impact and activities that have already been assessed by a determining authority, the lapse of the development consents that are inoperative because of an unsatisfied deferred commencement condition and fees in connection with plan making, and other functions including the planning for State significant sites to standardise powers under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 with council fee-making powers under the Local Government Act 1993. The bill also updates various out-of-date references. Over the past year there have been significant legislative and operational reforms to the New South Wales planning system. However, there is always more to be done. New South Wales is already on the pathway toward achieving the most efficient and effective planning system in Australia. This bill is an important step in that process. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Daryl Maguire.
Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL (Keira—Minister for Water Utilities, Minister for Small Business, Minister for Regional Development, and Minister for the Illawarra) [11.40 p.m.], on behalf of Mr John Watkins: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Superannuation Administration Amendment (Trust Deed Schemes) Bill amends the Superannuation Administration Act 1996 to enable additional classes of persons to be admitted as members of trust deed superannuation schemes established under section 127 of the Act. The bill also retrospectively validates past ministerial approval of trust deed amendments that would otherwise be invalid. The Superannuation Administration Act 1996, which facilitates the legal and legislative framework under which the Energy Industries Superannuation Scheme and the Local Government Superannuation Scheme are established, requires the two schemes' trust deeds to be consistent with the requirements of a regulated fund under the Commonwealth's Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993.

Section 127 of the Superannuation Administration Act 1996 currently only allows specific classes of employees, rather than persons, to be admitted into the schemes. Despite this limitation the trust deeds of the two schemes have been amended over the years, consistent with Commonwealth superannuation law provisions, to admit spouses and local government councillors as members of the schemes. The proposed amendments to the Superannuation Administration Act 1996 will validate the existing membership of spouses of members of the respective schemes. The proposed amendments will also enable the Local Government Superannuation Scheme to accept councillors as members of the scheme. Councillors will not be classified as employees entitled to compulsory employer contributions to superannuation. The Local Government Act 1993 at section 251 (1) specifically excludes councillors being deemed as an employee of a council "for the purposes of any Act".

Consistent with Commonwealth superannuation law, provision has been made to include de facto partners as one of the categories of persons who can, subject to the schemes' own trust deed requirements, become members of the schemes. The Commonwealth's Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 at section 10 defines spouse to include de facto partners. The definition of "de facto partner" has been drafted with reference to the Property Relationships Act 1994. The effect of this is that same-sex partners of members who are otherwise entitled to or who are receiving benefits under the schemes can, subject to the respective schemes' trust deeds, be dealt with as the spouse of such persons. The schemes' existing trust deeds define "spouses" to include same-sex partners.

Optional membership applies only to the accumulation divisions of the Local Government Superannuation Scheme and the accumulation divisions of the Energy Industries Superannuation Scheme. "Optional" spouse members have been accepted into both schemes since 1998 and "optional" local government councillor members have been accepted into the Local Government Superannuation Scheme in a limited capacity since June 2004. In 2004 local government councillors were admitted as optional members of the Local Government Superannuation Scheme to enable those councillors to make post-tax contributions to superannuation. The proposed legislative amendments are not aimed at seeking to admit a wide category of persons into the schemes, for example, the general public. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Daryl Maguire.

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL (Keira—Minister for Water Utilities, Minister for Small Business, Minister for Regional Development, and Minister for the Illawarra) [11.45 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Rural Lands Protection Bill introduces practical changes to the Rural Lands Protection Act 1998 to simplify administrative requirements of boards, while ensuring that strong financial accountability and reporting are maintained. These changes will streamline the financial and reporting obligations of the State Council and the 47 rural lands protection boards across New South Wales. Streamlining these requirements will mean that boards will find it far less onerous to meet their financial and auditing responsibilities. I remind the House that rural lands protection boards and their predecessor organisations have been protecting rural lands in New South Wales since 1863. The role of boards has expanded considerably since then, of course, and they now deliver services that are vital to many thousands of rural landholders.

These days the services rural lands protection boards undertake are numerous. For instance, they are at the frontline in responding to animal health emergencies. Boards play a crucial role in managing endemic diseases and controlling exotic disease outbreaks. They are also an essential information resource for landholders seeking advice about animal health. Rural lands protection boards are also in the front line for dealing with pest emergencies and implementing major pest control campaigns. Such campaigns minimise the risk of economic loss arising from pest outbreaks. Further, boards manage travelling stock routes and reserves, and stock movement and identification. Significantly for these times, they assist with drought management and natural disaster relief. The rural lands protection board system is unique among other States and Territories in that they are at the forefront of New South Wales' emergency response capability. Boards are funded through landholder rates. In this capacity, they are essential for protecting rural lands.

The bill had its origins in a comprehensive review of the Rural Lands Protection Act in 2004. This was a five-year statutory review required under section 248 of the Act. The review was comprehensive and included stakeholders such as the New South Wales Farmers Association, representatives of ratepayers, New South Wales Treasury, and the Cabinet Office, among others. Extensive consultation was undertaken and more than 190 submissions were received. As a result of this process, wide-ranging recommendations were made to amend the Act. The purpose of the Rural Lands Protection Bill is to put in place the first of those recommendations. The other important recommendations made by the review group will be the subject of a subsequent bill once there has been further consideration.

Before I deal with the changes to be made by the bill I note that when the boards' auditing and reporting obligations commence, a change to the regulations will also be made to remove boards from the Public Authorities (Financial Arrangements) Act 1987. It is reasonable that under the new arrangements boards no longer have access to financial products or services that are available to public authorities, which are subject to statutory reporting obligations. Instead, the manner in which boards can invest their money will be restricted to investments that are approved by their Minister in consultation with the Treasurer. It is further proposed that boards be restricted from accessing Treasury Corporation loans. The State Council has been advised that until such time as those changes are formally made to the regulations, boards will not be permitted to access T-Corp loans.

I turn to the provisions of the bill. I note that overall the bill puts forward practical and sensible amendments to the financial accountability requirements of the boards and the State Council. At present, boards and State Council are sometimes subject to onerous auditing and reporting requirements. The bill addresses those requirements and proposes less burdensome, but equally accountable and transparent, financial reporting requirements. At present all the boards are subject to the requirement to prepare annual reports and submit them to State Council, and this will not change. However, State Council must also prepare an annual report, and has just four months after the end of its financial year, that is, by 30 April, to do so, under the requirements of the Annual Reports (Statutory Bodies) Act 1984.

The situation with State Council and boards is unusual in that each board is required to submit its audited financial statements to State Council. State Council will then prepare an annual report that refers to reports received from boards, and a report as to whether the auditing of boards' financial reports has been satisfactory. Extending the period in which State Council is required to complete its annual report to eight months will provide adequate time in which to complete this task. State Council's annual report will now be due by 31 August, not 30 April.

The first amendment in the bill is to ease the tight time constraints for financial reporting by State Council. The second group of amendments addresses the streamlining of the financial reporting and auditing requirements to which the boards are subject. Since 1998, the State Council and all the boards have been subject to the requirements of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983. The statutory review group acknowledged that the compliance burden on boards in satisfying the requirements of the Public Finance and Audit Act was significant. All boards have been affected by increases in audit and accounting costs, but boards with relatively low numbers of ratepayers in particular have been most adversely affected.

By making the changes proposed in the bill, boards will be relieved of the reporting requirements under the Public Finance and Audit Act. However, the amendments proposed in the bill will ensure that high levels of accountability in financial reporting and auditing are maintained, as is appropriate for statutory bodies. The bill provides that detailed accounting records are to be prepared and maintained by rural lands protection boards. This means that the boards will be required to keep accounting records that substantiate their financial transactions and their financial position. Further, they will have to prepare annual financial reports that comply with Australian accounting standards and fairly present their financial position and operations.

As well, strict time requirements will be imposed on the boards for preparation and reporting on financial statements. Boards will be required to submit their annual financial reports to their auditors within three months of the end of the financial year. In turn, auditors must complete their audits within six weeks after a financial report has been submitted to them, and send a copy to the board and to the State Council. Those new financial recording reporting and recording requirements reflect best practice accounting standards. They will also ensure robust and effective financial reporting by the boards. The next area of change in the financial management of the boards is the introduction of new auditing arrangements.

At present, State Council and the boards may be subject to performance audits of all or any of their activities by the Auditor-General under the Public Finance and Audit Act. The review found that there had been significant increases in auditing and accounting costs for boards. It also compared boards with other statutory authorities, which revealed that boards' compliance costs were relatively high when considered as a percentage of total expenditure. Finally, the review group noted that two audits of the board system in accordance with the Public Finance and Audit Act did not disclose any adverse findings. In light of these findings, the review group concluded that boards should be removed from the requirements of the Public Finance and Audit Act, and that more cost effective audit arrangements should be implemented.

The amendments outlined in the bill provide not only for better cost effectiveness, but also for high standards of financial accountability in auditing. Boards will be able to appoint an independent auditor to audit their financial records, subject to State Council's approval. The bill provides that only appropriately qualified auditors may be appointed and sets out persons who are disqualified from appointment. Auditors must be registered company auditors, and State Council must approve both their appointment and their removal. Audits must comply with standards and pronouncements of the Commonwealth Auditing and Assurance Standards Board or such other standards as prescribed by the regulations.

Auditors will have wide powers to carry out their work. They will be able to inspect and access a board's accounting or other relevant records and obtain the information necessary to carry out the audit. Importantly, auditors will be able to direct a board or staff member to provide information or answer a question that may be relevant to an audit. An auditor appointed by a board will be required to prepare not only a general purpose auditing report, but also a report on the conduct of the audit. This is an additional compliance measure that will allow auditors to highlight any problems with the conduct of the audit. By specifying what information must be included in a report, consistency in auditing is ensured across all boards.

Should a board fail to appoint an auditor, or an auditor's office become vacant, the Auditor-General will be authorised to undertake the audit of the board's financial report. The Government acknowledges the significant accounting and reporting burden placed on boards at present. It is clear that the bill implements sensible changes to ease this auditing and reporting burden on boards and to provide a more cost-effective reporting regime. The Government is fully committed to ensuring that as statutory authorities, boards remain transparent in their activities, and properly accountable to their stakeholders. The bill introduces a set of useful and practical amendments to the Rural Lands Protection Act and, at the same time, ensures high levels of transparency and accountability in the conduct of boards' financial reporting. The effect of these amendments will allow the 47 rural lands protection boards across New South Wales to operate more efficiently and, in turn, enhance the protection of our rural lands. The changes in the bill will be welcomed by ratepayers and the general community. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Daryl Maguire.
Bills introduced and read a first time.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL (Keira—Minister for Water Utilities, Minister for Small Business, Minister for Regional Development, and Minister for the Illawarra) [11.58 p.m.], on behalf of Mr John Watkins: I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

It gives me great pleasure firstly to introduce the Industrial Relations (Child Employment) Bill, to protect children in New South Wales from the harsh impact of WorkChoices. This is another example to families in New South Wales of the benefit of having a State Labor Government in power. Let us be very clear: those on the other side would leave working children unprotected from what we now know is the very unfair and unbalanced Federal Workplace Relations Act 1996. I will address the cognate bills after I have made some comments about the Industrial Relations (Child Employment) Bill.

The New South Wales Government has drafted the Industrial Relations (Child Employment) Bill to provide a safety net of minimum conditions to protect children from substandard wages and conditions if and when they enter into workplace agreements or other arrangements. The bill also gives children who are unfairly dismissed remedies that are no longer available under the Workplace Relations Act 1996. Section 16 (3) (e) of the Federal Workplace Relations Act 1996 clearly states that State child labour legislation is a non-excluded State law. In other words, child labour remains a matter with respect to which the States may legislate. This Government has independent legal advice to that effect. Minister Andrews has confirmed that the States can make these laws, so that is what we are doing.

Before WorkChoices it was not regarded as necessary to make child-specific labour laws in this State. General industrial relations law applied to children and continues to do so. State industrial relations instruments continue to provide appropriate wages and conditions for children at work. The problem that this bill seeks to remedy is that the Federal Workplace Relations Act generally applies to children employed by a constitutional corporation. If the New South Wales Government had not used its initiative to propose these new child labour laws those children would remain in the wilderness of WorkChoices without the safety net of properly maintained award protections.

Employees under 18 years of age are likely to lack the knowledge, skills and ability to directly negotiate their wages and conditions of employment with an employer. The only safeguard that WorkChoices offers a child when presented with a take-it-or-leave-it individual workplace agreement is that the child's parent or guardian must authorise the agreement. As there is no real choice and little scope for bargaining, rather than protecting a child this forces parents and guardians to be accomplices to what, in many circumstances, will be substandard wages and conditions of employment.

Requiring an adult to sign a child's individual agreement is an admission that the general protections under WorkChoices are inadequate. It is certainly no replacement for the "no disadvantage test", which previously operated to ensure that employees in the Federal system could not be offered deals that would make them worse off than the relevant award. What is not clear is why the Federal Government and the Opposition cannot admit to this and why the Federal Government has not made laws that take this into account.

The Industrial Relations (Child Employment) Bill sets out clear and simple rules for employers in constitutional corporations to follow when establishing wages and conditions of employment for children under workplace agreements. Unlike the Federal Government's approach to labour relations, this is a 17-page bill, not a 687-plus wall of legislation for employees and employers to grapple with. Employers will have to reach only for a State award and apply a few pieces of legislation to work out appropriate minimum wages and conditions for children. Most importantly, this bill protects children employed in constitutional corporations from being capriciously dismissed from employment. Quite deliberately, WorkChoices provides little or no protection from unfair dismissal. Again, the State Government has taken responsibility to protect our children from the harshest aspects of WorkChoices. If the State Opposition had its way it would take the WorkChoices path and leave children unprotected.

Importantly, it will be seen that this bill does not introduce new and unnecessary red tape that may burden an employer deciding to engage a child. The emphasis in this bill is an appropriate amount of regulation to ensure the wellbeing of a child at work. There are at least 150,000 children formally employed in New South Wales under 18 years of age. The bill will introduce a consistent approach to wages and conditions for all employers if they offer Federal workplace agreements in particular industries, for example, in the retail and the hospitality industries, where the majority of children are employed. Hopefully, it will end the situation where an employer will try and gain a competitive advantage with another business by simply reducing the wages and conditions of children on individual and collective Federal workplace agreements.

It is of great concern that, according to the Office of Employment Advocate, 598 individual workplace agreements were offered by employers to children under the age of 15 between July of last year and May 2006. It is just as concerning that employers have sought to reduce conditions of employment on 7,779 occasions under individual Australian workplace agreements for children between 15 and 18 years of age. According to the Office of Employment Advocate almost half of individual workplace agreements do not include rest breaks. Half of the individual agreements entered into remove penalty rates, annual leave loading, shift allowances, overtime loadings, skills payments and public holiday pay. That is the brave new world of WorkChoices that the Federal Government and its supporters opposite are happy to foist on children and the rest of the work force. It is important to note that this bill does not prevent employers and employees from choosing what type of industrial instrument they should enter into. It merely provides an appropriate safety net, and that safety net will continue to be monitored and set by an independent umpire, the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission.

The Government has consulted widely about this bill by releasing an exposure draft for comment. Arguments raised about the effects of the bill are as unconvincing and unsubstantiated as the arguments the Federal Government continues to make about the removal of unfair dismissal laws on job creation. There is simply no evidence that removal of unfair dismissal laws has created jobs. Reading some of the submissions I have received about the bill only confirms that making these laws is a necessity. Indeed, those organisations with children's best interests at heart—the Commission for Children and Young People and the Youth Action Policy Association—support the bill in its entirety. It is important to note that incentives such as penalty rates and shift loadings for apprentices should not be overridden by individual workplace agreements. In all the confusion about individual contracts, the bill will provide some certainty for children taking up apprenticeships that important conditions of employment established by the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission will be safeguarded.

Part 1 of the Industrial Relations (Child Employment) Bill defines the terms used in the bill. Unlike the WorkChoices legislation, there are very few new definitions for employees and employers to understand. A child is defined as a person under the age of 18, as has long been the case at common law. Words like "employer" and "conditions of employment" have the same meanings as in the New South Wales Industrial Relations Act. Clause 4 of the bill sets out when minimum conditions contained in State law apply to a child. Under clause 4 (1) a child is protected by minimum conditions if employed under an agreement or other arrangement entered into after 27 March 2006. The employer must be a constitutional corporation that is not bound by a State industrial instrument. There must also be a State award that covers employees performing similar work to the child, which does not bind that employer.

The bill does not apply to child employees who are already covered by State awards and enterprise agreements. They continue to be directly protected by those instruments. Nor does the bill apply to child employees covered by Federal awards, pre-WorkChoices agreements, notional agreements preserving State awards or preserved State agreements under WorkChoices. All of those instruments were tested against a "no disadvantage" or "no net detriment" test before they came into operation. We do not seek to interfere with their continued application to employer-employee relationships.

Instead, the minimum conditions defined in the bill apply to child employees who enter into an individual or collective Federal workplace agreement or when wages and conditions of employment are set by a common law contract of employment and the child is employed by a constitutional corporation. These new Federal instruments and arrangements are no longer tested for a disadvantage or detriment and are, therefore, liable to result in a child missing out on important protections. The bill's effect is to reintroduce a safety net. Such an employer must ensure that a child is provided with minimum conditions of employment for a child. An affected employer must provide at least the minimum conditions of employment contained in a comparable State award and the legislation that would have applied if that child were covered by that State award.

Importantly, if the conditions of employment provided for the child are different to those minimum conditions I have referred to, the conditions of employment must not, on balance, result in a net detriment to the child when compared with the comparable State award and legislation. In other words, an employer in a constitutional corporation can choose simply to provide a child with at least the wages and conditions contained in a comparable State industrial award. If an affected employer decides to offer a child employment under an individual or collective Federal workplace agreement with different conditions to the State award, the conditions of employment provided to the child must not, on balance, result in a net detriment to the child.

To provide guidance on what is a net detriment, the bill requires the Full Bench of the Industrial Relations Commission to set no net detriment principles within six months of the commencement of the Act. In determining the no net detriment principles the Full Bench of the commission is to have regard to pertinent issues surrounding the employment of a child, including the provisions of any State award or industrial relations legislation that are particularly important for ensuring the wellbeing of children at work. The legislation ensures that all industrial organisations will be consulted and that they can have their say about the setting of the no net detriment principles. Industrial organisations will be able to make submissions to the Full Bench on setting and reviewing the principles.

To ensure that employers and children are aware of the relevant minimum conditions, employers will be required to exhibit a copy of the comparable State award at the workplace. For each child, employers will be required to keep records consistent with the requirements under the Workplace Relations Act and the New South Wales Industrial Relations Act. Under division 2 of the bill industrial inspectors may issue compliance notices where an inspector is of the opinion that minimum conditions of employment for a child have been contravened. This will provide an employer with the opportunity to remedy the contravention without suffering penalty. Compliance notices will provide valuable guidance to employers on how to ensure they do not contravene the requirements of this legislation.

Where an employer disputes a compliance notice, that dispute can be taken to the Industrial Court, which will determine whether the notice should be varied or revoked. A failure to provide the child with appropriate conditions of employment will be a civil penalty offence, just like a breach of an award or enterprise agreement under the Industrial Relations Act. Prosecutions for such an offence will be able to be brought only by an inspector in an Industrial Court. In determining the amount of a pecuniary penalty against an employer, natural justice is introduced by allowing the Industrial Court to take into account whether or not the employer has made a reasonable effort to provide the child with the minimum conditions of employment. Importantly, the court may also take into account whether the child understood and consented to the provisions that the employer had provided to the child.

The bill provides that the tried and true mechanisms that already exist under the New South Wales Industrial Relations Act will be available for recovery of remuneration and other amounts. The Government has never hidden behind rhetoric in its opposition to the Federal Government's removal of unfair dismissal remedies, particularly where that right has been removed from persons who are vulnerable in the labour market. That is why members of the Opposition will not be surprised that the New South Wales Government has introduced, under part 3 of the bill, provisions restoring the right of a worker less than 18 years of age the ability to seek remedies where he or she has been unfairly dismissed by a constitutional corporation. These will be the same remedies as those available under the New South Wales Industrial Relations Act. All employers, regardless of size, will have to ensure that they exercise their power to dismiss child employees in a fair manner.

The bill introduces new provisions only where it is necessary, given the new unfair provisions under the Workplace Relations Act, and the bill is designed to balance employers' needs with the need to protect the welfare of children at work. Employees under the age of 18 years should not be subject to take-it-or-leave-it conditions of employment, and they should not be subject to capricious dismissal by a corporation. It has been left up to the New South Wales Government to take responsibility for the welfare of children and to return fairness to the industrial relations system. That is what the Government seeks to achieve by this bill. I commend this bill to the House.

I deal now with the second bill, the Industrial Relations Further Amendment Bill, which aims to counteract the destructive effects of the Federal Government's WorkChoices legislation. In introducing the bill I make the very important point that, unlike the Federal Government, the State Government does not consider it to be responsible public policy to contemptuously and arrogantly foist unannounced and untested new legislation onto the people of New South Wales. To that end, on 19 September 2006 the New South Wales Government released an exposure draft of the bill for consideration. It circulated the draft to key stakeholders and invited submissions from other interested parties, a testament to the fact that it encourages the public to play a genuine and meaningful role during the legislative process.

In contrast to the Howard Government, the Iemma Government values public comment and feedback. That feedback has now been considered and, where appropriate, incorporated into the bill. The Industrial Relations Further Amendment Bill aims to deliver stability and comfort for business owners and workers throughout the State by introducing five key measures. These measures are protection of injured workers, protection for raising legitimate occupational health and safety issues at work, alternative dispute resolution services delivered by the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission, joint sittings of the New South Wales and interstate tribunals, and electronic publishing of the industrial gazette. There are also minor clarifying amendments to other provisions of the Industrial Relations Act 1996.

The Federal Government has claimed that occupational health and safety matters and workers compensation matters will continue to be regulated by the States and Territories. To ensure that certain occupational health and safety matters, and workers compensation matters continue to be appropriately regulated by New South Wales the bill adopts and transfers protections for persons raising occupational health and safety concerns, and injured workers from the Industrial Relations Act 1996 to the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 and the Workers Compensation Act 1987 respectively.

The bill seeks to ensure that remedies for employees making health and safety complaints or carrying out health and safety functions in the workplace are appropriately contained within occupational health and safety legislation. The bill amends the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000. Under the bill new section 23A provides for reinstatement of a worker, or compensation, where that worker has been dismissed in contravention of section 23 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000. Section 23 provides that it is unlawful for an employer to dismiss an employee for making an occupational health and safety complaint, or for being a member of an occupational health and safety committee or an occupational health and safety representative and exercising functions in those capacities.

These protections are an essential part of the occupational health and safety framework of this State. Employees must have the freedom and confidence to raise health and safety concerns in the workplace. People participating as members of occupational health and safety committees or occupational health and safety representatives should be encouraged to accept those roles and be supported in those roles. There should be no threats to job security for anyone functioning in these important roles, or, indeed, threats to any person doing the right thing by his or her workmates and employers by raising health and safety concerns. Everyone needs to be able to raise health and safety issues in the workplace as and when they arise. That is in everyone's interest.

The protections for employees raising health and safety concerns are vital to the occupational health and safety regime in this State. It is appropriate that the bill provides for these protections to sit within the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000. The bill also transfers the injured worker protection provisions contained in chapter 2 part 7 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 to the Workers Compensation Act 1987. Those provisions provide an injured worker with the remedy of reinstatement if that worker is dismissed from employment because he or she is not fit for employment because of that injury. The provisions also create an offence when an employer dismisses a worker because that worker is not fit for employment because of the injury and dismissal takes place within six months of the worker becoming unfit for employment.

The injured worker protections contained in the bill are an integral part of the workers compensation scheme to get injured workers back to work and to ensure employers are engaged in this process. The duties of employers to find injured workers suitable duties, to commence workplace rehabilitation programs, and develop return-to-work programs would become meaningless if an employer was simply able to dismiss the worker to avoid these obligations. The protections for injured workers in the bill are an essential element of the workers compensation scheme in this State. It is appropriate that the bill provides for these protections to sit appropriately within State workers compensation legislation. These initiatives will guarantee that these important remedial provisions live on, providing reassurance to employers and their workers regarding their rights and responsibilities, given the current climate of confusion.

As honourable members will be aware, various disputes can arise in the workplace from time to time and sometimes the industrial parties require the assistance of an independent body to help them reach a resolution. WorkChoices makes dramatic and far-reaching change to the processes of dispute resolution, gutting the role of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission [AIRC] and attempting to kick-start State commissions off the field altogether. Instead, WorkChoices provides for alternative dispute resolution by a body that the industrial parties nominate or, in other cases, the AIRC.

Many employers and employees want that nominated dispute resolution provider to be the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission—a thumbs up to the prompt and fair manner in which our commission operates. The New South Wales commission has supervised Australia's largest State industrial jurisdiction for over a century. The merits of our commission are most clear upon examination of its role in resolving a number of high-profile disputes. People all around the State are telling us that they want the well-qualified and experienced members of the New South Wales Commission to continue to provide conferencing, mediation, conciliation and arbitration in the wake of the Federal Government's radical industrial agenda. This bill ensures that can happen.

If employers and unions in the Federal system wish to do so, they can include in their Federal workplace agreements terms that identify the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales as their preferred provider of alternative dispute resolution. The expertise and impartiality of our commission's members has won the respect and confidence of employers, employees and their representatives who value its flexibility and responsiveness, and appreciate that it conducts its activities with a minimum of legal technicality. By introducing this bill, the New South Wales Government is ensuring that the accumulated wealth of knowledge and experience of our commission will not dissipate and, importantly, that this well-respected tribunal continues to have an ongoing public role in the resolution of disputes.

This amendment is in addition to, and does not derogate from, section 146A, which was inserted into the Act earlier this year. That section gives the Industrial Relations Commission jurisdiction to deal with disputes where the parties make private agreement to refer any disputes between them to the commission. The bill also provides a mechanism to promote co-operation and comity between State and Territory tribunals, enabling the New South Wales Commission to share resources and convene joint sittings with its other State counterparts. Joint sittings would provide an effective alternative avenue to achieve consistent, sustainable wage increases and the consideration of the development of new national community standards through test case proceedings. After this, binding decisions could be made by each State commission in accordance with their respective governing statutes.

The bill also aims to put the publication of industrial matters—awards, orders, enterprise agreements and contract determinations—on a more modern and accessible footing. To this end, the bill provides for the online gazettal of official documents. This will also have the added benefit of decreasing the registry's printing production costs. Hard copies of the gazette will continue to be published, albeit less frequently, for the benefit of people who do not have online access. The bill will also amend section 127 (8) to extend the current offence to include any person who knowingly provides a false statement to a principal contractor regarding the payment of remuneration to employees of subcontractors. This amendment will cover any person, whether or not authorised by a subcontractor, and is intended to reduce reliance on statutory declarations by principal contractors when accepting statements given by any persons on behalf of a subcontractor.

In relation to outworkers, the bill will include an additional paragraph in the definition of "industrial matters" in section 6 covering the mode, terms and conditions under which work is given out to be performed by an outworker in the clothing trades. This provision is intended to put beyond doubt that the giving out of work to clothing outworkers and the regulation of such work within a supply chain are industrial matters under the Industrial Relations Act for the purposes of award coverage and the resolution of disputes. Other amendments relating to the outworker provisions under part 11 of the Industrial Relations Act will make it clear that constitutional corporations that give out clothing trades work or any work in the manufacture of clothing products are required to comply with the statutory conditions applied under section 129B.

This will also extend to the keeping of records and disclosure of information relating to the giving out of work by constitutional corporations. Finally, the amendments will make it clear that the conditions of employment applied under section 129B of the Industrial Relations Act to outworkers engaged by constitutional corporations are minimum employment entitlements for those outworkers that cannot be contracted out of. The contents of the Industrial Relations Further Amendment Bill 2006, in concert with legislation passed earlier this year, form the basis of the New South Wales Government's commitment to ameliorate the negative effects of WorkChoices in our State. This is not all that we will do. Let me assure honourable members that the New South Wales Government will continue to examine and implement sensible strategies to circumvent the devastating practical effects of WorkChoices.

I now turn to the Workers Compensation Amendment (Permanent Impairment Benefits) Bill 2006. The bill gives effect to the Government's decision to increase compensation benefits for seriously injured workers. This increase has been made possible by the Government's workers compensation reform program and the resulting sustained improvement in the overall performance of the WorkCover Scheme and is in advance of the outcomes of the WorkCover Board's work in reviewing the workers compensation benefit regime. The bill provides for a 10 per cent increase in dollar terms to the lump sums paid to workers for permanent impairment under section 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

The increased benefits will apply to workers who suffer a permanent impairment from an injury sustained on or after 1 January 2007. By increasing section 66 payments, the Government is also encouraging injured workers to utilise statutory benefits rather than pursuing expensive and uncertain common law claims. Sound financial management, improved claims handling and hard work have returned the scheme to surplus. As well as benefiting injured workers, the much-improved financial position of the scheme will benefit employers through a further 5 per cent reduction in workers compensation premiums, bringing total premium reductions to 20 per cent in just 12 months. Employers will also benefit from the Government's new Growing Our Skills: Apprentice Incentive Scheme, which will exempt apprentices' wages from the calculation of an employer's premium. I commend the bills to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Daryl Maguire.