Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Assembly, 26 September 2007, Corrected Copy)

The Speaker (The Hon. George Richard Torbay) took the chair at 10.00 a.m.

The Speaker read the Prayer and acknowledgement of country.

Debate resumed from 25 September 2007.

Mr DARYL MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [10.00 a.m.]: Whilst we are waiting for the shadow Minister for Gaming and Racing to officially reply on behalf of the Coalition, I would like to make a contribution to this debate. The object of the Liquor Amendment (Special Events Hotel Trading) Bill 2007 is to extend the trading hours of hotels on certain days during the 2007 Rugby World Cup, and to enable the trading hours of hotels to be extended during any period prescribed by the regulations, being a period that coincides with the holding of a special event of regional, State, national or international significance.

The extended hotel trading hours in relation to the 2007 Rugby World Cup are until 1.00 a.m. on the mornings following Saturday 6 and Sunday 7 October 2007—hotels are normally required to close at midnight on Saturdays and at 10.00 p.m. on Sundays—and from 5.00 a.m. on the morning of Sunday 7, Sunday 14 and Sunday 21 October 2007. Hotels normally cannot open until 10.00 a.m. on a Sunday. These extended trading hours coincide with the times when some of the final matches of the Rugby World Cup will be played.

In the case of the mornings of Sunday 7 October and Monday 8 October, which is the anticipated finishing time of the matches being played at that time, the 1.00 a.m. closing time will, if the relevant match is still in progress because of extra time or some other reason, be extended until the completion of the match. However, extended trading past 1.00 a.m. will apply only if the hotel is actually showing live coverage of the match to its patrons. The extended hotel trading permitted by the proposed Act, including any period prescribed by the regulations in relation to a special event, will apply only to the sale or supply of liquor for consumption in hotels.

As I said, the bill applies only to special events. Whilst I do not lead on behalf of the Coalition and I expect the shadow Minister to clearly state our case in more expanded terms, these special events that are attracted to New South Wales and our cities are important and it is essential that government gets it right. I reflect briefly on two major events that were held last year when the city of Sydney was caught very much unaware. There were traffic jams and gridlock, and I know that many hospitality venues were caught short.

I am concerned that there may be implications from the bill. I certainly would be keen for the Parliamentary Secretary at the table, the member for Miranda, to clarify in his response the powers of the Minister in relation to the bill. I would be very concerned, as I think others would be, that the bill would give the Minister carte blanche to sign off on any agreement at any time to extend trading hours for what the Minister deems to be a special event. The bill has other implications, which I am sure the shadow Minister will expand upon in his contribution.

Mr GEORGE SOURIS (Upper Hunter) [10.05 a.m.]: I am delighted to lead for the Opposition on the Liquor Amendment (Special Events Hotel Trading) Bill 2007, and I thank the member for Wagga Wagga for keeping the fires going for the time being. At the outset I indicate that the Opposition wholeheartedly supports the opportunity for hotels to have extended hours to afford telecasts of the Rugby World Cup rugby union tournament, which is underway in France at the moment. Indeed, there are only a few days in question; they are identified in bill. Some of those days involve telecasts which would screen a match commencing at 1.00 a.m., and on other days matches would commence at 5.00 a.m. In relation to the former, I can readily see that it would be good policy to extend hotel trading hours, firstly so that patrons can view the game, and secondly so that hoteliers do not have any trouble with disgruntled patrons being asked to interrupt their enjoyment of the Rugby World Cup and then the patrons perhaps spilling onto the streets and causing trouble.
However, I have some reservations about who would get out of bed at 4.30 a.m. to go to a hotel to watch a rugby match—unless, of course, it is a final match and Australia is participating. If that is the case, I will be up at 4.30 a.m. with them! That would be a good outcome indeed. I am a little distressed at the way in which the bill has come forward. I have a significant reservation, and indeed foreshadow that if the bill remains intact and the Government is hell-bent on pursuing it in that form, the Opposition will oppose it in the lower House and will seek leave in the other place to move an amendment.

The issue I refer to arises out of the part of the bill which seeks to give the Minister open-ended powers into the future to select any special event of regional, State or national significance and to by gazette extended hotel trading hours without reference to Parliament. Having said that, I see some logic in the bill's provisions, providing we can have a proper debate and we can consider the issue in the fullness of time. Indeed, a large liquor bill is to come before the Parliament shortly, and this is the appropriate place to include such a provision and subject it to general debate.

The Government approached the Opposition, firstly by phone—and I thank the Minister for phoning me the night before the introduction of the bill, that is, last Monday night—and we were presented on Tuesday morning with a memorandum, rather than a copy of the bill, by Mr Phillip Kelly—and I appreciate the reason for that. At no stage were either the Minister or Mr Kelly able to tell me that the bill also contained the blanket provision allowing the Minister, at any time in the future, to gazette extended trading hours for any special event the Minister may decide. I discovered this an hour or so after I had been given the memorandum.

It seems that by using the Rugby World Cup as a smokescreen, the Government is now trying to slip into the bill a major provision which refers not only to these few days of the Rugby World Cup but also to any day in the future that the Minister deems to be a special event and therefore deems it appropriate to extend hotel trading hours. This is not the bill in which that provision should be included. If the Government really wants to deal properly with public policy, this is not correct approach.

The Rugby World Cup currently underway in France was planned some four years ago—at least during the last time this House sat before rising in June this year. It was very clear on what days and at what times events or pool games would be held, when the quarter-finals and semi-finals would be held, when the final would be on, and whether the winner of pool A played the winner of pool B, et cetera. All the details were clearly identified for everyone to know, particularly the Government, and that was the case well before the Parliament last sat. So, to turn up here on Tuesday morning with a sudden and urgent bill requiring the suspension of standing orders so that it can pass through both Houses this week to provide for extended trading hours for hotels for the duration of the Rugby World Cup demonstrates to me that the Government is not aware of what are major events.

The Government has not had proper consultation with the industry. I know that for many months before today the industry certainly has been seeking the Government's assistance to operate extended trading hours during the Rugby World Cup—for many, many months. So, that is not an excuse. What has the Government been doing all this time? It has been doing nothing. It has been sitting on its hands and all of a sudden the Rugby World Cup is upon us. Someone in the Minister's office—perhaps the Minister himself, who knows—suddenly has realised that the change has to happen this week otherwise the Government has made a mess administratively of the requirement to put before the House this bill to extend trading hours.

I would have thought that was bad enough, but with the cooperation of the Opposition this bill would have passed through both Houses very quickly and the industry then would have had at least some time—I would hope sufficient time—to organise staffing and all of the other aspects, for example, to organise public transport, to fit in as well as possible with the proposed extended hours. At least that would have been possible, but now the Government has included this blanket power of the Minister to declare a special event on any future day. Even by pretending that between today and the conclusion of debate on the liquor bill in a few months' time a special day might arise so that such blanket power is necessary in case of a major event of international or national significance, is the Government trying to say that it does not know what sporting events of international significance have been scheduled on the world program?

Everyone in the entire world knows, but the New South Wales Government, under current arrangements and the current Minister, does not know. The Government is worried that an event might suddenly spring up for which it is not ready and this extended power is needed to declare summarily a special event. What a joke! Is the Government really going to press this argument in debate? Is it really going to make this the salient point of this bill? If so, I am sorry to say this is seriously amateur hour in both the department and in the Minister's office in the New South Wales Government.
To conclude, I reaffirm that the Opposition is not in any way suggesting that the Rugby World Cup should not or would not enjoy the privilege of extended trading hours in hotels so that New South Wales patrons can view those fixtures. However, it is abhorrent that the Government, under the good will of the Rugby World Cup, has tried to squeeze into this bill this blanket change of policy outside the liquor bill. Of course, that bill should have been here for debate last year as we all know but, of course, government members were a bit lily-livered just prior to the election and all sorts of reasons were found as to why we ran out of time. I understand the liquor bill will be before this House shortly. Surely the Government by its own hand should amend this bill, remove this blanket provision to extend trading hours and make this special events bill specific to the Rugby World Cup. Let us all agree to that and then let us debate the broader issue of these blanket powers when the liquor bill comes before this House. That would be a proper way to do business; this bill is not.

This also is an attempt at trickery. It is an attempt to trick the Parliament by using the good will of the Rugby World Cup to extend the policy area and to give the Minister these unfettered powers. As I have said, we ought to be able to consider these powers more properly with decent discussion and the appropriate time is when the liquor bill comes before the House. This very sudden presentation of a bill to go through all stages, with the suspension of standing orders, to get to the other place so that it can be passed this week is not the way to introduce a major policy change. As far as I am concerned, it is on the Government's head that it has produced a bill of this nature and it risks the outcome. It is in the Government's hands. It drafted the bill and presented it to the Parliament. We did not do any of that. As far as the Rugby World Cup is concerned, we approve the proposal to extend trading hours. As far as this sudden change of policy that has been snuck into this bill under cover of Rugby World Cup, no, we do not agree. That is an outrageous breach of the trust and good will that surrounds the Rugby World Cup.

Mr ALAN ASHTON (East Hills) [10.16 a.m.]: I did not believe that the Opposition would—

Mr George Souris: Where is the Minister?

Mr ALAN ASHTON: I would not raise that, George. You dropped in late. We gave the member for Wagga Wagga a chance to make the first speech.

Mr George Souris: We will give him another few minutes.

Mr ALAN ASHTON: The Minister will drop in, I am sure, but I am speaking to the bill because I did not believe the Opposition would find the matter of special events to be so controversial. I understand the passion of the member for Upper Hunter for rugby union. I share that passion equally for Australian Rules, rugby league, trotting, and every sport with probably the exception of cars going around tracks very quickly. I do not believe the Opposition is correct when it says that what we are doing today is an attempt to subvert or pre-empt the provisions of the liquor bill that will be debated in a few weeks.

I understand the Opposition opposes section 24AA "Extended hotel trading hours—special events." I do not know whether the Opposition will move a further amendment but, clearly, the proposed amendment refers to "special events". A special event cannot be just at the whim of the Minister, despite what the Opposition says. Section 24AA(3) states, "For the purposes of subsection (2), special event" which is in heavy type, "means an event that the Minister considers …". So, there is a ministerial discretion, but there always is under regulations. It continues, "to be of regional …". Therefore, I am sure that applies to electorates of the member for Lismore, perhaps the member for Coffs Harbour or the member for Upper Hunter.

It could be a very major event in a country area. The special event may be in the Speaker's electorate of Northern Tablelands or in the Armidale-Tamworth area. It could be a very special event there. Obviously, I am thinking of the Tamworth music festival, which happens in January every year. The Minister could make an amendment to allow extended trading hours during that music festival. To be honest, I am sure that probably already happens. I am not totally familiar with what happens during the country music festival, but the point is that extended trading hours will be allowed under the definition of regional significance.

Of course, in that definition "state" means all of New South Wales. Perhaps that could apply to the opening of hotels for longer hours during the State of Origin in the Tweed area or somewhere like that. Of course, the definition of "national" is obvious if Australia were involved in something similar to the America's Cup in 1983 when Bob Hawke declared virtually a national holiday when we won. So, an event such as that would allow hotels to extend their trading hours. Finally, "international significance" would apply to events such as the one we are talking about. The Rugby World Cup is not being held in Australia this year, but I remember that it was on the last occasion. I am sure provisions would have been made for the operation of extended trading hours when that event was held in Australia four or five years ago.

I believe that proposed subsection (3) should not concern the Opposition much. The first Opposition spokesperson in this debate, the Opposition Whip, talked about how the Government was caught out when the two American ships arrived in Sydney Harbour earlier this year. I guess to some extent we probably were. I certainly did not consider that the people in my electorate of East Hills ought to get on the train and go down and look at two very big boats in Sydney Harbour. What is Sydney most famous for? The harbour. So if two ships turn up as they did—

Mr George Souris: You are really going on a ministerial whim now.

Mr ALAN ASHTON: That is a point.

Mr George Souris: The sudden arrival of a ship?

Mr ALAN ASHTON: No. I am referring to what was said by your first leading speaker. That is the point and it is in Hansard. We were very good on the Government side. There was no Opposition spokesman to lead for the Opposition. We thought in the spirit of this new situation, with the new Speaker, the new Government and the new period—

Mr George Souris: The bill is listed as number eight, not as number one.

Mr ALAN ASHTON: It is number one so we can get it passed before Australia wins the Rugby World Cup, even with Stephen Larkham's recent infection in his knee. The point is we allowed the Opposition Whip to speak on this and he raised the issue of the two ships coming in, saying how outrageous it was that the Government was not prepared to recognise the arrival of the two ships in the harbour as a special event and we should have been aware of it. If it was a special event, and given the thousands of sailors on the American aircraft carrier—

Mr Phillip Costa: Six thousand.

Mr ALAN ASHTON: That is right; I remember the excitement in some suburbs about the arrival of 6,000 American sailors. That in a sense was a special event. It might well have been that some of those sailors like a drink and maybe we could have extended the hotel hours; I do not know. I think the Opposition is reading far too much into this. The member for the Upper Hunter has talked about it being a blanket power. It is not. The bill is clearly called the "Liquor Amendment (Special Events Hotel Trading) Bill".

Mr George Souris: The blanket powers bill.

Mr ALAN ASHTON: It is a good interjection by the member for the Upper Hunter, but it is not true; it is not the blanket powers bill. It is the Liquor Amendment (Special Events Hotel Trading) Bill and it includes a definition of the Rugby World Cup and then talks about extended hotel trading hours for special events. That means the Parliament does not have to reconvene every couple of weeks to consider what might be a special event, a national or international event, across New South Wales, the South Coast, the North Coast, the outback or in the bush. We cannot have the Parliament reconvene each time, drag in every member from the North Tweed, Barwon, Broken Hill and all around the State so that we can vote that a hotel can be opened a couple of extra hours on a couple of extra days or perhaps only one day.

Another bill will be introduced that will have to survive upper House scrutiny. I think the Opposition is reading far too much into it if it thinks the Government would try to push through legislation that the member for Upper Hunter says contains blanket powers or is a Trojan Horse to deal with stalking or other offences. It is none of those things; it is common sense, as the member for Wollondilly says. It is added to the bill so the Minister can consider it as a special event. That would only be on the advice of the department and recognised by newspapers and radio that the event has regional, state, national or international significance. The shadow spokesman has highlighted it and I do not think his fears are justified. I believe the bill can go through as it is without need of amendment. It is simply an attempt not to have the Parliament brought back every time that we, or the public, consider there is some special event.

Mr THOMAS GEORGE (Lismore) [10.23 p.m.]: I speak on the Liquor Amendment (Special Events Hotel Trading) Bill and declare once again that I have an interest in a hotel. In saying that I would like to endorse what our shadow minister has just said. The Opposition does not oppose extending hotel trading hours for the Rugby World Cup. The shadow minister has foreshadowed a new Liquor Act and that is the appropriate time to discuss blanket ministerial approval, when it can be properly debated. The Government has the opportunity now to adjourn the debate on this bill and to avoid the amendment that was the shadow Minister foreshadowed would be moved in another place. We on this side fully support the Rugby World Cup extension of trading hours. However, giving a carte blanche approval to the Minister would be more appropriately addressed in the Liquor Act, which will be debated in the future.

Mr BARRY COLLIER (Miranda—Parliamentary Secretary) [10.25 p.m.], in reply: I thank the honourable members—

Mr George Souris: I am not telling you how to run your business, but you should be taking an adjournment.

Mr BARRY COLLIER: Thank you for the advice but—

[Interruption]

The SPEAKER: Order! The Parliamentary Secretary has the call.

Mr BARRY COLLIER: I thank the members for Wagga Wagga, Upper Hunter, East Hills and Lismore for their contribution to the debate. I note—to quote the words of the member for the Upper Hunter—that the Opposition wholeheartedly supports the opportunity for hotels to have extended trading hours but opposes giving the Minister power by regulation to make rules for extending trading hours for certain future events. I also note the issues raised by the member for Wagga Wagga about noise and disturbances around hotels. I will deal with that first.

I think it important to keep in mind that a significant number of hotels already have extended trading hours approved and they will not be affected by this legislation. Also some hotels may not wish to make use of extended hours. The extension will not overrule any previously imposed trading restrictions or other conditions that apply to an individual hotel licence. This includes restrictions imposed on hotel licences to reduce disturbances to the neighbourhood, such as reduced trading hours and lockouts. The bill does not overrule local council planning approvals.

The Government expects, and the law requires—I am sure the member for the Upper Hunter is interested in this—hotels to operate responsibly and to ensure no undue disturbance to the neighbourhood at all times. That applies equally to hotels trading under these provisions. Any hotel that does not do the right thing runs the risk of being disciplined by having its trading hours cut back. Those hotels would then be unable to make use of extended hours on significant occasions in the future. The Government expects the local hotel operators to keep that in mind when they make use of the extended hours provided by the bill. The licensees and patrons must comply with the responsible service of alcohol laws or future hotel trading during major sporting events will be put at risk. Patrons arriving at or leaving licensed premises are also expected to be mindful of surrounding residents. Many of the regions, including the Sutherland Shire, have a very well regarded and successful liquor accord.

As to the power given to the Minister to make a regulation to cover future significant events, that power will be extended to allow sales for consumption on the premises only to be prescribed on a day on which a special event is to be held or on a day immediately following such a day. It is important to realise, of course, that the special event must be an event of regional, State or national significance. That applies right across the board. It applies to events in the Upper Hunter, Wagga Wagga and Lismore. In fact, I think there is a note that the Australian Hotels Association expects the majority of hotels, other than those already operating with 24-hour licences, to participate in country areas. Of course, that includes hotels with strong sporting associations. Many of the country people who are interested in these sporting events will benefit from the extended trading hours.

The issue for hoteliers is that the broadcast schedules for international events are not often finalised until a month or two before those events. Often we do not even know whether the event will be telecast live to air on free-to-air television, pay television or any other local television channels until the last minute. The issue is not what world events are scheduled; the issue is what time these events will be broadcast. Often that is not known until one or two months before the event. Obviously, it is a waste of public money and resources to recall the House to pass an amendment every time a special event occurs. I have no doubt that if something went wrong subsequent to a special event the Opposition would be yelling and screaming.
I reiterate that for a regulation to be made the Minister must consider the event to be of regional, State, national or international significance. That may apply to any specified class of premises, such as hotels located in a particular area. I hope the member for Upper Hunter will note that the regulation-making power will provide for action to be taken quickly to cater for future events. The power has been included simply because the essential details are often not known until quite near the event, and it is not always possible for amendments to the Liquor Act to be made in time. The 2007 Rugby World Cup is a good example: arrangements can be made only now for finals matches, not for pool matches, because of the timing. The proposed regulation-making power will overcome that problem.

It is important to remember that the Government has no specific events in mind at this time. However, I have no doubt that when an event perceived by the member for Upper Hunter to be an event of regional importance is planned for his electorate he will be the first to knock on the Minister's door asking that the event be televised and that hotels be permitted to stay open a bit later so that supporters in sporting clubs in his electorate and his other constituents will be able to view the event at a hotel.

Mr George Souris: I am known for giving ample time.

Mr BARRY COLLIER: The member for Upper Hunter will be the first person to knock on the Minister's door, and when he asks his regional television station to televise the event the response probably will be, "Maybe, George—maybe not. We will discuss it a bit later."

The SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to continue his reply.

Mr BARRY COLLIER: The Government has no specific events in mind. Industry views will be considered. The member for Upper Hunter may note also that police have been consulted in relation to the extension of hotel trading hours, as I am sure they will be consulted in relation to the extension of other business trading hours during special events. I commend the bill to the House.

Question—That the bill be now agreed to in principle—put.

The House divided.

Question 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.

Bill introduced on motion by Mr Barry Collier, on behalf of Mr David Campbell.

Mr BARRY COLLIER (Miranda—Parliamentary Secretary) [10.40 a.m.], on behalf of Mr David Campbell: I move:

That this bill be now agreed to in principle.

The Anti-Discrimination Amendment (Breastfeeding) Bill provides for amendments to the Anti-Discrimination Act to remove any doubt that discrimination on the ground of breastfeeding is unlawful. The year 2007 marks the thirtieth anniversary of the Anti-Discrimination Act. Thirty years ago the New South Wales Parliament moved to outlaw discrimination on the grounds of race, sex and marital status in the areas of employment, the provision of goods and services and accommodation, and race discrimination in education. Since then the New South Wales Parliament has responded to deal with other forms of discrimination. The Anti-Discrimination Act now applies to discrimination on many grounds, including age, religion, disability, carers' responsibilities, pregnancy, homosexuality and transgender status. Discrimination on these grounds is rendered unlawful in the areas of employment, State education, goods and services, accommodation and registered clubs. Both direct and indirect discrimination are against the law.

The bill before the House seeks to further enhance the coverage of the Anti-Discrimination Act by removing any doubt that discrimination on the ground of breastfeeding is unlawful. Discrimination on the grounds of a person's sex or a characteristic that pertains to a person of that sex, or is generally imputed to a person of that sex, is already unlawful under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977. Pregnancy is specifically cited as a characteristic that appertains generally to women. The bill will insert a new provision into the Act to make it clear that breastfeeding is also a characteristic that appertains generally to women. The bill also provides that breastfeeding includes the act of expressing milk. The bill also makes it clear that a person is not to be treated as having unlawfully discriminated against a man on the ground of sex merely because that person grants a woman rights or privileges in connection with breastfeeding.

It is timely for New South Wales to clarify the law in this area. There is now considerable evidence to suggest that increasing levels of breastfeeding will bring important benefits for the health of the Australian community. Clearly, prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of breastfeeding will ensure that women who choose to breastfeed are protected from any discriminatory conduct that may impact on that choice. In 2003 the World Health Organisation and the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund endorsed their Global Strategy for Infant and Young Child Feeding, which drew attention to the need to provide facilities for breastfeeding women to be able to engage in employment outside the home while continuing to breastfeed. Enacting legislation to remove any doubt that discrimination on the grounds of breastfeeding is unlawful will make an important contribution to achieving this global goal. These amendments will provide breastfeeding mothers with the protection of the law, helping to ensure that children in this State are given the best start in life. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Greg Smith and set down as an order of the day for a future day.

Debate resumed from 25 September 2007.

Mr GREG SMITH (Epping) [10.44 a.m.]: I speak on behalf of the Opposition to the Crimes Amendment Bill 2007. Although the Opposition does not oppose the bill, we wish to refer to some aspects and criticise the Government for rushing through this legislation. The Government should not have amended the penalties for an offence of grievous bodily harm in a bill that also removes the concept of malice as defined in the Crimes Act and its predecessor from, I think, 1878. That definition, which has continued through the various Acts, admittedly is full of problems. However, the Government has used the very serious public and social issue of rock throwing as a Trojan Horse to rush through this legislation without allowing proper consultation or giving us the opportunity to speak to the stakeholders to determine whether they are satisfied with the draft bill.

It is all very well for the Government to say that it put out a discussion paper in 2005, although it was not prepared to give us a copy, and ask the Opposition to cooperate on this important piece of legislation. In a phone call to arrange an urgent meeting we were told the legislation solely related to rock throwing. To a great extent, the rock throwing issue was an afterthought by the Government. Last week, after the Opposition had been in the media saying we need a specific offence of rock throwing, the Premier came out and said that Cabinet had decided to increase the penalty for grievous bodily harm and look at the specific offence of rock throwing.

The Government has had at least nine years of warning about the offence of rock throwing. Back in 1998 there was an incident of rock throwing involving three young men at Menangle. On 22 August 1998 they parked their car on an overpass and removed rocks from the boot. They positioned the rocks on the top rails of the overpass on the southern and northern sides. As a semitrailer passed under the bridge they pushed off the rocks. Justice Michael Adams in his sentence judgment in the cases of Regina v Sutcliffe, Regina v McGoldrick and Regina v McGoldrick, [2000] New South Wales Supreme Court, 825, said:

It seems that the idea was to hit the trailers of the trucks as they came out from under the bridge, with one or more yelling that the truck was coming as it approached the bridge with the rocks being pushed off the railing as it emerged. I have no doubt that this was a cooperative exercise in which all four offenders were involved. At the end, three rocks were left on the railing. Two of them were pushed simultaneously off the railing by [one or more of the offenders] …

The two rocks crashed through the windscreen of the vehicle. At least one of them struck the driver in the chest, causing massive injuries and transecting the aorta, causing virtually immediate death. His vehicle went out of control, veered left striking the guard rail then right and travelled across the nature strip separating the north and south bound roadways, crossing the two northbound lanes and travelling up the western embankment where it came to a rest near a large tree.

A minute before another driver was driving his Kenworth road tanker laden with 20 tonnes of butane gas along the M5 freeway in the same direction. As he went under the Glenlee Road underpass he saw two large objects about the size of footballs fall directly in front of his truck and almost at the same time he heard a loud noise as though something had hit the cabin. He pulled into the breakdown lane, where he stopped and, upon inspection, found pieces of sandstone rock in the truck cabin and jammed into the roof area of the sleeper compartment. It is not clear which man threw the rocks. Vehicles are driven at about 100 kilometres an hour along the freeway and there is no doubt that when projectiles are thrown at them the risk of death is very high. After all, the driver of the first vehicle was killed in that manner.

This Government has been dragging the chain on this issue for nine years. I have described just one incident that occurred almost 10 years ago in which one man was killed by a rock the size of a football and another was put at risk of serious injury or death. Yet it has taken the Government almost 10 years to introduce legislation in this area, and even then it is not targeted specifically at this offence. In 2000 the Australian Capital Territory passed legislation that dealt specifically with this issue and a number of years ago the South Australian Parliament passed similar legislation banning the throwing of projectiles such as rocks at vehicles. The New South Wales Government has had years to act but what has it done? The Government has declared that it has solved the problem by increasing the penalties in the Crimes Act for maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm. It happened to have a bill ready that removes the word "malicious" and tacks on extra penalties, which the Government claims will cover the offence of rock throwing. That is garbage.
Last week when the Premier exited a press conference he said, "I've got the Attorney General and the police Minister looking at specific legislation to see what they can come up with." He said that while the shadow Minister for Police, the Hon. Michael Gallacher, and I were holding a press conference calling for specific legislation to address this massive social problem. It is long overdue. This year there have been some 50 arrests for this sort of offence. Yet the Government has not drafted specific legislation; it has simply introduced some amendments to the Crimes Act that will increase penalties. That does not send a message to the mad men and youths who would drop rocks on people's heads.

Two weeks ago rocks were thrown at two trains travelling between Eastwood and Pennant Hills. It is a widespread and common problem. Last weekend more rocks were thrown at vehicles on the South Coast. Just a few months ago Nicole Miller suffered serious injuries when she was struck in the head by a rock. The perpetrator of that offence was granted bail by a police sergeant; he did not even have to appear in court. What is that offender's charge? He is charged with negligently causing grievous bodily harm. There are no amendments to the penalty for that offence. What is the penalty for negligently causing grievous bodily harm? Does the member for Cronulla know? Is it 15 years, 10 years or maybe five years? No, it is two years. That is all the Government can come up with. Another charge might be added in the Nicole Miller case but those involved believe the evidence will satisfy only the charge that I have mentioned.

This Government has taken very little notice of this issue. It has acted now only because of public concern and the Opposition's call for a specific offence that picks up the penalty under section 33—25 years imprisonment for those who throw rocks and other projectiles deliberately. The Opposition will also consider introducing a private member's bill that includes that provision. We will also consider amending section 35 and introducing a specific offence of throwing rocks and other projectiles at vehicles. The Opposition will also consider removing the presumption in favour of bail. Why has the Government not addressed that issue? Nothing in this legislation will make it harder for offenders to get bail. The amendment to section 35 does not change that situation. It has been claimed that it is mainly children who commit these offences. That is not true: adults are also being charged with these offences. Unfortunately, there are some crazy people in the community.

The Government must educate the community. What has it done in the nine years since the Menangle incident? Has it distributed education materials to schools, colleges of advanced education and universities? Have there been any television campaigns about this major social problem? There are advertisements on television about smoking and the harm that it causes. We have advertisements on television about the damage that drinking excessive amounts of alcohol—and particularly drink driving—can do to the individual and to others. I agree that they are major problems. However, instead of spending so much taxpayers' money attacking the Opposition during the last election campaign, the Government should have warned the public about the consequences of people throwing rocks and other projectiles at vehicles, trains or ferries. Yet the Government has done nothing but increase the penalties; it has not introduced a specific offence.

I do not mean to criticise the officers who briefed me on this legislation yesterday. They were just doing their job and were extremely decent and courteous. However, they disclosed something that was not part of the previous arrangements. The legislation is not just about rock throwing; it removes the word "malicious" as a fault element for offences under the Crimes Act. That word is very important. I know that it has caused confusion and has been criticised over the years by various judges, including Justice Hunt, former Chief Judge at Common Law, and more recently by Justice Sully in the 2004 Livingstone case—to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred in his speech during the agreement in principle stage.

The criminal law should never be changed by ambush or in haste. This amendment should have been put to the legal community for further discussion. The Government should have said, "We've heard what you've said. Here is our bill. We will give you two or three weeks—a little time—to look at it and see whether you are happy with the way we have changed the law." Perhaps the Government did that but it did not have the courtesy to show the legislation to the Opposition. It did not ask, "Would you support this? Do you agree with these changes? Do you have any views or suggestions?" A good government that has mastery of its brief and cares about criminal justice and law and order would generally do that when making a major reform to the criminal law—which is what removing the word "malicious" amounts to. After all, criminal justice and law and order are among the major reasons why State governments exist. State governments ensure that the community is protected.

"Malice" is a widely used term. In the Livingstone case Justice Sully criticised the existing law and said that it needed more work. We do not disagree with that but we want a chance to review any amendments. We need time to do this, yet we first sighted this amendment only the day before the bill was introduced. The Government's bill is a Trojan Horse that purports to address the great social evil of throwing rocks and projectiles. Section 5 of the Crimes Act defines "maliciously" as being:

Every act done of malice, whether against an individual or any corporate body or number of individuals, or done without malice but with indifference to human life or suffering—

Does that constitute "recklessness"? What does the phrase "indifference to human life or suffering" mean? Is its meaning caught by the word "intention"? I do not think so. Does "reckless" mean the same thing? I do not think "recklessness" covers it either. The section continues:

or with intent to injure some person or persons—

"intent" is the main point of the section—

or corporate body, in property or otherwise, and in any such case without lawful cause or excuse, or done recklessly or wantonly—

In the expression "or done recklessly or wantonly", what was "or wantonly" intended to mean? We have the expression "wanton driving"—different from recklessness—but that has been eliminated now as a criminal offence. Section 5 continues:

shall be taken to have been done maliciously within the meaning of this Act.

The High Court in Lavender v The Queen—in which I appeared for the Crown and we won the appeal 7-0—looked at the confusion that had been caused by what appeared to be a definition of murder and manslaughter in section 18 of the Crimes Act, and that confusion had found itself in the Court of Criminal Appeal. Lavender v The Queen is a case of criminal negligence manslaughter where the driver of a front-end loader chased some boys into the scrub around a sand mine up near Newcastle. Instead of the driver just saying, "Go home. Get out of here", or something like that, he chased the boys and without being able to see or hear them he ran one of them over and killed him. He was convicted of manslaughter by negligence after proper directions were given to the jury in accordance with the law and in accordance with the decision of the Victorian Court of Criminal Appeal in the case of Nydam, which was the leading authority before Lavender on criminal negligence manslaughter.

The New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal worked out three different ways of looking at the matter. The court considered that in accordance with the definition of murder maybe the offence of manslaughter ought to have the element of malice in it too, which had never been considered a plausible argument by courts before—there had been the occasional mention of it but never any considered examination. Unfortunately, the court did not seek further assistance in the sense of asking for submissions on the statutory history of the section to see whether it was wrong and whether there is an explanation for the possibility that manslaughter requires malice as we see it. One of the problems with the criminal justice system in this State is that there are not enough judges to handle all the work in the Supreme Court and the Court of Criminal Appeal and it would have been very difficult to reconstitute the court to hear further argument.

In a 7-0 decision the High Court said the Court of Criminal Appeal got it wrong in the three different versions. The High Court said it was clear that manslaughter did not require malice. The court looked at the definition of malice and thought that it was not very helpful anyway. In the debate we looked at the fact that the Australian Capital Territory had changed its laws, which had originally mirrored our laws in the Crimes Act and had incorporated the old definition of malice that we still have—subject to the passing of this bill—and considered that they had not necessarily got it right either. It is not an easy thing just to say, "We will change the law simply by putting in the elements of intent and recklessness", because something could be missed.

I and the Opposition, on behalf of the people of New South Wales, would like the time at least to have a look at the documents, the arguments and the learned comments of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Senior Public Defender, the Law Reform Commission perhaps and the Criminal Law Review Division, not just to have the issue rushed into this Parliament as a Trojan Horse to deal with rock throwing. It is unfortunately an aspect of government in this State that at the moment there is not much order in the running of this Parliament and bills are suddenly brought on urgently. Why could we not have had some notice a few weeks ago? We are still doing our work out in our electorate offices; we are coming into Parliament regularly for conferences; we all work hard, but we would put time into something like this.

I, those advising me, and those who have an interest on our side—and there are many—would have put time into looking at this question of the amendment of "malice", because it is a fundamental issue; it is not something that should be rushed in. I notice the Government did not address the matter in its last parliamentary term: there was no foreshadowing of it and it was not on its election platform. It is not as if the Government had a mandate for it. This is an attempt to correct an anomaly but we should at least have had an opportunity to have a decent look at it, as should the stakeholders involved.

I mentioned the South Australian law that we will look at incorporating in our three-pronged bill. Section 32A (1) of that legislation, Throwing objects at vehicles, states that:

A person must not throw a prescribed object at, or drop a prescribed object on, a
vehicle that is being driven on a road or road-related area or being run on a busway,
railway or tramway (whether, at the time the object is thrown or dropped, the vehicle
is moving or stationary).

The offence carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for five years. I have not had time in the rush of this week to look at that from the point of view of finding equivalent legislation in New South Wales. I do not think there is any, but I might be wrong. I believe that throwing objects at vehicles should be banned in any legislation if the Government honours its suggestion mooted by the Premier last week that it will bring forward some specific legislation to cover rock throwing. I do not think people should benefit from the fact that what they threw missed hitting somebody or, in the case of a rock the size of a football, that it did not hit the driver. There should still be some sort of punishment for the act itself. Maybe the offence is covered in the area of assault or something of that sort at the moment but I am certainly not aware of anything specific. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will disabuse me of that view if I am wrong.

On the question of bail, whilst the Bail Act does not exist to punish people, there have already been a number of cutting and pasting amendments adding to the presumptions of bail and various other things. The Bail Act is a very confusing document, especially for journalists and the public generally. I think one probably needs to be a High Court judge to steer one's way through it, but I think it would be good to put in a presumption against the grant of bail for this most antisocial behaviour when it is compared with some of the other offences that do have a presumption against bail, for example, murder. Rock throwing can turn into a murder case; people may do it with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. In fact, in the case of McGoldrick the offenders were charged with murder because an act done with reckless indifference to human life—which the courts have treated slightly differently from other types of recklessness over the years—can be an act of murder and can receive very substantial punishment.

There is no criticism of the worthy advisers and staffers of the Attorney General who have cooperated with me and with the Opposition in assisting as much as they are allowed to do, but there is criticism of the Attorney General being at Government House yesterday when he should have been answering questions on this sort of issue. It was not important enough for Parliament to have question time; members headed down to Government House for afternoon tea. It is always a great pleasure to visit Her Excellency and she is doing a great job for this State, but I do not believe members should have gone to Government House and, as a result, not have question time.

The Attorney General has today released other comments about rape cases. We constantly look at each other's material and I am highly critical of him for what he has done. He is treating this Parliament as his toy, just as he has been treating other agencies of the criminal justice system with contempt. It is about time that he provided a good explanation about why this aspect of the legislation should be rushed through. Why could the Government not make an amendment to section 35 and the other sections increasing the penalties using the expression "maliciously" and allow us to look at the other issues with a little reflection and time so we can do our job and serve our community in the way it wants us to serve it and to ensure that the laws that determine how the criminal justice system operates are considered laws?

Mr MALCOLM KERR (Cronulla) [11.11 a.m.]: The people of New South Wales have every reason to be angry about the Government's treatment of this matter. It is an absolute disgrace. As members of Parliament would be aware, in recent times a number of people have thrown rocks at or dropped rocks on moving vehicles. Can the Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Attorney General seriously say, as he did yesterday, that it is only in recent times that he has been aware of the actions of these cowardly criminals? It has been going on for years. As the shadow Attorney General said, there was a notorious case 10 years ago and we are all aware of these incidents occurring every year. This problem should have been dealt with years ago, not yesterday. This Government has been in office for 11 years but we have had to wait until now for this measure. It is an insult to the people of New South Wales for any member of this Government to say that members have become aware of the situation only in recent times. All members have been aware of this problem for many years.
What is even more appalling is that the legal problems have been spelt out to this Government on a number of occasions. The Parliamentary Secretary confessed in the course of his agreement in principle speech that His Honour Judge Ducker of the New South Wales District Court made mention of this situation in his judgment in R v TRR. When was that delivered? Was it in recent times—last week, in the past few days or in March? No, it was delivered on 6 August 2003. The judge said that he considered the disparity in sentence and the low level of maximum sentence in relation to section 35 entitled "grievous harm offences" as irrational, unsustainable and in need of urgent reform—I repeat, urgent reform. This issue was a matter of public record on 6 August 2003; this Government would have been aware of it. When did the Parliamentary Secretary become aware of Judge Ducker's remarks?

Mr Barry Collier: When did you? When you read them in Hansard last night.

Mr MALCOLM KERR: Exactly! There was a Crown prosecution and public judgment. This Government should have been aware of it and it should have taken action on 7 August 2003. An examination of other Australian jurisdictions that have similar offences to maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm indicates that a maximum penalty of seven years is at the low end of maximum penalties imposed. What an extraordinary thing. Would it not have been a good idea on 7 August 2003 to look at the way other jurisdictions were dealing with the issue? We are now dealing with it on 26 September 2007. Surely given that this is a very serious problem that results in death and injuries—it is something that could happen to any member of this House or any member of their family as they are driving along—it should be above party politics and all of us should be engaged in trying to resolve it. The Parliamentary Secretary stated in his agreement in principle speech:

In light of the significance of this change, consultation has been undertaken with key stakeholders. In 2005 the Criminal Law Review Division of the Attorney General's Department issued a discussion paper which raised the prospect of replacing the term "maliciousness" throughout the Crimes Act. Formal responses were received from various stakeholders, including the Chief Magistrate of the Local Court, the Law Society of New South Wales, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales.

Will those responses be made available to the general public? Those matters are important and were referred to by the shadow Attorney General. The shadow Attorney General has had considerable experience of these matters and he referred to a case in which he appeared for the Crown before the High Court. One would have thought that any Government that was genuinely interested in dealing with this problem would have provided him with information to enable him to be of assistance and to make a contribution. That is not what happened. The Parliamentary Secretary detailed the extent of the consultation with the shadow Attorney General undertaken by this Government.

I level no criticism at officers of the Attorney General's Department, but I do criticise the Government for failing to consult an eminent person with experience in these matters who could have provided assistance to the people of New South Wales to get this legislation right. This is not simply a legal matter that can be resolved by rearranging words in the statute and increasing the penalties. The people of New South Wales want these actions to be potential offences rather than actual offences. The Parliamentary Secretary's agreement in principle speech contained not one word about any preventive action this Government is taking. It has been aware of the situation for years but it has said nothing about how it intends to prevent rock throwing.

This bill also deals with house breaking. Once again, the Parliamentary Secretary made a confession in the agreement in principle speech. He said that he was now turning to modernising and went on to discuss house breaking. It is 2007! Section 112 of the Crimes Act provides that an offence is committed by any person who breaks, enters and commits a serious indictable offence. Section 113 of the Act repeats the same list in relation to the offence of breaking and entering with intent to commit a serious offence. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the list is lengthy, old-fashioned and potentially contains gaps. What a discovery! It was held in 1970—37 years ago—that a building belonging to the Commonwealth is not a building belonging to His Majesty or any government department. Surely in 1970 it would have been a matter for Her Majesty.

Mr Barry Collier: The court said that.

Mr MALCOLM KERR: I note that the reference contains quotation marks. I acknowledge that the Parliamentary Secretary is pleading not guilty in that case, and that the Government is aware of the royal succession. The agreement in principle speech goes on, "More recently, in December 2003, District Court a judge found that a bowling and recreation club did not fit within any of the described premises." I would have thought that was a matter that should have been attended to back in 2003. We should not have had to wait until September 2007. I can inform the honourable member for Miranda that a bowling club is a significant activity in the shire and in New South Wales generally. Members of a bowling club should have been entitled to the further protection that was highlighted in the District Court more than four years ago. As I said, there is not just housebreaking. Matters relating to blackmail are included as sort of an all-embracing, let us throw a few things into the mix bill. As I said, the people of New South Wales should not have had to wait.

We may well find that this legislation is inadequate and has to be revisited. If that happens, it will be a matter of record that there has been a failure of consultation—that the member for Epping, given his background, could well have assisted. The people of New South Wales should have had more adequate consultation. Parliament has not sat for months, so the Government has had months to deal with that. "Recent times" should have included May or June 2007, and the Government should have been working on this legislation during the break, consulting the various stakeholders and the Opposition to get it right. This legislation is crucial to the welfare of the people of New South Wales and their families. It is simply not good enough, and the people of New South Wales have every reason to be angry with the approach taken by this Government.

Mrs DAWN FARDELL (Dubbo) [11.22 a.m.]: I shall not take much time, I will get straight to the point. I do not have the legal training of the members for Miranda, Epping and Cronulla, but I certainly appreciate the arguments of the members for Epping and Cronulla about the rushing through of this bill. It concerns me that we have not been fully briefed. This is important. Many of these issues raise their ugly head in my electorate of Dubbo. I would have liked to have had placed in front of me all the knowledge that the proponents of the bill have. While I have been away from this place for three months I have been active in my community, but I would have still found the time to research this bill thoroughly.

In Dubbo we currently hold whole-of-government meetings. The member for Tamworth came to last Friday's meeting. He was interested in how they had progressed, because decisions made at those meetings have reduced crime in Dubbo. The attendees at my meetings—me, local government, State government agencies, non-government agencies and Federal government agencies—would also have liked to have known what was in the brief that Government members received about the changes proposed by this bill, although those members were probably not fully conversant with them and would have voted as they were requested to vote. We would have liked to have had full details of that information. For example, paedophiles trying to groom children for sex is a major issue, particularly in the low-income communities.

Mr Barry Collier: Point of order: There is nothing in this bill, as I understand it, about grooming children for sex. It is more about malicious injury and damage. I understand the member is reading from a press release. There is no mention of those sorts of offences in this bill.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order; it is a point of clarification.

Mrs DAWN FARDELL: I am reading from the Premier's statement: "Paedophiles who try to groom children for sex". That is where I have taken my comments from. Are rock throwers covered by the bill? I am aware there have been some fatal incidents in various parts of the State, but they have been committed by adults. In the electorate of Dubbo the rock throwers are young children. Where does the bill address the treatment for them? Are juveniles, the under-10s, untouchable? What Act do they come under when they are throwing rocks at buses? The bill also refers to causing grievous bodily harm, people who do not control dogs, and blackmail offences. What types of incidents of blackmail offences is the Government aware of that I am not aware of? I would like to know why those offences had to be included in this major penalty package that was unveiled yesterday.

I need to know these things. If, in a short time, I have to cast my vote I would have to vote against the bill because of my ignorance of what is in the bill, not having been properly briefed. It is being rushed through. It should be explained clearly to me so I can understand an issue before I have to vote for or against it. I will vote for it if I agree with it, but at the moment I cannot, because I do not have enough information. In December 2006 we rushed through legislation concerning riots. Following riots in the following January the legislation was challenged by those who were arrested. A technicality in the law had been overlooked because the legislation was rushed through, and the police were made to look like fools. I do not want to look a fool by voting on an issue that I do not have enough information on. By all means let us proceed with this debate but let us not vote on it until all members of this place are fully informed.

Mr GREG APLIN (Albury) [11.26 a.m.]: I make a contribution on the Crimes Amendment Bill 2007 and represent the views of the constituents of the electorate of Albury in connection with the particular provisions of recklessly causing grievous bodily harm. I refer particularly to the throwing of missiles onto roadways. I am concerned that the bill attaches importance only to the commission of the act of causing grievous bodily harm rather than to the intention to cause grievous bodily harm. I refer the Minister to an incident that occurred in Albury only last week which I believe would signify the importance of addressing the issue of intention rather than just the causing of grievous bodily harm.

A gaping hole was discovered in wire mesh on an overpass over the freeway that runs through Albury-Wodonga. This hole was discovered to be as large as a person's head and was clearly cut directly above the northbound lane of the Albury-Wodonga Freeway deliberately for the launching of missiles at vehicles. The cutting of such a hole obviously signifies an intention to cause grievous bodily harm and in itself is not the cause of grievous bodily harm. But I believe that people who indulge in such behaviour obviously exhibit an intent and should fall within the provisions of this bill. People who cut holes in fences on bridges should be charged with something other than malicious damage, given that this bill has been introduced specifically to attack incidents that have been prevalent in New South Wales for far too long but particularly over recent weeks.

This particular hole in the wire mesh was discovered some four weeks ago and was reported to the management company for that freeway and to council and was then referred to the Roads and Traffic Authority. It was only when the local newspaper was contacted and visited that action was taken to repair the hole. That is not good enough. I ask that incidents like this, when reported, receive treatment and attention more immediately, and that the police are alerted so they can endeavour to apprehend the criminal elements who create situations whereby they can launch missiles. We are not concerned merely with rocks; any missile can cause an accident.

I refer to another recent incident in Albury: the launching of a shopping trolley onto the southbound lane between Dean Street and Kenilworth Street pedestrian bridge one weekend. It is uncertain as to how the shopping trolley came to rest on the freeway. It is more likely that it was launched from the side of the road than from the overpass, but that incident again illustrates the fact that we are not dealing only with stones or rocks, dangerous as they are, but with a whole host of missiles. Indeed, any missile that unexpectedly lands on a vehicle travelling at high speed, particularly on the windscreen, is likely to cause significant damage. It is only through sheer luck or the ability of the driver to avoid an accident that grievous bodily harm is avoided.

That goes to the heart of the bill, which looks only at the injury rather than the possibility that an accident was avoided only by good luck or sheer ability. In those situations the alleged perpetrators should fall within the ambit of the bill and should be charged accordingly. Police in the Albury area have had reports of flowerpots and stones being lobbed onto the freeway, but at that stage the perpetrators could only be charged with endangering life. Those incidents were not confined to juveniles, so clearly we need an educational process to be instituted. The bill should cover the launching of all missiles that could cause grievous bodily harm and the intention to cause such injury. In the words of the police, the throwing of these missiles might seem like a fun thing to do, but it can cause serious injury and it can kill.

In October last year an Albury businesswoman said it was only a matter of time before someone was seriously injured or killed by rocks being thrown at cars on the Union Bridge. At that stage that was the bridge across the Murray River linking Albury and Wodonga and was part of the Hume Highway. This lady was still shaking after being showered with glass when a rock struck the windscreen of her vehicle. She was travelling with her son at two o'clock in the afternoon when the rock struck. She described it as being like a gun going off. She said:

We didn't see anything or anyone. The first thing we knew was when it hit the windscreen. We were both showered with glass but neither of us was injured. We were just lucky. If the rock had come through the window, who knows what might have happened?

As it happened, the rock bounced. The lady kept a level head and was particularly lucky. She made the observation that had she swerved or acted impulsively she could have ended up under a B-double, the type of vehicle that constantly uses the Hume Highway. Indeed, the bill is deficient in that it takes no account of the circumstances in which this woman found herself. She and her son were not injured, but she could easily have caused an accident by swerving and forcing a B-double truck to run off the highway into other vehicles, thus causing tremendous carnage. Although kids and others might think that is funny, it is only a matter of time before someone is seriously injured or killed.

The bill is only now being introduced, despite a litany of concerns that have been raised by the media and by members over many years. It seeks to address an issue that has been looming for some time but has been neglected. In 2000 a Border Mail photographer caught two boys hiding behind the pylon next to the bridge lobbing rocks at cars. Two months later there were reports of children throwing rocks from Borella Road towards construction workers driving large machinery, so these incidents are not isolated events in the border area. We know only too well of fatalities and serious incidents that have occurred over many years throughout New South Wales. It is time for action. The bill is long overdue and it should take into account intention, not only the actual causation of grievous bodily harm.

Mr JOHN TURNER (Myall Lakes) [11.34 a.m.]: Opposition speakers have referred to the tardiness of the bill. The Opposition does not oppose the bill, but we ask the Parliamentary Secretary to address in reply why it has taken so long to come before the House and why it is now being rushed through. My contribution relates to problems in my electorate, particularly in the Purfleet area. Police responded to a letter I wrote following a rock-throwing outbreak in Purfleet in June of this year. They stated that such incidents had been a problem in the area for 20 years. That highlights the extent of the problem, which is generally caused by juveniles, or sometimes by juveniles imitating older people who throw rocks. In the June outbreak there were 10 reported incidents of rocks being hurled. An article in the Manning River Times of 27 June 2007 states:

Some Manning River residents who contacted the Times say they are now too afraid of being hit by rocks to drive between the two roundabouts at night.

The alternate route to Taree would require them to travel a considerable distance further, but some people have been doing that to avoid the Purfleet area. One lady whose vehicle was hit by a rock said that she and her husband stopped the vehicle and discovered that it had been hit by pavers on the passenger doors, the side skirt and the bonnet. She said:

It's beyond a joke out there.

She was afraid that it was only a matter of time before someone is killed. Valerie from Wingham said that she was driving between the two roundabouts on Sunday night about seven o'clock with her two-year-old son in the back seat when she heard the thud of an object. She assumed it was a rock hitting the passenger door about 20 centimetres below the window. She said:

My biggest fear is that it is going to hit the window when there is a little child in the back—glass could go in their eyes or anything.

They are quotes from people who were involved in incidents at that time. I made representations to the police on behalf of Mr Peacock, who said he was the fifth car that night that had been hit by rocks. He reported the incident to the police, who took the matter seriously. However, the difficulty was catching people in the act. Mr Peacock said:

I was only lucky that the rocks or pavers … that was thrown did not go through the window and hit my wife.

He had $2,000 worth of damage done to his car. Police have attempted to solve the problem but it is difficult to identify the perpetrators. Police caught and took action against the perpetrator, who, unfortunately, was a 10-year-old child. The area commander said in his letter to me:

It is well accepted that the majority of offenders are juveniles that live in, or frequent the Purfleet area. The offenders are generally Aboriginal juveniles under the age of 10 years.

There has been reference to education. I give the police yet another tick. The commander also said:

The Manning Great Lakes Local Area Command's Youth Liaison Officer, Senior Constable Ray Slade and the Aboriginal Community Liaison Officers have spoken to numerous other suspects and the parents in an attempt to cease the practice. We also co-sponsored a local 10 week education program which targeted the juveniles and attempted to educate them on the dangers of rock throwing. Unfortunately, this program stopped after 7 weeks due to the failure of the juveniles to turn up for the voluntary program.

In the circumstances that was unfortunate. Obviously this is a real problem statewide, and in parochial terms I must say that it has been a huge problem in my electorate for many years. I am not sure that this legislation will stop it. It will send a very strong message to the community and to those involved that finally the Government has become serious about the problem and is attempting to do something about it. I can only hope that there is a better educative program to try to stop younger people from taking part in this activity. They must be taught what their responsibilities are and the consequences of their actions. In particular, their parents must be brought to account; they must be part of the cure as well.

Mr ROBERT OAKESHOTT (Port Macquarie) [11.44 p.m.]: I endorse the Crimes Amendment Bill 2007. The explanatory note identifies only in general terms some of the substantial issues in the bill. On the surface the bill looks good, but I hope that when legislation such as this comes before the House in the future the explanatory notes go into greater detail. The explanatory note certainly refers to the increases in penalties for causing grievous bodily harm as a result of rock throwing. My electorate on the mid North Coast is alongside the electorate of the member who has just spoken, and I confirm what he said: rock throwing is a real issue. In the Taree community, with the Pacific Highway passing nearby, rock throwing causes the community a lot of concern at various times. The bill makes important changes in many areas of the law and I hope they will make a difference.

The other point I wish to make is that, of all the legislation we deal with in this House, legislation dealing with the criminal law is one area in which it makes sense to follow national principles. I hope we all agree with that. A great deal of work has been done by various Australian governments to develop uniform criminal codes. Without having gone through the detail in the bill I assume—and I certainly hope—that the amendments in it fit in with the national reforms that the States and Commonwealth are attempting to implement in an effort to develop uniform criminal codes. I hope the difficulties caused by State boundaries in regard to the prosecution of criminal acts are long behind us. I hope the reforms in the bill are not just the reforms of a barrister who is now the Attorney General, and that they actually fit in with national principles and with the direction that the States and the Commonwealth are taking in regard to the criminal law. With that reservation, I certainly endorse the direction of the bill.

Mrs JUDY HOPWOOD (Hornsby) [11.46 a.m.]: I speak briefly to the Crimes Amendment Bill 2007 because of a couple of incidents that have happened in the electorate of Hornsby. The object of the bill is to amends the Crimes Act 1900 by increasing penalties for the reckless infliction of grievous bodily harm, by replacing "malicious" as a fault element of offences with the modern fault element of "intention" or "recklessness", by modernising blackmail offences and by making other reforms of the criminal law. The bill increases the penalty for recklessly causing grievous bodily harm from 7 years to 10 years and from 10 years to 14 years for an offence committed in company, replaces existing blackmail and extortion offences with offences based on the Model Criminal Code, ensures that for all offences under the Act the infliction of grievous bodily harm includes causing a person to contract a grievous bodily disease, and extends the offence of breaking and entering dwelling-houses or certain other commercial or government buildings and committing, or intending to commit, a serious indictable offence to buildings of any kind.

On at least two occasions—and there are perhaps more that I do not know about—rock and egg throwing incidents in my electorate have had the potential to cause a great deal of harm. The first of these incidents involved a driver and the second involved two young women who were getting into their car after leaving a friend's house at Mount Colah. On the first occasion a young woman was driving her small vehicle home along the Pacific Highway. She was about to turn left into Beryl Avenue in Mount Colah when suddenly there was a huge crash on her windscreen, which caused a great deal of alarm. This was the result of perpetrators throwing a rock which could have caused serious injury to the young woman. She was lucky that the rock did not enter her vehicle. If it had done so it could have occasioned serious injury. The windscreen cracked and sustained considerable damage.

Rock-throwing does not have to be from an overhead bridge. On this occasion the rock was thrown from adjacent bushland on to the roadway, the perpetrators obviously taking advantage of the fact that the driver was slowing down to make the left-hand turn. It could have been a bullet. The matter was reported to the police, but the perpetrators had every opportunity to get away. In the second incident eggs were thrown from a vehicle towards two young women who were leaving a friend's house in the same area of Mount Colah. One of the young women sustained severe welts to her legs and arms. The second was wearing a tracksuit, which tended to reduce the amount of damage. Those uncooked eggs were obviously designed to smash upon impact and inflict pain. If they had hit one of those young women in the eye it could have led to a loss of sight. The bill also relates to many other aspects of the law, but it is extremely important to emphasise the unacceptability of missiles being thrown. Missiles can be thrown from places other than overhead bridges and they can be objects other than rocks. Anything that is thrown from any place with the intention to cause mischief can be extremely dangerous.

Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON (Burrinjuck) [11.49 a.m.]: I endorse the comments that have been made thus far by my colleagues in relation to the Crimes Amendment Bill 2007. The object of the bill is to increase penalties for causing grievous bodily harm as a result of the throwing of rocks or other missiles from 7 years to 10 years and from 10 years to 14 years for an offence committed in company. The bill also removes "malicious" as a fault element of offences under the Act and replaces it with the modern fault element of "intention" or "recklessness". The shadow Attorney General has made a comprehensive contribution to the debate. He outlined the many areas in relation to these offences that he believes need amendment or correction. I will not go over those again because he has done an excellent job.
The bill ensures that the offence of inflicting grievous bodily harm includes causing a person to contract a grievous bodily disease. It also extends the offence of breaking and entering dwelling-houses or certain other commercial or government buildings and committing, or intending to commit, a serious indictable offence to buildings of any kind. As the member for Hornsby and other members have said, a spate of rock throwing attacks has been taking place across the State. I regularly travel along the Hume freeway—I know the member for Monaro frequently does as well—and this spate of attacks is a serious issue for all commuters at some point or another.

Just yesterday I was driving along William Street, through the Kings Cross tunnel and over the other side towards Ocean Street. On a pedestrian overpass a fellow was leaning over with something in his hand. As I was aware of this bill coming before the House, I wondered whether a missile was about to hit my windscreen. He only had a camera—although if he dropped it, it could have caused some damage—and there was obviously no ill intent. Many things can be done to deter this dangerous behaviour. Since 1999 or 2000 specially made grilles have been installed on the overpasses along the Hume Freeway to stop people throwing rocks.

Much more can be done to deter people from throwing rocks, particularly from overpasses onto heavy traffic, such as at either end of the Cross City Tunnel and exit roads and along William Street. The Government should erect more grilles to discourage delinquents and others from throwing missiles and risking the lives and limbs of drivers and passengers. I raise that point because it has not yet been canvassed in this debate. If we take these positive steps to deter this type action in the long run it will save a lot of taxpayers' money. As I said at the outset, the shadow Attorney General did an excellent job in speaking to the bill and I do not need to add further to his comments.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [11.53 a.m.]: I speak briefly to the Crimes Amendment Bill 2007. As previous Coalition speakers have said, the position, in a broad sense, has been put very effectively by the shadow Attorney General. For the reasons given, the Coalition does not oppose the bill. I speak to the bill because the incident that gave rise to it, or at least the amendments relating to malicious damage caused by a missile, occurred in my electorate. When the incident became public the Northern Beaches Local Area Command responded effectively. I acknowledge Inspector Paul Devaney and the numerous police officers who responded to the incident on a cold and wet night at Allambie Heights. I have an interest in this matter because John Marinovic is a young man who is extremely well known to me. In fact, John, who is a great basketballer, has spent many, many hours in my house over the past few years.

On many occasions he has been in the company of me and my family. I was quite disturbed to learn that a person had thrown a rock and injured one of our young people on the northern beaches, but I was particularly disturbed when the injured person was someone I knew so well. I was pleased that the police were out doing the work that we expect from them in difficult circumstances on a cold night. I formally thank the various officers, both junior and senior, who went through the grass verge off Allambie Road under spotlight. They did an amazing job, responding in very difficult circumstances some hours after the event, once they had been notified of the offence. On behalf of the community I also formally thank the police from the Northern Beaches Local Area Command, particularly Inspector Paul Devaney, for the work they did and continue to do. I have heard reports that they are still working very hard in the North Curl Curl area to find out who threw the rock that caused the major injury to Johnny Marinovic.

There is a lesson that young people can learn from this incident. It seems that some skylarking was going on before the rock was thrown. Year 12 students are now coming to the end of their school life, not just on the northern beaches but right across New South Wales. I issue this warning to young people right across the State: They might think it is funny to go out and throw eggs or do something silly, but people may respond in a wholly inappropriate and extremely dangerous way. Egg throwing can be extremely dangerous. Throwing any object from a vehicle is a dangerous pursuit. Young people who will be celebrating the end of their school life in the next week or so should think about that and avoid any action that potentially will hurt them or others.

I have raised an issue with the Government about the bill. Perhaps at some stage the Government could address my concerns. About two years ago I was on the receiving end of a rock. Whilst driving along the Cahill Expressway, at the west end as I passed under a bridge, I was afraid that an object would hit my car. The legislation addresses the aspect of grievous bodily harm. I believe the legislation needs to be reviewed and that throwing any object at a car should be made an offence with a substantial deterrent. When it occurred to me I was distracted from what I was doing. It is a horrible experience to have an object thrown at you. I was lucky it did not do major damage to my car. I stopped and looked to see who had thrown the object. In normal circumstances on roadways it is extremely dangerous for people to throw anything at a vehicle. I suggest that at some point the Government needs to examine whether there is sufficient deterrent against throwing an object at a moving vehicle, let alone causing damage, as is referred to in section 35, which has been amended with increased penalties. Section 35 (1) states:

A person who, in the company of another person or persons, recklessly causes grievous bodily harm to any person is guilty of an offence.

I believe we should go one step further and provide that throwing an object at a car should be sufficient to warrant an appropriate penalty. I raise that issue with the Government and ask that we address it in the future. On my behalf and on behalf of the local community I wish Johnny Marinovic and his family the best. I know that his medical condition is improving and, hopefully, he will be out of hospital very soon. On behalf of the community I extend our best wishes to Johnny and his family, particularly his parents, Sharon and Mark Marinovic, and his sister. I am sure they have been through a horrific experience. No-one would want their son to be in that situation.

Mr BARRY COLLIER (Miranda—Parliamentary Secretary) [11.58 a.m.], in reply: I thank the members for Epping, Cronulla, Dubbo, Albury, Myall Lakes, Port Macquarie, Hornsby, Burrinjuck and Wakehurst for their contributions to the debate. Throwing rocks is dangerous and stupid and the people who throw them are not just cowards: they are criminals who should face tough jail terms. I wish to respond to issues that were raised by various speakers. In recent times a spate of rock throwing has occurred, as was acknowledged by the member for Burrinjuck. The Government is concerned about the recent attention this issue has gained in the media. There is a strong possibility that people may be attempted to commit copycat offences.

The Government is specifically concerned that this type of activity may occur during the fast-approaching school holiday period. Many New South Wales families will be on the roads over the next two weeks. The Government is determined to send a clear and strong message that this dangerous and idiotic activity should stop. Members will note that the new provisions and increased penalties relating to recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm commence on the assent of the bill. The Government is of the view that they should be in place by the end of the week.

I note that the Opposition supports the provisions of this bill, which are about sending a strong and clear message to the community in relation to not only rock throwing but other offences also. The member for Myall Lakes and the member for Port Macquarie wanted to know whether changes to the legislation reflect changes to the national criminal codes. I am advised that that is so and that the extortion offences outlined in the bill are very good examples of that. This bill needed to be passed urgently because of public concern and attention drawn by the media recently to the spate of rock throwing in the community.

In relation to amendments being dealt with separately to increase penalties and to delete the word "maliciously", those members who have read the bill will clearly see that there are two sets of amendments. These are interwoven and relate to section 35. The Government's view is that these amendments need to travel together in order to minimise confusion and avoid the undesirable result of having to amend the same provision twice in the same parliamentary session.

The member for Wakehurst raised the issue of a standalone offence in relation to the act of throwing things at vehicles. It is my understanding that the Attorney General and the police Minister are looking at this issue. All members raised particular concerns about cases that have arisen in the circumstances of rock throwing and other unlawful activities that have occurred in their electorates. I point out that there have always been offences to deal with these types of criminal activities from murder down to lesser crimes, as the shadow Attorney General indicated. I understand that the historical case of Sutcliffe the shadow Attorney General referred to was dealt with under the charge of manslaughter, which carries a maximum penalty of 25 years. But for many, many years other offences from murder down to manslaughter, grievous bodily harm, malicious damage and assault have existed.

The member for Albury raised a number of issues about people cutting holes in fences to gain access to places from where they can throw rocks off rail bridges and so on. I point out to the member for Albury that there are a number of offences with which persons can be charged in the circumstances he described—malicious damage and common assault are just two. The law of attempt is very relevant also to those offences. Perhaps the member for Albury should read the bill a little more closely: it takes into account intention and recklessness. The member for Dubbo spoke of certain events in her electorate. Those matters also could be dealt with now under the existing criminal code.
The member for Cronulla raised the issue of penalties. Assault penalties have been in place since 1900. Whether the Liberal Party should have amended the penalties when it was in government is a matter for the Liberal Party. It has had opportunities to deal with the concerns it has, to change the term "maliciously" and so on. The responses by the member for Cronulla and the shadow Attorney General show again that the Opposition has no plan. The Opposition has no ideas—nothing. But the Government is doing something about this particular problem.

Another issue raised was in relation to bail. The Government is examining the operation and effectiveness of the Bail Act. The review will look at the general issue of bail presumptions. Magistrates have certain discretions under the Bail Act, and amendments to the Bail Act are clearly outside the scope of this bill, which refers to another Act. The term "maliciousness" has always caused problems for judges, lawyers, defendants, the general public—

Mr Brad Hazzard: And the Opposition.

Mr BARRY COLLIER: —the Opposition and the media too. If the shadow Attorney General thinks the media have problems with the Bail Act, having read out the definition of "malicious" as it appears in section 5 of the Crimes Act, he will have even more problems with the term "malicious". Judicial criticisms of "malicious" have suggested that the term be replaced with modern mental fault elements such as "recklessly" or "intentionally". That is what we have done. No court or legal practitioner has ever suggested that "wantonly" or any other archaic term should be used. In fact, it was quite often difficult to get a conviction even for offences such as wanton driving, which was mentioned by the shadow Attorney General. When we refer to the model criminal code and the development of the criminal law in line with the national code these terms are certainly not used. We are making changes in line with changes made to the national code.

Much has been made about consultation. Changing the law in relation to the term "malicious" is a change of significance and consultation has been undertaken with key stakeholders. In 2005 the Attorney General's Department first proposed the reform and the Director of Public Prosecutions was invited to comment. Formal responses were received from the various stakeholders including the Chief Magistrate of the Local Court, the Law Society, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales. I am advised that there was general support amongst all respondents, with the idea of deleting all reference to the word "maliciously" in existing offences and instead inserting the term "recklessly" or "intentionally", as required.

The Director of Public Prosecutions was invited to comment. The shadow Attorney General stated that if he had had the time he would have looked at it. The member for Cronulla suggested that, had the shadow Attorney General been given the opportunity to consider it, it would have been a good thing, given his experience. I do not question the level and degree of experience of the shadow Attorney General, who is a Senior Counsel and was senior Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions. But, although the shadow Attorney General claims he had no knowledge of the discussion paper and that he would have had a look at it if he had had time, the fact is that the shadow Attorney General was Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions at the time we sought advice from the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Surely Mr Cowdery and the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions talked to each other and surely the shadow Attorney General had every opportunity as Deputy Director of Prosecutions to have input into that discussion paper. Perhaps the shadow Attorney General, as he is now, was on leave, but I would have thought the Director of Public Prosecutions would have consulted his right-hand man, Mr Greg Smith, SC, at the time. It is trite for the shadow Attorney General to say in this House that he did not know about the matter, that he did not have an opportunity to look at it and that nobody spoke to him about it.

A crossbench briefing was provided yesterday to the Independent members of the House, and I understand that Mrs Fardell could have participated. However, I am sure that if she has any further inquiries or would like to discuss the issue she can do so with officers of the Attorney General's Department. The Government believes that this bill sends a strong message that this dangerous and idiotic activity should stop and that the residents of New South Wales travelling during the school holidays have every right to do so in safety. I again note that the Opposition supports the bill and that it sees it as an important measure. 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 27 June 2007.

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE (Bega) [12.11 p.m.]: The Motor Dealers Amendment Bill 2007 has two main purposes: First, to eliminate duplication of forms filled out by motor dealers transferring second-hand or demonstration cars to another motor dealer; and, secondly, to include demonstrator vehicles within the definition of second-hand motor vehicles.

New South Wales has a large and important motor vehicle wholesale, retail and repair industry. It is predominantly made up of small businesses. Of 20,000 businesses, 96.2 per cent have fewer than 20 employees, 11 .3 per cent of businesses are in retailing and the other 88.7 per cent are in vehicle services. Half of all businesses are non-employing; in other words, the operators are self-employed people. The other 10,000 businesses employ 84,600 people, with 29 per cent working in retail and the other 71 per cent in services. So the motor vehicle sector is of huge significance to the New South Wales economy and the wellbeing of those reliant on the industry, whether as consumers or for their incomes.

The Liberal Party and The Nationals hold the industry in high regard and thank the businesses for their continuous efforts to improve protections and standards for consumers. We particularly acknowledge the tireless efforts of the Motor Traders Association, which has for many decades worked to secure sensible and fair reforms for industry that also benefit consumers. Let us not forget that businesses want happy customers, and an enormous effort has been made by the car industry to develop long-term relationships with customers and to secure repeat business. This is healthy for employment, consumers and the ongoing viability of a very competitive and challenging industry.

The Minister indicated in her second reading speech that this legislation is the result of a 2006 Small Business Regulatory Review Taskforce review of red tape in the motor industry. Businesses involved in the review included new and used car dealers, smash repairers, service stations, auto electricians, tyre dealers, tow truck operators and auto dismantlers. The Motor Traders Association and the Service Station Association were represented on the task force. The report was completed in July 2006 and the Government said it fully supported the recommendations. Today is 26 September 2007, so it has taken more than a year for these matters to be debated in the Parliament. Perhaps we should not complain, because plenty of other matters date back before 2006 on which the Government has pledged action but which are stuck in the overflowing ministerial in-tray. The reforms to the Retirement Villages Act, regulation of mortgage brokers and substantial changes to the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal are but a few matters that have turned the residents of New South Wales blue from holding their breath waiting for action promised years ago by the New South Wales Labor Government.

The Government says it supports the findings of the task force that reviewed the motor industry, but the Minister has not provided detail to the House about progress in implementing those recommendations. The bill is welcome in that it reduces duplication of forms and clarifies the definition of a "demonstrator", and the Opposition supports that. However, I would appreciate the Minister telling the House in her reply what has happened to the other recommendations that were "fully supported" more than a year ago. They included: eliminating specified equipment lists for categories of motor vehicle repairers; addressing anomalies in the existing categories of motor vehicle repairers to address uncertainty and confusion; writing to the Federal Minister concerning environmental issues; and recommendations in relation to occupational health and safety, WorkCover, business names registration, the sharing of information across agencies including Commerce, the Attorney General's Department and the Cabinet Office; and greater consistency in inspections by local government and New South Wales Government agencies. A lot of work has been undertaken by the task force and it is important, more than a year after its release, that the Minister has followed through. Will she inform the Parliament of what has been achieved?

This bill deals with the discovery made by the task force that motor dealers had to fill out different forms for different government agencies that in effect asked for the same information. The bill addresses that and reduces the number of prescribed forms from 19 to 15. It will particularly affect the wholesale market by reducing red tape for inter-trade dealing. Given that there are 600,000 inter-trade transfers a year, the Opposition welcomes this improvement. It is also anxious that the Fair Trading Commission follow through on these reforms by monitoring industry compliance to ensure Form 2s—known as police books—are kept up to date with accurate vehicle identifiers because this is where opportunities may exist for criminals to enter incorrect information.

I understand the Fair Trading Commission has assured the motor industry that vehicles known as "demonstrators" can still be marketed and that stamp duty exemptions still apply. I also understand from the Minister's second reading speech that warranties for demonstrator vehicles that are more generous than the statutory warranties for used cars will not be affected. Businesses in the motor industry are all concerned to eliminate fraud and theft, not only to ensure the good reputation of dealers but also because dealers are often the targets and the victims of criminals rebirthing cars and winding back odometers and other unscrupulous behaviour.

The Motor Traders Association has worked tirelessly over the years to make positive suggestions. Many relate to our state-based system of regulation and more needs to be done to eliminate crime that is occurring because of gaps between government agencies and between States. It is all very well for governments to tell industry what they must do to prevent opportunities for crime, but it is incredibly frustrating when a creaky old Government allows great gaping loopholes in its own systems that are obviously and easily being exploited by criminals. Government must play its part if the crime prevention effort is to work as a whole. Minister Burney has said a great deal in this debate about the importance of "written off vehicle data". Mr David Smith of the Motor Traders Association has written to the Opposition asking:

Given the significance of this matter, why is it that New South Wales REVS does not carry all or the most up to date information relating to the written off vehicle history of a motor vehicle?

The MTA highlighted to the Government in October 2006 that this was occurring and when a response finally did arrive in 2007 the answer was that the system would be modified "early 2007" to provide greater protection.

I have been advised by the Office of Fair Trading that the system is currently undergoing testing on an upgraded service, but consumers and businesses still do not currently have access to all written off vehicle data via REVS. While this issue has been in the "too hard basket" countless unsuspecting consumers and businesses have found that they have done their REVS check only to discover at a later time that their vehicle is listed on a written off vehicle register in another jurisdiction, usually Queensland ...

In addition to this, vehicles that are written off in another jurisdiction are all too readily accepted for re-registration by the New South Wales RTA, albeit as a high risk vehicle. The RTA knows they have been written off, yet REVS does not.

This bill is apparently all about cutting red tape. I respectfully suggest the Government has a very long way to go to get its house in order, to reduce inefficient regulation, to make the system operate effectively and to ensure proper protection of consumers and businesses. Finally, I note the Government's statement in the summary of the task force report:

The Taskforce believes that the best way to find out about small business regulation is by asking small business operators.

The Opposition understands that, when asked, both small business and industry associations have been telling the Government a move from 12-month licences to three-year licences would be a major improvement and would reduce red tape and regulation burden. It is pointed out that builders have three-year licences so why not motor dealers and motor vehicle repairers? This is not just about the Minister asking; it is also about listening to the answer. This request for three-year licensing has been made for a number of years and it has simply been ignored. Why? I hope the Minister will explain her position, as it seems wooden headed and inflexible, at a time when the Government seeks to brag about cutting red tape. The Opposition supports this bill. We will listen carefully to what the Minister has to say in reply, in particular in answer to the questions I have raised. On the issue of licensing we reserve our right to pursue the matter further in another place, depending upon the Minister's response today.

Mr ROBERT COOMBS (Swansea) [12.20 p.m.]: The ability of small business owners to get on with the job of running their businesses with the minimum amount of government red tape is an ongoing concern for the private sector. Of course, any attempt to reduce regulation and the overall red tape burden on small business must be carefully balanced with the need for appropriate oversighting and controls. The motor trade continues to be an area of high risk for consumers, and can be used as a path to legitimising and disposing of stolen, written-off and encumbered vehicles. This bill sets an even and fair-handed approach. Dealerships are mostly made up of small businesses that employ fewer than 20 people. They are less able to absorb the cost of meeting unnecessary red tape.

Any reforms that lessen the burden of paperwork on small businesses are to be applauded. In this regard, the amalgamation, merging and streamlining of a number of forms as set out by the Minister, plus the complete abolition of others, are welcome changes. The forms and registers prescribed by the Act contain a lot of valuable information for consumers. Advice on any statutory warranty that may apply, identifier details about the vehicle, when a pink slip should be provided and advice on written-off status and any encumbrances is provided. The changes ensure that this information is still provided. The changes also ensure that police and Fair Trading investigators can continue to enforce the law. Each form and register provides an auditable trail of a vehicle's history. Forms can be used to help in the investigation of odometer interference, consumer fraud and car theft and re-birthing. The changes will still allow the information to be accessed from a register directly or through the information held by the Roads and Traffic Authority. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr STEVE WHAN (Monaro—Parliamentary Secretary) [12.23 p.m.], in reply: I thank members for their contributions on this bill. The Motor Dealers Amendment Bill introduces a number of changes to the record-keeping requirements. It is aimed at cutting red tape across this important sector. At the moment, under the Act dealers are required to keep a number of prescribed forms. These forms include a variety of different registers of the vehicles they are buying, selling and transferring. The data stored in the registers is vital for investigating consumer fraud and to help stamp out the trade in stolen cars and spare parts. Currently there are 19 separate prescribed forms under the Act. The Small Business Regulation Review Taskforce recommended that the Office of Fair Trading look at each of these to identify opportunities for simplification and reduction.

This bill includes a number of changes to the law that will significantly reduce the burden for dealers and result in the abolition of four of the 19 prescribed forms and reduce the usage of one other. It is important to note that the change will not impact on the law enforcement capabilities of Fair Trading, the Roads and Traffic Authority or the police. Fair Trading has already been in contact with the authority about the information it collects to ensure that required data is collected and both the police and Fair Trading will be able to access the authority's database when conducting investigations.

The Office of Fair Trading has indicated that the changes will bring about an estimated $1.17 million saving for dealers in processing, printing, handling, storage and retrieval costs associated with this high number of transactions. It is certainly a win-win position for industry and consumers. The changes should have a significant and immediate impact on reducing red tape for motor dealers. As I mentioned, the changes have been discussed with various authorities, including the Roads and Traffic Authority, the New South Wales Police Force, the Motor Traders Association, the Institute of Automotive Mechanical Engineers and the chairperson of the Motor Vehicle Industry Advisory Council. All have indicated support for the measures, which are designed to cut red tape.

The member for Bega, in his contribution for the Opposition, raised a number of issues including why the Government has not adopted the first recommendation of the task force to reduce the numbers of categories of licence? The Office of Fair Trading examined the various licence categories under the Act and I am advised that it found that only around 1 per cent of licensees would be affected should there be a reduction in licence categories, with the overwhelming majority of dealers only having one category. Having several different categories of licence helps licensees choose the licensing option that best suits their particular needs. As would be expected, there is a higher level of regulation of dealers who are able to sell vehicles to the public and they must also contribute to the Motor Dealers Compensation Fund. However, for wholesalers, who only sell to other licensed dealers, there is no consumer risk, so it is appropriate that they do not have to contribute to the fund, and they face less burdensome regulatory requirements.

Recommendation 2 of the task force is about records for auto dismantlers being streamlined. Records kept by auto dismantlers are required particularly by the New South Wales Police Force in its fight to combat motor vehicle theft and rebirthing. It is essential in these investigations to be able to trace the path of a vehicle and its parts to prevent criminal gangs from breaking a vehicle up and onselling the parts or using the parts and identifiers to give a vehicle a new identity. The police have advised that the current record-keeping requirements are absolutely necessary to investigate these matters. The police also note that the current requirements are not particularly burdensome. The Government is committed to ensuring that the police have whatever tools they require to investigate crime, particularly car theft. For this reason the Government has followed the advice of the New South Wales Police Force and decided that the current requirements are necessary.

Recommendation 5 of the review is that the Office of Fair Trading examine existing classes of repairer in order to address anomalies. Movement towards a national approach for the qualifications for licensees in the motor vehicle repair sector has been underway for some time. New South Wales has had to wait for finalisation of the new national framework before proceeding with changes to this State's scheme. A review of the Motor Vehicle Repairs Regulation is due to be undertaken this year. The regulation spells out the categories of trade certification. Recommendation 8 of the review, that Fair Trading should work with other State and Commonwealth agencies to streamline the registration of business names and business numbers, is being addressed through the Council of Australian Governments, which is working towards a nationally consistent scheme.

The member for Bega also mentioned written-off vehicle data with the register of encumbered vehicles system. The New South Wales system is working with the Commonwealth and other States to develop a national personal property securities register, which will take over all the similar State-based systems including the New South Wales system. The project was approved in principle by the Council of Australian Governments, and the Commonwealth has provided budget funding for the project. The Commonwealth is proposing implementation during 2009. The Commonwealth has recently confirmed that it will be implementing a national exchange of vehicle and driver information systems access as part of the national personal property security system, which was the key consumer protection issue raised by the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs. That measure will benefit consumers, dealers and financiers. Of course, New South Wales will continue to be a strong participant in this worthwhile national project.

The member for Bega said that the Government was not going far enough in reducing red tape. The reviews of individual industries that the Government has undertaken have produced positive outcomes for this industry and other industries. The Government has undertaken a positive program to deal individually with the industries. It is not often possible to use a broad-brush approach to remove red tape. It is important to review each industry individually. This positive approach has been welcomed by the industries that have been reviewed. It shows the Government's commitment to ensuring that appropriate safeguards are in place for consumers while at the same time minimising red tape for small business.

Labor takes this approach in contrast to the Federal Labor Government, which over the past 10 years has introduced more red tape when it promised to reduce it. When small business complains about red tape inevitably it refers to the business activity statement [BAS]. That is a practical difference between the Coalition approach and the Labor approach. The Howard Government has encumbered business with BAS while the State Labor Government has introduced important changes to industry in an endeavour to streamline red tape while protecting the rights of consumers. I commend the bill to the House and thank the Opposition for its support.

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 27 June 2007.

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE (Bega) [12.23 p.m.]: The Associations Incorporation Amendment (Cancellation of Incorporation) Bill 2007 aims to streamline processes for the cancellation of registration of incorporated associations that have become defunct. There are more than 39,000 registered associations in New South Wales; 60 per cent have a turnover of less than $100,000 and 2 per cent have a turnover exceeding $500,000. Over the years many smaller associations have become defunct. The definition is that they have not met for three years, have not filed a return for three years and/or do not hav