Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Assembly, 5 June 2007, Corrected Copy)

The Speaker (The Hon. George Richard Torbay) took the chair at 2.15 p.m.

The Speaker read the Prayer and acknowledgement of country.

The SPEAKER: I report the receipt of the following message from the Administrator:

K . M ASON Office of the Governor
ADMINISTRATOR Sydney 2000

The Honourable Justice Keith Mason, Administrator of the State of New South Wales, has the honour to inform the Legislative Assembly that, consequent on the Lieutenant-Governor of New South Wales, the Honourable James Jacob Spigelman, being absent from the State, he has this day assumed the administration of the Government of the State.

3 June 2007

Government Business Notices of Motions (for Bills) given.
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: My question is to the Premier. How does he justify allowing more than 400 public servants on the unattached list to sit around doing nothing, at a cost of $30 million to taxpayers, when two years ago he said he would fix the problem?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: If the second part of the question relates to the audit of government expenditure and services that was undertaken when I became Premier, I inform the Leader of the Opposition that the Government is well on track in making savings.

[ Interruption]

I will come to displaced persons in a second, but the Leader of the Opposition mentioned savings. I take it that the first part of the question refers to the audit. We are on track in making those savings. The Treasurer, when he delivers his budget in two weeks time, will give the Leader of the Opposition plenty of detail about the Government's efforts in maintaining fiscal discipline and in managing its budget. In relation to displaced persons, in the past 12 months—

Mr Andrew Stoner: What about Mark Aarons?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: That is now 41 per cent. He has certainly made a lasting impression on the Leader of The Nationals. So the Leader of the Opposition should wait two weeks for the results of the update, because they were four-year—

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

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: —two and a half billion dollar savings measures, and in two weeks time the Treasurer will be more than happy to give him in full detail how the Government is tracking in those savings measures. In relation to displaced persons, in the past 12 months, between 1 May 2006 and 30 April this year, 82 displaced persons were permanently redeployed to positions within the public sector.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition asked the question, and he will listen to the Premier's answer.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Fifty-four displaced persons, I am advised, gained temporary appointments to funded positions within the public sector. I am further advised by the Public Employment Office that as at 28 May this year 262 active displaced officers were registered on the recruitment and redeployment unit database. Of those, 153 active displaced officers have been displaced for six months or less. Historically, 75 per cent of displaced officers are redeployed permanently within 12 months of becoming displaced. As I said to the Leader of the Opposition, if he wants further details, in two weeks the Treasurer will give him an update.

Mr Barry O'Farrell: We just want—

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: That is displaced persons. If he wants to know how the voluntary redundancy program is going, the Treasurer will be more than happy to provide that detail to him in two weeks. He has to be a little bit patient.

Mr FRANK TERENZINI: I direct my question to the Premier. What is the latest information on the Government's moves towards greater judicial accountability?

Mr Andrew Fraser: And are we still heading in the right direction?

The SPEAKER: Order! The Premier has the call

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I think your friend is heading south.

Mr Andrew Fraser: Absolutely!

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: He just has to confirm it. I can confirm that the Government will proceed with its commitment to enable community representatives sit on the Conduct Division of the New South Wales Judicial Commission. This important measure for judicial accountability means that community views will be represented when misconduct cases against judges are heard. Community representation will provide more accountability and transparency when investigating complaints against the judiciary. It will give the community a voice and maintain confidence in the legal process.

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

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Community representation is one of the Government's commitments. In January this year I announced that, should we be re-elected, we would allow the community to have its say on judicial discipline hearings. I can advise the House that we are proceeding to deliver on that commitment. We must ensure the public has full confidence in the handling of serious complaints against judges and magistrates. We want the community represented, and we want its views taken into account. This is an important initiative. Appointing a community representative to the panel will give a perspective from outside the legal fraternity when assessing serious complaints.

This initiative is aimed squarely at giving the community a voice and maintaining confidence in the New South Wales judiciary. This measure is aimed at maintaining the high standard we have already set in New South Wales. Community representation is a model that has worked well in the United Kingdom. This step will help promote greater public confidence in our legal system. At the moment the panel comprises three people, all serving or retired judges. Community members will be appointed by the Parliament to ensure that a true community voice is chosen.

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

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: These latest reforms build upon our recent changes to the Judicial Officers Act to streamline the handling of complaints. I am proud to inform the House that the legislation will be introduced shortly.
Mr ANDREW STONER: My question is directed to the Premier. How can he justify keeping the sacked former director general of education on the public service payroll at a cost of $400,000 a year when country schools are so underresourced that last week The Rock Central School and Young Public School were forced into a public fight over one demountable classroom which had to be resolved by a police raid at dawn?

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals has asked his question. He will resume his seat. The Premier has the call.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: As the Leader of The Nationals would be aware, if he were awake at the time, during the announcement of the audit the Government announced changes to chief executive officers and their treatment.

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

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: If the Leader of The Nationals wants an update on the status of the former director general of education, I would be more than happy to get that for him.

Mr ALLAN SHEARAN: My question is directed to the Minister for Transport. What is the latest information on the proposed north-west rail link?

Mr JOHN WATKINS: I thank the member for his interest in this important project. The proposed north-west rail link is part of the Iemma Government's metropolitan rail expansion program. We are moving another step closer to delivering on our commitment to provide an expanded, modern and reliable public transport system for communities in the growth areas of Sydney, and we are delivering on the priority in our State Plan to increase their share of peak hour journeys on a safe and reliable public transport system. The north­west rail link is a 22-kilometre twin-track passenger rail line between Epping and the regional centres of Castle Hill and Rouse Hill. The project includes six new underground stations—Franklin Road, Castle Hill, The Hills Centre, Norwest, Burns Road and Rouse Hill.

As an aside, I should say that I am glad that those stations are underground, because that will protect them from the Leader of the Opposition if he ever gets near a bulldozer. Many members of the House know the story of Darnick station. Perhaps many of the newer members have not heard it. On this side of the House, we know the Leader of the Opposition as the butcher of Darnick.

Mr Adrian Piccoli: Point of order: My point of order relates to Standing Order 129. The monkey has been so good over the last couple of weeks, but I ask you now to bring him back to the leave of the question, which was about the north-west rail link. It is not very far away and certainly does not extend to western New South Wales, which is where the Minister is referring to at the moment.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister was answering the question he was asked. I am sure he was making only passing reference to Darnick.

Mr JOHN WATKINS: I was. The truth will come out because there is another person in this Chamber who knows about Darnick station, and that is the member for Manly. It was when the Leader of the Opposition was working for the member for Manly's father that the plot was hatched against Darnick station.

Mr Adrian Piccoli: Point of order: The Minister for Transport is clearly defying your ruling. If he was making a passing reference, he certainly is not doing so now. In order to maintain the standards of this House to the level to which you and the Premier had hoped they would be raised, I ask you to bring the Minister back to the leave of the question.

The SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order at this stage.

Mr JOHN WATKINS: I will come back to that at another time, but at some stage the truth must come out. As the Premier announced in last November's Urban Transport Statement, the Government plans to build the north-west rail link in two stages, allowing the Government to accelerate the first stage of the project by an estimated two years. The first stage, from Epping to The Hills Centre Station, will be operational by 2015 and the second stage, between The Hills Centre Station and Rouse Hill, will be operational by 2017. Between November of last year and February this year the concept plans for the north-west rail link were on public exhibition. More than 1,600 submissions were received. The Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation undertook further planning and environmental investigations and took the submissions into account.

Today I inform the House that the preferred project has been lodged with the Department of Planning to seek approval for the concept plan. This is a major step toward delivering better transport services for The Hills district and the north-west growth centre. The preferred project report includes two changes to the original concept plan: firstly, the inclusion of a direct tunnel connection between Epping station and Franklin Road station, something that I know will be warmly welcomed by the member for Epping, who is a strong supporter of everything the Government is doing in relation to transport for his electorate. When the amount of money being spent by this Government in the electorate of Epping is considered, one could swear that the member for Epping is a member of the Government.

[ Interruption]

I am criticised by my backbench colleagues for the amount of money being spent on Epping. The second change is the realignment of the proposed Norwest station approximately 100 metres east of the original concept planned location. These modifications have been made to minimise the impact on the local community, aid the construction process, minimise the environmental impact and reduce disruption to the existing rail network during construction. The realignment of Norwest station will improve the visibility and accessibility of the station and provide better integration with Norwest Business Park. Following public exhibition of the preferred project report, the Department of Planning will commence its assessment of the project. If approved, the concept plan will provide more certainty to landowners and the community regarding station locations and the alignment of the rail corridor. While approval of the concept plan is not an approval to commence construction, it will provide a clear blueprint for the project so that more detailed planning and environmental assessment can begin.

The Department of Planning will release the preferred project report for public exhibition from tomorrow until 9 July. Copies of the report will be available for viewing at a number of locations across north­west Sydney, including Baulkham Hills Shire Council, Baulkham Hills library, Castle Hill library and Pennant Hills library. Three community information sessions will be held at Castle Hill, Bella Vista and West Pennant Hills. I encourage all interested members of the community to attend those information sessions to learn more about the project. I encourage all members of this House who represent north-western Sydney communities also to attend information sessions and circulate information to their communities. We want as many people as possible to see the plans at this stage, have their say, and submit their views. Inevitably, that will lead to the project being a better project that better services those important north-western Sydney communities. I also encourage the member for Willoughby to attend the session so she can get some ideas for the Opposition's long-anticipated integrated transport policy.

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Willoughby to order.

Mr JOHN WATKINS: Members on the Opposition side of the House are so unhappy! The Government delivers good news to their communities, and instead of broad smiles, thankfulness and gratitude, we get sniping negativity.

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Hawkesbury to order.

Mr JOHN WATKINS: My question to the Opposition is: Why are they not happy? Many of them have reached the epitome of their careers. They are at the point in their career from where they will go no higher.

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

Mr JOHN WATKINS: The view is pretty good from up here. I do not want it said in 10 years time that members of the Opposition look back on their careers in this place and are unhappy.

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Hawkesbury to order for the second time.
Mr JOHN WATKINS: My advice to the Opposition is that when good news is presented to their communities, they should warmly embrace it because their communities would want that from them. I suggest that the Opposition's spokesperson for transport attend one of the information sessions because she may be able to feed the information back into the Opposition's long-anticipated integrated transport policy, to which she continually refers—the policy that she said the Opposition "could not release before the election because it was impossible to cost properly". The Opposition has a lot of work to do.

The Government will continue to implement the $660 million Urban Transport Statement and present new and accelerated initiatives to address Sydney's present and future transport needs. Over the next 15 years the Government will spend $15 billion on new rail infrastructure, continuing construction right across Sydney with the $1.8 billion rail Clearways project and the $8 billion metro rail expansion project. The Government has heard the message from the public that they want us to deliver a better public transport system, and that is exactly what we are doing.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: My question is directed to the Premier. In the light of his repeated criticism of the goods and services tax [GST] deal signed by Bob Carr, will he inform the House what commitment to a fairer deal he has won from Kevin Rudd in the event he should win the Federal election?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I can tell the Leader of the Opposition that it will be a lot better than the chances of the people of New South Wales getting a fairer deal from John Howard or Peter Costello, who point­blank refuse, as the Prime Minister told me when we took our case directly to him. He point-blank refused, as has the Federal Treasurer. In fact, the Federal Treasurer, Mr Costello, considers it to be his money, not money that belongs to the people of New South Wales. I can tell the Leader of the Opposition that the people of New South Wales stand a much better chance of getting something out of Kevin Rudd than they do of getting anything from John Howard or Peter Costello.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: I direct a supplementary question to the Premier. Given that he cannot detail any commitment from the Federal Leader of the Opposition, will he at least tell the public on how many occasions he has raised the issue with Mr Rudd?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The Leader of the Opposition has some difficulty understanding that John Howard and Peter Costello preside over the fraud.

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

[ Interruption]

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

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: This is the salient point: Regardless of who occupies the office—

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

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I am going to stand up for the people of New South Wales, regardless of who occupies The Lodge. At the moment, for about five more months, it is John Howard and Peter Costello.

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

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: If Kevin Rudd wins the election he will get the same message that John Howard and Peter Costello have refused to heed, that is, that the money belongs to the people of New South Wales regardless of who occupies The Lodge.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Premier will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition will remain silent. The House will come to order.

Ms ALISON MEGARRITY: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Planning. Will the Minister update the House on the Government's plans to shut down illegal brothels?
Mr FRANK SARTOR: I thank the member for Menai for raising this rather important community issue. During the election campaign the Iemma Government made a commitment to give councils stronger powers to identify and shut down illegal brothels and to prosecute those involved in running them. The community told the Government it wanted stronger mechanisms to tackle those operators who are flouting criminal laws and planning regulations. Residents were concerned about the impact of those illegal operations on their neighbourhood and on the amenity of their local area, and the potential risk of increased crime. We listened to the community and are responding to those concerns.

The State Plan already outlines the Iemma Government's commitment to reduce antisocial behaviour. Today I am pleased to inform the House of our latest efforts on this front. The Government will introduce a range of practical, workable measures to help achieve that State Plan priority by tackling the issue of illegal brothels. We will back our courts and strengthen our planning laws to help reduce antisocial behaviour in our neighbourhoods. The changes will focus on illegal brothel operators who attempt to circumvent the law and will increase penalties for repeat offenders. The changes will give councils new powers to deal with illegal brothels, and will ease the burden of evidence on councils, which can currently make it difficult to prove that a breach has occurred under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

In particular, the types of circumstantial evidence that can be relied upon in the courts will be expanded. We will give power and enforcement options back to communities. This package of reforms will help to swing the pendulum back in favour of hardworking families. Families want safe streets and vibrant communities, free of antisocial behaviour and crime. That is why a key measure of these reforms will be new powers for the Local Court, empowering the court to issue interim orders to cut electricity, gas and water supplies to illegal brothels. These new measures will make it easier for councils to take action against brothels that are causing a disturbance or interfering with the amenity of a local neighbourhood. That action can currently be taken under the Restricted Premises Act regardless of whether or not the brothel has development consent.

However, a recent case illustrates the need to make those provisions more effective. In December 2006 the Land and Environment Court made an order against a brothel operating in Potts Point following an application from the Council of the City of Sydney. The order was to prevent the continued use of those premises as a brothel. However, recent reports indicate that the brothel subsequently reopened at the same location, with the same staff, but under a different name. Under the current system, that council is required to commence new proceedings against the brothel under the Restricted Premises Act.

The Government is, therefore, proposing two key changes to address that issue. Firstly, a court order to cease operating a brothel would also prohibit the operation of a related business, such as a massage parlour. In line with the Premier's election commitment, councils could act to prevent the new business from operating without having to gather evidence to prove that it was a front for the previous operation. Further, because development consents run with the land, an order against one brothel owner does not apply if the land is sold or the lease is transferred to a new owner or occupier or a different corporate vehicle. To overcome that, the Government will also empower the court to suspend a development consent for up to six months when it orders that a brothel be shut down. That will close the loophole that allows operators to sell or transfer a lease into a different name and to continue operating.

The Government will ensure that criminal proceedings against illegal brothels can continue, even if the business is sold. The changes would make council orders to close the illegal brothels effective within five working days unless the order is challenged in court. In addition, we will increase financial penalties for illegal brothel operators by ensuring that fines and orders against illegal brothel operators escalate if the offender opens another illegal brothel. All those measures are designed to strengthen court procedures to enable councils to take swift action if an illegal brothel is detected. We are acting to ensure that residents with legitimate concerns can take steps to remove illegal brothels from their neighbourhood. The Government is committed also to consulting with the Local Government and Shires Associations and convening a task force to help guide these changes. We will continue to work to deliver on this important election commitment.

Mr BARRY COLLIER: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Health.

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Upper Hunter to order.
Mr BARRY COLLIER: Will the Minister inform the House of the latest information regarding New South Wales renal dialysis services?

Ms REBA MEAGHER: The New South Wales State Plan recognises the significant challenges posed by chronic illness such as kidney disease. The State Plan commits the Government to expanding chronic care services, particularly in rural and regional New South Wales. I am pleased to report that in the area of renal health we are investing strongly to meet this commitment. Currently more than 2,700 people in New South Wales require renal dialysis, a number that has grown at a steady rate of 5 per cent each year over the past decade. And despite research recently released by the Department of Health—which showed greater participation in campaigns promoting exercise and healthy eating, with more people exercising and eating fruits and vegetables and fewer people smoking and engaging in risky levels of drinking—diabetes is now the number one cause for kidney failure in Australia.

Now over one half of the adult population are either overweight or obese, up from over 40 per cent 10 years ago. In addition, our population is ageing and an increasing number of people are being diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. These factors are directly impacting on the steady increase of people with kidney disease. For people diagnosed with end stage kidney disease a dialysis machine is the only means of survival if they do not receive an organ transplant. This morning I announced a $14 million funding package to expand renal dialysis services across New South Wales. This investment will lead to six new renal dialysis centres—

Mr Andrew Stoner: Nothing west of the range. That's a disgrace!

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the Leader of The Nationals to order for the third time. He will resume his seat.

Ms REBA MEAGHER: I will come to Forbes and the Opposition will see, yet again, just how silly the Leader of The Nationals really is. The investment will lead to six new renal dialysis centres opening: at Manning Base Hospital, a new six-chair unit; at Bega Hospital, a new three-chair unit; at Mona Vale Hospital, a new-six chair unit; at the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Page Building, a new satellite unit of 10 chairs; at Fairfield Hospital, a new 12-chair unit; and Sutherland Hospital will receive a new 12-chair unit. An additional chair will also be established at Forbes, resulting in an extra 50 dialysis chairs, and increasing the total number of chairs to 561 across the State. These new funds will deliver more staff and equipment for existing services so that capacity can be increased, with 176 new places created for patients who require care.

In the Greater Southern region new places will be created at Moruya, Griffith and Goulburn hospitals. The North Coast will receive additional places at Ballina and Grafton hospitals and new renal networks will be provided in Coffs Harbour-Clarence and Hastings-Macleay. The Greater Western Area will establish additional places in Orange, Broken Hill and Forbes, west of the Great Divide.

In Western Sydney capacity will be expanded at Penrith community dialysis centre and at Nepean Hospital inpatient renal service. Home-based dialysis will also be expanded. On the North Coast, additional funding will allow at least 20 more renal dialysis patients to be able to receive dialysis treatment in their own homes. Community outreach services in the Hunter will be funded to recruit more nurses, social workers, dieticians and occupational therapy staff for additional home support. The State Plan recognises in particular the needs of indigenous communities.

I am pleased that this funding package includes funding for the establishment of the Aboriginal Health Education Officers Program in the Southern Area Health Service. This program will increase the capacity to screen for chronic disease in Aboriginal communities in order to ensure early intervention and disease management to avoid the onset and progression of kidney disease. I am pleased to report progress on this key State Plan initiative. It will ensure that more people have access to essential medical services, particularly in rural and regional New South Wales.

Mr ANDREW STONER: My question is directed to the Premier. How does he reconcile his claim that Mark Aarons left his office to "pursue another career" with weekend revelations that he has not worked since his sudden departure? When will the Premier admit that Mr Aarons was forced out in contravention of the law?
The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Nationals has asked his question. He will listen to the answer. I remind him that he is on three calls to order.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: That question is about as accurate as the previous question asked by the Leader of the Nationals. Before I come to Mr Aarons let me come to Mr Cappie-Wood who the member asserted was on the unattached list. If the member had been awake he would be aware that Mr Cappie-Wood's services were dispensed with, or he was terminated, on 18 May. The question that the member asked earlier follows from the displaced list. The Leader of the Nationals again has his facts wrong. That is because he never pays attention to the truth let alone to the detail.

The simplest answer to the question about Mr Aarons is his own note in which he states that his departure from the office was unrelated to the Gibson matter. So the member is wrong in relation to Mr Aarons and he is wrong in relation to Mr Cappie-Wood. No wonder he is preparing his departure for another parliament down south. He might have more luck staying awake there and getting the information and details he requires before getting up and asking silly questions like the ones that he asks in this Chamber.

Ms DIANE BEAMER: My question is addressed to the Minister for Small Business. Will the Minister inform the House of issues affecting small business in New South Wales?

The SPEAKER: Order! I could not hear the question because of the member for Wakehurst. I ask the member to repeat the question.

Ms DIANE BEAMER: Will the Minister inform the House of issues affecting small business in New South Wales?

Mr JOSEPH TRIPODI: The Labor Party has been built on a tradition of fighting for workers' rights. We on this side of the House are proud of that record. With our friends in the union movement much has been achieved to make workplaces fairer and to provide pay justice for working families. To achieve this we have had to determine where the power rests in the workplace and to correct for it. It has always been about a balance between master and servant. That has been the Labor way for over a century, and we have always got it right.

In the twenty-first century the story remains the same but the players have changed. The traditional struggle between employer and employee is now joined by the struggle between small and big business. Not only does the law need to protect traditional workers; it needs to protect the new generation of workers—those involved in small businesses and the owners of small businesses. New South Wales has supported thousands of small businesses and this sector continues to grow. Small businesses, which employ half of Sydney's workforce, are a vital part of the Australian and New South Wales economies.

Members on both sides of the House share the view that businesses should be allowed to conduct their affairs free from government involvement, unless intervention is absolutely necessary. Business should occur in a competitive environment and on a level playing field. The best companies are those that succeed by providing for their customers. The law covering the level playing field and the framework for competition is the Federal law, but unfortunately it has been left to deteriorate over the past few years to the comprehensive disadvantage of small businesses. There are a number of reasons why small business is disadvantaged, but it often comes down to having comparatively little power in the marketplace.

Small businesses are vulnerable by nature and need a level of protection against the abuse of market power. It is the role of the Federal Government to provide protection against the abuse of market power. Today I inform the House of the fundamental failure of the Federal Government to do just that, that is, to protect small business against big business. The Trade Practices Act is the key piece of legislation regulating competition. Big businesses left to their own devices will engage in a range of anticompetitive practices. For example, they can engage in predatory pricing where they sell at under cost, forcing small businesses to shut and thereby creating a commercial environment that enables them to raise their prices afterwards, or they can buy up their competitors and accumulate more market power.

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Clarence to order.

Mr JOSEPH TRIPODI: The Act covers a number of areas designed to protect consumers and small businesses from this sort of behaviour, but there are now serious doubts about the strength of the Trade Practices Act and the power of the regulator, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [ACCC], to deal with this sort of action. This doubt was created by a High Court decision in 2003 known as the Boral case. The new interpretation of the abuse of market power provisions in the Act sets the bar extremely high for small businesses trying to prove predatory behaviour by a big competitor.

When this decision came down there was condemnation across the board, including from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and small business groups. The Senate economic references committee reviewed the legislation and paid particular attention to section 46, which covers the abuse of market power. In March 2004 the committee made some good recommendations dealing with predatory pricing and unconscionable conduct. That was more than three years ago. The Federal Government did not agree with all the recommendations but, on the issue of predatory pricing, the Federal Treasurer said in his response to the committee that the Trade Practices Act should be amended so that below-cost pricing was covered by section 46.

Since then there have been drafts, reviews and discussions but, unfortunately, no action has been taken to provide protection for small business against the practices of big business. My colleague the Hon. David Campbell fought hard, through the ministerial council process, to push this agenda forward, but unfortunately the Federal Government resisted it all the way. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the State governments were ready to support amendments and Treasurer Peter Costello admitted at the time that they were necessary, but he has done nothing to fix the problems confronting small businesses in Australia. Mr Costello has let big businesses loose, with the law on their side, for over three years and the economy has suffered as international agencies now report that Australia has one of the most concentrated economies in the world.

With the advent of the forthcoming Federal election the hearing of the Liberal Party has suddenly improved. Suddenly it can hear the voice of small business. The small business constituency is sick of being forgotten, its interests being neglected and the Liberal Party pandering to big business. At last, two weeks ago today, the Australian Financial Review reported on its front page that the Treasurer would be pushing through amendments as a priority. We have heard nothing since then. Apparently he wanted those amendments to go through in this current session of parliament, but nothing has occurred since the publication of those newspaper reports. There has been no official announcement and no press release other than that newspaper story. The New South Wales Government called on the Treasurer to give us the details, but unfortunately we are still waiting.

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Clarence to order for the second time.

Mr JOSEPH TRIPODI: We are still awaiting a response from the Federal Government. After two weeks nothing more has been said on the issue, either by the Treasurer or by Fran Bailey, the Federal Minister for Small Business and Tourism. The support is there from across the community. The New South Wales Government brought up the issue at small business ministerial council meetings in 2005 and 2006. The head of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, Graeme Samuel, has claimed that section 46 does not do what it was intended to do, and needs to be changed. Small business groups are keen to see the law address the imbalance that has been occurring since 2003. Senator Barnaby Joyce and Senator Steve Fielding have weighed in on the issue, and just last week the Liberal member for Gilmore, Joanna Gash, moved a private members' motion on this issue. So there is bipartisan support for change.

Government backbenchers and crossbenchers in the Senate want to see reform in this area but, unfortunately, there has been no response from the Federal Government, no action, no draft bill and no further discussion other than that reported in the Australian Financial Review . The question today is: Why has it taken Peter Costello three years to start the reform process to protect small business, and what is he proposing? Many people want to know exactly what Mr Costello proposes. Do not get me wrong: We are keen to see change in this area. We want to put change on the agenda but we want to know whether the proposals that were leaked to the press without any details represent real change or whether they are simply more window dressing.

Not only those on the Labor side want reform in this area. Many others are seeking change—particularly the 645,000 small businesses in New South Wales. They want answers. They want to know what relief amending the Trade Practices Act can provide. It is a serious question for small business, a serious reform issue in the competition law area, and a question that has remained unanswered since the Boral case in 2003. The Treasurer owes it to small business to come clean about his plans. The Australian economy needs this reform, and small businesses need a level playing field that gives them a chance to compete in the workplace. I do not need to remind the House that competition reform is on the Labor agenda. A Labor government introduced competition laws—albeit quite a while ago—and a Labor government appointed a national competition council. Labor introduced those reforms because we are serious about protecting small business. We are serious about providing for consumers, we are serious about having a competitive economy and we are serious about reform.

Mr Adrian Piccoli: Point of order: I refer to previous rulings of the Speaker about the length of answers, and your comments today in the Sydney Morning Herald.

The SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Minister to resume his seat while the point of order is being taken.

Mr Adrian Piccoli: The Minister is clearly wasting time to avoid another question being asked.

The SPEAKER: Order! I have heard enough. The Minister's reply is relevant to the question asked. He is not repeating himself, and I urge him to continue.

Mr JOSEPH TRIPODI: There is a long history of the conservatives gagging small business and ignoring small business interests so I am not surprised that they are trying to do it again today. It is a well­known fact that Australia has one of the most concentrated economies in the world. There are few industries in this country where there is not a duopoly. That situation was created over the past decade because the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission did not have the power to explore, investigate and then prosecute regarding anti-competitive practices. That is a great shame because the economy has suffered. The potential of the Australian people has not been fulfilled because the Federal Government has failed to bite the bullet when it comes to reform in the competition area.

Unfortunately, no champions of small business are sitting on the other side of the House or on the Government benches in Canberra. This is a very serious issue. Fran Bailey has failed to understand and implement the reforms necessary in this area. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission cannot run cases for small business. Why? It is because the laws are weak. Graeme Samuel has said that the commission will not run cases under the current law because it is too weak to protect small businesses. That is a great shame, and it is time for reform.

Question time concluded.

Petition requesting improved access to Hawkesbury River railway station, 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 praying that the Government consult the community in relation to the proposed removal of the Epping station footbridge, received from Mr Greg Smith.

Petition requesting that the House prohibit the approval of sex shops in local urban areas, received from Mr Malcolm Kerr.

Petitions requesting funding for breast screening to allow access for women aged 40 to 79 years, received from Mr Steve Cansdell and Mrs Judy Hopwood.
Petition requesting the retention of a full-time general manager and the re-establishment of a local community-based hospital board of management, received from Mr Malcolm Kerr.

Petition praying that the House support the establishment of a satellite renal dialysis service in Tumut, received from Mr Daryl Maguire.

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

Petitions calling upon the Iemma Government to allocate more police resources to rural and regional communities throughout New South Wales, received from Mr Steve Cansdell and Mr Adrian Piccoli.

Petition requesting reinstatement of police numbers at Miranda police station and maintenance of a strong visible police presence in Cronulla, received from Mr Malcolm Kerr.

Batlow Policing

Petition requesting an increased number of police to address understaffing in the Tumut police patrol, resulting in Batlow police being unable to adequately service the community, received from Mr Daryl Maguire.
Petition requesting the construction of a new bridge over the Clarence River at Grafton, received from Mr Steve Cansdell.
Petition opposing the construction of a desalination plant at Kurnell and requesting the promotion of wastewater recycling and stormwater harvesting to supplement Sydney's water supply, received from Mr Malcolm Kerr.

Petition opposing any restrictions on recreational fishing in the mid North Coast waters, received from Mr Andrew Stoner.

Petition requesting that provision for droughts be part of the New South Wales Government's policies, received from Mr Adrian Piccoli.

Mr PHILIP KOPERBERG (Blue Mountains—Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water) [3.08 p.m.]: This is one of the most important issues currently facing this Parliament. It is urgent for the natural environment of New South Wales and it is urgent for the people of New South Wales.

Mr Andrew Fraser: But why does it deserve priority?

Mr PHILIP KOPERBERG: Because the people of New South Wales are entitled to know from their elected representatives where they stand on the issues raised by the Prime Minister at last weekend's Liberal Party Federal Council, when he clearly laid on the table the prospect that market forces will determine the energy solutions for New South Wales and the climate change responses. It is not a matter for market forces to determine whether Australia goes down the path of nuclear power. It is for the people of Australia to decide and for their elected representatives, whom they entrusted to find a resolution to this matter, to speak on their behalf. The Prime Minister has placed nuclear energy, more specifically nuclear power plants, at the heart of his response to climate change. He believes that nuclear energy is suitable and desirable for Australia. We disagree with him in the strongest possible terms. It is urgent that this motion be accorded priority so that the people of New South Wales clearly have enunciated by their elected representatives where they stand on this position.

Ms PRU GOWARD (Goulburn) [3.10 p.m.]: On World Environment Day the issue of climate change hangs like a pall. It is the role of governments to promote programs and policies that mitigate against and adapt communities to climate change. It is hard to think of a level of government better suited to this in Australia than the State government level. I am sure that members opposite would agree with me. However, they constantly proclaim their climate change credentials and suck up to the Greens for their preferences. They have no modesty in promoting their role in arresting climate change, yet they have much to be modest about. Last week the Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water proclaimed the New South Wales Government to be a torchbearer in this area.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Kogarah will come to order.

Ms PRU GOWARD: I remind the House that the Government's policy was copied from the Liberals­Nationals Coalition policy halfway through the election campaign. Treasury's costing of the election proposal brief tells us that the climate change fund announced during the election campaign costing $310 million will have only a small impact on the budget position, as "it is largely funded from uncommitted funds". In other words, the $310 million intended to impress Greens supporters turns out to be a miserable net additional expenditure of only a few million dollars each year—a stunning example of a government talking big on climate change but in practice doing only what it can get away with. When we look at what the Government is actually doing, the New South Wales Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme is, amongst other measures, intended to reward power plants that cut emissions.

Ms Cherie Burton: Point of order: When debating motions to be accorded priority, members should debate why their motion should have priority, not the substance of it. The member for Goulburn is debating the substance of her motion. Although the member thinks that this place is a waste of space, she should follow the proper procedures of the House.

The SPEAKER: Order! I have heard enough from the member for Kogarah.

Ms Cherie Burton: Even though I am wearing pants today, I do not feel intimidated by the member. I take my point of order to ensure the proper running of the House.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Kogarah will resume her seat.

Ms Cherie Burton: I ask that the member for Goulburn be directed to show why her motion should be accorded priority.

The SPEAKER: Order! Because the matter of priority gives rise to some difficulty, it is important to remember that members may make some reference to the substance of their motion. I intend to extend a little latitude to members on both sides of the House, but it is important that the member for Goulburn should argue why her motion should have priority.

Ms PRU GOWARD: The Government has claimed a 40 million tonne reduction in emissions out of a total of 150 million tonnes of State emissions. That is about a 25 per cent cut. It is an extraordinary claim, given the rest of the world is aiming for similar emissions reduction but over a much longer period. In other words, New South Wales says it has achieved it already.

Ms Cherie Burton: Point of order: Although you, Mr Speaker, have said you will give some latitude to the argument, we have already heard the substance of the motion. We still have not heard why this motion deserves priority. The member for Goulburn needs to understand that she must debate why her motion should be accorded priority.
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Kogarah will resume her seat. The member for Goulburn will continue.

Ms PRU GOWARD: This motion should be given priority because this Government continually proclaims its achievements without any proof that it has actually achieved them. Research released today suggests that by comparison with the rest of the world the State is either doing extraordinarily well and does not need to do any more or the spin doctors have just done, with the wave of a pen on the back of an envelope, what the rest of the world is taking a considerable amount of time, science and work to do. The Government is talking big and acting small.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Government members will remain silent.

Ms PRU GOWARD: The motion deserves priority because if we all agree that global emissions are at an unacceptable level, we cannot afford a government that talks about achieving targets without actually doing so.

Question—That the motion of the member for Blue Mountains be accorded priority—put.

The House divided.

Mr Amery Ms Andrews Mr Aquilina Ms Beamer Mr Borger Mr Brown Ms Burney Ms Burton Mr Campbell Mr Collier Mr Coombs Mr Corrigan Mr Costa Mr Daley Ms D'Amore Ms Firth Ms Gadiel

Mr Gibson Mr Greene Mr Harris Ms Hay Mr Hickey Ms Hornery Ms Judge Ms Keneally Mr Khoshaba Mr Koperberg Mr Lynch Mr McBride Dr McDonald Ms McMahon Ms Meagher Ms Megarrity Mr Morris

Mrs Paluzzano Mr Pearce Mrs Perry Mr Rees Mr Sartor Mr Shearan Mr Stewart Ms Tebbutt Mr Terenzini Mr Tripodi Mr Watkins Mr West Mr Whan Tellers, Mr Ashton Mr Martin

Mr Aplin
Mr Baird
Mr Baumann
Ms Berejiklian
Mr Cansdell
Mr Constance
Mr Debnam
Mr Draper
Mrs Fardell
Mr Fraser
Ms Goward
Mrs Hancock
Mr Hartcher
Mr HazzardMs Hodgkinson
Mrs Hopwood
Mr Humphries
Mr Kerr
Mr Merton
Ms Moore
Mr Oakeshott
Mr O'Dea
Mr O'Farrell
Mr Page
Mr Piper
Mr Provest
Mr Richardson
Mr RobertsMrs Skinner
Mr Smith
Mr Souris
Mr Stokes
Mr Stoner
Mr J. H. Turner
Mr R. W. Turner
Mr J. D. Williams
Mr R. C. Williams


Tellers,
Mr George
Mr Maguire

Pair Ms McKay

Mr Piccoli

Ms McKay

Mr Piccoli

Question resolved in the affirmative.
Mr PHILIP KOPERBERG (Blue Mountains—Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water) [3.24 p.m.]: I move:

That this House:

(1) reaffirms the New South Wales Government's policy of banning the construction of nuclear power plants in New South Wales;

(2) calls on the New South Wales Opposition to apply bipartisan opposition to any effort by the Commonwealth to override State law banning nuclear power—the Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities Prohibitions Act 1986;

(3) calls on the New South Wales Opposition to rule out supporting the Federal Government's policy of pushing Australia down the path of establishing a nuclear energy industry; and

(4) calls on the New South Wales Opposition to support the Government's policy of supporting and stimulating investment in the development of renewable energy.

This is one of the most important issues currently facing this Parliament: it is urgent for the natural environment of New South Wales, it is urgent for the energy industry across the State, it is urgent for members and it is urgent for the people of New South Wales. The Prime Minister, in a bid to demonstrate that his tired and tricky Government has a cohesive agenda for this year's Federal election, has reached for nuclear energy like a drowning man reaching for a life ring. He believes nuclear energy is suitable and desirable for Australia. And, what is more, he is trying to use the challenge of climate change as the rationale for his views on this matter. We disagree with him in the strongest possible terms.

The Premier has been resolute on this issue. He has said unequivocally that whilst he is the Premier of New South Wales there will be no nuclear power plants in New South Wales. Under the Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities Prohibitions Act 1986 nuclear power plants are banned in New South Wales. We have former Premier Barrie Unsworth to thank for that particularly wise decision, which he took more than 20 years ago. But this expression of democratic principle, a law enacted by the New South Wales Parliament to reject a nuclear power industry in this State, seems to mean little to the Prime Minister. Members on both sides would no doubt be deeply concerned to know that the Prime Minister said on the weekend at the Liberal Party's Federal Council meeting:

… governments need to let the market sort out the most efficient means of lowering emissions, with all low emissions technologies on the table, and that of necessity must include nuclear power.

The critical point about today's motion is that those comments were made by the Prime Minister just two days ago, and they demand a thorough discussion in this place today. The Prime Minister believes that potentially pushing Australia down the path of developing nuclear power plants is part of the solution to climate change, leaving aside the fact that for nearly 12 years the Prime Minister has been in a state of denial on climate change. In fact, he has gone from denier to ditherer on climate change. But, leaving that aside, he has declared that Australia must allow market forces to decide whether Australia builds nuclear power plants. Yes, as shocking as that sounds, the Prime Minister believes a decision that is so crucial to our environment, to our economy and to our way of life should be left to market forces. Well, I am sorry, but the Iemma Government believes that this is a decision for the people of Australia, not for market forces, and, through the Australian people, it is a decision that rests in the hands of the Australian people's lawmakers, their elected representatives, we parliamentarians. To his credit, the member for Vaucluse, when he was the New South Wales Opposition leader, had this to say about a nuclear power industry in New South Wales:

No, we don't support the Federal Government's push for nuclear energy.

He said that on Thursday 23 November 2006, just over six months ago. But, as we know, a lot has happened since then: the Iemma Government was duly and resoundingly elected, and the member for Vaucluse was dumped as Opposition leader and replaced by the member for Ku-ring-gai. A deeply concerning point is that members of this place, the representatives of the people of New South Wales, are yet to hear the position of the Leader of the Opposition on this issue. They are rightly entitled to hear from the member what his party's position is in the face of the Prime Minister's view that he will roll over States on this issue if he sees fit. The Prime Minister clearly believes he can allow a laissez faire policy framework to determine whether the people of the Central Coast, the Illawarra, the Hunter, the South Coast, the Riverina or, heaven forbid, the Blue Mountains can have a nuclear reactor in their neighbourhood.

The Leader of the Opposition must clearly state whether he supports this policy. The Leader of the Opposition must get to his feet in this Chamber today to answer these questions: Does he rule out nuclear power stations ever being built in New South Wales? Will he stand up to the Prime Minister and tell him he has this wrong, and convince him to abandon his nuclear policy? Will he tell the Prime Minister to pull his head in, and allow this issue to be decided by the Australian people and their representatives, not market forces? Will he reaffirm the words of his predecessor, the member for Vaucluse, "There will not be nuclear power plants in New South Wales under my leadership. We can definitely rule that out"? The member for Vaucluse understood the importance of this issue, and he took the position that he would not support—

Mr Daryl Maguire: Point of order: It is protocol in this House that members deliver a speech without written notes. You can refer to notes, but I point out that the Minister is reading, word for word, a prepared written speech. I ask you to ask him to desist.

The SPEAKER: Order! I am sure the Minister was referring to copious notes. The Minister has the call.

Mr PHILIP KOPERBERG: I have eight pages of copious notes. We are happy to provide the Leader of the Opposition with the opportunity to put his views on the public record in this House. We certainly eagerly await his response. This issue is of critical importance following the Prime Minister's recent decisions and comments. Anyone who saw television news footage on Sunday night of the Leader of the Opposition applauding the Prime Minister is entitled to know whether his applause translates into support for this policy. Today is the chance for the Leader of the Opposition to disavow the people of New South Wales of any notion that the pictures of him clapping should be read as wholehearted support for nuclear power plants in New South Wales. We on this side of the House hope, as do the overwhelming number of people across New South Wales, that it was merely a display of politeness. If that were so then he should be honest and place his position and that of his party on the public record. He must restate the opposition of the New South Wales Liberal Party to nuclear power plants.

The other reason this matter is of such importance is that the Prime Minister has also sought to undermine the renewable energy sector in New South Wales by his response to the task group report on emissions trading. The industry is worth millions of dollars to the New South Wales economy, and thousands of jobs rely up on it. But the Prime Minister said he wants a moratorium on renewable energy schemes. As recently as yesterday I met with representatives of the renewable energy sector who said, inter alia, that New South Wales leads in this area and that a decision on a whole range of potential future energy sources must be decided urgently. A moratorium called for by the Prime Minister places these schemes at risk, and it is a big risk. New South Wales currently draws 6 per cent of its energy supply from renewable sources such as wind power, which is mandated to rise to 15 per cent by 2020. The Prime Minister would put this sensible and sustainable approach at risk because of his ideological response. The Leader of the Opposition must also express his support for this industry sector today, and state whether— [ Time expired.]

Mr PETER DEBNAM (Vaucluse) [3.34 p.m.]: This is the first time the Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water has had to come into this place and say something political, but his heart is not in it, which is why he had to read eight pages. This is the introduction of Minister Koperberg to the culture of the Labor Party: Labor members stand in this place and waste the time of the House by speaking about political matters that focus on anything but a State issue that is of concern to the people of New South Wales. Every single motion the Government introduces to be accorded priority condemns the Federal Government. The Minister correctly said that I spoke on this matter a year ago. On 6 June 2006 I ruled out a nuclear reactor in New South Wales. I said it would not happen under a Liberal-Nationals government. I spoke on this matter many times between 6 June and 22 November 2006. Napping Neville, the former member for Tweed, asked me a question on 22 November 2006. Where is he?

Mr Gerard Martin: Point of order: My point of order is relevance. The member for Vaucluse has been deposed. We want the current leader of the Liberal Party to come into this Chamber. That is what is relevant. Bring Barry O'Farrell in here, and let him tell us what he is going to do about it. You're yesterday's leader.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Diane Beamer): Order! The member for Bathurst is well aware that there is no point of order. The member for Vaucluse has the call.
Mr PETER DEBNAM: There is no point to the member for Bathurst—that is the issue. The former member who asked me a question was Napping Neville. I made the point that in the previous six months I had said so many times that we had ruled out a nuclear power that he must have slept through the whole thing. We have moved from Napping Neville to Fumbling Phil, who has asked the question again: Are we going to rule out nuclear power? How many times have we done it? Let us look at some real issues in the State that the Government is trying to cover up. I refer to the speech I made on 22 November 2006, in which I reiterated that there would be no nuclear energy—

Mr Gerard Martin: You're not reading a prepared speech, are you?

Mr PETER DEBNAM: Yes, I am reading my speech. Once again I said that there would be no nuclear energy in New South Wales. I said:

I do not know how many times over the past few months I have stated that we will rule out nuclear energy …

There will simply be no nuclear energy in New South Wales under the Liberal and National parties. That has been placed on record I do not know how many times over the past few months.

But I made the point that this was really about climate change. I said that I could understand the Prime Minister's frustration in dealing with States who were not taking action on climate change. Here we are after the election and the crazy member for Bathurst is supporting his crazy Premier, who is about to spend more than $2 billion on a desalination plant. What did Bob Carr call the desalination plant? He called it "bottled electricity". Let us hear those opposite defend that when talking about climate change! Those opposite introduce motions that pretend that John Howard is some sort of punching bag for their entertainment because they do not want to talk about State issues. They do not want to talk about the things—

Mr Kerry Hickey: Point of order: I call on you to rule on the standing orders in regard to addressing members by their correct titles in the House. Prince Valiant should be called "Never to Be a King".

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Diane Beamer): Order! I remind all members of this House that they must address the members of this House in the proper way. The member for Vaucluse has the call.

Mr PETER DEBNAM: I mentioned the desalination plant—$2 billion of taxpayers' funds is the worst case of environmental vandalism the State has ever seen. Yet the Minister has the hide to stand in this place and talk about climate change—but, I admit, only because he has been dragged, kicking and screaming, into the culture of the Labor Party, which says, "Your job as a Minister is to get into this House in the afternoon, waste time talking about a Federal issue and be a complete hypocrite." Let us talk about the desalination plant. Let us talk about pollution. Sydney has the worst pollution levels of any city in Australia, and there are a couple of reasons for that. A few years ago the Government released clean air targets, but then it discarded them because it could not take action to do anything about them. People are dying in New South Wales because of this Government's failures.

Mr Nathan Rees: Oh, for God's sake!

Mr PETER DEBNAM: The Minister obviously has not read about this. He is a new member but as a former chief of staff to a Minister perhaps he came across the information. He should read the health report that was published by the upper House in November. It places very clearly on the public record the size of the problem that exists in New South Wales, which includes health problems dating from pollution that has not been addressed over the past 12 years. That is the point I made on 22 November when I invited the Government to consider the report and suggested that, if the Government wanted to do something about pollution, perhaps alternative fuels should be considered. Who put ethanol and alternative fuels on the agenda?

Mr Gerard Martin: We did.

Mr PETER DEBNAM: But only months after Andrew Stoner and I had put it on the agenda. Who converted his car to run on 85 per cent ethanol in June last year? Was it the biggest Telstra shareholder? No, it was not; it was Peter Debnam. Who put ethanol on the agenda in New South Wales last year? The Coalition did and was able to do so because, over 12 years, the Government had done nothing about it.

Mr Kerry Hickey: Point of order: I ask the House to note that self-recommendation is of absolutely no benefit to anyone.
ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Diane Beamer): Order! There is no point of order.

Mr PETER DEBNAM: That is why I said on 22 November that months earlier the Leader of The Nationals, the member for Ballina, Coalition members and I had ruled out nuclear energy. Because the Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water, Phil Koperberg, has a dagger to his back, he tries to waste the time of this House. If he wants to talk about power stations in this State, let us talk about the directions paper or the white paper that his Government refused to circulate two years ago. There is a crisis in this State in the electricity sector because the industry has no idea of the direction the Government will take.

The Premier, despite the fact that the people of New South Wales slapped him in the face last year when he tried to sell off Snowy Hydro Limited, has decided to privatise Snowy Hydro. The Premier also is considering privatising electricity retailers, despite having stated prior to the most recent State election that he would not do so. The wholesale price of electricity is increasing. There is a very deep suspicion that the prices are being driven up by New South Wales generators, at the call of the New South Wales Treasury, because the Government is calling on $150 million in dividends from the electricity sector over the next few years to try to dig itself out of a budget deficit.

I have outlined some of the issues that the Government should be debating in this Chamber instead of trying to waste time on stimulating debate about what the Prime Minister is doing—something that will not result in Government action in the short term. The other issue that the Government should deal with is the baseload generator. What does the Government intend to do about that? Everybody is waiting to find out what the Government will do about an additional baseload generator that is very much needed in the next term or two of Parliament. Will it be publicly funded? Will it be privately funded? If it is privately funded, what changes will the Government make in the market to stimulate investment? That is what everybody wants to know.

If the Government wants to debate electricity, let us have a full day's debate because nothing could be more relevant to the people of New South Wales than that this Labor Government appears to be driving up the price of electricity in this State. The Government has refused to put out a directions paper on where the electricity sector is heading. For 12 years this State Labor Government failed to address climate change, think globally and act locally. Instead, Government members come into this Chamber and play games. As I said at the outset, the motion has been moved by the Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water, who is also the member for Blue Mountains. The member who put a similar motion previously to cause embarrassment to the Coalition and the Prime Minister was the former member for Tweed. The new member for Tweed, Geoff Provest, is doing a fantastic job for his constituency.

My advice to the new member for Blue Mountains is not to go the same way as the former member for Tweed. He should stand up for his principles and resist the sleazy culture of the Labor Party. He should not let the Labor Party twist his arm, write his speeches for him and stand him up at the point of a dagger to read them.

Mr GERARD MARTIN (Bathurst) [3.44 p.m.]: I support the motion moved by the Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water. The most significant feature of this debate is the absence from the Chamber of the new Leader of the Opposition, Barry O'Farrell, who has sent in yesterday's man to argue the Opposition's case. The Leader of the Opposition, Barry O'Farrell, should be debating this issue.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: Under Standing Order 129 it is relevant to note that the Premier is not present in the Chamber either, and he is the one who has destroyed the air quality of this State. Bundy should get him down here and let him do the talking. Labor is the Z team.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Diane Beamer): Order! There is no point of order.

Mr GERARD MARTIN: While we are talking about the Z team, it is obvious that the member for Wakehurst is welded to the Opposition benches and he will be there for a long time yet. I share the concerns of members about the construction of a new nuclear power plant in New South Wales. There are a number of intractable problems associated with nuclear power, including the storage, transportation and disposal of long­term radioactive waste, the safety of communities and plant employees, and the global dilemma of nuclear weapons proliferation.

The New South Wales Government's position on nuclear power stations and nuclear waste is clear and unequivocal. The Premier has reiterated the Government's opposition to the construction of another nuclear power or waste storage facility in New South Wales. Indeed, uranium prospecting, mining and processing in New South Wales are banned under the New South Wales Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Act 1986. Clearly, nuclear energy is not an option and it is not an acceptable source of energy when its costs are considered. I make those comments from the point of view of a member whose electorate is a very important contributor to the baseload power generated in this State.

Nuclear power stations are very expensive to build, maintain and dismantle at the end of their life, including the cost of spent fuel. This results in a total cost for nuclear power generation of between two and three times the cost of coal power generation. The cost of storing spent fuel over hundreds of thousands of years and the potential problems for future generations, should anything go wrong with nuclear power stations, bring unacceptable risks to the people of New South Wales and the rest of Australia. Climate change is one of the greatest threats to the future prosperity and security of not just New South Wales and Australia but the whole planet. That is why this Government has been a leader in Australia on climate change. The Prime Minister has undergone a conversion on the road to Damascus in relation to this issue. Nothing focuses the Prime Minister's attention on major policy issues more than a looming election that he will probably lose.

New South Wales established the first State-based greenhouse gas abatement scheme, led the other States towards a national emissions trading scheme, and late last year announced the setting of a renewable energy target of 10 per cent of all energy used in New South Wales to be derived from renewable sources by 2010 and 15 per cent of supply by 2020. The people of New South Wales want to protect the environment. They do not want to destroy it with nuclear power stations. They want to move towards safer, cleaner forms of energy, rather than gamble with the risky and dangerous use of nuclear power. The message from this Government to the New South Wales Opposition and the Federal Government is to let the people decide.

This debate is intended to extract a policy statement from the Opposition. One lesson the Opposition has not learned from its eternity in opposition in this State is that people want to know what the Opposition's policies are. The member for Vaucluse should know that more than anybody else because it was one of the failings that brought him unstuck in the lead-up to the recent election. Barry O'Farrell has succeeded the member for Vaucluse, got rid of him, and disposed of him from leadership of the Opposition. The Government wants a policy statement from the current Leader of the Opposition, who on the weekend stood behind the Prime Minister, sat behind the Prime Minister, and clapped behind the Prime Minister in relation to nuclear power generation. Does the Leader of the Opposition support the Prime Minister's position of usurping the powers and sovereignty of the people of New South Wales on the question of nuclear power stations?

Irrespective of which political party forms the Federal Government after the next Federal election—and it is more likely to be a Labor government than not—the point of the motion moved by the Minister is that it is unacceptable to the people of this State for the Federal Government to override New South Wales, usurp its powers and decide what form of energy will prevail. According to the Prime Minister, market forces will determine the outcome. That should set off alarm bells everywhere. The motion poses a simple question to the Opposition. It is significant that the Leader of the Opposition, Barry O'Farrell, has scurried from the Chamber. He is a c Irrespective of which political party forms the Federal Government after the next Federal election—and it is more likely to be a Labor government than not—the point of the motion moved by the Minister is that it is unacceptable to the people of this State for the Federal Government to override New South Wales, usurp its powers and decide what form of energy will prevail. According to the Prime Minister, market forces will determine the outcome. That should set off alarm bells everywhere. The motion poses a simple question to the Opposition. It is significant that the Leader of the Opposition, Barry O'Farrell, has scurried from the Chamber. He is a coward when it comes to the issue of this State's future power generation. He should be in this Chamber lining up to say where he stands and making clear whether he agrees with John Howard or not.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: Madam Acting-Speaker, my point of order is pointless now, but thank you for your interest.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Diane Beamer): Order! As the member for Wakehurst has acknowledged, his points of order are often a little pointless. The speaking time of the member for Bathurst has expired.

Ms PRU GOWARD (Goulburn) [3.49 p.m.]: I support the member for Vaucluse and oppose this shamefully political motion that completely ignores the responsibility of the Government. I move the following amendment:

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

this House:

(1) calls on the New South Wales Government to develop a strategy to combat climate change; and

(2) condemns the hypocrisy of the New South Wales Government on climate change.

It is extraordinary for the Government to attack the New South Wales Opposition and the Federal Government in the motion as no attempt has been made by the New South Wales Government to develop and promote its own plan for the management of greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. The climate change initiatives listed by the Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water involve $310 million. According to Treasury's papers the climate change fund will have only a small impact on the budget position as the initiatives involve largely uncommitted funds. In other words, the $310 million intended to impress the Minister's green supporters turns out to be a very small, miserable, net additional expenditure of only a few million dollars each year. That is a stunning example of a government talking big on climate change but in practice putting in only what it can get away with.

The Government is looking for excuses and attacking the State Opposition and the Federal Government on nuclear power issues because that is easier than doing something. The people of New South Wales want to hear what the Government is going to do about Anvil Hill, coalmining in the Hunter Valley, air quality in Western Sydney and improving public transport and other systems to ensure that a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is achieved. The Government's greenhouse gas abatement scheme is another example of hypocrisy. According to researchers at the University of New South Wales the scheme has cost almost half a billion dollars. But, far from achieving a reduction of 24 million tonnes in emissions as claimed, the scheme might actually discourage emission reduction.

Yet the Government is claiming huge reductions in emissions. One wonders why the whole world has not done exactly the same as the New South Wales Government, because it makes the process look so easy! Why do we need a national carbon emissions trading scheme? Why do we need to raise energy and water prices, or redesign buildings and transport systems, when the Government and its public relations department can come up with ludicrously inflated claims for greenhouse gas reductions? Who needs action when the Government is prepared to play with the arithmetic instead?

By the Minister's own stated reckoning, there has been a 25 per cent reduction in per capita emissions since the scheme began—a 40 million tonne reduction out of a total 150 million tonnes of State emissions, which is better than 25 per cent. The European Union is aiming for a 30 per cent reduction by 2020; the New South Wales Government claims to have achieved that already. The United Nations recommends a world reduction of between 50 and 85 per cent by the middle of the century; but in New South Wales, despite our coal industry and our appalling public transport systems, we have apparently achieved half that target already.

Apparently, what will take the rest of the world a generation of serious work and serious taxation shifts, the New South Wales spin doctors seem to have done by merely waving a pen on the back of an envelope and coming up with a reduction figure that they think is convenient and that they can sell—but that is extremely unlikely. Was the Centre for Energy and Environmental Markets correct in its calculations? We will see what happens to any applications it may make for State funding. On World Environment Day we should debate the Government's self-serving claims as it has an appalling record of hyperbole, hypocrisy, inflated claims, failure to act and dishonest arithmetic. The Government's claims do nothing to arrest climate change; they do a great deal to undermine public confidence in government itself.

Mr ROBERT COOMBS (Swansea) [3.54 p.m.]: I support the motion moved by the Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water. As we have heard today, the Iemma Government has clearly placed on record its strong opposition to the development of nuclear power in Australia and, of course, in New South Wales. I can say wholeheartedly that this is music to the ears of thousands of coalminers and other workers who rely on the coal and associated power generation business for their livelihoods. My electorate is home to parts of the New South Wales electricity generation industry, and many local families rely on this industry for their daily survival.

My great fear is that the Prime Minister, in his push to override the States and allow the market to determine policy, could put thousands of workers out of a job. That is how market economics works, without a care for the impacts on families. Members on this side of the House agree that climate change presents us with important challenges. The Iemma Government is a leader on climate change. As the Premier has said, we lead, we do not follow; we take action, we do not dither; and we do not delay. That is why the New South Wales Government developed one of the first emission trading schemes in the world, and it is why we have committed to a reduction target of 60 per cent of 2000 levels by 2050.

That is a sensible and workable approach to this most important issue and it places the interests of families, such as those in my electorate, at the centre of considerations. The Government does not say simply that nuclear energy is a solution and the market will decide if it is the best financial solution. The coal industry is worth about $5 billion a year to the New South Wales economy and it supports almost 13,000 jobs. That is another principal reason why the motion is so urgent. Those 13,000 people deserve to know the New South Wales Opposition's views on this matter.

The Government is pursuing policies that look to make coal cleaner. Clean coal forms a key platform of our greenhouse strategy. We have already committed $22 million for two pilot clean coal projects to reduce greenhouse emissions from power stations in New South Wales. The initial stage of the first project will identify potential C0 ₂ storage sites in New South Wales and will be followed by a pilot project to capture and permanently store C0 ₂ into deep geological formations. The total cost of the geosequestration project will top the $60 million mark and includes a contribution of $20 million from the Coal 21 Fund, a voluntary fund set up by the coal industry to address greenhouse gas emissions. I do not know what would become of these projects under the Prime Minister's survival-of-the-fittest approach to this area of policy making.

The Iemma Government's commitment to no nuclear power industry in New South Wales is unshakable. New South Wales has a ban on the development of a nuclear power industry and that ban is going to stay. There are so many actions we could take on climate change and on securing our energy needs, rather than the sideshow of a debate about high-cost nuclear power and its long-lasting radioactive waste. New South Wales has introduced a range of measures to encourage more efficient use of energy, investment in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and in support for renewable energy. Clearly, nuclear energy is not an option: it is not an acceptable source of energy when its costs are considered.

Nuclear power stations are very expensive to build, maintain and dismantle at the end of their life, including the disposing of spent fuel. The costs of storing spent fuel for hundreds of thousands of years and the potential problems for future generations if anything goes wrong with nuclear power stations bring unacceptable risks to the people of New South Wales. The Premier has stated on many occasions, "While ever I am Premier of New South Wales there will not be any nuclear power plants in New South Wales." The Government can back up those words with legislation because, thanks to the foresight of the Unsworth Government, nuclear facilities have been illegal in New South Wales since 1986. The Federal Government has firm plans for the establishment of a nuclear power industry in Australia, starting in New South Wales. The New South Wales Government will fight this—all the way to the High Court if necessary.

Professor Anthony Owen has been requested to prepare a report for the Government on four key issues concerning future energy needs for New South Wales. The terms of reference are: review the need and timing for new baseload generation that maintains both security of supply and competitively priced electricity; examine the baseload options available to efficiently meet any emerging generation need; review the timing and visibility of technologies and/or measures available, both nationally and internationally, that reduce greenhouse gas emissions; and determine the conditions needed to ensure investment in any emerging generation, consistent with maintaining the New South Wales triple-A credit rating. [ Time expired.]

Mr PHILIP KOPERBERG (Blue Mountains—Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water) [3.59 p.m.], in reply: It is illuminating that the Leader of the Opposition refused to come into this Chamber to debate this motion. Instead of clearly enunciating his position on the subject of this debate he sent in his predecessor to represent him. It is no wonder as the member for Vaucluse, and former Leader of the Opposition, had a policy on this matter. I again quote from what the member for Vaucluse said:

No, we do not support the Federal Government's push for nuclear energy.

He also said:

There will not be nuclear power plants in New South Wales under my leadership. We can definitely rule that out.

Mr Daryl Maguire: Point of order: I seek clarification. The Minister said that the Leader of the Opposition had not come into the Chamber to debate this issue. I point out that the shadow Minister with responsibility for this portfolio has been in the Chamber for the entire debate.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Diane Beamer): Order! There is no point of order.

Mr PHILIP KOPERBERG: I am trying to make the point, hopefully not clumsily, that the people of New South Wales know the Government's position on the Prime Minister's response to nuclear power. The people of New South Wales do not know the alternative government's position on nuclear power. For that reason my motion calls on the Leader of the Opposition to enunciate clearly the Coalition's position on the Prime Minister's obvious move to push Australia down the nuclear path.
Mr Peter Debnam: Point of order: This motion is not about nuclear energy but about the education of Phil Koperberg. This motion is about introducing Phil Koperberg to the culture of the Labor Party. He has come into this Chamber to waste time debating a motion—

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Diane Beamer): Order! The member for Vaucluse is aware that he has no point of order.

Mr PHILIP KOPERBERG: No-one led me screaming and kicking down this path. In the weeks leading up to the election, and during the campaign—it was an experience that I enjoyed thoroughly—electors in the Blue Mountains frequently referred the question of nuclear energy to me. The concerns expressed by the Iemma Government and Government members accurately reflect the concerns expressed by those constituents, so no-one should be in any doubt as to my commitment to the argument I am attempting to enunciate. I state again that the purpose of this motion is to enable the people of New South Wales to understand the position of the New South Wales Opposition on the Prime Minister's statement on nuclear power. They already know the position of the member for Vaucluse, but they do not know the position of the Leader of the Opposition and, subsequently, the State Coalition.

Question—That the words stand—put.

The House divided.

Mr Amery Ms Andrews Mr Aquilina Mr Borger Mr Brown Ms Burney Ms Burton Mr Campbell Mr Collier Mr Coombs Mr Corrigan Mr Costa Mr Daley Ms D'Amore Ms Firth Ms Gadiel Mr Gibson

Mr Greene Mr Harris Ms Hay Mr Hickey Ms Hornery Ms Judge Ms Keneally Mr Khoshaba Mr Koperberg Mr McBride Dr McDonald Ms McMahon Ms Meagher Ms Megarrity Mr Morris Mr Oakeshott Mrs Paluzzano

Mr Pearce Mrs Perry Mr Piper Mr Rees Mr Sartor Mr Shearan Mr Stewart Ms Tebbutt Mr Terenzini Mr Tripodi Mr West Mr Whan Tellers, Mr Ashton Mr Martin

Mr Aplin
Mr Baird
Mr Baumann
Ms Berejiklian
Mr Cansdell
Mr Constance
Mr Debnam
Mr Draper
Mrs Fardell
Mr Fraser
Ms Goward
Mrs Hancock
Mr HartcherMr Hazzard
Ms Hodgkinson
Mrs Hopwood
Mr Humphries
Mr Kerr
Mr Merton
Ms Moore
Mr O'Dea
Mr Page
Mr Piccoli
Mr Provest
Mr Richardson
Mr RobertsMrs Skinner
Mr Smith
Mr Souris
Mr Stokes
Mr J. H. Turner
Mr R. W. Turner
Mr J. D. Williams
Mr R. C. Williams


Tellers,
Mr George
Mr Maguire

Pair Ms McKay

Mr O'Farrell

Ms McKay

Mr O'Farrell

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Motion, by leave, by Mr John Aquilina agreed to:

That an additional speaker, the member for Tamworth, be permitted to contribute to the matter of public importance for a period of five minutes.

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI (Murrumbidgee) [4.14 p.m.]: I ask the House to note as a matter of public importance water supplies in New South Wales country towns. The shires conference is currently under way in Sydney, and country shires, in particular, are most concerned about the impact of the current drought on their water supplies. The provision of water, particularly safe drinking water, is fundamental to the survival of every community, and towns in country New South Wales are especially at risk at present. We have heard much in the media about the situation in Goulburn. Even before the drought, the town had been experiencing difficulties with its water supply. Indeed, Goulburn has been on level five water restrictions for some time.

Ms Pru Goward: Two years.

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: I am informed by the local member that Goulburn has been on level five water restrictions for two years. Locals have been doing it tough, and we hope that not all communities in western New South Wales face a similar fate. In the past 10 years we have missed out on the sort of funding that would have alleviated some of the current problems. For many years the New South Wales Coalition, particularly those members who represent country electorates, has been urging the State Government to invest more in the Country Towns Water Supply and Sewerage Scheme to help rural communities augment and properly treat their water supplies.

It is a disgrace that in a first world country like Australia dozens and dozens of small rural communities do not have potable tap water and must instead use untreated rainwater. It is also terrible that in Australia in the twenty-first century so many not-so-small towns—some with hundreds of residents—do not have mains sewerage systems but must rely on septic tanks. That is causing further problems during the drought because there is no water to flush the systems and it is difficult to remove water from septic tanks after long-term use. The New South Wales It is a disgrace that in a first world country like Australia dozens and dozens of small rural communities do not have potable tap water and must instead use untreated rainwater. It is also terrible that in Australia in the twenty-first century so many not-so-small towns—some with hundreds of residents—do not have mains sewerage systems but must rely on septic tanks. That is causing further problems during the drought because there is no water to flush the systems and it is difficult to remove water from septic tanks after long-term use. The New South Wales Government has failed fundamentally to invest properly in the Country Towns Water Supply and Sewerage Scheme. In the lead-up to the recent State election the New South Wales Coalition made a commitment to increase significantly funding for the scheme. We hoped that Labor would match our commitment and we are now seeking increased government money for the scheme.

Councils asked for additional resources, which, if the Coalition had won the March election, would be rolling out as we speak. The budget is to be delivered in a couple of weeks and I understand that there is a good chance it will be in surplus. We call on the New South Wales Government to use some of that money to fund projects that will help the town of Goulburn augment its water supply and that will assist communities along the Murrumbidgee, Murray, Macquarie, Barwon and Darling rivers to secure their water supplies. We have heard much about the problems with the water supply in Broken Hill that are attributable partly to a lack of State Government funding for vital infrastructure. There has also been a lot of talk about the Menindee Lakes. The member for Murray-Darling intends to contribute to the debate and I am sure that he will speak in detail about the situation in Broken Hill.

In my electorate of Murrumbidgee towns such as Griffith, Leeton, Narrandera, Junee, Temora, West Wyalong, Condobolin and Lake Cargelligo—its water problems have received media attention recently—have had no luck in securing funding from the New South Wales Government to provide much-needed infrastructure. We are not talking about tens of millions of dollars. The shire of Lachlan requires only a couple of hundred thousand dollars to augment the water supply in Lake Cargelligo and to connect Tullibigeal to the supply at Lake Cargelligo. That project would ensure that the good, hardworking folks of Tullibigeal will have a decent potable water supply delivered to their town and be able to enjoy the same standard of living as just about everyone else in New South Wales. The council requires a commitment from the New South Wales Government to fund that type of infrastructure. The recent Percy Allen report on the viability of local government made it very clear that the vast majority of councils cannot afford that kind of significant infrastructure investment on their own. Too many councils are in enough financial trouble as a result of the unfunded mandate placed on them by the New South Wales Government.

Very few councils can afford the infrastructure that is needed to augment water supplies for their communities. It is imperative that the New South Wales Government makes a contribution to enable councils to augment their water supplies. I call on the Government to use at least part of the surplus to do so. If we are to have a surplus, let us put it to good use. I ask the Government to use part of the surplus towards funding water infrastructure projects at places such as Tullibigeal and Lake Cargelligo and right throughout country New South Wales. I am sure every country member of Parliament can list half a dozen, if not more, councils in their electorate that need extra funding to undertake these projects.

The one thing that should have been done in the past 10 years was to fund councils for the recycling of effluent water and stormwater run-off. For a long time the councils that cover the towns of Temora, Griffith and Finley, which was formerly part of the Murrumbidgee electorate, have been asking the New South Wales Government to assist them with funding for the recycling of water so that they do not need to use potable water on gardens, parks and golf courses. If the funding had been made available and if the infrastructure were in place, those councils would now be saving millions of litres of potable water. Given that they are now in the crisis stage, it is almost too late for the Government to invest in those types of projects.

However, it is not too late. It is incumbent upon the Minister for Water Utilities, the Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water, the Minister for Local Government and the Minister for Planning to get together and work out a funding package so that the councils are able to put those infrastructure projects in place. We need to reduce the amount of potable water that is used to water lawns, gardens and golf courses so that it can be used for drinking water. We need to recycle water that otherwise would be wasted and maximise the use of recycled sewerage and stormwater run-off. If we do that, we will then be doing everything we can to conserve water in New South Wales.

We cannot control the weather, droughts or floods, but we can make sure that we maximise the value of every drop of water in country New South Wales. That has not happened over the past decade, but it is not too late to do it. I call on the New South Wales Government to seriously get stuck into these projects and to maximise the available water in country New South Wales so that we get through this very difficult period and move forward as a first world country in the way we manage our water resources.

Mr NATHAN REES (Toongabbie—Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister for Water Utilities) [4.24 p.m.]: I welcome the opportunity to address the House on the important issue of supply of water supply and drought assistance to country towns. If those in the gallery who are in Sydney for the shires conference want to come and have a yarn with me about this issue they can contact me on extension 2863 in room 909. I am more than happy to meet with them or with a delegation from their councils. I am happy to meet with the member for Murrumbidgee as well. In recent weeks I have met with the member for Burrinjuck, the member for Barwon, the member for Murray-Darling and the mayors of Gosford and Wyong.

As we know, climate change and the worst drought in 100 years have put water supplies in many remote areas across Australia under severe threat. The supply of safe and secure drinking water is a priority for all of us in government. As I said in this Chamber last week, the best politics on this issue is no politics. The Government will work with local councils and members opposite to make sure that no town runs out of water. Country Labor members on this side of the House are making sure that we are well and truly informed about what is going on in the bush. I draw the attention of the House to the Government's commitments to securing water and wastewater services in country towns. During the election campaign the Government committed another $160 million to the Country Towns Water Supply and Sewerage Scheme, which brings our total funding commitment to in excess of $1 billion and extends the program to 2014.

Since 1996 the Government has provided $750,000 to more than 300 country towns. To date those funds have ensured the security of water and sewerage supplies to residents of rural and regional New South Wales, including $6.5 million towards the expansion of the Sooley dam in Goulburn, nearly $25 million for the Bega Valley sewerage scheme, $25 million for the Shoalhaven regional effluent management scheme and $9 million towards the Mudgee-Gulgong water supply upgrade. That is in addition to 6 projects in Albury, another 11 in Ballina, 33 in Barwon, 10 in Bathurst, another 9 in Bega and 14 in Burrinjuck. I had a very useful discussion with the member for Burrinjuck last week, and this week in her local paper she welcomed the Government's funding that was announced last week of $750,000 for specific projects in her electorate. The Government is also in the process of outlaying $20 million for the pipeline to secure Goulburn's water supply. It is interesting to note that the Mayor of Goulburn, Paul Stephenson, has today called on the Federal Government to step in and fund $20 million for the Goulburn pipeline. In recent days in the Goulburn Post he was quoted as saying:

It is only fair the Federal Government pay for the remaining cost of the emergency water pipeline when it will fully fund an $80 million drought proofing project on the Central Coast.

Our funding has led to improved environmental outcomes and the security of supply to more than one million people living in country areas of New South Wales. The $160 million in additional funds will allow another 54 projects to be funded, including an upgraded sewerage scheme for Burringbar on the State's far North Coast. I met with representatives of the Tweed Shire Council last week to go through some of the details of their ongoing program. The projects also include the Parkes integrated water and sewage project, which will include recycling for parks, gardens and industrial use in the seat of Dubbo, stage two of the Deniliquin sewage treatment plan in the Murray Darling and an upgraded sewage scheme for Bombala.

If the Federal Government matched the New South Wales Government's $160 million in additional funding, we would be able to clear the remainder of the backlog of the projects—more than 120 of them. The Iemma Government is supporting our rural and regional communities during the worst drought in 100 years. Almost $40 million has been approved under the emergency drought funding assistance program for country towns across the State. That program provides funding to 70 communities across rural and regional New South Wales for emergency capital works, such as accessing new bores. Those 70 rural communities, which had faced the prospect of severely restricted or, worse, no drinking water, are now able to access supplies. Bourke and Brewarrina are just two of the towns that have been funded through this program. Recently I announced that emergency drought funding of $220,000 had been approved to assist the Upper Lachlan, the Snowy River, Berrigan, Cobar, Tamworth and Liverpool Plains councils. At the conclusion of this debate I will leave the Chamber to meet with representatives of other rural councils.

Significant financial assistance has also been provided to the towns of Lake Cargelligo, Forbes and Ivanhoe, to name a few of the 70 communities that the Government has assisted. I have worked closely with members opposite and will continue to do so. I want to work closely with councils right across the State to assist them in the worst drought in 100 years. I have worked particularly closely with Country Labor members the Hon. Michael Veitch and the Hon. Tony Catanzariti. I welcome their input on our plans and the effectiveness of them.

The Government is working with rural and regional councils under the Country Towns Water Supply and Sewerage Scheme to provide emergency drought relief. I personally am meeting representatives of eleven councils this week, having met a number last week. The responsibility for managing water supply in country towns ultimately rests with local government, comprising 107 utilities. I am happy to meet with any of them at any time and make sure the programs are on track. We are committed to ensuring that no town runs out of water during this crippling drought. We have a comprehensive monthly monitoring program to assess water supply levels, drought restrictions and risk of failure of supplies. We will work with councils in identifying the towns and communities that need emergency drought assistance. Only two weekends ago I was in Young to speak to the local council about precisely those issues.

Historically, local councils have determined water restrictions in response to water supply levels and community needs. I want to have that discussion with councils also. Councils are best placed to make those decisions because they run the water utilities and understand community expectations, but the Government will continue to review whether the traditional approach remains valid as the drought wears on. I welcome the input on that matter from those who were in Sydney this week for the shires conference. I can assure the people of country New South Wales that the Iemma Government will keep working hand in hand with local councils and those opposite, should they so choose, to secure the supply of water in country towns right across New South Wales.

Mr JOHN WILLIAMS (Murray-Darling) [4.31 p.m.]: I acknowledge the support of the Minister for Water Utilities. One of the shires most affected by the drying of the Darling River is the Central Darling shire, where communities challenged for a water supply are looking for alternatives as we speak. One of the problems faced in the Murray-Darling electorate, particularly in the western areas, is recognition of best practice water pricing. Members are aware that this was part of the national water initiative. The Minister of the day led the charge with a sledgehammer and decided that everyone would comply with the initiative and be subject to the user pays system. Small communities in the Murray-Darling electorate are unable to absorb the costs of their water supplies. If shared, the cost would be more than $40,000 per resident.

The community of Tibooburra is in the unincorporated area. Communities in that area have the distinct advantage of not being subject to the user pays principle. As a result, Tibooburra residents enjoy a water supply provided by the Government without the cost being shared by residents. Down the Darling River in Tilpa the weir pool is virtually nonexistent and the community is relying on a small pool of water under the bridge. That water is of very poor quality: it is undrinkable and to date has not been able to be used in households. The water from an old bore in use there is very poor. Not only does it have salt problems but mineralisation treatment is required to make it useable in households. Obviously, there is an associated cost, and it is of serious concern to the local council that the cost should be shared by the residents due to their inability to meet that cost.

Most members would know that the river stopped flowing to Wilcannia last December. There, the water in the weir pool is of very poor quality. The community has been relying on a local bore to supply Wilcannia's needs. However, the bore struggles to meet demand and, therefore, another bore will have to be sunk and the water from it treated. Once again we face a situation of providing more capital investment to try to ensure a supply of quality water to the community of Wilcannia. It is impossible for the residents to share the cost of doing that. We are talking about the worst drought in a hundred years and a set of circumstances that is creating serious challenges.

The Ivanhoe community has always had a challenge in ensuring its water supply, and is now using water that needs considerable chemical treatment. We would like to consider using another method of improving the water supply of the community, but that also involves a cost. The Central Darling shire, which is responsible for ensuring water supply to those communities, is faced with enormous costs. I ask the Government to look at these issues and to build the infrastructure necessary to provide quality water to these communities so that they can get on with their lives. The aim must be to drought-proof the communities so that in future they will have at least some ongoing water supply.

Mr PETER DRAPER (Tamworth) [4.35 p.m.]: I acknowledge the presence of the Minister for Water Utilities in the Chamber and thank him for being here to take part in this important debate. I would like to thank also the member for Murrumbidgee for allowing me the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I have on the business paper a notice of motion regarding Chaffey Dam, which is the main source of water supply for Tamworth and the Peel Valley irrigators. Chaffey Dam is now below 15 per cent of capacity, and Tamworth is now experiencing level five water restrictions. Dam water levels have fallen so badly that I could see the old river bed running through the dam when I was there recently.

Tamworth residents are limited to using only grey water outside their homes. Some sporting facilities have ceased operation due to a lack of water. The regional council has asked business to reduce water consumption significantly, and our irrigation industry faces yet another season of zero water allocations. Even though the community is very much aware of the dire state of our water supply and winter is here, along with much-reduced demand compared with the warmer months, consumption is still around 29 megalitres a day. The regional council has told the community that water will become more expensive in future and that less will be available. The council is introducing a three-tiered pricing system that will result in water bills rising from about $408 a year to $470 a year by 2009-10.

It took just 79 days for the level of Chaffey Dam to drop from 20 per cent to 15 per cent of capacity, and with the dam's reserves now at just over 10,000 megalitres we have less than 12 months supply. The State Government has provided funding to the regional council to recommission wells in the city, but those wells have the potential to deliver only six to eight megalitres a day. It is clear that without substantial rain the situation will deteriorate drastically. Tamworth is the region's major growth centre, and the combination of drought with population growth and development certainly is highlighting the problems caused by an over-stressed and ageing infrastructure. Without augmentation of Chaffey Dam the region will face increased water restrictions in coming years and there will be a huge economic cost for the community to bear.

The State Government has committed to fund $4.697 million of the estimated $14.6 million towards augmenting the supply from the dam, in addition to the $14.5 million already committed for the safety upgrade. It is now time for the Federal Government to commit the $6.545 million as recommended by the Chaffey Dam upgrade community reference panel augmentation subcommittee. This recommendation is based on the agreed approach of the national water initiative for cost sharing on such infrastructure programs. Chaffey Dam was built in 1979. State Water, recognising a shortfall, established the reference panel in 2003. The panel comprised members of the local community, Tamworth Regional Council, Peel Valley Water Users Association, Namoi Water, Namoi Catchment Management Authority and all appropriate New South Wales government agencies, along with State Water. The panel was chaired by deputy mayor Phil Betts.

It quickly became apparent that unless the dam was enlarged in the near future there would be no irrigation industry in the medium term and that Chaffey Dam would be unable to cater for an estimated increase in demand for the city of Tamworth from 10 gigalitres per annum to 14 gigalitres per annum. The current reliability of supply for irrigators, which is already 11 per cent below minimum acceptable levels, would drop even more and the probability of receiving 80 per cent allocation on 1 July each year would drop to zero within 10 years. This dramatic reduction in reliability effectively means that the current irrigation industry supply from Chaffey Dam will progressively become unviable over the next 10 to 15 years.

Water is the most important challenge facing all tiers of government. There is opportunity to secure supplies for future water provision in Tamworth at minimum cost. An investment of $6.5 million will deliver an asset worth up to $280 million. It really is a no-brainer. It is time for action, and it is time to end the games that are being played with irrigators, residents and businesses, all of whom, quite rightly, choose to live and work in this wonderful area. As Tony Windsor, who raised this issue in the Federal Parliament, pointed out, the request to the Federal Government breaks down to costing $162 per megalitre. Irrigation water on the market at the moment is selling for between $2,500 and $3,000 a megalitre, and in the urban water market it is selling for up to $7,000 a megalitre. In effect, the Tamworth community is asking the Federal Government for $162 a megalitre for an asset that could deliver something worth up to $7,000 a megalitre. This is a very fair request on behalf of our community. It is an issue that not only local residents but also the local media have become extremely interested in and are advocating strongly for. It is something on which I suggest the Federal Government consider taking urgent action.

Discussion concluded.

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

Debate resumed from 30 May 2007.

Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER (North Shore—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [4.42 p.m.]: I lead for the Coalition on the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Bill 2007 , which provides for a two-year trial of involuntary treatment for people aged over 18 with severe substance dependence, with the aim of protecting their health and safety. It is important to note that the definition of "severe substance dependence" means the person has a tolerance to a substance, shows withdrawal symptoms when the person stops using or reduces the level of use of the substance, and has lost the capacity to make decisions about his or her substance use and personal welfare due primarily to his or her dependence on the substance. Families and other interested parties can ask for initiation of the detention and treatment process.

The trial will be conducted at a location prescribed by the regulations. Although it was not mentioned in the bill, the Minister for Health named Nepean Hospital in Penrith in her agreement in principle speech and indicated a possible extension to other areas if the trial is successful. The trial aims to stabilise participants through medical treatment, then give them the opportunity to engage in voluntary treatment. An accredited medical practitioner must issue a dependency certificate before a participant can be involuntarily referred for treatment if the medical practitioner is satisfied that care, treatment or control of a person is necessary to protect a person from serious harm, or if it is considered that serious harm may occur to the person's children or dependants. The bill is divided into parts, each part dealing with a discrete subject matter relating to the treatment and care of dependent persons.
The bill includes details of steps that must be taken in nominating a person for treatment, limits detention for treatment to 28 days, and requires that the person must be brought before a magistrate for a review of the issuing of the certificate as soon as possible after it is issued. Detention may be extended to a maximum of three months if the court agrees that additional treatment is required for persons with drug- and alcohol The bill includes details of steps that must be taken in nominating a person for treatment, limits detention for treatment to 28 days, and requires that the person must be brought before a magistrate for a review of the issuing of the certificate as soon as possible after it is issued. Detention may be extended to a maximum of three months if the court agrees that additional treatment is required for persons with drug- and alcohol ­ related brain injury. The bill also includes provision for the administration of medications, the advising of carers, the transportation of persons to treatment, the involvement of police and the courts if necessary, official visitors to the program and the rights of appeal for those who have been issued with a notice and referred for treatment. The bill also provides protection from personal liability for police and healthcare professionals. I note that, under the legislation, the Minister is required to report to Parliament on the legislation within two years.

The bill replaces the Inebriates Act 1912 in the area to be prescribed by regulation and is generally consistent with proposals contained in the report on the Inebriates Act 1912 by the Legislative Council Standing Committee on Social Issues. However, there are some variations to which I will refer. One is the proposed length of detention. The committee recommended 14 days as the maximum length for detention, but the bill provides 28 days. I ask the Minister to respond to some of these issues in her reply. The Opposition does not intend to oppose the bill. However, there are some concerns and I know the Minister has been approached by some of the organisations that have approached me. I ask her to give these concerns her serious attention so that she may respond to them. The first question is: Why 28 days as opposed to the 14 days recommended by the committee? I note that the bill was drafted by Professor Ian Webster, AO, who is well respected in this field, the chief magistrate, the Aboriginal Justice Advisory Council and clinicians from Nepean Hospital.

The Opposition will not oppose the bill, because it provides an opportunity for treatment for people with severe substance dependence and, importantly, relief for their families, who have been begging for help for a very long time. I recall the evidence of some family members at the Alcohol Summit, who had spoken to me previously in my capacity as shadow Minister for Health, who said that there were not enough places in drug and alcohol treatment programs, and no clear pathway for them to refer for treatment people severely affected by drug and alcohol dependence. The bill provides that pathway and, generally, follows the recommendations of the Legislative Council Standing Committee on Social Issues, which was based on considerable evidence from the community, affected individuals and experts.

I am sure every member of this House would agree that care must be taken to ensure that compliance with protections for participants is paramount, particularly civil liberties, wherever involuntary treatment is administered. Doctors and others involved in the management of patients must also be protected. I will expand on that when I refer to correspondence I have received from the groups I have consulted. Concerns have been raised about the handling of medical records. The trial does not absolve the Government from providing other drug and alcohol services, particularly those located close to Nepean Hospital.

We seek an assurance from the Minister that the Westmead Drug and Alcohol Program will continue to be resourced sufficiently to enable it to provide treatment for those referred to it. I will refer to some of the concerns that have been raised with me. James McGillicuddy, Executive Director of the Health Services Association, wrote to me and said that he has raised with the Minister's office the association's concern about the definition of who will be given professional cover for liability, which does not extend to employees within the New South Wales health service. His letter states:

Clause 8 (2) (b) of the Bill allows for a facility of a public health organisation to be declared as a treatment centre, but in clause 49 (1) protects "Any member of staff of the NSW Health Service, health care professional or police officer who, in good faith, exercise a function that is conferred or imposed on that person by or under this Act is not personally liable for any injury or damage caused by the exercise of that function". The problem is that not all public health organisations have staff who are members of the NSW Health Service. Affiliated Health Organisations such as St Vincent's Darlinghurst or Mater at Newcastle … [and other third schedule hospitals] employ their own staff. These Affiliated Health Organisations could easily have part of their facility declared under clause 8 (2) (b) but because their staff are not members of the NSW Health Service, their staff will not gain the protection of clause 49 (1).

I seek an assurance from the Minister that the legislation is intended to cover any health worker who works in a facility that at some future time may be declared an institution for the purpose of the legislation. I refer also to comments on the bill made by the Network of Alcohol and Drugs Agencies [NADA], which represents a number of non-government service providers. It supports the bill. The network was a delegate at the 2003 Alcohol Summit, supported the Summit's recommendations and supported the resultant action plan. The network has expressed the view that repeal of the Inebriates Act and the introduction of this bill are positive steps forward and emphasises the importance of the treatment unit being operated by experienced drug and alcohol clinicians. The network believes that the new system will be far superior to the old system of proclaimed places, the features of which were less qualified staff and far fewer resources.

I seek an assurance from the Minister that the legislation will repeal the Inebriates Act in the long term. The purpose of the bill seems to be confined to proclaimed places and the two-year trial. Many organisations have pointed out that the Inebriates Act really has passed its use-by date. The Opposition needs an assurance that the Government will move more quickly to repeal the Inebriates Act than it has in relation to recommendations made by the 2003 Summit. As the executive director of the network points out:

… many families of these patients have been waiting for a long time for an effective and safe response to the dilemmas caused by the spectacular and dangerous levels of drinking and drug taking.

Comments have been made on the bill by the New South Wales branch of the Australian Medical Association [AMA], which regards clause 40 of the explanatory note relating to access of medical records as important. The association states:

There should be a buffer between the medical practitioner and the dependent person if medical records are required to be released. It seems impractical that if a doctor has concerns relating to release of a medical record before a hearing to a representative of the dependent person, that denial of access requires a decision of a magistrate.

The association points out that the term "representative" could be interpreted widely and could include a lawyer, carer or a mightily aggrieved relative of an individual who has been involuntarily detained. The association goes on to state:

In certain circumstances there is much in this trial that will require medical practitioners to look to their own personal safety.

The association seeks an assurance that police officers or others who are required to assist medical practitioners will be experienced in managing the transportation of a dependent person to a secure clinical facility and in ensuring the absolute safety of accredited medical practitioners. In recent times numerous complaints have been made by ambulance officers about the difficulties they encounter when transporting people who are under the influence of illicit drugs and whose behaviour is very violent. Ambulance officers are well versed in managing difficult patients, but people who are not properly trained and who are not equipped with resources put themselves at considerable risk.

The New South Wales Council of Social Service [NCOSS] claims that the biggest issue of the trial will be the availability of resources dedicated to the trial, especially as the trial will include referrals to housing and supported accommodation. It is absolutely vital that resources flow and that human resources are available for community-based care services that will be needed for broader implementation. The council makes several points, including that the objects of the bill should state that there will be appropriate safeguards for the rights of people who are involuntarily detained. That could be partly covered by the assurance I have sought from the Minister. In the Government's response to the report on the Inebriates Act it was stated that there should be a maximum and minimum time for committal under the legislation. It was agreed that detention would be for an initial period of 7 to 14 days. As I have pointed out previously, this bill does not prescribe a minimum period but instead states that the length of detention must not be more than 28 days. An explanation from the Minister during her reply of why the change was made would be useful. The council states:

Section 22 outlines who may apprehend a person not permitted to be absent from a treatment centre. This includes (a) accredited medical practitioners, (b) suitably qualified persons authorised by the DG or director of the centre and (c) a police officer. This section also includes "a person assisting a person mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c)" … This may be problematic as it may end up with families apprehending/detaining when they do not have clinical knowledge or police powers.

Families may also not have the expertise to manage people who sometimes may be very difficult. I ask the Minister to address that issue during her reply. The New South Wales Council of Social Service referred also to section 25 and stated:

The Inquiry recommended that every person whilst in involuntary care receive a comprehensive assessment which forms the basis for a post-discharge plan. On the basis of the plan the person must be actively linked to appropriate services and receive assertive follow up. In the Bill the section on discharge planning does not mention a comprehensive assessment and takes a softer approach recommending that the person is consulted in relation to their discharge, agencies are consulted in relation to providing services and information is given to the person and their primary carer about follow up care.

It is important for the Government to indicate exactly the type of follow-up that is included in the plans because experience shows that people who have been detained for treatment and discharged from hospital have been later readmitted because the discharge plans have not appropriately accommodated their need for community­based health care. On behalf of the Coalition, I trust that this trial works well and that it provides relief for families who have been looking for a very long time to obtain much-needed care for their family members, and for others who are responsible for persons who have serious drug and alcohol dependence. I request the Minister to address the issues I have outlined during her reply. If her responses fail to meet the concerns expressed by the organisations to which I have referred, I reserve the Opposition's right to move amendments in the other place.

Mrs KARYN PALUZZANO (Penrith) [5.00 p.m.]: I support the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Bill 2007. The purpose of the bill is to provide a legal basis for the Government's two-year trial at Nepean Hospital of a new system of short-term involuntary care for people with severe substance dependence. The bill applies to people at serious risk because they lack the capacity to make decisions about seeking treatment or help with drug or alcohol problems for themselves. The Standing Committee on Social Issues explored in depth the complex ethical issues surrounding the involuntary treatment of people with substance dependence. The committee found that short-term compulsory treatment is necessary and justified for people who have experienced or are at risk of serious harm for the purpose of protecting that person's health and safety and restoring the person's capacity to make informed decisions about his or her substance use.

The committee also stressed that coercive treatment for non-offenders should not be used solely in the interests of others—for instance, to curb anti-social behaviour—that compulsory treatment should not be a measure for longer-term rehabilitation of a person, and that the interests of the person should always be paramount. The bill includes safeguards to ensure that occurs, for example through the objects and principles it stipulates for involuntary care, the clear entry criteria for involuntary care—which include that no other more­appropriate and less-restrictive means of dealing with the person are reasonably available—the limits on length of detention and its legal protections for dependent persons, including magistrates' reviews and appeals to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal, which is covered in part 4 of the bill.

The target group for involuntary care is a small, well-defined group of people with alcohol or other drug problems. The bill will apply to persons other than minors with severe substance dependence. This means that the person has a tolerance to a substance and shows withdrawal symptoms if he or she stops using or reduces the level of use of the substance. This means also that the person has lost the capacity to make decisions about his or her substance use and personal welfare due primarily to dependence on the substance. Under this definition, care, treatment or control of the person is necessary to protect the person from serious harm and it must have been determined that the person is likely to benefit from treatment but has refused treatment. It must also have been determined that no other appropriate or less restrictive means are available for dealing with the person.

The definition of "severe substance dependence" in clause 5 of part 1 of the bill has been carefully developed in consultation with clinicians and aims to include each of the factors that a medical practitioner would consider in diagnosing such a condition. "Tolerance to a substance of dependence", which is part of that definition, is a term familiar to medical practitioners and health workers. It refers to a very high level of substance being required to achieve an effect originally produced by lower doses. The definition of "severe substance dependence" also brings in the concept that to be eligible for involuntary care the person must have lost the capacity to make decisions about his or her substance use and personal welfare due primarily to his or her dependence on the substance. That is consistent with the criteria for involuntary care recommended by the Standing Committee on Social Issues and, according to clinicians, is pivotal to identifying the intended target group of this bill.

The trial is intended to cover a broad range of substances of dependence or combinations of substances. Those substances are listed in schedule 1 to the bill, which was prepared on the basis of advice from clinicians. The schedule can be altered by the Governor, by order published in the Government Gazette . The Government response to the committee report acknowledged that there may be some concern that the use of strict criteria could exclude some people with substantial dependency issues who could benefit from compulsory treatment but are ineligible because they do not meet the required degree of severe dependence. However, as indicated in the Government's submission to the inquiry, legislation that underpins something as significant as orders for compulsory treatment should include greater safeguards for individuals such as clear criteria identifying the target group.

Any inappropriate exclusion of people with dependency issues will be monitored during the trial and will be considered in the evaluation. I note that the trial is to be held at Nepean Hospital. I acknowledge and commend all those who will be involved. I support all those who work at Nepean Hospital, including the clinicians, the health care professionals, the nurses and all the staff. They do a fantastic job—and this Government has protected their rights in the workplace.

Mrs JUDY HOPWOOD (Hornsby) [5.04 p.m.]: The Coalition does not oppose the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Bill 2007. This bill has been a long time coming following the review of the Inebriates Act as reported on by the Standing Committee on Social Issues. Coalition members say that this bill is too little too late a lot more should have been done following that report. The object of the bill is to provide for a trial, in a prescribed area, of the involuntary treatment of persons with severe substance dependence, with the aim of protecting their health and safety, facilitating their stabilisation through medical treatment and giving them the opportunity to engage in voluntary treatment. The bill replaces the application of the Inebriates Act 1912 in the area to be prescribed by regulation and is generally in accordance with proposals arising from a review of that Act set out in the Legislative Council Standing Committee on Social Issues report entitled "Report on the Inebriates Act 1912".

As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition pointed out, the bill provides an essential part of the way in which people with severe dependency on alcohol or drugs are treated; a very difficult process. Many friends and family of dependent people are often at their wits end as to what to do next. The definition of "dependency" is that the person has a tolerance to a substance, shows withdrawal signs and symptoms if the substance is withdrawn, and is unable to make decisions about that dependence.

The bill provides for a two-year trial of involuntary treatment of persons aged over 18 years who have severe substance dependence, with the aim of protecting their health and safety. Families and other interested parties can ask for initiation of detention and the treatment process. As indicated by the Minister for Health and the member for Penrith, the trial will be undertaken at Nepean Hospital, Penrith. The commencement of the trial will be of great interest; it has been a long time coming. It aims to stabilise participants through medical treatment and giving them an opportunity to engage in voluntary treatment. That is an extremely important step.

An accredited medical practitioner must issue a dependency certificate before participants can be involuntarily referred for treatment if the medical practitioner is satisfied that the care, treatment or control of the person is necessary to protect the person from serious harm, or if it is considered that serious harm may occur to the person's children or dependants. The Minister is required to report to Parliament on the operation of the bill within two years. The Government has a lot more work to do on the Inebriates Act and it is hoped that the Act will be replaced.

The bill replaces the Inebriates Act 1912 in the area to be prescribed by regulation and generally is consistent with proposals in the report of the Legislative Council Standing Committee on Social Issues. One variation in the bill relates to the proposed length of detention. The committee recommended 14 days detention but this bill proposes 28 days. Many people welcome this piece of legislation and hope that it will be implemented as soon as possible. People with severe substance dependence will be able to be treated and the bill will provide relief for families who have been begging for help.

I welcome this legislation, which was implemented as a result of the committee's recommendations. I reiterate some of the issues raised earlier by the member for North Shore. She expressed concern about the civil liberties of patients and health professionals. Another matter of great concern to Opposition members is the non-reconstitution of the Legislation Review Committee and the inability of that committee to review a number of pieces of legislation. People's civil liberties are important. Unfortunately, the Legislation Review Committee will not be able to assess this piece of legislation but I recommend that it be reconstituted posthaste.

This legislation must afford protection to all facilities providing these services and protect health professionals outside NSW Health. Earlier the member for North Shore said that this bill would provide additional support and resources for patients. People requiring assistance must be thoroughly assessed to establish their needs, and follow-up services must be provided when they are discharged, as many people with severe substance dependence are homeless.

On the occasions that I visited Matthew Talbot Hostel and its outreach facilities I witnessed a number of people with a severe substance dependence being admitted to some of those facilities. Often these people are in poor health and have no accommodation other than the facilities to which they are admitted. Upon their release they return to living on the streets and to seeking daily food and medication, so those important follow­up services must be provided. The objects of the bill are:

(a) to provide for the involuntary treatment of persons with a severe substance dependence with the aim of protecting their health and safety, and

(b) to facilitate a comprehensive assessment of those persons in relation to their dependency, and

(c) to facilitate the stabilisation of those persons through medical treatment, including, for example, medically assisted withdrawal, and

(d) to give those persons the opportunity to engage in voluntary treatment and restore their capacity to make decisions about their substance use and personal welfare.

(2) This Act must be interpreted, and every function conferred or imposed by this Act must be performed or exercised, so that, as far as practicable:

(a) involuntary detention and treatment of those persons is a consideration of last resort, and

(b) the interests of those persons is paramount in decisions made under the Act, and

(c) those persons will receive the best possible treatment in the least restrictive environment that will enable treatment to be effectively given, and

(d) any interference with the rights, dignity and self-respect of those persons will be kept to the minimum necessary

As lawmakers in this place the least we can do for people under the influence of drugs and alcohol is to ensure that they cannot voluntarily remove themselves from these facilities. As moral and ethical human beings we want the best for those people.

Pursuant to standing orders business interrupted and set down as an order of the day for a later hour.

General Business Notices of Motions (General Notices) given.


Ms ANGELA D'AMORE (Drummoyne) [5.18 p.m.]: This evening I inform the House of the Government's announcement of $100 million to upgrade Victoria Road to ease traffic flow for motorists and improve bus reliability. The 2004 Unsworth review of bus services resulted in the bus reform strategy and identified Victoria Road as a major priority. Last year the State Government announced that it would invest $100 million to upgrade Victoria Road, including fast-tracking bus priority works to improve bus travel times and reliability on one of Sydney's busiest public transport corridors.

The Victoria Road strategic bus corridor extends from Parramatta to the Sydney central business district. Every week buses carry over 200,000 commuters along this corridor. In a typical morning peak up to 170 buses carry more than 8,000 passengers between Gladesville Bridge at Drummoyne and The Crescent at Rozelle. Victoria Road is an extremely busy road and it is well known that traffic congestion leads to bus bunching and scheduling difficulties. Over two years ago the Rail, Tram and Bus Union [RTBU] commenced a campaign to introduce bus priority lanes on Victoria Road to reduce travel times for bus commuters.

This campaign was well supported by the local community and I thank all those local residents that signed my petition supporting bus priority lanes. In 2006 a Victoria Road working party was established, which I chaired, to look at measures to improve Victoria Road. It included representatives from the community, local businesses, the Roads and Traffic Authority, the Rail, Tram and Bus Union and the Local Government and Shires Associations. The working party was set up to look at ways of improving bus travel on Victoria Road. It made key major recommendations concerning Iron Cove Bridge.

The aim is to improve bus operations and general traffic flow between Drummoyne and the Anzac Bridge by providing a continuous peak-direction bus lane during morning and afternoon peak periods. This requires the extension of the Iron Cove Bridge by building a second bridge, the introduction of a tidal flow traffic scheme along Victoria Road through Drummoyne and Rozelle, and the provision of bus overtaking bays. A transit lane currently operates in the morning peak period along Victoria Road in Drummoyne but buses and car commuters share the lane, causing significant delays for bus commuters.

On Saturday 2 June, with representatives from the Roads and Traffic Authority, I held two street meetings to outline the community consultation process for upgrading Victoria Road and the Iron Cove Bridge. The Roads and Traffic Authority outlined to residents that at this stage a range of investigations is under way as part of the planning process, including traffic counts and modelling, public utility and geotechnical investigations, and environmental studies. Investigations are also being undertaken underwater to discover where cables lie. This process will allow the Roads and Traffic Authority to design plans for the project. It is imperative that the Roads and Traffic Authority undertake this work so that my local community can be consulted about the design and plans. It is my understanding that the Roads and Traffic Authority will come to the community with plans later this year.

More importantly, my local residents would like clarification from the Roads and Traffic Authority about issues such as which side of the existing bridge the new bridge will be built on, the impact on local houses, the impact on Drummoyne pool, when the project will start, how long the project will last, how the Lyons Road intersection at Drummoyne and the Darling Street intersection at Rozelle will factor into major project planning, the impact on local streets surrounding Victoria Road and the flow of traffic, and improvements to pedestrian access along Victoria Road. The business community along Victoria Road would like to know the plan's likely impact on parking arrangements. I thank all residents who attended the street meetings for their productive input. This process gives them the opportunity prior to the formal consultation period commencing later this year to direct the Roads and Traffic Authority on information that they require about the project. This will allow the Roads and Traffic Authority to feed the information into the formal consultation process.

I look forward to working with my local community, the Minister for Roads, and the Roads and Traffic Authority throughout the next few months and years. I will be holding a number of follow-up community meetings with my residents to ensure that the flow of information and consultation with my community occurs and that, most importantly, residents have a say about this vital project, which will lead to significant public transport improvements both in the State seat of Drummoyne and in other electorates. The Roads and Traffic Authority has outlined to the community that over the next few months people will be invited to participate in the consultation phase in a number of ways. This phase will include the display of plans and designs at local venues; information sessions at which residents can discuss project plans with the Roads and Traffic Authority project team; meetings with key interest groups and stakeholders, including transport groups, local community organisations and business chambers of commerce; and the distribution of fact sheets and newsletters to residents, schools, transport operators and other groups.

The community also has the opportunity to put its views to the Roads and Traffic Authority via its website, and I am happy for my residents to speak to me about where we are at with the project. This is a major project for the State seat of Drummoyne. Many commuters use the bus services that run along Victoria Road, which we all know experience significant delays. I am very happy that the Iemma Government is focusing on how to upgrade public transport along Victoria Road and in the seat of Drummoyne, which will encourage more people—

Mr Thomas George: Is that a threat?

Ms ANGELA D'AMORE: No. This will encourage more people to use bus services along Victoria Road—which is a good way to travel to work. I look forward to more details about the project being communicated to my residents.

Mrs KARYN PALUZZANO (Penrith) [5.23 p.m.]: The Penrith City Council Excellence in Design Awards aim to promote, together with architects and designers, outstanding architectural design in Penrith city and to recognise publicly building excellence. The awards encourage, reward and promote quality design, and are a platform for developing a stronger partnership between the Penrith community and design professionals. The awards promote designs that enhance individual and community wellbeing and display the principles of environmentally sustainable design. Award categories include: green buildings, urban places, heritage places, urban living and business buildings.
The New South Wales Government Architect was the keynote speaker at the awards. He noted that buildings play an important part in a city's character and that the best are much more than purely functional. He pointed to relationships between the built form, design and placement. This is particularly important in the City of Penrith, which is a member of the Regional Cities Taskforce and has a prominent place in the Metropolitan Strategy. Penrith has a significant rail corridor as well as road corridors through the central business district, and the marvellous Nepean River runs through it. The council has regulations that mould the built form but they cannot predict that form. Therefore, as the government architect said, quality is paramount because a building that looks good and has a quality built form is much loved and valued.

That is certainly true of the Penrith Regional Gallery, the building in which the awards ceremony was held last Friday night. Western Sydney residents will be aware that the gallery is situated in a wonderful garden setting on the western bank of the Nepean River at the foot of the Blue Mountains. The gallery, and the Lewers bequest, was formerly the home and workplace of sculptor Gerald Lewers and abstract painter Margo Lewers. Following Margo's death in 1978 the Lewers family—I commend their daughters, Darani and Tanya, for their generosity—bequeathed the family house, gardens and property to the City of Penrith for the continued study and appreciation of the visual arts.

The Lewers bequest—the Lewers' house, land and garden—is located on the site. Ancher House, which was built in the 1960s, is also on the site. Designed by architect Sidney Ancher, the house is open plan and has glass walls and flat roofs. The regional gallery was constructed in the 1970s. In 2002 Sonja Farley, a relative of the Lewers, bequeathed money to the Penrith Regional Gallery, which allowed it to purchase land next door and extend. Local architect Charles Glanville designed the workshops and gallery extensions. In 2002 a $2.6 million grant from the State Government funded improvements to the Penrith Regional Gallery and the Lewers bequest. These included upgrades to a verandah and to toilets, refurbishment of Ancher House, which involved the relocation of a 1960s cork wall, and a new kitchen and paved areas.

I commend Siobhan McInerney and her company, PTW Architects, for winning an award in the heritage places category for the Penrith Regional Gallery and Lewers bequest upgrade. The New South Wales Department of Commerce was a winner in the green buildings category for its Western Sydney State Records Building at 143 O'Connell Street, Kingswood. Bovis Lend Lease won an award in the urban places category for its Westfield Penrith Plaza redevelopment. In the urban living category, which was for mixed-use buildings of more than three storeys, Stockland won an award for Waterside at Waterside Boulevarde, Penrith. In the business buildings category the winning project was Twin Creeks Golf and Country Club at Luddenham Road, Luddenham, which was designed by Twin Creeks Holdings (Australia) Limited. I commend all winners, and those designers who were highly commended, in the urban living and business building categories.

Mr JONATHAN O'DEA (Davidson) [5.28 p.m.]: The first Australasian Masters Games will be held this year in Adelaide from 5 to 14 October. Participants will come from all over Australia, Oceania and the Asia-Pacific in a celebration of mature-age sport. I am pleased that one of the New South Wales based Games ambassadors, Mr Ralph Schubert, is a resident of Belrose, in the electorate of Davidson. Ralph, who is well into his seventies, is also a keen competitor in foot events. Late last year at the Pan Pacific Masters Games held on the Gold Coast Ralph picked up four gold medals, one silver medal and a bronze medal. With his enthusiasm, drive to succeed and strong community service record, Ralph is a real inspiration both to older athletes and to all other members of our local community.

Providing athletes meet the minimum age requirement for the Australasian Masters Games, they can participate in one or more of the 50-plus sports on offer. This international competition follows the success of the biennial Australian Masters Games, which was first held in Tasmania in 1987. Since then the Australian Games have been held in Adelaide in 1989, Brisbane in 1991, Perth in 1993, Melbourne in 1995, Canberra in 1997, Adelaide again in 1999, Newcastle in 2001, Canberra in 2003 and once again Adelaide in 2005. Sydney is conspicuous by its absence from the list. The past five games have attracted over 10,000 participants. I hope that Sydney makes a bid for the 2009 Games.

The Confederation of Australian Sport conducts this event under its charter of "Sport for All". The Games provide an opportunity of participation and competition to people over the age of 30 years, regardless of background or ability, with the aim of encouraging lifelong participation in sport. That means that you, Mr  Acting-Speaker, are eligible to compete. While the competition is important, one of the key attractions of the Games is the social interaction and spirit of camaraderie that is experienced by all participants. I convey my best wishes to Ralph Schubert and to all those from New South Wales who intend to compete in this year's Australasian Masters Games.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): I would like to inform the member for Davidson that I am a participant in the Australasian Masters Games, which will be held in Lismore later this year.

Mr JONATHAN O'DEA: I especially wish you well in your competition later this year.

Dr ANDREW McDONALD (Macquarie Fields) [5.31 p.m.]: Last week I attended the Miracle Babies Annual Ball at Liverpool Catholic Club. Miracle Babies was set up by the parents of premature babies in my electorate to provide facilities and support for the parents of newborns admitted to the Liverpool Newborn Intensive Care Unit [NICU]. This unit provides a very high standard of care to children in south-west Sydney, from Bankstown to Bowral. The founder and president of Miracle Babies is Melinda Cruz, who has had three premature babies admitted to the newborn intensive care unit. Those who have had a critically ill baby can be the most supportive to other parents at their time of need. They best know the heartache, the triumph, the procedures, the confusion and the terror of having a critically unwell child. The parents involved with Miracle Babies can now give emotional support as official volunteers visiting the hospital.

Miracle Babies raises community awareness. The organisation has had numerous media appearances on radio and television and in the newspapers. Vic Lorusso, who attended the ball on Saturday, and Jackie 0 are the official ambassadors. Ten Year 12 students from Liverpool Girls High also helped on the night. Miracle Babies has a 1300 contact number—1300 PREMMIE—for mothers from all over Australia, which may be useful to those in isolated areas. The organisation's newsletter has a distribution of 2,000. Miracle Babies provides gift bags for Mother's Day, Father's Day and Christmas and has 90 volunteers who sew garments to keep the babies dressed, which is important for not only the babies' dignity, but also their comfort.

The first time a baby is dressed is a big milestone for these families. The organisation has a memory keepsake box for those babies who lose their fight for life. A golf day is dedicated to those of our children who have lost their fight for survival. Miracle Babies will soon have a parent handbook and provide a premmie playgroup. The annual picnic is attended by 200 people. The organisation has already purchased a syringe driver, a DVD player for the purpose of training new staff and a digital camera and printer to allow staff to take first pictures of babies for mothers who are in recovery or the intensive care unit and may not be able to see their babies for some time. It has also committed $3,300 to have the intensive care unit redecorated, at the hospital's request, to look more like a nursery rather than a hospital. It will soon provide a service to the other nurseries in south-west Sydney.

The main aim of Miracle Babies for 2007 is to raise $100,000 for on-site parent accommodation by the end of 2007. The evening was a great success, and the organisation now will probably achieve its target early. Premium Financial and Retirement Solutions donated $10,000 through the AMP Foundation and Mick Panetta from Liverpool Greenway Rotary has pledged $25,000 for the next year. The committee includes 12 mothers, who have a total of 24 premature children all aged less than five. The committee members are Naomi Rohr, Alex Brown, Janene Morgan, Andrea Hendry, Kylie Pussell, Kelly Docherty, Kate Mahoney, Kim Campbell, Melissa Tallar, Amanda Baker and Julie Furtado. They are truly amazing people. Tim Baker, a miracle baby father, did the artwork. Naomi Rohr told the story of her own two children's time in the newborn intensive care unit. Her comment that "our hearts lifted immensely when we held our precious son for the first time" was moving and uplifting. Today, as is the case every day, somewhere in this city other parents will have this feeling. It is a reminder for all of us in this place of our responsibility to these most vulnerable of our children.

The member for Manly reminded the House in his inaugural speech last week of the debt all of us in New South Wales owe to our health care workforce. I pay tribute to the staff of the Liverpool newborn intensive care unit. They are dedicated, extremely hardworking, compassionate and highly skilled. In the 12 years I have been referring critically ill children to the unit they have never let me down. Miracle Babies is an example of people power or, more specifically, parent power. It is an example for others to follow. As the Irish proverb says, "It is in the shelter of each other that the people live". I commend Miracle Babies to the House.

Ms PRU GOWARD (Goulburn) [5.36 p.m.]: I bring to the attention of the House the proposal by the State Government to sell Bowral courthouse. Buildings such as the Bowral courthouse are the heartbeat of communities. They are places where people from all walks of life with varying interests come together. Community buildings build communities. The community of the Southern Highlands—from the arts community to youth and seniors—is crying out for more community space. The Bowral courthouse, which is a beautiful building built in 1896 that sits right in the heart of Bowral, at the moment lies dormant, empty and unused. Anyone would think that the State Government would be working with the community of the Southern Highlands to ensure that this building, which has so much potential, is used by the community. Instead, the building is with the Department of Lands for sale.

Wingecarribee Shire Council has made representations to the Attorney General's Department for the courthouse to be donated to council for community use. The building has been offered to council at full market value, which is said to be in the order of several million dollars. Such a sum would be unaffordable for the average Sydney council, let alone a country council such as Wingecarribee Shire Council. There is no justifiable reason for the State Government to sell this building at market value. The Government has already made ongoing savings by moving all courthouse proceedings to the Moss Vale courthouse. The State Government could hardly argue that it needs to recoup building costs, the courthouse having been built in 1896 and in use for more than a century.

I believe that the offer of sale is evidence of the State Government's lack of regard for heritage and the community. The Bowral courthouse has belonged to the community since 1896. The State Government should ensure that such an iconic building remains in community ownership. Instead, it favours the almighty dollar: perhaps the courthouse could be used as a private restaurant rather than an art gallery or theatre, or a commercial office rather than a youth centre. The State Government should be pleased to offer such a building to the council for community and cultural purposes. It should be grateful to partner with communities and keen to preserve our heritage and build social capital at no cost to the taxpayers of New South Wales.

It is widely recognised that we build community spirit, connectedness and cooperation by a direct approach. It is not about focus groups and fuzzy government television campaigns; it is about preserving public heritage buildings, of which Australia has precious few, and enabling the community to use them for community building purposes. Buildings with this heritage in such a precinct, once lost to private hands are rarely, and more often never, returned to the community. The State Government should not, and must not, sell the courthouse into private hands. I urge the State Government to work with me, the community, the Southern Highlands and the Wingecarribee Council to ensure that a building with so much potential is made available to the community for its use.

Mr CRAIG BAUMANN (Port Stephens) [5.40 p.m.]: This evening I pay tribute to a valued member of the Port Stephens community, Bev Manton. Bev was elected on 19 May to the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council representing the Central Coast and on 31 May to the role of chairperson of the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council. Bev has been the coordinator of the Karuah Local Aboriginal Land Council for four years and, amidst the financial issues experienced by other land councils in that time, was responsible for overseeing four unqualified audits and a commendation for excellence in administration by the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council governing body.

Karuah is a beautiful region, but it is sadly neglected by this Government. The Pacific Highway was once the lifeblood of Karuah, and its main street bustled with tourists shopping for the area's famed oysters. After Bob Carr bypassed the highway around Karuah this place was left to slowly die, with no government assistance. But people like Bev have been keeping it alive. For the past three years she has been a leader in vocational and educational training for young indigenous Australians through the boat building project at Karuah. Bev has organised Aboriginal classroom tutors at Karuah Public School which have resulted in a vast improvement in student attendance and behaviour and higher levels of mutual respect between students and teachers.

Karuah rests on the land of the Worimi nation, a proud people who were custodians of Port Stephens long before we got there. When I speak of Port Stephens suffering from government neglect, I know that those effects are amplified for the Aboriginal population who call Port Stephens home. I have come to know and respect Bev from sitting on the Karuah Working Together committee and the Indigenous Strategic Committee run by Port Stephens Council. Bev is an asset to this community, not just as a leader to Karuah's indigenous population but also as an example to us all. I am proud of Bev's performance in the recent New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council elections. I think she might be sitting with a safer margin than I have. Her peers on that body have chosen her to be their chairperson, and I believe they have chosen very well.
I encourage my fellow members to meet with Bev when they have the opportunity. Like members of this Parliament, Bev is fighting for her own constituency, fighting for better housing conditions, better opportunities for home ownership amongst indigenous Australians, better access to health care and fairness and self-determination in the way the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Rights Act is administered. This is a daunting task and she can use our help. I hope fellow members welcome Bev Manton as a valuable partner in building better relationships with indigenous Australia.

Mr KERRY HICKEY (Cessnock) [5.43 p.m.]: I wish to raise the matter of the access of members of the Cessnock and Kurri communities to health services in those towns. This community underwent the process of the rural strategy forums across the Lower Hunter only to see the process pigeon-holed and forgotten about. The winners in this process were the Upper Hunter communities, and they needed some service development. Now the communities of Cessnock and Kurri are in need of service upgrades and maintenance by the Hunter New England Area Health Services. After the rural forums, the combination of Hunter Health with New England Health and the amalgamation of health services brought no major benefit to the health system for the Cessnock or Kurri communities.

The Cessnock and Kurri communities are subject to the highest levels of heart disease, lung disease, stroke and obesity in New South Wales. Combine this with a low socioeconomic climate and poor educational outcomes across the area and we have a recipe for a major health crisis—one which the Hunter New England Area Health service is already working to remedy. The health services are developing educational programs to get the community to embrace a more active and healthy lifestyle. The healthy heart program, the training programs and education of youth are all much-needed and worthy projects.

The Hunter New England Area Health Service has also built the new general practitioners clinic at Cessnock to help alleviate some of the issues of service availability. The health service hopes the clinic will entice more general practitioners to the area. However, the community believes its hospital system is being eroded and run down due to lack of maintenance and lack of general care of the buildings. The community feels that at the same time as Maitland hospital is upgraded the Cessnock and Kurri hospitals are being neglected and that ultimately the community will lose its hospital.

When patients are transferred to Maitland on a constant basis and only limited transport is provided for them, it quickly becomes apparent that the system needs to be improved to provide a quality system. I am constantly raising in this House the major problems caused by the lack of public transport system in those communities, and that results in drastic problems with service availability and the transfer of patients from Cessnock and Kurri to Maitland. Coupled with a hospital system that has not had a major upgrade for decades and the highest levels of patient doctor ratios in New South Wales, that is undoing the great work of the Hunter New England Area Health Service.

The Cessnock local government area has the classification of RAMA 2, the same as the North Shore in Sydney. To make more health services available to the area and to encourage more doctors we need the Federal Government to look at the way in which RAMA classifications are imposed. The Federal Government needs to change the RAMA classification to one based on need rather than on the location of services. Doctors in the Cessnock local government area have patient loads of up to 1,900. The State average is 1,200. That is having a major impact upon doctors considering their age and lifestyle and is not conducive to encouraging more people into the area. We need to drive competition more strongly, competition that ultimately will drive more services for the community.

Julia Gillard has stated that now, in the face of a medical work force crisis, one would think the Howard Government would do something for the Hunter region. In fact, the Howard Government has classified this region as a metropolitan area that has no workforce shortage. A Federal Labor government would say: Let's not use artificial criteria that do not take into account what is really going on; let's not draw lines on a map and say they matter; let's look at doctor-patient ratios and if it is as bad as it is here, government should be assisting with an incentive program to get doctors to where they are needed.

We need help. The introduction of the general practitioner clinic was a positive step forward, but we need to ensure more is being done for this community. We need services within the community, not in a regional hospital where communities cannot access them because of lack of public transport. Hunter New England Health needs to provide more patient transport outside business hours to allow people to access health services. We as a community need to ensure that all people have access to our health services. The two hospitals at Kurri and Cessnock need an injection of funding for both practical and visual purposes. Kurri has developed a specialist role and is filling the gap for specialist services such as ear, nose and throat surgery as well as being the site of a major eye specialist unit. When one enters the hospital premises one feels the place is run down and not quite up to the level it should be.

Cessnock, on the other hand, is struggling along and needs a major injection of funding to upgrade surgical theatres and enhance the general maintenance budget overall. Simple things such as guttering at the Cessnock hospital are nonexistent and the surgical ward leaks when it rains. That is totally unsatisfactory, to say the least. Bulk billing rates have fallen 10 per cent throughout the area. Attracting doctors to the area would ultimately mean more competition and bring benefit to the communities. I ask the Minister to look at these concerns with a view to achieving a high quality system, one we can all be proud of and one that attracts more doctors to the area and benefits the area generally. We have a concerning patient-doctor ratio of 1,900. The community needs health services and a public transport system.

Mr JOHN WILLIAMS (Murray-Darling) [5.48 p.m.]: I draw to the attention of the House and the Minister for Education and Training an anomaly that exists in State government funding for the Volunteers for Isolated Students Education Scheme. The scheme operates in the Northern Territory, Queensland and New South Wales to provide assistance to parents and tutors of students in remote locations who are undertaking their education via distance education. There are more than 500 volunteers in Australia supporting the education of students in remote areas. Obviously, during the current drought, their assistance is most sought after and welcomed. In both the Northern Territory and Queensland, Territory and State funding is made available for the continuation of this service. For the past 15 years the New South Wales Government has failed to do likewise, refusing to fund this vital and well-utilised service, which provides an important link in the education of many New South Wales students.

Voluntary teachers from New South Wales travel to remote areas to provide education support for students for six weeks. Representatives from the Volunteers for Isolated Students Education [VISE] Scheme have requested minimal funding from the New South Wales Government to cover public liability, tutor insurance, telephone, postage, and car travel incurred in recruiting tutors. On each occasion funding has been refused. We are probably talking about $6,000 per annum. I am sure every member of the House would support the provision of $6,000, which would give isolated students the assistance they need to gain an education. Can the Minister provide the House with an explanation as to why the New South Wales Government continues to short-change New South Wales students by failing to fund the scheme, when the Queensland Government and the Northern Territory Government provide thousands of dollars annually to fund such a scheme? Can the Minister indicate to the House if funding to assist the scheme will be reviewed to enable isolated students in New South Wales to receive the same services as their counterparts in other Australian States and Territories?

Ms DIANE BEAMER (Mulgoa) [5.51 p.m.]: Nova Employment has assisted many people within my electorate. Many members of the House may be aware of Nova, an employment agency with branches across the State. One of its 14 branches is located in St Marys. The agency helps local people in need gain employment. It provides a supported employment program that offers specialist job-seeking assistance and post-placement support. It finds jobs in the general community at award rates. Primarily, Nova assists young people who have an intellectual disability and are likely to require ongoing help to stay at work.

Nova Employment started in my electorate some 17 years ago. At that time I think it gained a modest grant of around $120,000. My first dealing with the employment agency was when it found a place in the Penrith City Council workforce for a young person with an intellectual disability. It was a very successful placement. For the past 17 years Nova has worked to find young people with a disability—something like 85 per cent of its clients are under the age of 21—positions paying an award wage. This year the agency is confident that it will place its five thousandth client in employment. It is quite an achievement. Today some 650 people across New South Wales under the age of 21 are assisted by Nova's employment program and its post­placement support. Finding a suitable placement is just the beginning of the needs of these people seeking gainful employment.

Many of its clients have been helped for some time. Often these young people require extensive ongoing support. Employers have spoken to me about some of the benefits of having a young person with an intellectual disability in their workforce. They tell me the young people are extremely motivated members of the workforce. They want to be at work and, perhaps because of their difficulties in obtaining gainful employment, they have a great deal of pride in their work. An employer close to my electorate has spoken to me about a job he described as "ideally suited" to someone with an intellectual disability. The position involved going through bits of waste plastic and sorting them into various colours. The person employed to do the task took immense pride in noting that he has never a mistake: All the colours to be reprocessed were sorted 100 per cent correctly. He was a great comrade to the other employers who worked in the plastic processing plant.

It is not only employers and employees but also the whole community that gets a great deal of benefit from this type of employment agency. Nova had 31 students in the Adult Training, Learning and Support [ATLAS] Program, all of whom succeeded in gaining employment at the award rate. Of those 31 students, 29 are still in employment. It is a remarkable achievement. I applaud the work of the six staff at the St Marys office, the four at Penrith and the four at Blacktown, and its other staff members across the State. In particular I congratulate Martin Wren, the Chief Executive Officer, and one of the founders of Nova Employment. I first met him many years ago. Martin is a motivated, motivating and inspirational person who is always full of energy. He has a desire to help the community, particularly those with an intellectual disability. People like Anne-Marie, a 19-year-old who has been working at St Mary's McDonalds for the past nine months and who is visited by Nova once a week to make sure that everything is going okay, owe their working life to Martin Wren and everyone else who works at Nova. As they say, "Working with us is not an act of charity, it is a sound business decision." I wish Nova well for the next 17 years.

Mr RUSSELL TURNER (Orange) [5.56 p.m.]: Last Saturday evening Cancer Care Western New South Wales held a fundraising dinner in Orange which was attended by 250 guests, including Verity Firth, the Minister Assisting the Minister for Health (Cancer). The dinner launched a campaign to raise funds to build affordable accommodation for those who will seek cancer treatment when radiotherapy services are available at the new hospital in Orange. An article in the Central Western Daily states:

The launch of Cancer Care Western NSW's first DVD was boosted yesterday with a $3000 grant to produce multiple copies.

The DVD, which reveals the story of local cancer victims and their struggles to access radiotherapy services in Sydney, will officially be launched at a fundraising dinner on Saturday, June 2.

I thank the Cancer Council for donating the funds for the DVD, and I congratulate it on its work in assisting cancer sufferers and raising funds throughout the Central West. Last year I took a delegation to visit the Wagga Wagga facility, which is one of the major regional centres in New South Wales providing radiotherapy services. I note the support not only of the Coalition, but also of the Federal and State governments. All councils in the Central West acknowledge the urgent need for radiotherapy services in the Central West. The Federal and State governments and the State Coalition acknowledge that Orange is the suitable site for such services. An article in the Central Western Daily of 20 November 2006 states:

"We're committed to putting a radiotherapy unit into Orange," Mr Hatzistergos [the Minister for Health at the time] said. "Before this Government came to office there was no radiotherapy in any regional or rural part of the State."

The commitment came only days after Federal Health Minister Tony Abbott backed Orange as the best location for a radiotherapy unit."

Mr Hatzistergos went on to state:

Next year we will be opening two for the first time in a rural location

I understand they are Coffs Harbour and Port Macquarie—

and following that we will be planning for the next two in Lismore and Orange.

During the last State election campaign, I made a very strong commitment to the establishment of a radiotherapy unit. I am sure that the necessary funds will be available well in time for the opening of the radiotherapy unit when this Government gets around to construction of the new hospital. I acknowledge and congratulate cancer survivors Carmel Hanrahan and Corinne Stringer on their ongoing commitment to fundraising. They were the prime motivators behind 20,000 signatures I presented in a petition to Parliament. People have called on the Government to introduce radiotherapy services in the central western part of the State. I acknowledge that the cost will be approximately $20 million and will require a joint funding arrangement between the State and Federal governments.

Almost as important as having appropriate facilities is having appropriate staff, including specialists. While considerable support from St Vincent's Hospital was needed in Wagga Wagga in the first couple of years, the facilities are now stand-alone, which proves that specialists will practise in the bush if appropriate facilities are available and if, sadly, sufficient patients require treatment and long-term funding is assured. I call on the Government to fast track construction so that radiotherapy facilities will be available at the new Orange Base Hospital.

Mr PETER DRAPER (Tamworth) [6.01 p.m.]: Climate change, the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the provision of sustainable energy have become some of the most important issues facing not only Australia but also the entire world as we move into the twenty-first century. With huge amounts of sunlight covering our continent, we have a potential renewable energy source with unlimited quantities available, should our communities embrace the installation of solar photovoltaic power technology, or solar energy.

Solar energy is a renewable resource that is environmentally friendly. Unlike fossil fuels, solar energy is available just about everywhere on earth. The source of the energy is free and it is immune to rising energy prices. Solar energy can be used in many ways, such as to provide heat, lighting, mechanical power and electricity. With photovoltaic energy, sunlight is converted to electricity using solar cells. Photovoltaic cells are semiconductor devices that are usually made of silicon. Hopefully, new technology being introduced into Australia utilising titanium dioxide will reduce the initial production costs of solar panels. Solar panels produce electricity as long as light shines on them. They require little maintenance, they do not pollute and they operate silently, making photovoltaic energy the cleanest and safest method of power generation.

Australia appears to be lagging far behind many other parts of the world when it comes to the introduction of this technology, despite having the potential to reduce our housing sector greenhouse gas emissions to zero with a sensible roll-out plan. Germany, a country with far less sunlight than Australia, installed 960 megawatts of solar photovoltaic power in 2006 and will be installing over 2,800 megawatts by 2010. At the current growth rate of solar electric installations in Germany, in 2010 they will be installing the equivalent of over 1 million units on house rooftops per year. The German photovoltaic industry is worth approximately $A7 billion and employs more than 8,000 people. The industry in Germany is growing at about 30 per cent per year. Germany's feed-in tariff scheme allows excess power to be fed back into the grid and the owner of the solar system is paid premium prices. This reduces the payback time of new solar systems to less than five years and encourages new installations.

Evidence suggests that if Australia matched the annual international growth rate of photovoltaic installation, by 2020 every home in Australia could be powered by zero emission energy. The solar energy industry in Australia has released a blueprint showing that if we commence in 2010 with 685 megawatts of photovoltaic capacity, which is a quarter of what Germany will install, with a 20 per cent yearly growth, by 2020 Australia could install over 22,000 megawatts of solar panels. This would equate to a large three-kilowatt photovoltaic system on every residence in Australia. The industry points out that 22,000 megawatts of clean solar energy is equivalent to 11 large coal power stations running at full capacity.

Stationary energy accounts for more than half of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions. The industry suggests that combined with a 10-star energy rating system for homes, a massive roll-out of wind power, demand side reduction, energy-efficient measures and solar air-conditioning, solar photovoltaic technology could lead Australia to be a zero emissions stationary energy sector by 2020. Along with cuts to emissions, savings on water use for hydropower could be achieved. Because solar energy potential peaks on the hottest days in full sun, widespread photovoltaic installation will reduce any likelihood of brownouts from water stress caused by drought that coincides with excess power usage. In developing the use of solar technology, we are fortunate that Germany, California and Japan have borne the considerable cost of creating volume markets for solar panels. By 2010 solar panels are projected to fall in price by as much as 40 per cent.

We are also fortunate that organisations such as the School of Photovoltaic and Renewable Energy Engineering at the University of New South Wales are internationally recognised for research in the area of photovoltaics. The school was the first organisation to offer international undergraduate training in photovoltaics and solar energy and has since extended its educational programs to include postgraduate and research training opportunities. We have the way; all we need is the will! We need all three tiers of government to combine to develop an affordable program to roll out photovoltaic technology so that its accompanying benefits can be delivered to this nation. Tamworth is known as the City of Light because it was the first place in the Southern Hemisphere to roll out electric street lighting. A little bit of vision could well result in Tamworth, the City of Light, being powered by clean, renewable, solar energy.

Mrs DAWN FARDELL (Dubbo) [6.06 p.m.]: I inform the House of an innovative program that is in operation around the Dubbo community involving the police, the business community, particularly the Dubbo RSL, the Dubbo City Council, the Department of Education Training and the Dubbo Chamber of Commerce that have shown foresight and courage in engaging youth through a positive ticketing program. Without the leadership of these organisations and the passionate resolve of Detective Inspector Mick Willing and school education director Ann-Marie Furney, the adoption of this successful program, which originated in Canada, would not be possible.

Understandably, it has taken considerable work to reach the stage at which the program is in operation. The program serves as an extension of the already-successful work of the Get Smart Anti Truancy Program, which is a process that has evolved through the wider community. It has been heartening to be involved in the initial process and to assist in shaping the project. The ticketing program will provide a useful tool in tackling many of the issues confronting young people who may feel lost or who are at risk of falling into a life of crime. Young people have been shockingly subjected to pointless criticism by some small and small-minded sections of the community whose views on youth crime and prevention methods do not extend past a string-them-all-up mentality.

Combined efforts and dedicated research enable us to reach out, educate and encourage our children but that approach appears to be somewhat too progressive for some individuals. I suspect they still dwell on the days when children were to be seen and not heard, least of all helped. While some sections of the community may have failed to embrace or appreciate the remarkable steps taken by our youth workers, police liaison officers and education professionals over the years, the potential of these programs has not been lost on the vast majority of the Dubbo community. The concept behind the youth ticketing program and Get Smart is sound and has proved successful in other communities that share the same confronting issues. Architects of these programs are already looking to the future and are using the schemes as one of a number of strategies.

It would be remiss of me not to inform this House of the origins of latest measures. The pilot positive ticketing programs, which were created in Canada, were officially launched in Dubbo on Tuesday 29 May. Superintendent Ward Clapham of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police led the positive ticketing charge through abiding by a philosophy of building social assets, especially by promoting good behaviour among youth and recognising achievements. During 2001 in the Richmond community, Superintendent Clapham and his fellow Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers began to encourage their communities' young people to do better things. Similar to Dubbo's lead of initiating whole-of-government meetings, this innovative reward system soon took shape and made large social impacts. Soon in Richmond, Canada, those same at-risk and disconnected young people, aged between 13 and 17 and repeatedly in trouble with the police, found other areas where they could focus their energy.

The town's antisocial behaviour, loitering and other problems remarkably decreased when this program was used in conjunction with other measures. Building on this program, the police and youth workers developed a strategy to build the confidence of the entire community. In Toronto, the program has been adopted as a normal policing practice among numerous Canadian communities. Manchester in the United Kingdom has also adopted the program and it has now spread its wings to Australia in Dubbo. Everybody involved in these programs overseas has remarked that this is an avenue that can be travelled by many more communities, and people overseas are only too willing to cooperate.

Using those experiences from education and policing authorities around the world, Dubbo has proudly taken the step to apply them to specific local purposes. That will be an additional tool for the Dubbo police and the Department of Education and Training to assist our own youth and will have benefits throughout the wider community. On 29 May 2007 it was announced that 30 police officers would be involved in the Get Reading Program to assist youths in the classroom. And, you guessed it, some critics have come out and slammed that program as well! Today's Daily Liberal stated that crime figures are significantly down in Dubbo in the past two years. Assault has gone down 19 per cent, break and enter down 43 per cent, malicious damage down 12 per cent, stealing down 38 per cent, and stolen vehicles down 57 per cent. In the past two years stolen vehicles have gone from 112 a month down to seven last month.

Critics are still carrying on and saying that nothing is working. Acting Detective Sergeant Mark Meredith said that the figures not only are rewarding for local police, but also are a credit to the community as a whole. He said that police are receiving more relevant information from members of the community, which enable them to act timely. He said that they were at a two-way street and the Dubbo community has confidence in their police. Those statistics were based on the crime categories that I mentioned. The most dramatic reduction was in the number of break and enters, a 43 per cent reduction in the past financial year. The community has helped in arresting crime. Today's editorial in the Daily Liberal stated that the crime figures should silence critics. Statistics can be manipulated and numbers can be spun to suit just about any agenda. Yesterday's local crime rate figures are good news for Dubbo, no matter from which angle they are viewed.

There are various conclusions to be drawn and explanations to be extracted from the breakdown of the statistics, but for the most part the figures speak for themselves. It would be naïve and dangerous to think that crime will ever be stamped out anywhere, that we will not always have a drug and crime culture. Yesterday's crime figures were significant and should help to silence the critics. I encourage all members of the House to find out about the ticketing program and follow on with the fine example set by the Dubbo Orana local command.

Private members' statements noted.

[ Acting-Speaker (Mr Wayne Merton) left the chair at 6.11 p.m. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m. ]

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Ms REBA MEAGHER (Cabramatta—Minister for Health) [7.30 p.m.], in reply: I thank members for their contributions to debate on the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Bill 2007 and for their level of support and interest. The enactment of this bill will be a major step towards trialling a new approach to the treatment of people in extreme situations of drug and alcohol dependence when their health and safety are seriously at risk and when they can no longer make decisions about seeking help. I take this opportunity to address some of the issues raised by Opposition members.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition raised concerns about the length of detention under the trial. The Government originally envisaged a two-stage process with detention for an initial period of 7 days to 14 days and the option of orders being extended for another 14 days when there is clinical advice that this would benefit the person. The process in this bill is simpler, although it will still allow for the same outcome. The length of stay essentially is a clinical decision and is subject to review by the magistrate. Clinicians will still have the option of discharging people at any time before the 28-day period is completed if they feel that their withdrawal from drugs or alcohol has been managed, they are physically stabilised, and their discharge has been planned.

I reassure the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that this trial has its own dedicated funding and resources and will not be diverted from the Westmead drug and alcohol program or any other program. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition stated, my office has also spoken to James McGillicuddy of the Health Services Association and assured him that the issue of protection from liability for other relevant health workers will be considered, along with any necessary amendments to clause 49 if it is decided to extend the program to other facilities in the future.

With regard to the future repeal of the Inebriates Act 1912, one of the purposes of this trial is to gather evidence as to the effectiveness of this new approach. The future of the Inebriates Act will depend on the outcomes of the trial. I also assure Opposition members that arrangements for access to medical records, as raised by the Australian Medical Association, will be based on existing practices and procedures and will be monitored as part of the trial. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition also raised concerns about the safety of medical staff. The bill and the proposed interagency memorandum of understanding include provision for appropriate security for health workers, including provision for assistance by police. In keeping with the spirit of this bill, police assistance will be available at last resort.
I assure the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that the Government is committed to building into the trial a strong component of after care. The Government recognises that people with severe substance dependence ordered into short-term involuntary care may face health risks should they relapse onto alcohol or drugs soon after withdrawal. After care will be a vital component in managing those risks. Discharge plans will cover ongoing post-acute care such as residential rehabilitation; pharmacotherapy; drug and alcohol counselling and peer support groups; links with supportive general practitioners and other medical follow-up; social support; housing needs, including assisted community living; financial needs, such as Centrelink; and any employment and training options.

Ongoing support from a range of agencies will be covered in the interagency memorandum of understanding and will be closely monitored as part of the evaluation of the trial. Importantly, this bill reflects the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Social Issues for a new legislative framework for involuntary care, which took into account the expertise and personal experience of many of those who made submissions to the inquiry. In line with the Government's commitment to evidence-based policy, we will carefully consider the outcomes of the trial at the end of this two-year period. I commend the bill to the House.

Question—That this bill be now agreed to in principle—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Bill declared passed and transmitted to the Legislative Council with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.

Debate resumed from 30 May 2007.

Mr GREG SMITH (Epping) [7.38 p.m.]: The Opposition does not oppose the Terrorism (Police Powers) Amendment (Preventative Detention Orders) Bill 2007, which will amend the Terrorism Police Powers Act 2002 in relation to the detention, in a correctional or juvenile detention centre, of a person subject to a preventative detention order under that Act. This bill is intended to clarify what is claimed could previously be implied in the Act. The changes are sought to clear up ambiguities within the present arrangements.

The bill seeks to apply the provisions of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 and the Children (Detention Centres) Act 1987 to the extent that they are not otherwise excluded. It does not allow for a person to visit or communicate with the subject, but further disentitling provisions that should apply will be outlined in further amendments. As the Opposition sees it, the arguments in favour of the bill are that it will extend to preventative detainees the same rights and obligations as other prisoners until further amendments are made to the Act to exclude certain provisions. The bill will remove ambiguities that exist in the operation of these Acts under the present arrangements in the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002.

At present the Act, under section 26X (3), expressly permits the regulations to exclude preventative detainees from being subject to the application of any of the provisions in the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 or the Children (Detention Centres) Act 1987. The Government says it is arguable that, as no provisions are excluded by the regulations, it could be implied that both Acts apply to the extent that they are not otherwise excluded. The Government has argued—and we do not contradict it—that these changes are consistent with what was agreed at a special meeting of the Council of Australian Governments in September 2005. It would therefore be undesirable for us to oppose the legislation unless there was a significant reason for doing so, which we cannot see. It could be argued that the changes should not be accepted before the entire substance of the amendments is before Parliament. In response, the Government has stated:

… an amending regulation will be prepared in the near future to specify which provisions do not apply.

With that criticism, the Opposition does not oppose the bill.
Mr BARRY COLLIER (Miranda—Parliamentary Secretary) [7.41 p.m.], in reply: I thank the member for Epping for his contribution to the debate. It is important for the Government to ensure that any legislation, especially legislation pertaining to the threat of terrorism, is flexible and far sighted enough to deal with any scenario that this State might face. Since the events of September 11 2001, the Bali bombings in 2002 and the London bombings in 2005, the world has become a different place. So much so that this Parliament has deemed it necessary to confer extraordinary powers on our law enforcement agencies to ensure that New South Wales is in the best possible position to combat and disarm effectively the threat of terrorism if that threat should become a reality.

The preventative detention scheme is one such legislative tool in the fight against terrorism. If a person were to be detained under such an order, it would be vital to ensure that the police, the Department of Corrective Services and the Department of Juvenile Justice have certainty as to how such a person is to be managed while in custody. That is what this bill is about: making it abundantly clear which laws relate to a preventative detainee and which do not. I commend the bill to the House.

Question—That this bill be now agreed to in principle—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Bill declared passed and transmitted to the Legislative Council with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.

Debate resumed from 30 May 2007.

Mr GREG SMITH (Epping) [7.43 p.m.]: The Opposition does not oppose the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Amendment Bill. It is noted that item [1] in the schedule to the bill requires the registrar to maintain the integrity of the register and to prevent identity fraud associated with the register and information extracted from the register. The purpose of the bill appears to be to tighten the legislation in light of past incidents. As long ago as the early 1980s the Stewart royal commission interim report on passports revealed that drug offenders were following a procedure outlined in the book, and subsequent movie, The Day of the Jackal , and searching in cemeteries for new headstones of someone of a similar age—say, in their twenties—and then applying for a birth certificate in the name of the deceased. It is a little harder to do that today. Nevertheless clever criminals have ways of manipulating the system to obtain birth certificates and thereby false identities and of defrauding people to obtain false passports. This process is made simpler if co-conspirators verify that the impostors are the people they claim to be.

Section 12 of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act states that births must be notified to the registrar within 21 days. The bill shortens this period to seven days. This amendment appears to be the Government's response to a recommendation from the Coroner arising out of the inquest into the disappearance of baby Tegan Lane. The Opposition believes it is a sensible amendment that will cause registrars, hospital residents, nurses and midwives to act quickly to register the birth of newborns. The bill also introduces the concept of a primary care giver to replace the expression "guardian", which currently appears in the Act. The expression "guardian" was apparently not sufficient to extend to all occasions when a person is responsible for the care and control of a child. "Primary care giver" seems more appropriate in the sense that someone who takes parental or care responsibility for a child would then be responsible for having a role in registering the birth of that child. The Opposition does not oppose the bill.

Mr BARRY COLLIER (Miranda—Parliamentary Secretary) [7.46 p.m.], in reply: I thank the member for Epping for his contribution to debate on the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Amendment Bill , and I note that the Opposition does not oppose it. The amendments in the bill will ensure that the New South Wales civil registration system remains relevant and responsive. The register will now have an express function to maintain the integrity of the register and to endeavour to identify fraud associated with the register. The obligation on hospitals, midwives and attending doctors to report births will be strengthened. By replacing the term "guardian" with "primary care giver" it will be clearer who may apply to register a child's name if the child's parents are dead, cannot be found or cannot exercise their parental responsibilities for some other reason. The registry will have a legislative basis to maintain a separate record of information that is useful or incidental to the registry's work, and provide additional services in relation to the information it keeps. The community will benefit from the amendments in the bill, which I commend to the House.

Question—That this bill be now agreed to in principle—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Bill declared passed and transmitted to the Legislative Council with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.

Debate resumed from 30 May 2007.

Mr GREG SMITH (Epping) [7.51 p.m.]: The purpose of the War Memorial Legislation Amendment (Increased Penalties) Bill 2007 is to amend the Summary Offences Act 1988, the Anzac Memorial (Building) Act 1923 and the Anzac Memorial (Building) By-laws 1937. The amendments in the bill, firstly, double the maximum penalty for offences under the Summary Offences Act 1988 relating to protected places, including war memorials; secondly, double the maximum penalty for offences under the Anzac Memorial (Building) By­laws 1937; and, thirdly, double the maximum amount that a person who has been convicted of an offence under those by-laws may be ordered to pay for the repair or restoration of damage caused by the commission of the offence.

The bill doubles the maximum penalties for offences under the aforementioned Acts and, it was claimed by the Parliamentary Secretary in the agreement-in-principle speech, forms the legislative plank of the Government's Respecting our Diggers policy to ensure ongoing respect for our war veterans and places of remembrance. I endorse those comments on behalf of the Opposition. The Government promised these changes in response to the Coalition's announcement on 23 January 2007 of the introduction of a National Symbols Protection Bill and the strengthening of the Summary Offences Act. The Government proposes to increase penalties under the Summary Offences Act 1988 to 40 penalty units, which is equivalent to $4,400, for anyone who wilfully defaces any protected place, including a war memorial. The Coalition's policy was to increase the penalty to 100 penalty units, that is, $11,000. I foreshadow I will move amendments to that effect.

This bill will amend the Summary Offences Act to increase the penalty for a person who commits any nuisance or any offence or indecent act in or on any war memorial to 20 penalty units, that is, $2,200. Again, the Coalition policy would increase the penalty to 100 penalty units, that is, $11,000. I foreshadow that amendment as well. Section 9 (3) of the Anzac Memorial (Building) Act 1923 increases any maximum penalty under that Act to 40 penalty units. The bill also doubles the penalty to 40 penalty units, or $4,400, for a person who damages or impairs or does anything likely to damage or impair the Anzac Memorial Building, and increases the penalty to 20 penalty units, that is, $2,200, for offences relating to the conduct of persons within the dedicated area and prohibiting persons from entering the Anzac Memorial Building during the hours that the Anzac Memorial Building is closed. The Coalition's policy did not extend to amending the penalties under that Act. Therefore, we do not seek to amend those penalties.

The increased penalties in this bill are in line with community expectation and consistent with the Coalition's election policy. Although the changes make worthwhile amendments to the Anzac Memorial (Building) Act 1923 and the Anzac Memorial (Building) By-laws 1937, they do not go as far as the Coalition's election policy, which sought to put these sites on a par with Aboriginal sites protected under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974. The Coalition's National Symbols Protection Bill sought to amend the Summary Offences Act 1988 by making it an offence to prevent the display or possession of the national flag or to seek to remove our national flag from a person without his or her permission. It was proposed that 20 penalty points would apply to that offence. The Coalition also sought to make unlawful any by-laws or regulations by local councils, strata bodies and/or company or community title articles of association that seek to prevent the display of the national flag in New South Wales.

The Coalition in its proposed bill also would have required all public buildings in New South Wales to display the Australian national flag where they receive funding from the New South Wales State Government, including local councils. The Coalition's bill proposed to amend the Summary Offences Act 1988 to increase the penalties for the desecration of shrines, monuments and statues, which includes war memorials, to match those provided for the desecration of Aboriginal sites under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974. Again, the increased penalty was from the previous amount of $2,200 for an offence of wilful damage or defacing to a proposed penalty of 100 penalty units, or $11,000.

As to the committing of any nuisance or any offensive or indecent act in or on any war memorial, the Coalition would increase the penalty from the current maximum penalty of 10 penalty units, or $1,100, to 100 penalty units, or $11,000. Further, the Coalition's proposed bill would extend the definition of "shrines, monuments and statues" under the Summary Offences Act to include the premises of returned services and ex­servicemen's clubs. Because of the inadequacies within the purposes of this bill, it would be desirable to amend the Summary Offences Act in line with the changes proposed by the Coalition's National Symbols Protection Bill and also include "shrines, monuments and statues". As I indicated, the Opposition proposes to amend item [1] of schedule 1 as follows:

Section 8 Damaging or desecrating protected places

Omit the penalty provision to section 8 (2). Insert instead:
Maximum penalty: 100 penalty units.

The Opposition also proposes to amend item [2] of schedule 1 as follows:

Section 8 (3)

Omit the penalty provision. Insert instead:
Maximum penalty: 100 penalty units.

Apart from foreshadowing the amendments I have outlined, the Opposition does not oppose the bill.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Alan Ashton and set down as an order of the day for a future day.

Debate resumed from 30 May 2007.

Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER (North Shore—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [8.00 p.m.]: As has been announced by the Leader of the Liberal Party and the Leader of The Nationals, this is a matter on which Coalition members will be entitled to exercise a conscience vote. Although I am the first from the Opposition side to speak in the debate, I to emphasise that the view I express is my view and that other members will express their own views. My view has been formed following months of research on the topic and after many interviews with a large number of people. I have been shadow Minister for Health since 1995, except for a couple of years in between, so perhaps it is not surprising that I have made it my business to meet and discuss the matter with a number of people, whereas some of my colleagues may not have.

I have visited Sydney IVF, which has been collecting embryos for in-vitro fertilisation and so forth. I found the whole subject fascinating from a scientific point of view. But, more than that, I am excited by the prospect that this legislation provides hope—though many years down the track—for those who suffer from diseases for which there is at present absolutely no cure. While I have said to scientists that I have heard speaking about I have visited Sydney IVF, which has been collecting embryos for in-vitro fertilisation and so forth. I found the whole subject fascinating from a scientific point of view. But, more than that, I am excited by the prospect that this legislation provides hope—though many years down the track—for those who suffer from diseases for which there is at present absolutely no cure. While I have said to scientists that I have heard speaking about this subject that we must take great care not to raise expectations, as the Minister will have heard me say, I still believe that we have been slow to move ahead on scientific and medical advances. In retrospect, some of the difficult decisions that have been made over the years have led to miraculous treatments. I, like many groups and individuals who are involved with some of these diseases, spinal cord injury, motor neurone disease or other diseases, always hold out hope for miraculous intervention.

The bill amends the Human Cloning and Other Prohibited Practices Act 2003 to mirror amendments made to corresponding Commonwealth legislation in December last year. In particular, the bill retains the existing prohibitions on: human reproductive cloning; developing a human embryo outside the body of a woman for more than 14 days; collecting a viable human embryo from the body of a woman; creating or developing a human embryo by fertilisation of the human egg by a human sperm outside the body of a woman for any purpose other than the assisted reproductive technology treatment of a particular woman; placing in the body of a woman any embryo other than a human embryo created by the fertilisation of a human egg by a human sperm; and commercial trading in human eggs, human sperm or human embryos. However, the bill enables somatic cell nuclear transfer—also known as therapeutic cloning—and other practices involving the creation of human embryos other than by the fertilisation of human eggs by human sperm, but only under licence for research purposes and not for reproductive purposes.

Currently, the New South Wales Human Cloning and Other Prohibited Practices Act 2003 and the Research Involving Human Embryos (New South Wales) Act 2003 govern stem cell research and cloning in New South Wales. These Acts, when introduced, represented the New South Wales component of the nationally consistent scheme to regulate research involving excess human embryos and to prohibit human cloning agreed to at the Council of Australian Governments meeting on 5 April 2002. When those bills were introduced in this Parliament both the Australian Labor Party and the Coalition allowed a conscience vote on them.

The Commonwealth legislation from which the New South Wales legislation was derived, the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002, allowed for research only on excess in-vitro fertilisation embryos that had been created for in-vitro fertilisation purposes, used after permission was granted from the woman and her spouse, if indeed there was one. Excess embryos not used for in-vitro fertilisation purposes were, and are, disposed of. The legislation stipulated that embryos could not be created specifically for research, and it was an offence to intentionally create a human embryo outside the body of a woman for any purpose other than for attempting to achieve pregnancy in a particular woman.

By 2005, and the time specified for a review of the Commonwealth legislation, the debate on stem cell research had moved on somewhat. By then scientists were pushing for a relaxation of restrictions on therapeutic cloning, or somatic cell nuclear transfer, with many arguing that somatic cell nuclear transfer has the potential to combat the problem of immune rejection that may be associated with treatments developed using embryonic stem cells. The Commonwealth Government referred the matter to a review, headed by respected former judge, the late John Lockhart. His report, commonly referred to as the Lockhart report, was completed in December 2005 and made 54 recommendations, including the legalisation of somatic cell nuclear transfer. In the report on the review John Lockhart, chair of the review committee, argued that:

… a human embryo clone created to extract stem cells is not intended to be implanted, but is created as a cellular extension of the original subject. The Committee therefore agreed with the many respondents who thought that the moral significance of such a cloned embryo is linked more closely to its potential for research to develop treatments for serious medical conditions, than to its potential as a human life.

Initially, the Commonwealth Government said it was not prepared to make changes to the existing legislation despite the Lockhart report's recommendations. However, backbench pressure resulted in the Prime Minister allowing a conscience vote on Senator Kay Patterson's private member's bill, the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006, when it was before the Senate. In early December 2006 the Commonwealth Government voted in support of Senator Patterson's private member's bill to overturn the ban on therapeutic cloning 82 votes to 62 votes. Victoria subsequently amended its legislation to bring it into line with the Commonwealth again, and that is the intention of the bill currently being considered.

Legislation governing stem cell research and human cloning deals not only with extremely complex concepts but also involves serious moral and ethical considerations. In terms of the debate surrounding stem cell research, the argument is typically confined to the use of embryonic stem cells over adult stem cells. I want to refer now to some information that has been provided to me by the department and the office of the Minister with responsibility for that legislation at that level. That material, firstly, sets out why stem cells are important, the potential they offer in terms of disease control, and realistically when we might expect results. It points out that because stem cells are differentiated—meaning they have the potential to become many different types of cells—they have uses in many different areas of research and medicine.
I will highlight those because I am aware that many members will speak on this subject: the study of human development and disease progression; the testing of new drugs; screening toxins; testing gene therapy methods; and replacing damaged tissue and cells. Despite community expectations that such treatments may be developed soon, many of those applications, based on the pluripotency or multipotency of stem cells, may be 10 years or more away. This is the whole point about being realistic in our expectations of stem cell research.

Then there is the question of what is the difference between embryonic and non-embryonic stem cells. Embryonic stem cells come from a five to six-day-old embryo. They have the ability to form virtually any type of cell found in the human body. Embryonic germ cells are derived from the part of a human embryo or foetus that will ultimately produce eggs or sperm. They are known as gametes. I go back to my biology lessons of many years ago, an area I considered to be extremely interesting and very important. Little did I realise that I would ever contemplate this type of legislation. Adult stem cells are undifferentiated cells found in specialised differentiated cells in a tissue or organ after birth. Based on current research, they appear to have a more restricted ability to produce different cell types and to self-renew. Umbilical cord blood stem cells are currently being used to treat a range of blood disorders and immune system conditions.

Somatic cell nuclear transfer [SCNT] is the crux of the matter. A major problem with the use of embryonic stem cells to generate tissue for transplant would be the immune system of the patient detecting these cells as foreign and attacking them. Immune rejection is a major problem in all transplant therapies. One strategy for overcoming this would involve the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer technology, which used to be called therapeutic cloning. Scientists no longer use that term because it is misleading. Somatic cell nuclear transfer technology would involve replacing the nucleus of an egg cell with that from a cell from the patient's body and allowing it to develop to form a blastocyst. Embryonic stem cells from the inner mass cells of the blastocyst would then be harvested and used to establish an embryonic stem cell line that has the same genetic make-up as the patient. These cells would then be directed to develop into the tissue needed for transplant, and would not likely be rejected.

Opposition to somatic cell nuclear transfer technology is based on two key issues. As an embryo would be a genetic clone of the patient, the technology could, in theory, be used to generate a new human. But the medical and scientific community regard this as unethical. It is not legal in Australia and it is not proposed in the legislation. Somatic cell nuclear transfer technology involves the generation of embryos specifically for research and results in the destruction of the embryo, which some consider unethical. Public attitudes to, and acceptance of, the use of stem cells depend on use and context. There is a range of levels of understanding. Many have not thought about the origin of stem cells. Many are unaware of the distinction between embryonic and non­embryonic cells, either in general or in specific terms. Some are familiar with the term "embryonic stem cells", but fewer are familiar with the term, or concept of, "non-embryonic stem cells".

I turn now to what happens in the somatic cell nuclear transfer process. The nucleus, which contains the organism's DNA, of a somatic cell—a body cell other than a sperm or an egg cell—is removed and the rest of the cell is discarded. The key is that neither an egg nor a sperm is involved: there is no fertilisation of an egg by a sperm. Every member of Parliament who is considering this technology from the point of view of life—an embryo might develop into a human that could be implanted into a mother—should note that no sperm is involved in the process. The nucleus is removed from the egg and the somatic cell—which is the adult cell that can be a cardiac cell, a skin cell or a cell for whatever body cell is required—replaces the nucleus of the egg cell.

After being inserted into the egg the somatic cell nucleus is reprogrammed by the host cell. The egg, now containing the nucleus of a somatic cell, is stimulated in such a way that it begins to divide. After many divisions in culture this single cell forms a blastocyst with almost identical DNA to the original organism. Some researchers use somatic cell nuclear transfer in stem cell research. The aim of carrying out this procedure is to obtain stem cells that are genetically matched to the donor organism. Somatic cell nuclear transfer is practised in a number of countries, including Sweden, the United Kingdom, and some States of America. It is practised in South Korea and Singapore, where it is subject to approval by the Minister for Health. It is also practised in Israel and China. It is practised in Victoria and the Australian Commonwealth Government allows it.

I refer to the Lockhart Review Committee. I am particularly mindful of the advice provided through the Minister's office by two of its members. The committee, which pondered the ethics and science of stem cell research, did not have an easy time of it. The committee considered many different points of view. Members of the committee made themselves available to talk to members of Parliament who wanted to ask questions that may assist them in understanding what is involved. It is important to note that stem cell research is a matter for each individual's conscience. This is not a new debate. It has not been thrown at us all of a sudden. It was the subject of the Lockhart report, which has been in the public domain for sometime. It was debated at length in the Commonwealth Parliament.

We have had the opportunity not only to be briefed in this place but also to view a number of websites and to access a variety of papers. I have provided my colleagues with a number of papers, including a reference to the Lockhart report. I am indebted to Senator Kay Patterson for referring me to the website of the University of Michigan, which takes the user through a series of videos on stem cells and the whole process. I commend it to anyone who wants to understand the science of somatic cell nuclear transfer. Similar material is available on the website of the Australian Stem Cell Centre. I am also grateful to Professor Bernie Tuch, with whom I have met on a number of occasions, who provided me and others who attended the briefing sessions with charts on creating embryonic stem cells from spare fertilised eggs and on creating embryonic stem cells by nuclear transfer using fertilised eggs. They could not be clearer in setting out how this science works.

I am further indebted to Senator Kay Patterson for sending me articles that she thought might be useful in my coming to understand this issue, including an article by Sir Gustav Nossal, who wrote an article in Melbourne's Herald Sun on 25 October 2006 entitled "Leave All Cell Doors Open". His article referred to the ethical aspects of this process and referred to the recommendations in the Lockhart review. I have a copy of Dr Brock's submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs in support of the exposure draft on the Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer and Related Research Amendment Bill 2006.

Dr Paul Brock made himself available to discuss this issue in a briefing to us in this Parliament last week. As Dr Brock pointed out in his submission, he suffers from motor neurone disease. He has very little movement. He makes a very impassioned plea for what I would basically describe as hope for future generations that may well derive from this kind of research and legislation. I recommended to all my colleagues the Senate committee reports and a paper delivered by the Most Reverend Dr Peter Carnley, the Anglican Archbishop of Perth and Primate of Australia, who at the annual meeting of bishops in Perth on 18 March 2002 supported stem cell research.

To be fair, I also indicate that I have received a great deal of material from those opposed to stem cell research and I acknowledge that some members will not be able to support this legislation because of their religious or personal views. Many church leaders have suggested that we should oppose this legislation. I have media releases from the President of the Baptist Union of Australia, the New South Wales Council of Churches and the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church. On the other hand, I have also received representations from individuals who have urged me personally to support this legislation, including a representative of the parents of embryos, which have been created for IVF and are no longer needed.

I refer in particular to a media statement by the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal George Pell. He suggested today that none of us should support this legislation. I am not a Roman Catholic, but I was very shocked to read his statement. Frankly, I find it upsetting that as a member of Parliament I have been subjected to the pressure of this man. He said that any Christian, let alone any Roman Catholic, who supports this legislation is morally objectionable. That is absolutely repugnant. I regard myself as a Christian, as a moral person with a conscience and, I hope, as a person with strong ethics. I always try to bring those perspectives to my deliberations in this place. Archbishop Pell stated:

No politician—indeed, no Christian person with respect for human life—who has properly informed his conscience about the facts and ethics in this area should vote in favour of this immoral legislation.

I am sorry, Cardinal Pell, I think you are wrong. I also think it is wrong for the church to try to influence members of Parliament in this way. I believe strongly in the principle of the separation of the church and the Parliament. I respect the views of the church, but this is more than a view: This is an attempt to strongarm or pressure politicians into rejecting this legislation. If there was any doubt in my mind previously, this absolutely dispels it. I will vote in favour of this legislation and I will do so for Paul Brocks, the young man with juvenile diabetes who came to a meeting in Parliament House and for future generations who may benefit from this kind of research. I strongly urge my colleagues to exercise their conscience vote and not to act on a suggestion put to them by someone outside this place.

Mr PAUL GIBSON (Blacktown) [8.23 p.m.]: I totally oppose the Human Cloning and Other Prohibited Practices Bill 2007. Cardinal Pell has his views and he is entitled to them. The case for expansion of human embryo experimentation to include the creation of cloned human embryos can seem compelling, and it draws on notable sentiments of compassion for the sick and hope for new treatment for debilitating diseases. However, the case against this bill is grounded in justice and compassion and hope for the sick and suffering. This bill would have the unprecedented effect of creating two classes of human embryos under law: those created for life and those intended for death. Whatever might be said about the moral status of these embryos, that they are human and alive is beyond dispute.

The bill places living human beings beyond the reach of justice, equality and care. Even if human embryo cloning and research were to lead to future medical advances, the utilitarian idea that we can justify doing a little evil for the sake of a greater good should be firmly rejected by this House. The norm that should control our scientific ethics and our law is the principle of the inherent dignity of every human being, irrespective of age, size, location, state of development or condition of dependency. I note that that reflects what was said by Dr Brigid McKenna, the Executive Officer of the Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney, and I totally agree with her. She also said that after allowing a little bit of human embryo research in 2003, while banning the creation of human embryos for the purpose of research or therapy, Parliament is now being asked to allow a little bit of therapeutic cloning. She pointed out that to prevent a further slide in ethical and legislative standards, a complete ban on all forms of human cloning—therapeutic and reproductive—must be maintained.

An editorial in Nature Via Technology printed in July 2005 estimates that there are currently over 80 therapeutic and around 300 clinical trials under way using ethical stem cells from adult tissues and cord blood. However, embryonic stem cell research remains beset by serious scientific problems. There is still no evidence that stem cells can be readily obtained from a cloned human embryo, let alone used for treatment. Scientists have cleverly appealed to our emotions to promote embryonic stem cell research and human cloning on compassionate grounds, whereas the real motive is the millions of dollars they stand to make by engaging in such research. Consequently, many people, including politicians and sufferers of certain diseases and their families, have been badly misled into believing that cures will come from such research. There is no guarantee that any cures will be found.

If this bill is passed it will allow New South Wales scientists to create human embryos for research by three different means: first, human embryo cloning using somatic cell nuclear transfer; secondly, mixing the genetic material of more than two persons; or, thirdly, fertilising immature eggs from aborted female foetuses with adult male sperm, making an aborted baby girl the mother of an embryo, which will then be destroyed in research. It would also permit hybrid embryos to be created by fertilising animal eggs with human sperm as a test for sperm quality. These practices are currently illegal in New South Wales. However, under this bill they will be permitted under licence, provided the embryos are not allowed to develop for longer than 14 days, or placed in the body of a woman.

Under current legislation in New South Wales, the only human embryos that can be used and destroyed in research are excess AR2 embryos. These are embryos that have been created by assisted reproductive technology for infertile couples. If more embryos are created than a couple wishes to have implanted and brought to birth, the couple can decide to donate their excess embryos for research. This bill goes a step further: It would allow the creation of human embryos specifically for research purposes.

As previous speakers have said, cloning involves a process called somatic cell nuclear transfer. This is the same technology that was used to create Dolly the sheep. The genetic material from a person's body cell is introduced into a woman's egg, which has had its own nucleus removed, and then triggered to grow and develop as a human embryo. This embryo will be a genetic copy of the person who provided the body cell—similar to an identical twin.

If passed, this legislation would remove the current ban on human cloning. It would also allow the creation of cloned human embryos, and their subsequent destruction in research, drug testing or efforts to obtain rejection-proof stem cells for transplantation. This is sometimes referred to as "therapeutic cloning". Therefore, the legislation would continue to prohibit human cloning only for reproduction; that is, the transfer of a cloned human embryo into a woman with a view to bringing the embryo to birth. In my opinion, that is totally unethical.

Human embryos are human beings at the very beginning of life. Whether beginning by fertilisation or by cloning, the single cell human embryo has all the genetic material and internal power to direct its own growth and differentiation as a living human being. Once formed, nothing other than nutrition, good health, the nurture of a woman's womb and time is needed for a human embryo to become a foetus, an infant, a child and eventually an adult human being. Human beings from the embryonic stage to adulthood are ends in themselves and must never be treated as mere means to another person's ends. They should never be deliberately exploited or harmed for the sake of research.
Human embryo cloning and research may lead to future medical advances but, as I have said previously, the utilitarian idea that we can justify doing a little evil for the sake of a greater good must be firmly rejected always. This bill will result in the creation of two classes: one class that is created to live, and the other class that is created to be killed. The situation is similar to the cane toad scenario. Many years ago, in an attempt to eradicate the cane beetle, the South American cane toad was imported. Subsequently it was discovered that the cane toads not only were not doing the job all the experts told us they would do—eradicate the cane beetles—but were instead creating another problem. Instead of eating cane beetles, cane toads ate other small native animals that were easier to catch. The cane toad disaster reminds us of good intentions that really are not good enough.

Proponents of the legislation tend to ignore the risks and focus on so-called potential miracle cures. However, adult stem cells that are obtained ethically from bone marrow, umbilical cord blood and nose tissue are already proving to be promising treatments, and they are likely to provide many more treatments in the future. As the National President of the Festival of Light Australia, Dr David Phillips, said, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. This legislation will take us down that road.

My beloved mother, who is 86 years old, is blind, has cancer, has lost a kidney and has lost a lung. I love her dearly, but if I had the option of choosing to kill somebody else to save her, I could not do it. Do members wonder why I could not do that? Because she would not want me to do it! It is as simple as that. I lost a young sister who was 29 years of age when she passed away. She had never previously been ill but she died from acute myeloid leukaemia. Before she passed away she said the very same thing: If it were possible to kill an embryo, to kill somebody else, to obtain a cure for her, she would not accept it. Nor could I accept it. My beloved mother, who is 86 years old, is blind, has cancer, has lost a kidney and has lost a lung. I love her dearly, but if I had the option of choosing to kill somebody else to save her, I could not do it. Do members wonder why I could not do that? Because she would not want me to do it! It is as simple as that. I lost a young sister who was 29 years of age when she passed away. She had never previously been ill but she died from acute myeloid leukaemia. Before she passed away she said the very same thing: If it were possible to kill an embryo, to kill somebody else, to obtain a cure for her, she would not accept it. Nor could I accept it.

Most Christians would agree that the amendments in this bill evade serious and ongoing moral concerns related to the creation and destruction of human embryos by medical research. The evasion arises largely due to the initial Lockhart review, on which these amendments are based, that especially excludes consideration of moral concerns. The Lockhart committee was stacked with pro human cloning members who, unsurprisingly, recommended human cloning. Consequently the Commonwealth Parliament was deceived into passing legislation: the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Act 2006. The amending bill before this House further evades moral concerns by arbitrarily redefining the embryo and the clone in schedule 1, item [5], proposed subsection 4 (1).

That brings me to the ludicrous situation that the people who support this bill want us to believe. This bill, in mirroring the Federal legislation, contains a problematic definition of "human embryo". First, it is contrary to the standard textbook definition. Second, by defining a human embryo from the time of the first cell division, between 24 and 48 hours after sperm entry, it creates a hiatus whereby the entity from time zero to 24­48 hours falls outside legislative protection. This means that whereas persons can be said to be responsible for eggs and sperm and embryos, no-one is responsible for the entity during the hiatus time.

Ironically, the bill defines the human animal hybrid embryo from the moment of its creation by either fertilisation or cloning, and that raises many questions. From the time the sperm meets the egg must be the point of creation. For this bill to state that creation does not happen for the first 24 to 48 hours is absolutely ludicrous. One would have to ask: What causes the arrival at the second stage of cell division? The only thing that can cause that is the initial act of the sperm meeting the egg. Any suggestion that the first 24-48 hours, the hiatus period, should not be covered by legislation is absolute nonsense. There can be no other answer than that the initial fertilisation of the egg by sperm is the point of creation; that cannot be denied.

This bill purports to state that for the first 24-48 hours, a human embryo is a nothing. But to reach stage two, the cells first must have reached stage one. I must also state that nowhere in the world have human cloned embryos been produced from which stem cells have been extracted. While we have heard a little about Korean researchers who claimed to the contrary, the claims were subsequently proved to be fraudulent, seriously damaging the credibility of the world's top researchers in this field. As I have previously stated, I have no doubt that we are dealing with something akin to the cane toad mentality—attempting to solve a problem but having no idea of the huge and complex issues and problems that will be encountered. [ Extension of time agreed to.]

Most members would have received in the mail a statement from Katrina George of Hands Off Our Ovaries, who makes some very interesting points. She states:

How many eggs? Research cloning is unfeasible without a continuous supply of women's eggs. Cloning has been described as 'a wildly inefficient process' often requiring hundreds of eggs to attempt to produce a single viable clone. In South Korea, the now discredited Dr Hwang used 2,061 eggs harvested from 169 women and failed to produce a single cloned embryo.

Short term health risks —The mass harvesting of eggs is achieved by an invasive procedure of hormone injections to induce chemical menopause and then stimulate egg growth. This poses serious health risks for women. Up to 10% of women will experience ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. The more serious symptoms include renal failure, intrauterine polyps, ovarian cysts, thromboembolism, respiratory distress, haemorrhage from ovarian rupture and infertility. Some women have died.

The long term health risks of ovarian hyperstimulation could be very serious. Some studies suggest that over time there is an increase in ovarian, breast, uterine and endometrial cancers.

The long-term effects of cloning are unknown. Ms George states in conclusion:

If research cloning goes ahead, experience overseas shows that egg supply must be augmented by exploitative commercial incentives such as cut price IVF.

Over the past few days concerned constituents have written to their parliamentary representatives. I will mention just a few of the comments I have received. Stephen Fredrick of Fairfield has made some very important points:

The Council of Europe's Convention of human rights and biomedicine … states that an embryo must be considered to be a human subject, deserving the enjoyment of every right and dignity according to the Human species.

The Nuremberg Code … the Declaration of Helsinki … and the UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child … are all contravened by the use of human embryos in destructive research.

Both of these declarations state that it is unethical to conduct any research on human life, if that life is not the immediate beneficiary of the research.

The preamble to the UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child states "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection—

and this is the linchpin—

before as well as after birth.

I totally agree. Malcolm McKenzie of Seven Hills wrote:

Embryo stem cell treatment has never produced a SINGLE successful outcome in either cure or treatment of any medical condition.

…

The primary reason for ESC research is to build up stem cell lines to sell for an almost dollars.

Peter Dolan from Lambton wrote:

It is exploitative of women and morally abhorrent because it creates life in order to deliberately destroy it.

George Pell has his ideas on human cloning, as does every member of this House. A lot of good has come from adult stem cell research. However, at this stage there is no evidence to show that embryonic stem cell research will provide any benefits for medical science. Let us be a little careful. As I said, let us not go down the track of the cane toad by trying to get a quick fix in one problem area. If we could get a cure for quadriplegia, Parkinson's disease, and other serious medical conditions, we would all throw our hands in the air and say it is fantastic. But let us be sure of what we are doing before we go ahead and do it. Let us not go down the track of thinking we are going to get a miracle cure, only to find out in years to come that we have created more problems than we had to start with.

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS (Lane Cove) [8.40 p.m.]: The beginning and end of human life presents the most difficult ethical issues we face. I encourage all my colleagues speaking in this debate, who will vote on this bill tomorrow, to look deep in their hearts and attempt to gain as much knowledge as possible with respect to the effects of this legislation. I refer to a briefing paper prepared for the Federal Senate with the assistance of Australian Public Affairs and a number of doctors. The document advocates caution, and outlines currently available evidence that I hope between now and tomorrow those of my colleagues who do not speak tonight might be able to take into account. The briefing paper addresses a number of core claims made in favour of embryonic stem cell experimentation. The first is: "Embryonic stem cells are more pluripotent than adult stem cells, so won't they deliver better treatment outcomes?" In answer to that claim the briefing paper states:

It's true that embryonic stem cells appear able to make almost any type of cell, but recent research in adult stem cells indicates that those taken from bone marrow and umbilical blood have similar flexibility to embryonic lines.

A further claim is: "Won't this greater pluripotency lead to better therapeutic outcomes?" The briefing paper responds to that claim as follows:

To date, there are more than 80 therapies in use and over 300 in clinical trials using adult stem cells, including therapies for leukaemia, Parkinson's Disease and spinal cord injuries. Seven years of experimentation on embryonic stem cells have failed to deliver a single comparable therapeutic option.

A further claim is: "But don't embryonic stem cells offer potential cures for cancer, diabetes, spinal cord injury, Parkinson's disease, HIV and a multitude of other illnesses?" In answer to that claim the briefing paper states:

The advocates of embryonic stem cell experimentation list a large number of conditions to support their rejection of ethical concerns, but there is no evidence of any therapies for any of these diseases becoming available in the near future. The ethos of this approach appears to be: "we don't know if it can cure anything, so therefore it might cure everything."

From animal experimentation there is no proof of concept for any effective, safe treatment of any of these conditions with embryonic stem cells.

A further claim is: "But doesn't this unknown potential justify brushing aside ethical concerns?" In response to that claim the briefing paper states, as the member for Blacktown said:

Historically, the idea of the end justifying the means has permitted research on prisoners, slaves and others who were at different times considered "less than human". This is the same argument for experimentation on embryos: "they provide a ready research opportunity, so we should suspend our concept of their humanity."

The potential is unknown, but what is certain is that there are major safety issues with embryonic stem cells.

A further claim is: "But if the embryos are going to die anyway, isn't it actually more ethical to gain knowledge from them?" In response to that claim the briefing paper states:

In the same way that we distinguish natural death from euthanasia, we should distinguish allowing an excess embryo to die by deliberately destroying it for research, no matter how scientifically interesting the latter may be.

A further claim is: "Aren't we prolonging suffering unnecessarily when these embryos will die anyway?" In answer to that claim the briefing paper states:

To say that one life has intrinsically more value than another is an unsustainable argument. The "kill to cure" approach is a convenient argument in the embryonic stem cell context, but it is inconsistent with our broad approach to humanity and science.

A further claim is: "Isn't this a big deal about nothing—these are only embryos?" In response to that claim the briefing paper states:

Each embryo is a living human being. They are not "potential human beings" but instead, "human beings with potential". It takes away our basic humanity to make a decision that there is a certain age at which that potential may be taken away for scientific or commercial opportunity.

A further claim is: "Doesn't the approval mechanism under the legislation deal with these concerns?" The briefing paper's answer to that claim is as follows:

All the approval requirement under the RIHEA does is indicate that the embryo has parents (the suppliers of the genetic material, or the potential parents for whom the embryo is created) whose approval is required. One might wonder how something that is alleged to have no humanity can have parents. In any case, we don't equivalently allow parents to permit destructive research on their children.

The briefing paper goes on to refute a number of other claims. For example, in answer to the claim "Isn't embryonic stem cell research easier?" it states:

The availability of excess ART embryos, and the apparently longer life of embryonic stem cells compared to adult sources does make them the easiest option for experimentation. However, this doesn't have any significance for the ethical challenges surrounding their use. Nor does it lead to greater efficacy of research spending, given the significantly greater success of adult stem cells as a source of therapies.

A further claim is: "Isn't there new research which allows harvesting of stem cells without killing the embryo?" The briefing paper answers that claim as follows:

This research is of interest, although it is only currently demonstrated on mice. It also has the prospect of substantially disabling or accidentally killing the embryo, and as such is inconsistent with other consent-based research practice.

The briefing paper goes on to discuss the advantages of adult stem cell research, and outline the dangers of embryonic stem cell research. The destruction of embryos, which are effectively individual human lives, is a form of unethical science. A comparison of medical outcomes shows that currently there are 65 diseases for which ethical stem cell-derived therapies have been developed. Those diseases include brain cancer, ovarian cancer, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis and spinal cord injury. This is being done without moving down the slippery slope of legislating for the harvesting of embryos. As Senator Guy Barnett from Tasmania outlined:

The criteria for issuing licences to research on human embryos is also unnecessarily broad and ambiguous. In other words, it is too easy to obtain.

It disturbs me that a human embryo will suddenly become a commodity that can be sold to the highest bidder. It is important to outline that I have been lobbied extensively on this matter by groups on both sides of the argument. However, I have not been lobbied by Cardinal Pell. Just as every speaker in this debate and every other member of our society has the right to an opinion, I believe Cardinal Pell has the right to an opinion, particularly when speaking on behalf of a large organisation or religion that holds very strong views on this issue.

Given a media statement issued today, I share the concerns expressed by the member for Blacktown. The media release states that the legislation will legalise the following practices: human embryo cloning—so­called somatic cell nuclear transfer, or therapeutic cloning—which makes a human embryo with only one genetic parent; mixing the genetic material of more than two persons, which makes a human embryo with three or more genetic parents; fertilising immature eggs taken from aborted girls with adult male sperm, which makes human embryo with an aborted baby girl as its genetic "mother"; and creating human-animal hybrids as a test for sperm quality, which makes an embryo with a human and an animal genetic parent. We have major concerns about the legalising of such practices.

As the member for Blacktown said, the passage of the bill will result in there being two classes of human embryos: those created to live and those manufactured to be eliminated in research. To produce a human embryo with the express purpose of destroying it for research is a perverse new direction for human experimentation. I believe that is certainly the position of the New South Wales bishops. This leaves us with a challenge: will we witness the next depressing signpost on the devaluation of human life? It is important that we consider that challenge. This is a difficult decision for many of us to make. It is not necessarily clear, and it is fraught with danger. However, I have always believed that we should act with caution when dealing with any legislation, particularly legislation of this type. Once again I urge my colleagues to think deeply and seriously about it. We are not sliding down a slope any more; if this bill is passed we will have hit rock bottom. It is time that we, as human beings, drew a line in the sand in relation to the protection of human life, both old and young.

Mr TONY STEWART (Bankstown) [8.50 p.m.]: After Cardinal George Pell's comments on this issue today, and as a Catholic, I feel like a religious kamikaze pilot as I put forward my views on the Human Cloning and Other Prohibited Practices Amendment Bill 2007, which I strongly support. I do so because I am in communion with God on it. I really feel that in my heart. Through my family, friends and associates I have experienced what this bill is all about. The bill is simply about saving lives and about providing an opportunity for people with debilitating sicknesses to overcome those sicknesses and to reach for the future. Perhaps that will not be achieved, but this bill provides a step in that direction. The bill does not provide for unethical practices, it provides for the use of modern technology.

If we believe what Cardinal George Pell says, we may as well believe that the sun rotates around a flat Earth. If we had stayed with those medieval thoughts, we would not have the breakthroughs in medical science that we enjoy today. We have had to be bold to make those breakthroughs, which have saved lives. The bill is about life and the future opportunity for saving lives. The bill mirrors Commonwealth legislation, and uniform legislation is sought in all States. A bill similar to the bill before the House was passed easily in Victoria more than a month ago. If we do not mirror the Commonwealth legislation, obviously the Commonwealth will have difficulty in achieving a nationally consistent approach to this issue.

New South Wales is in a position to do what the Commonwealth has already done—nothing more, nothing less. If corresponding legislation fails in any State, that might totally destroy the national consensus to encourage scientific tourism, if I can put it that way, which is comparable to the wide reproductive tourism of a few years ago. Most people would agree that a national legislative regime is extremely important if we are to make medical breakthroughs along the lines envisaged in the bill.

As mentioned earlier, the major amendment to existing New South Wales legislation is the introduction of the somatic cell nuclear transfer [SCNT]. Somatic cell nuclear transfer is part of an era of phenomenal regenerative medicine and could hold the key to breakthroughs in research that could one day end the suffering of millions of people in New South Wales and Australia. That breakthrough is already occurring in most other democracies as I speak. The passage of the bill is vital to hundreds of thousands of New South Wales residents, and their families, who are currently living with incurable conditions such as Parkinson's disease, diabetes, spinal injury and motor neurone disease. I have contacted a number of my constituents who have experience of debilitative disease problems that they are reaching for an opportunity to overcome. I have been overwhelmed by the way their needs were related to me.

In Australia one person dies from motor neurone disease every day and one person suffers a severe spinal cord injury. More than 140,000 Australians, children and adults, have type 1 diabetes. More than 100,000 Australians have Parkinson's disease and cystic fibrosis is the most common life-threatening genetic condition affecting Australian children. That should be enough to convince members to support the bill. However, it is clear that some members are concerned about the bill and that concern needs to be dealt with. In doing so, I will read a letter from a constituent, Pam Jones. Her letter relates a life experience that is relevant to the bill. She wrote:

My son Bradley was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes four years ago, when he was nine years old. Today he has to have around six shots of insulin a day, sometimes more. He has to prick his finger to check his blood-sugar level every couple of hours. Myself and my husband undertake the task at night. We are often up at all hours checking him or making him eat something so he doesn't lapse into a diabetic coma.

Since Brad was diagnosed with the disease it has become part of our family understanding this whole issue.

Pam related how that diagnosis has affected the family. She wrote:

Our only comfort through the daily agony we have watched Bradley become accustomed to, is that it could be much worse—

unless this bill is passed—

Bradley could be one of 15 per cent of sufferers who develop heart disease, or one of 40 per cent who develop kidney disease—

because he has type 1 diabetes, and that could be an issue later in life—

He could have a hypo in the middle of the night. He could lose his life to the sixth highest cause of death in Australia.

Whilst medical research has resulted in many positive outcomes for the diabetic community, we cannot say that Brad is out of danger. As a teenager he is facing his own reality.

Those realities include the risk of losing his eyesight, losing his limbs in his thirties, and other risks he will face. What will happen to Bradley, like many other young boys, is fairly grim unless we can use the opportunities offered by stem cell research to find solutions. Pertinent to the debate on this bill, Pam Jones wrote further:

Having a strong religious background myself I understand the concern that some people may feel.

Her son Brad is 13 years old and attends a Catholic school in my electorate. Her letter continued:

What we need to acknowledge is that we are not cloning humans. We are copying tiny cells. And there is a good chance that these cells may hold the key to a better life for my son—

and for other sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, who live with that horrible disease and other debilitating diseases—

If the New South Wales Parliament supports stem cell research, we will at least have a hope that he could be cured in the future.

That letter says it all. I have been contacted by other constituents, including Edna Beddall of Greenacre. Her husband, who had Parkinson's disease, passed away recently. She watched a very fit man who was involved in community events become debilitated to the stage where he was unable to carry out a conversation or to go to Bankstown to shop with Edna. Clearly her plight, and her husband's plight, could have been dealt with if stem cell research opportunities had been more advanced. However, some people want to continue the flat Earth syndrome that says, "Let's not look beyond the looking glass". If Edna's husband had benefited from that opportunity he may still be alive today. He would not have had to put up with the debilitating sickness that took up the best part of his life with Edna. Edna's husband did not have a proper opportunity to show her what she meant to him.

The bill is about human opportunity, about saving lives and about giving hope to young people who suffer from debilitating conditions. Members of Parliament will discuss those matters over the next few days when debating the bill. I urge the House to support the bill. I know that some members have a real tussle with this issue, but I believe it to be an ill-founded tussle. It has to be clearly understood that under this legislation no stem cell can be planted in a uterus; to do so is indictable and carries a sentence of 15 years jail. This conscience vote is an opportunity for every member to have a say. What is put forward on this issue is often all smoke and mirrors. It is easy to lean on such an argument because it offers an easier answer to the very difficult predicament we face when debating the ethical issues raised in this legislation.

The Commonwealth Government has already faced this dilemma and has said this is what needs to happen. It is only fair and reasonable that we attempt to mirror that Commonwealth legislation, in line with what Victoria has already done, with what Queensland is about to do, and with what other States are now looking to do. This is the right, fair and reasonable way of dealing with an issue that will afford us a modern scientific technological opportunity to save lives through medicine. I support the bill.

Mr RAY WILLIAMS (Hawkesbury) [9.01 p.m.]: This House has seen some marvellous debate in its history and I gather it will be no different tonight as we debate the Human Cloning and Other Prohibited Practices Amendment Bill. As someone newly elected to this Parliament, it has been easy to sit in a comfort zone and look on when difficult decisions are made. However, tonight we are entrusted with making difficult decisions, and that is what leadership is all about. When this issue was debated in the Commonwealth Parliament the Prime Minister said that a free vote brings out the best in the House. It is to be hoped that a free vote in this House will bring out the best in this debate.

I have a moral and ethical concern in relation to this bill and therefore cannot support it. We talk about saving lives, but the fact is in order to save lives we will have to destroy life. I have a great concern about the flippant manner in which we can discuss the destruction of human life. The central activity permitted in this bill is the deliberate creation of cloned human embryos for research purposes involving their destruction. In 2002, with the passage of legislation regulating embryo research and embryo cloning, a line was drawn in the sand. It was unanimously held that no cloning procedure of any kind should be permitted and that embryos should only ever be created for the treatment of infertility. Nothing suggests a change to this is necessary.

I understand there will be people suffering from a debilitating disease sitting with families and loved ones observing what is done tonight in this House. But there have been no major breakthroughs in this human cloning debate, although I can be satisfied that there have been major breakthroughs in relation to adult stem cell research. I therefore cannot support the bill and will continue to be cautious until proven otherwise.

Ms REBA MEAGHER (Cabramatta—Minister for Health) [9.03 p.m.]: I support the Human Cloning and Other Prohibited Practices Amendment Bill 2007. The bill mirrors the Commonwealth legislation that passed through the Commonwealth Parliament in December 2006. Members would be aware that the successful passage of the Commonwealth legislation followed extensive community consultation and detailed debate after the publication of the Lockhart review into this area.

As the Minister for Health and as a woman in this place I strongly support the bill. I meet on a daily basis with doctors, researchers and scientists who work tirelessly to discover new means of dealing with chronic illnesses. These doctors tell me that their research will directly benefit from the research facilitated by this bill—research into diseases including motor neurone disease, insulin-dependent diabetes, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, spinal cord defects, bone disorders, and anaemia. The bill has a direct link to the State Plan, Priority S2, which states:

To improve survival rates and quality of life for people with potentially fatal or chronic illness through improvements in health care.

I am perplexed that any member in this place could have qualms about passing a law to make this research possible. But nothing has disturbed me more than the comments attributed to the leader of the Catholic Church today. Religious intervention in this State's parliamentary democracy is something that should be avoided at all costs. Threatening retribution to members of Parliament who vote in good conscience for this bill or, indeed, against it is contrary to the very essence of a conscience vote.

I fully accept that for religious reasons some may chose to oppose this bill. But it would be immoral to do so because of some threat of retribution without considering the improvement to the quality of life that can be delivered through the very research supported by this bill. That Cardinal Pell would choose to intervene and threaten Catholic members of Parliament in New South Wales demonstrates just how out of touch he has become. Some in the church have cast aspersions on the medical research community by suggesting that the bill "allows scientists open slather on human embryos for unethical research".
Who of the following eminent researchers could this possibly refer to? Perhaps it is Sir Gustav Nossal—a Catholic who spent nine years at a Jesuit school—who has said that his career as a medical scientist has further deepened his respect and reverence for human life. Embedded in this value is the belief that everyone should be given the opportunity to live as free from serious illness as medical science can ensure. Surely people in the church could not suggest his work is unethical. Perhaps they are referring to Peter Doherty, a signatory to a letter from Nobel Laureates to George Bush on embryonic stem cell work that stated: Who of the following eminent researchers could this possibly refer to? Perhaps it is Sir Gustav Nossal—a Catholic who spent nine years at a Jesuit school—who has said that his career as a medical scientist has further deepened his respect and reverence for human life. Embedded in this value is the belief that everyone should be given the opportunity to live as free from serious illness as medical science can ensure. Surely people in the church could not suggest his work is unethical. Perhaps they are referring to Peter Doherty, a signatory to a letter from Nobel Laureates to George Bush on embryonic stem cell work that stated:

We urge you to allow research on pluripotent stem cells to continue with Federal support so that the tremendous scientific and medical benefits of their use may one day become available to the millions of American patients who so desperately need them.

Or perhaps they were thinking of Professor Ian Frazer, Australian of the Year, who urged Federal Parliament to support the 2006 bill as a scientist in pursuit of unethical research. After all, he made the observation that during the 1970s the debate about genetic engineering, which was a precursor to his work in developing the cervical cancer vaccine, was complex, not easily understood and open to misrepresentation. He also made the point that we are in a similar position today, with a number of individuals and various interest groups attempting to discredit the science behind embryonic stem cell research. None of these eminent scientists and researchers is unethical. This is emotional misrepresentation without substance and should not be supported by any member of this House.

This bill has been developed over a three-year period through the Lockhart review process and since its publication. I completely reject any assertion that this legislation is immoral. Indeed, I would consider it to be immoral for members of this House to fail to consider seriously any research methodology that offers hope to the tens of thousands who directly suffer from diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, motor neurone disease or Parkinson's disease. My respect for human life is paramount. My desire to see the best means of research applied to cure illness is not unethical.

I am determined to support this bill as it is about reducing suffering and saving lives. The work of these medical experts in saving lives and preserving human dignity is paramount in my decision to support the bill. It is also important to recognise that this research is not about killing early forms of human life, as some of the emotional objectors to the bill have suggested. Embryos are not able to develop unless implanted in a uterus, and this is explicitly prohibited. Under this bill it is illegal to implant an embryo created by therapeutic cloning and it is punishable by an increased jail term of 15 years.

But the opponents of this bill appear to be discounting the enormous benefits that can be derived from research facilitated by the bill for those with chronic health conditions. These diseases place a massive and debilitating physical and emotional burden on sufferers and their families, as well as an enormous burden on our health system. Last week, when I visited St George Hospital and looked a sufferer of Parkinson's disease in the eye, I could not in all conscience tell him that I was not going to vote for a bill to support this research—research that could lead to a cure for the crippling disease from whi But the opponents of this bill appear to be discounting the enormous benefits that can be derived from research facilitated by the bill for those with chronic health conditions. These diseases place a massive and debilitating physical and emotional burden on sufferers and their families, as well as an enormous burden on our health system. Last week, when I visited St George Hospital and looked a sufferer of Parkinson's disease in the eye, I could not in all conscience tell him that I was not going to vote for a bill to support this research—research that could lead to a cure for the crippling disease from which he suffered. In fact, I felt that it was important to support this bill. I felt determined, as a parliamentarian, that I would exercise the power invested in me to support the bill and support the means to alleviate the suffering of my fellow human beings.

Recently I visited Sydney Children's Hospital and the Prince of Wales Hospital where research into juvenile diabetes and muscular dystrophy is possible only with stem cell research—and it can be advanced only by the passage of this bill. Professor Les White, chief executive of the Children's Hospital, has been a key player in this field and understands firsthand the impact these diseases can have on children and their families. If any member of this House were to walk through the ward of any hospital he or she surely could not help but consider the suffering that could ultimately be averted through scientific progress such as this.

Contrary to the views expressed by some opponents, this bill will make legal a range of important science and medical research methods while providing increased penalties to prevent the very things that we oppose. Somatic cell nuclear transfer is at the heart of this bill. It is the process that aims to produce cells strictly for research and development of treatments. It is a research method, not a process that facilitates reproduction. This process will allow scientists to study a patient's disease process at a cellular level. This is particularly important for understanding normal and abnormal cell development in genetic disorders such as type 1 diabetes.

Somatic cell nuclear transfer will allow for the creation of a human embryo by parthenogenesis. This is the process by which the ovum is caused to divide and develop to form an embryo-like entity. This process will assist in the important study of ovarian tumours or mitochondrial disease—something that is of importance to all women. Diseases that are caused by defective mitochondria affect all children born to a woman with this condition. These diseases are debilitating and fatal. The research that can be generated into this condition, which is supported by this bill, has the potential to alleviate major physical and emotional burdens on women and their families with this condition.

This is just one of hundreds of conditions that can directly benefit from the passage of this legislation. The bill also provides improved safeguards by increasing criminal penalties for a contravention of its provisions. The maximum penalty for undertaking prohibited practices is 15 years imprisonment. Prohibited practices include human cloning for reproduction; collecting a viable human embryo from the body of a woman; sale or trade of sperm, eggs and embryos; creation of a human embryo by fertilisation of a human egg by a human sperm other than to achieve pregnancy in a particular woman; implanting into the womb of a woman embryos created by any means other than fertilisation of a human egg by a human sperm; and creating a chimerical embryo that is an organism containing two or more genetically distinct cell or tissue types.

This bill broadens search powers to ensure that no facility is embarking on any prohibited practice by allowing inspectors to enter premises that are not licensed and where there is concern that prohibited research is being performed. I emphasise that we are not talking about a fertilised egg in any of these processes. No sperm is involved. It is ironic that parents can choose to donate their children's organs in the case of a death, and few question that right, but at the same time opponents to this bill seek to prohibit the use of an otherwise unusable embryo that would be destroyed for research purposes. They would prohibit the use of something that would be destroyed for the purpose of research into the saving of lives and the improvement in the quality of life for millions of people.

I am also not persuaded by the thin end of the wedge debating point. Each and every change to legislation must be considered on its merits. The fact is that this bill has scientific merit. It has research merit, it has medical merit, it has the capacity to reduce suffering and medical costs, and it increases the penalties for any misuse of these processes. If further legislation were proposed, that legislation would also be considered on its merits. New South Wales cannot afford to give a signal to the scientific and medical communities that it is not interested in investment into life-saving medical research.

Supporting a nationally consistent framework enables all States to compete for the research dollars on their respective merits. These are high-tech specialist research jobs. If we exclude such research from our State, the best and brightest students and medical professors will relocate to other States where that research is allowed. These laws have already passed in the Commonwealth and in Victoria. I am advised that Queensland is close to having the debate, with strong support for the bill expected. We cannot afford to have our research community abandon New South Wales. With top-level research comes top-level clinicians. When we lose researchers we lose teachers, academics and professors of medicine who make our teaching and research hospitals respected the world over.

We must support a forward-thinking approach to medical research that has the highest standard of governance. I was christened a Catholic but if today's media reports are correct and I am no longer welcome by the Catholic Church, so be it. I believe in the separation of church and state and I will not be bullied into abandoning my commitment to support research that could alleviate the suffering of others. In the interests of those who are forced to endure debilitating and chronic illness, I urge all members to support the bill.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER (Gosford) [9.17 p.m.]: I am proud to declare my support for Cardinal Pell and his comments on this legislation. I am proud to acknowledge my religious beliefs and to share the beliefs expressed by both His Eminence the Cardinal and the Anglican Church Diocese of Sydney in relation to this legislation. To quote the words of His Eminence Cardinal Pell:

We were all embryos once. That is how we started and from there we developed. The human embryo cannot develop as anything other than a human being. Therefore, it has intrinsic human dignity and should be afforded that most basic of human rights—the right to live, to grow, to prosper.

This Bill would result in there being two classes of human embryos: those created to live and those manufactured to be eliminated in research. To produce a human embryo with the express purpose of destroying it for research—as if it were a lab rat—is a perverse new direction for human experimentation.

This Bill proposes that the NSW Parliament join the Federal and Victorian parliaments in demonstrating a new disregard for life by creating embryos purely for destruction, thereby further dehumanising the human embryo.

His Eminence goes on to state:

If this bill is passed, the enemies of human life will soon be back with further proposals, disguised with sweet words and promises of cures, to roll back the few remaining barriers to the regular destruction of early human life.
When this legislation came before the Federal Parliament the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Kevin Rudd, expressed a similar view. He said:

I find it very difficult to support a legal regime that results in the creation of a form of human life for the single and explicit purpose of conducting experimentation on that form of human life. Furthermore, I am concerned about the crossing of such an ethical threshold and where that may lead in the long term. For these reasons I will not be supporting the legislation, based on the information that is currently available to me.

This House has to consider legislation that seeks in summary to do at least two things. One is to allow the creation of embryos for a period of 14 days by the combination of human egg and sperm for the sole purpose of research and experimentation. This essentially provides for a law that says experimentation is okay provided the life of the embryo is ended within 14 days. During those 14 days genetic material may be harvested and used for research purposes. The best argument put forward for allowing these amendments is based on the belief that increased research into these areas, for which we have to make a huge moral and ethical concession, will provide for the finding of cures into a range of diseases. I for one require more than just a vague hope in return for a compromise on serious ethical beliefs. It should be noted that Professor Jack Martin, a member of the Human Genetics Advisory Committee, expressed publicly and repeatedly to the Senate inquiry that there is no proof of principle about the virtues of embryonic stem cell research. He has cited often the remarks of th e Lockhart report at page 42, where he said:

…at this stage ES cell research has not reached the stage needed to start clinical trials (ie proof of principle of a safe and efficacious treatment in animal models).

When this House debated the original legislation in 2002 there was as much speculation then as there is here tonight about the wide range of cures that embryonic stem cell research would create. Five years have elapsed and not a single breakthrough has been attained. What we are asked to do now is to simply widen the threshold to allow for the experimentation. The 14-day period is arbitrary and has no scientific basis. It is simply a convenient screen to hide behind in experimentation of human embryos deliberately created for the purpose of destruction.

Similarly, the next objectionable feature of this legislation is to allow for a period of two days a combination of human and genetic material on which to experiment ¾ that is, animal eggs and human sperm. As the other is more prevalent, the pressure will be on to find more human eggs. Scientists foresaw this and had included in this legislation, both at Federal and State level, provisions for the combination of human and animal genetic material. A two-day limit is imposed on this sort of experimentation but once again it is simply an arbitrary limit. One can well imagine that in five years time or less the Parliament will be invited to repeal the arbitrary limits of 14 days and 2 days. The Anglican Church Diocese of Sydney has written to members of Parliament as follows:

Please consider the following points:

1. Those who have been doing this research overseas for a number of years (and with substantial budgets) have failed to achieve the promises made for cures (or even advances).

It is a spurious argument to pretend that this legislation will be a breakthrough in a wide range of diseases when it has not been a breakthrough in any. The letter continues:

2. Adult Stem cell research (even with relatively little funding) continues to deliver advances.

3. Ever since the Federal Parliament passed its legislation last year, promising new avenues of research have been developed that would achieve the same potential results but without the need for destructive embryo research.

The legislation has practical flaws as well as moral flaws. Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells put the following argument to the Senate. She said:

…adult stem cell research technology offer(s) genuine cures. The significant number of clinical trials already underway around the world in relation to adult stem cells indicates that it is highly unlikely that SCNT—therapeutic cloning—will be necessary. The Senate inquiry received evidence that there are approximately 80 therapies currently in place in relation to adult stem cells. There are approximately 1,200 US Food and Drug Administration approved clinical trials. There are no clinical trials in relation to embryonic stem cells.

It seems strange that when adult stem cell research is providing real results and embryonic stem cell research is struggling to provide anything at all, the scientific community is keen to see the latter progressed, despite the obvious ethical questions and the enormous compromises that people must make on ethical issues. Those who do not share the Christian belief in the fundamental sanctity of human life may well support this experimentation. I share the belief that society and all human relationships are based upon one fundamental value ¾ that is, that human life is sacrosanct and must be preserved. The creation of human embryos for scientific experimentation is repugnant to that principle. His Eminence the Cardinal and other Christian leaders have been right in bringing attention to this dilemma and right in urging all people of good conscience ¾ the practising Catholics, practising Christians or people of no faith at all ¾ to reject this legislation.

To somehow pretend that this is a violation of the separation of church and state ignores the role of the Christian church in informing people's consciences, a role that the Christian church and the Catholic church have had since their creation some 2,000 years ago. It is the role of the church to advise people in respect of the best and most appropriate exercise of their conscience in the light of Christian teaching and belief. Christian teaching is absolutely unshakable on this point. It was laid down by the Ten Commandments, by the law of Noah, which preceded the Ten Commandments, reaffirmed again and again by Jesus Christ, reaffirmed by the Christian and Catholic church throughout the centuries that human life is sacred, that the violation of the principle of the sanctity of human life is not acceptable in a Christian context.

For us now to embark on legislation that allows the continued creation and experimentation of human embryos in the false and specious hope that somehow a scientific breakthrough might deliver some cure is paying a price that is simply unacceptable. I cannot table this document because I do not have the power to do so, but a comparison of medical outcomes was included in the Senate report that shows some 65 illnesses, all of which are now being addressed by adult stem cell research but not one of which is being addressed by embryonic stem cell research. As stated in the remarks I just quoted of Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, 1,200 trials in the United States were approved in relation to adult stem cells, yet there was not one clinical trial in respect of embryonic stem cells, despite the fact that embryonic stem cells are legal for research purposes.

To be blinded by this continual dust thrown in people's eyes that somehow this is in the best interest of the sick is to give them a false and specious hope that moral compromise will lead to their salvation. Moral compromise does not lead to anyone's salvation. It does not lead to the salvation of society or the individual. It simply enables certain people, with their own agendas, to seriously undermine the moral premise upon which our society is built.

Our society is founded upon one fundamental principle: that human life is sacred and that sanctity must be observed. Those who drift around it, who seek to find avenues through it, who argue separation of church and state, who put up all sorts of arguments about breakthroughs in scientific research ignore the fact that they are walking over that fundamental principle. Once that fundamental principle is denied, anything is lawful because the only limits that this legislation places upon the mixing of human and animal genetic material for scientific purposes, the only limits it places upon human creation of embryos outside the womb for their destruction, is a time limit—2 days for animals, 14 days for humans. Anyone who believes that those limits will stay in place forever belongs in a world of fantasy. Those limits are strictly temporary. We will be back here in a few years time to address amendments to remove them.

I deplore the fact that people have been prepared to attack His Eminence Cardinal Pell. I am proud to stand by him and to acknowledge him as a great religious leader. To pretend that his presenting the views held by the Christian church for 2,000 years is somehow a violation of the separation of church and state ignores an understanding not only of history but of the society that is based on those values. As I said earlier, I acknowledge the views of other Christian churches and of Judaism, which, according to the laws of Noah and the Ten Commandments, rejects such experimentation. The Hindu faith also rejects it, as do those who hold no religious beliefs but who believe the sanctity of human life is paramount and that life must be maintained at all costs.

The House will probably support the bill; it has passed similar legislation in the past. The fact that the bill is carried through Parliament does not make it right. The fact that people will be allowed to undertake the forms of scientific experimentation outlined in the bill does not validate that experimentation; it means simply that our society has moved away from its fundamental values. Arguments suggesting that we must support the bill because it was endorsed by the Council of Australian Governments [COAG] miss the point that it was not supported by the Federal Leader of the Opposition, Mr Rudd, or by the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, who identified its moral danger and the moral dilemmas it will cause.

Many people throughout Australia do not support the experimentation outlined in the bill. If we ask people in a public opinion poll whether they support this form of research because it will lead to cures for many diseases, of course a high percentage of respondents will say yes. But if we ask people in a public opinion poll whether they believe human and animal genetic material should be intermingled for scientific purposes or human embryos should be created purely for scientific purposes and then destroyed with no guarantee whatsoever that the research will produce positive results, I am sure that most will take a radically different view. As I said earlier, I am proud to stand behind, and with, Cardinal Pell and all other Christian leaders. Like many people, I believe the bill should be rejected.

Mr BARRY COLLIER (Miranda—Parliamentary Secretary) [9.31 p.m.]: I am pleased to support the Human Cloning and Other Prohibited Practices Amendment Bill. The legislation raises complex issues for each of us, and it is only appropriate that all members of the House vote on it in accordance with their conscience. It is important to note that, if passed, the legislation will maintain the ban on human reproductive cloning and create nationally consistent laws governing therapeutic stem cell research. The amendments in the bill arise out of the Commonwealth Government's Lockhart report, which was itself the result of extensive public consultation.

When considering this bill it is important to outline at the outset what it does not do. Specifically, the bill does not allow human cloning for reproduction. Nor does it allow egg and sperm embryos to be created for research purposes. A number of other practices are also prohibited, including the sale or trade of sperm and egg embryos, and the creation of a chimerical embryo. In fact, the penalties for offences involving these prohibited practices have been increased. What the bill does do is allow certain practices, such as somatic cell nuclear transfer and parthenogenesis, for research purposes only and on the condition that such research has the potential to add to knowledge that can help in understanding and treating disease as well as assist in the treatment of infertility.

Somatic cell nuclear transfer—or therapeutic cloning, as it is more commonly known—refers to the creation of an embryo using a somatic cell and an ovum. A somatic cell is any cell in the human body other than sperm or egg cells—for example, a skin cell. The somatic cell nuclear transfer process, which involves replacing the nucleus of the ovum with the nucleus of a somatic cell, is a means by which stem cells can be created. Parthenogenesis is another process allowed by the bill that can provide an alternative source of stem cells.

Having been given the privilege of speaking in this place on such an important bill according to my conscience, it is important that I set out my reasons for supporting the legislation before the House. I support the bill for two reasons. These can be encapsulated by two words: hope and faith. First, stem cell research carries with it the promise of new cures, therapies and insights into a variety of degenerative diseases and injuries that confront today's society. I am advised that these include Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, motor neurone disease, muscular dystrophy, type 1 diabetes, Rett syndrome, spinal cord injuries, cardiovascular disease, stroke and even leukaemia and other forms of cancer.

I ask myself: Who among us has not been personally affected by, or does not know someone who suffers from, the terrible tremors of Parkinson's disease? Who among us does not understand the anguish of a wife, son or daughter sitting at the bedside of a father who is suffering from Alzheimer's disease, who does not know their names and who does not comprehend the fact that he has lived for 50 or 60 years with the people in front of him? Who among us does not know someone whose close family member, relative or friend has suffered the scourge of cancer? Perhaps some of us have been affected personally. I know only too well the feelings of helplessness and, despite all the pain and agony of chemotherapy and other treatments, becoming resigned to the fact that there is no hope for your loved one—be it your mother, father, brother, sister or friend. I know how it feels when a loved one suffering from cancer is looking at the clock, waiting for the next injection of morphine and accepting that, despite all the treatments and hopes for a cure, it is time to go. I know these things too well as I lost a father to cancer at 60 and a mother to leukaemia at 64.

When I think of their suffering I am reminded of the annual Relay for Life, which is held in the Sutherland shire and elsewhere. The Relay for Life involves team members raising money by taking turns walking around the Sylvania Waters athletics track for 24 hours, from Saturday morning to Sunday morning. Saturday evening is a special time during that event, when participants gather to remember all those who have succumbed to the scourge of cancer. There is a vigil in which participants hold a bag filled with sand, bearing the name of a loved one, and a lit candle. During the vigil the faces of those who courageously fought this terrible disease, young and old, are flashed on the big screen. But participants also hear stories from those who have survived. That is really what the Relay for Life is about: hope. It is about the hope that one day a cure will be found for this terrible scourge.

It is the same hope that one feels when looking at their mother shaking uncontrollably or at their father who no longer recognises them. It is the same hope that loving parents feel as they watch their young son who has suffered a spinal injury and believe that he will walk again one day. In all conscience, I must support the bill because it provides the hope of medical breakthroughs in the treatment of these diseases and injuries. It offers hope that we can alleviate the suffering of those affected by such diseases and injuries and lessen the devastating impact that they have on the lives of those who love and care for them. In all conscience, I believe we, as parliamentarians, should do all we can to eliminate the scourge of these diseases and alleviate the suffering of our constituents and their families.

My second reason for supporting the bill is grounded in faith: faith in an all empowering and benevolent God and faith in mankind. I am a practising Catholic and, like any other Christian, I accept and believe God made mankind in his likeness, in his own image, and he gave mankind dominion over all living things. In creating men and women, God gave them intellect, skills and abilities far beyond those of all other living things. He gave mankind the ability to think and to reason, to learn and to plan. God gave men and women the power to discover the laws of physics, the power to understand the laws of nature, the power to explore the secrets of the universe and, indeed, the power to unlock His own mysteries.

If we look back across the generations and over the course of human history, through the development of science and the history of medicine, we find men and women of learning who were committed to improving the welfare, wellbeing and health of their fellow human beings. They achieved extraordinary advances in medicine and health, working to understand the nature of diseases, discovering their causes, finding cures for them and, in some cases, eliminating diseases from the face of the earth. Those men and women have done this, as Sir Isaac Newton reminds us, by building on the work of those who went before them. So I ask myself: Is that not what we are trying to do here? Is that not what this bill is about? Do we not want to build on the advances in medicine and science to restore the lives of those with spinal injuries, to better understand certain degenerative diseases, to help alleviate suffering and, in the end, to eliminate diseases from the face of the earth?

Stem cell research offers so much promise and so much hope that I cannot, in all conscience, pass up this opportunity to give the men and women of science and learning the means by which they can realise those goals. I cannot ignore the lessons and the history of science and medicine. I cannot disregard my fundamental faith in a benevolent God and in mankind, and the belief that, in time, all things are possible, including an end to human misery and suffering. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN (Willoughby) [9.39 p.m.]: I place on record that after much careful consideration I will be supporting the Human Cloning and Other Prohibited Practices Amendment Bill. I thank my constituents, religious leaders and community representatives who have taken the time to contact me to outline their views. I admire and respect the strength of conviction demonstrated on all sides of this debate. There is nothing more precious than human life, and the debate about when life begins and ends forms the central moral and ethical dilemma in relation to the bill before us. I urge religious and community leaders, for whom I have enormous respect, not to cast aspersions on the religious or moral integrity of members of this place who choose to support the bill.

We do not take this decision lightly. We each have an obligation to the communities we represent and to future generations of Australians who will be impacted either way by the decision this Parliament makes. Whether or not we support the bill, there is no doubt that we need a legal and regulatory framework that will provide prohibitions and guidelines about scientific research involving human embryos. The bill before us, which mirrors Commonwealth legislation, will maintain the ban on human reproductive cloning and create nationally consistent laws governing therapeutic stem cell research. The bill will not allow egg and sperm embryos to be created for research purposes.

In relation to practices allowed in the bill that relate to developing an unfertilised embryo, they will be subject to a strict licensing regime, restrictions on the time that an embryo is allowed to develop—up to 14 days is the longest period allowable—and strict prohibitions against implantation. Indeed, penalties for offences against these prohibited practices have been increased from 10 years to 15 years, and the Commonwealth Licensing Committee's powers have been expanded and strengthened. Those who may argue that such research which the bill allows will not guarantee cures for diseases such as motor neurone disease, Parkinson's disease, diabetes, and spinal cord injury are absolutely correct, but we do not know that it will not.

We owe our fellow human beings who suffer from these debilitating conditions, their families and loved ones—and, for that matter, successive generations who will suffer—hope that at some stage in the future there may be potential for understanding these diseases and for making important inroads into research that may eventually lead to better treatment and cures. In conclusion, I especially thank those individuals, whether they are scientists, ethicists, proponents or opponents, for giving unstintingly of their time to avail us of both their expertise and their views. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT (Marrickville) [9.42 p.m.]: I support the Human Cloning and Other Prohibited Practices Amendment Bill. As others have recognised, this is an issue of significant moral, ethical and scientific debate. I support this bill for two reasons. First, I am convinced by the weight of scientific evidence of the potential for practices allowed by the bill to contribute to extraordinary advances in scientific and medical research. Secondly, I believe that I have a responsibility to those who are suffering from conditions such as motor neurone disease, Parkinson's disease and spinal cord injury to do what I can to allow research that may advance our ability to find a cure or improve treatments for these conditions.

As others have, I have been aided enormously in my understanding of these issues by the comprehensive and detailed work of the Lockhart review. As Professor Lockhart pointed out, there will never be consensus on this issue among all groups in society. Some are compelled by the moral case for medical research; others are compelled by the moral case for protecting the embryo. In a case such as this, laws should regulate rather than impose bans. And that is precisely what the bill we are debating tonight does. This legislation will bring New South Wales into line with Commonwealth laws that were passed last year. The bill maintains a strict prohibition on certain practices, including human reproductive cloning, developing an embryo outside the body of a woman for more than 14 days, and commercial trading in human eggs, sperm or embryos.

There are significant protections in the bill. It strengthens and increases penalties for breaches of the law. At the same time the legislation is essential if our national regulatory scheme for stem cell research is to continue. A national scheme is necessary both to prevent a brain drain of scientists from leaving New South Wales and for our scientists and researchers to be able to work in national collaboration for the advancement of humankind. At the heart of the changes that will be allowed if this legislation passes is somatic cell nuclear transfer or what is called therapeutic cloning. This process allows the further development of embryonic stem cell research. It has great potential in our fight to alleviate the suffering caused by major diseases such as motor neurone disease, Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's. Embryos created through somatic cell nuclear transfer are not egg and sperm embryos. During the national consultations undertaken by the Lockhart committee it found that embryos created by the fertilisation of the human egg by a human sperm were held in special regard by the community, seen as unique and quite different from embryos created through other techniques. Accordingly, this legislation continues the prohibition on creating egg and sperm embryos for research purposes.

These embryos can be created only for reproductive purposes in an accredited clinic. However, if they are deemed excess to a couple's reproductive needs and proper consent has been obtained they can be used for research. Embryos created using somatic cell nuclear transfer are subject to a range of restrictions and safeguards. While I accept that despite these protections some members will not support this legislation, I cannot stand in the way of the potential scientific breakthroughs and the possibility of reducing human suffering that therapeutic cloning may provide. As the Lockhart committee found, an embryo clone created to extract stem cells is not intended to be implanted but is created as a cellular extension of the original subject. I agree that the moral significance of such a cloned embryo is linked to its potential for research to develop treatments for serious medical conditions rather than its potential as a human life.

As I said at the beginning, I am persuaded by the scientific and medical arguments in favour of this legislation. However, there is of course a human dimension as well. One disease that we may be able to better understand and find a cure for through embryonic stem cell research is motor neurone disease. This is one of the cruellest diseases—an incurable, terminal disease that kills most of its victims in two to three years. Motor neurone disease progressively kills the neurons that carry messages from the brain to the muscles. As the neurons die the muscles become progressively paralysed until the person dies.

I have had the great fortune of knowing and working with Paul Brock, who has been actively involved in promoting the benefits of stem cell research. Paul has also been diagnosed with motor neurone disease. Paul is a skilled and committed educator. He is married with three children, and is a lover of cricket, music and many other things. He tells his moving story in the book A Passion for Life . I have such admiration for this man, for all he has achieved and all he continues to achieve, for his ability to be positive in the face of such adversity, to never give up, and above all for his honesty. As Paul said in his autobiography:

Ever since the significant developments in embryonic stem cell research took off in 1998, I have been convinced and have done my best to convince others that stem cell research across the diversity of its types—holds out the one real hope of slowing or even curing this wretched disease.

Throughout his time of advocacy for stem cell research Paul has been disappointed that scientists working in this field have not adequately recognised the potential of stem cell therapies for motor neurone disease, in the same way that it has been recognised for other neurodegenerative conditions. Paul has campaigned actively for researchers to learn first hand what it is like to live with motor neurone disease, to understand how families and carers have to deal every day with what he describes as "the narrowing circle of our lives". I am supporting this legislation tonight. Through it we may take Paul Brock and countless others closer to improved treatments or even a cure for motor neurone disease and some of the other diseases that have already been mentioned. I am not a scientist but I understand from some of my reading that we are a long way from such cures at the moment. However, that is not a valid reason not to support continued research.

If we had taken this approach many of the scientific breakthroughs we now take for granted would never have occurred. This is also not a matter of the potential merits of embryonic stem cell research versus adult stem cell research. Most scientists engaged in stem cell research agree that further work into both adult and embryonic stem cells is necessary if we are to develop appropriate treatments and cures. This legislation will allow some practices in a regulated environment which could assist in the advancement of knowledge about fertility treatments and improved knowledge, therapies and cures for some of the most debilitating diseases we know. As the Lockhart committee concluded:

The higher the potential benefits of an activity the greater the need for ethical objections to be of a high level and widely accepted in order to prevent that activity. Though some people think an activity unethical, it does not necessarily follow that that activity should be made illegal.

While I understand that some hold deep ethical objections to the legislation we are debating tonight, I do not believe those views are held by the majority of the community and I do not believe they should prevent this legislation from passing. Stem cell research offers hope to those who are suffering from debilitating diseases. I am pleased to support this bill.

Mr ROB STOKES (Pittwater) [9.49 p.m.]: I support the Human Cloning and Other Prohibited Practices Amendment Bill 2007, but I do so after a long period of reflection and internal wrestling. My starting place is, and must always be, to recognise my own frailties as a human in determining issues with a moral dimension that go to the nature of life itself. I recognise that decisions about life and the nature of life—when it is formed, when it has ended—are questions that are well outside the jurisdiction of this place and, indeed, lie over the inevitable river. Nonetheless, these issues come up from time to time and I acknowledge that it is important for me in order to be a proper representative for my community of Pittwater to explain the reasoning behind the way I will exercise my vote.

The first thing I note is that we exist in an imperfect world. In a perfect world there would be no in­vitro fertilisation [IVF] because everyone who wanted a baby would be able to conceive. In a perfect world there would be no need for stem cell research because there would be no motor neurone disease, no spinal cord injuries and no diabetes—and my cousin would not have suffered from cystic fibrosis. In a perfect world we would all be out of a job because there would be no problems for us to solve. But we do not inhabit a perfect world and we do not live in a place of black-and-white decisions. None of the solutions we propose will be perfect and every decision we make will produce consequences.

The more knowledge we acquire the more complex and, sometimes, unknowable the consequences become. But I am acutely aware that while action incurs consequences, inaction also incurs consequences. If I am not prepared to support therapeutic cloning I am closing the door to the potential that it may assist in finding treatments for incurable conditions that afflict thousands and thousands of New South Wales residents. One of my constituents wrote to me today about her sister, who broke her neck as a result of a freak accident while skiing and is paralysed from the chest down with some use of her arms but no finger grip. She writes:

It was a devastating time for her as her life changed beyond recognition. Before the accident she had just finished an MBA, she was a successful young businesswoman in a relationship that she hoped would lead to marriage and children. She travelled extensively and enjoyed outdoor and sporting activities.

While this woman has built a new life, she suffers terribly from her condition. Her sister writes:

The utter pain that she suffers continually because of her body's inability to manage its temperature, meaning she is either too hot (which is dangerous as she cannot sweat) or too cold (which brings on searing pain in the limbs that she retains sensation in) but rarely comfortable. The trauma of pressure build up in the body when sitting or lying in one position can lead to a fatal condition if not managed.

She also writes:

I won't even start on issues around personal ablutions, managing bowel and bladder functions, the lack of comfortable sleep, the need to ask for anything … everything … from a sip of water to the need to be taken to or from bed, the inability to have any privacy for—well, for anything.

Embryonic stem cells can come from three sources: directly from the donation of embryos, indirectly from leftover embryos from IVF procedures, or via stem cell nuclear transplantation therapy or therapeutic cloning. While I am not opposed to natural clones—indeed, I am married to an identical twin—I am strongly opposed to reproductive cloning. The second source of embryos I have noted, that is, leftover embryos from IVF procedures, is lawful and has been the primary source of stem cells to date. The bill currently before the House will enable stem cells to be obtained from the final source I mentioned, namely, somatic cell nuclear transfer. It is important to note that this form of cloning needs to be distinguished from reproductive cloning, which has the goal of producing a cloned individual. In contrast, therapeutic cloning aims to generate a cell line that may be specific to the needs of a patient who served as the nuclear donor.

I have already mentioned that it is lawful, with donor consent, to use fertilised eggs for stem cell research if they are not needed for IVF. The bill proposes to use unfertilised eggs for stem cell research. Fertilised human eggs, if implanted into a uterus, have the potential to develop into a human foetus and, eventually, into a beautiful, special, unique human child. This, to me, raises the essential question: Is an embryo formed through somatic cell nuclear transfer equivalent to a fertilised embryo? According to a refereed article by Professor Rudolf Jaenisch, founding member of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research and a professor of biology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology [MIT], from a biological point of view nuclear cloning does not constitute the creation of new life because no meiosis, genetic exchange and conception are involved. A cloned embryo will lack the essential attributes that characterise the beginning of normal human life. Professor Jaenisch stated, moreover, that it has little, if any, potential to ever generate a normal human baby.

For this reason, while I do not support human cloning, this bill clearly prohibits this practice and I am persuaded that the significant safeguards prescribed in the bill are adequate to prevent any human life being created through a process of cloning. Nonetheless, I wish to raise a couple of problems that I have noted. In particular, I have concerns about the title of the bill, which I do not believe adequately reflects its contents and purpose. The bill is entitled "Human Cloning and Other Prohibited Practices Amendment Bill", yet it is not entirely about prohibitions. Indeed, the controversial aspects of the bill are about enabling therapeutic cloning in limited circumstances and not prohibition at all. As legislators we have a pressing responsibility to be entirely clear about what is contained in the legislation, and it should be reflected in its title. That is necessary to inform a public that often does not have time to thoroughly read and digest a bill in its entirety.

I also wish to express my objections against a couple of arguments that have been presented in relation to this bill—one argument being for the bill and another against it. One argument raised in support of the bill is that if therapeutic cloning is not facilitated in New South Wales then researchers operating in this State will leave by a process of scientific tourism. So the New South Wales biotechnology sector will lag behind as researchers are attracted to places more supportive of their research. That may be so, but it is not a reason for supporting the bill. Commercial arguments should never prevail over moral imperatives. If the bill is morally wrong then commercial arguments become irrelevant and perverse. On the other hand, an argument opposing the bill posits that it places us as a society on a slippery slope towards the approval of reproductive cloning. I note this argument but reject it, since it assumes that legislators somehow cannot determine individual bills on their individual merits. I also reject it on the more direct basis that the bill directly outlaws reproductive cloning. It is difficult to see how a bill that explicitly outlaws a practice is, therefore, headed down a slippery slope to approving it.

In supporting this bill I want to alert researchers in this area to the awesome responsibility that the bill entrusts to them. By passing this bill, the Parliament will enable researchers to lawfully experiment with the material of life. I acknowledge that the researchers in this field, such as Professor Peter Schofield and Professor Bernie Tuch, are very well aware of their responsibilities, but I wish to use my contribution to emphasise this reality. While I do not see a collection of cells that might be created through the process of somatic cell nuclear transfer as a human being, I do acknowledge that they are human cells and are therefore entitled to careful treatment and respect. I thank the many people who have offered me advice on this bill: my constituent Judith Knott, former member for Pittwater Jim Longley, my father, Professor Gordon Stokes, and the churches and doctors who have provided valuable arguments for my consideration. I commend the bill to the House.
Mrs BARBARA PERRY (Auburn—Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister for Western Sydney, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [9.59 p.m.]: The New South Wales Human Cloning and Other Prohibited Practices Amendment Bill 2007 deserves careful consideration of both its positive and negative implications for our community. It deals with an area of medical research that offers hope for many people. I have given it much thought, both from a personal perspective and based on the views expressed to me by my constituency. I say upfront that I am Maronite Catholic and my faith does have a bearing on my personal opinion. In saying that, in this place I raise concerns not solely for myself or for the Catholic church; I am here as a representative of the community to highlight their views and concerns, including those different from my own. It concerns me that some leaders in our community would seek to censure the views of others. It is important that we take all views into consideration. In the end we will all debate the ethics of this bill and decide accordingly.

At the centre of this issue is the notion of life and at what point life begins. For me life starts at conception—as opposed to 24 to 48 hours later. Opposition to this bill does not automatically suggest a hidden agenda for religious denominations. It would be simplistic to perceive that faith-based concerns cloud opinion. As the Lockhart report identified, the community holds the view that human embryos ought to be revered and protected. There is a lot at stake in this decision, including consideration of somatic cell nuclear transfer—therapeutic cloning.

Embryonic stem cell research has the potential to make significant inroads into our understanding and treatment of injury and disease such as cancer, spinal cord injury or muscular dystrophy. I am sure parents, carers and friends of people living with injury and disease would want any and all avenues explored, and I have heartfelt compassion for people living with debilitating and/or life threatening injury or disease. It places enormous strain on them and their families, many of whom share the same pain and suffering as their loved one. As a mother of five young boys, I can only imagine the heartache confronting parents of sick or injured children.

Medicine is a field in which we have made many advances. It is also a field that challenges us every day to redefine and stretch the boundaries and our ethics in the pursuit of answers, cures and information. Over the past few years we have been asked to further loosen the restrictions placed on this field. My concern is that we may reach a point of no return, where the line is so distorted that we can no longer remember what it was we were trying to achieve. Will we soon be asked to extend the 14-day limit on embryonic experimentation because an older embryo may provide more answers?

I acknowledge the need to be flexible to change, to be open to opportunity. With time and advancements in technology, our capacity for discovery has infinite potential. But we must remember why we set those boundaries in place in the first instance. These restrictions are enforced to protect our community, to protect the embryos themselves, this life, and to maintain standards within the medical profession. Yes, the bill could allow for a greater capacity for knowledge and answers in medicine and research. But we must ask ourselves: At what cost? I believe it is a dangerous step—and it is one that I am not willing to take, especially given the lack of debate on the ethics of this issue. This debate comes down to the notion of life itself. My belief is that life begins at the very point of creation. We have a duty to protect that life, and this cannot be done without an ethical debate in which the entire community is involved.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Thomas George and set down as an order of the day for a future day.